I chose this article because war games are a fascinating process that MTP includes within some finance and strategy programmes and occasionally run as ‘one-off’ exercises. We find that war games add much insight to the likely actions of competitors and other key players in the market place. Such exercises never fail to engage the participants and are typically well received, even though the long term benefits can be difficult to measure.
What is good about this article is that the author does not fall into the classic consultancy trap of suggesting war games as a panacea that is relevant to all marketing challenges. The author starts off with an excellent example of how a war game can work well, a high tech company preparing for the competitive challenges to be faced after the financial crisis. But he also points out the dangers; that some companies misjudge the context in which war games are appropriate and fail to include the right participants. He also makes the point that war games only work when there is a ‘moderate level of uncertainty’. If there are too many uncertain factors and potential scenarios, it may be better to use other planning tools.
When deciding the design and the participants, the author makes the distinction between three types of objective - tactical, strategic and organisational alignment, the latter being the need to engage key stakeholders and familiarise them about the issues. I was okay with this until the objectives were extended to ‘broadening the understanding of the industry’ for less experienced participants. Whilst I can see that this could well be the outcome for all participants to some extent, it is important to separate the war game process from more conventional management development activities; the primary objective is to make better decisions, not to improve the business acumen of less experienced managers.
The article ends with a discussion of how frequently war games should be carried out and suggests a regularity that might, in our view, adversely impact their ability to challenge and question existing thinking. War games need energy and creativity which can be lost if it becomes yet another routine management process. We believe that war games are best carried out as special events relating to a particular proposal, rather than something that supports day to day decision making.
Though the article makes some interesting points, it does miss out a lot, three key issues in particular.
First - and a surprising omission from a consultancy company - is the importance of high quality facilitation, which should be independent, knowledgeable and experienced.
The second, and connected, missing factor is the need to move the participants away from their internal mindset and the often complacent attitudes towards competitors that can exist in sales and marketing departments. It is all too easy for participants to play the role according to their pre-conceived ideas about competitors, rather than their likely behaviour. The facilitator can minimise this danger by thorough briefings, by skilful matching of people to roles (including bringing in outsiders) and by challenging mindsets throughout the process.
The final point is the need for thorough data preparation and analysis before the war game takes place, so that the role playing is informed and, where appropriate, decisions are data driven. For war game participants, it is not just a question of turning up to play an enjoyable role; it should be a rigorous exercise which moves everyone away from their internally focussed mindset and gets them to put themselves into the shoes of others in the market place. It is never easy but, if done well, the pay-off can be enormous.
Click here to read the article in full;
https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organization/Change_Management/Playing_war_games_to_win_2757
Thursday 17 March 2011
‘Learning to the power of two’ by Moritz Poser, Training Journal, February 2011
This did not strike me as a great surname for someone who is trying to gain acceptance from cynical readers like me but then I saw that the author is of German origin where presumably ‘Poser’ has a quite different meaning. But despite this poor start, I persevered with the article and found it to be thought provoking, but in a different context to the author’s intention.
The basic premise of the article is that people attending learning programmes will learn more if, as part of the design, there is the ability to work in pairs. My first inclination was that this is nothing new; most of us running interactive programmes will include the idea of pairs working together, for instance on short tasks that do not justify breaking into syndicate groups.
However the author takes this further by advocating a more structured and controlled approach, ‘rotating pairs’ which allow participants to experience joint learning with a number of people during a programme, interspersing these sessions between more formal inputs.
The argument is that people working in pairs are more likely to communicate as people do in real life, like having a conversation with a ‘friend, shopkeeper or hairdresser’. There is not the same formality and tension that you find with larger groups. Pairs will create a level of confidence and trust which is particularly important for those of a shy disposition. The author also quotes research which suggests large increases in learning effectiveness if pairs are involved
While accepting some of this reasoning, I was unsure about its general application. Doesn’t this depend on the compatibility of the pair concerned, on their learning styles and their existing levels of knowledge? If this method is used instead of the more normal syndicate groups of 4 or 5 people, don’t you miss out on the richness of discussion and the interaction achieved by group dynamics? And why not use ‘trios’, which might achieve the best of both worlds?
After finishing the article I remained unconvinced, because the design of learning programmes should not involve ‘either/or’ choices, it should involve all sorts of activities and groupings, depending upon the task and the context. I accept that maybe we should make greater use of pairs for the more challenging case studies where larger groups find it difficult to maintain cohesion, or for non-English speakers who can get lost in a larger group discussion.
However, the main benefit of the article was to remind me of a conviction I have long held in the context of e-learning. This is that if you can encourage learners with similar knowledge levels to go through e-learning packages in pairs, you can get the best of both worlds. You remove some of the loneliness and insecurity of e-learning work, while maintaining most of the benefits of self driven learning. For some reason that I have never fully understood, individuals and clients have rarely bought into this idea. Maybe Herr Poser would perhaps be better directing his ideas towards this context, where it might well increase both the take-up and the effectiveness of computer based learning.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2011-02-01-learning-to-the-power-of-two/
The basic premise of the article is that people attending learning programmes will learn more if, as part of the design, there is the ability to work in pairs. My first inclination was that this is nothing new; most of us running interactive programmes will include the idea of pairs working together, for instance on short tasks that do not justify breaking into syndicate groups.
However the author takes this further by advocating a more structured and controlled approach, ‘rotating pairs’ which allow participants to experience joint learning with a number of people during a programme, interspersing these sessions between more formal inputs.
The argument is that people working in pairs are more likely to communicate as people do in real life, like having a conversation with a ‘friend, shopkeeper or hairdresser’. There is not the same formality and tension that you find with larger groups. Pairs will create a level of confidence and trust which is particularly important for those of a shy disposition. The author also quotes research which suggests large increases in learning effectiveness if pairs are involved
While accepting some of this reasoning, I was unsure about its general application. Doesn’t this depend on the compatibility of the pair concerned, on their learning styles and their existing levels of knowledge? If this method is used instead of the more normal syndicate groups of 4 or 5 people, don’t you miss out on the richness of discussion and the interaction achieved by group dynamics? And why not use ‘trios’, which might achieve the best of both worlds?
After finishing the article I remained unconvinced, because the design of learning programmes should not involve ‘either/or’ choices, it should involve all sorts of activities and groupings, depending upon the task and the context. I accept that maybe we should make greater use of pairs for the more challenging case studies where larger groups find it difficult to maintain cohesion, or for non-English speakers who can get lost in a larger group discussion.
However, the main benefit of the article was to remind me of a conviction I have long held in the context of e-learning. This is that if you can encourage learners with similar knowledge levels to go through e-learning packages in pairs, you can get the best of both worlds. You remove some of the loneliness and insecurity of e-learning work, while maintaining most of the benefits of self driven learning. For some reason that I have never fully understood, individuals and clients have rarely bought into this idea. Maybe Herr Poser would perhaps be better directing his ideas towards this context, where it might well increase both the take-up and the effectiveness of computer based learning.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2011-02-01-learning-to-the-power-of-two/
‘Paul Polman’ by Andrew Saunders, Management Today, March 2011
Paul Polman is the relatively recently appointed CEO of our biggest client Unilever and it would be risky and presumptuous of me to claim to review his progress and performance after two years in the job. Thus I am reviewing this article purely in terms of its quality of communication, rather than its content; regular readers will recall my past criticism of Management Today articles as often being too superficial.
One good thing about the article is that, unlike many in Management Today, it is of sufficient length to do the subject justice, three full pages of text and a full page picture; too often the pictures seem to be an excuse for reducing the words. It is titled as the ‘Management Today interview’ though one does not see too many signs of questions being asked.
There are however lots of answers in the forms of quotes from Mr Polman and these are the strongest elements of the article. Where the author makes his own comments about Unilever and its history, there is less conviction. His description of Polman as a ‘grey suited specimen whose idea of fun is poring over minutiae’ is not a good start, though he does later qualify this by saying that the CEO is not really like this stereotype.
The quotes are well chosen and accurately bring out the challenging approach which is bringing so much change to Unilever internally and externally, in particular the refusal to kowtow to the hedge fund managers and City analysts. The author does, in my view, rather understate the enormous importance of the decision to abandon earnings guidance and quarterly forecasts, which were previously seen as the basis on which performance was judged. And the courage needed to accept the 10% reduction in share price which followed. The author also seems to misunderstand the thinking when he suggests that Unilever is no longer committed to shareholder value; it is more that, under Polman, it is long term shareholder value that is important and meeting consumer needs is the best way for this to be achieved.
I would also question the author’s suggestion that following the needs of society and taking the long view makes Polman sound ‘a little out of step’; We would argue that this is very much in step with trends towards corporate social responsibility and with Michael Porter’s new theme of ‘shared value’ as described in my previous blog
It is relevant to judge articles of this kind by what is new, because there have been similar feature articles before and Polman’s unconventional views have already made headlines. What I had not heard before was another unconventional view that challenges the thinking of strategic gurus and other CEOs, who believe that strategy is about trade-offs. Polman thinks that ‘too many people think in terms of trade-offs’ and that this is old thinking, the most common example being the belief that you cannot grow without damaging the environment. Polman is convinced that these goals are not mutually exclusive.
There is a good analysis of the problems of Unilever before Polman arrived, how the company was outgunned by more agile and slicker rivals like P&G and L’Oreal. There is also a stark reminder of how many managers were released as part of the dramatic culture change that has taken place over the last two years. As a former Unilever employee (twice over) from many years ago, I felt relieved to have escaped. I was also unsure whether I would have passed the Polman tests, particularly when the article revealed that he likes to test managers’ mettle by ‘inviting’ them to join him on training runs!
Perhaps the most telling point that marks Polman out as a different kind of CEO is a comment at the end, that ‘we spend a lot of our time disengaging from shareholders who do not benefit our strategy’. That’s a quote that I never would have expected to hear from the CEO of Unilever or any other FTSE company and the author should perhaps have made more of it. It shows a determination and confidence that are remarkable by any standards; it means that Unilever only wants shareholders who share their long term view and the rest can invest in companies with more conventional CEOs.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1055793/the-mt-interview-paul-polman-unilever/
One good thing about the article is that, unlike many in Management Today, it is of sufficient length to do the subject justice, three full pages of text and a full page picture; too often the pictures seem to be an excuse for reducing the words. It is titled as the ‘Management Today interview’ though one does not see too many signs of questions being asked.
There are however lots of answers in the forms of quotes from Mr Polman and these are the strongest elements of the article. Where the author makes his own comments about Unilever and its history, there is less conviction. His description of Polman as a ‘grey suited specimen whose idea of fun is poring over minutiae’ is not a good start, though he does later qualify this by saying that the CEO is not really like this stereotype.
The quotes are well chosen and accurately bring out the challenging approach which is bringing so much change to Unilever internally and externally, in particular the refusal to kowtow to the hedge fund managers and City analysts. The author does, in my view, rather understate the enormous importance of the decision to abandon earnings guidance and quarterly forecasts, which were previously seen as the basis on which performance was judged. And the courage needed to accept the 10% reduction in share price which followed. The author also seems to misunderstand the thinking when he suggests that Unilever is no longer committed to shareholder value; it is more that, under Polman, it is long term shareholder value that is important and meeting consumer needs is the best way for this to be achieved.
I would also question the author’s suggestion that following the needs of society and taking the long view makes Polman sound ‘a little out of step’; We would argue that this is very much in step with trends towards corporate social responsibility and with Michael Porter’s new theme of ‘shared value’ as described in my previous blog
It is relevant to judge articles of this kind by what is new, because there have been similar feature articles before and Polman’s unconventional views have already made headlines. What I had not heard before was another unconventional view that challenges the thinking of strategic gurus and other CEOs, who believe that strategy is about trade-offs. Polman thinks that ‘too many people think in terms of trade-offs’ and that this is old thinking, the most common example being the belief that you cannot grow without damaging the environment. Polman is convinced that these goals are not mutually exclusive.
There is a good analysis of the problems of Unilever before Polman arrived, how the company was outgunned by more agile and slicker rivals like P&G and L’Oreal. There is also a stark reminder of how many managers were released as part of the dramatic culture change that has taken place over the last two years. As a former Unilever employee (twice over) from many years ago, I felt relieved to have escaped. I was also unsure whether I would have passed the Polman tests, particularly when the article revealed that he likes to test managers’ mettle by ‘inviting’ them to join him on training runs!
Perhaps the most telling point that marks Polman out as a different kind of CEO is a comment at the end, that ‘we spend a lot of our time disengaging from shareholders who do not benefit our strategy’. That’s a quote that I never would have expected to hear from the CEO of Unilever or any other FTSE company and the author should perhaps have made more of it. It shows a determination and confidence that are remarkable by any standards; it means that Unilever only wants shareholders who share their long term view and the rest can invest in companies with more conventional CEOs.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1055793/the-mt-interview-paul-polman-unilever/
‘Long and Winding Road’ by David Woodward, Director, March 2011
This is an article that claims in the introduction to answer the interesting question - why do so few HR Directors make it to CEO?’ It then fails to answer the question and ends up by saying that this is the wrong question anyway. This initial analysis sounds highly critical but in fact the article still makes some interesting points which will support those in HR who wish to have a greater impact on strategy.
The article starts by reminding us of Ulrich’s HR ‘business partner’ model and the author speculates on the reasons why it has not had the impact that was hoped for, research suggests that only 15% of the time of HR professionals is spent on strategic activities. Ulrich suggests that the failure to grasp the opportunities presented by his model is partly due to a poor grasp of the essentials of business management. I feel sure that many HR professionals would challenge this assertion and we can quote the fact that our two biggest clients - Unilever and a major computer supplier - have asked us to deliver programmes in business acumen specifically for HR people.
On the other hand we would accept that, as a general rule, finance and business acumen programmes for managers are not known for the predominance of HR people; in a cross functional group HR is likely to have the smallest representation of all. We often find it interesting that our client contacts in HR and Learning & Development are keen to ask us to devise such training for other functions but often do not see the need to attend themselves, or to ask colleagues to do so.
In addition to Ulrich, the author also quotes a professor in International HR Management who claims that the climate is changing and that, in some organisations, the HR Director role is now seen as a good preparation for promotion to CEO. His argument is that the choice of CEO will depend on the key driver of strategy and this has traditionally resulted in finance and marketing backgrounds being the main qualification for the CEO role. But in businesses where ‘people are the asset’, the logic leads to a CEO with HR experience.
You might argue that a professor in HR would say that, and I am sure that this view would be challenged by many CEOs from other functions. They would rightly claim that you do not have to come from HR to have people skills and that, in most cases, such skills will be high on the list of criteria for any CEO selection. Nevertheless it was an interesting issue but, after raising it, the author seems to lose his way. There is a long description of a people driven transformation carried out by a CEO who, from what we are told, does not have an HR background.
There are a number of examples and assertions that confirm how important HR is to developing strategy and how the HR Director has a vital role but there are no examples of HR Directors making it as CEOs. This struck me as indicative of the main problem; there are very few role models that HR Directors can look up to and that those selecting can see as precedents.
The article reflects this problem by coming to the rather lame conclusion that it doesn’t really matter anyway, because the HR Director can still have influence if he or she focuses on issues around performance and value. ‘You don’t need to be CEO to deliver value’ is the quote from Ulrich himself which sums up the conclusions of the final few paragraphs. This is undoubtedly true but it doesn’t answer the question that the article initially posed. Perhaps the answer is that, having seen the pressures and the casualty rate, HR people have more sense than to want to be CEOs!
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2011/3_march/hr-director_64_07.html
The article starts by reminding us of Ulrich’s HR ‘business partner’ model and the author speculates on the reasons why it has not had the impact that was hoped for, research suggests that only 15% of the time of HR professionals is spent on strategic activities. Ulrich suggests that the failure to grasp the opportunities presented by his model is partly due to a poor grasp of the essentials of business management. I feel sure that many HR professionals would challenge this assertion and we can quote the fact that our two biggest clients - Unilever and a major computer supplier - have asked us to deliver programmes in business acumen specifically for HR people.
On the other hand we would accept that, as a general rule, finance and business acumen programmes for managers are not known for the predominance of HR people; in a cross functional group HR is likely to have the smallest representation of all. We often find it interesting that our client contacts in HR and Learning & Development are keen to ask us to devise such training for other functions but often do not see the need to attend themselves, or to ask colleagues to do so.
In addition to Ulrich, the author also quotes a professor in International HR Management who claims that the climate is changing and that, in some organisations, the HR Director role is now seen as a good preparation for promotion to CEO. His argument is that the choice of CEO will depend on the key driver of strategy and this has traditionally resulted in finance and marketing backgrounds being the main qualification for the CEO role. But in businesses where ‘people are the asset’, the logic leads to a CEO with HR experience.
You might argue that a professor in HR would say that, and I am sure that this view would be challenged by many CEOs from other functions. They would rightly claim that you do not have to come from HR to have people skills and that, in most cases, such skills will be high on the list of criteria for any CEO selection. Nevertheless it was an interesting issue but, after raising it, the author seems to lose his way. There is a long description of a people driven transformation carried out by a CEO who, from what we are told, does not have an HR background.
There are a number of examples and assertions that confirm how important HR is to developing strategy and how the HR Director has a vital role but there are no examples of HR Directors making it as CEOs. This struck me as indicative of the main problem; there are very few role models that HR Directors can look up to and that those selecting can see as precedents.
The article reflects this problem by coming to the rather lame conclusion that it doesn’t really matter anyway, because the HR Director can still have influence if he or she focuses on issues around performance and value. ‘You don’t need to be CEO to deliver value’ is the quote from Ulrich himself which sums up the conclusions of the final few paragraphs. This is undoubtedly true but it doesn’t answer the question that the article initially posed. Perhaps the answer is that, having seen the pressures and the casualty rate, HR people have more sense than to want to be CEOs!
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2011/3_march/hr-director_64_07.html
‘How eBay developed a culture of experimentation’, by Adi Ignatius, Harvard Business Review, March 2011
This article was a disappointment because it didn’t live up to its title billing and, though interesting, was not what you expect to see in the Harvard Business Review; it was more like a traditional CEO interview to be found in any broadsheet newspaper or business magazine. And, whereas I thought eBay’s CEO would have lots of new insights into innovation, the level of new thinking was disappointing.
The early part of the article focuses on the changes taking place in the market place for internet access products, how smart phones and tablets have transformed the way in which consumers are now using eBay. You get the distinct impression from eBay’s CEO John Donahue that the company once controlled the pace of change but is now desperately trying to keep up with technological and user changes outside their control. Apparently there are 119,000 developers working on eBay applications.
It must have been difficult for Donahue to follow such a successful CEO as Meg Whitman and the interview gives the impression that he is still living to some extent under her shadow. He claims that his two major themes have been driving innovation and greater focus on customers, hardly ground breaking ideas and ones which Meg Whitman would no doubt have claimed already. Apparently one of his first actions as CEO was to sell Skype, a decision that does not seem to match his themes; one would have thought that there would be more innovative solutions to its future than disposal.
It is several pages before you come to anything that matches the title heading and this comes in answer to the question - how do you cultivate and sustain risk taking? The answer - which is not new but is nevertheless impressive - is to ‘celebrate failure’ and to adjust quickly when this happens. His view is that ‘you are better off moving and if you don’t get it exactly right, making an adjustment. That’s the only way to compete on the Internet today, because it’s moving so fast.’ Though I understand the sentiment, I wonder how far it applies across all hi-tech businesses. The critical factors must be how much you have to invest, how much can be recovered and how easy it is to switch.
I was also interested in his follow up comment; ‘you’re going to see a tremendous number of innovations and experiments; our job is to drive them and see which ones consumers really respond to’. This may work in eBay but doesn’t seem terribly inspiring. I’ve a feeling that the real innovators and value creators like Steve Jobs will decide what consumers are likely to respond to and create rather than respond to demand.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://hbr.org/2011/03/the-hbr-interview-how-ebay-developed-a-culture-of-experimentation/es
The early part of the article focuses on the changes taking place in the market place for internet access products, how smart phones and tablets have transformed the way in which consumers are now using eBay. You get the distinct impression from eBay’s CEO John Donahue that the company once controlled the pace of change but is now desperately trying to keep up with technological and user changes outside their control. Apparently there are 119,000 developers working on eBay applications.
It must have been difficult for Donahue to follow such a successful CEO as Meg Whitman and the interview gives the impression that he is still living to some extent under her shadow. He claims that his two major themes have been driving innovation and greater focus on customers, hardly ground breaking ideas and ones which Meg Whitman would no doubt have claimed already. Apparently one of his first actions as CEO was to sell Skype, a decision that does not seem to match his themes; one would have thought that there would be more innovative solutions to its future than disposal.
It is several pages before you come to anything that matches the title heading and this comes in answer to the question - how do you cultivate and sustain risk taking? The answer - which is not new but is nevertheless impressive - is to ‘celebrate failure’ and to adjust quickly when this happens. His view is that ‘you are better off moving and if you don’t get it exactly right, making an adjustment. That’s the only way to compete on the Internet today, because it’s moving so fast.’ Though I understand the sentiment, I wonder how far it applies across all hi-tech businesses. The critical factors must be how much you have to invest, how much can be recovered and how easy it is to switch.
I was also interested in his follow up comment; ‘you’re going to see a tremendous number of innovations and experiments; our job is to drive them and see which ones consumers really respond to’. This may work in eBay but doesn’t seem terribly inspiring. I’ve a feeling that the real innovators and value creators like Steve Jobs will decide what consumers are likely to respond to and create rather than respond to demand.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://hbr.org/2011/03/the-hbr-interview-how-ebay-developed-a-culture-of-experimentation/es
‘The Facebook Effect’ by David Kirkpatrick, published by Simon and Schuster
I’ve never used Facebook but I’ve read the original book - The Accidental Billionaire - and seen the film twice. I find the growth story of this unique organisation to be fascinating and was looking forward to reading this new book that brings us up to date on the life and times of Mr Zuckerman. It is hard not to see him as the actor - Jesse Eisenberg - who played his part so brilliantly in ‘Social Network’ rather than the fresh faced young man on the cover.
This book is not such an entertaining read as ‘The Accidental Billionaire’ but it takes us further, beyond the heady days and fallings out in Boston and California, to the reality of running one of the biggest and most influential companies in the world. It also appears that, even though the book is published with the cooperation of top Facebook executives, it is reasonably objective. For instance it gives a nicely balanced account of the lawsuit between Zuckenberg and the Winklevoss twins without the drama and artistic licence of the film scenes. It also describes how yet another Harvard graduate - Aaron Greenspan - also received a large financial settlement for alleged stealing of ideas. As was clearly shown in the film, the atmosphere at Harvard during that time was hardly collegiate!
The book inevitably revolves around the personality of Zuckerberg who has emerged into a highly controlling CEO who will only listen to the few people he trusts and whose opinions he values, including most recently Steve Jobs. This was first seen when he became involved with Sean Parker who, the book makes clear, was not quite the high flyer that Zuckerberg thought he was. Apparently he did not found Napster as he claimed but worked with the real founder Shawn Fanning for a year before quitting. He then tried his own start up which ended when his backers lost faith because of volatile behaviour. The book clearly explains the facts behind Parker’s departure from Facebook, which are rather different from the film and remove the possible implication that Zuckerberg might have set him up at a party with underage girls and cocaine. In fact Zuckerberg didn’t want him to go and was pressured to force him out by investor board members.
What comes out clearly is Zuckerberg’s main business philosophy as encouraged by Parker, that growth is more important than profits and it is worth sacrificing advertising revenue to achieve long term expansion of the brand. He seems to have maintained this stance throughout his time at Facebook and the author’s view is that this is because he is not primarily motivated by money. His mission is to empower individuals and the fact that Facebook is being used as a conduit for worldwide protest movements is his ultimate sign of success.
As you read the book, particularly after seeing the film, you cannot help but admire Zuckerberg and all he has achieved but also wonder if he is really happy and fulfilled. This book doesn’t really answer that question but it made me grateful that I’ve never had to work for anyone like him.
Click here to buy the book.
This book is not such an entertaining read as ‘The Accidental Billionaire’ but it takes us further, beyond the heady days and fallings out in Boston and California, to the reality of running one of the biggest and most influential companies in the world. It also appears that, even though the book is published with the cooperation of top Facebook executives, it is reasonably objective. For instance it gives a nicely balanced account of the lawsuit between Zuckenberg and the Winklevoss twins without the drama and artistic licence of the film scenes. It also describes how yet another Harvard graduate - Aaron Greenspan - also received a large financial settlement for alleged stealing of ideas. As was clearly shown in the film, the atmosphere at Harvard during that time was hardly collegiate!
The book inevitably revolves around the personality of Zuckerberg who has emerged into a highly controlling CEO who will only listen to the few people he trusts and whose opinions he values, including most recently Steve Jobs. This was first seen when he became involved with Sean Parker who, the book makes clear, was not quite the high flyer that Zuckerberg thought he was. Apparently he did not found Napster as he claimed but worked with the real founder Shawn Fanning for a year before quitting. He then tried his own start up which ended when his backers lost faith because of volatile behaviour. The book clearly explains the facts behind Parker’s departure from Facebook, which are rather different from the film and remove the possible implication that Zuckerberg might have set him up at a party with underage girls and cocaine. In fact Zuckerberg didn’t want him to go and was pressured to force him out by investor board members.
What comes out clearly is Zuckerberg’s main business philosophy as encouraged by Parker, that growth is more important than profits and it is worth sacrificing advertising revenue to achieve long term expansion of the brand. He seems to have maintained this stance throughout his time at Facebook and the author’s view is that this is because he is not primarily motivated by money. His mission is to empower individuals and the fact that Facebook is being used as a conduit for worldwide protest movements is his ultimate sign of success.
As you read the book, particularly after seeing the film, you cannot help but admire Zuckerberg and all he has achieved but also wonder if he is really happy and fulfilled. This book doesn’t really answer that question but it made me grateful that I’ve never had to work for anyone like him.
Click here to buy the book.
‘Planet Google’ by Randall Stross, published by Simon and Schuster
Larry Page and Sergey Brin also started their company at University though, unlike Zuckerberg and Jobs, they did not drop out before graduating. Theirs is the only growth story that compares with Facebook and has the same ultimate symbol of brand success, becoming a generic verb that is used worldwide to describe computer search.
Page and Brin seem to have suffered less internal conflict along the road to success than Zuckerberg but there many other similarities in their development. They had no desire ever to sell the business and wanted to retain as much control as possible. However they decided not to act as joint CEOs; early on they recruited Eric Schmidt to run the business, leaving the two of them free to run the creative side. The trio worked together well at first and committed to staying together for 20 years when they made their first IPO in 2004; this commitment always seemed to be stretching things too far and in fact Schmidt resigned in January this year, reportedly with political ambitions.
The author, a business school professor with Silicon Valley experience, makes a good job of describing Google’s development, emphasising the importance of the secret algorithm behind their search rankings. He is good at describing technical issues in a way that is easy to understand and he creates a clear picture of the physical and people side of Google. He makes the point that the relatively unsophisticated hardware - lots of unmanned PCs joined together in dark warehouses - has in fact been an advantage because it has allowed flexibility to cope with growth and new demands.
The book is quite soft around the apparent desire to seek world domination, which is clearly expressed in their vision to ‘organise the world’s information’. Neither do the issues of intrusion into private lives and disregarding of copyright law get too much coverage; it would have been good to have some acknowledgement of the challenges that this creates for the future. There is also limited reference to the fact that, despite all their attempts to extend and diversify, the advertising revenue from their basic service remains the main income stream on which they are largely dependent.
There is one particularly reassuring story in the book, around their battles with Yahoo, whose market share has been decimated over the years. Apparently Google tried to launch ‘Google News’ to compete with Yahoo’s successful news service. This failed very quickly and it was because the computerised editing of Google could not match the human selections made by Yahoo’s team of people. Despite one’s admiration of what Google has done, it is difficult not to feel pleased by this.
When discussing the future for Google, Professor Schloss makes the interesting point that no computer company has ever enjoyed pre-eminence over two successive technological eras (I wondered about Apple but I guess there was a gap in-between). This might throw doubt on the future of Facebook and Google; maybe right now there are students at Harvard and Stanford who are developing the technology that will move them off their perches. Will they wish that, like Bill Gates, they had left to become philanthropists while they were at the top?
Click here to buy the book.
Page and Brin seem to have suffered less internal conflict along the road to success than Zuckerberg but there many other similarities in their development. They had no desire ever to sell the business and wanted to retain as much control as possible. However they decided not to act as joint CEOs; early on they recruited Eric Schmidt to run the business, leaving the two of them free to run the creative side. The trio worked together well at first and committed to staying together for 20 years when they made their first IPO in 2004; this commitment always seemed to be stretching things too far and in fact Schmidt resigned in January this year, reportedly with political ambitions.
The author, a business school professor with Silicon Valley experience, makes a good job of describing Google’s development, emphasising the importance of the secret algorithm behind their search rankings. He is good at describing technical issues in a way that is easy to understand and he creates a clear picture of the physical and people side of Google. He makes the point that the relatively unsophisticated hardware - lots of unmanned PCs joined together in dark warehouses - has in fact been an advantage because it has allowed flexibility to cope with growth and new demands.
The book is quite soft around the apparent desire to seek world domination, which is clearly expressed in their vision to ‘organise the world’s information’. Neither do the issues of intrusion into private lives and disregarding of copyright law get too much coverage; it would have been good to have some acknowledgement of the challenges that this creates for the future. There is also limited reference to the fact that, despite all their attempts to extend and diversify, the advertising revenue from their basic service remains the main income stream on which they are largely dependent.
There is one particularly reassuring story in the book, around their battles with Yahoo, whose market share has been decimated over the years. Apparently Google tried to launch ‘Google News’ to compete with Yahoo’s successful news service. This failed very quickly and it was because the computerised editing of Google could not match the human selections made by Yahoo’s team of people. Despite one’s admiration of what Google has done, it is difficult not to feel pleased by this.
When discussing the future for Google, Professor Schloss makes the interesting point that no computer company has ever enjoyed pre-eminence over two successive technological eras (I wondered about Apple but I guess there was a gap in-between). This might throw doubt on the future of Facebook and Google; maybe right now there are students at Harvard and Stanford who are developing the technology that will move them off their perches. Will they wish that, like Bill Gates, they had left to become philanthropists while they were at the top?
Click here to buy the book.