The Super Bowl has just come and gone leaving me with fond memories of Scarlett Johansson and a new Soda Stream machine (take that, Pepsi!). The media buildup to the game with its endless hours of deep analysis inevitably applied 10³¹ (I counted) sports metaphors to business management and strategy.

What can business learn from football? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. But that won’t stop people from applying sports metaphors to business.

It takes less time than an instant replay to reveal that those metaphors are mostly empty. Yes, football and business involve team play. So does kindergarten. Aside from that, football (or baseball, or synchronized swimming) has nothing to do with business. It is a limited duration contest, while business is unending. It ends in decisive victory, while it is far from clear what victory even looks like in business. It deploys physical moves that have no parallel in business. What, “go left and then run straight” is a lesson business should heed? Most importantly, football requires playing by rigidly enforced rules and regulations. There is nothing to innovate.

Read More →

Ben Gilad: Your new book, Left Brain, Right Stuff, places a sharp focus on a distinction be­tween events we can influence — directly or indirectly — and events we can’t. Analytics has a role in improving judgments in the latter case. Strategic decisions belong to the former – the leader has an ability to influence the outcomes. Analytics should not be confused, as it is in some large companies, with strategic vision. Is this a fair characterization of your thesis?

Phil Rosenzweig: My main thesis is that decision research has been immensely valuable in shedding light on the mechanics of human cognition, and has done so largely by conducting experiments that ex­amine choices among options we cannot alter, or judgments about things we cannot influence. The primary lesson has been for us to be aware of our propensity for common errors, and try to avoid them.

That’s fine for some kinds of decisions, but much of life is very different. Often we can alter the options we face and improve their terms. We can also influence outcomes, and for that high levels of confidence are useful. Many real-world decisions call for a combination of skills: on one hand a capacity of detached analysis, free of biases, which we associate with left-brain thinking, and on the other hand a willingness to push boundaries and act assertively, which I call the right stuff.

Strategic decisions, in particular, call for both. Deciding on a good strategy surely has to take into account many things we cannot influence, like currency movements, geopolitical trends, technological breakthroughs, and the actions of rivals. But setting a strategic vision and then carrying it out through the actions of others is not a purely analytical exercise. We also have to make it happen.

Read More →

Fair notice: this essay has a trick title.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s Co-Founder, Chairman, and CEO, recently spent up to $19 billion to buy WhatsApp. You might have heard.

Whether Mr. Zuckerberg overpaid is a subject of frenzied speculation for those who must have an opinion. We do know that no one else thought it was worth more; rather, that no one else with a spare $19 billion thought it was worth more. We know that because Mr. Zuckerberg was 1) willing to pay 2) more than anyone else. Otherwise the media would be all aflutter about what someone else was uniquely willing to pay.

Of course no one knows what WhatsApp is worth. To know what it’s worth implies full know­ledge of the future, including a host of related matters such as the skill Mr. Zuckerberg and his team will bring to bear, how much it’s worth to Facebook to prevent someone else from ac­quiring WhatsApp, what Mr. Zuckerberg could have hit had he aimed his $19 billion else­where, and much more. (In other words, otherwise.) Google, another potential acquirer, had its own calculus.

Read More →