Was Steve Jobs a good leader?

 All of us have had the opportunity to read a lot about this man. The way he manage the situations, how he made Apple jump up to the heaven….and also many other stories that,  at least, make us to question ourselves how good in fact he was as human person, and also as a boss. It looks that he was really exigent. He was difficult in the relationship. He was special to so extent, that he prefers, probably not very conscious, to work more, before receiving the right medical treatment,  that probably will give him more time among us and also with his family and friends. But probably he was too arrogant? Or he had this special way of doing things, to approach his own life, out of the normal rules, looking always towards perfection.

The truth is that always is difficult to follow this people. Arrogance many times finishes in high level of exigency and difficulty to understand others behavior, or just the way they do things or they approach the life.

Do not take me wrong. There are people with these characteristics that never will make an empire like Steve did with Apple. This man has also something special, which made him to be close to the geniality.

My concern is that he is being used and considered by many managers as example. Also there are a lot of stories and biographies about him, and how he did things. They are used in a lot of management courses, magazines….And for sure this is influencing a lot of managers that have important responsibilities in many important companies and administrations.

Having in mind this difficult personality, I wonder how difficult is to explain and to reuse this experience in others. Furthermore, if you read my article Technocracy and Leadership (Spanish) you will understand more my concern. It is not easy to be leader today in a world where all is measured and controlled using magnifying glasses.  Steve was just Steve, something unrepeatable that happens one time. And he was him and his circumstances, very specials by the way. He hardly could find followers in Apple. He was the “alma mater” of everything in the company. He was so close to all the details that he had not time to take care of himself. He was difficult for many people who has to report to him. But he was respected,  as he probably was a genius in his filed. Furthermore, he had also this vision of the future and the needs, required to create devices to be used by humans.

Reading today article we see how that company now is criticized because the market is waiting to see if Apple can survive without him.

But said this, he cannot be an example of leadership. A true leader is the one that is able to delegate, to take good and coherent decisions, yes, but also to create a winning team, being sure others can replace him if needed and that nobody is indispensable. This was not the case of Steve

Let me also draw your attention to other article I wrote, about RIM and Blackberry situation. Apple really did magic in the past. He manufactured a product more expensive than the average and was able to create the feeling among their supporters that they have to pay more for it. They were the first in the market bringing these features. And the quality was superb. Now they are leaders. But keeping that position will be very difficult. They are obliged to keep the quality standard and the perception on their supporters that their products are really differential. With so many followers at lower prices, and a technology more accessible to all, this means that they need to look for the excellence in the innovation.  Not easy, we will see….specially if the spirit of Steve Jobs is flaying over the brand for many years more.

Cooperacion Estado y Empresa en la venta de Innovación: La clave del exito

En el mes de  Julio pasado apareció en los medios de comunicación una noticia que en principio resultaba chocante; “La Armada española alquilaba en cierto modo los servicios del buque de aprovisionamiento Cantabria con sus 180 efectivos a la armada Australiana”

Sin analizarlo más podría parecer que esta en contra de lo que comentaba en mi articulo de sobre la función pública. En el me niego a aceptar que servicios de funcionarios como los de policía se vendan al mejor postor.

Pero si ahondamos más en lo que hay detrás, resulta que esta muy en línea de lo que comentaba en mi articulo de política de I+D donde trato de resaltar la importancia del estado en la tutela de las iniciativas de venta de alta tecnología y de desarrollo de I+D, siguiendo el modelo de los Estados Unidos con el gran motor que ha sido por ejemplo la NASA durante la carrera espacial.

La idea es realmente magistral. La armada no pierde la propiedad ni su tutela sobre el barco y la tripulación. Simplemente consigue mantener el barco en momentos difíciles, con presupuesto de otros.

Y aparte ¿que ganamos los españoles? Fácil si analizamos bien la jugada. Navantia, nuestra empresa exportadora de barcos de guerra, es ya suministrador de varios buques para la armada Australiana. Y el gobierno Australiano esta pensando en comprar un buque de aprovisionamiento similar al nuestro. Esta es la mejor forma de promocionar nuestra oferta y además sin que tengamos que invertir dinero en ello.

Francamente es una gran forma de apoyar a las empresas tecnológicas para que vendan en el exterior, Lo cierto es que si esta formula es nueva, e innovadora, no lo es tanto el apoyo que Defensa en España brinda habitualmente a las empresas exportadoras de tecnología españolas. Porque a través de sus agregados comerciales en las embajadas organiza las acciones pertinentes con gobiernos extranjeros, en las que se hace valedor de nuestros productos. Es habitual que los ministerios de defensa de otros países se consulten entre si para contrastar detalles de cómo resultan durante su vida útil los productos que compran a suministradores del sector e intercambiar información y recomendaciones.

Recientemente hemos también visto otra innovación importante de cómo el estado puede apoyar a las empresas en su apertura al exterior. En este caso la Xunta de Galicia ha cerrado varios remolcadores para diferentes astilleros de la comunidad. La invasión, jugar a mas escala y aprovechar sinergias para ser más efectivos en la acción comercial y en los costes.

 

Y es que la I+D no es solo desarrollar nuevos productos de alta tecnología. En muchos casos se trata de cambiar el modelo de negocio, de realizar innovaciones en los procesos no solo de fabricación, sino de venta, que permitan lograr ventaja competitiva a nuestros productos

BalckBerry could split their HW and SW division and sell the HW part

This days we can read in newspapers and in Internet a lot of rumors and opinions about this huge and, not many months ago, admired company.

Research in Motion (RIM) is a Canadian company that growth rapidly in the last years. Who do not know BlackBerry, their star product that became a leader in many executives’ pockets all over the world? And lately, with their great free messenger, largely used among many young people.

I will do a simple analysis about my opinion regarding what has been happening to this company and the way they manage the innovation process and how quick they react to the changes over the market. For me these are two key points of attention to rank the skills in management of a company. I would recommend reading my article Innovation and R&D policy –In Spanish-)

The first aspect we can question about them is the complicate business model RIM put in place. It was successful, as they were sole in the market and they use, as other big SW and HW companies like IBM and Lotus Notes, the security argument to convince IT Managers at big corporations. This argument use to work. In comparison with tools from Microsoft, for instance, these more proprietary and “close” systems can be more robust, under hackers attack, but also very good in the day to day performance.

Also RIM created their own smart phone, with a robust operative system. And the truth, with a very simple and friendly user interface, and also with small keyboard to be used as substitutive for the laptops. Good for the users, and good for the IT managers. Perfect. Also they close the loop implementing a global network of servers to assure push email to the devices and the right interface, replicating the emails from the customers servers into their own network.

Probably this business model was too complicated. And expensive. As usually, proprietary systems are. But grow fast among big corporations. The cost compensated the efficiency of the executives working from any place.

The question that RIM should do, at this point of their innovation process, is how big the business can grow with this approach. And also what other technology changes can come very quickly. The truth is that to do push mail you do not need to use intermediary servers. Furthermore, some global servers have been down a couple of times, alerting millions of customers about this risk of using intermediaries to get their emails. Also Windows mobile increase their platforms on the market. And more dramatic, Iphones and other devices based on Android open systems are cheaper and at hands of everybody. They can provide push mail directly from servers and the man machine interface is more versatile and intuitive using touch screens.

RIM made an extensive campaign to flood the market with their devices, using mobile telecoms companies to do promotion. Target the young people. Create BB messenger. Probably their margin has to be significantly lower than initially. But to survive they have to expand their customer base. Also because cloud computing, Iphones, started to take positions also in the big corporations.

Probably they do some mistakes not being the leader in the change since the beginning to a more open innovation. Smart phones war was there since years ago. Sooner or later this fights should finish giving some winners to the market. Today we have it. Also the SW (Whatsapp grow into the market as no cost in multiple platforms), cloud computing, were in the mind of IT researchers. Would not be difficult for them play with more anticipation. No the market is so active in this area that will be difficult for them to catch the leadership. Already mentioned whatsupp, but also the new devices trying to offer touch screens are not at the edge that you can find in other smart phones

We will see what happen in several months. Just let us learn a couple of lessons. Open systems are always less protected, but ready to evolve and catch the train. A company should provide to the market just the added value needed by their customers. Artificial cost arguing security or other weak arguments could easily dismantled by the evolution of the technology. Quick reaction to technology changes is a must to survive in this global and very interactive world. If we are in IT, even this is more crucial

Vicente del Bosque: Spanish Football Team Coacher: A clear leader?

Again Spain is progressing in the Euro Cup to the semifinals. Since Vicente del Bosque is their coacher, the team is gathering one success after the other. No doubt that Spanish football is profiting from all the good foreigner players that are doing their professional career in Spanish clubs. But also the current level in the Spanish players are very high. This also clear because all the Spanish good players that plays in foreign ligues like in UK and other EU countries.

But is sure that when a team is performing like the Spanish one, is because there is something else beyond their individuals. Football is a great sport to be watched, as is very complicated to make eleven players play ion synchronism in a big stadium. Outstanding individualities can make the differences sometimes. But the real difference is when 11 persons are so connected among themselves, giving the best of their skills.

For me the Spanish football team is outstanding because:

1. Their individuals are all good enough.
2. There are a good balance of leaders and followers.
3. There are more than eleven good ones, and all of them can play without affecting the performance of the team
4. The coacher put the right glue in place to make them feel as champions.

I always said that, what we call sometimes luck, is really this feeling of recognizing ourselves as valid champions. Luck usually falls in their side.

This four conditions are usual in winning teams. We can find them also in the Spanish basket team.  But let us go the 4th point which is my objective of today. If you read my article about Technocracy and leadership (You can read a summary and related article in English in Do our leaders need to use more the pedagogy?), we can recognize in Vicente del Bosque the characteristics I identified in my article for leaders.

Vicente is creating the space of freedom to his players to let them create their own materpiece. Is avoiding disputes among them and making them feel alike for him, and important for the team. Take quick decisions. Is coherent, and is not permeable to the comments from the mass media. This is key,  as he is preserving his team from external pressure. Is identifying the important,  and making simply what they need to do. Which, having a look to his personality,  is not very complicated for him. Clever, a perfect gentlemen, always polite, and controlling himself to avoid conflicts. But always is showing him self firm and sure about his decisions. No doubting. Just assuming what he decide. This create the right space, environment and secure place to the team to do a great job.

Entendemos bien en que consiste la función publica?

Me gustaría salir al paso de comentarios que escuchamos día a día en tertulias radiofónicas y televisivas, donde se observa claramente que no enfocamos de forma simple el problema del exceso de personal en las administraciones publicas. Como veremos, a este asunto se le puede muy bien aplicar lo que comentaba en mi blog hace unos días (Do our leaders need more Pedagogy?). Necesitamos más pedagogía y que nuestros líderes simplifiquen adecuadamente los problemas. Si no, la confusión se apodera de la opinión publica. Y compromete un desarrollo estable.

Tengo amigos funcionarios. Aquí y en otros paises. No nos olvidemos que la administración del estado en todas las democracias utiliza la función pública como piedra angular de su sostenibilidad. Y muchos de ellos realizan una labor excelente y no siempre grata y bien remunerada. No es justo lanzar comentarios equivocados

No podemos imaginar una administración pública que maneje todas las funciones del estado,  politizada y subcontratada. Los funcionarios, por regla general, son profesionales que se especializan en una de las áreas de gestión del estado, y que para ello deben de conocer los conceptos principales de esa función. Pero para optar a una plaza en la administración deben de demostrar esos conocimientos. Es lo que llamamos oposición. Pero no solo eso. Deben de jurar su cargo, la defender la constitución y la dedicación de su empeño al estado.

Todo esto tiene su explicación. La administración pública debe de asegurar coherencia y perdurabilidad al paso de los tiempos. No puede estar en peligro por cambios de gobierno cada cuatro años, ni ser el capricho de políticos que son pasajeros en sus cargos o que no conocen en detalle las materias técnicas requeridas en el proceso de toma de decisiones. Precisamente este el trabajo de los funcionarios.

Y sinceramente no creo en la subcontratación de estos servicios buscando la eficacia. Podemos llegar a situaciones cuando menos chocantes, como empresas de seguridad gestionado el control de acceso a los cuarteles, o la policía alquilando sus servicios para asuntos privados o películas, como vimos recientemente en Grecia.

Hay multitud de casos lamentables y frecuentes en los que los políticos hacen presencia en los medios de comunicación tratando de explicar las razones técnicas de un problema o de una decisión. Recuerdo a Magdalena Alvarez explicándonos los problemas del Ave o a Cristina Narbona las ventajas de las desaladoras, algunas de ellas hoy paradas. Y puedo imaginarme la motivación de los técnicos del estado, muchos de ellos preparados ingenieros de caminos, sin oportunidad de tomar acertadas decisiones, basadas en criterios técnicos. No olvidemos que muchas escuelas técnicas, antes de los años sesenta, prácticamente colocaban sus promociones de profesionales para cubrir los puestos técnicos de la administración.

Que bien nos harían ciertos lideres políticos leyendo mi articulo de Tecnocracia y Liderazgo y dejando espacio a sus subordinados para crear. No debía consentirse que ni siquiera los cargos de Director General en los ministerios fueran políticos. Cosa hoy por hoy muy rara.

Y es que la realidad es que no se pueden dejar asuntos como la educación, o la política industrial (mas bien inexistente en nuestro país ver Política Industrial e I+D), en manos de mandatos políticos de cuatro años, e ir dando “bandazos” de lado a lado sin la coherencia necesaria para que las políticas a largo plazo, tan necesarias en estos ámbitos, den sus frutos.

Estoy totalmente de acuerdo que la función pública tiene que evolucionar. Que sus líderes tienen que seguir una dirección marcada por objetivos, como en la empresa privada. El que los consigue debe de recibir más compensación y promoción. Y que los que no rinden bien se les amoneste, o se les aparte de la función pública, expedientándoles. Todo esto es compatible con las reglas de la función publica, si se aplican y evoluciona convenientemente. El funcionario entra por oposición y es lógico que cuente con la seguridad de un trabajo estable en la administración dignamente remunerado. Pero que también pueda desarrollar una carrera profesional de acuerdo con sus meritos.

Donde radica el problema es precisamente ahí. En la garantía de un trabajo estable. Es un fraude crear puestos artificialmente. Como lo es tener a funcionarios parados cuando al tiempo se subcontratan empresas externas como asesoras. O generar 17 administraciones paralelas con solapes en muchas áreas, plagadas de empresas publicas, que en muchos casos son innecesarias.

Lo lógico es que el estado y la administración pública definan bien sus necesidades. Y de ellas deduzca el número de efectivos que necesita y sus capacitaciones. No creemos el puesto para la persona. Sino busquemos la persona para el puesto o formemos las que tenemos convenientemente.

En mi opinión este ejercicio debía hacerse inmediatamente. Que dimensión necesitamos de la administración pública. Y dignifiquemos su labor. El ajuste nos llevara tiempo. Pero si no empezamos nunca acabaremos.

Y dejemos de malignizar a nuestros funcionarios. Ellos no tienen la culpa.

Do our leaders need to use more the pedagogy ?

I would like to refer here to my article of this blog titled "Tecnocracia and Liderazgo" (Technocracy and Leadership in English). You can use translator if you do not read English, but anyhow I would like to do a short summary now. What I pointed out there is that today our leaders are immerse in technocratic world, where usually they manage too much information. All of us have at hand today lots of data available at our finger tips. Also we can access and process quickly all this information using the advantage of what we call the society of the Information Technologies. But all of us know well what happens when we have excess of information. The decision taking process is affected negatively. I mean: We take more time to take decisions. And not always this means better decisions. Because the good leaders, the people with experience, use to take "good enough" decisions with just limited information. Good enough for me means: Quick, coherent with the settled goals, and controlling the risk, forecasting alternatives such "what I will do if finally happens this unexpected result."

The decision taking process is the most crucial human activity for his survival. Since child we learn from our fails, and mistakes, improving this process. Only some few people deploy the outstanding skills to lead the others. Just because they probably learn fast from the "try and fail process", which is the main one used to gain experience in all areas. Also because they have a good mix of intuition and analytical mind set. Or also because they process a lot of possible not expected results, allowing them to manage and control properly the risk. And also to reach the goal quickly by successive approximations to it. In my professional life I identified a big lack of training on this. Let me take in more extended way in coming weeks.

In this article also I tackle other consequence of this behaviour. Go too much into details means that we are open to be distracted from the important. Today our leaders are more populist. Also the CEO´s of the big companies. They are more close to what the mass media says or the investors, that in doing a good decision process. Which finally means that the mass media has exaggerate power of influence. And behind the mass media there are lots of individuals that pay for it and that are confused among all this excess of information. But, despite off that their opinion can not be consistent, they play a big role of influencers thanks to the big influence that the mass media have on governments and companies. This, jointly to the ultra fast response we have today to transmit information, sale and buy stock values, etc. is making our world a bit crazy and our economical and social model in crisis.

Let us analyse what happens this last months in Europe: Debt, attack to Euro, development or control, countries rescues, etc. Is amazing to see people commentaries, also in newspapers. Most of the times digging into details, and probably doing wrong assessments. But surely influencing and moving the stocks values up and down, as well as many other economical indicators. We need someone that has the skills to have bird view and wider vision. And make things simpler for the none expert people.

In my humbled opinion we need to start for the top. Is not because the European Union did not do the right things. Or because this or other country do wrong things, or sell debt in excess. The main problem is that in the occidental world after almost 67 years without big wars, and good rate of development, we have not been able to develop the right new social and economical model. We consume in excess, we lost many human values, and our economical mechanisms are obsolete. For instance, stock market now, with the speed we move on, is more a tool to speculate and make money to few ones, rather than a place to create value to companies and market. And simplifying, which some times is good, the owners of our debt and our destiny is mainly in hands of few people: Arabian, Russians, Chinese, and some others. Should we seat down with them? Because probably they are scaring about how we move around all this confusion managing their investments. And the worst for them is that they can not take their own decisions in the countries they invest !.

But this is just an small example and I do not want to make this article longer. Also during many years we offer our back to big problems like Africa and emerging countries like China and India. And now all is global and all influence our life's. Energy management should be done at global level. We need consensus, but we see what happens up to now, for instance, when we apply global agreements like Kyoto Protocol. Our planet need to be seen as a global subject. Definitively the right people in the world needs to be seated at the same table. With the wiliness to move positions and agree the best for all. Not easy task. But I am confident. Just because the current crisis is showing us that we have reach our limits of stupidity. With luck in 9 or 10 years we can be leaving with this new models full in place.

And I close this dense thoughts coming back to the title of this article. We need that our leaders first, and our mass media after, be simpler when they explain this problems. Is so important!. I encourage them to use their best skills on pedagogy to teach all the individuals that listen and read them. Let me know to use the example of Mariano Rajoy, leader of the Spanish Government trying to explain the agreement with the European Union some week ago to rescue the banks. Despite of the efforts to make it simple, lots of commentaries arisen after the weekend increasing the turbulences of the market. And what we need now is simplify the messages, coherence, some patience and seat down the right people to talk as soon as possible. At least, my opinion is that the European Union finally is starting to dialogue in a positive way.

¿Somos muy estrictos con los procedimientos que aplica la policia?

Me sorprenden otra vez las noticias de la television con la interminable y triste historia de los niños desaparecidos, hijos de José Bretón. Ahora buscando de nuevo en la finca de la familia con más efectivos, maquinaria pesada, georadares más efectivos.....

Permitanme que exponga aquí lo que muchos pensamos ante este y otros caso similares. El erario publico ha gastado millones en dragar el Guadalquivir, seguir todo tipo de pistas presumiblemente falsas, "patear" bosques, poner "patas arriba fincas". La pregunta es obvia por lo simple: En estos caso en que la respuesta esta en la mente de una persona, ¿no es más sencillo y barato lograrla de su propia boca?.

Ya sabemos....no podemos sobrepasar las normas que imponen los interrogatorios en un estado de derecho. Si tenemos que ser estrictos en su aplicación, quizá sea también más sensato no incurrir en estos despilfarros de dudosos resultados.

Pero yendo más lejos aún, quizá debiéramos entrar en donde están los limites de la ética y de los procedimientos que la policía debe usar con este tipo de personas que gustan de jugar con sus derechos cuando ellos no respetan los de los demás. Porque el resultado es que un desequilibrado o un enfermo con patologías y desviaciones de conducta peligrosas tiene en jaque a toda una sociedad. Me pregunto si esta sociedad, para defenderse, solo tiene la opción de remover ríos y tierras buscando cadáveres. O por el contrario, no deberíamos flexibilizar la hipótesis sobre las que se considera culpable a una persona. Esto posiblemente sea dificil en el campo del derecho. Pero también nos queda analizar el porqué la policía es cada vez más incapaz de "arrancar" la verdad a estos desalmados. Si permitanme usar una palabra que quizá resulte dura. Porque si me consta que en otros países tan civilizados y respetuosos con el derecho y las reglas como el nuestro esto no pasa. Y tampoco pasaba aquí antes.

Me resisto a pensar que entre psicólogos, policías, carceleros, amigos, etc., no sea capaz nuestro sistema de "arrancar" de esas mentes perversas un pista que lleve a buen fin la investigación y que nos ahorre muchos gastos innecesarios. Porque los derechos de los individuos hay que preservarlos, por supuesto. Pero también los de la sociedad en general para defenderse de ciertos individuos que se aprovechan del sistema.

Aprovecho para hacer una vez más un apunte hacia los sistemas de gestión actuales, cada vez mas tecnocratizados (ver Liderazgo o Tecnocracia en este blog). Hay un viejo proverbio en nuestras sociedades que en España acuñamos como "El que hace la ley hace la trampa" . Quizá esta es la parte negativa de ver el problema. En una sociedad cada vez mas tecnocratizada valoramos cada vez mas las reglas y los procesos como sistema estricto de control de nuestras actividades. Pero el progreso y el crecimiento siempre requiere de que apliquemos esas reglas con la debida flexibilidad. Son los gestores los que deben administrar con buen criterio esas normas y procesos, creando el espacio de libertad adecuado para que los resultados, es decir, el progreso, fluya con la rapidez adecuada