Ideas on Finance, Happiness and Sustainability

17. Mar, 2018

Far Fiorire le persone E' il termine e l' immagine che le autrici hanno scelto per descriver l' effetto che la Scienza delle Organizzazioni Positive produce sulle Persone

17. Mar, 2018

Leonardo Becchetti explains the meaning of Happiness and how economy can help a sustainable happiness

11. Mar, 2018

L'utopia di Tommaso Moro di instaurare "il Cielo sulla Terra" non esiste più perché il futuro, troppo incerto e spaventoso, è considerato inaffidabile e ingestibile. Così, mentre prende piede l'individualismo che cancella il senso di comunità, il passato si trasforma in una condizione rassicurante e nell'unica prospettiva 


Ecco — per chi le avesse dimenticate — le parole con cui all'inizio degli anni Quaranta Walter Benjamin, nelle Tesi di filosofia della storia, commentava l'Angelus Novus — da lui ribattezzato " angelo della storia" — dipinto nel 1920 da Paul Klee: "L'angelo della storia ha il viso rivolto al passato. Dove ci appare una catena di eventi, egli vede una sola catastrofe, che accumula senza tregua rovine su rovine e le rovescia ai suoi piedi. Egli vorrebbe ben trattenersi, destare i morti e ricomporre l'infranto. Ma una tempesta spira dal paradiso, che si è impigliata nelle sue ali, ed è così forte che egli non può più chiuderle. Questa tempesta lo spinge irresistibilmente nel futuro, a cui volge le spalle, mentre il cumulo delle rovine sale davanti a lui nel cielo. Ciò che chiamiamo il progresso, è questa tempesta". A quasi un secolo da quella lettura, di imperscrutabile e incomparabile profondità, a guardar bene l'opera di Klee si scorge di nuovo l'angelo della storia ad ali spiegate. Ma ciò che forse colpisce di più l'osservatore è il cambio di rotta, come se quell'angelo fosse colto nel bel mezzo di un'inversione di marcia: il volto dal passato si rivolge al futuro, le ali vengono respinte dalla tempesta che, stavolta, spira dall'inferno del futuro ( immaginato, previsto e temuto prima ancora che accada) verso il paradiso del passato (un passato probabilmente solo raffigurato a posteriori, dopo averlo perduto e visto andare in rovina). Ma le ali dell'angelo sono schiacciate, adesso come allora, con una violenza tale " che egli non può più chiuderle".

10. Mar, 2018

London Business School faculty engage with successful people every day. These highly effective people have achieved success by transforming habits that shape every aspect of their lives.

This is our unique take on Stephen R. Covey's top-seller book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. The list has nothing to do with trends, it is based on proven values of wellness, openness, fairness, integrity and human progress. Here are the seven patterns of highly successful people, as observed by our experts.

1. They prioritise physical and mental wellness

Alex Edmans, Professor of Finance, London Business School

Arguably Covey’s most famous habit is to focus on the important, not the urgent. There are few more important issues than one’s health – but health is easily neglected as its consequences are felt mostly in the long run.

The physical benefits of exercise are well known. But the benefits of exercise are far more than just physical. Team sports involve being part of something greater than yourself – celebrating a goal that a team-mate scored, or passing to someone else – attributes sorely missing in the business world. Group exercise classes channel energy from those around you, and a trainer gives a crucial mental break compared to having to motivate yourself. Even solo exercise, such as running, is a refreshing break from perpetual email bombardment. Merely having a workout scheduled later in the day makes you more productive as you know you have something to look forward to.

And wellness is far more than just exercise. Despite virtually everyone knowing what healthy eating involves, few put it into practice and the developed world is becoming increasingly obese. The misguided belief that one needs to be constantly on email means that it is impossible to truly relax, even on vacation. Music has now become background noise, listened to only when commuting or working out. Social time with friends or family has become a chore distracting you from working. Showing weakness is seen as a sign of weakness, and a major stigma remains around mental health. While we blame external circumstances and busyness, we ultimately are responsible for our own choices. We are human beings, not human doings – whole persons who owe it to ourselves to experience the breadth, length, height, and depth of life.

2. They engage in perspective-taking

Gillian Ku, Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour, London Business School

Having the skills – and the desire – to walk a mile in another person’s shoes is a habit worth harnessing. Yet seeing the world through a lens of diverse vantage points – particularly those different from your own – isn’t easy. It takes patience and practice. It means investing effort in understanding others’ world views, motivations, intentions and emotions. Research documents clear benefits. Perspective-taking has consistently been found to reduce prejudice and stereotyping. Evidence also suggests that perspective-taking can make teams more creative, which can lead to better decision-making outcomes, which are greatly needed in a complex, fast-paced world. Successful leaders also have a habit of enriching their view of customers and employees, managing diversity and resolving conflict through perspective-taking.

Imagining the world from another’s point of view also helps in negotiations. For instance, ruthless negotiators who have a winner-takes-all mentality may view their competitor as a nemesis. Perspective-taking reminds you that competitors are simply parties with their own interests. Like you, they are passionate, shrewd and reasonably rational – they probably see you as the nemesis. In such situations, telling yourself that you can control your own feelings but not your rivals’ is a helpful first step. What is more, actively viewing the situation from the other person’s vantage point has been shown to help negotiators see, appreciate and capitalise on these differing interests to grow the pie. Perspective-taking has also been shown to help negotiators gain a larger share of the pie.

3. They are fuelled by curiosity

Dan Cable, Professor of Organisational Behaviour, London Business School

Curiosity is a potent emotion. When you’re curious you’re more likely to step outside your comfort zone and away from old habits. You’re more likely to think differently and work with others in new ways. We all like to think that we’re collaborative and open to new ideas, but in reality we’re often resistant to change. The process of trial and reflection is most successful when people are open to change. The art of observing or interpreting something in a different way requires a trained habit of being curious, one that I explore in my book Alive at Work: The Neuroscience of Helping Your People Love What They Do.

Literature shows that framing change as a chance to experiment and learn is important for activating the right emotions. When you frame a task as a performance situation –“I must do well or face backlash” – it triggers anxiety and you become risk averse. When you frame the same task as a learning situation – “I wonder what I’ll discover!” – it triggers curiosity and you become bolder and more determined. What’s more, if you frame a task as a chance to either succeed or fail, you end up learning less because you engage in less experimentation. In turn, this makes formulating new strategies tough as you’re more likely to fall back on old tried and tested habits.

How can you become more curious? Experimental safe zones create intrinsic motivations, which are much more powerful than extrinsic motivations because they unleash creativity. Instead of working hard, say, for fear of losing your job (extrinsic), be fuelled by your own enthusiasm and curiosity (intrinsic). Instead of being sceptical at the start, be eager to explore and push experiments further.

4. They nudge for good

Lisa Shu, Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour, London Business School

Whether or not they intentionally choose the role, managers in organisations are inadvertent architects of their employees’ decision-making. Every choice they make creates a knock-on effect. From encouraging pensions savings through setting automatic enrolment as the default, to promoting nutritious choices by placing healthy food at eye level at the start of the cafeteria line – organisations nudge their employees and steer them in their everyday decision-making.

Highly successful people have a habit of nudging for good; they consciously take on the role of choice architect. Such leaders embrace the reality that even the simplest prompts in the decision context can skew people’s choices one way or another. From my own research, for instance, we know that simply asking for a signature at the beginning of the expense form – rather than the end – encourages honest expense reporting. Prompting a signature at the start of the form brings moral standards sharply into focus right when it matters most, promoting truthful reporting.

Signing first is one of many interventions that show how even the most gentle of nudges can impact behaviours and create a ripple effect of much greater financial and ethical significance. Nudge interventions are powerfully persuasive because they are subtle. These minimal cues do not limit the freedom of choice for individuals, yet they can profoundly influence important behaviours. Managers should embrace nudges as tools to shape long-term performance outcomes, through driving a greater alignment between strategy and day-to-day activities – and promoting a culture of integrity.

5. They move first in negotiations

Thomas Mussweiler, Professor of Organisational Behaviour, London Business School

Life involves daily negotiations. Buying a car, influencing at work or bargaining over who cleans the dishes: negotiating is how we get things done. To become more successful in these negotiations, people may want to develop a habit of making the first offer. This runs counter to the popular belief that you should wait for the other side to speak first. Some argue that you gain insight about your counterpart and valuable extra time to strengthen your bargaining advantage. Waiting may intuitively make sense but research suggests that, more often than not, first offers achieve better outcomes.

Why? First offers have a strong anchoring effect. Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman exposed a human tendency that people heavily rely on the first piece of information they encounter such as a numeric estimate – an anchor. When people receive an initial offer, they move their own judgement towards that offer. Even experts aren’t immune to the powerful anchoring effect. In one study, my colleagues (Fritz Strack and Tim Pfeiffer) and I had customers approach German mechanics with a used car requiring repairs. After offering their own opinion of the car's value, the customers asked the mechanics for an estimate. Half of the mechanics were given a low anchor, with the customer proposing the car should sell for around DM 2,800. The other mechanics were given a high anchor, around DM 5,000. The mechanics estimated the car to be worth DM 1,000 more when the anchor was set high, proving that even an expert’s judgement can fall prey to distortions of the mind. But beware: highly successful people know when and when not to make the first offer. If you’re in a new situation and there are too many unknowns – when you just don’t know – hold tight, and wait for the other party to make the first move.

6. They focus energy on what matters

Richard Jolly, Adjunct Professor of Organisational Behaviour, London Business School

I have met many highly successful executives in my work. Through intense pressure to perform well, these high-fliers attain their goals but bizarrely layer on more and more pressure. Effective people set incredibly high standards for themselves, they are tougher critics than any boss. Yet there’s a strange phenomenon: once they have reached their version of success – money, status, power – happiness does not always ensue. 

What is success? Often, when you drill down, you find that success stems from happiness. Highly successful people are really happy people. The universal habit of highly successful people is the ability to focus time and energy on the things that really matter. Let’s run a quick exercise: what are your top priorities? Go on, write them down. Now, look at your diary from the last three months. How much time have you spent working through them? The answer is usually: not nearly enough. Some chief executives confess to spending as little as 1% of their time on the things that will drive the future success of the business. It can feel too busy to focus on what’s important. 

The protective boundary between work and life has exploded – work has now merged with life. Stress leads to a lack of control – at home and at work – and we spend too much time on inconsequential things and pursuits we’re indifferent to or dispassionate about. So, highly successful people have the ability to be ruthless with their time. Every day, they ask, “Am I focusing my time and energy on the things that really matter?”

7. They cherish creativity and think differently

Richard Hytner, Adjunct Professor of Marketing, London Business School

Some habits in business are harmful: chief executives can get high on the stale air of sycophancy. CFOs may not always know when to end the organisation's drastic, cost-reducing diet, failing to see that the corporate body needs no further slimming. And, if not kept in check, well-intentioned CTOs can snort the words digitisation, blockchain or cyber just too often for their own good. We already know that, without them, we are heading cluelessly, cloudlessly to a world called disruption from where we, the dinosaurs, will never return.

These are all nasty habits. However, no habit in my view is more lethal than acceptance of negativity. If culture eats strategy for breakfast, negativity kills culture for sport. Like a narcotic, negativity can feel euphoric in the moment but over time it dulls the senses and in large doses causes enormous damage.

I often ask executives to share recent encounters of this toxic culture killer. Examples range from the blunt – “We simply don’t have time for this” – to the bizarre – “I know this idea is untested, but why can’t you guarantee it will make money before we test it?”

Creativity is the wholesome habit of an effective leader. Not the exclusive preserve of the crazies who inhabit marketing or innovation departments. Creativity is good for personal and collective wellbeing, and our most effective ally when we encounter new contexts and problems we have not seen before (or have seen all too often).

Hytner’s five practices for a habit of creativity and thinking differently

1. Snack little and often on curiosity between meetings. Curiosity is calorie-free and costs you nothing. Take your blinkers off, observe and ask yourself why

2. Hydrate regularly, quenching your thirst for product, service, innovation processes with the intoxicating power of positivity. Fall in love with your colleagues’ ideas, not your own

3. Inhale the fresh air of ideas way beyond the boundaries of your discipline, business, industry and market. Adopt, adapt, re-imagine, re-apply

4. Digest your problems slowly and mindfully, don’t just swallow the solution. Convene a random group, not your usual circle, to tackle a complex problem. Rip it apart, play with it and invite the group to challenge long-held assumptions about your context and customers

5. Get out of the office every day, take a stroll, and leave the device behind.

10. Mar, 2018

Larry Fink, the CEO of the world's largest investment company, BlackRock, recently wrote a letter to the CEOs of several of the world's largest publicly traded companies. In it, he decreed that their companies should serve a social purpose and demonstrate long-term benefits—and threatened nebulous consequences for those who fail to get in line.

Why does this matter?

BlackRock manages more than $6 trillion in investments. Its portfolio reads like the Fortune 500 roster. When Larry Fink speaks, CEOs listen.

Andrew Sorkin of The New York Times wrote that the letter was “likely to cause a firestorm in the corner offices of companies everywhere.” Elsewhere, especially in progressive circles, the announcement was met with a collective “meh.” In Forbes, B-Lab founder Jay Coen Gilbert pointed out that many companies already maintain a dual focus on profitability and social/long-term growth using the Benefit Corporation governance structure.

Given his stature, the fact that Fink raised the issue at all is noteworthy. However, Fink seems to be unaware of his complicity in the very economic culture he is taking to task. Without action to back it up, he is as culpable as many of the companies he challenges.

Short-term thinking still drives the market.

In his letter, Fink hammered on about the need for a long-term model that looks at social benefit and sustainable long-term growth, but as the head of an investment institution, he himself is responsible for a lot of the short-term thinking that dictates the marketplace.

Company performance and profitability remain measured on a quarterly basis. Every three months, these corporations scramble to make as much money as possible so that their share prices remain competitive enough to yield the best returns for investors. The moment the share price tanks, investors take their money elsewhere or pressure the organization to get a new CEO. The rules are stacked against companies that are focused on the long-term.

BlackRock exists because clients and entities look to Fink and his company to make them money every quarter, not over a decade. Unless Fink can convince his investors not to rely on quarterly profits to judge performance, he cannot ask the same of CEOs.

"Social benefit" is not well defined.

You know that old saying about how you don't sh*t where you eat? Translated into corporate-speak, it means you do good wherever it doesn't interfere with your profits.

Take a look at these three companies that are part of BlackRock's multibillion-dollar portfolio—all tout socially responsible practices and credentials:

  • Andes Petroleum (boast of their social responsibility here)
  • Frontera (very proud of themselves here)
  • GeoPark (touting their culture here)

All three companies are also complicit in Amazon rainforest destruction. Do these companies do good in the world by taking care of their employees, contributing to education, and supporting local economies? Sure. Do they do some serious damage by depleting rainforests, upsetting ecological balances and environments, and ultimately contributing to future devastation? Yep, that too. So how do you measure the good versus the bad?

Lots of corporations already have robust social responsibility programs and claim to contribute to social good. But they're not undoing the social damage their business models are built on.

Take Coca-Cola, for instance. As evident in their 2016 Sustainability report, summarized in this handy infographic, Coca-Cola invests heavily in corporate social responsibility. Ranging from women's economic empowerment, workplace and human rights, environmental and sustainability issues, and philanthropic donations totaling over 100 million, it looks like they're doing plenty to contribute to social good, right? Isn't this what Fink meant when he wrote that “Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose?"

As a purveyor of sugary, chemical-laced soda, Coca-Cola has been a massive contributor to obesity epidemics worldwide. In the United States alone, the health statistics and associated medical costs are staggering. It may sound obvious, but to quote Bartow J. Elmore, author of Citizen Coke: The Making of Coca-Cola Capitalism, "Coke does not make more money by selling less Coke." In other words, if Coca-Cola decided to retire Coca-Cola because the product actively detracts from social good, they would go under. So companies like Coca-Cola focus their social responsibility and sustainability efforts elsewhere, while their own negative social impact remains core to their profitability and, by default, their appeal to investors. How does Fink address this tension between responsibility and exploitation?

Who's the referee?

In his letter, Fink stressed that governments are failing to step up and meet pressing challenges of the future—challenges from aging infrastructure, looming automation, to boomers reaching retirement and putting pressure on the healthcare system. With the public sector more or less in crisis, "society increasingly is turning to the private sector and asking that companies respond."

Many company leaders already have, at least to a degree. As the Harvard Business Review points out, "as political partisanship and discourse grow ever more extreme, and the gridlock in Washington, D.C., shows no sign of easing," CEO activism is on the rise. And while CEOs have long played an active role in politics, they have only recently gotten vocal. We are now seeing prominent business leaders speak out about a range of social issues—with opinions that fall on both sides of the aisle. Apple CEO Tim Cook has taken up the fight for immigration rights. Patagonia CEO Rose Marcario fighting the federal government over its decision to reduce the size of two federally protected land monuments. Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier resigned from the American Manufacturing Council in protest of the president's comments about the racially charged 2017 Charlottesville protests. The list goes on.

And all this talking may be a good step. But when the government fails to protect the common good, can and should we expect private industry to stand up for the interests of the people? A government is for the benefit of country and people, a corporation is for the benefit of profitability and income generation—who should be more accountable?

Better rules, better players

At the $6 trillion level, Larry Fink has demanded better sportsmanship of corporate players. He has taken a big first step just by making a statement. Now comes the hard part: actually changing the rules of the game. Without concrete action from Fink and others of his stature, companies will still feel pressure to prioritize short-term profitability and rapid resource exploitation over, as he puts it, "long-term value creation." So just as Fink has demanded corporations do their bit to be responsible citizens, it's only fair that corporations and others ask Fink what he plans to do to make this happen.

Topics: Your WorldLeadershipB Corp