Review: Thinking Strategically by Avinash Dixit and Barry Nalebuff, Getting More by Stuart Diamond and Never Split the Difference by Christopher Voss

Introduction

This review will discuss two negotiating styles. One being strategic and the other being tactical. A strategic approach treats negotiations analytically while the tactical approach considers the personal and practical aspects of negotiating. My goal is to help the reader consider how to best use these approaches in different contexts.

1.1 Summary of texts

Beginning with Voss’s Never Split the Difference, Voss writes in a conversational style, which makes the book both readable and engaging. It also has the narrowest application of the books examined. By that I mean Voss focuses purely on negotiations in formal settings such, as on a sales call or at high-level meetings.

Voss’s negotiation style is tough, one that is unwilling to accept compromises. However, there is also a curiosity to it. Voss discusses at length the right way to guide a probing conversation. The purpose of which is primarily information gathering. In conversation people will elicit “tells” that can be used to judge their state of mind, what they value and where they want the negotiation to go. This knowledge is helpful in manoeuvring someone into a position aligned with yours.

Diamond’s Getting More is written in a more academic style. Diamond presents many practical examples to illustrate his arguments. At times, this makes the book feel like it consists of a series of HBR case studies. However, Diamond’s tone is also often conversational, and at times humorous, making the book mostly a pleasant read. Ultimately though, I did find Getting More to be overly long and occasionally verbose. I think a more tightly edited volume would have been more engaging.

The negotiation techniques Diamond presents are generally psychological, with a strong emphasis on relationship building. He repeatedly tells us to "getting inside the head" of the other side. This means sincerely engaging with your counterpart, trying to understand what they value, and using this as a starting point to nudge them towards your values.

This sounds somewhat like Voss’s approach, but Diamond’s style seems less hardnosed. Indeed, I would suggest that for Diamond “splitting the difference” could be a valid outcome, so long as the deal can be renegotiated further down the line. Diamond's attitude is to "get more", which does not mean winning on every occasion. It means incrementally pushing your agenda forward while maintaining relationships to the maximum extent possible.
Diamond also intends Getting More to have a broad application, beyond formal business negotiations. To that effect, Diamond includes chapters on negotiating with family (spouses, kids) and service personnel (airlines, utility services, etc.).

For me then, both books have a mainly tactical focus, they discuss how to negotiate once a decision has been made to start a dialogue. However, I believe that it is also important to have a framework to consider why embarking on a negotiation is worthwhile in the first place. Hence, I decided to bring in a text that has a more strategic interest. That book is Dixit and Nalebuff’s Thinking Strategically. Their book is not about negotiations per say, it was written as an introduction to the application of Game Theory (mainly in business contexts). 

Thinking Strategically has an even more academic style than Getting More but despite that I found it a more readable book. Dixit and Nalebuff present their arguments succinctly and clearly, they rarely use jargon and have a good sense of humour.

Their book presents summaries of classic game theory models (the prisoner's dilemma, the Nash Equilibrium) and discusses major topics in the field (voting, managing externalities and auctioning). The book follows a structure of initially focusing on one of these models or topics, presenting a case study and then discussing how to apply this material in a business or personal context.

Their arguments apply to even more contexts than Diamond's; really they apply to any situation in which human beings (perhaps even other species) have some interaction.

1.2 Why review these books together?

As touched on already, the ideas put forward by Voss and Diamond significantly overlap. They both advocate an approach to negotiation that is particularly concerned with what might be called emotional intelligence and their techniques are rooted in the practice of negotiation. Hence while there are some differences, their arguments mostly support comparable styles.
As a result, the insights that can be gained in comparing them alone are limited. Where does this discussion go from here then? This review will now compare their approaches against a style that both Voss and Diamond are in fact critical of.

Both Voss and Diamond critique techniques that rely on purely “rational” analysis. They share the view that this style has been far too prevalent in the literature and as a result has made negotiators less effective. Their arguments are somewhat reminiscent of the recent developments in behavioural economics, where modern economists have increasingly sought to consider how psychological states (fear for example) can lead actors to make seemingly irrational decisions and ultimately lead to collapses of financial markets.

Like behavioural economists Voss and Diamond encourage us to thoroughly consider emotional factors that influence negotiation. These can include emotions such as pride, the need for respect and idiosyncratic individual preferences. Both authors suggest we should get “inside the heads” of the other party, think about how they see the world and what they value versus what we value.

From my reading, the main reason this is important is because of the chance of miscommunication. Simply presenting a deal in a basic matter of fact way might not work, even if from a purely rational standpoint it’s a good offer. This point comes through strongly in the sections in which Voss writes on sales.

For instance, Voss quite astutely observes that customers will frequently feign agreement in sales calls because they want to avoid conflict. However, sooner or later the sale will fall through because the customer was not really interested. Had the discussion been structured properly this potential customer could have either been won over or quickly eliminated from the pool of leds.

Another advantage in taking a more emotionally engaged approach is that it enables sellers to tease out exactly what the client needs and what they are willing to pay. There may be scope to work out a better deal than had been initially anticipated but this won’t’ be noticed if the conversation is not structured correctly. 

While Voss and Diamond have made some strong points, I felt neither author fully considered why so much literature has focused on more strategic or analytic methods. Even applying their own techniques would require some strategic planning.

Both authors do strongly advocate for planning as an essential part of negotiation, so surely the more thoughtful and developed the plan is the better? Indeed, how could we evaluate if a negotiation is desirable without some strategic analysis in the first place?

Ultimately, I decided to contrast Never Split the Difference and Getting More with Game Theory. The reason I chose Game Theory is that it is a system that is quantifiable and emphasises strategic analysis. Yet it also encompasses an imperative to consider how different parties interact with one another, but I would suggest from a different perspective than Voss and Diamond. Finally, it is such a broad discipline that I believe it can also synthesise the merits of the more tactical style presented by Voss and Diamond with a strategic approach.
I selected Thinking Strategically for this review then as it is an excellent introduction into the concepts and application of Game Theory. The remaining sections of this review will consider three topics:

•    Understanding your opponent
•    How to manage failure
•    Rationally deploying irrationality

2.1 Understanding your opponent

As already noted, Voss and Diamond both recommend planning before beginning negotiations. However neither have discussed in detail how to do this. Planning is an essential component of Game Theory as well and Dixit and Nalebuff discuss it at length.

The most fundamental principal of planning in Game Theory is to think ahead and reason back. This means first consider what possible ends states exist for you, decide which outcome is best for you given the options and then consider how you will reach that point from where you are. 
That may seem simple enough but the next step is crucial and it highlights another deficiency in how Voss and Diamond consider planning. Once you have decided your own strategy you must then assume that your counter-part is doing the same thing. Again this may seem a somewhat superficial or obvious point but doing this exercise has significant implications. It may cause you to fundamentally reconsider plan since you must anticipate how your counterpart will react to your actions and behaviour. This gives Game Theory strategies a kind of meta-analysis where you must consider not just your incentives but also how the interaction between yourself and the other side is structured as a whole.

I feel this gives Dixit and Nalebuff’s account of strategy and planning a dynamic quality that is missing from Voss and Diamond’s accounts; this is unfortunate and I believe it exposes two blind spots in Voss and Diamond’s accounts. First despite the fact that Voss and Diamond repeatedly emphasis how important it is to “get inside the head” of the other side, for the most part they don’t treat the other side as a credible agent. The result is that when they describe applications of their techniques, they basically always succeed because the other side lacked the skill to either counter the technique or manipulate you in some other way. If my point is not clear, this rather trite scenario should make it explicit.

Assume an executive has studied the work of Voss and Diamond extensively in preparation for an important upcoming meeting. He gets there and finds that not only has his counterpart read both books, but he’s attended several personal seminars hosted by Voss and happens to have personally consulted with Diamond in preparation for this meeting. What happens then? 

There are two points to draw from this scenario. First , there are a range of skill levels and we can’t always assume that the people we negotiate with are necessarily naïve or unskilled. Further, if we assume our opponents are credible, we should also assume that they will use the same techniques to manipulate us, which has implications for how the negotiation is structured. 

The second point is Voss and Diamond haven’t explicitly accounted for what happens if you are dealing with a more skilled negotiator. I’m not talking about someone with access to better resources or greater power (Diamond does consider this possibility) I’m referring to someone who just happens to be a more competent negotiator.

In general, that shouldn’t be a problem in Game Theory as, if you can anticipate you won’t benefit from the negotiation you would just avoid it, however realistically there are scenarios in which a negotiation must be undertaken even if the outcome is likely failure. There are ways through Game Theory to respond to this scenario and I will consider them in the next section.

2.2 How to deal with failure

The possibility of failure exists for any endeavour. It is unfortunate then Voss and Diamond haven’t discussed how to manage failure in detail. To his credit, Diamond does touch on it, although he does not consider explicitly what happens when his techniques fail. He just reiterates that the purpose of his book is to show the reader how to “get more”, without fully acknowledging there may be situations in which his techniques could fail. Similarly Voss does not discuss any absolute failures. He does refer to moments in negotiations where he struggled but the outcome always seems to be positive when the right technique is applied.

In contrast, Dixit and Nalebuff are upfront that failure is always a possibility, even if you have a great strategy. Failure can occur because you are unlucky or perhaps you didn’t fully understand the stakes before starting the negotiation. But the most intriguing examples Dixit and Nalebuff consider are situation such as the classic prisoner’s dilemma. While I won’t describe this game in detail, it is basically a scenario in which both sides simultaneously make the correct and rational choice but end up creating the worst outcome given their options. This kind of inscrutable situation is a more accurate reflection of the complexities of any business activity including negotiation.

So what do Dixit and Nalebuff have to say on managing failure? It is a complicated topic, there are many possible ways to fail in a complex endeavour so Dixit and Nalebuff simplify the problem to begin with by looking at success and failure within sports. We can always add the complexity of the real-world back in later once we grasp the basic logic.

The game of tennis provides a pertinent analogy. The point to remember, and this is where a more analytic approach has the edge on Voss and Diamond’s argument, is that the game is dynamic i.e. it is not enough to make a strategy for yourself, you have to consider what your opponent is thinking and adjust your plan accordingly. 

For instance, how should you respond to a serve? Obviously you could choose a backhand or forehand volley, but which is best? One answer might be to always play to your strengths so always respond with your stronger hand. But if you do that, your opponent will know how you respond to every shot and retaliate accordingly, making your strong hand less effective. Game theory shows that simply playing your strength all the time will be less effective than mixing things up and sometimes playing a weaker hand.

Obviously always playing your weaker hand won’t work either, this will likely be even less successful than always playing your strength. So what’s the ideal mix? Determining this involves considering not just your own strengths and weaknesses but also those of your opponent. Does she play better to forehand shots or backhand shots? Ultimately if you consider your strength and those of your opponent an ideal mix based on your respective skill sets will emerge and this is your strategy.

It’s worth pushing this analogy a bit further as there are two curious points that can be derived from this scenario. First if your opponent also does this exercise, she will arrive at the same mix of forehand and backhand shots, just from her perspective. This fact was discovered by the famous mathematician John Nash and this scenario is known as the Nash equilibrium.

The second point indicates one way we could think about failure. It may be the case that after you’ve done this analysis you find that you are in fact the weaker side. The most likely outcome is that you will fail. However even if this is the case, you should still play to this strategy. If you deviate from this mix the most likely outcome is a poorer result. Your best hope is either that you get lucky or that your opponent deviates from the equilibrium.

In principal this may sound very intriguing, but I do believe this analogy starts to breakdown when we consider how this would work in practice. For instance knowing there is an ideal mix of forehand and backhand shots is all well and good but how can the mix of shots be sufficiently randomised so that the pattern is not obvious. If a player simply played ever third shot as a backhand then the strategy is not going to be effective since the pattern is not so complex as to prevent his opponent from recognising it. To make the Nash equilibrium there must be some degree of randomisation but not so much that the ideal mix of shots is threaten.

In reality, generating such semi-randomness becomes very problematic. How is a player, in the middle of a challenging match, suppose to compute a complicate randomisation calculation. While I do not know the mind of a professional tennis player, I nevertheless have a hard time believing that even a world class player would have the capacity to consciously run such complex calculations in the middle of play.

Having said that I suspect that peak athletes may in some way intuitively work through these calculations as they play. By that I mean they’ve develop a strong enough impression of their own skill and they should develop an impression their opponent’s strengths and weakness either as a match goes or through repeated play if they have played against each other before. Indeed it would be an intriguing research project to review top class tennis matches to see if players do eventually arrive at a Nash equilibrium as the match progresses. 

However, the main point here is that although game theory is an important and useful intellectual exercise for planning, implementing it in practice can be extremely challenging. It is here that I believe Voss and Diamond’s techniques become relevant. I would suggest that their more tactical approach is better suited to the practice of a negotiation once it’s begun. At that point the variability of factors becomes so great that calculating a nuanced game theory strategy would be impossible.

Hence Game Theory is extremely useful in planning and analysing the merits of a negotiation, but a more tactical approach is necessary once the meeting has been scheduled.
There remains though an alternative way to respond to the prospect of failure through Game Theory, and it’s another approach the Voss and Diamond have for the most part neglected. This strategy is to attempt to alter the game itself by deliberately behaving irrationally. This is a risky move and in the final section I will discuss a way this can be undertaken in a controlled manner.

2.3     Rationally deploying irrationality

This review has associated Getting More and Never Split the Difference with a style of negotiation that emphasises the human and emotional aspects of negotiations. It has also shown that both authors are sceptical on the merits of approaching negotiations from a purely rational and analytical perspective. It is somewhat curious then that neither Voss nor Diamond have considered how irrational actions can at times lead to a positive outcome from negotiations. They mostly caution against acting irrationally during negotiations. Instead saying that we should remain cool and rational throughout negotiations. While I think this is largely good advice, I’m sure many of us have experienced someone appearing to win a negotiation through an emotional outburst or apparently irrational action. Without encouraging anyone to act in such a manner, I do think it’s unfortunate that neither Voss or Diamond discuss this possibility sufficiently. 

On the other hand, Dixit and Nalebuff discuss at length how apparently irrational actions can shift a negation or deadlock through the idea of brinkmanship. In a certain sense implementing brinkmanship is not itself irrational in that the ultimate goal is to shift the negotiation in your favour. But for the action to be credible it be genuinely irrational i.e. it harms your position and this must be obvious to all sides. 

The idea is to introduce an element of risk into the game that threatens not only your opponent’s interests but also, and crucially, yours. It must threaten your own interests because otherwise your opponent won’t see the threat as credible. Therefore the action must have an obvious and potential immediate negative impact on yourself, otherwise he would just treat it as an empty threat. Since the risk must be genuine Dixit and Nalebuff treat brinkmanship as something of a last resort, something to be used only when the game your playing is likely to have a sufficiently bad outcome that you have no other choice.

Of course brinkmanship can only be considered successful if the eventual outcome is positive for you. Hence a second, and just as important factor, as having a genuine element of risk is that there is a clear and obvious way for your opponent to turn the situation back around again so that steady rational negotiations can be resumed.
In that sense then, when someone behaves irrationally in a negotiation and wins, it is not so much that a simple irrational action leads to victory, rather it’s that a specific and targeted element of risk has been introduced into the negotiation, which forced the other side to capitulate.

As noted the risk element must be genuine, this is where the danger arises. If your opponent does not capitulate and instead also decides to behave irrationally then a “slippery slope” of reciprocal bad behaviour can develop leading to a complete breakdown of the negotiation, which is in no one’s interest.

The classic example cited by Dixit and Nalebuff of brinkmanship is the Cuban Missile crisis. Here President Kennedy upped the stakes and forced the Soviets to backdown. I’m sure there are many conflicting accounts and interpretations of what happened during this period, I am no historian, so I can’t judge if Dixit and Nalebuff are factually correct in this analysis. Nevertheless, their account of this incident provides a useful example of how we might think about applying brinkmanship in negotiations.

Essentially their argument is that Kennedy did not simply threaten retaliation if the Russians proceeded any further in building up Cuba’s nuclear capabilities. This would not work since the Russians would assume that, as a rational agent, it would be against Kennedy’s interests to initiate a nuclear war. Instead what Kennedy did was hand over responsibility for the decision to go to war to his Navy. This heightened the risk of retaliation firstly because, as a branch of the military, the Navy would more likely take a hard-nosed attitude to any further incursions than a civilian politician answerable to the electorate. Secondly with so many ships moving back and forth between the USSR and Cuba the chance of a Soviet ship, even by accident, making a wrong move and the Navy misinterpreting such a move as an incitement to war rises significantly. As a result then the Soviets choose to backdown.

Of course, Dixit and Nalebuff acknowledge that there are risks in using this approach. In introducing a slippery slope, it’s entirely possible you might slide down it yourself but as with the topic of failure they should be credited for at least broaching the subject.

3. Conclusion

This review considered two approaches to negotiations: strategic and tactical. Both have uses and in fact one another. Strategic analysis is useful in determining whether to negotiate or not in the first place, devising a plan to stick to during the negotiation and in considering methods to change a losing stance into a winning one.

However deploying a strategy in reality is challenging, this is where it is useful to adopt a more tactical approach. This approach helps us form relationships, understand the stakes in the negotiation and discover options we’d not previously considered.
Therefore I would suggest utilising both the strategic elements of Dixit and Nalebuff’s arguments and the more tactical techniques proposed by Voss and Diamond as the context dictates.

To end on then, I’ll just briefly highlight a couple of topics I feel the authors overlooked. First there is a question of the role that luck plays in success. To some extent Dixit and Nalebuff acknowledge this as they do include odds for failure in the models they describe but there is no explicit discussion on the role that chance can play in producing success.
The second issue relates more to the impact of complexity in modelling a game. By that I mean there may be scenarios that are so complex that doing the mathematics to evaluate the outcomes appears impossible (or in the very least calculations would take longer than the lifespan of the universe to work out). 

How should we approach such issues? Beginning with the later point, this is an important topic to be aware of when we attempt to model reality. At best a model is an extremely useful approximation of reality that somehow is close enough to let us control some aspect of the world (think about the triumphs of modern engineering). However they have limitations and we should be mindful of these as we form plans. With luck, it seems to me that we cannot fundamentally quantify entirely unforeseen events (if we could they would not be unforeseen). In that case we should be open to chance when it can benefit us but also take some consolation from its role when we fail.
 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Stuart Diamond's talk at Google

Chris Voss's talk at Google

Barry Nalebuff lectures on his Honestea venture

Lecture from Avinash Dixit

Review: Things I Have Learned in My Life So Far by Stefan Sagmeister and Draplin Design Co: Pretty Much Everything by Aaron James Draplink

I decided to mix things up a little with this review. Generally I review books with a strong thesis. But on this occasion I will look at a couple of books that are more biographic and reflective. Not being a professional designer I find I can only approach the subject of design from an inspirational viewpoint. I'm intrigued by good design, how it was made and why it works. I'm also often engaged by the careers of successful designers. I feel both books are strong on inspirational and have biographical aspects.

Why review both books together?

There are some interesting overlaps but also intriguing differences.

I would characterise Things I have learned in my life so far as a thin book and Pretty Much Everything as a thick book. That is not to say that Sagmeister’s text is in any way light. It’s more that he has deliberately chosen a concise format. Things I have learned consists of 15 individual pamphlets, each pamphlet containing at least one aphorism. The aphorisms are presented as photo montages of public installations Sagmeister made with collaborators. There is also some text included which describes the creation of the installation and reflects on the aphorisms’ meanings. The scale of some are particularly impressive. Draplin's text on the other hand is more directly autobiographic with extensive examples of his own designs and projects.

Things I learned in my life so far

It’s tricky to discuss Sagmeister’s book in detail as, for me, one of its most enjoyable aspects is paging through the pamphlets and discovering each aphorism and accompanying installation. I will try not to spoil the surprise too much but a good example of the aphorism’s character is the following which was the first one published:

"Everything I do always comes back to me"

The message itself is quite simple, perhaps in a certain sense obvious, but it’s the context of the message that makes it meaningful. There is something very pleasing in skimming through the visual representation of the aphorisms, dwelling on what they mean and then reading Sagmeister’s own comments.

Draplin Design Co: Pretty much everything

Draplin’s book is largely an autobiography that focuses on his career highlights. It also presents a substantial amount of his designs and projects.

Unlike Things I have learned, everything presented here was for the most part created by Draplin himself and the text mainly focuses on how he made a successful career in graphic design.

Hence why I say Pretty much everything is a thick book. I can’t with certainty say it would be useful for professional designers (not being one I can’t judge that). But if you find Draplin’s designs already intriguing this is a great source for more detail.

I also found his account of his career compelling. Draplin seems to have found a great balance between doing something creative and paying the bills. (I wonder if this blog might pay the bills one day…)

Comparison

While there are some autobriogpahic elements to Things I have learned and I do believe there is a certain underlying sensibility connecting the aphorisms and their installations, I find the arresting quality of the visuals, and the aphoristic form of the text, serve to distance the text from the author. They feel like broad statements on life and addressed to anyone.

Draplin's account feels much more personal. This is his story and he wants to share it with us.
Personally I would recommend both books. If you must pick one, think about what you are looking for. If you want a detail insight on how to make a career in graphic design or want to learn more about Draplin’s style, go for Pretty much everything. But if you’re looking for some broader inspiration pick up Things I have learned so far.
But in the end both are great.
 

Further Media

An interview with Stefan Sagmeister on Tobias van Schneider's Nice to meet you podcast

Presentation by Aaron James Draplin at Google

Review: Things I Have Learned in My Life So Far by Stefan Sagmeister and Draplin Design Co: Pretty Much Everything by Aaron James Draplink by William Samuel McDonald is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Review: High Output Management, Andy Grove

“Thus managers rise to their level of incompetence” (Andy Grove)

Introduction

Andy Grove was President, CEO and ultimately chairman of the board at Intel. It's worth noting this as High Output Management draws significantly on this experience.

It is difficult book to summarise as Grove mixes his own management theory, with case studies and personal reflection. Unlike for instance Zero to One, where Theil presents and reiterates several core themes, each chapter of High Output Management feels self contained.

But to apply some overarching structure to the text, I would suggest that it begins with a mostly theoretical discussion and moves to more practical analysis. Grove evaluates general management concepts, moving to consider organisational structure and ultimately to practical topics such as hiring, staff motivation and employee evaluation.

I would suggest there are 2 core ideas to this book:

• An output-orientated approach to management

• The work of modern organisations is done by teams not individuals. Hence to maximise output managers must maximise the output of all their subordinates

How can managers optimise output? The first question should be what is output. For Grove it is a concept, that broadly describes the impact a manager has on her firm’s capacity to reach its goals. It is also fundamentally a group phenomenon. Grove writes: "A manager can do his "own" job, his individual work, and do it well, but that does not constitute his output.”

Essentially a manager’s goal is to maximise his subordiantes’ abilities to perform and thereby influence the direction of the firm. As result managers should primarily be evaluated on the output the produce for the firm.

As the breadth of Grove’s text is significant this review shall just consider two topics: the implications for organisational management and people management. However it is a rich text and well worth a look by anyone in a management irrespective of organisational size and type.

i)             Organisational implications

The rationale for Grove’s team focus is that the nature of work for modern firms is founded on a knowledge asymmetry to between senior managers and subordinates.

Of course there has always been an asymmetry between new and old employees but this one is of a new type. Traditionally it has been the case that senior employees will know more that their subordinates and new hires to the company. In technology companies, however this is not necessarily the case. Obviously senior employees continue to have greater knowledge of the firm, its processes and more perhaps more general understanding of how to work in an office environment, but fresh employees can have more up to date knowledge on cutting edge research (which is particularly important for manufacturing and engineering industries), this means that managers must work with the subordinates in a way that was not essential before. Managers must be able to evaluate and implement the knowledge that their subordinates can brings.

Clearly Grove was working for a firm in which new hires would have update knowledge on manufacturing that their managers may not have since they only recently graduated. The question then is, does the theory for organisation less dependent on cutting edge research and development?

While there may be an argument that this information asymmetry is not so prevalent in other types of companies, the broader focus on output I believe is very useful. Indeed in other respects Grove’s argument is quite traditional.

Although he emphasise the importance of having a strong team culture, when it comes to decision making, Grove’s idea is hierarchal Ultimately there must be one decision maker, otherwise discussions will go around in circles (peer-group syndrome) until a mushy consensus develops.

Management by objectives must be very focused. We must consider where we want to go (objective) and how we want to get there (milestones, key results). Objectives between supervisors and their subordinates should be aligned so that as the subordinate reaches their objective the supervisor also reaches theirs.

Be careful not to be too specific in assessing the completion of objectives. The main thing is to have objectives in place, but of course as time moves forward unexpected events and opportunities might arise so discretion is essential

Another important note is it is not essential that everyone agrees with the ultimate decision but it is important that everyone supports the decision. This can be particularly troublesome for middle managers but recent graduates and more experienced manager understand this approach

From an organizational standpoint, Grove argues that once an organisation reaches a certain size it will tend to drift towards one of two structures:

• Mission-oriented

• Functional-oriented

Mission orientated companies are highly regional, autonomous from the central organisation, and will often be competitive with other regions for resources for the main organisation. Functional oriented companies on the other hand are highly centralise and can often be much quicker to implement strategy. Most organisations are a hybrid between these two extremes, often firms will shift from one to another during their life

Grove also believes that for firms to be successful they must adopt a hybrid structure that encompasses elements of boss forms.

The only exceptions to this rule being small startup where roles are in general flexible and large conglomerates that own businesses without common business purposes.

ii)            People management

In general, even with the best managerial techniques the success of an organisation will depend on the quality of the people. Therefore all managers can do is create an environment in which good people can thrive.

Another crucial aspect that managers must consider is the motivating factors of their staff and the type of organisation environment they work in.

Grove suggest that individual behavior is controlled by three factors:

• Free market force - price and self-interest

• Contractual obligations - price is too difficult to determine (more mutually interests)

• Cultural values - too complex to control through contracts (can be completely selfless)

Managers must also consider the working culture of their office (CUA factors)

• Complex

• Uncertain

• Ambiguous

An office that has high self-interest and high ambiguity will be chaos.

 Another to bear in mind is the timing of when an employee is hired. Employees will tend to high self-interest at first with this diminishing over time. For low level employees this not such a problem but what if you must appoint a new senior hirer?

It is also crucial for managers to evaluate their subordinates on an ongoing basis and vary these principles when looking to hire new staff or pursued a valuable employee not to quit.

Final one of the more intriguing concepts of the text is the Peter principle which is that candidates for promotion are selected based on their performance in their current role, hence all staff will eventually rise “to their level of incompetence. Grove suggests that management should accept this phenomena as their problem and attempt to recycle employees in such circumstances back down to roles they are capable of."

Review The Best Interface Is No Interface, Golden Krishna

"Good design solves problems. Good experience design isn't about good screens, it's about good experiences." (Golden Krishna)

Summary

There are two main discussion points in this book. First is an account of a screen obsessed culture, second is a discussion on alternatives and speculations on what non-screen-based technical solutions might look like. Krishna is particularly concerned by how a concentration of screen based solutions limits our thinking. This focus on the screen has led to a culture where every company, startup or entrepreneur feels an app is necessary for their service, even when this is inappropriate and creates poor user experience. More worryingly, Krishna speculates that using advertising as the primary revenue source incentivizes firms to create poor screen-based technical solutions because this will lead consumers to spend more time on the app. 

In general, the alternative solutions Krishna proposes emphasise speed, simplicity and seamlessness. They are what Krishna describes as “typical processes”, which in effect means they have a physical component and offer a neat solution to common problems. A good example of what he’s getting at is the Nest smart thermostat, which can learn and adjust itself based on the routines of the occupants of the home.

A screen culture

Krishna repeatedly emphasizes that we live in a screen orientated culture. He bases this perception on several observations. Today it seems that every business from car manufactures to grocery stores to coffee shops feel compelled to make an app. More subtly though, Krishna observes a change in the language in how our culture discusses interfaces. In the first chapter he comments that our general understanding of the word interface has come to be associated with screen-based interactions with computer systems. Indeed, the job descriptions many firms put out for UX and UI designers are interchangeable. In fact, as Krishna notes, these are two distinct roles; one focuses on interaction between consumers and systems via screen-based behaviours and the other is much broader, encompassing the entire experience of using the system. The fact these jobs are now mostly treated as the same indicates how deeply our interactions with technology are premised on manipulation of a screen.

The reason that Krishna finds this situation so objectionable is that he believes it leads to suboptimal technical solutions. Undeniably there are situations in which screen based interfaces are best, but in limiting our thinking to the screen we are missing out. The classic example he cites of such sloppy thinking is the excruciating experience of unlocking a car with an app. Krishna goes through the process of doing this step by step, making it clear that this “solution” only adds complexity. Far better, is a non-screen based technology such as integrating a simple proximity sensor into the car keys that can automatically unlock the car when the owner is nearby.

However, Krishna not only suggest this is the result of lazy thinking or a herd, in some cases something more insidious could be going on. For better or worse many internet-based businesses use advertising to make money. As a result, the more time customers spend on their site the better for them. This means that firms have an incentive to make less effective interfaces so customers spend longer on their sites. Would Google be more effective without displaying prominent links? Would Facebook or Twitter work better without ads? These are the questions Krishna raises and most consumers would agree that indeed these services would be better without advertising. 

Incentives

This topic of balancing business and consumer incentives is an important one. It is obvious that businesses need consumers to survive, this is the position that Krishna takes. But something that is not commented on so much, is that consumers need businesses to provide them with services. Hence why, so long as the service for the most part works, firms can push customers towards suboptimal interfaces that serve their purposes. However perhaps a more balanced approach is possible, where some compromise is made on the experience but the consumer could benefit elsewhere.

Recently I had my own “The Best Interface is no Interface Experience”. I use a store brand card here in Germany to collect points on purchases I make, which I can then be used to buy items offered by their partners (kitchenware for instance). The card has a barcode on the reverse and the most basic way to collect points is to either hand your card to the cashier after he’s done scanning your groceries or scanning it yourself on a barcode reader attached to the till. Over the last couple of years, the firm behind these cards has been pushing its customers to use an app. With the app you can activate various coupons and also activate a barcode for scanning. 

I had forgotten my card one day so decided to try out the app. Of course, by the time I activated the app the cashier had scanned all my items and was ready for me to pay. At this point he was unwilling to let me scan the barcode (in Germany cashiers are typically very efficient but not always so friendly). This would seem to be a typical example of Krishna’s argument; with the card everything can be done much more seamlessly than the app.

However, I do think there is a more complicated point here. First, the question is why is the firm pushing customers to use the app rather than the card that works fine. I think partly this is due to the rise of online shopping, the firm wants its customers to experiment with using the card other ways than just scanning it at the end of a shop. Another reason is that I noticed the firm had started to offer a payment service through the app. With the payment service, you can add your bank details to your account and then the app can generate a QR code for payment.

Not a bad idea. This could potentially have the advantage of something like the paywave technology in modern credit cards, it also has the advantage that you can collect points and finally since it’s linked to your bank account the money goes directly out of your account (in Germany credit cards are often frowned upon so I imagine paywave is not as successful as in other countries). 

However, there is still the interface issue. I’ve not used the payment method myself, however I was in line when a young fellow in front of me tried to use it. He certainly had a much friendlier cashier than I did, they spent a good 5 minutes trying to get either the self-scanner or the cashiers scanner to recognize the code. Having used paywave myself (I am not skeptical about credit cards) I can say that this experience was much worse. However despite the interface issues I do think this is potentially a very good service.

In the end I think this firm is really trying to diversify their service and offering a payment scheme is potentially quite lucrative. On the other side consumers have the possibility of paying for small transaction in a neat way without having to use a credit card. Sure maybe the user experience is not great but compromise on the experience might be worth it.
 

Review of Ghost in the Shell (1995)

To continue the Sci-Fi trend of recent movie reviews, this week’s review is 1995 film adaption of Masamune Shirow’s Manga Ghost in the Shell. This franchise may well become more well-known in the coming years as Scarlett Johansson is due to star in a live-action remake.

The story focuses on Kusanagi Motoko (the Major), leader of an elite special forces team tasked with thwarting cyber-terrorism. In the film, they have the goal of tracking down “The Puppet Master” a mysterious hacker responsible some high-profile diplomatic assignations through brain hacking attendants and bystanders. The film being set in a future were the majority of people have some kind of cybernetic implant, and in the case of the Major being just a brain implanted a full cybernetic body.

Bearing in mind the film came out in the mid-1990s, it’s remarkably how prescient it is on a number of today’s hot topics such as government surveillance via internet technology and the dangers of AI.

I also particularly enjoy the Major’s character. At this time (and still somewhat today) it’s usual to see a female lead in such role. She is also quite unlike traditional action stars, introverted and often brooding on complex existential questions.

While GITS is a cult favorite, it does have some dictators. I think this is largely due to a plot that can be rather obtuse on first viewing and the dialogue that does get rather philosophical at times. I found the film improves significant with re-watching and I actually quite enjoy the shifts in tone from all out action to angst-ridden self-reflection.

I’d say a good way to approach the film for the first time is to either check out the manga first or reading a synopsis online. Just bear in mind the comic has a much more irreverent tone than film. It’s definitely worth checking out and I’d recommend watching it with the Japanese audio and subtitles.

Review of Her

The second feature length film from Spike Jonze (his first being the excellent Being John Malkovich). Set in the not too distant future, Her’s protagonist (played by Joaquin Phoenix), divorced and emotionally disconnected, installs a new “OS” and gradually falls in love with the AI (excellently voiced by Scarlett Johansson).

Being a bit of a sci-fi buff, I was keen to check out this film and I was not disappointed. While far-fetched, the plot works extremely well, it really feels like Spike Jonze (who also draft the script) thought through the story and visuals for the film long before making it.

I find his treatment of the AI theme particularly interesting as well. Generally, films that have anything to do with AI treat the subject very seriously and the setting has an apocalyptic atmosphere (think Blade Runner or that rather unrated Tom Cruise movie Oblivion). Here the setting is sunny and beautiful for the most part, it appears to have been filmed in LA and Shanghai, and the tone has more in common with a romantic comedy than the Terminator.

At more than two hours it is a long film, but I found it captivating from start to finish. Brilliant executed and I should appeal to a large audience.