Game Theory in Management

“You must unlearn what you have learned.”

In my previous blog(s) I have addressed how much of what passes for insightful management science, as taught at the college level, is really rather silly stuff. From the assertion that the purpose of all management is “to maximize shareholder wealth,” all the way down to risk management types being able to quantify the future, a whole lot of drivel masquerading as sophisticated analysis has been introduced to the business decision-making process, at all levels of the organization. What is there to do about it?

Well, Yoda has a point in the previous quote. And it may very well be that a small band of truly enlightened Jedi (strikethrough) managers do succeed in turning the great ship of management science towards a set of structured ideas that far more accurately reflect what’s happening in the real microeconomic universe.

But I kind of doubt it.

I think far more likely scenario unfolds where professionals who are blissfully free from having been indoctrinated in the standard MBA fare will find themselves in positions to make managerial decisions, and will make better ones than their counterparts enmired in the drivel.

“Judge me by my size, do you?”

And where, exactly, will these non-indoctrinated managers learn the more advanced tricks of their trade? Actually, that’s kind of an easy question, being, as we are, in the midst of an information technology revolution. The most obvious places would be web sites such as ProjectManagement.com. There are also myriad books, many of them best-sellers, that directly challenge many of the precepts of standard management science. For example, I’m convinced nobody can read Nassim Taleb’s The Black Swan, the Impact of the Highly Improbable, and then sit through a paper presentation given by a risk management-type without erupting into a fit of the giggles. Michael Crichton, in his CalTech/Michelin Lecture series speech “Aliens Cause Global Warming,” points out the irrefutable fact that consensus is not science, and science has nothing to do with consensus, period. All “science” needs is a single researcher who happens to be right, and can reproduce her results in the laboratory. Management science is somewhat removed from the hard sciences, in that it’s impossible for us to isolate the parameters of the experiments we need to test our theories; however, Crichton’s basic assertions are perfectly transferable. It doesn’t really matter if most business school professors insist that the point of all management is to maximize shareholder wealth – those in the real world who know better will outperform their “better educated” associates, and in obvious ways.

“For once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.”

Pick up a typical university-level textbook on quantitative analysis in business, and thumb through it. Pretty daunting stuff, no? Even after having survived accounting, finance, statistics, and micro and macroeconomics, I remember being pretty freaked out when I bought my text on the subject. But after immense amounts of effort and time, ingest the material I did. Imagine, then, my consternation when additional scholarship led me to question its precepts, and then to come to the conclusion that most of it was profoundly misguided. I didn’t want to give up on that knowledge! It made me more capable than those who hadn’t been as “educated!”  The accountants have a saying that you should never invoke the sunk cost argument while contributing to a business discussion on whether or not to continue with a given project. While that may be easy to observe in an organizational setting, personally it’s very, very hard. Once someone has devoted significant time and effort to any given structured set of ideas – religion, politics, how to manage – getting them to realize that they may be in error is next to impossible, much less convincing them to reverse course. But I’m reminded of an old Turkish saying – “It’s never too late to turn back from the wrong path.”

While Yoda’s sage wisdom was certainly true in most cases, the whole bit about “forever dominating your destiny” wasn’t so with Darth Vader/Aniken Skywalker, was it? I suppose 800-year-old fictional aliens are only so sanguine when it comes to portfolio management…

Is there a dark side to portfolio management? You bet your tauntaun there is. In that famous mythological universe far, far away, adherents to The Dark Side are (usually) easily recognizable by being dressed head-to-foot in black, glowing yellow eyes, and a predilection for spreading misery during a personal quest for near-absolute power. In the management world, such external indicators are not usually present, at least not in such apparent manifestations; however, the signs are there, if you know what to look for.

As with The Force, the prime differences between the light and dark sides of portfolio management are centered on motivation. In the management world, there’s a certain naïve assumption that all businesses are ongoing concerns, and that managers seek to keep their enterprises going as long as possible. But that’s not what’s taught at college-level business schools around the world – they’re not instructed to “maximize shareholder wealth for as long as possible.” They’re simply taught to maximize shareholder wealth.

The differences between organizations that are on-going concerns and those that are not are as stark as those between Yoda and Emperor Palpatine. The ongoing concern will seek to enlarge its customer base by providing better, more economical products and services, whereas the organizations that have a pretty good idea of when their time is up will seek to exploit the existing customer base, maximizing the amount of money to be taken from them while minimizing the expense of providing goods or services.

The Dark-Side portfolio managers don’t (necessarily) taunt their perceived adversaries during one-on-one combat situations, but they do, by necessity, communicate differently. Organizations with a known term date range simply can’t be honest in their communications with employees or customers, since such honesty would dramatically accelerate such organizations’ demise. Employees would know that they had better seek employment elsewhere, and the higher the level of talent, the quicker they will be able to do so. Likewise, customers would instantly recognize the futility of entering into or maintaining any kind of an economic relationship with such an organization, and explore alternatives (i.e., seek their desired goods/services from providers who can be expected to be available long-term).

Okay, so if these portfolio managers’ eyes don’t glow yellow, how are their Dark Sided motives displayed? Consider the following table:

“For once you start down the Dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny!” While much of what is offered up as galactic theology in Star Wars sounds like it was written by a fortune cookie fortune writer on drugs, Yoda was largely correct about this particular insight, which leads me to speculate: which side is more consistent with the whole “maximize shareholder wealth” meme?

I’ve recently received a rash of e-mails and snail-mails, offering classes on how to become a better business writer. The one I received on Friday had in-between my name and the rest of my mailing address an entry that was, I suppose, my profession: “Author, Blogger.” Now, I understand these things sometimes happen, and I’m sure virtually all of my readers who are already PMP®s still receive communications offering classes to attain the PMP®. Sometimes a reference to their PMP® is even included in the mailing address. I’ve even been spammed by a company in the Middle East that teaches portfolio management (ProjectManagement.com’s April theme) that uses my first book as its text (Things Your PMO Is Doing Wrong, PMI Publishing, 2008). But when I noticed the uptick in the number of business writing classes I was being offered, I had to stop to think – was this an attempt from Cameron to subtly let me know that I had to up my game? Did he pass my e-mail and contact information to these guys, or are the offerors really unaware that I’ve been writing professionally about business in general, and project management in particular, for some time? One of the brochures named its instructor, a fellow who apparently has never even published a book on business.

It’s not as if I could just shoot an e-mail to Cameron, saying, “Yo, Cameron, are you doing this?” For one, if he was behind this trend, then asking him if he was could be taken as an additional sign of my cluelessness. And, if he wasn’t, but I accused him of being behind it, then he would instantly recognize that I was overthinking it.

But, seriously, isn’t that what portfolio managers are supposed to do? Because when we start talking about PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT (oooooh!), the automatic implication is that those engaged in that enterprise (pun intended) are soooo much more broad-minded than the rest of us project managers, mired, as we are, in our Agile, or Scrum, or Critical Path Method echo-chambers. Consider the following payoff grid (we Game Theory hacks love these things):

Now consider the portfolio manager, at the receiving end of a barrage of management information streams, situated similarly to a 50-pound catfish at the base of a dam’s spillway, trying to decide what’s good to eat (for a catfish, anyway), and what’s not. The information bits come streaming by, and they belong to one of the categories in the above table (Here’s an easy hint: virtually everything your risk manager tells you is in category 2). What’s the worst thing that a portfolio manager can do? Isn’t it to underthink things, to mis-identify something that is, in actuality, in category 4, as being instead from categories 1-3? And then, not acting on it until it’s too late? Clearly, if the error to avoid at all costs for the portfolio manager is to underthink things, then the only other two outcomes are to either think the exactly appropriate amount (which is next to impossible), or else to overthink them.

What the portfolio manager needs is a structure, a systemic method for identifying which information streams are truly relevant, and in what situations. Such a structure would take into account the three levels of information topics:

·         Internal to the organization;

·         External to the organization itself, but internal to its economic base (customers and potential customers), and, finally

·         External to both the organization and its customers, but internal to its business environment, i.e., the competition and government.

Some freakishly talented CEOs have a natural sense of how these three different management arenas interact and influence each other, but the rest of us could use a little help from our computers. So, how do you set up your management information systems to collect the pertinent data, process it correctly, and deliver the needed information to actually perform portfolio management? I cover this topic at length in my second book – or, you can just keep reading ProjectManagement.com blogs.

Assuming, of course, Cameron doesn’t fire me because he really was behind the whole writing-classes-marketing-onslaught thing, and I’m just not getting it.

A major sticking point in my ongoing feud with the risk management-types (you’d think that after Kevin Kostner’s excellent mini-series Hatfields and McCoys that the RM-types would avoid engaging in a feud with a Hatfield) was that, while definitions abound on what risk management is, they couldn’t define what it is not. The basic definition offered up by your typical RMer (and, in this case, Wikipedia) is as follows:

Risk management is the identification, assessment, and prioritization of risks (defined in ISO 31000 as the effect of uncertainty on objectives, whether positive or negative) followed by coordinated and economical application of resources to minimize, monitor, and control the probability and/or impact of unfortunate events or to maximize the realization of opportunities.[i]

Two things jump out at me from this: the effect of uncertainty on objectives? Really? (And don’t get me started on the dictionary-bending term “positive risk.”) Which kind of leads me to my previous point, that “uncertainties” abound in all of management, and these cannot be tamped down with hyperventilated Gaussian curve analysis.

Which brings us to April’s theme, portfolio management. The definitions I came across for portfolio management (watch out for Investopedia – many pop-ups) are similarly expansive, but that’s kind of the point – the whole notion of managing a “portfolio,” as opposed to a project, program, or organization, is that, somehow, the Portfolio Manager takes into account the things that his more myopic management siblings ignore, either because of irrelevancy or incompetence.  Did the billing rates for your organization’s designers just jump upward? Not the project manager’s fault – the handling of the assets isn’t his bailiwick. But the Portfolio Manager gets no such get-out-of-jail-free card. She must have a handle on such things, with a foreknowledge of the future implications of these developments, live-time, even as they unfold. And that, dear readers, is quite the trick.

But I know how it’s done, and how it’s done has to do with what portfolio management is not. Unlike risk management, portfolio management’s proper definition is expansive in the extreme, since it encompasses all other management functions. Since it’s the whole kit-and-kaboodle, it will naturally brush up against that age-old question: what is the point of management?

In business schools across the globe, the pat answer to that question is: to maximize shareholder wealth. To those myriad Ph.D.s who teach this, let me state unequivocally, you are either profoundly mistaken (at best), or frauds (at worst). The folly of “maximizing shareholder wealth” being the be-all and end-all of management has been shown to be invalid, time and again. I’ve taken many a shot at it, but certainly the seminal work in highlighting this silliness belongs to Tom Peters.

To their credit the project management crowd never tried to claim the mantle of being the ultimate point of management (except, tangentially, the risk managers, who have been taken to task by me and others).

Well, then, if portfolio management needs to be defined, and it is brushing up against a clearly articulable version of the ultimate goal of management in general, what’s the ultimate goal of management in general?

Okay, everybody, clear the gunwales, and brace yourselves: Hatfield, via ProjectManagement.com, is going to articulate said definition. The ultimate goal of management is to influence behaviors and decisions in such a way as to bring about a favorable economic outcome.

Yeah, I know, this definition is very broad. However, it can be broken down into its basic components, as I described in my must-have second book. I’ll also continue to discuss it as April’s theme unfolds.

No discussion of customer relations management – this month’s ProjectManagement.com’s theme – would be complete without a review of that relations epic FAIL, the interview of Katherine Hepburn by the, ahem, journalist, Phil Donahue.

It took place in 1991, when Hepburn was 84 years old. For an hour Donahue interviewed the famed actress, who discussed her life and career. At the end, Donahue asked Hepburn to autograph a copy of her autobiography, Me, and that’s when things got, shall we say, interesting. (Full disclosure – I’m not relaying all of the interaction, just some selected quotes.)

“What’s your name?” she asked.

Donahue, clearly put off, leaned forward and answered “Geraldo Rivera.”

Hepburn started laughing, immediately recognizing that Donahue wasn’t Rivera, but Donahue wasn’t about to give her a break. After some banter, he continued:

“You don’t know, do you? I bet you don’t know.”

Hepburn continued to try to write something – anything – special in the front page of the book, but Donahue wouldn’t stop pestering her.

“So, we’re going to sit here, and you won’t be able to sign this!”

“I’m just going to sign my name” she said, with a giggle. But Donahue wouldn’t let up.

“Twenty-four years on the air, over 5,000 hours, and you don’t know who the hell I am!”

Of course, not being a fan of Phil myself, I would count that last assertion as a compliment. Donahue eventually told her his name, and how to spell it, ending the interview.

At the time, Katherine Hepburn had been nominated for no fewer than 12 Academy Awards (a record surpassed only recently by Meryl Streep), winning four of them – a record that stands to this day. The American Film Institute named her the greatest female star in Hollywood history.

Donahue was listed #42 on TV Guide’s list of greatest television stars.

I’m thinking that any interviewer with a modicum of class (or perspective) would have given the aging icon a little room. It’s not as if leaping into a state of high dudgeon was going to suddenly re-introduce Phil’s name into her memory. Add to that the fact that Hepburn was in the process of complying with Donahue’s request to sign her book for him, and his intent becomes all the more incomprehensible. Did he want to humiliate her, on-air? If so, would that bode well for the prospects of landing future interviews with any Hollywood star over the age of 60? If his intention was to avoid having her appear aged and forgetful, why didn’t he just dispense with the dramatic re-telling of his resume, and just start spelling his name? Finally, by granting the interview in the first place, who was doing whom a favor here?

I believe Donahue’s out-sized ego interfered with his ability to properly manage the interviewer/interviewee relationship, which, I think, points to a truism that underpins all customer relations management: a little humility goes a long way.

Consider virtually any cataclysmic people-interaction/ relations failure – do they not have in common an inappropriate sense of self-worth on the part of the failing party? Napolean, Custer, the board of directors of IBM in the late 1970s – all must have felt invincible, right up to the time of their best-remembered blunders. As I discussed in my previous blogs (particularly about the Soup Nazis), if your product, project, or service is absolutely unique, AND in high demand, then and only then do you have a bit of latitude to indulge your superiority complex, and even in those circumstances the opportunity for epic failure is never really far away. You want a fast fix for your organization’s customer relations management issues? Introduce a little humility – that’ll fix most of what ails you.

And it will keep you from acting like Phil Donahue.