sajeev emmanuel medikonda

I am struggling with the fact that the Ship30 cohort is over and I no longer need to post an essay everyday.

I no longer seem to have the same motivation when I sit down to write. However, the contract to the way things were in the past is the fact that I sit down to write almost at around the same time. Which is the reason you have this peice of writing in front of you.

So number 1 take way is the fact that you should establish the practice of ensuring you sit down to write.

Secondly, resist the urge to take a break from the habit of writing and publishing daily, especially as you have learnt to publish imperfect material.

So, while I have got these two right, the next thing I have to build a habit around is putting in place a practice for content creation and topic selection. There are proven ways to do this, but I need to figure how to do this well. I have seen a number of people work on Personal Knowledge Management tools, maybe that is the way forward for me.

What has ensured that you have kept writing when you longer had to?

Identity is treated as critical today but has that always been the case?

For as long as I have been aware, the need for identity has been well made by people across the spectrum. I have been wondering if there has ever been a time in the past, say even as recent 300-500 years ago when identity wasn't really a worthwhile concept.

Is personal identity really natural to social beings?

Or is it a forced concept which is a product of the modern age?

Given the number of scandals in listed companies which are governed by boards which have oversight, it is practically impossible for investors especially retail ones to have a true picture of what is happening within a firm.

Investors take time and effort to evaluate a company before investing and then continue to track the company. However, apart from whatever information a company decides to put out and the auditor's comments on the financials it is almost impossible to get a true inside picture especially in case of the traditional sectors. And then the picture gets even more distorted in case of a sector with long cycles for sales or product development.

For example, there is little way to know of the quality systems at a B2B manufacturer until there is a significant adverse report from a regulator.

Having said this, following a company for a sufficiently long period of time, understanding the drivers of growth & margins in an industry should suffice most of the time.

Companies to an extent share data on the market and the sales pipeline but where there is little information shared is on the operational side, other than what is manadated for ESG purposes.

So the key to truly understand a company is to ask question during the investor calls on the operational metrics like cost of poor quality/ utilization% of resources and ensure that over a period of time the company you are investing is sharing that information. Consistently asking for the same information/ data points over and over, could force the company to start sharing the information voluntarily.

In a nutshell,

• Understand the value chain of the company

• Attend Investor Calls and ask questions focused on the operational aspects

• Create metrics for which you want data points

• Ask for the data on a consistent basis

I didn't have to write an essay today, but am still writing.

So that is what building a habit over 30 days does. Being born a procrastinator, I simply kept postponing developing my writing habit for over 4 years. Then Ship30 happened, and I wrote 29 atomic essays and 1 thread in 30 days.

How was that possible, when I have rarely been able to do something so regularly unless it was work/employment related?

In the last two days, I have talked about some of the benefits of the Ship30 course, I am not going to reiterate them here.

Instead, I am just going to highlight one often overlooked fact. If you don't make a significant substantial commitment towards a learning goal, you are unlikely to make any progress. And this is especially the case when the commitment is monetary.

While the sunk cost fallacy is often highlighted as detrimental to decision-making, in this it actually comes to our aid in habit formation.

While that isn't the only benefit of joining a course, it definitely is a big one that I would espouse as it made sure that I didn't just write 30 times in 30 days but also on the 31st day.

I didn't achieve anything awe-inspiring in 30 days of writing daily.

I haven't found my niche, I don't think that is likely any time soon. I wrote about Strategy, my experiences, some things about my faith, and failures. None of my atomic essays have garnered more than ten likes.

Having said that, the very fact that I am typing this out is a victory of sorts.

Ship30for30 is a great cohort based course which just challenges you to write for 30 days.

As I mentioned yesterday, it is not possible to do this on the back of sheer will-power. Community can be a great driver for consistency. It is surprising how much of a support other learners focussed on writing can be. If there is nothing else which I can take away from the course, it is the fact that people in a cohort course are much better than you can imagine. For example, being vulnerable can actually open healing avenues which wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

Apart from the community it is the permission to create content which may not be perfect but allows you to move forward.

While I still haven't reconciled to a forumalaic method to digital writing, I can clearly see the impact of the frameworks in the writings of others. There has been multiple-folds improvement in the writing of those who follow the frameworks. So even as I come to the close of the course, not really having followed the frameworks, I guess if I have make good on my 30 days I will have to get into the frameworks.

In case anyone is tempted to know more, I would fully recommend them joining the ship and please do get in touch. I would be happy to help.

Day 29 has been a real struggle to get the essay going.

Going just by the force of habit, without putting to use other frameworks which would allow for habit formation, is futile. Leaving it to sheer will power is putting too much burden on one aspect. That is where the Ship30 course can be really helpful.

The creation of a community which supports each other is one strong pillar of the 30 day program.

Another aspect is the exposure to various frameworks - from ideation to claiming of niches.

There is indeed a lot that one can benefit from in the course including the quality of peers.

What it takes to successful in leadership is changing.

Here are seven ways in which emerging leaders need to be different from traditional leaders.

1. The Power Holder vs The Power Sharer. While traditionally leaders needed to hold on to power to reassure, leaders now have to be willing to step back so that others can lead.

2. The Tactition vs The Visionary. While traditionally the focus for the leader was on the short term tactics, today's leader needs to build a vision for the long term to energize the team

3. The Constant vs The Adapter. While in the past, the leader had to stay consistent to provide direction, now the leader has to adjust course based on new information

4. The Perfectionist vs The Accelerator. The need for leadership has moved from the need to be absolutely right to being fast even if not perfect

5. The Intuitonist vs The Analyst. While leaders from the past depended on their gut, today's leader dependds on data.

6. The Miner vs The Prospector. While in the past the focus on looking within to exploit potential, the leader now needs to look externally to identify opportunities and threats.

7. The Teller vs The Listener. While in the past the leader gave directions based on expertise but today he needs to listen to others

SWOT is a basic strategic analysis tool that is much used & abused, and there is little value at the end of the exercise other than a list.

This might be because we are actually going about it the wrong way. First up is the way that SWOT is historically presented using the 4 quadrants which allow for limited phrases which don't really convey anything significant. We end up with weaknesses like 'pricing' which don't really convey any concrete information and which could actually crop up in all the 4 quadrants in different forms. There is also no heirarcy which leads to concrete recommendations.

However, the most significant way, we might be doing SWOT wrong is starting in the wrong order.

Because of the very way, the word is structured, we end up starting with the internal focussed strengths & weaknesses before looking outward for Opportunities & Threats.

This approach often leads to myopia as the strengths & weaknesses are assessed from an internal perspective before the opportunities & threats are thought about and assessed. Opportunities & Threats are biased by the internal perspective and are reflective of the company's strengths & weaknesses.

There is a better way to do this but first don't limit the exercise to the format of a powerpoint slide.

First start from the external perspective as this is the space where not just you but also your competition is playing. This allows you to consider the environment independently of what you or your company is doing. And when you come to strengths & weaknesses too, you uncover more in the light of the external environment as well as assess your strengths & weaknesses against competition.

You should then, not just leave the exercise at this level but rather use the analysis to come up with a concrete set of recommendations leveraging both the external & internal factors.

For example, since we are likely to face a recession and our costs are lower than the competition we could use this opportunity to significantly increase market share by running price promotions. Another example, could be since buyers are increasingly getting information online and avoiding meeting salespersons; while the integration of Marketing & Sales is difficult it makes sense to merge the functions and organize them on the lines of the buyer's buying journey.

I am sure if you do try this out you are likely to get amazing value from this simple exercise

Leviticus is the one book which stops most people in their yearly Bible reading plan.

The book seems like a random collection of archaic rules & regulations and sacrifices which have no place in today's world. So it is seemingly difficult to get through and skipping over it doesn't really seem to affect anything in bigger scheme of things, or so is the popular sentiment. Even pastors skip over it and it is hardly preached.

However, this trend is slowly changing as apart from the fact that it is part of the Bible, it is also quite crucial in the overall scheme of things.

Here are a few reasons why you should study the book of Leviticus.

• It is the book of the Bible which has the highest amount of God’s direct words

• It is also the sixth most quoted OT book in the NT

• Without the book of Leviticus, a lot of the book of Hebrews doesn’t make sense

• Leviticus set in place God’s manual for Worship, Priesthood, Holiness, Atonement

• “It is no exaggeration to claim that the Book of Leviticus has had more impact on Judaism than any other book of the Old Testament. Traditionally it was the first book taught to Jewish children, and over half the commentary of the Talmud is concerned with understanding its contents.” Mark F. Rooker in his commentary on Leviticus

• “Theology is what Leviticus is all about. It pervades every chapter and almost every verse. It is not expressed in pronouncements but embedded in rituals.” – Jacob Milgrom in his commentary on Leviticus

• Most importantly, it is critical to understand the work of Christ at the cross. You can draw a direct line between most of the book and work of Christ.

  Coming to the here and now, there are some great resources to understand Leviticus. So what is stopping you from studying Leviticus?

PG Wodehouse is the greatest writer of the last two centuries!

As I am on day 25 of my Ship30 journey, I was thinking about writers I would want to emulate. Having read all kinds of non-horror books & articles written by all kinds of writers from the likes of Betrand Russell, Dostoevosky, Tolstoy, to Robert Cialdini, Peter Thiel, Michael Lewis and even the likes of Grisham & Maclean. I have enjoyed reading the like of Josh McDowell, Philip Yancey to Os Guinness.

While only some of the names, I have mentioned may be household names but I just wanted to convey the breadth of writers considered.

There are elements which make each of them unique and worth imitating, and with enough dedication there is a possibility you could succeed.

That is because everyone of them come with a purpose which is worthy. And as worthy as each of their purpose is, none can claim to even aim for what Sir Pelham Grenville Wodehouse did. He aimed to 'spread sweetness and light'. And, boy did he do it and in a style which is inimitable. To subject his writing is futile as there seems to be no substance to the plot while each sentence was a perfect plot in itself.

A world of aunts, butlers, bumbling bachelors being rescued from being engaged to the right sort of girl, none of it would stand to serious scrutiny. Neither is it meant to as his writings is better than any anti-depressant on the market.

While I can do his writing no justice, I feel no shame for there are few who can.

Therefore as much as I would want to write like him, I know I can't as there never been anyone who has sat at his desk, banged his head and cranked sentence after sentence which is perfect and funny like P G Wodehouse has done.

Everyone knows advantage is transient but we keep falling into certain traps which are a result of past strategic frameworks or even assumptions stated as facts.

Strategists overall haven't really caught on to this phenomenon, as is exemplified by the fact that we still have people repeating jargon which should have been laid to rest along with Nokia, at the time when Microsoft tried in vain to revive it.

Here are a 7 of the misconceptions, which have been laid out clearly in Rita McGrath's HBR article - Transient Advantage.

1. The first-mover trap - In most industries now the first mover advantage doesn't last long

2. The superiority trap - Most offerings take time to mature, so companies usually don't invest in established offerings till they are taken by surprise by up-starts who have invested for some time in the offering

3. The quality trap - Companies which have an established market charge a premium for what they perceive as a higher quality product leaving themselves exposed to a new competitor who may offer a simpler product with greater value at a better price

4. The hostage resources trap - It is difficult to shift resources from big, profitable businesses to areas which need investment, leading to stagnation over time.

5. The white-space trap - The refusal to take up new opportunities due to a lack of experience in a particular space or defining the industry narrowly

6. The empire-building trap - Companies where hoarding of resources is encouraged leading to loss of innovation

7. The sporadic innovation trap - Companies where innovation only happens once in a while as there is no process to encourage innovation.

We are all hypocrites!!!

Often the trait which irritates us the most about someone is a trait we too possess. However, seeing it in another seems to bring us an unseemly amount of pain. I have often wondered why this is the case without arriving at any meaningful answer other than arriving at the knowledge of this, which is useful in keeping myself in check.

Jesus in Matthew 7:3 says 'Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?'

We seem to be much more irritated by people who outwardly project traits which we either haven't recognized in ourselves or we are working hard on letting the outside world know that we too have that trait.

Which takes me back to my starting assertion, that we are all hypocrites. However, hypocrisy is one trait we hate to see in others. We all hanker after genuineness in a person, and we find it easy to disregard anyone who comes across as a hypocrite. This is something that we is a defined standard for our age - no hypocrisy, and it is the reason why many reject organized religion.

When we do recognize issues in ourselves or our side, we easily find excuses but refuse to give the courtesy to others.

We seem to think that our problems and circumstances are unique while others have things easy.

While this phenomenon is changing with the growing emphasis on empathy but we are still not there. We want others to empathize with us, while we fail to do so ourselves.

I don't have a solution for this, but the very awareness of this phenomenon is something which helps.

The unravelling of Strategy Execution has been a bugbear of mine for a long time.

I have read a lot of literature regarding execution but one article in HBR is worth summarizing. It is titled 'Why Strategy Execution unravels - and what to do about it' by Donald Sull & co.

They enumerate 5 myths associated which are widely held and are obstacles to strategy execution.

1. Execution equals Alignment - Typically there is alignment top down in terms of the goals, but where execution fails is coordination across teams/ functions. Focus on structures to coordinate activities across units

2. Execution means Sticking to the plan - The assumptions behind the plans change, and agility is required. Agility as in continuous evaluation and allocation of resources. However, agility should be balanced by aligning with overall strategic objectives.

3. Communication equals understanding - It is not the number of times and forms which lead to understanding but rather clear communication with context which enable the organization understand the strategy.

4. A Performance culture drives execution - A culture that supports execution values agility, teamwork & ambition along with performance.

5. Execution should be driven from the top - While concentrating power at the top may boost performance in the short term but it degrades ability to perform in the long term as middle managers escalate conflict rather than resolve, while the middle layer loses ability to coordinate and make decisions. Execution should be driven from the middle but guided from the top

I have always been a huge proponent of choice.

The option of being able to have something which I then go on to refuse is something which I have always found irresistible. The logic of choice is foundational to my advice to someone still in school or college, where I emphasize the need to do their best so that they can have choice. Who in their right mind wouldn't want the opportunity to turn down Harvard to go to their to their local college?

The case for choice seemed to be well settled in my mind.

But as I reflect further is there a price paid for choice?

I only need to look at my phone to illustrate the price that I pay for choice. I subscribe to 6 streaming applications just because of the fact that I would like to have the opportunity to access the content. So I am paying actual money for the hypothetical scenario of my having the time and running out of options to choose from. While this may be a more extreme scenario I am sure there are examples from your life too.

We have been programmed to think that choice is quintessentially a great thing but there is a price we pay for it, even if it is just hard cash.

So, I would like to re-frame the logic of choice.

If you are looking at leaving yourself with options in terms of opportunities in the future, please make sure you go all in with your effort. While also keeping in mind that you will ultimately have to choose one path or maybe two or even three but not all the options you generate for yourself. You are foregoing something even as you work towards a future filled with options, but that is still a reasonable path to take.

But if the choice is one of consumption, don't pay for it till you actually have to consume.

Committing to writing daily is difficult, so I wanted to remind my self why I took up the challenge.

If you had asked when I was 12, what I wanted to be when I grew up, my answer would be a writer. While life's journey took me elsewhere so far, writing still gives me a high few other things can. While I did have a blog some 15-16 years which did have some fans, I haven't really been able to write regularly for a long time. There have been a number of reasons for this, from the pressures of work, family and my life long co-traveler Mr. Procrastination.

So, in 2022 I wanted to break the rut and got onto the Ship30 cruise.

Why do I want to write anyways?

While the act of writing to a certain extent is narcissistic, especially the form which comes naturally to me, it still leaves in a slightly better position than the extroverted orator who can talk about nothing other than himself. So, one key reason is to be able to put out ideas or thoughts out there which may be easier to understand in the written form than when verbally spoken. Closely related to that is the oft repeated fact that writing is thinking.

And unfortunately, while there is a lot of content generated with everyone now having the ability to publish, there is still little thinking happening.

So, while I have been pretty banal so far, writing about Strategy and my mistakes, I hope to really contribute something worthwhile.

Should you even bother with strategy if you are not able to execute your current quarter?

This is a question which is oft repeated when organizations are not able to meet their quarterly/annual targets. There is certain merit to the question as if a team is not able to get the present right, there is little belief in their being able to get the long term right. While there could be circumstances where it could be overlooked but in most contexts it is tempting to just get focused on getting the here and now right.

This could definitely make sense at that point of time, but what it ultimately leads to is an organization which is in a perpetual state of catch up.

While to most it would be obvious that the first thing that needs fixing is the team it self, but how would go about doing if you haven't thought about what would be needed in the future.

So, irrespective of circumstances it is critical to think strategy, but especially more so when you are not able to deliver in the present. A good strategist will be able to paint the picture of what isn't working in the present and also what is needed for the future. This is not a claim about how you should develop your strategy but rather about the absolute essential of your starting point. You need some someone who can look at data, dissect it and make it talk to your current situation while also throwing light on competition and the future of the industry.

While this may seem self serving in terms of the author's profession, but when in doubt please get a great strategy guy.

Having said that, the case is for focusing on strategy is simply outlined as you need to be thinking in multiple time frames or you will never get out of the rut you are caught in.

Have you ever felt that your qualities are complex and contradictory?

We all find that there are elements to our personalities which don't seem to quite fit together but they are ultimately critical to who we are as individuals. If you have ever worried about it, you needn't. Since if you look at what is increasingly expected of us, it is being able to combine contradictory traits to be successful.

Here are a few seemingly paradoxical qualities we need.

1. You need to have a vision for what is going to happen a few years down the line while actually being able to continue to work well on what you are currently doing.

2. Even as you need to look to the future you also need to know the past really well to navigate the future well.

3. You need to be adept at managing technology while also be able to relate with well with others who are themselves increasingly overwhelmed by all that is happening around them and the tech

4. You are in a world which is increasingly global while at the same time there is increasing nationalism and you need to balance that both in your work as well as social life.

5. While there is an increasing amount of data, for you to be successful in any venture you need to take call when the information is still ambiguous. You need to be able to confident in your abilities to take decision on the basis of limited data, but at the same time willing to admit your mistakes and learn when you get things wrong.

6. You need to be politically savvy with people while at the same time being highly principled.

   What do you think? I am sure I missed out some obvious ones.

I lead a team which would be filled with MBAs from top B-schools in most companies, but I have been able to do great stuff without one for the major part of a decade.

I work at a small company which initially couldn't really afford me, so I had to careful in how I built a team which could deliver what the organization needed. In a way I was forced to hire for attitude, which was a great starting point. Another thing, was looking for talent which is usually under-rated, usually for the lack of an educational qualification.

However, my greatest learning has been how much people can deliver if they are given the freedom to do so.

The most important factor is the confidence you pose in them both explicitly and implicitly

One way to do this is in the introductions where you let others in the organization know about their capabilities and how highly you rate them. Another important factor is letting them know the significance of the work they would be doing and the impact that it has on the organization. It may be overwhelming or intimidating but it helps set a sense of purpose.

The next step is to follow up on the above by actually assigning work of significance and getting out of their way.

Resist the temptation to tell them how to go about the task, unless they come for help.

Even as you pose confidence in them and give them the independence, keep in mind that the responsibility is yours. Be sure they know, they can rely on you in case they make a mistake or fail. That along with the fact that they will get credit for their effort ensures that they will take on more than what is expected of them.

And that is how you end up being inspired by how much people like you and me can achieve if only given a chance.

When your performance is judged on a quarterly or even on an annual basis, does thinking for the long-term even matter?

This is a quandary not just for listed companies but is a question for almost everyone of us. We are judged for what is happening right now, not we are building for. But if you really think about it, what is happening right now is a result of actions which you took some time back.

So, thinking for the long term is absolutely critical even if doesn't feel like it.

Here are some ways I ensure I am able to think about the long term.

Firstly, ensure that you have a clear vision in place for 3-5-10 years. And then ensure that you are periodically refreshing that vision.

Secondly, make sure that the big projects you are working on are connected to your vision.

Thirdly, know that by being focused on the long term, you will get flack for missing out on the short term goals which may not make sense in the long term. Make your peace with that.

So in summary - a clear vision, connect with vision and willingness taking short term hits.

The 5-year strategic plan isn't really strategy.

Yes, the plan may give some idea of the operational tactics to be employed in the short to medium term but they don't really help a company evolve strategically to face the future. That is due to the time it takes for companies and industries to evolve - it takes years and some times even decades. However, if a company isn't really thinking about the long-term horizon, it won't really have the time to catch-up when the industry evolves.

It is therefore useful for the strategic planner to consider things not in terms of a time-line but rather a time-cone as suggested by Amy Webb in her article published by HBR in July 2019.

The time-cone allows for a team to look at both the short term and long term simultaneously.

This is done as the framework considers certainty and accordingly charts actions rather than simply looking at quarterly or annual milestones. The cone can consist of multiple zones with distinct categorization - 1) Tactics, 2) Strategy, 3) Vision and 4) Systems-level evolution. The approach in each of the sections varies and but encompasses the earlier one as we approach Systems-level evolution

1) Tactics (12 months - 24 months)

The highest certainty zone is the 12-24 month timeframe where there are high probability events with data in place. The kind of planning which can take place here is more tactical like a re-design or targeting a slightly different segment

2) Strategy (3 - 5 years)

The tactical decisions should fit into the company's strategies. This is a familiar zone for most people in the strategy function and consists of actions like defining priorities, allocating resources and getting the right team in place.

3) Vision (5-10-15 years)

Most companies keep spending time in the first two zones and shuffling between tactics & strategies. They end up having to play catch up with competitors and new entrants as they haven't really had a vision for the future. So leaders should articulate a strong vision of areas they want to invest in terms of research, the workforce, etc even as they keep working on the the tactics & strategy to fit the vision.

4) System-level evolution (Beyond 10-15 years)

The vision should fit into how the industry may evolve in the future.

So unlike a traditional strategic plan with a timeline, here we move forward as the data validates the tactics & strategy informing the vision. You aren't stuck in the middle of a 5-year plan but rather always rooted in the tactical changes you need to make in the present.