There is nothing as inspiring as a company's well defined mission. It can motivate to overcome the most daring obstacles. NASA has one well defined mission to carry out: to put a man on Mars. Easy to understand, easy to feel engaged in. That's where mankind needs to go next. 

Inspired ourselves, we bid farewell to NASA's Phoenix probe, a brave small drone who was the first to dig up water in another world and to find good soil in Mars. Maybe one day soon we'll have farmers stepping on it. Have a good deserved sleep, loyal messenger.

There's an interesting site were foreigners are encouraged to vote for one of the American presidential candidates. It's interesting how this election is not about the US but about the whole world and the world is actually claiming ownership. In this site (hardly scientific) Obama wins with 87% of the vote.

In the old Greek democracies, only the elite (the citizens) had the right to vote. Are we witnessing something like it nowadays? Should we all be voting for the American Presidency? Probably not, yet we know the result will have a lasting impact in all of us.

There is an interesting concept of Psychology called the 'group skin': the group comprises those inside the skin and excludes those outside it. What if there was no skin. What if all of us were one group. No frontiers, no possessions, everything very John Lennon... No, don't think so either... Groups are all we are... And right now we're outside looking in, while the Americans divide themselves into two other groups.

One of the projects we do for one of our clients helps them communicate better with their partners in car dealerships through workshop meetings. The other day, I had a chat with the client about what these dealers were saying.

On the one hand, there were those who complained about the Cost of Repeat Business: «There is no loyalty anymore, and besides, loyal customers cost money: we give them discounts, and so the margins are worst, and we have to pay them attention and waste time with the small talk they need. Much better to focus on promotional efforts and sales contacts.»

On the other hand, there were those worried with the Cost of Indifference: «It's hard work to remember customer's birthdays and the stories of their lifes and sometimes it looks like it's for nothing because they end up not buying anyway... but we have to keep doing it...»

Guess what: now that the market is slumping and sales are dropping 30% or 40%, who are the guys still alive and kicking? You guessed it: the ones worried with the cost of indifference who have been building relationships and taking the time to pay attention to their clients.

It seems there's no client like a happy client! 

A couple of interesting studies have caught my eye recently.

A study by two INSEAD and one California’s Naval Postgraduate School professors found that, in fast changing environments, the experience a team manager comes with has little or no impact on the performance of the team. In fact, the performance of a team manager will be based on his/her mental model – i.e. the basic structure he/she uses to make decisions. When faced with radical changes to the environment or the conditions of a project, experienced managers tend to use the same kind of criteria for decision making as used before, even though they recognize the need for change. This makes them as effective as naïve inexperienced managers. And these wouldn’t fare too good either.

This suggests that even when people are able to learn new information and new concepts about the market, the clients, the products and many other factors, they will still have a difficult time changing the way they make decisions.

Another study, by Harvard Business School professors, looks into the impact of the fluidity in teams. Studies suggest that there could be a negative effect of isolation and accommodation in teams that stay together too long: but this impact would only become noticeable after five years (hardly a condition that would occur in today’s typical company). On the other hand, the effect of high member-turnover and rapidly changing roles on the team’s performance appears to be painfully negative.

The Harvard study reveals that a team’s performance is independent of the accumulated experience of the professionals, but it is very much affected by the amount of time that a team works together. Team familiarity, it seems, provides the psychological security for the individuals to learn better, besides improving coordination and the willingness to engage in relationships.

These two studies combined show us the true difficulties in developing changing and learning teams in today’s environment. In one hand, a team will not be able to adapt to full potential if it cannot find a way to change how to make decisions. And it will have a hard time finding new ways to make decisions if it cannot create the team familiarity necessary to learn better.

It's been a while since I blogged. Been taking the time to take the decision to start writing in English. Actually, I'll be doing it in two languages: from now on, the texts will be written in English and in Portuguese. This way my good English-language friends who have taken the time to Google-translate my posts and comment will be able to rest their language/digital skills a little bit.

I've also decided this blog should be more focused.

All organizations in the world communicate internally. It's not an option not to. There is no such thing as non-communication. But how many organizations are there that have turned Internal Communications into a competitive advantage?

That's what we do: we help turn our client's internal communication into a competitive advantage. One that helps make their structure more flexible, quicker to adapt to changes in their business and markets, and one that ensures that everyone knows their role and how they can impact results.

In an ideal world, in an ideal organization, the whole company would learn in a balanced open way and be able to change and innovate effortlessly. Thankfully, we're not in an ideal world - and that's why clients come to us.

It's not as easy as it seems. A client asked me, the other day: «How do we communicate change?» And I answered «You listen». Strangely enough, this seems hard to understand.

É o título de um interessantíssimo artigo da Fast Company sobre o negócio da água engarrafada. Aparentemente, é, só nos Estados Unidos, um sector de mais de $15 mil milhões. Para lá de tudo o resto, fico contente de estarmos dispostos a pagar um preço alto pela água, uma vez que é o que vai acontecer à generalidade da água no futuro (parece-me).

É um mercado particularmente curioso pelos esforços de diferenciação que se têm desenvolvido nos últimos anos e, segundo o artigo, se tornarão ainda mais sofisticados.

DIFERENCIAÇÃO é o nome do jogo! Curiosamente, conheço muitos marketeers que se dedicam exactamente ao contrário: a tornarem o seu produto ou serviço igualzinho ao da concorrência. Mas o futuro não perdoa aos preguiçosos. Se tivesse que atirar às águas do mar uma mensagem numa garrafa para as gerações futuras, seria esta.

Todos os anos, o CEO do grupo WPP, empresa-mãe da Hill&Knowlton, escreve algumas linhas no relatório de contas que percorre o mundo como o vento. Este ano não é excepção e recentemente todos nós tivemos acesso ao pensamento de Sir Martin Sorrel.

Este ano, entre as muitas ideias interessantes que advoga, Sir Martin refere a importância da Comunicação Interna. Traduzindo livremente: «Dada a escala da mudança estratégica e estrutural que se está a passar dentro da maior parte das empresas, um dos mais importantes desafios dos CEO's é comunicar esta mudança internamente.»

Esta é a quarta de seis razões que Sir Martin apresenta para que as empresas precisem dos nossos serviços nos próximos anos. Aqui estamos para isso.

O que quer dizer «Competitividade»? Somos competitivos se formos melhores que os outros? Ou será que é uma questão de, como num documentário da National Geographic, sermos um dos leões que tem direito a comer da carcaça que a matilha matou? Será que a riqueza mundial é um bem raro que todos procuram mas só alguns têm direito?

Hoje em dia, parece-me que não. Graças à inovação, à melhoria das comunicações e do comércio, da evolução e, enfim, à globalização, a riqueza mundial não é um bolo finito, mas uma possibilidade aberta. Mesmo os países menos desenvolvidos e em menor crescimento deverão poder, todos os anos, teoricamente, estar melhor que o ano anterior. Mas, hoje em dia, competitividade quer dizer mais do que isso, não é? Determina a capacidade de alguém, alguma organização, algum país, enfrentar com sucesso os desafios do futuro, os desafios constantes da evolução e, eventualmente, a capacidade de gerar bem-estar. Parece-me a mim...

Confesso que não deixo, todos os anos, de me interessar pelo ranking do Institute for Management Development da Competitividade Mundial. A versão 2007 saiu recentemente. 55 países foram avaliados segundo um extenso leque de critérios e Portugal surgiu no 39º lugar, descendo dois lugares desde o ano passado. Podemos consolar-nos com o facto de continuarmos à frente da Itália, ou da Rússia. Mas a verdade é que pelo menos nos últimos cinco anos perdemos posições todas as edições.

Julgo que Portugal continua a surpreender em muitos casos e a mostrar ao mundo que há muito boas coisas que vêm do nosso país. Mas quando é que deixaremos de surpreender? Quando é que conseguiremos manter uma prestação tão boa que já não seja uma surpresa para ninguém? Como se diz no golfe: «It's not how good your good balls are, it's how bad your bad balls are.» Consistência. E nisso, somos maus. E sem consistência, não somos competitivos.

Acho eu...