Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Our “materiales fuertes culture”

First we assume we are creating something that has longevity if not permanence; and then conclude it’s a “no-maintenance proposition”; and once we realize that fallacious assumption we turn and claim: “it’s good enough”? Materiales fuertes?

Good enough’s never good enough in today’s highly competitive global arena! For instance, our jeepneys are still around: they make us proud of our creativity and for creating a source of livelihood? But even great inventions become dated, e.g., the Model T lost its appeal when GM came out with sleek models?

The need to create employment is precisely why we need to step up development efforts – look and move forward. And so the writer is restating a thought: “An idea (or product) can always be topped – marketers leave their egos behind; keep the mind liberated; and constantly seek better ideas . . .” The writer challenged his young Eastern European protégés to top his own business model – that they shouldn’t be paralyzed that it has borne a competitive regional entity in less than 7 years. Innovation never sleeps! And gave iPods (icons of innovation) to the two with the best models; but challenged them still to integrate their ideas into a more formidable model – so they own it, be proud of it, win in the West and wherever else as well. And then let the “next generation” to top it likewise – because Narcissus is the poster boy of underdevelopment!

When should we be driven by tradition? When should we not? Tradition stops where the people’s well-being begins – a lesson the Pharisees had to learn? Even strongly tradition-oriented Europe who had fought one another has turned itself over; and taken on a gigantic challenge: to come together as one EU and be a bigger economy than the U.S. They’re a work in process but they are looking to the future not to the past, and don’t see it as unpatriotic!

Not to be outdone, the Russian president (he must have heard of Dutch disease?) on November 12th announced: "Instead of a primitive economy based on raw materials, we shall create a smart economy, producing unique knowledge, new goods and technologies, goods and technologies useful for people – e.g., information technology, telecommunications and space." We can replace “raw materials” with OFWs and it will be a good model for us?

Corporate America entertained self-doubt when it faced the emergence of Japan Inc. and their great products; but took a great lesson from the Japanese. And that is, “continuous improvement” – the quality of Japanese products evolved from being the laughing stock . . . to the envy of the world. And eventually Corporate America righted itself by driving competitiveness, essentially by stepping up productivity via the digital revolution – computing and communicating technology.

As the world now knows, Wall Street (taking advantage of pandering politicians, i.e., subprime loans) took the country down and the rest of the world with it. But given their problem-solving culture, the West is again pursuing course correction. Not surprisingly, those foreign to problem-solving cultures are betting against them, if they have not written their obituary yet. That is not meant to applaud the West: it is to give us pause – how can we be more prone to problem-solving? New initiatives silent on equivalent GDP impact are platitudes not problem-solving!

Today we know we are uncompetitive and could rightly be the laughing stock of the world? There are lessons we can take from the experiences of other nations: (a) look to the future; (b) continuous improvement and (c) problem-solving? But we must first learn to unfreeze and turn things on their head?

The writer had talked about unfreezing, lateral thinking and force field analysis – he did not learn them in the West, he learned and practiced them in the Philippines . . . and has brought them wherever he traveled. From the West he learned to simplify and execute – the test of the pudding is in the eating. We may want to dismiss the West but our economic model of individual entrepreneurship is more like Bush’s than FDR’s, i.e., when coherent planning is called for, capitalism is sufficiently flexible! Copy if we must but pragmatic we must be!

No comments:

Post a Comment