by Rick Nason, PhD, CFA
Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.
www.RSDsolutions.com
info@RSDsolutions.com
A few weeks ago I rephrased one of Seth Godin’s blogs. I just read Seth Godin’s recent blog titled “Running Away versus Running Toward” and thought I should also share with our blog readers as well.
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/07/running-away-vs-running-toward.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fsethsmainblog+%28Seth%27s+Blog%29
The blog is reproduced in its entirety here.
Running away vs. running toward
Every brand, every organization and every individual is either running away from something or running toward something (or working hard to stand still).
Are you chasing or being chased? Are you leading or following? Are you fleeing or climbing?
I believe that this is an excellent set of questions to ask yourself as a risk manager or a risk department.
My experience has been that most risk managers and risk departments spend their lives running away. Conversely, as I have implied in previous blogs, I believe that most risk departments should be running towards. Risk departments should be optimistic yet realistic enabling departments that allow companies to chase opportunity through creative risk management that avoids the “being chased” mentality.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Racquet Stringing
by Rick Nason, PhD, CFA
Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.
Back in the good ‘ole days of high school, I used to run a racquet stringing business. It was a great way to support my tennis playing habits as well as put gas in the old Ford for going on dates and to burger joints etc. Thus it was quite natural when I came across an old article on Warren Bosworth – the Warren Buffet of racquet stringers – that I would pick it up and start reading it. (BTW – the article is in the June 06, 1983 edition of Sports Illustrated.)
As the article points out, Bosworth was the “stringer for the stars”. Top pros consistently rely on him, and only him, to make sure that their equipment is in top shape in order to allow them to play at their best. One of the aspects of Warren’s genius – besides creativity, a non-ending ability to ask questions and challenge the status quo, and a fanatical attention to detail – is his ability to relate to the top pros and their concerns that are often expressed in less than precise terms as this following quote from the article highlights.
But how does one arrive at those uniquely individual specifications? How does one decipher the vague code words the pros use to describe racket response—dead, mushy, tingly, harsh, solid, sling-shotty—and turn them into formulas that will result in what Tanner mysteriously describes as "a certain satisfying emotion that develops off the strings"? Therein, says Wilber, lies Bosworth's "truly singular gift, an uncanny ability to precisely translate the imprecise."
That last phrase I think bears repeating.
“… truly singular gift, an uncanny ability to precisely translate the imprecise.”
As risk managers, how many of us have the ability to “precisely translate the imprecise”? I think that instead the risk management profession is guilty of trying to avoid the imprecise at all costs. Unfortunately, risk management topics and issues are most often imprecise much to our chagrin. While “vague code words” such as “dead, mushy, tingly, harsh, solid, sling-shotty” might not be used in risk management, the terms “bad feeling, maybe something, undefined opportunity, Frank doesn’t get it” and other vague terms do (and I would argue, should) come into play.
I wonder if I can find my old racquet stringing equipment in the basement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)