Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Ma9: A Tale of Two Banks NOTES
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Ma9: A Tale of Two Banks NOTES
For proper formatting (bold, italics, etc.) and graphics (where applicable) see the PDF version. Copyright: 2020 Retraice, Inc.
Ma9: A Tale of Two BanksMargin by Retraice1
On good and bad, nice and mean.
Air date: Saturday, 31st Oct. 2020, 1 : 05 PM Pacific/US.
The difference between good guys and bad guys is not the same as the difference between nice guys and mean guys. "Niceness is a decision…."2
1 The two banksGood Bank seemed good, Bad Bank seemed bad.
Bad BankThe Bad Bank relationship lasted for years, and did not overlap with the Good Bank relationship, which came later.
When outrageous things would happen, different people would respond differently.
Bad Bank was not the only client we had that seemed 'bad', but it was always at least tied for 'worst'.
By 'worst' we mean: most difficult, most demanding, most merciless, but below we will discuss different ways of thinking about how Bad Bank was or was not 'bad'.
Good BankGood Bank was just as profitable as Bad Bank, if not more so, and enjoyed a much better reputation in the marketplace, from the top down.
Bad Bank was not niceBut they weren't mean, or cruel or demeaning. This is a crucial point.
Demanding, but incomprehensibleThere's nothing wrong with being demanding, in principle—businesses have to be demanding of their partners. But it's what they were demanding about that was bad, because it was, generally speaking, incomprehensible. It was as if the demands were ostensibly about one thing, but really about something else.
We spent our time doing things that were almost certainly not relevant to their business (and therefore ours).
A year of water tortureWe spent the better part of year, bit by bit, correcting for a vanishingly small dollar amount, that could not possibly have been above any relevant threshold of importance to Bad Bank. Dollar-figure corrections are common, but spending so much time correcting them is not.
Good Bank prioritized differentlyThey were more realistic, and saw finite resources—and therefore priorities—more clearly. We were among their finite resources.
Care and outsourcing'You outsource what you don't care about, and you don't care about what you outsource.'3 This seemed true of both banks, but lead to very different results.
Were they nicer?At the time, Good Bank seemed nicer. But in retrospect, it doesn't seem like Bad Bank's 'niceness', or lack thereof, was what made them bad.
2 DifferencesGood Bank: flexible, apparently effective,
Bad Bank: inflexible, apparently ineffective.
EffectivenessIn terms of the goals of the business relationship, neither bank seemed clearly more effective than the other. Though, this is hard to judge without running the numbers to get dollar figures over time.
StylesIf your goal is to have pleasant days and relationships, Good Bank wins. But that is not a business goal.
EnvironmentsWhat seems to be true is: The effectiveness of Good Bank and Bad Bank would depend on the given environment.
3 Similarities Processes guarded by peopleProcesses that were as well-designed as they could be by their designers then had to be protected and developed and advocated by people.
Frustration on the groundProcesses, resources, and other things led to frustration at the middle and lower levels, as per normal at businesses that are not obviously leveling up.
Leveling up and falling down stairsThere are different kinds of frustration, depending on whether or not things are going well.
Indifference at the topEven levels down from the top didn't seem to care. The relationships were not strategic.
4 Questions, but the experiments can't be runIs more pleasant better? We can't test it because we can't control the variables.
Survival fitnessWhile no two things are ever in exactly the same environment, the two banks were pretty close.
Neither bank had, or has, any existential problems.
Businesses are documents that don't careAs an idea, and activity, business is indifferent to what we care about. Like lions and crocodiles, businesses, apart from the people who populate them, don't care, because they are ultimately documents.
Constraints in key documentsMost corporations put very vague purpose statements in their articles, because otherwise they're imposing unnecessary constraints on themselves. Recent exceptions to this rule are things like B corporations and 'certification'.
We have to judge, but how?Survival is a funny thing. The jury is still out on Good Bank and Bad Bank.
5 Corrections to Ma7 and Ma8Ma7: In 'affecting is not detecting', we slid back and forth between 'affect' and 'effect', which is understandable, but an English language no-no.
Ma8: We said 'kanban' cord, but we should've said 'andon' button.4
Pushing up the numbers at Retraice, Inc.We produced almost eight segments this week, up from five in two previous weeks in September and in October. Seven were fully produced, and one was live and recorded on Saturday, but not produced and pushed to the podcast until Sunday (this segment, Ma9). This is an increase of 50%, but short of our goal of 100%.5 Happy? More yes than no.
Referencesde Becker, G. (1997). The Gift of Fear: And Other Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence. Dell / Random House. ISBN: 0440508835. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0440508835 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0440508835 https://lccn.loc.gov/96051051
Liker, J. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 0071392319. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0071392319 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0071392319 https://lccn.loc.gov/2004300007
Salter, A. (2003). Predators. Basic Books. ISBN: 978-0465071732. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0465071739 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0465071739 https://lccn.loc.gov/2002015846
1https://www.retraice.com/margin
2de Becker (1997) p. 58. Cf. Salter (2003) p. 38.
3Did Sey Hersh say this? Write to us if you have a source.
4Liker (2004) p. 23, pp. 130-131
5Let us make a habit of checking our math publicly, to disinfect with the same sunlight used on laws and open-source software. And 'showing your work' is more fun because getting the right answer is more fun. We produced 7.5 total segments in a week, which is 2.5 more than our previous record, 5. So the percentage increase from 5 to 7.5 is the percentage of 2.5 with respect to 5. So: 2.5/5 = 0.5, converted to a percentage (multiplied by a Latin 'cent' or 100) is 50%.
View all episodes
By Retraice, Inc.For proper formatting (bold, italics, etc.) and graphics (where applicable) see the PDF version. Copyright: 2020 Retraice, Inc.
Ma9: A Tale of Two BanksMargin by Retraice1
On good and bad, nice and mean.
Air date: Saturday, 31st Oct. 2020, 1 : 05 PM Pacific/US.
The difference between good guys and bad guys is not the same as the difference between nice guys and mean guys. "Niceness is a decision…."2
1 The two banksGood Bank seemed good, Bad Bank seemed bad.
Bad BankThe Bad Bank relationship lasted for years, and did not overlap with the Good Bank relationship, which came later.
When outrageous things would happen, different people would respond differently.
Bad Bank was not the only client we had that seemed 'bad', but it was always at least tied for 'worst'.
By 'worst' we mean: most difficult, most demanding, most merciless, but below we will discuss different ways of thinking about how Bad Bank was or was not 'bad'.
Good BankGood Bank was just as profitable as Bad Bank, if not more so, and enjoyed a much better reputation in the marketplace, from the top down.
Bad Bank was not niceBut they weren't mean, or cruel or demeaning. This is a crucial point.
Demanding, but incomprehensibleThere's nothing wrong with being demanding, in principle—businesses have to be demanding of their partners. But it's what they were demanding about that was bad, because it was, generally speaking, incomprehensible. It was as if the demands were ostensibly about one thing, but really about something else.
We spent our time doing things that were almost certainly not relevant to their business (and therefore ours).
A year of water tortureWe spent the better part of year, bit by bit, correcting for a vanishingly small dollar amount, that could not possibly have been above any relevant threshold of importance to Bad Bank. Dollar-figure corrections are common, but spending so much time correcting them is not.
Good Bank prioritized differentlyThey were more realistic, and saw finite resources—and therefore priorities—more clearly. We were among their finite resources.
Care and outsourcing'You outsource what you don't care about, and you don't care about what you outsource.'3 This seemed true of both banks, but lead to very different results.
Were they nicer?At the time, Good Bank seemed nicer. But in retrospect, it doesn't seem like Bad Bank's 'niceness', or lack thereof, was what made them bad.
2 DifferencesGood Bank: flexible, apparently effective,
Bad Bank: inflexible, apparently ineffective.
EffectivenessIn terms of the goals of the business relationship, neither bank seemed clearly more effective than the other. Though, this is hard to judge without running the numbers to get dollar figures over time.
StylesIf your goal is to have pleasant days and relationships, Good Bank wins. But that is not a business goal.
EnvironmentsWhat seems to be true is: The effectiveness of Good Bank and Bad Bank would depend on the given environment.
3 Similarities Processes guarded by peopleProcesses that were as well-designed as they could be by their designers then had to be protected and developed and advocated by people.
Frustration on the groundProcesses, resources, and other things led to frustration at the middle and lower levels, as per normal at businesses that are not obviously leveling up.
Leveling up and falling down stairsThere are different kinds of frustration, depending on whether or not things are going well.
Indifference at the topEven levels down from the top didn't seem to care. The relationships were not strategic.
4 Questions, but the experiments can't be runIs more pleasant better? We can't test it because we can't control the variables.
Survival fitnessWhile no two things are ever in exactly the same environment, the two banks were pretty close.
Neither bank had, or has, any existential problems.
Businesses are documents that don't careAs an idea, and activity, business is indifferent to what we care about. Like lions and crocodiles, businesses, apart from the people who populate them, don't care, because they are ultimately documents.
Constraints in key documentsMost corporations put very vague purpose statements in their articles, because otherwise they're imposing unnecessary constraints on themselves. Recent exceptions to this rule are things like B corporations and 'certification'.
We have to judge, but how?Survival is a funny thing. The jury is still out on Good Bank and Bad Bank.
5 Corrections to Ma7 and Ma8Ma7: In 'affecting is not detecting', we slid back and forth between 'affect' and 'effect', which is understandable, but an English language no-no.
Ma8: We said 'kanban' cord, but we should've said 'andon' button.4
Pushing up the numbers at Retraice, Inc.We produced almost eight segments this week, up from five in two previous weeks in September and in October. Seven were fully produced, and one was live and recorded on Saturday, but not produced and pushed to the podcast until Sunday (this segment, Ma9). This is an increase of 50%, but short of our goal of 100%.5 Happy? More yes than no.
Referencesde Becker, G. (1997). The Gift of Fear: And Other Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence. Dell / Random House. ISBN: 0440508835. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0440508835 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0440508835 https://lccn.loc.gov/96051051
Liker, J. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 0071392319. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=0071392319 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+0071392319 https://lccn.loc.gov/2004300007
Salter, A. (2003). Predators. Basic Books. ISBN: 978-0465071732. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0465071739 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0465071739 https://lccn.loc.gov/2002015846
1https://www.retraice.com/margin
2de Becker (1997) p. 58. Cf. Salter (2003) p. 38.
3Did Sey Hersh say this? Write to us if you have a source.
4Liker (2004) p. 23, pp. 130-131
5Let us make a habit of checking our math publicly, to disinfect with the same sunlight used on laws and open-source software. And 'showing your work' is more fun because getting the right answer is more fun. We produced 7.5 total segments in a week, which is 2.5 more than our previous record, 5. So the percentage increase from 5 to 7.5 is the percentage of 2.5 with respect to 5. So: 2.5/5 = 0.5, converted to a percentage (multiplied by a Latin 'cent' or 100) is 50%.