Reading log - Management

Summary: This article discusses how agentic AI can be utalized in financial services operaitons. The authors argue that banking operations are particularly well suited for AI adoption due to the high volume of repetitive tasks and data entry. They identify five key essential uses of agentic AI.

Thoughts: Reading this article is indicative of how AI is currently being utilized in the economy. The potential of AI is enormous, but only technically advanced businesses are able to capture this potential; even fewer are capturing the potential of generative AI. Writings on this topic is therefore rarely insightful and often even less actionable. McKinsey Insights suffer especially from this, compared to how they fare in other domains. Although, this is probably the most insightful article by McKinsey on AI that I have read, perhaps even the most insightful from any business magazine. I enjoyed how they argued that banking operations are particularly well suited and motivated for the application of AI. It seems like this approach can be applied to other industries as well, which is interesting. It is also interesting that the article discusses only speed of operations, not quality of service. When discussing data entry, the authors can get away with this, but that is not always the case. We see an example of this in the final section on pricing, where the authors argue that AI removes the need to rely on guesswork by replacing it with analysis. I read this as fundamentally wrong. AI is not interchangeable with analytics; that is a common misconception. The use of an AI model has to be backed by a hypothesis of causality. The authors state that bankers currently feel they are relying on guesswork, but if they do not have a method now, AI will not conjure up new causal relationships. Bankers may feel more confident because they believe their results are supported by analytics, but in reality the guesswork has merely been shifted to an arbitrary AI model. This is not a desirable outcome. In other words, institutions need to develop a theory of causality before they can meaningfully 'use AI'. But the other points they make are solid. Most of the essential uses of AI, like Lead Nurturing and Prospecting are actually great use-cases.

Summary: This article discusses behavior the authors found in their research on healthy aging. They found that currently, people do not plan for healthy aging before it is too late. They analyze behavioral patterns and identify different personas and their engagement with with health oriented lifestyles and initiatives.

Thoughts: The section utilizing the personas were more consumer-oriented than I have seen in insights by similar ocnsulting firms. Personally it was refreshing to see personas used outside of a school context. I have not seen it used like this yet. I also liked the marketing oriented analysis from the consumer perspective. The posibilities for businesses to capture value was only discussed briefly in the last section of the report and could have been elaborated more. I also want to reference the McKinsey paper on aging and depopulation, which I wrote am extensive critique of. This article addresses some of the same valid concerns, but this article is much more rooted in reality, and more consumer oriented. On a completely other note, I have read a lot of other insights discuss the possibilities and developments in the wellness industry. This article could have benefitted from referencing these developments more.

Summary: This arcticle discussed recent changes in the travel industry and boiled it down to threee trends: change in traveler preferences, change in demand for luxury travel, and rise of tech-integration in travel. The change in pereferences boil down to consumers wanting new forms to disconnect, and they desire nontraditional or authentic experiences. Demand for luxury travel is expected to increase due to an increase in high-net-worth individuals. Luxury hotel chains seem to be capturing a lot of this development. Lastly, they discussed how new techonoly has changed the experience of travel. Predictably, personalization and AI usage is a large factor in this market. The second half of the article discusses how private equity firms can take advantage of these trends. They place amphasis on exploiting the increased demand for luxury infrastructure and services, like yacht chartering or marina berths. They also proided examples of how PE firms can invest in experience-focused travel.

Thoughts: This is a solid article that provides good examples of how market trends can be exploited by investors. The first half of the article is dedicated to explaining the three trends. I remember in 2024, there was a lot of discussion in how aviation companies were investing more in luxury options, and it is cool to see that same trend being reflected in the whole travel market. The trends were distinct enough, but I think they could have discussed how the categories influence each other. But the second half is where this article shines. The examples of how PE firms can exploit these trends are definitely insightful. I have missed these insights in some other McKinsey articles, so I was excited to read this. Their demonstration of gaps in supply and demand in different service segments was particularly useful. Though, whenever McKinsey discusses technology utilization they seem to forget their other principles of decision making. They mention AI and personalization, but do not discuss how these technologies can actually capture a competitive edge. Investment in technology is not correlated with gaining a competitive edge by nature, so they need to show their work in market analysis here. This is a common critique I have when McKinsey discuss technology. But overall, this is a great and insightful article.

Summary: This article introduces Porter's Five Forces framework for analyzing industry structure and competitive dynamics. The five forces are: competitive rivalry, threat of new entrants, threat of substitutes, bargaining power of buyers, and bargaining power of suppliers. By assessing these forces, strategists can identify opportunities and threats in their industry to develop a strategic agenda.

Thoughts: This article is a classic, and it is easy to see why. The Five forces are quite intuitive and easy to break down. The four contributing forces follow the MECE principle and is therefore easy to apply when doing analysis. I am a little amazed by how useful the model is for discovering opporunities in a market. I get excited by taxonomies that help structure analysis but doesn't put labels on everything for the sake of it. Some models, like the one I read about operating models from McKinsey on Nov. 20th fall into this trap.

Summary: This article defines the Organize to Value system and argues that gaps between full and realized potential can be closed by redesigning the operating model. It introduces 12 elements of the Orgaize to Value system: Purpose, Value agenda, Structure, Ecosystem, Leadership, Governance, Processes, Technology, Behaviors, Rewards, Footprint, Talent. After introducing the model, the article enters a question-answer format to elaborate on important features of an organization.

Thoughts: I did not like this article. It reads unstructured and throws buzzwords without definitions or clear connections. Of course, it is possible that the Organize to Value model is valid along with its 12 elements, but the article does not support any of them or their relations. I may be missing the required experience to read this article, but I don't see any evidence that the model should include all of these 12 elements, and no more; they could have named 12 other elements and written the exact same article. In addition to this, the article also reads like the writing of an LLM (though I am not claiming that it is). When asking if something is important, it places undue emphasis on everything instead of prioritizing factors. This is typical in AI writing, and it does this with leaders, people, agility and processes when asking whether they are important. AI-like writing signs does not mean that the content is bad or invalid, but it is hard to prioritize takaways and get valuable insights. This article needs sorely better argumentation and some brainstorming to discover elements which are not important to close the gap between full and realized potential. I find this a little shocking, as this article breaks with most of the teachings in the McKinsey Forward program.

Summary: The McKinsey forward program was a multi-week professional-development course that aimed to train various skills necessary for the modern workplace. It focuses on adaptability, problem solving, communication, well-being, and digital literacy.

Thoughts: I entered this program with the expectation that I would gain knowledge about problem solving primarily. However, I think I learned way more about leadership and efficient communication. The module on communicating for impact was particularly useful to me (e.g. how to structure, find, and argue for the relevance of insights), which I was plesantly surprised by. Of course, I did also enjoy the framework for problem solving, but these are frameworks I've seen learned before mostly.

Summary: The article talks about strategies for motivating employees, especially middle managers. First, by attributing a greater (moral) value to to their work other than financial success. Second, by acting as a manager in a way that makes employees feel like you care personally about the success of the company. Take risks, challange yourself visibly and lead by example; not by decree. Third, by staying focused in volatile times: be transparent on performance and challanges in both good and bad times.

Thoughts: I think a lot of these points are attractive. Here, I'll share my thoughts on all three strategies. First, the article really focuses on making performance a moral good, but I think there are more emotional appeals that are just as effective. For example, appealing to the prestige of working at a high-performing company: if other people get on the edge of their seats when an employee says that they work there, they will get personally invested in their performance. Second, I think leading by example is very much easier said than done. The article starts off by making an example of the young middle manager, and it is not trivial for a middle-manager in a coorporation to take visible risks. Lastly, the third point recontextualizes the McKinsey podcast i heard on productivity. That participants talks about culture (the first two points), and KPI meassurements - the third point in this article. Staying focused can be assisted by KPIs, and I think the article should have elaborated more on this as it would have made the third strategy more concrete.

Summary: The article explains the framing effect, a cognitive bias where the phrasing problem statement influences the solution, and how it relates to decision-making in organizations.

Thoughts: The most interesting point made in this article was the remedies to prevent the framing effect. Additionally, this article made me rethink a lot of the other content on management I have been consuming. A lot of them discuss how important it is to set clear targets and communicate them clearly (e.g. the "I morgen" podcast i on Aug. 9th). These articles frame "end goals" as being set in stone, but now I think targets should be reevaluated regularily.

Summary: This article provides a list of top management tips for running meetings that actually deliver value instead of wasting time. Key themes include starting with clear purpose, having a tight agenda, choosing participants wisely, keeping the meeting focused, driving next-steps rather than endless discussion, and following up afterwards. The underlying message is: meetings should accelerate work, not slow it down.

Thoughts: Because I attend three programs at NTNU, I often have back-to-back meetings. Both at Append Consulting and in various group projects. I therefore have a lot of experience with leading meetings. Students are generally inexperienced with meetings. We have little expertise, and many have more time than knowledge about the subject. Therefore, meetings often turn into unfocused discussions or co-working sessions. I agree with a lot of tips in this article especially about setting clear goals. Personally, I have not found agendas useful in my context, as we generally don't present findings formally. The use-cases for such differ from the setting, and in corporate settings where knowledge is more concentrated I think agendas are more useful. I also think that being clear on when we're going off on a tangent, or making a discussion that is not relevant to the whole group is important. Then someone has to take responsibility and say that a smaller group should have that discussion later.

Summary: The podcast discusses the difficulty of balancing performance measures and cultural factors in productivity management. Towards the end they touch on differences between generations; particularly how Gen Z respond to feedback.

Thoughts: I related to how they discussed Gen Z's response to feedback. Gen Z-ers have been raised with continous feedback from social media, and feedback is a big part of our culture now. On another note, I also think that honesty and directness in productivity leadership is something that is undervalued in this conversation. The participants noted that the goal of a company is to make money. Similarly, directness should be practiced in performance measures to make a culture more flat and less diffuse.

Summary:

Thoughts:

Summary: The participants summarize the I Morgen report from 2023. It explains how the norwegian power market is approaching a crisis, and they explore three scenarios for the future.

Thoughts: The participants thoroughly discussed the possibility of Norway not expanding the power market. This possibility being taken seriously was refreshing and interesting. I could also relate this to my report on the power market in India. Therefore this podcast made me want to read this report in full.

Summary: This article explains how exemplars in cost-cutting don't worsen the end-user experience, but cut organizational overhead through culture and process improvements. A surprising amount of these strategies involve improving employee well-being and leadership engagement. Management needs to find unnecessary costs (even the less tangible) by exploring all opportunities and acquiring deep knowledge about the industry and organization. This requires patience.

Thoughts: Regrettably, the author repeats his general points a lot. For example, strategies like, "Foundational work disciplines and tools" and "Ensure that product design and process design reinforce each other" are two sides of the same coin - one incentivizes the other. Nevertheless, I agree with the overall message of the article. Cost-cutting is best done by improving the organization, not by slashing services. I think people don't talk about retention rate and employee engangement as a cutting potential losses enough. I also want to learn more about how this article discusses process/product compatibility. This is something that requires deep knowledge about the organization, and the article brings up interesting tools such processes like cycle times and customer patterns and underserved groups.

Summary: This article examines how corporate boards can increase effectiveness by having a dynamic engagement style with management. The authors identify four modes of board engagement Passive (minimal involvement, largely approval of management’s proposals), Mentor (advice and challenge, but management retains decision-authority), Partner (collaborative decision-making between board and management), and Control (board exercises direct authority and intervention). They argue that many boards fall into one default mode (often Passive or Control) regardless of the context, which reduces agility and risks management. The authors point to four major factors that influence which mode is appropriate: (1) impact on value (2) conflicts of interest, (3) the implications for the mission, and (4) the capabilities of management.

Thoughts: I liked how the article opposes that boards should always 'stay out of management.' Instead, it argues for adaptive involvement based on risk and context. The four-mode model is practical and helps explains a lot. I especially related this to risk frameworks; something I care a lot about. They give a somewhat clear taxonomy for when boards should switch modes, and I often find such strucutres helpful. I was first introduced to how a rigorous taxonomy can be useful in business in my time at Economic Mind, and have tried to utilize them ever since.