Paolo GiovanettiParticipant@paologiovanetti22 March 2019 at 22:59 #3679
In my opinion what makes those who work for Google and other companies in Silicon Valley happy, productive and creative (and I hope to find out more about this when visiting during the tour) depends on the way such companies were born. Typically, they were founded by young people, in a garage or in a college campus. Now they are huge corporations, however they still put great trust in talented young people, by giving them high paying and satisfying jobs, straight after graduation and often while they are still studying. This is, I believe, one of the greatest lessons that Italy could learn from the experience of Silicon Valley.
Then, of course, there is the whole concept of the workplace, which becomes like a home away from home for employees, who are not just components of an assembly chain. On the contrary, they are valued as unique contributors to the advancement of the company. They are directly involved in important decisions and they feel a deep sense of belonging. In other words, they are stakeholders of the company, which heavily invests on them in turn for their hard work.
However, there is a big issue in Silicon Valley, and that is the fact that there continues to be an incredibly high level of sexism and there are considerably more men who work there than women, as documented in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/17/sexual-harassment-silicon-valley-emily-chang-brotopia-interview.
What do you think could be done about this? How is it possible that in such a modern environment there continues to be the problem of gender gap?
Have a great weekend23 March 2019 at 12:19 #3680
First of all, welcome to Valerio, Nicole and Chiara. Thanks for sharing new points of views.
In response to Lorenzo, I think that there is not a special recipe for making happy employees, but it is a mixture of elements. As Nicole said, wages are important but, in this case, other elements are most relevant: these included employment quality, health and safety, training and development, diversity and human rights and labor laws.
Not only Google, but in general, the tech sector is leading the way to a new workplace where employees can be happy.
I want to stress that in order to reach better results and happiness the enterprise must know their employees well. How is it possible? By offering extra services directly in the “office”, i.e from showers to volleyball courts, from nap areas to a slide connecting work floors. It comes to my mind immediately LinkedIn Milan HQ (https://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2016/02/14/foto/linkedin_milano-133396962/1/#2) and so I imagine Silicon Valley enterprises like this one. All these perks lead in keeping its employees in a good mood andare designed so that employees won’t ever have to leave the office and can work longer hours.
If I were managing super talented people, my aims would not be to prevent them from going to other companies but setting my HQ in an innovative cluster such as the Silicon Valley. I think that all free movement through innovative companies is an improvement: talented people’s mobility is the steam of innovation and this is one of the reasons why enterprises decide to set their HQ all in the same area or city (as in Silicon Valley, Boston or Bangalore). In this amazing cluster people live continuously in a stimulating atmosphere and by consequence they are more productive and happier.
Unfortunately, as Paolo wrote, even in a such a modern environment there continues to be gender gap problem. I think it is a terrible plague typical of humankind, and the only solution is to denounce it privately and in public in order to create a common sense of responsibility. Only a gender inclusive workplace will be truly modern and in particular innovative. From my personal point of view: Innovation is the result of sharing ideas and the better ideas come from inclusive and different groups.
Thank you, have a nice weekend
GiovanniDomenicoParticipant@dome24 March 2019 at 17:14 #3684
I’m Domenico and I’m attending a master’s degree program in Economic Development and International Relations at the University of Pavia. I’m 23 years old and i live in Genoa. I would like participate at the svst because i have always been fascinated by technology (computer science, robotics) then i would see the great realities of these sectors. I think it’s a nice experience that could open minds.
Sorry for the delay of joining you. I read the topics and i would briefly give my opinions. Regarding Musk, i think that he’s wrong because he isn’t a common person. With his announcements he can heavily influence the financial market. This fact don’t concern his word right, his opinions, his ideas, his thoughts. He has given information that he shouldn’t give. About nationalization of the great companies (Facebook, Google, Amazon) i think that is impossible because, as said Giovanni, they are transnational companies and then the Countries should do agreements at regard. But it’s an utopic vision.I’m a little bit afraid of big data because they could be manipulated in order to influence our political or economic decisions and choices. People isn’t conscious, they should take attention when they give their personal information. I think it’s necessary an education about big data. It’s true that we aren’t obliged or forced to give our personal information on social network, but more and more the social relations, the social activities are, partially, conducted on this platforms. For example on socials the university give their announcements, or the enterprises select and assume their employees.Regarding the relation between e-commerce and shopping malls i don’t think that shopping malls will be extinguished. I’m agree with the article when it says that the e-commerce (as Amazon) have need of the shoping malls. Moreover many people like the shopping malls because they can touch with their hands the goods and products.
In response the first question posted by Lorenzo, i think, as already said, that doesn’t exist specific recipe for making happy employees. It depends a lot by work context, kind of job, relation between employer and employees and between employees. For what concerns Google surely there are many young guys passionated. Probably they are paid with the right salary and they have many garancies. Probably they work in good, meritocratic and stimulant work environment and they have good relation one with the other. In few words they have they have an economic, social and psychological stability.
An Italian company that came to my mind is Ferrero. I know it has nothing to do with Google, Amazon and Facebook, because it is a sweet company, but it is an Italian example (perhaps the only one) comparable to Google in terms of its relationship with its employees. In fact, employees are very happy and feel part of a family, have many services and there is equality between men and women. Furthermore, Ferrero is the most attractive choice of employment in Italy. I leave you three articles about it (sorry if the first is in Italian).
In response the second question I don’t think it is possible to avoid that talented workers go to other companies because they could be attracted by job offers more appropriate to their needs or, in any case, by the possibility of growing, learning and improving their skills. For these reasons, like Giovanni, I think it is right that the most skilled workers move from one job to another after a certain period of time (for example 10 years).
Thank you, have a nice evening!
Domenico24 March 2019 at 20:47 #3685
“Brotopia is the idea that Silicon Valley is a modern utopia where anyone can change the world or make their own rules, if they are a man. But if you are a woman it is incomparably harder”.
According to this article, women hold only 25% of jobs in Silicon Valley. It seems impossible that such advanced, dynamic and innovative companies may have a problem of gender discrimination.
I agree with the journalist when she explains the motivation of having more men than women: programmers don’t like people, so they hire more men than women because they are more anti-social. I think this stereotype really existed also because especially men studied engineering and computer science at university years ago.
Now things are changing: many more women have graduated in engineering and have reached the best levels in their fields. However, it is not enough.
According to a study, “women in Silicon Valley not only earn less than their male counterpart but are awarded far less equity as well”. There is not only a problem of gender gap but also racial discrimination: women of color generally earn less than white woman.
Moreover, Silicon Valley leaders should contribute to eliminating discrimination and prejudice in the investment process: women receive seven times less funding than men do, making it far more challenging to grow and scale their companies.
Gender and racial discriminations are serious problems in every country. The big companies, like Google and Twitter, are examples to follow for the quality of work but, as regards the gender gap, they have not improved, and they are similar to the other smaller and less famous companies.
I think that we will see a decrease in gender gap in the coming years and, even in this case, the big firms could be a useful example to follow for the whole society.
I have just read this very interesting article about the various attempts to achieve gender equality in Silicon Valley: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/in-silicon-valley-women-face-an-equity-gap-that-is-far-larger-than-the-pay-gap.html .
Have a nice evening!
Margherita TambussiValerio DemontisParticipant@valeriodemontis25 March 2019 at 23:48 #3694
These days I thought about the questions that our moderator asked to us, and while I was thinking in which context Google is placed I thought this: let’s think of a competitive market, let’s take for example the opticians’ business in Pavia. Going along “Corso Cavour” one of the first things that catch my attention is the abundance of these stores, so if you are not different from all the other competitors you will have to fight hard to survive. If you offer the prescription lenses for free and you only charge by the frame of the glasses, you will probably have less staff or pay lower wages (for example guaranteeing only the minimum wage provided for that category) compared to others. These, in addition, will need to exploit at best every efficiency (so, for example, maybe they will take many interns in rotation, but they will never be able to hire them because they are useful only for lowering staff costs). The newly described competition market has an incredible rate of morality and birth. The competitive ecosystem pushes economic subjects towards ruthlessness or death.
When instead I turned my attention on the Google position, the situation seems different. Google in the information market is an oligopolist and has the largest slice of that. So, they don’t have to worry so much about the competition, they have more time to look at employees, products and their impact on the world.
Regarding the second answer, I would like to add a concept to my previous reply. I believe that one way to prevent employees to go to others company, can be to have a strong and precise corporate identity. Subsequently, something even more difficult to implement is to be good at transmitting to your employees’ values and vision of why the company is doing that. I believe that if the employee shares and feels the way in which the company is pursuing its goals, it will be more complicated for these two subjects to separate.
When Steve Jobs returns at Apple in 1996 and met Johnathan Ive (in that period he was the Director of the Industrial Design, now Chief Design Officer) asked him why he was still in a company that for Jobs don’t have style or neither sense of the design. Ive replied that he was one of those people that believed in what Apple stood for, or rather that the computer or whatever it might be, should be a natural extension of the individual. Is that mission, that devotion, those ideals and heart that kept Ive in Apple even in dark days.
After all, I think that a factor that helps to make employees happy can be an adequate corporate structure. In the sense that businesses are different from each other, therefore the organizational structure of them could certainly change, due to needs that can depend on the market, on the objectives pursued, and its intrinsic characteristics. In general, I like to imagine an efficient organizational structure founded on these two pillars, or better say, two figures: a pyramid and a horizontal line. In this pyramid, the horizontal line can go both upward and downward. The pyramid means that inside there is a hierarchy to be respected regarding the decisions that must be taken. While the horizontal line represents the totality of the individuals that constitute the company. The latter must be able to give everyone the opportunity to be able to freely express their opinions without any awe. This could be useful because also the ruling class is informed and takes an interest in the processes that underpin the business activity, but also, for example, a warehouse worker could understand why the entrepreneur took that specific decision. I believe that this facilitates a process of understanding between the various blocks/compartments/team and leads individuals to greater respect for the work of others.
Thank’s for your attention, have a good night!
Valerio Demontis.Lorenzo LacchiniParticipant@lorenzolacchini26 March 2019 at 20:28 #3698
In my opinion the working environment is one of the most important factors for the growth of a company. Having the opportunity to work in an environment tailored to the worker allows stimulating the creativity of the employers themselves. it’s generally known that a company that is dedicated to the welfare of workers improves the success rate.
I would like to tell you about my work experience in Decathlon, one of the leading sportswear companies of international success. I started working as a salesperson in the cycling department without any kind of knowledge of the field. But thanks to the availability of my colleagues, I learned a lot and I acquired many skills in a short time. I started in March 2018, while I was attending the last year of my bachelor. I worked there for 8 months: I was a student and also a part-time worker. This was possible thanks to the flexible time schedule that allowed me to attend classes and take exams. The environment was so friendly and stimulating that I felt part of a big family. I felt listened and comprehended. On the other side, I also learned to listen and comprehend the values of the company: since the first day of training, managers transmit the core ideas of Decathlon’s mindset with great enthusiasm, making you feel an integral part of the company project even if you are a simple salesperson. I was happy to pursue the same goal as my colleagues and directors.
Actually, Decathlon confirms itself as one of the best companies for its work environment. Decathlon also offers the possibility of changing the area of competence, putting you to face new challenges. This allows both a working and personal growth, making the worker always stimulated to devote to the firm.
Nevertheless, I believe that the choice to remain or to change work is subjective and it doesn’t depend only on the company’s behavior. Many people are so devoted to their jobs that get married with the project and dedicate their entire working careers on it. On the other hand, people prefer to change air after a few years because they are continuously stimulated by new challenges and prefer to pursue personal growth rather that contribute to the overall growth rate of the company. There is no predetermined time limit, everything is subjective. Therefore, I believe that a company should try to stimulate its employees in as many ways as possible to ensure that they never settle and continue to feel challenged. But, in the end, the successful formula to retain employees forever has not been discovered yet.
have a good night,
Lorenzo27 March 2019 at 19:57 #3712
I think that Lorenzo was very lucky to have worked in a comfortable and stimulating place.
In my opinion, big companies like Google and Apple are examples to follow because they have developed a circular process: a dynamic and innovative firm has happy and stimulated workers, and satisfied employees work in a modern company.
However, most companies don’t try to improve this aspect although recent studies have shown that the most important factor for employees satisfaction is the work environment.
Negativity is contagious, and it can easily spread in a working environment. As said in my previous comment, the unhappiness and dissatisfaction make the workers less productive and they can cause employees to consider resigning or looking for a new job.
It is complicated to find a reason why a small-medium company shouldn’t focus on a developing a good working environment in order to put employees in the best conditions to work.
A consequence of a negative work environment can be absenteeism. A study has shown that there is relationship between work environment and workers’ health: the more the working conditions are negative, the more the employees get sick.
One of the causes of diseases is the fact that the workload is increasing because the productivity demands keep growing. However, research displays that employees who have control over their own workday rarely get sick.
Small-medium enterprises obviously don’t have the same profits as Silicon Valley firms and therefore an improvement in the working environment requires higher costs.
I think it is impossible that medium companies can reach the level of Google and Apple, but they could take inspiration from them in order to obtain more profits.
Yesterday I found this article about the importance of a positive working environment:
What do you think about this? According to you, why shouldn’t small-medium companies improve the working environment?
Have a nice evening!
Margherita Tambussi1 April 2019 at 19:52 #3728
Good evening everybody!
I’m just back to Pavia and during this weekend at home I read a very interesting article about Lorenzo’s questions, on a local newspaper (Il Secolo XIX), about virtuous companies and business welfare (i.e. mixture of policies and actions that employers give to their employees).
Since 2016, every year, Generali surveys 4.500 small and medium-sized enterprises and sets a ranking with the best Italians business welfare enterprises.
This new innovative welfare, according to some expects, will be the new welfare system; in fact, the welfare State is in crisis and only through this innovative welfare employees and employers will be happier and most productive.
I think that, business welfare has an enormous advantage, in fact, on the one hand, the employers do not pay any extra taxes and, on the other hand one the employees receive a bonus payment (i.e the refund or voucher) for its values, without tax or contribution. Of course, someone may ask me that this welfare will reduce direct tax revenue but if employees consume more and more, indirect taxes (i.e. VAT) will increase.
Moreover, due to business welfare, new types of workers emerge; I’m very fascinated by a great example in Genoa where Banca Passadore has hired a handyman worker who is in charge of paying employees’ bills, delivering packages, and so, solves everyday workers’ problems.
Unfortunately, according to the survey carried out by Generali, Italian welfare champions are only 1,5% on 4561 national enterprises.
In conclusion, I want to ask you: why do you think that only 1,5% implement this new welfare? Do you believe that business welfare will be the future welfare system?
Thank you so much,
I can’t way to see you tomorrow for the second meetup.
Giovanni2 April 2019 at 19:34 #3732
Good evening everyone,
Today conference was very interesting and stimulating. I would like to thank Massimo Della Porta who shares with us his personal experience as an innovative manager of SAES Getters and shows us interesting examples of innovation.
Della Porta has to face many difficulties during his working life, but any time he succeeded because of his great innovative spirit. During the conference, he showed us many examples of ancient great enterprises that nowadays do not exist anymore, such as Nokia and Motorola, because they did not follow the market or because they have just developed one innovative “application”, in that case telephones. So as Della Porta underlined, innovation is necessary for the survival of the enterprise.
Furthermore, we define innovation as an invention that has a market, but not only, as Della Porta told us today, an innovation may be an invention with a potential market, in that case marketing plays a key role. So, here it explains why leader enterprises spend at least 10% of the turnover and if we count also marketing costs we have on average 15-17% of it.
As I understood today, it is fundamental to have many innovative applications in order to maintain and obtain a market leader. Innovation, as we know, is very uncertain and really expensive, in particular, it requires long term investments and most times the initial aim of the R&D changes because of the market or other exogenous or endogenous reasons.
In conclusion, today R&D has completely changed, and it is becoming “opening innovation”, this means that through social media and Internet we have an exponential growth of information exchange and hence we have more innovation and in some cases prosperity.
What do you think of today conference?
Have a good evening,
Giovanni2 April 2019 at 21:06 #3733
Today’s conference was extremely interesting.
Thanks to SVST that gave us the opportunity to meet an important entrepreneur. Della Porta told us his story through challenges, dangers and victories. It is increasingly difficult to find a person in Italy who can still invest in R&D. According to him, innovation is a process that involves the entire company that starts from real or perceived needs on the market, and the firm tries to satisfy them through research and development.
Innovation is the engine for the survival of companies. The companies disappeared because the market was changing, and they didn’t adapt to the change. Innovation serves to anticipate events, to adapt to changes but we need to understand what will happen. A company should gain a dominant position in the market thanks to patents, R&D, diversification and modification.
Innovation is a long process, and for this reason it is important to invest in technologies that can be used in different sectors.
Thanks to planning and the diversification of production, the entrepreneur was able to face two major challenges due to the development of competing technologies and the economic crisis of 2008.
According to Della Porta, to be a good entrepreneur a person should be aware of the business risk and should also have culture and personal ethics. The economic aspect is in the background. Moreover, an entrepreneur should adapt to changes in the market, should invest in R&D and should also be lucky.
I agree with him about the Italian education. Most of his company is abroad but the sector dedicated to research is in Italy because, according to him, Italian education is one of the best in the world.
I want to share with you this article about the importance of R&D in firms. According to this article, the innovation becomes more and more important due to globalization and to the market competitiveness.
Have a nice evening!
MargheritaPaolo GiovanettiParticipant@paologiovanetti2 April 2019 at 23:40 #3735
Good evening everyone,
I must say that today’s conference was really enlightening and it was great to hear somebody as experienced as Mr Della Porta talk about innovation.
As he mentioned, innovation is not just an option for businesses, especially nowadays: it is the means for their survival, in fact a good criterion to distinguish between a successful company and one which is not is the % spent on R&D. And it is very important to understand that innovation is not only crucial to large high-tech companies, it is indeed very important for small and medium businesses, as explained in the article mentioned by Margherita. Of course it is an extremely long and expensive process, however the future payoffs are definitely worth the cost.
For a country like Italy, whose businesses are mostly small and medium, as noted by Mr Della Porta, it is therefore crucial to invest as much as possible in innovation in order to remain competitive in a globalized world. Unfortunately there are countless obstacles, such as an incredible amount of bureaucracy, taxes to pay and often what lacks is the right mindset, which should consist in thinking big, being risk-oriented and having a strong ethical attitude.
I was impressed by the flexibility of SAES, a company able to switch from producing certain products to completely different ones in a short period of time, possibly thanks to the ability of forecasting what will be required by the market in the future.
I have to disagree with Margherita in regards to education in Italy, in fact this article (I found it only in Italian) tells quite a different story : https://www.eunews.it/2018/10/16/istruzione-italia-gli-ultimi-della-classe-europa/110139. The issue is that Italy is one of the countries in Europe which invests less in education and research. The European Commission, and I quote from the article, recommended that “research, innovation, digital skills and infrastructure should receive much more funding”.
So, once again we see how important innovation is in every sector, starting from education.
What are your views on this?
Have a good nightLorenzo LacchiniParticipant@lorenzolacchini3 April 2019 at 14:06 #3737
I was totally impressed by the conference. Mr. Della Porta has succeeded in transmitting us the essence and the way of thinking of an entrepreneur. I am enthusiastic indeed to have participated because i love technology innovations.
To answer to Paul, the article that you have published talks about investments in the education field and I am totally sure that Mr. Della Porta spoke about Italian students’ competences.
I share this article with attached paper on a study on the Italian university students: https://www.varesenews.it/2018/12/gli-university-Italian-studious-dynamic-preparati/778000/
As we all know, it is true that Italy needs huge investments in education, just look at some classrooms of our dear UNIPV! But I believe that this wasn’t the main topic of the meeting guys. There are much more interesting topics that have been touched.
Coming back to the meeting, I would like to make some considerations about the OLED screens that we talk a lot about. I love every existing device that has a screen. We have been told that in the coming months the first “flexible” mobile phones will be introduced, but actually, we are not talking about a single screen but a kind of “stitched” screens. As we know, there is a risk that an invention will be technologically too advanced for the historical period in which it is conceived and created (like the flying machine by Leonardo Da Vinci). I’m ignorant in entrepreneurial matters but I fear that the “FlexPhones” will end being like ”Virtual Reality” (VR) in the gaming market: the prices are too high for the average consumer and it would eventually become a niche product.
I post you this article that talks about the Galaxy fold, the new “folding” phone that will be launched by Samsung in the coming months:
What do you think, will it be an innovation, in the short or long term or a flop?
I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
have a good day
LorenzoNicole GuzzettiParticipant@nicoleguzzetti3 April 2019 at 15:24 #3738
The conference held by SAES Getters’ chairman Massimo Della Porta was very inspiring. The aspect that impressed me the most about the company was its ability to adapt to different crisis, and despite them, obtain leadership in its sector.
Companies, in order to stay alive, must innovate and adapt to market changes that, sooner or later, occur in each sector. SAES Getters is an example of an open-minded company that managed to diversify and adapt its production to market needs and to innovations that happens to be carried out by other companies. Starting with television cathode-ray tubes and coming to food packaging, the company has been able, for over than 70 years, to understand market needs and to take risks investing in profitable innovations.
As Mr. Della Porta stressed yesterday, innovation is only a part of a long process of growth, and returns on investments often take years to be achieved. So, it’s essential to find different applications for an innovation in order to make the investment as remunerative as possible, and be able to invent these applications if they don’t exist yet.
Globalization has led to changes in business models and in the process of innovation. Yesterday open innovation concept was briefly discussed, and in my opinion, it’s an interesting development concerning ways companies deal with innovation. Open innovation requires to involve consumers in R&D process in order to find out specific needs, and it’s based on cooperation with Universities and research centres to accelerate innovation, as SAES on its website declares to do.
Coming to Lorenzo’s comment, for the moment I have no idea of what could be the utility of a foldable phone. I agree with him when he says that foldable phones will probably end being like virtual reality. Both are very expensive technologies, and I think that at an initial stage, it’s difficult to achieve big sales volume with them. But Samsung with the launch of flexible phone is bringing an innovation on the market that in future might be developed also by competitors and turned into something more attractive and less expensive for consumers. So, in my opinion flexible phone will initially be a flop, but it will also pave the way for future interesting developments.
Have a good afternoon,
Nicole3 April 2019 at 18:31 #3739
In response to Lorenzo’s question, I think that folding phones are the future, but I don’t know if they will have success in the short period.
They are new and very expensive: the 4G LTE version will cost 2000 euros while the 5G model will cost more.
Innovations haven’t often an immediate success because they are expensive and haven’t a demand in the market yet.
In my opinion, folding phones will be sold in the long run when the costs of innovation and technology will be low, and the demand will go up.
I think this is a revolution like the introduction of Iphones in 2007.
Obviously, there are skeptics who highlight the problems of folding phones like the high costs and excessive size (“they will never be as thin as regular phones”). They crease, and this could be another problem because we are still used to “traditional” phones. Finally, many people believe that they might be a little too much.
The first two companies to launch the new folding phones are Samsung and Huawei. The two phones have different characteristics: for example, Samsung made a folding phone that keeps the bigger tablet screen protected inside the device, adding a secondary screen to the front. Huawei, meanwhile, went for a single, bigger screen that wraps around the outside.
Xiaomi and Motorola are also developing their models, while Apple is working on the patent of its new device, the Iphone X Flod.
But folding screens are coming. Companies can put display technology into other devices like games console and laptops.
I found an article about this idea:
The smartphone market is changing, and innovation is the way for companies to survive in a very competitive market. In fact, the folding phone is considered the crucial product for Samsung because it tries to remain the most important phone manufacturer against the tough competition of Chinese rivals.
Have a nice evening!
MargheritaValerio DemontisParticipant@valeriodemontis3 April 2019 at 19:32 #3740
I want to thank the organization first and that allowed us to meet engineer Massimo Dalla Porta, who I listened to with great pleasure and as much attention.
One of the things that struck me most was his speech on money, “you have to be an entrepreneur with the heart,” he said. Furthermore, he added that in Italy we have been taught to solve problems with few types of approaches.
This led me to make an argument that I want to build on three words. Money, productivity and flexibility. Money, what is money? It is often identified as the final goal of a company, the main objective for which business is done; so much so that many entrepreneurs are so obsessed with it that they focus entirely, losing sight of other aspects (for example: the well-being of the community, the happiness of their employees). While I was studying macroeconomics from the book by Oliver Blanchard (2014), I concluded that makes me understand money, not as a source of wealth, but as a tool of production. What really creates wealth is productivity. This, in my opinion, explains why macroeconomic economists study aggregate production very carefully. So, to end the conversation, it’s the productivity that allows the company to create added value to its product; it is productivity that creates the added value that consumers are willing to pay and that tends to place a company within the market.
I believe that the engineer Dalla Porta is right when he says that in Italy problems are faced with a limited approach (I don’t remember if he used these words, but I think he meant this). For example, how many times in newspapers have we read that production depends on the demand for goods? This can be said to be true in the short term (the time frame that includes one year), where changes in demand can undergo variations based on changes in consumer confidence (a bit like what is happening with foreign investors in our country); but the same cannot be said for the medium and long term. In the medium term, (10 years) production tends to be determined by the stock offering capital, level of technology, size of the labor force). Also, about the long term, things are different, in fact, it is characterized by structural programming actions in a future perspective (50 years), for example in sectors such as school or bureaucracy. This made me reflect on how important it is to try not to let things be controlled by chaos.
In this regard, I connect with a sentence from Dalla Porta, who said he was very lucky to be able to talk about the company yesterday because many of the companies born together with his now no longer exist. I must admit that I don’t agree so much with him in this case. Or it could be that Mr. Dalla Porta made humility a “strategy” (obviously not with us), however if I consider that when he was handed over by his father the company in 2000, the latter was worth 160 million, and he had debts for 100 million; today the company is worth 250. Having said that, I believe there are greater forces than luck. I believe that it is a mix of personal intuitive characteristics, accumulation of knowledge, a touch of madness and then (why not?) also, luck. I would like to take the examples of great geniuses of humanity as: Steve Jobs (who has been successful not only with Apple, but also with Pixar and with computers Next) and Elon Musk (who in addition to the various “Tesla”, “Space X” and “Neuralink”, was the protagonist of several multi-billion-dollar companies). If success were just a matter of luck, I really couldn’t explain these two people I just mentioned above.
I want to share with you this graph that shows some important changes that Elon Musk made in Tesla when he became CEO. He had been in the company since 2004 (as the principal investor) but was elected CEO in 2008.
Thank you for your attention.
Have a good evening!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.