Minutes ago arrived in my news box the fines that Romanian TV channels received for unscrupulously presenting the suicide of a popular local singer (Madalina Manole – see photo) to general public. Amongst others there were accusations on presenting suicidal methods, showing clear images with her one year old son and invading people’s private life in very difficult moments.

Nothing interesting so far; this may even look like authorities are really doing their job. Only until one could see the size of these fines. The biggest one (for doing all the above mentioned cruelties)  was RON 10’000 which is less than EUR 2’500 which is probably less than one minute cost for  commercials at prime time. In such situation who would really care not to do it again?

Does this look far from our day to day business realities? I do not think so. Many of our current policies are screaming out to be ignored. Or, even worse, they (financially) “legitimate” what may otherwise be a moral problem. In other words, intruding into someone’s private life may be morally unacceptable; however, if that costs EUR 1’000 only then one can conclude it may not be that seriously morally unacceptable.

As a Romanian citizen I do not feel protected by such kind of authorities and policies. In our case I am sure that all TV channels will repeat the same abuses again and again every time they will have an opportunity. Meaning the benefit from doing it outweighs by far the size of punishment. And when the worst punishment is at the level of 1 minute rate card it would practically mean… anytime. Are your regulations and processes strengthening your business or rather weakening it?

Paul is being auctioned (informally). Price for him, as a forecaster of future football games not as a dish, went up to €30.000.  Let’s see what one may get for this money.

·         First of all a young octopus (maybe 200g) feeding culinary fantasies of many Germans.

·         A football oracle. Really?

Let’s look at what happened. He was not always right. Two years ago, rather young and not enough “experienced”, he got wrong the final game in European Cup.

Nevertheless, predicted all 8 games right for this competition (although, after so much media attention, I really believe that what actually happened in the field was not independent from prediction whatsoever). But what kind of prediction is that? Let’s see. For each game he only predicts who is winning (a little difficult in groups when there might be no winner; I wonder how organizers would read it, maybe Paul opens simultaneously the boxes or just refuses to eat) and not the score, which may add a lot of complexity to the equation. So, for each game he has 50% chance to be right. This translates into this:

1.       Game 1 guessed right: 1 in 2 octopuses would predict the winner.

2.      Game 1+2 guessed right: 1 in 4 octopuses would predict both winners.

3.      Game 1+2+3 guessed right: 1 in 8 octopuses would predict all winners.

4.      All 1-8 games guessed right: 1 in 2⁸ octopuses would predict all winners. Meaning that 1 every 256 octopuses would get eight games right.

One can buy probably 30000 animals for this amount of money and find there one predictor of even 15 games in row. If only octopus could shout

Nevertheless would it be a good investment? Let’s make a few back of the envelope calcualtions. It is being said that 60 TV channels transmitted directly the World Cup final prediction. Let’s put a decent average fee for next one single event say… €5.000 for each channel. It would make a total of €300.0000 with very little cost incurred.

€30.000… you must be joking, Paul is not for sale.

Punishing the messenger looks as a pretty ugly thing to do (but often seen in business too). How about grilled Scweinsteiger (of course with beer) or Oezil sautéed?

While this amount of money would have the power to highly motivate many of us (at least me and my readers) to master some tasks, I have my doubts when it comes to football players. It would surely trigger some questions amongst players and I am not so sure they are all motivational! Here there are some of them:

Q1. What is the right price for actual winning the World Cup title? Spain never even made it to the final. These guys may be going to make the history that many generations only dreamt of. Is €600.000 too little, too much or just about right? I am sure there would be players on all sides.

Q2. Is €600000 what Spanish players are lacking now? Definitely they aren’t starving as a routine. I believe the majority of these guys are making much more with their club teams, meaning they are definitely not poor. Even if greed is evenly spread within most western populations, and I believe football players make no exception, glory of being world champions for the first time in history is more meaningful to them than €600.000 on top of other 10-20 million. (Although I may be terribly wrong too.) Obviously one may say: “What’s the big deal? On top of high fly for the glory we put additional cash; it can only make it better or more desirable.” The truth is that money associated with glory undermines the glory which is a much stronger motivator.

Q3. Is our contribution equal? And if not why shall we be paid on equal basis? This question may sound ridiculous for anybody who cannot win alone but I cannot exclude football players from thinking just like this.

Q4. If somebody tries and makes a mistake will I continue to love him as a teammate or I am going to see just the guy who ripped off my €600.000 cheque? Both last questions are just two ways to potentially undermine the team in spite of the intention to actually strengthen it.

My belief is that money has no motivational effect at this level. However, they may well be strong de-motivators. Who does not believe probably has not yet seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc .

We’ll see the effect on the players of this motivation scheme in the next two games. The game against Paraguay seems to prove me right. I wish Spain would win (almost as much as I wish Holland would, now that Messi is back home).

Arjen Robben was in my view the man behind the victory, although for many Wesley Sneijder was more in the spotlights. What I found interesting about this player was controlling his nerves. On average, he has been brutally attacked every 5 minutes. Even myself watching I discovered I became nervous just seeing this happening almost every time he hit the ball. In the second half one Brazilian paid for all these fouls by receiving the red card and finishing the tournament 20 minutes earlier. A minute later Robben was again put down close to Brazilian goal. Referee gave free kick for Holland and immediately arguments ignited among Brazilians, Dutch and referee and lasted for about a minute. All these happened just two meters behind Robben who was sitting on his butt on the grass facing the opposite direction and choosing not to get involved in the argument.

I believe it was a highly professional behavior and possibly the only way to keep focusing on what a player is supposed to do: play. And I also believe that in emotional moments this is what we shall all attempt doing. Stay out of the heat; it is so likely that we will regret things we are doing or saying under the influence of our “reptilian” brain.

2010 – Luis Fabiano (Brazil) plays twice the ball with hand scoring for 2-0 in a game against Ivory Coast. Guess what has he declared? “It was God’s hand!” Only this time God helped twice.

When I first saw playing football more than 30 years ago it was not uncommon for players to admit during the game to referee they committed fouls so that the decision should not affect the overall evolution of the game.

What changed meanwhile and what can we learn from it?

Firstly, people were playing then for much less money. It seems that there is inverse proportionality relationship between the amount of money at stake and honest behavior. Allowing dishonesty to install has effects beyond the simple fact that unethical people invisibly take money from other people’s pockets. It will affect the norms and values of billions of people.

Secondly, once dishonest behavior was accepted by the community (world’s greatest football player can honorably score with hand) it spreads out as a norm (everyone can replicate it, multiplicate it without the blame). It becomes the name of the game.

Thirdly, once behavior become norm it is unlikely to disappear by itself. It needs serious regulations, advocates, models and effort to regain what has been lost. Sadly, FIFA is nowhere close to it. Yesterday evening England went home after scoring a perfectly valid goal in an important moment of the game while, in a different game, (again) Argentina remained after scoring its first goal from a clear off side position. You could see sportsman fighting for the truth against others fighting for shame. Should roles change we would see (ridiculously enough) the same fight!

Lastly, organizations shall do their best to employ all the available technology if needed to discourage to the maximum possible extent a rotten behavior leading to a rotten culture. Sadly, FIFA is too conservative and blind to see it this way, but I hope other people in their own place do. The majority of us do not have their luxury of monopoly.

UPDATE: Next game “God’s hand” went home after losing against more tennacious Holland.

I just returned from “Mihai Viteazul” National College in Bucharest where I gave a lecture as a guest of Leaders Foundation. I have been asked what I would do if I were in their situation. I think that together with taking seriously formal education is getting social experiences at all kinds from getting a job, taking a summer course, volunteering or (should mom and dad have plenty of cash) going around the world for one year. This would allow that the social part of one’s brain be programmed in a way closer to his/her nature. Failing to do this would allow other people (such as your first employer!!) to install in their programs without any resistance. Think the way we install software and pop-up jumps saying that some existing program won’t let you install just anything!

They have a great selection of players. They have Messi who scored all four goals in a quarter final game in Champions League. And they have Milito, who scored both goals in the Champions League final, as a substitute!

Would that be just enough?

Additionally, they have Maradona as coach. He is unquestionably the best football player in the world ever. However, seldom such big player stars are making it as coach, the rule is rather opposite (look at Hagi, or change views and see Mourinho). And Maradona is the best ever. Those who managed to make it as coaches excelled in self-control and role modeling with Maradona being a far flung from any of these both in the past and now.

Will unusual talent of Argentinean players together with the aura of what used to Maradona as a player be enough to win this much desired trophy?

My guess is not! Bitterly! But we will see it in a month from now! Hope we will have a new challenge for our leadership stereotypes.

UPDATE: It made it only to quarterfinal when Argentina was humiliated and sent back home by Germany (4-0). Pity for its stars as none of them was shining at this tournament.

Then take some raw plastic and shape it into the form of a trumpet. Name it vuvuzela after word “vuvu” meaning noise in Zulu language. Bring it to the stadium and upset the world with it. World will remember you forever.

No special budgets, no consultants… even a little business.

South Africa

Some evening he had a long talk with the in-house trainer of his company. At one moment the trainer exclaimed that my friend is a hell of a great person and asked why he stayed hidden for so many years (about six).

To which he answered that in their first training together the trainer turned him off rudely twice in raw and then it was up to him how long he wanted to keep the distance. I actually happened to be there.

He displays the pure definition of an extrovert personality.

The moral of the story: next time you see someone dispassionate nearby, you better ask (including yourself here) why before jumping to some conclusion or putting a label. He may not be that introvert you just thought.