Introit

Role of Equities in Endowment (2013)

Some twenty years ago, David Swensen's thinking on diversification changed how Yale invested its endowment. As John Authers points out in this weekend's (October 26-27, 2013) Financial TImes, "Mr Swensen argued that he was most likely to find value away from the public markets. [...] He moved out of bonds and cash, and into hedge funds, private equity and real assets such as forestry. Yale now holds about 6 per cent of its assets in US equities. This reaped impressive investment returns for decades, and many endowments imitated it."

Authers goes on to illustrate that Yale, like everyone else, lost money (lots of it!) during the financial crisis. Interestingly, due to how it is diversified (as noted above), it has not seen the flattering returns of the S&P 500 index, though. And that's not a bad thing...Yale's endowment returned 12.5% last year, with its diversified model of looking for value in private markets. Yet, the main thrust of his article ("This is no time to get off the equity train") is that the notion of portfolio diversification hasn't worked terribly well over the past five years, mostly because large institutional investors diversified out of stocks, sometimes by a wide margin. Consequently, not having as much at stake in equities equated to a reduced return.

He is very supportive, though, of Yale's strategy of diversification, to the point that he supports endowment managers considering the application of the Yale process when purchasing assets, while being clear that managers shouldn't strive to imitate the portfolio's holdings. Basically, "look for assets that may be inefficiently priced and would not fall with equities."

What I appreciate is that Authers is looking ahead to the time when stocks lose their momentum, as is inevitable.

I don't hear this kind of talk from many, so it's refreshing to consider it.

Networking and Innovation

I've been thinking recently about idea networks and knowledge networks.

An idea network is not the same as a knowledge network. A knowledge network is more akin to a knowledge center, a repository of items that folks wish to search with the intent of finding hard data/info that can be used. It be social, also, because that approach may be useful in locating or identifying existing knowledge. By contrast, an idea network is more of a community consultation space that facilitates/encourages connection and dialogue among people of diverse backgrounds and experiences who are looking to test an idea that they might have or to listen for weak signals to determine what ideas are beginning to take shape. There is a place for both networks, but they really serve different purposes.

I'm interested in idea networks because I'm interested in school cultures, especially schools that are trying to align their cultures for innovation. That's really the hard part, isn't it? Talking about innovation and intentionally aligning one's school culture for innovation are different things altogether.

If they're serious about innovation, one of the first questions that TTAFI (pronounced "taffy", trying-to-align-for-innovation) schools ought to wrestle with is where they will source their ideas.

You may be thinking that the raison d'être of innovative schools is to produce ideas in-house. Not really. There's a difference between being an inventive school and an innovative school. An inventive school is one that first discovers or happens upon an idea (process, product, etc.) while an innovative school first brings that invention into practice in a way that has societal impact.

So, if you're a TTAFI school, you could produce ideas in-house...and be limited by it because you're not engaged in the work of innovation, but invention. What you do with it--the action stage--is what defines an innovative school. And it's easier to get to the action stage if your school espouses idea networking.

For example, if you're a TTAFI school, have you considered what percentage of your innovative ideas (as opposed to inventions) you'd like to see come from internal sources and/or external sources? If you're truly interested in being innovative, it would make sense to allow the external sourcing of many of these ideas, in the spirit of "open innovation." After all, do you want to spend the time inventing something or putting it into action, creating impact that is societal (whether within your own community or in an even greater context)? Again, that's the difference between an inventive school and an innovative school: impact.

All of that brings me to this question: if you're a TTAFI school or a self-professed "innovative school," is your professional development program reflective of an idea network? Or is it more of a closed-circuit knowledge center? Consider the cultural difference(s).

Ruthless Prioritization

As I've mentioned before, I simply adore Luke Johnson's column "The entrepreneur" in the Wednesday issue of the Financial Times. Yesterday's column (October 2, 2013) dealt with the need for leaders to manage their time as well as their staff.

His premise is that "leaders need to be as good at time management as they are at staff management. They must understand the difference between urgent and important. And they have to know how to prioritise  ruthlessly."

This notion of ruthless prioritization struck a chord. It is absolutely essential, as I've learned from experience. Mark Twain's words in that regard resonate with me: "Good judgment is the result of experience and experience the result of bad judgment." He was right. I've learned the art of ruthless prioritization the hard way, like Johnson, who says that his philosophy has been "the harder you work, the more successful you are. The trouble with this approach is that work can seep into the rest of your life -- evenings, weekends and vacations."

He highlights the notion of thoughtful and balanced leaders having a hinterland, and that makes good sense to me, as I've had to cultivate that myself. And, though I do have one, it remains a work in progress, which is how I prefer it. I don't want my hinterland to be static; I prefer a dynamic one that is a kind of "learning retreat."

And the key to keeping it dynamic is to engage continually in ruthless prioritization so that I can do just that!