Change Workplace Environment to Change Employee Performance

I ran across this video today and wanted to share because it applies to my love of Darwinian concepts of evolution to business strategy. In a nutshell, late 20th century business philosophy focused on changing employee behavior to achieve results. It never worked because management was going about it backwards. In Darwinian speak, individuals from any species are subject to outside stimuli and environmental factors. Environmental conditions unfavorable to an individual will result in poor performance and even death. The applies to human individuals in the workplace. An unfavorable workplace environment will harm an employees effectiveness or force them to quit. So stop trying to change the employee. Create a favorable working environment. The rest will take care of itself. If a problem employe is part of the unfavorable working environment, well, that's what pink slips were invented for. Fix it!

Job vs Entrepreneurial Venture by Seth Godin

No Coupons or Loyalty Card Discounts Required

Macy's is way ahead of the game in marketing customer loyalty by providing a phone app that allows purchases at the register with a tap of the phone to the register and instantly adds any loyalty points or discounts. In return, they get to market to you via the phone app and built in monitoring of your purchasing behavior. Sweet! This works out better for both customer and Macy's than the instant coupon most clerks offer using the flyers on the register desk. Check out the video that explains what's coming.

Non-Profit Strategy versus For-Profit Strategy.

In economic theory, the goal of a business is to provide something of value that another entity will exchange something of equal value for. Bridging the gap between vision and exchange is the mission. For a for-profit, the exchange is for an item or service. The value may be utilitarian, such as a car for transportation. It may also serve as a non-utilitarian personal reward for the purchaser. And finally, the car purchase may provide a  more esoteric sense of well-being or status for the purchaser. The sense of well-being is a completely altruistic act. The purchase of status could be purely for status or a combination of sense of well-being and status. 

For a non-profit, the exchange is only for the latter sense of well being and status or combination of the two. The vision will focus on the sense of well being and may or may not hint at achieving status. The non-profit mission is to provide each with or without a physical item or service in the exchange. 

Here’s where the difference occurs. In a for profit, mission is how a business generates revenue. For a non-profit, mission is also how the non-profit goes about generating revenue but also, how effectively it achieves the stated vision. 

By example, I might buy a computer because it’s the best for my business needs. If the company states their vision is to become the best selling or most efficient or whatever lofty goal makes no difference to me. The purchase is personal. For a non-profit, however, I’m investing in the vision and how well they achieve that vision. A seasoned donor will look at both how well a non-profit achieves or approaches its stated vision but also how efficiently it does this, managerial flow, costs to revenue ratios, bootstrapping and marketing strategy etc...

With this understanding of the non-profit two-fold mission, strategy development around the how to can be done, keeping in mind that this more art than science. 

Love to hear your thoughts!

Partners - Rules for Consulting Collaboration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:
ElbeDay1945_(NARA_ww2-121).jpg

Business consulting is an extremely complicated job. And even when I'm extremely comfortable with the industry and the job, I always like to call on some colleagues for their perspective. And, I have a Mutual-NDA signed with my favorites to placate client concerns and expedite the process of sharing this perspective.

In my experience, the sum of he parts is definitely greater then the individual parts combined. Trading ideas only enhances the results with each iteration. If you're not collaborating, consider it and this set of rules for collaboration:

 1. Select a few consultants in areas that you have overlap. Overlap assures that each consultant will more fully comprehend the perspective of the other and allow each to contribute along lines each will understand.

 2. Each consultant should contribute knowledge areas outside the other's domain experience. This broadens and enhances value. No single consultant can be an expert in all areas. Turn to your collaborators for help when needed.

 3. Return the favor and share the revenue if the contribution is significant.

 4. Clearly state to your client that you are brining in extra help at any level. As a consultant you're expected to deliver the best results possible, not know it all or pretend to. Include a copy of the Mutual-NDA in your original bid or send after adding a collaborator.

 5. Arrange to use your collaborators clients as references and likewise for the collaborator. It's a great way to build a clint list and get experience.

 6. Collaborating is a perfect networking opportunity. Don't waste it. But be sure not to scavenge clients from your buddy. I always ask my collaborator's contacts to contact my collaborator friend if they are interested in working with me. You need to protect that collaboration.

 In the end, you may even identify collaborators that you can't do without and form a formal partnership.

Walter White of Breaking Bad is NOT Dead!

For a fun application of strategy;

God save me, I love Breaking Bad and hate to see Walter White bite the big one.  But, Walter never gives up and always has plan B going in the background. And here’s my take on the whole Plan B thing.

To start with, in my totally fictitious take that does not imply an actual planned episode or even suggest an endorsement by the creators of Breaking Bad, Walt does NOT die! The next episode starts with paramedics arriving just in time to save him. And after a few days in a comma, we discover that, while mounting a Gatlin gun in the trunk of his car, he was working out Plan B in his head. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:
Periodic_table_(polyatomic).svg

What we didn’t see in the final episode of last season was one of Jesse’s old cohorts, Badger, now working for Walt, walking in on Lydia Rodarte-Quayle just as she learns she was poisoned as Walt hangs up on her. Badger tells her that, under Mr White’s direction, he’ll give her the antidote, if she gives him enough info to take down her European connections, which she does. Badger gives her the antidote, which is actually more racine. She dies soon after. 

Badger holds onto the info as Walt negotiates a deal with the feds. He’s promised a ton of cash to hang onto it. We also discover that Gretchen and Elliot Swartz are contacted by Saul Goodman, also under threat of exposure by Walt, the day after Walt meets with them to launder the cash. Saul arranges for a safe meeting place where he records a conversation between the Swartzes and the laundry man. 

Meanwhile, the Swartzes, still fearing for their life and at Saul’s insistence, make a donation as directed by Walt to Walt’s family. Walt uses the donation as an excuse to have them visit him in jail with Saul to thank them. Under attorney client privilege, Walt informs them that he wants 30% of the business in exchange for not revealing the recordings to the feds, which Saul plays for them from his laptop, along with testimony that they willingly participated in his criminal ventures.

In the closing segment, Walt negotiates a new identity that he uses to take his 30% of Swartzes business, his family gets the original donation. He then picks up the phone and calls Saul, asking him to find Jesse.

Of course this is how I'd do it, if I were in charge. But I'm not and only wishing.

Now THAT’s business strategy that considers all the angles!

Defending Government Spending During this Latest Shutdown

Anyone who knows me or has read my blog knows that I'm Libertarian-leaning in my political preferences. Less government and more freedom is my motto. But it may surprise some folks to learn that I actually do favor government funding in some industries where normal rules of economics don't work so well. My three favorites are, NASA, the Military and Education.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Vehicle-Assembly-Building-July-6-2005.jpg

As a Star Trek geek that remembers the first moon landing, I love seeing those folks at NASA ramping up the budget, which they rarely do. As a business strategist, to the chagrin of many of my colleagues,  I also favor not only maintaining NASA's budget, but significantly increasing it. My strict anti-government spending colleagues are quick to point out that SpaceX is an example of how private industry can replace the boys at government-sponsored NASA and do a better job at it. I agree that SpaceX will do a better job at what they're doing. But lets get real, the boys at SpaceX are riding the coat tails of NASA's decades old approach at developing technologies with little commercial value at the time. If there was commercial value in rocketry, the moon would be swarming with industry giants and Kid's meal at at Mc Donald's would come with a real moon rock as a toy.

NASA develops incredibly costly technologies, cost prohibitive technologies, that private companies later commercialize. They're the most cost effective R&D arm of any corporation in America. Their activities spawn new industries and bolster existing industries through collaboration. And all the money NASA receives is spent in the good ole US of A on high paying tech jobs, which in turn feed into the economy in general. Imagine the aviation industry today without NASA. Imagine its potential because of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:
B-2_Spirit_original.jpg

The US military is one industry that benefits form a well-funded NASA. Take post world war II Europe for example. In our common goal of beating Hitler, the US built the USSR into the one of the most formidable militaries in the world. If we hadn't developed payload capable rocketry, capable of reaching Russia, guided by satellite images that could read newspaper headlines in Red Square, France might be the largest satellite in the soviet empire. And all of this technology was being developed by well-paid American workers used indirectly to guard the right of the rest of us to pursue more profitable ventures in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:
FeltaSchool1.jpg

And now, having made a case for spending funds in those two industries, imagine if there weren't any local employees to fill those high tech jobs. Education must be a priority. I have some experience here. I worked as a volunteer substitute teacher, K-12, to gain domain experience for an education-related new venture I'm working with. I took advantage of the position to talk with as many teachers as I could. They all had the same complaint; problem kids were ruining the educational experience for the rest. Rules of engagement, and that's an accurate term, made it impossible for teachers to manage these kids. They acted-up constantly and had a greater influence over other students than the teachers. Funding must be directed at removing these students, placing them in an atmosphere where they can not only realize their own potential but not continue to poison others, thereby generating another generation of delinquents. I can't wait for the liberal posy to attack me on this one. But read on.

I recall a good friend of mine describing how after a night of drinking and vandalism as a teen, he was  offered jail or military by a judge. He chose the Navy and rose quickly under that low-tolerance, highly structured atmosphere, to become an officer and ships medical physician. Perhaps a step between traditional school and that extreme choice offered my friend is warranted and worth investing in.

Bottom line, post shutdown, America, Inc. needs to cut spending, but sensibly. We need to think of government spending and invest like a business in assets and eliminate those investments that clearly aren't working. Prioritize where limited funds are invested to gain the most equity. Government spending isn't a bad thing, over-spending and improper, inequitable allocation is the issue.

First we clean house. Term limits, no lawyers or anyone who calls themselves a democrat or republican.
Perhaps an economics degree should be required to qualify to run for office. At least a MBA or maybe having successfully run a business. Then we start over. Every item that cost money should be scrutinized and eliminated if not a sound investment in the growth of America, Inc.

Perhaps the new budget would pay for an educational system that producers citizens so smart, they'll actually vote like shareholders, which we all are. Perhaps the savings would fund an actual national healthcare system instead of the joke we're being forced-fed now. Government shutdowns might even become a thing of the past.

Repurposing the Product

I had opportunity to talk with an inventor/entrepreneur recently. He had this neat little device that would wake a person with chronic heartburn if they were to slip into a position prone to creating the problem while sleeping. Unfortunately, I don't see a need for it. There are several inexpensive drugs that can alleviate the problem without being woken during the night.

As a business strategist, I looked at competitors and potential markets and determined the device did have legs, but only if it was designed and marketed for entirely different uses. Without going into details, I repositioned the product through repurposing it as an alert system with numerous applications in areas with few alternatives in the anticipated price range.

Recently I discovered through a very dedicated research doctor that there are drugs and devices with little economic value to large drug and device manufacturers due to expired patents or a host other business reasons that through repurposing, could have enormous potential for alleviating human suffering around the world. He's started a foundation to do just that, raise funds to repurpose drugs and devices. The beauty of the approach is that most of these options have already passed FDA inspection and have been tested clinically. The foundation seeks funds for the process of repurposing, relatively inexpensive compared to new drug development.

As a human being, I'm psyched at the prospects of such a foundation. As a business strategist, I'm equally thrilled at the prospect of developing the systems required by this foundation to succeed. The entity will be in an eternal state of business development, constantly monitoring available drugs and devices ready for repurposing, constantly monitoring medical needs and pairing with donor desires. The business will have to brand itself as a rapidly evolving machine that can change mission to match market needs and develop appropriate marketing strategies in weeks or days. And it has to do all of this while keeping true to the vision of the foundation.

It should be a thrilling ride. I'll keep you posted.