World of Wonder for a Wonderful World

PPT – no, not that presentation software

2010-11-30T23:01:00.003-05:00

People, Process and Technology.

Having managed staff at several firms and having worked on a start-up, I can safely say that investing in people is one of the most critical parts of running a business. Sure, you can have the best business model and concept, the best tool that you’ve built, but to scale up and create a viable, sustainably profitable business, an entrepreneur needs to build an amazing team and hire the right people (this includes outsourcing and working with agencies). After all, the business owner wants to work on their business, not in it, in order to grow it.

Many companies would not bat an eyelid when investing heavily in technology – from fast computers and servers to building web sites, tools, and applications. These are obvious investments that appear to be the foundations of a business. In order to be more efficient, all kinds of processes are put in place to streamline, improve quality and service, and enhance the bottom line. No amount of cutting edge technology or top-notch processes can be implemented successfully without the properly trained people (employees and third party providers). After all, you need the right people to consistently implement the processes (for sales, customer service, quality assurance, etc.) and effectively harness the power of the invested- technology. The lynchpin lies with the people…always the people.

Hiring employees can be a painful experience, especially when employees leave quickly or do not attain the level of excellence you expect of them after you’ve invested effort and time hiring, training, and giving them leeway to get up to speed – all during which time you have to pay them before they can contribute to a level that justifies compensating them at their pay level.

It is rather unfortunate that the leap of faith has to come almost entirely from the employer regarding an employee’s ability to produce. Yes, employees take on the risk if the company is mismanaged and goes belly-up or (especially a start-up) amounts to one the sells “vaporware”. But the real risk is borne by the employer, especially during the first 3 months of hiring a new employee. Precious time and money can be wasted with a poor hire. A good hire is a truly amazing experience for both parties. Suddenly, everything clicks and things are moving in the right direction swiftly.

During down times, firms cannot help but look to cut costs; it’s a good time to take an audit and make sure there is no waste. Some firms that can still afford to invest sometimes choose to invest heavily in technology while opting to cheapen on their human resource investment on their superstar performers. Other firms come to a screeching halt with any form of investment, and since they can’t cut back on technology they have already invested in (sunk cost), they look towards a giant chunk of most firms’ expenses – labor costs.

During challenging economic times, it is always difficult to decide if a firm still needs a sales staff the same size as during better times, or if would make sense to cut down on the headcount. Strategically, it is particularly during down times that represent the best time to step on the gas pedal to pull ahead of the competition. Realistically, would you need to the full staff to do so? If everyone on the staff has been a strong performer in their area, and the company is well-capitalized to weather the economic storm, I would say keep the team together. No matter how much you try to soothe the star performers that their job is safe, the simple act of cutting out other strong team members serves to rattle their nerves and distracts them from focusing on the task at hand. If there are any underperformers, shame on the firm for not getting rid of them any earlier; they should be left behind to begin with, the sooner the better. That would not rattle anyone, as everyone knows who is pulling the team down.

I would liken a strong team to that of an amazing basketball team. Even a superstar performer like Michael Jordan had to have other team players step in for a while – he could not carry the team the entire duration of the game. The same goes for business. Support staff tends to get the target on their backs for the axe but superstar people can quickly lose their star power when they have to do work that does not play to their strengths and serves to de-motivate them.

If you have the right people, then even with a cut-back on technology, they can still be creative and inventive with new processes to do more with less, think outside the box, and push the envelope with the current available technology. When this happens, the team really comes together and bonds at a whole new level. It’s a beautiful thing when a great team puts their minds towards a common goal. Amazing things happen and a wonderful camaraderie is formed, which serves to strengthen the team and the organization.

Earning your keep is commendable, but giving is more valuable

2010-08-22T20:09:00.002-04:00

Employees are paid to do their job. Those who perform that job well, and even exceeding well, are highly commendable. They are earning their keep. And though their results may be excellent, they may not yet earn the super star tag as a MVP employee. A highly valued employee is a person who not only earns but gives. The most valued employee is one who not only gives but also produces outstanding results – this is a super star or MVP employee.

For example, the employee who does a very good job within the typical 9am to 5pm time frame may be providing the employer a good return on investment (ROI) for what the employee is paid. No doubt, the employee has earned that pay. Contrast that with the employee who, on their own accord, decides to give to the employer a little more by way of working during lunch to move projects forward a little faster or helping answer customer inquiries after hours, is clearly a more valued employee who should also produce a higher ROI as a result.

While working late or additional hours may not be requested by the employer (as they may not feel the urgency sufficiently to pay overtime or to request such favors), the above-and-beyond actions by the employee is certainly noticed and puts them closer to the super star category of an employee-giver rather than an employee-earner. These people tend to be rewarded by getting advanced faster and higher within any firm they work at. They are not clock-watchers who bolt out at 5pm on the dot. The employee-giver is a company’s de facto candidate for a MVP.

Not all employee-givers are super star MVPs, however. For example, staying late because you are a slow or ineffective worker is hardly considered employee-giving because work quality is effectively sub-par, and the employee is simply staying late to catch up to par. The effective employee who outperforms others and also an employee-giver, is what puts them in the super star category.

In some ways, one could say this is one of the reasons why family and friends have a much different and often higher perceived relationship value than co-workers, bosses and employees. Friends and family give, they don’t earn. That’s why we care for and about them. Employees, volunteers, and effective networkers who give, get care and concern. It seems calculating, but it's human nature to value such relationships higher.

(Early) Retirement? No thanks.

2010-05-09T11:32:00.002-04:00

It seems to be a dream for many to retire early. That certainly would be a financial accomplishment. For a time, I embraced this notion and goal. You would think that as one ages, one would tire of working and truly look forward to some rest and relaxation in his/her retirement years. The odd thing is that as I age, I am beginning to relish the thought of not needing to retire, if I can help it.

Vacations are nice, but a permanent long-term vacation is frankly a bit boring for me. There’s only so much lounging around that I can do before feeling ansy. The quest to keep busy and plugged into society burns strongly within me. I’m not sure if that flame will ever die just because I’m older. Sure, I could keep busy playing tennis or drinking wine, but business (profit or not-for-profit) is my passion.

Maybe the urge to relax will take over after a certain age, especially if plagued by illness, but if I’m otherwise mentally and physically sound, I wonder if taking a permanent vacation is my cup-of-tea. Both my grandfathers owned and worked in their businesses without seeing retirement. Not for lack of financial wealth, but for a passion for business, I’m guessing. I can’t say I know either well enough to know this for a fact, but I suppose the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Is it entirely necessary to take on that kind of stress, say past age 70 or even 80 (like my grandfathers)? What about just volunteering somewhere and lending my business experience as a consultant pro bono or otherwise? That only sounds partially fulfilling to me, only because when you don’t take the risk (as most consultants don’t – they get paid for their time whether or not their advice is any good…at best they get a sweetener for being successful, but they hardly get penalized to a point of real pain like a business owner would), you don’t have “skin in the game” and you lack that fighter X-factor injected into the winning equation.

But really, if I were to be lucky enough to win, say, $300 million in the lottery, would I really still be working? Yes, in a foundation probably instead. And after a traveling around the world for maybe a year or so. I can’t imagine doing nothing for a longer period of time. So there, it’s in writing. You can hold me to it…when I win the lottery.

Finding real food

2010-03-31T23:34:00.010-04:00

“I only want to eat real food!” I proclaimed, as I marched down the supermarket aisle with my husband, “No processed foods for us.” I felt good about myself as I picked up items such as fresh vegetables for our consumption.

Then, I saw a television documentary about how almost all of our foods are genetically engineered – from seemingly innocuous vegetables such as corn to protein-rich soy beans to the cattle of cows. These scientific advances were touted to help farmers reduce crop loss from insects, enable foods to stay fresh longer and even boost the levels of valued vitamins and minerals in these foods.

All of this technology sounds pretty good, and the FDA says that the food remains “substantially” the same. If there's one take-away I've learned from my Chemistry class at school way-back-when, it's that it only takes an atom or different combination of the same atoms to change the entire nature of a molecule. Plus, the FDA has been known to make mistakes (after all, humans are not infallible) and it does remain to be seen what kind of consequences we will see decades down the road from ingesting these effectively artificial “biotech” foods for long periods of time.

It is virtually impossible for consumers to find any information in the aisle displays that the corn they are buying by the dozen during the summer for a BBQ is genetically-engineered. These disclaimers and notices are not seen anywhere in the fresh food section or even on the boxes of processed foods. It would be nice if there is at least a disclaimer somewhere so that consumers are more aware and can make their own choices.

Speaking of choices, do we have any? Where is one to look for “real, non-Franken food”? A trip to the farmer’s market or growing this from scratch yourself is not a sure-fire way at all – this stuff can be engineered in the seed itself! Here’s a link I found that could help:
http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Genetically-Modified-Foods

But this means having food that perishes faster, has less nutrients, and are higher in cost as these farmers may see crop loss and price accordingly. Is it worth it to try to avoid genetically-modified foods? After all, I'm not looking to live till I'm 120! But I'd like to live well enough to enjoy my life and not be burdened by poor health.

I suppose it’s too soon to tell, but my suspicion is that the health consequences could be even most costly from long-term consumption of such non-natural products. History seems to show that humans, though highly innovative and ingenious, have a knack of making technological advances that changes the balance of our planet and our bodies. And we never seem to realize the gravity of these consequences till it’s much later down the road. Hopefully, these consequences are reversible.

Musings on Music

2010-02-07T11:14:00.002-05:00

Music is such a marvelous thing. It is incredibly amazing how we can hear 3 musical notes, and determine if the mood conveyed is onerous, majestic, whimsical, or pensive. That’s one of the reasons why I love Broadway shows. It combines music, spoken word, dancing and acting all in one huge entertaining package.

It would be fascinating if I had a posse of musicians who would automatically play something apropos based on whatever I say or do. The closest thing in “every day life” in this regard is possibly when Dave Letterman or Jay Leno are doing one of their monologues (which is ultimately staged) or chatting with a guest. But even so, it would add so much more emphasis if appropriate music was playing in the background when I am delivering a poignant speech at a wedding and then perhaps drums would sound when I delivered a humorous punch line.

Eureka! I need my own traveling DJ/band! Any volunteers?

Trapped in your own body

2010-01-29T20:21:00.001-05:00

The importance of maintaining the physical body is more crucial than I had ever imagined. There was a piece of news I heard some weeks ago about a person who was considered a vegetable for numerous years turned out to be fully cognizant the entire time but simply had no ability to move a single muscle in his body to communicate with anyone. How frustrating that must be!

Can you imagine having all the of normal brain power we currently do but not being able to bat an eyelid, speak, move a finger or any other part of your body? This highlights the fact that our only means of communications currently is purely physical. Without it, we cannot participate in society in any way, no matter how smart we are or how much initiative we might possess.

This mind-boggling information just blows my mind! Now, more than ever, I am committed to doing what is necessary to keep fit. Without a healthy body, there is not much I can do to enjoy life, interact with others, or contribute to society.

The holidays highlight the strength of your social network

2009-12-25T09:55:00.002-05:00

The holiday season is a time when people get together with friends and family to enjoy some good cheer and celebrations. Even in a difficult economy, most people are splurging a little on their loved ones or at least investing in a trip to visit them. This period of time truly highlights the strength of one’s social network. It can be a difficult time for anyone who is alone or doesn’t have a strong network of friends and family.

I have been reading a book called Total Leadership, by Wharton professor Stew Friedman. In this book, there is a simple grid that one is to complete indicating how we distribute the importance (in percentage) of 4 areas of our life – work/career, home/family, community/society, and self (mind, body, spirit). Then, we are asked to put in percentage how we prioritize/focus our time in these 4 areas. We are also asked to rate the satisfaction and performance levels in these areas. It is remarkable how what we feel is important isn’t always where we choose to focus our time and energy. The idea is to find a match here to get the level of satisfaction and balance in our lives based on what we feel is important to us.

For this upcoming new year, my resolution is to devote more time to friends and family. Over the years, I have met a number of really wonderful people and often tell myself that I should get to know so-and-so better but time just slips by. Just like setting career or business goals, this will be my new goal for the new year!

Accounting lesson in friendship

2009-11-28T19:27:00.003-05:00

It’s easy to begin a friendship, but it can be extremely difficult to maintain friendships, especially over many years. Unlike a marriage, few friends usually exhaust all efforts to keeping a friendship. And some times, at no one party’s fault, friends drift apart as interests diverge over time.

I’ve always felt bad whenever I see friendships get strained as the income levels of a group of friends diverge significantly. Over time, it becomes impossible for those with less earning power to participate in all the other friends’ activities. In this case, I feel it is important for those “richer” friends to be more sensitive to their friends’ needs. After all, that’s what a good friend is supposed to do – be caring.

Speaking of caring, it is true in most relationships that this is a contentious issue because each person values their level of caring differently. If one party feels they are doing more of the caring or giving, then dissatisfaction ensues. They start to feel like the other friend doesn’t care enough to spend time with them, or to recognize their birthday or other important occasions. Every action, including inaction, is a choice. Hence, the friend who is constantly “too busy” to meet with their friends, for example, has in effect chosen to not to care enough to do so because their other activities are more important than this friendship.

The fact is everyone has finite resources in terms of time, income, and energy. Every decision we make every day, we are deciding how to allocate or spend these finite resources; we are constantly prioritizing what’s important to us at that time. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this. At certain points in our lives, some things are more important that others. When these priorities among friends do not coincide, then you have a mismatch that can lead to a strain in the relationship. Most friendships can withstand these temporary mismatches, as long as they are not protracted or constantly recurring.

A friend recently introduced an interesting perspective she had about long-term friendships. If a friendship has stood the test of time and managed to be been sustained long enough (e.g. 20 years), you could decide to accept and stick it out with your long-term friendships no matter how bad it got. The recognition here is that people generally do not change and if you have known a person for that long a time, you really know all about that person’s strengths and weaknesses, and you accept them as they are. After all, no one is perfect.

At first, I thought it was a very calm and collected way of evaluating the situation, but upon closer analysis, this perspective essentially debunks the accounting concept of “sunk cost” to the world of friendship. In accounting, when something is considered “sunk cost”, you do not take it into consideration at all (no matter how tempting because of the amount time or money you had previously invested) in making future decisions on a related item. In other words, friends would have to “win” their friend’s friendship over and over again as each case or interaction is discrete. Well, this seems a wee bit dry when evaluating friendships. But should it? How many friendships and marriages could be saved if we worked hard – every time – to build that relationship and keep it?

Ok, so back to real life. Obviously, our relationships build upon a “bank account” from which we occasionally draw down on. The key is to put something back in the friendship piggy bank and don’t keep drawing down into an overdraft and become a dead beat. By avoiding “protracted and/or constantly recurring failure to care”, we can be better friends to our friends.

Preserving the human race by being selfish

2009-10-11T11:36:00.001-04:00

Someone I know recently complained to me that a friend of hers was selfish. Without thinking much about it, I made a passing comment that everyone is selfish in their own way. She then somewhat proudly and indignantly said that she was not selfish. I didn’t respond to that, because my immediate rating of her “level” of selfishness was about equal to the person she was complaining about, based on my experience with both of these people.

But the word “selfish” has been demonized to mean something bad, which I am not entirely sure it really is bad at all. I think that being selfish is, in many ways, a survival trait.

Going back to our cavemen days, when in need of food, one needs to hoard food and, yes, even watch those of your own clan die away because it’s about the survival of the fittest. Fast forward to today’s time, you can say that in the United States, most of us have transcended those days of merely surviving (think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) to self actualization in the pursuit of morality. But when we have reached this stage, does this mean that the very skills and traits we have learned to get us there should be abandoned? It doesn’t sound like a good idea…it’s like building a skyscraper then deciding to remove the foundation from beneath it.

We’ll tread into controversial arena here…if we as a human race decided to spend much of our resources helping the weak because it is morally our obligation (e.g. idealistic notions that one should not die because of lack of finances to pay for healthcare or one should not die just because they have an currently incurable disease), it is viewed as being unselfish. Those who are financially strong, through taxes or donations, help to subsidize those who can’t afford healthcare or help pay for scientific research to discover the cure to the disease. However, these activities arguably help the “weak” in the human species rather than help forward and boost the strong.

From a Darwinian standpoint, we would be devolving as a species because we are not selfish enough to leave the weak behind. Yes, the Darwinian approach sounds terribly harsh, even inhuman. Nonetheless, isn’t this how mankind has evolved to become the intellectual and accomplished species that we are today? Is “doing the right and moral thing” today sacrificing our very existence for tomorrow?

Perhaps being selfish is not the worst thing in the world. Especially if that may mean keeping intact the building blocks that keep the human species alive. Of course, who’s to say that this dooms day scenario is not blown out of proportion?

But then again, one should ask, why in the first place are some people unable to afford healthcare? Some people, perhaps they were smart and able, but did not study hard, apply themselves, or work hard enough to earn that money. For others, it is purely bad luck – they are born into poor health (e.g. freak mutation of the genes) which in turn drains even a family of strong financial means into financial ruins. It is natural for most to empathize with the latter scenario and be mad, even loathing, of those who due to the own doing or inaction have caused the rest of society to bear their burden. However, in the world of medical science and ethics, it is unrealistic to make patient treatment decisions based on how deserving they are – for example, if a comatosed John Doe was found on the street and brought to the ER, who will tell his side of the story to lobby for treatment?

What if the terribly ill person is another Stephen Hawking? Someone who is not a healthy person but has an incredible mind? We may never know or allow a person’s potential to be maximized if the person who is ill is just a young child. As a human race, we would have lost a person who could potentially advance mankind in a dramatic way if we did not try to save this person.

In addition, sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts. If a person were to survive, s/he may meet someone else and enable that person to discover something incredible for all mankind. Even if we can calculate the odds of such things happening, are we willing to play Russian roulette with the human race with each incoming patient?

Hence, one of the arguments to try to save everyone, regardless of their background, is that it is insurance that there will be a number of people saved who would make a big difference for all of us. This is not an argument about being unselfish, but is in fact a motivation stemmed from being selfish – we are enabling every possibility of brilliance in mankind to have a shot at blossoming to fruition for the greater good for all.

Calculating the cost of procrastination

2009-09-06T21:42:00.002-04:00

It would probably be fair to say that everyone has procrastinated at some point in their lives. For some of us, we’ve procrastinated more often than we’d like to admit. The strange thing is that we all know it’s bad for us (like smoking) but we still do it any way. Similar to smoking, we get the immediate pleasure doing something more fun or relaxing even though we know full well we will pay for making that choice later. Clearly, the draw and power of procrastination is formidable.

If there is an easy way to more clearly calculate the pain that will be forthcoming from procrastinating, that might help us stay away from it.

What usually happens in the decision process is that we quickly calculate how long it will take to do the undesirable task and we figure that we can get it done by its deadline since there is plenty of time before then. But what could happen is that when the time comes, we realize that we may have wrongly estimated the amount of effort and time needed to complete the task and then we’re left with insufficient buffer time to do it all properly. That’s when we start kicking ourselves for procrastinating earlier!

If we apply a rule of thumb of doubling or even tripling the time we expect the task to be completed, we may find that it motivates us to begin right away instead of delaying further.

That was the easy stuff – doing things that absolutely have to get done...only sooner. Now, onto the doing stuff that would be nice to do, but never seems terribly urgent or important. For example, neatening up one’s desk (for those who work with me or know me well…you can stop giving me “the look”). I have been told that an uncluttered desk helps keep one’s mind clear and possibly more efficient. But that pile of paper is SO incredibly BORING to plough through, who in their right mind wants to go through it? I confess that my only motivation for my cleaning my desk is when I can’t find what I’m looking for – that’s when I know “it’s time”. In this case, I have to experience the pain before action is taken.

Can I calculate this pain in advance so that it will cause me to act sooner? Yes, but the problem is that my perception of this pain is not only small, but so far into the future that it does nothing to motivate me to do anything about it sooner. Plus, the priority of the task at hand is perceived as low.

Ok, forget pain and negative reinforcement. How about positive reinforcement? It’s always nice to have neat desk, for example. Lovely! But not high up on my list of desires and aspirations. How about possessing a clearer mind? Sounds lofty and cerebral…but it is vague and perhaps overly promissory and not entirely believable or tangible enough of a benefit. How about having more space? Well, that’s all good, but what good is having more space if you don’t fill it up? (Minimalism is not exactly my style.)

The hump that one has to overcome is the negativity associated with the task. For example, neatening up is purely a boring, laborious activity. Just thinking about it makes me yawn. So how can one make it fun, interesting, and dare I say…even exciting? Having an annual (or maybe even a quarterly) spring cleaning day where everyone around you (peer pressure can work wonders!) can be a good move. Music can be played and pictures of before and after can be posted for commendations (I can already see myself winning accolades on this one!)…yes, this could actually be kinda fun. After all, misery loves company.

Throwing away stuff is a tough one for those of us who truly believe that we might need this stuff one day. The procrastination of going through old items and throwing them away is actually one of pain avoidance. It pains me to throw things away. I find it to be wasteful. I have a very nice full set of Taylor Made golf clubs I haven’t touched in 10 years, but I might pick it back up again – no sense in throwing that away! How does one argue with that? 10 years…that doesn’t sway me. I could use those golf clubs when I retire in 30 years.

The best logic is to calculate the carrying cost for keeping these items. At $50/month for storage, I can easily buy my whole golf set and much more after 30 years. Now, that’s more clear and convincing argument! I can donate it and someone else can enjoy its use in the mean time.

Like a drug, procrastination is can a tough thing to shake off. But with more specific value attached to its cost, it might make it that much easier to walk away from it.

Why do we focus more on our careers than on our health/fitness?

2009-08-11T22:11:00.000-04:00

I once overheard a fitness trainer say to a gym member that she was sad he was quitting his gym membership as a means to cut back on expenses because “it’s sad that health is often the first thing they abandon.”

The upside for keeping healthy and fit is significant – we have more life, and enjoy life more. The downside for not keeping healthy and fit is obvious. Without our health, we have nothing – we can’t even begin to pursue a career or enjoy life. Ironic, that our fitness well-being is the first thing to be ditched. Not that a gym membership is the only way to stay fit, but in most cases, when that membership is dropped, so too are the fitness goals.

Oddly enough, I was told by one of my doctors that as people age, we need almost exponentially more exercise to keep fit. Most people think that older people need to relax and take it easy. Apparently, that’s not the case. I don’t know how true this is, but I recall that nugget of information from the doctor surprised me.

If health and fitness are the foundations of life, without which we have no career…wouldn’t it make sense for us to devote as much time, if not more, to improving our health and fitness as compared to developing our careers? When we are healthy, it is easy to take it for granted. I don’t know what the right ratio of time spent on one’s fitness is compared to work, but it does seem that most of us could do some good with a few additional hours each week focused on health & fitness.

A new award - the Jack's?

2009-07-02T17:55:00.003-04:00

Specializing and doing something great is admirable. We honor these people in the Olympics, Grammy Awards, Academy Awards, etc. There’s no award for being a Jack of All Trades or a Super All-Rounder.

But yet, in regular life, it’s probably better to do everything passably well while still striving to do one thing exceptionally well. It would certainly make day-to-day living a lot less of a struggle, and also give one a greater sense of overall well-being. In other words, to keep those crazy mood swings at bay, be above-average in most things and work hard to be exceptional in at least one thing.

Nonetheless, I do think that there should be some kind of all-rounder award or recognition to acknowledge those people whose accomplishment is simply the ability to do many things incredibly well. Not many people can juggle many things, and do them all well. That’s why there are all these women’s groups, for example, that help women juggle both their careers and their young family life. Someone amazing for this award might be a person who is able to excel both at work and at home, serves as a leader in their community, and also manages to be a world-class athlete or celebrated artist, for example. Shouldn’t a person like this have greater recognition than the Grammy’s or the Oscar’s? I think so...this person deserves the Jack's.

Have wants, not needs

2009-06-06T19:31:00.001-04:00

Recently, I met someone who told me a product that was available to her was expensive and she didn't need the product. It occurred to me that just about every product, if not needed by that person, even if it's just $1, is too expensive. Yet, why do brands like Chanel or Escada still live on? Do the people who buy from these brands really need that $800 blouse or truly believe it is inexpensive or of great value? The fact is, we don't need very many things...but most of us do want quite a few things. How many overpriced items do we own that is admittedly nothing we truly needed?

Value lies is not what we need, but what we want.

Hence, with the exception of groceries and other universally accepted “needed” items, just about all products or services are sold on fulfilling “wants”. It could be time-savings or convenience, which may seem at first glance like a “need”, but upon closer examination it is indeed a “want”. The ultimate test is whether you would die, suffer illness/severe discomfort, or live in utter misery without it.

Once something is deemed to be needed, the price is driven down. Or worse, a price ceiling is placed on it by the government.

The moral of the story? The trick is not to position your firm’s products or services as a needed item but a coveted item. This helps keep up those margins and a healthy profit. Getting people to need your firm’s product or service is a misguided strategy.

Glass half-full people do better

2009-05-21T22:36:00.005-04:00

If you had a choice, would you prefer to hang around a person who tends to look at things as though the glass is half-full or someone who tends to look at things as though the glass is half-empty? I'd venture to say it's the former. Spending any amount of time with glass half-full folks is not exactly what I'd consider fabulous fun.

People naturally gravitate towards books, thoughts, ideas, and people who are uplifting, inspiring, offer hope, and solutions. Look at all the self-help books out there dishing out solutions to people's woes. Show me a best-selling business book that does nothing but point out the problems and offers no solutions. Clearly, it doesn't take a genius to point out the problems in our every day lives and at work. The genius is in coming up with the solutions.

Typically, one would find that the leaders at work are those who lean towards optimism than pessimism. After all, you need some dreamers to imagine new products, ideas, growth plans, and solutions to tough problems and navigating out of tricky situations. Imagine if everyone in a firm only shoots down new ideas by saying why they can't work and cannot see any thing good out of a sticky situation, well, then defeatism is all you'd get. A true leader finds the silver lining and figures out a way to get out of any rut.

Some time ago at a party, I met a single person in his 30s that lamented how it was difficult for him to meet "good" girls. I probed him for greater clarification on what "good" meant. He answered by telling me the different "bad" girls he had encountered...some were gold-diggers, some were out of shape/unfit, others were annoying, and the list went on. The conversation was draining, to say the least. His intent was for me to introduce him to "good" girls, but I didn't feel compelled to assist. Had he told me something more specific and positive, such as "I'd like to meet a girl who as athletic, has good moral values, an easy-going person, and fits my personality which is [XYZ positive and interesting things]", I would have been more motivated to assist. I can then visualize him with a single female friend I might know. The negative conversation he started down the path of did not help generate a solution for him. My head was swirling with these nasty girls and this miserable guy. Not fun imagery!

I do believe that people who consistently view the world as glass half-full and communicate in that fashion live fuller, happier lives, and do better in their careers too.

Partial points for good effort?

2009-04-05T22:50:00.002-04:00

Is there such a thing as getting partial points for good effort, despite lackluster business results? While goodwill may exist with employers, it can only go so far. After all, for all the good effort, if nothing good results from it, for how long can a firm endure the cost?

Producing profitable results is the only way to go.

That said, it is important to clarify that there are short-term and long-term results. It is OK to include a mix of long-term results in one's focus, but the fact is that if short-term results are not delivered for an extended period of time, long-term results might never have a chance to come to fruition.

During economic down times, employees have a tendency to show good effort by seemingly working harder e.g. working late. That really only buys goodwill for a short period of time...till the inevitable happens. Employees need to constantly keep their eye on the prize: generate revenues profitably. Even if revenues are down and difficult to make, do everything possible to generate short-term revenues with a focus on building long-term revenues. As long as employees are able to help generate sufficient short-term revenues that demonstrates the ability for the firm to get through the storm and arrive at the long-term horizon, there is a sustainable case for keeping them on payroll. In other words, help the firm in order to help yourself stay on as an employee.

The usual knee-jerk reaction during down times is cutting cost. Yes, that is important. But the maximum you can cut cost is to $0. So, we come back to revenues. There, the sky is the limit. Any employee who can help a firm generate revenues, especially new sources of revenues, is a valued employee -- in good times and bad.

As for partial points for good effort? It exists, but there's a low cap on it which gets lower during down times...and I wouldn't count on it.

As Jerry Maguire says, "Show me the money!"

80% of success is showing up

2009-03-22T21:41:00.006-04:00

One of Woody Allen's famed quotes, "80% of success is showing up" seems too simple, but is an amazing truth -- especially when in the position of a job applicant.

Whenever a job opens up, in this Internet age, many people can apply for it on-line...probably without really taking time to look at the position carefully or to modify their resume and cover letter to suit. Then, they wonder why no one contacts them because the employers spend tons of time plowing through irrelevant applications that do not apply to their position e.g. Career Objectives do not match the industry or position they are pursuing.

One of my grouses as an employer is the sheer number of candidates who apply for a job and their skills/experience do not remotely match the job they are applying for. To boot, they do not even supply a cover letter to at least explain why they should be considered for what is clearly a mismatched application. If everyone takes the employment application more seriously, say, akin to the process of applying to college where one even has to pay an application fee, things would be much different. Less time is wasted reading irrelevant or non-serious applications, and the applicants will have a higher chance of getting some form of communication from their potential employer.

But what gets me even more annoyed are those who either do not call back for their phone interview or even worse, those who schedule a job interview and do not show up at all -- and do not call in advance, email after, or communicate in any way thereafter. Similar to an eBay transaction review, employers should have the ability to rate applicants publicly. I'm just tired of people who say they can't find jobs, yet when the opportunity presents itself to them, they squander it away.

Job applicants may be surprised to know that this crazy phenomenon -- yes, even during the down times of 2009 -- is happening to employers, and in fact, is happening with at least an equal if not higher frequency than during the boom times. Impossible, you might say! People can't be that silly to throw away an opportunity, or could they? Aren't we hearing in the news that people are living in tents, and managers are happy to take an hourly wage job as janitors just to survive? The fact is, all one needs to do to increase their odds of getting the job, is to show up at their interview! Even if one is not sure about the job, the point for an interview is for both parties to explore and learn if a fit might be found.

As one of many million American taxpayers sponsoring unemployment payout extensions, I'd like to see some form of accountability put in place. For example, if a person benefiting from unemployment applies for a job and lands a job interview, s/he must show up (or explain your absence) otherwise unemployment for that week can be withheld. This may seem harsh, but as an employer, I just don't always see that job seekers are really trying hard enough.

A good follow-up for Woody Allen's quote is Wayne Gretsky's quote, "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

If you've ever thought that the odds of getting the job for which you were granted an interview is low, well, not showing up ensures that your odds of NOT getting the job is 100%...those are generally not odds one wants during any job market. All you have to do is show up...is that so much to ask?

Tapping the genius within

2009-01-22T18:58:00.005-05:00

People who are articulate, exude confidence, and have an organized train of thoughts are often viewed as smart people. They are viewed as intelligent people if they can also speak knowledgeably about a specific topic. If a person can speak intelligibly about a variety of topics with ease and eloquence, they are usually noted as brilliant.

What about the people who have much genius within, but who are not terribly articulate? Much is lost when a person with great ideas is unable to articulate it in a manner that commands interest or respect and does not deliver the message in an organized fashion that is easily understood. There is probably a lot of smart and intelligent minds out there that are left untapped.

Perhaps training everyone in public speaking would be a good way to draw more brilliance out of a larger percentage of the population. Or perhaps training teachers, parents, and employers to ask really good questions in order to draw fabulous ideas out of less talkative individuals is the way to go. After all, it is difficult to change an introverted person to be something else they are not. However, it may be less difficult to draw brilliance out of a brilliant person who is not terribly talkative or articulate.

Usually, in a group discussion, the talkative people get most of the floor time. Even if allocated floor time is given to each person equally, it is not unusual to see the "quiet ones" seemingly throw away their time in the limelight. It could be that their preferred manner of communication is not in front of a group. However, this is typically the point where impressions are made and they have been "written off" as non-contributive to the group. This is where the group facilitator or leader needs to step in and work to bring out the brilliance in these people.

As an optimist, I do think there is at least a glimmer of genius in everyone. It just takes someone, anyone, to take the effort to discover it.

The most important step in customer service: Respond!

2008-09-23T20:08:00.002-04:00

A friend of mine recounted a story about how he recently got on a coach class plane on Singapore Airlines and suddenly remembered that he forgot his jacket in the airport. He couldn't remember where he could've left it...in the waiting room or at the x-ray machine. He asked the airline attendent serving on his flight if she could somehow locate his jacket in the airport. Almost every hour, she would visit him at his seat and tell him that they're still working on locating his jacket, but no luck yet. After several updates, he was so impressed with her diligence, that he told her it's OK...he was just glad that they tried. Luckily for him, by the time the plane landed, her co-workers at the departure airport had located the jacket for him. Regardless of the outcome, he was thoroughly impressed with their customer service and constant attention to his initial inquiry.

The biggest lesson I've learned here is how simply responding and keeping the customer up-to-date (even if you have no new news) can go a very long way in making someone so happy that they will give you rave reviews for simply taking the initiative to respond to them & keeping them apprised of your progress (even if progress is essentially zero). Wow! I love this story.

Customer service is a growing facet of PR

2008-09-20T10:01:00.005-04:00

Before the age of blogs, FaceBook, LinkedIn, and other social networking media, whenever people experienced good or poor service at a company, they would simply tell with their family and friends. As the saying goes, they would tell 10 friends.

Today, the moment people get upset with a product or service, they would look it up on the web site "XYZ sucks" and one would invariably find a web site dedicated to it! Then, they would tell their online "friends" (over 100 or even 500+ of them) on Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, and blog or even create a funny but pointed YouTube video about it....if they have a large base of friends and the video gets great viral buzz, it finally appears in the news for the world to see. (Somehow, the news never seems to showcase people giving positive rave reviews about something. I suppose good news is no news!)

Customer service had always been its own division in most firms. But increasingly, it should be under the Marketing division as a growing facet of public relations (PR). Whatever responses that the customer service reps type into the chat windows, email or mail out in letter form often can be found on the Web for the world to mock and disparage your firm. In other words, the customer always gets the last word in.

Re-training and focus in customer service and communications is the best remedy. After all, prevention is better than cure. One can only put out that many fires via PR spin to control the situation before the public completely loses trust in your firm. Not many firms have multiple layers of teflon coating to weather through too many PR storms (unless you're Apple!).

New wisdom with first white hair

2008-06-01T22:37:00.006-04:00

I was in a state is disbelief when my husband noticed my first strand of white hair on my head. My instant reaction was denial. I was convinced that the sunlight was bouncing off my head and did some optical illusion trick on him. But alas, at age 33, I was shown proof in the mirror. This was the first piece of evidence...I was indeed getting older. Unimaginable!

A few days later, as I was replaying this watershed moment in my head, I found myself examining my life thus far: what I had been keeping myself busy with, my priorities in life, and the state of my happiness. Then, a feeling of calm contentedness came over me. I had nothing to fret about...I was actually happy.

This feeling was different from the euphoria of winning a tennis match or a successful launch of a product. It had a steady-state serenity to it. Oddly enough, it was not quite something I'm used to. As a goal-oriented person, I've always found intense happiness when I accomplished my goals. This feeling usually lasts 1 or 2 days...maybe at most a week. But once I have reached a goal, my knee-jerk reaction is setting the next goal immediately. Hence, my happiness is often short-lived. So, like a drug I seek, I must attain my next goal.

If this new strand of white hair were to symbolize a new-found wisdom, I would say that I've realized it's not just the goal that is to be enjoyed but the journey of reaching it. For example, simply noticing the fact that so many moving parts somehow work so well together in a workplace can now put a smile on my face. (Gosh, I AM growing old...ahem, getting more mature!)

Perhaps my 2nd strand of white hair will be greeted with some glee as to what new wisdom I will discover. But for now, I think the first piece of wisdom will last me for quite a while.

Thank you for your honesty

2008-04-14T22:29:00.002-04:00

I was at the supermarket this weekend and loaded up my shopping cart with all kinds of items. While the cashier was ringing up my items, I noticed that the 4 disposable aluminium pans I had stacked together to save space in my cart was rung up as 1 item. I immediately told the cashier that there was more than 1 pan and that they were stacked. She was so incredibly amazed that I told her the truth, she said "Thank you for your honesty!" 3 times over and handed me my receipt nicely folded with both hands. Those pans were just $0.35 each, I think.

Her reaction was rather flattering, I suppose. At the same time, it is a rather sad reflection of what people expect these days. I work in the service industry and see many times how people are constantly trying to get away with anything they can -- almost a daylight robbery -- even when they can well afford it. Better yet, some folks demand freebies whenever the slightest thing doesn't go their way...some times, it just feels like a complete set up. It's terrible to have to be this paranoid, but the repercussion of offering trust first can some times be an expensive bet these days.

Granted, there are many honest people in the world. It feels harder to spot them because when things run smoothly, it's hard to notice how many honest people we are indeed dealing with each day -- until they are put to some kind of test.

Then the question begs: if those aluminium pans were $100 each, or $500 or $1000...at what point will my honesty break down? Or is it the opposite? When it is so cheap (e.g. $0.10), one doesn't care enough to make the correction because it is not deemed as substantial enough?

The "last lecture" by Randy Pausch mentions that if he had just 3 little words to tell his children, it would be "Tell the Truth". But if he is afforded another 3 more words, he would add "All the time". I think that is just the best advice a parent can give to their children.

I some times feel it's time to take back the world and make it a decent place again. How about some honesty and truth for a change?

Pay It Forward

2008-03-11T22:59:00.002-04:00

The concept of "Pay It Forward" basically means doing good first and expecting that recipient of your goodwill to do the same...not necessarily back to you. Theory is that you would eventually get the goodwill back from someone, not necessarily the person whom you had initially helped. The key idea is that the world would be a much better place for it, and what goes around comes around.

This idea is at the outset is difficult to realistically imagine people embracing it and truly executing it. Most people only help others if they think they're going to get something back from them (usually within the short term, but certainly within the long term)...whether or not they will admit to it (some will even swear they don't expect...but I'm sure they had at least thought about it).

However, in the current age where people are all about "going green" and companies sprouting up to do good while seeking profitability (is this a fad or a new business direction? can the two really mesh or are they opposites? that's for another blog), it's worth considering how feasible this idea is.

This idea is like starting a chain letter. For every 10 letters you send out to your friends, you will find that probably 9 will delete it despite the scary copy within about how bad luck will befall you. You rely on at least 1 person to continue the chain. Otherwise, it would stop right there. Hence, to do this right, one would have to do many "good deeds" of paying forward and hope that none of them hit a brick wall. Granted, good deeds are probably more appreciated than chain letters, but this is a rather discouraging comparison.

How about seeds? I recently tried planting some herbs from seed. The bag looked like there were TONS of seeds in it (more than I cared to count). After planting the whole bag, I yielded 3 stems of basil. Nature's odds weren't very good (ok, I'm not exactly Ms. Green Thumbs either, but you get the point). And we're nature's creatures, yes?

Hence, it looks like if one were to embrace in this concept, one must accept that it will take many many many good deeds before others will do the same. But I guess it's better to die trying to do good than to do harm.

Multi-facet life for greater success & happiness

2008-01-07T23:18:00.000-05:00

It is shocking to the public when someone rich & famous (e.g. Britney Spears) with seemingly everything they have, can be so unhappy and ungrateful for all that they have. Perhaps with success, there's no where else to go but down. Plus, not many people seem to be able to handle fame and the public scrutiny very well (probably because the press prefers to tell the less rosy side of the story, since that's what sells!).

People who see success often expect it to continue. Perhaps their confidence is not entirely misplaced, but it is prudent to always prepare for a cloudy day. After all, few things last for infinity. Success can come and go with the winds of change. Not everything is within one's control at all times. Many people who are successful yet unhappy tend to be successful in one specialized thing. If that doesn't work for them later on, they are completely devastated. It is easier to specialize and hone a particular skill so that one becomes really outstanding at it, however, that creates an overdependence on it to provide opportunities for success, satisfaction and happiness.

Those who go to top schools such as Ivy Leagues often prove at an early age as students that they can accomplish many things (from top grades to athletic and leadership achievements to knowledge of current affairs and social impact in society), and juggle them all very well. They continue to participate actively in extra-curricular activites in college while maintaining their grades and even holding a part-time job. However, once they leave school, employers often expect them to work in a singular job, specialized in a narrow function. There is a significant incongruence with everything these students have been training for up till this point. Once they start working, many start to experience disillusionment and suffer from lack of happiness often without understanding why. They have prepared for and built a life around balance and a balancing act of pursuing many things and challenging themselves to do them all very well. Until such people re-discover and further explore and develop their multiple talents & interests, their odds of achieving resilient success and happiness may be impeded.

The value of hassle-free

2007-06-14T20:15:00.000-04:00

When a customer comes to a sales person or business owner and claims to be their "best customer", that often (though not always) means that they really aren't.

It is interesting how people value themselves as customers of commercial firms or donors to not-for-profit organizations. When comparing their spend value to the value assigned by the recipient of their spend, they are not usually at par with each other.

Some of the big spenders or donors do not ask for any special favors in return - at least not continually. Sometimes, their donations are even anonymous.

Some people who do not spend a whole lot in absolute amounts, but purchase/donate frequently, and who view their spend or donation as a a sizable amount (perhaps as a large percentage of their net worth) are in fact adding a multiple to their perceived value of their actual spend. Because they feel that they have helped so much (in terms of what they can afford), they feel justified making requests for special accomodations. There is a currency value to all these requests, which sometimes amounts to more than the dollar value of their spend.

Not every spender is worth the time spent servicing their every beck and call. But then again, every dollar counts, and beggars can't be choosers, right? Except when the hidden costs are more plainly calculated. When there is sunk cost or no/low opportunity cost, then perhaps it is worth while...at least for the time being. But now you're already in bed with them. By that time, it's a little tough to kick them out from under the warm covers!

The spenders who do not ask for anything, are given the additional value of offering a hassle-free spend. As such, their contributions are viewed as much more valuable. Every firm wants more of such customers, especially those that spend a sizable amount (for real).

The Long Tail

2007-05-08T22:26:00.000-04:00

I attended a talk by Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More". His book basically talks about how the blockbuster products (e.g. coke and platinum music albums) are no longer going to be what businesses are banking on primarily for revenues. Rather, with product proliferation that serves many niches (e.g. Jones soda and the zillion types of eclectic music out there) the pie is increasing by offering more types of products but sales contribution from each slice of the pie may be rather small.

Since this is the age when people are made to feel that they are special, where products are increasing personalized and customized (e.g. photo books, self-named sodas, self-designed sneakers, etc.), the challenge nevertheless lies in how firms will market all of these niche products in a world cluttered with advertising messages.

Unless we figure out a way to use more than 10% of our current brain power, the human limitation of making sense of information (which requires consolidating information into familiar, bite-size "blockbuster" categories) and digesting it all for recall (usually top 3 brands or categories) may in fact result in coming right back to where we started -- blockbuster products.

This may all be the cycle of business (similar to the big bang theory of creation of the universe), just like like how mini-skirts and the retro-look are all the rage in latter days when, all things considered, they are simply rehashed fashion from decades ago. So much for ingenuity!

The Untouchables

2006-10-15T20:34:00.000-04:00

It's interesting how our (human) interaction with other species e.g. dogs, cats, horses, etc. are all highly related to touch. We pet dogs, cats, and for those who are not squimish, they pet their snakes, spiders, and lizards. However, with fellow human beings, our interaction is hugely speech-directed rather than tactile-directed.

Whenever I pet my cat, she purrs with great satisfaction. She also likes it very much when I scratch her back with my fingers or the combing brush. One day husband asked me to scratch his back, and I was curious how pleasurable that could possibly be. So he, in turn, offered to scratch my back (and head!), I was completely amazed at how massaging the effects were. I was almost purring...

We seem to know how to treat our pets right! Wouldn't it be funny (and an infinitely happier place) if we were to treat fellow human beings as we do our pets (assuming we treat our pets really nicely)?

It's been said that blood pressure decreases in patients with tendencies for high blood pressure when they pet their dog/cats. Maybe we should do more of that!

Reviving Good Manners

2006-03-05T19:40:00.000-05:00

Many of us bemoan the death of good customer service everywhere we go. There seems to be so much anger in people these days -- unhappy employees that "go postal", losing all ethics, logic and reason; customers that immediately move into the shouting mode when things go wrong...the list of bad behavior goes on.

So many things can be easily resolved by having a simple, civil conversation replete with basic good manners.

My belief is that parents really need to pay attention to teaching their children good manners, even in trying times. People need to be taught how to manage their own anger. Bad behavior usually does not help us get the solution we are looking for anyway because people who want to help in fact get turned off. Additionally, people need to learn how to manage others when they are angry. Reviving good manners is the building block to bringing back good ol'customer service that resonates sincerity and makes this world such a better place to be.

The un-straight talk aka politics

2005-03-06T20:19:00.000-05:00

It would seem that things would move along much more quickly and efficiently without politics. Wouldn't it be nice if there was more straight-talk by people clearly stating their needs rather than people mincing their words, trying to build niceties around a request?

Some feel that maneuvering within the hierarchy through its proper channels is protocol that should be respected. That definitely makes sense in terms of civil decorum and general courtesy. However, it does ultimately result in slower response to much needed solutions to problems. Granted, by not following the protocol, solutions could indeed come even slower due to individual stonewalling.

On the one hand, the social structure of hierarchy seems to indicate that different levels of ranks have various levels of experience and power to make decisions. Hence, certain decisions do not need to rise all the way to the top and can be made quickly at lower levels. On the other hand, some times when conflict of interests arise, not being able to get to the top for answers could cause the downfall of the organization. Middle managers could be making poor decisions for the organization and the person at the helm did not even realize what happened till "all hell has broken loose".

It would make sense for organizations to have a communications process that allows for situations whereby individuals may bring their issues to the top, without the need to go up through the ranks. The process needs to be such that the middle managers do not feel slighted or over-ridden. That, in this day and age, reads more like something fictional rather than a page from reality.

Paradox on Change

2004-11-22T09:33:00.000-05:00

As the famous saying goes, "everyone hates change". Yet, we have the old adage "variety is the spice of life". I contend that people really do like change -- but only if the change is towards the more pleasurable, of course. Humans have a constant yearning to learn and grow -- that really means that we inately desire change...change for the better. People only hate change if they cannot see that the change leads to something better -- better for them, as individuals. Hence, for those in change management, the challenge is really to highlight in no uncertain terms that the changes needed of employees lead to a change for the better at the individual level.