A Consultant's Chronicles

A Recipe For Sinking A New Business: 'It's Philosophy Stupid'

The political "silly season" of electoral politics is upon us again & something that's always displayed front & center especially in the primaries is "philosophy."  For example there are clear philosophical differences between the Democrats & the GOP when it comes to the role of government. Although it doesn't get nearly enough play, one's business philosophy is just as important. For this reason I find myself once again in disagreement with business blogger Penelope Trunk…well, sort of. She recently wrote a blog post asserting that the best way to launch a successful startup is for it to remain single-gender during this initial phase because not doing so is almost a guarantee of failure. I disagree. While I think gender issues &/or sexual conflict can certainly occur in mixed gender enterprises, I think the bigger problem is one of business philosophy. Why? The former can be overcome [nothing breeds forgiveness like the smell of success; i.e. money] but the latter can prove to be a tougher foe.

A Case Of Misplaced Political 'Incorrectness'

While I understand [& agree with] the larger point that she is making which is at this early phase of a business, what is needed is "relentless drive & laser beam like focus without distraction," I think the target of the problem she describes is "off the mark" & a weird case of misplaced "political incorrectness" run amok. By this I mean that there are a whole host of ways to dilute focus & sabotage a new business without pointing the finger solely at gender differences [which she maintains creates sexual friction &/or behavioral differences because men & women behave differently at work when stressed]. Now while I am the first to admit that this stuff happens, I think that when it comes to business, ambitious, driven, like-minded people can deal with it. Also, in the age of single-sex relationships & marriage, isn't it just logical to conclude that related problems could arise in a single gender business [at least insofar as sexual conflict is concerned]? It is the new millennium 'thing'; just sayin'. Now before someone's PC feathers get ruffled, I am not saying it would happen, just that it could. What I am saying is that I don't think that as Trunk maintains, mixed gender conflict is the new entrepreneur's biggest concern [quite aside from core things like having enough money which is probably the #1 concern of every new business].

When It Comes To Launching A New Business There Are Bigger Problems Than Gender

Based on my observations as a consultant, a lack of adequate drive on the part of just a few, or differences in business philosophy not properly vetted & aired at the outset, are much bigger problems. Basically these issues nearly guarantee failure if they are not resolved before "birthing" a new business. Instead of “fingering” gender differences, & conceding that anything diluting the essential focus on actual business is a problem, I think the better argument to make is that in the early phase of a business, all parties [regardless of gender] not only have to have relentless focus but they must be of one mind [the latter can be viewed as an umbrella term for a LOT of “real estate”]. Gender differences don’t necessarily have to be the “fly in the ointment” & can be overcome while intractable business philosophy & insufficient drive or ambition is much "higher mountain to climb." What do you think?

 

Yesterday's Jobs Bill: Not The Solution To Today's Unemployment Problem

The fact that we need a jobs bill in this country is by itself, not news. With Washington "on vacation," there's lots of talk but barely a whisper of any kind of solution from today's pols. The one person who has actually outlined a jobs plan is pundit Chris Mathews who used to work as an aide to the late Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neal as well as speechwriter to former president Jimmy Carter. In other words, when it comes to the ways of Washington, he knows the terrain.  His jobs proposal sounds extremely pragmatic which is to go state by state, get a list of the bridges & roads that need fixing & basically challenge the House members to vote against such proposals when not only is it in their own personal interest [to bring jobs to their district] but an outright threat if those infrastructure problems present a credible yet unattended danger. Everyone who hears the Mathews proposal thinks it sounds good...except me.

The Solution Proposed Is Out Of Step With The Times

Don't get me wrong. I applaud Mathews for at least attempting to talk constructively about something that no one else seems to be addressing [including the president]. I simply think the solution he is shopping is out of step with the times. Why? Mathews is proposing this strategy to get people back to work making a good middle class income but recent history shows us that this is no longer how construction & repair jobs are done today. They are first privatized & then outsourced so that you no longer have Americans working these jobs [especially union workers who come with the unwanted "baggage" of healthcare, benefits, & safety concerns] ; additionally the jobs are no longer necessarily done with American material [also an engine for jobs]. Case in point: the San Francisco Bay Bridge has desperately needed to complete the retro-fitting & reconstructing required since it fell apart in an earthquake in 1989...1989!!!! It took the San Francisco & Oakland politicians forever to settle on a design, to put the funds together, & then to hire a company to actually do the construction. As they played politics year after year, the cost for the job kept going up. Therefore while this is essentially a classic example of what Mathews is suggesting, it doesn't exactly play out the way he has proposed even though it sounds promising on its face. Why? The job is being done by a Chinese company, employing Chinese workers & using Chinese steel [do we really need to import cheap Chinese steel when we have high quality Pittsburgh steel; constructing a bridge is not the time to cut corners]. This is just one example of why in today's market, the kinds of jobs that Mathews is suggesting will no longer address the unemployment problem of today.

 

Staying Relevant In Today's Tight Job Market

During the recent debt crisis the one thing I think everyone would agree on is that nothing would help to put us on better financial footing than getting people back to work. However, if you are 40 or older that is a task that sounds easier than it is to do which raises the question how do you stay relevant in today's tight job market when you are a "seasoned" [read: over 40] member of the workforce?" Oft controversial business blogger Penelope Trunk recently addressed this problem & while I frequently find myself at odds with her, in this instance, I agree with her suggestions 100%. She suggests 5 excellent points:

5 Ways To Stay Relevant In Today's Market

• Focus on building your network-it's not what you know but who you know
  
• Move from information "processing" to Information synthesis-information is out there & can be easily gathered; essentially you don't need to know everything; you need to know how to get everything learning to filter what's useful & what's "noise" along the way
  
• Bridge building-connections are everything
  
• Manage your personal brand-what do you stand for; are you promoting your "brand"
  
• Commit to lifelong learning-the world is changing rapidly; you need to keep up

Taking Control

She also cautions those in their 30's that it is important to establish your job credibility in your thirties or it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to get back on the job carousel in your 40's. Why? People hire & want to work with those who have a reputation for doing good work &/or people who are great to work with. One of the reasons for why doing these things is so important that she does not state is that while these points sound like just good common sense, they have the added benefit of enabling you to feel like you are being proactive by doing things to try to control your own destiny instead of being at the mercy of a weak & mercurial economy. While doing these things won't guarantee you a job, not doing them will increase your chances of remaining on the sidelines.

 

 

 

The Recovery: Is It Harder On Women

After reading an article yesterday about the end of the so-called "mancession," a recession where men were harder hit than women, I was surprised to read that the author concluded that women now stand to lose more ground as men find jobs [to be fair, the author notes that generally speaking jobs are still hard to come by for al]. My surprise didn't stem from her conclusion, I was surprised that this was somehow "news" when the "handwriting" has been on the wall for a while now.

New Jobs Are NOT White-Collar Friendly

As it has already been reported here, the government did not target white-collar jobs when they distributed its stimulus funds. No, those white-collar jobs that have left are not coming back for totally different reasons. Companies have found ways to be productive & make more money with less human capital either through technology or by shipping those jobs overseas where they can pay far lower wages & don't have to worry about "little things" like spiraling healthcare costs. Even once recession-proof jobs like lawyers & doctors are drying up, paying less, or going overseas. Now no job is 'safe." Whenever the subject of job creation comes up, the first thing people talk about is "rebuilding our infrastructure" referring directly & indirectly to so-called "shovel ready" jobs, positions that will be filled largely by men. As a result, while women now surpass men in the number of those who are college educated, their more familiar white-collar jobs are getting slashed both in the private & the public sector [even every college educated person's "backup job" teaching is seeing cuts]. With white-collar jobs getting hit from all sides, of course women will experience a harder time, at least in the near term. That is even before factoring in the societal bias that still exists when it comes to viewing men as the primary "bread earners" which may put them ahead in line for an available position. 

 

What About Wisconisn: Part II

Throughout the debate in Wisconsin, I have been listening for a more thorough discussion on a larger but very related issue relevant to all workers public & private but all I have heard is silence. Quite aside from the Wisconsin's Governor's goal to break collective bargaining, this whole dispute has crystallized something far bigger for me. Companies public & private have been playing fast & loose with their pension funds for years, which is the unspoken piece of fact in this debate. It seems to me that at least in part, public employees are being asked to provide a solution to the state government's own greed & mismanagement. Why? Now that the bill is about to become due for scores of retiring employees, these governors are in a panic. Retirement funds have been in greater danger than social security for the last 10-15 years. The current debate is like a "fig leaf" designed to mask the larger reality. As retirement of the baby boomers begins to roll out, new retirees are going to have a rude awakening at precisely the same time when our national debt requires that we make cutbacks in social security.

The By-product Of Ending Collective Bargaining

Howward Feinman of MSNBC & other pundits have also suggested that the GOP as a whole sees this as a means of diffusing a powerful political machine that always operates against them in every election. More significantly, the net result would be to stick a dagger in the Democrats financial machine. They speculate that if Walker & other governors are successful, it could translate to something like a 200 million dollar loss to the Democrats' electoral machine.  If Walker & the other governors succeed, get ready for a very different looking electorate as well as a different definition of the "American Dream." That's my opinion. What's yours?

What About 'Wisconsin'

Unless your head is buried in the sand or you've been on another planet, you can't help but take notice of the battle raging in Wisconsin these days over their state debt & governor Scott Walker's desire to break collective bargaining in his state. However, as someone who works with employers & employees, I have been peppered with a lot of questions so here's my take. It's near impossible to clearly favor one side or the other on the issues. Why, because BOTH sides are being disingenuous when it comes to telling the whole truth. Having said that, I think there are 3 things that most people [who are being intellectually honest] can agree with: 1- these are tough times & sacrifices along with some very tough choices are going to have to be made in order to get our fiscal house in order at both the state as well as the federal level; 2- again, assuming that people are being intellectually honest, collective bargaining by itself did not create this problem so "breaking it" won't guarantee a solution. Most people don't realize what happens in collective bargaining. It is through this kind of bargaining, that you get safe workplaces, a framework for how to resolve grievances, & a ton of other workplace related measures having nothing to do with pay or benefits; & lastly, 3-while the unions did not steal their benefits, which is to say that they negotiated for them fairly, there have been circumstances where they have taken advantage of the taxpayer's generosity. 

Governor Walker's Problems

On the merits of fiscal solvency, it is really hard to defend a governor who will not take "yes" for an answer because the unions have already said they understand that when it comes to money, the cuts have to be made. At this point, they are fighting for a "seat at the table" over all other workplace issues. That seems like a fair request & one thing we voters like to see is "fairness." Another problem for the governor is that his rationale has changed. He started out saying that this is strictly a budget issue but since the unions have yielded, he can no longer make that claim & is now fighting an ideological battle. Fairly or unfairly, this last point was driven home when he was publicly caught in a fake conversation with one of his ideological & financial backers [at the time, the governor thought the conversation was legitimate]. Politicians of all stripes miss the mark when they fight an ideological war instead of "solving the people's problems." It should be noted that while the current battle is being fought in Wisconsin, other governors in the "rust belt" [nearby states] are considering similar measures adding to the seriousness of the debate.

In My Opinion 

When a state like Wisconsin [& this is also true for my own home state of CA] finds itself in dire financial straits, cuts have to made & that is just fact. However, the cuts should start top down in areas & with people who will feel the pain the least although it will have to be experienced by all in order for it to be fair. If the government is going to cut the pay & benefits of public employees, he & his administration should experience those same proportionate cuts. There are also other nice little perks that come with administering government that he should trim whether they make a financial difference or not. Why, because such sacrifices even when they are only symbolic count when you are asking people who make far more modest money to make significant cuts. I was listening to a pundit this morning comment about the Wisconsin democratic state senators who have fled Wisconsin so that a vote cannot be cast on the governor's bill. He said that such behavior goes against the covenant that these officials have with the people. Well, the government made a covenant with the public union members too. They said to public workers if you do these necessary jobs to run the state for modest wages, i.e.; teach our children, keep us safe, put out our fires, etc, we in turn will be sure that your health insurance & retirement is secure. Right now, it almost seems as if no side has kept their word.  

Does Your Business Need A Social Media Policy

Back during the 90's when Bill Clinton was president, in one of the commencement speeches he gave, he told the graduating class the following: "some of you will have jobs we haven't imagined yet." Truer words have never been spoken because at this point IF Google was around, it was in its nascent stages & Mark Zuckerberg was just another kid who hoped to go to Harvard some day. The internet was still young & new so no one was talking about web 2.0 yet. It wasn't until 2004 that a new layer of the web known as the blogosphere started to flex its muscle trying to get Howard Dean nominated  [instead of John Kerry] to run against George W. Bush. While Dean's troops were not successful, a whole new medium was born in earnest with sites like Facebook &Twitter on its heels with much more to follow. Now even if you are not digitally fluent, you know there is important information to be acquired through this new medium. It's an easy way to keep up with family & friends or to interact with business in a whole new way.

Social Media: Now An International Force To Be Reckoned With

Even stodgy politicians across the globe have come to recognize that sites like Facebook & Twitter are forces to be reckoned with; the uprising in Cairo is just the latest example. Now that everyone is literally "twiddling their thumbs" on their mobile phones, it's increasingly more important to have a social media policy in your employee handbook. In fact sometimes fiction & reality go hand in hand so just to prove a point, one of the central themes in a recent episode of Grey's Anatomy was whether or not "tweeting" about the surgery underway should be permitted in the operating room. The chief of staff's concern of course was liability n the event that surgery was not a success.

What Topics Might Be Covered In This Policy

I have been thinking about this topic for a while now but I have to give credit where credit is due to author Karen Klein for "inking it" first. So what might be covered in this particular policy? The list could be long & would undoubtedly vary from company to company but here are just a few topics to contemplate:

•  Privacy issues-theirs & the company's
•  Posting on the job [about non-business related issues] or checking personal social media sites
•  Creating posts that have some direct effect on individuals in the company or that may have an effect on the company's brand, products, or other in-house issues
• Revealing proprietary practices of your employer either directly or indirectly
• Misrepresenting the views of a company
• Writing anything that reflects poorly on company or brand that may lead to a loss in revenue 

No Cost-benefit Analysis Required

I could continue but it should be apparent that there is no need to do a cost-benefit analysis to see that for most any company, NOT having a social media policy which would serve as protection for both the employer & the employee alike is a potentially expensive risk that is simply not worth taking.

 

Dealing With Violence In The Workplace

In light of the shooting in AZ recently, once again the subject of violence in the workplace has arisen as it always does after some tragic "event."  While we appear to be a culture that refuses to learn the lessons provided to us by gun violence, if an incident should happen to you, what should you do? I applaud BNET blogger Geoffrey James for taking up the subject in his business blog.

Things To Do Before A Violent Event Occurs

As a result of consulting with national security experts, James is absolutely correct about the things to do BEFORE an incident occurs. He points out the importance of being aware of your surroundings, developing a plan, taking note of colleagues displaying aberrant behavior [& even reporting it to your superior], among other strategies. Quite aside from having an action plan in advance, this enables you to possibly prevent a problem before it escalates. More to the point, with a plan already in place, people will be a bit less panicky because they will have things to do. Remember whether before or during a violent event, it is always important to either make yourself inconspicuous so as not to be a target or to reflect a sense of calm even when you don't feel that way in order to lower the surrounding "temperature" if at all possible. "Hot heads" generally are poor decision-makers & are inclined to "shoot first & think later"

Things To Do Once A Violent Event Has Begun

Once you are faced with violence in the workplace, according to national experts, the top 3 things that you can do to help your situation are:

1. Duck & cover-yes they actually advise this because you'd be surprised at the number of people who simply get so completely flustered that they can't even think of something as basic as that
2. Gather your wits-assess the situation & your options particularly when it comes to deciding if & how you can implement the action plan already in place
3. Get away/find a safe hiding spot-Either get out of the building, out of the room where all the action is, or hide...even if that means "hiding in plain sight" by playing dead. Basically you do not want to be in the line of fire if at all possible. As soon as you are a safe distance away, call 911

A few years ago I'd read about the Navy's exploits in World War II, & it was said that their credo was "rock 'em & sock 'em but don't lose your shirt." Basically, what they meant was fight hard but above all, live to fight another day. When confronted with violence in your workplace, the idea is similar-don't try to be a hero; get yourself to safety first [read: live to fight another day] before trying to help others.

 

Worker Wars: 'X,Y & B'

According to blogger Penelope Trunk, workers belonging to Gen Y can do your job better than you [if you belong to the Boomer, Obama, & X generation that is].  Really? This is not the first time that I have had serious disagreements with Ms Trunk & it may not be the last. Let's start with her initial premise that Gen Y is optimistic about their employment future. About this I'd say perhaps but it's is not the whole story. While I believe that unlike boomers, the 'Obama Generation,' & perhaps even some of those in Gen X who may have been confronted with some very tough employment options going forward, I believe that Gen Y has every reason to believe that, if they are unemployed now, they will eventually get a job. What Ms Trunk doesn't talk about is that Gen Y is now confronted with a new world in terms of their job opportunities, & salary realities relative to their expectations in addition to a growing uncertainty that they too will have an equal shot at the American Dream. Basically, this is not the rosier world promised to them by their parents. However, these issues are for a different blog because the main thrust of Ms Trunk's post is that as children of the information age, Gen Y is so digitally facile that they "can run rings around" anyone older.

A Generation 'Born with A Mouse In Their Crib'

However, as I observed about some of her other positions, she tends to view things outside of their larger context. For example, it was not Gen Y who created the information age. No, the information age as we currently understand & use it was brought to us by 'old geezers' of the baby boom generation with names like Jobs, Gates, & Dell followed by the slightly younger Mr[s] Yang, Brin, & Page. Basically one needn't be born "with a mouse in their crib" in order to be at ease in the information age which is a fact that is conveniently overlooked by Ms. Trunk [& to be fair, some others who write about Gen Y]. Instead she tends to support her argument with an outdated stereotype of the "befuddled boomer" who can't manage to program their VCR. Facts however are inconvenient things. For example the fastest growing demographic on Facebook is between the age of 45-55. Thee same groups she tends to discard are busy buying new [information] gadgets like smartphones, e-readers, & tablets for themselves. Do they do that because they are so hopelessly out of touch? Somehow I think not.

The World According To Trunk

In a point by point analysis, according to Ms. Trunk:

-Productivity-She believes Gen Y are better, & more comfortable 'knowledge workers'
 I'd say this an outdated assessment based on stereotypes & not the realities of today's rapidly changing workforce

-Communication- She says Gen Y are skilled communicators because they are comfortable writing online
I'd say their older peers are better communicators because they are more facile communicating across platforms or "live as well as in cyberspace." Plus they acquire information from a variety of mediums not just online.

-Career mobility- She maintains that Gen Y is more comfortable job-hopping
I'd have to agree on this point. People in Gen Y are definitely more comfortable jumping from 'start-up to to start-up' because spending an entire career with one company is as outdated as the Edsel.

-Career resilience- She says young people use entrepreneurship as a safety-valve & when they don't earn enough money, they move back in with the folks.
Once again, she is looking at employment & the workforce with Gen Y blinders on. Globally, entrepreneurship is a go-to safety valve across many age groups. What's more when people are older, they don't have the option of moving in with mom & dad & therefore have more pressure to build a successful venture or find an alternative position..

Results Of Re-Training

Don't get me wrong, there's  still a small percentage of people in these older generations who are not digitally fluent but they are rapidly becoming a smaller portion of the overall  "workforce pie" especially as folks go back to school for re-training in order to stay current & employable. I'd say it's time for Ms Trunk to take off her 'Gen Y' blinders & give the total workforce a more dispassionate assessment. What's your view?

 

Customized Business Cards: A Powerful Job-hunting Weapon

It's tough out there in the job-hunting jungle so in order to find your way through successfully, you need to be armed.  According to personal branding expert Laura Allen [a.k.a. "the pitch girl"] a jobseeker's best weapon is the handy business card. The trick is to make yourself stand out, especially in a large group like a convention or other networking function. She suggests providing professionally customized business cards* with a catchphrase that really makes you stick in people's minds. Sounds like a challenge right? Well it doesn't have to be because she also provides an extremely helpful guidepost:

"...clear & concise equals cash; vague & verbose equals trash..."

It reminds me of what an old supervisor of mine used to say all the time. She maintained that you could never go wrong adhering to the "kiss principle:" better known as 'keep it simple stupid.' " Apparently it's better advice then I thought.

 

*For this, check out Vista Print because while they are hardly the on company to make business cards, theirs are so inexpensive but nonetheless professional in their appearance that it makes such customization very possible to do.