I found the video of John Dean to be very interesting and informative. I like the fact that he believes that humanistic values are important in helping to make a business more successful. I agree with the core values of integrity, respect and trust being entertwined with visionary values of excellence, vision for the future and ownership to be among the most important values a company should have to be successful. This shows that the employees are interested in working to make their company successful and not just to collect their paycheck. They are invested in their jobs.
The book he talked about in which the authors did research for 6 years to find truly exceptional companies proved that caring about your employees, customers and stockholders can make you more successful that if your only concern is your profits. The example of the investment of $1 in 1926 and the return on that dollar by the excetional company spoke for itself. Who wouldn't want to invest their money in a company who will work to give you that kind of return on your money? ss
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Corporate Governance
The Corporate Governance video focused on the balance that a CEO, as the leader of a business, must strike between being attentive to the personal demands of the employees and the need to be productive and profitable. As much as any boss would like to have all of their people come to work every day focused solely on business, that's not realistic. Every business is to some extent made of of human beings that come to work every day with physical and emotional baggage that will effect their job performance.
The interesting thing about the video was that the speaker, John Dean, pointed out that the very human element that could be viewed as an obstacle to productivity, can be turned in to an asset. He used the example of a business that was failing and how the employees rallied behind their boss who had been stricken with a serious illness. By doing all that they could to accommodate the needs of this person, the business gained the trust and loyalty of the work force, which helped it to turn it's performance around.
It would be nice if being a leader of an organization could come with set of instructions that one could follow to ensure their success. However, when dealing with people, no such manual would ever be sufficient. If you do "X" with one person, "Y" will be the result. If you do "X" with another person, "Z" might be the result. In fact, if you do "X" with that same person on a different day, something totally different could be the result. It really makes running a business enough to drive you crazy, but it also is what makes running a business fun. DB
The Corporate Governance video focused on the balance that a CEO, as the leader of a business, must strike between being attentive to the personal demands of the employees and the need to be productive and profitable. As much as any boss would like to have all of their people come to work every day focused solely on business, that's not realistic. Every business is to some extent made of of human beings that come to work every day with physical and emotional baggage that will effect their job performance.
The interesting thing about the video was that the speaker, John Dean, pointed out that the very human element that could be viewed as an obstacle to productivity, can be turned in to an asset. He used the example of a business that was failing and how the employees rallied behind their boss who had been stricken with a serious illness. By doing all that they could to accommodate the needs of this person, the business gained the trust and loyalty of the work force, which helped it to turn it's performance around.
It would be nice if being a leader of an organization could come with set of instructions that one could follow to ensure their success. However, when dealing with people, no such manual would ever be sufficient. If you do "X" with one person, "Y" will be the result. If you do "X" with another person, "Z" might be the result. In fact, if you do "X" with that same person on a different day, something totally different could be the result. It really makes running a business enough to drive you crazy, but it also is what makes running a business fun. DB
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Walmart
A private business's primary obligation is to satisfies it's stockholders. After all, the stockholder's are the people that provide the capital that enables that business to exist. As such, Walmart has certainly satisfied it's investor's over the years by providing a huge return on their investment.
Beyond their obligation to satisfy their investor's a business such as Walmart has an obligation to treat it's vendor's, customer's and employees in a ethical manner. The relationship between a business and it's customers and vendors would seem to be different sides of the same coin. The business is looking for vendors who can provide them with some type of goods or services for the best price, and the customer is looking for the business to do the same for them. Walmart's ability to buy at a low price and pass the savings on to their customers is a benefit to their customers and their customers have rewarded them by giving them more of their business. This also indirectly benefits the community because a thriving business means more jobs for the people living in that community.
Walmart routinely pays it's employees more than minimum wage and provides benefits not required by law. Like any other business Walmart does this in order to attract a labor force capable of doing the jobs that need to be done and not out of any moral obligation to provide some acceptable standard of living. People are free to make the choice to work at Walmart if they wish. If Walmart wants to attract good people that will help them to make a profit, they need to pay those people what they're worth.
I personally do not shop at Walmart. I prefer to shop at smaller stores because I'm willing to pay a little bit more to get the more personal service that you can't get at Walmart. I respect anyone else's right to chose to shop wherever they would like to shop. However, I do find it hypocritical for people to shop at Walmart because of the prices, and then lay the blame for the negative impact of that choice entirely on Walmart. DB
A private business's primary obligation is to satisfies it's stockholders. After all, the stockholder's are the people that provide the capital that enables that business to exist. As such, Walmart has certainly satisfied it's investor's over the years by providing a huge return on their investment.
Beyond their obligation to satisfy their investor's a business such as Walmart has an obligation to treat it's vendor's, customer's and employees in a ethical manner. The relationship between a business and it's customers and vendors would seem to be different sides of the same coin. The business is looking for vendors who can provide them with some type of goods or services for the best price, and the customer is looking for the business to do the same for them. Walmart's ability to buy at a low price and pass the savings on to their customers is a benefit to their customers and their customers have rewarded them by giving them more of their business. This also indirectly benefits the community because a thriving business means more jobs for the people living in that community.
Walmart routinely pays it's employees more than minimum wage and provides benefits not required by law. Like any other business Walmart does this in order to attract a labor force capable of doing the jobs that need to be done and not out of any moral obligation to provide some acceptable standard of living. People are free to make the choice to work at Walmart if they wish. If Walmart wants to attract good people that will help them to make a profit, they need to pay those people what they're worth.
I personally do not shop at Walmart. I prefer to shop at smaller stores because I'm willing to pay a little bit more to get the more personal service that you can't get at Walmart. I respect anyone else's right to chose to shop wherever they would like to shop. However, I do find it hypocritical for people to shop at Walmart because of the prices, and then lay the blame for the negative impact of that choice entirely on Walmart. DB
Saturday, October 20, 2007
"Wal-mart"
I have to say that after reading this case study last night, I had second thoughts about shopping at Wal-Mart today. I did go there today but must admit was more aware of the prices I was paying and bought much less than in the past. I had heard all the stories about the poor business practices of this company but never gave it much thought before.
The Wal-Mart management philosphy has me a bit puzzled. I see the Social Contract Approach in the way they are able to make so much money for their stockholders and suppliers. When they move into a community with a new store, they help the area by employing many local people and giving business to the local suppliers. At the same time, I see the Instrumental Approach where they are mainly concerned with profits and meeting the needs of the consumers. My question, though, is who are they really helping besides their stockholders when Wal-Mart moves into a rural area and basically takes over the town, closing the neighborhood stores, forcing the local suppliers out of business. This causes local people to lose their jobs and then, once Wal-Mart has accomplished this feat, they are free to raise their prices and treat their employees poorly since they no longer have any local competition. If this truly is the way, Wal-Mart does business, why is it that some many communities are allowing Wal-Mart to move into their neighborhoods?
I
Wal-Mart may pay their employees more than minimum wage and offer benefits not required by law, but as I see it, are done for P.R. reasons. They are trying to overcome bad publicity from several lawsuits that have be filed against them. I believe that for the most part they follow the Strategic CSR. I base this on the fact that they do things to promote the good things they do to increase sales and have a good reputation in the community for helping local charities and organizations. They hope that people will want to shop in a store that helps out the community and will be willing to overlook the past issues. Do they get away with not promoting more women because as a society, we still believe men do the job better? ss
The Wal-Mart management philosphy has me a bit puzzled. I see the Social Contract Approach in the way they are able to make so much money for their stockholders and suppliers. When they move into a community with a new store, they help the area by employing many local people and giving business to the local suppliers. At the same time, I see the Instrumental Approach where they are mainly concerned with profits and meeting the needs of the consumers. My question, though, is who are they really helping besides their stockholders when Wal-Mart moves into a rural area and basically takes over the town, closing the neighborhood stores, forcing the local suppliers out of business. This causes local people to lose their jobs and then, once Wal-Mart has accomplished this feat, they are free to raise their prices and treat their employees poorly since they no longer have any local competition. If this truly is the way, Wal-Mart does business, why is it that some many communities are allowing Wal-Mart to move into their neighborhoods?
I
Wal-Mart may pay their employees more than minimum wage and offer benefits not required by law, but as I see it, are done for P.R. reasons. They are trying to overcome bad publicity from several lawsuits that have be filed against them. I believe that for the most part they follow the Strategic CSR. I base this on the fact that they do things to promote the good things they do to increase sales and have a good reputation in the community for helping local charities and organizations. They hope that people will want to shop in a store that helps out the community and will be willing to overlook the past issues. Do they get away with not promoting more women because as a society, we still believe men do the job better? ss
Saturday, October 6, 2007
The Role of Business in Tomorow's Society
Tonight I watched a short video clip about what role that business's should play in solving some of the problems that the world is facing as we move into the future. It was very interesting because it made me think about what obligations a business might have beyond selling goods and services for a profit. The clip focused on a group called Tomorrow's Leaders, this group of businesspeople are shaping their business strategies looking for ways to address some of the social and economic issues facing much of the world's population, while at the same time making a money for their companies.
The two issues that the video examined were the lack of clean drinking water that is a problem for billions of people in the world, and a declining environment. By approaching these problems as tremendous growth opportunities for their companies, this group has taken a positive approach and started to create a model that other businesses can follow in the future. Of course, one of the biggest challenges these businesses face is finding an efficient distribution method when working in underdeveloped parts of the world. Right now they're forced to work through government programs and relief agencies because of the expense.
As we move into the future, the hope would be that these programs can be self sustaining so that they don't have to depend on contributions or the local tax base for support. It was very interesting to consider how making profits and dealing with social issues, two things that seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, can actually be pursued at the same time. Let's hope that this type of approach catches on in the future. We certainly have enough "opportunities" facing us. DB
The two issues that the video examined were the lack of clean drinking water that is a problem for billions of people in the world, and a declining environment. By approaching these problems as tremendous growth opportunities for their companies, this group has taken a positive approach and started to create a model that other businesses can follow in the future. Of course, one of the biggest challenges these businesses face is finding an efficient distribution method when working in underdeveloped parts of the world. Right now they're forced to work through government programs and relief agencies because of the expense.
As we move into the future, the hope would be that these programs can be self sustaining so that they don't have to depend on contributions or the local tax base for support. It was very interesting to consider how making profits and dealing with social issues, two things that seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, can actually be pursued at the same time. Let's hope that this type of approach catches on in the future. We certainly have enough "opportunities" facing us. DB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)