Not only are we able to help our customers navigate the complexity of the marketplace. We are able to show a 20%  to 50%  ROI ~Ellen Siminoff

Return on Investment (ROI) analysis is one of several commonly used approaches for evaluating the financial consequences of business investments, decisions, or actions. ROI analysis compares the magnitude and timing of investment gains directly with the magnitude and timing of investment costs. A high ROI means that investment gains compare favorably to investment costs.  In the last few decades, ROI has become a central financial metric for asset purchase decisions (e.g., computers, factory machines, service vehicles…), approval and funding decisions for projects and programs of all kinds (e.g.,  marketing, recruiting, training…), and more traditional investment decisions (e.g., management of stock portfolios, use of venture capital…).

In the article “Ten Myths About ROI” by Jack and Patti Phillips write: Originally, the concept of ROI was used in the context of showing value from investing in capital expenditures, such as buildings, equipment, and companies. In the past two decades, it has been used in the context of showing return on investing in a variety of non-capital expenditures like human resources, technology, quality, and marketing. But the term ROI is entered into the business lexicon on a routine basis. What’s the ROI on that? is a common question. ‘Can you show me the ROI?’ is often a request from executives. ‘This will deliver a very high ROI’ or ‘You can expect a very high ROI with our solution’ are commonly heard from sales professionals. Most of these requests are brought into play without understanding the true meaning of ROI. In reality, the return on investment is a financial term. It shows, in a single metric, the potential (or actual) contribution of different projects, services, programs, and events…

In the article “Return on Investment: What is ROI analysis?” writes: One serious problem with using ROI as the sole basis for decision-making, is that ROI by itself says nothing about the likelihood that expected returns and costs will appear as predicted. ROI by itself says nothing about the risk of an investment. ROI simply shows how returns compare to costs, assuming the action or investment brings the anticipated result. For that reason, a good business case or a good investment analysis will also measure the probabilities of different ROI outcomes, and wise decision makers will consider both the ROI magnitude and the risks that go with it. In complex business settings, however, it’s not always easy to match specific returns (e.g., increased profits) with the specific costs that bring them (e.g., the costs of a marketing program), and this makes ROI less trustworthy as a guide for decision support. The standard advice for ROI is usually explained as: ‘Other things being equal, the investment with the higher ROI is the better business decision.’  However, important business decisions are rarely made on the basis of one financial metric, moreover, the condition other things being equal almost never applies. Therefore, when reviewing ROI figures, or when asked to produce one, it is a good idea to be sure that everyone involved: ‘Defines the ROI in the same way, and understands the limits of the concept when used to support business decisions’.

In the blog “The Internal Importance of ROI” by Greg Ness writes: To some, return on investment (ROI) may appear to have reached marketing buzzword status. However, despite its widespread use in the current business lexicon, its importance cannot be understated — especially to marketing executives. While understanding and being able to measure ROI is of vital importance to external marketing efforts, it’s just as important for internal communication and credibility. With all the financial turmoil that many companies are facing, it’s very important that marketing is represented as a lifeblood investment rather than a costly excursion.  Without hard numbers to support requested marketing budgets, top management and boards of directors are in no position to approve marketing outlays in today’s economic quagmire. Faced with declining sales, some companies cut marketing by a certain percentage across the board. That may be an easy way to cut budgets, but it is seldom the smart way. If, and that is a ‘big if’, you absolutely need to cut your marketing, concentrate on cutting out what isn’t working for you and preserve what is working well for the organization. The only way to know is by having an ROI analysis in hand.  The thought of CMOs or marketing executives trying to navigate their way to success without having numbers (i.e., ROI) that support their efforts could be a challenge.

In the article “Why ROI Doesn’t Work” by Glenn Gow writes: Many technology companies, especially those that offer complex or expensive solutions, have developed ROI tools for their sales organizations. The goal is to provide a way to offer prospects a factual, economic basis for making a purchase decision. A truly useful ROI tool/sales approach will be flexible enough to guide the buyer and sales person to constructing a customized business case and in the process will help to define the playing field for the evaluation itself. The right tool, presented in the right way, gives the sales rep the power to help the prospect make his economic justification as to the value of the solution. Prospective buyers need help in articulating their own ROI, and in constructing a business case. By providing this pivotal business-case-construction assistance, the sales professional is positioned for greater visibility into the deal, providing him with key information that can move the dialogue forward and accelerate the time-to-close. The sales organization needs skills to assist prospects in developing their own approach to whatever economic justification process is best for the prospect and your solution. An ROI program designed to build trust and face-time opportunities will accelerate the sales cycle only if it is enthusiastically adopted, and proper support mechanisms are in place.

In the blog “Your ROI: The Most Important Number for Your Business” by Richard Seppala writes:  The bottom line success or failure of a business boils down to the numbers: Profit, revenue, labor cost, profit margin– each of these calculations (and others) are powerful indicators of the health of your business. The marketing ROI is another important number for the business. Knowing the ROI for each of your marketing investments tells exactly how successful each initiative is per dollar spent. And that enables you to stop spending money on campaigns that don’t produce results. It enables you to focus all of your marketing dollars on the initiatives that are the most profitable. Once you identify tactics with a strong positive ROI, you can invest money confidently; knowing that you’ll recoup your investment and more. Knowing your marketing ROI allows you to pick up more business efficiently. And that, in turn, allows the improvement of most other financial numbers dramatically.

In the article “Marketers Use Varying ROI for Social Media” by KingFish Media writes: The report ‘Social Media Usage, Attitudes and Measurability’ indicates that marketers are directly measuring the number of people responding as the ROI of their social media campaigns. For example: Almost all (93%) measure the number of visitors/page views, while 85% measure the number of fans/ followers generated. Another 79% measure the traffic generated to the corporate site from social media. Other popular metrics directly measuring people include leads generated (72%) and new customer conversion (58%). Some metrics measure the actions people take, such as number of comments posted (71%) and shared links (55%). In their use of qualitative metrics, marketers are most apt to measure the impact social media campaigns have on customer relationships. Eighty-four percent measure increased dialogues with prospects and customers, while 68% measure how much existing customer relationships were strengthened. In addition, 57% measure customer retention and 43% track the ratio of negative to positive relationships with prospects and customers. One popular qualitative metric, corporate/brand reputation (68%), does not directly measure some aspect of customer relationships. Surprisingly, 43% of marketers say they have not yet measured the ROI of their social media efforts. Another 34% say social media efforts have met expectations, and 13% say they have exceeded expectations. In a positive sign for the effectiveness of social media as a marketing tool, only 8% of marketers say social media efforts performed worse than expected, with 2% considering them far below expectations. In what may be reflective of the relative newness of social media as a marketing tool, only 29% of marketers say they will have to show positive ROI to continue their social media programs. Forty-three percent will track ROI but not set requirements, while 21% will not track ROI and 6% don’t know…

In the blog “Experts: Old-fashioned ROI is Best” by Barney Beal writes: The most dangerous pitfalls in attempting to measure ROI are people who rely on an average ROI or rely on the ROI from another company. A sales rep may be selling an application and says the average ROI is 200% or the person down the street has a 300% ROI. There’s no such thing as an average ROI. You can’t compare your ROI to someone else’s. ROI is just an indicator of how big a step you take.  Another important problem is that many
companies rely on benchmark data. Benchmark is good guidance data, but you should never use benchmark data to drive your calculation. Your calculation is just for you and your company. If you use benchmark data, you’re going to generate an average ROI based on average companies and an average benchmark, which doesn’t tell you anything about what you’re going to get. Finally, never trust a sales person to do an ROI assessment for you. You might as well trust a car dealer to write the check. It’s like handing them a checkbook and saying, ‘You figure out what I can spend on the car.’

In business, it is often said ‘it takes money to make money’. The ROI is a profitability ratio that helps measure the performance of the application of money. ROI measures the link between profits and the investment required to generate profits. ROI is frequently used by management to measure performance against internal goals, competitors, or a specific industry. Management also utilizes ROI to determine where to allocate future resources based on previous investment’s profitability, which allows the ROIs from different amounts of revenue to be compared. For example, an expensive piece of machinery may generate more revenue than a lower cost investment, but that lower cost investment may have a better ROI. ROI allows management to see past revenues, and view the effects of investment expenses on return. Although there are  many issues with the ROI calculation, it’s a good method of measuring and comparing the earning power of investments. The ROI is a versatile and simple measurement for deciding where to allocate capital funds and that makes it a very useful management decision-making tool…

Most companies are looking for a 12-month return on investment, or payback in the same fiscal year. It may be that the price point is too high. ~Richard Barrett

Original article posted by http://bizshifts-trends.com/

Many companies have jumped on the bandwagon of ‘greenwash marketing’; that is, inaccurately promoting their products as green or environmentally friendly when they are not…

Greenwashing is a pejorative term derived from the term ‘whitewashing’; It was coined by
environmental activists to describe efforts by companies that portray themselves as environmentally responsible when, in fact, they are trying to mask possible environmental wrongdoings. The term greenwashing was originally used to describe instances of just
misleading environmental advertising, but in recent years the term greenwashing has evolved to include other environmental issues as companies attempt to portray themselves as good citizens of the environment. According to Melissa Whellams and Chris MacDonald write; the term is now used to refer to a wider range of corporate activities, including; but not limited to, certain instances of environmental reporting, event sponsorship, the distribution of educational materials, and creation of ‘front groups’. However, regardless of the strategy employed, the main objective of greenwashing is to give consumers and government policy makers the impression that the company is taking the necessary steps to manage its ecological footprint. When in fact they are just attempting to cover-up their misdeeds and deceive the public in thinking that a company with an awful environmental track record actually has a great one. Of course, not all environmental advertising is dishonest, but any advertising legitimately labelled as greenwashing is dishonest.

In the article “The Green Hypocrisy: U.S.’s Corporate Environment Champions Pollute The World” by Ash Allen at ‘24/7 Wall St.’ writes: A majority of U.S.’s largest companies have become part of the green movement and have initiated green programs, such as; fleets of hybrid cars, solar for cost-effective energy, contributions to environmental non-profit organizations… However, the irony of the green movement of these companies
is that many of the firms that spend the most money and public relations effort to show the government, the public, and their shareholders that they are trying to improve the environment are also among the most prolific polluters in the country.  Pollution does not mean that the companies are doing anything illegal. Instead, it simply refers to natural consequence of the companies’ industrial efforts which result in contamination to; air, soil, or water by the discharge of substances that are toxic to the environment… At the heart of greenwashing is a company’s desire to represent its business as environmentally friendly at the expense of honestly portraying their environmental character. Common methods used by corporations include; advertising, press releases, websites… Less obvious methods that are equally pernicious include; trade groups lobby the public on the company’s behalf, adoption of non-governmental standards for environmental protection, and establishing
endowments for green academic research…

In the article “Is the Corporate World’s Patina of Green, Sea-Change, or Course Correction?” by Keith Johnson writes: Greenwashing is a buzzword on the increase, and many companies are overly exaggerating their environmental programs in order to win points with consumers and government agencies. According to ‘State of Green Business Report’ by Joel Makower, green business guru, he writes: Greenwashing is a mixed bag…
we’re more or less treading water: Environmentalists, regulators and the media are increasingly scrutinizing what companies are claiming in the green arena. For example; Wal-Mart got the green gospel — at least in part on the advice of management consultants– and they’ve been on a mission to preach the company’s environmental efforts… So far, with some success; the retail giant takes steps to trim energy use in stores, trucking fleet, supply chain…  Critics like ‘Wal-Mart Watch’ takes aim not just at the retailer, but at the whole economic model supporting it. ‘Wal-Mart Watch’ argues; the efficiency gains through these environmental programs are fine but they are more than offset by the retailer’s relentless growth, expanding its ever-bigger-box stores in ever-more-remote
places… thus, the PR is great but the actual benefits to the environment overall is problematic.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is beginning to pay more attention to deceptive advertising claiming environmentally friendly or sustainable products or services. Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the FTC is authorized to police deceptive
advertising and marketing claims, including; bringing law enforcement action against
companies that are found to have engaged in unfair or deceptive practices. Companies found guilty of deceptive and unfair advertising and marketing practices are subject to potentially significant fines… The FTC has issued an environmental reference guide, namely; ‘Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims’ (Green Guides), which sets forth a variety of rules and restrictions on green marketing and requires all marketers
making express or implied claims about the sustainability of their products have a ‘reasonable basis’ for their claims. Where ‘reasonable basis’ might require competent and reliable scientific evidence to prove claims, including; without limitation, tests, research, analyses, studies… Thus, a company that overstates the environmentally friendly nature of its products or may run a foul of the FTC’s rules on deceptive environmental marketing, and might be subject to fines and other penalties…

In the article “Greenwash: A Way to Say Hogwash” by Jonathan D. Glater writes: Building contractors and developers are increasing endorsing many elements of green, including; planning, construction, energy-efficiency, recycled materials… But, the questions remain; how can anyone be sure that the actual building construction is true to the promise of green. For example; how do we know that a particular carpet really was made from old trash bags? How do we know that a particular redwood tree was not killed just to install a new deck? How do we know that a pump in an air-circulation system is high-efficiency model? According to Anthony Bergheim, architect, says; the danger is greenwash: Greenwash is when somebody says; ‘Oh, we have the greenest building in town’, but they don’t have the metrics (validation) to show that, in fact, it’s a true green environment… ‘The U.S. Green Building Council’, a nonprofit group, promotes energy efficiency and other environmental benefits in construction and design, and has established criteria to measure how green buildings are built. According to S. Richard
Fedrizzi, The Council’s Chief Executive, say; the way that we have tried to build better green buildings and affect building stock is to create a ‘rating system’ that recognizes certain characteristics of the building, including; products, materials… but, for the most part, today we are relying on the honesty and the integrity of the manufacturers of those products, systems... The system is flawed and there is no verification or validation and claims made are not necessarily true…

In the article “Ben & Jerry’s Backs Off ‘All Natural’ Claims” by GreenBiz Staff writes: The Ben & Jerry Ice Cream Company’s mission statement trumpets an aim to make; ‘the finest quality, all-natural ice-cream and euphoric concoctions and to promote business practices that respect the earth and the environment’. But, the firm has come under fire from the Washington-based ‘Centre for Science in the Public Interest’ (CSPI), which took
issue with their ice cream ingredients, such as; alkalised cocoa and corn syrup, as well as, partially hydrogenated soya bean oil. The pressure group contended that the ingredients had either been chemically modified or did not exist in nature: Calling products with unnatural ingredients ‘natural’ is a false and misleading use of the term. In an abrupt
about-turn, Ben & Jerry agreed to remove the term from product descriptions… Although the CSPI’s complaint didn’t lodge a greenwashing charge against Ben & Jerry for the use of all natural, the move comes as governments and consumers are growing more aware of false marketing claims in health, as well as, environmental areas. According to a report from ‘The Guardian’: In the wake of a complaint filed by the advocacy group, the Ben
& Jerry Company will remove the phrase ‘all natural’ on its products that contain partially hydrogenated soybean oil and any other questionably natural ingredients.

Buzzwords like; ‘environmental-friendly’, ‘energy efficient’ and ‘carbon offsets’ flow freely from company press releases, brochures, web sites, blogs, and promotional materials. According to Debra Kent Faulk; some claims are accurate, certified and verifiable; while
others are misrepresentations designed to sell products. It’s amazing how everywhere you turn, products and practices are suddenly green and earth-friendly: A natural spring water company promotes their new ‘Eco-Shape Bottle.’ An airline entices employees to leave their cars at home by offering them frequent flier points. A fur trade organization says their product is ‘Eco-Fashion.’ Television is producing green programming, and an on-line retailer advertises electric lawn and garden tools under the headline Think Green… A recent survey of 1,018 products found 99% falsely claimed green credentials. Through an examination of everyday products purchased at category and leading big-box-stores, such as consumer goods ranging from; oven cleaner to caulking to toothpaste and shampoo… the researchers studied and found false or misleading green marketing claims. The watchdog group ‘CorpWatch’ defines ‘greenwash’ as; the phenomena of socially and environmentally destructive companies attempting to preserve and expand their markets or power by posing as friends of the environment. This definition was shaped by the group’s focus on company behavior and the rise of company green advertising. The practice of greenwashing is wide-spread and goes beyond commercial companies; it’s been found in many government agencies, trade associations, and other organizations where they been accused of making false and misleading environmental claims. The environmental group ‘Greenpeace’ launched a website ‘Stop Greenwash’ to confront
deceptive greenwash, engaged in debate, and distribute information to consumers, activists, and lawmaker, as needed, in order to hold companies and other organizations that violate the environment, accountable for the negative impact they are having on the planet.

‘Green’ design means designing with the whole life cycle of the product in mind (not just about product performance)– that is, eliminate or minimize any negative impact of the product on the environment by using only materials that are biodegradable or recyclable
in the product’s design.

Original article posted by http://bizshifts-trends.com/

Folklore, and things that speak in symbols can be interpreted in so many ways that although the actual image is clear enough, the interpretation is infinitely blurred… folklore is anything that is passed down through generations; myths, legends, stories, customs…

Folklore (or lore) consists of legends, popular beliefs, stories, tall tales, customs… they are the traditions of a culture, subculture, group, or organizations. Folktales is a general term for different varieties of traditional narrative. The telling of stories is universal and folklore is common to basic and complex societies alike. Corporate folklore are abound with stories about the catastrophic failures of famous companies and products; such as the Ford Edsel, New Coke, Japanese Pampers… many iconic stories about hugely successful; companies, products, big deals… many of them live-on as folklore. Some folklore are statements of a company’s decision-making process, or ‘that’s the way we do things’: Probably one of the most noteworthy examples is the H-P way. Employees [at Hewlett-Packard] would say: What would Bill (Bill Hewlett) have done? What would Dave (Dave Packard) have done? These men represent the company’s culture, conscience, and folklore. According to A.C. Mike Markkula Jr. writes; when Apple first started, we spent a long time developing the Apple values. They were statements everyone could relate to; not integrity, truth, justice or words like that. They were statements like; we want to be a good citizen in our communities. Although, for some that could be as simple as saying, let’s not put big piles of trash outside our offices… we don’t want to mess up the neighborhood. Markkula goes on to say; at Apple, we wanted to make a company that worked the way we wanted it to work. A hidden issue, in many companies, is politics; who has what job title and what authority. So at Apple, we made a rule that we would have no job description longer than two paragraphs. We first considered not having job titles at all, but we decided against that because people outside the company wouldn’t know how to relate to us.  Still, we did have an unusual structure. It didn’t really matter who you work for; but it did matter what you did. I suppose the ethical facet is; how you interact with other people… whether they’re the janitor or chairman of board, you treat them with respect and recognize their contributions and their faults. That became part of our company folklore, culture...

In the article “Guru Review: The Folklore Of Management” by Matthew E. May writes: Timeless wisdom from one of the century’s most celebrated business leaders, Clarence B. Randall. In his book The Folklore of Management, published in 1959, he has a collection of 16 essays, each covering a different business folklore. I was struck by how, over 52 years later, Randall’s savvy insight is every bit as relevant as it was in 1959. I was struck by how this tome fits so well into current emerging trends. They are concise and provocative manifestos. Here at-a-glance are s few of his folklores.

• Organization chart: If your company is run ‘by the book,’ if the job description is more important than the man, if organization charts take precedence over the realities of personal relationships, your company is in danger of succumbing to an all-too-common form of creeping paralysis.
• Management committee: Who runs your company– the president or a bevy of committees? Are decisions made in time– or are they continually put off  for ‘further study’ by ‘the group?’ Every business profits from a well-run committee system, but keeping it within bounds is a critical test of management skill.
• Production wizard: Perpetual motion, split-second decisions, and jet-propelled personality are his hallmarks. He can run any function of  the business better than the man he hired to do the job– and he can’t stop proving it. Sometimes he’s just as good as he thinks he is. But his kind of management can cost a company its future.
• Almighty dollar: Are we too tolerant of the top man who justifies a swollen salary with the magic word ‘incentive’? Top-heavy executive pay reflects a distorted view of human relations. Worse still, it can dangerously undermine public confidence in our system.
• Specialist: Unless the danger is seen in time, galloping specialization can bring any company to the brink of chaos. The remedy? Top managers with the breadth of vision only a liberal education can provide.
• Cost cutter: When profits shrink and prospects for the coming  months look dim, the cry goes up– ‘Slash overhead!’ But that is just the moment when hasty action can do irreparable harm.
• Overworked executive: Pity the overworked executive! Behind his paperwork ramparts, he struggles bravely with a superhuman load of  responsibilities. Burdened with impossible assignments, beset by constant emergencies, he never has a chance to get organized. Pity him– but  recognize him for the dangerous liability he is.

In the article “Management Folklore and Management Science” by J. Scott Armstrong and Richard H. Franke write:  Management contains folklore. By folklore, I mean techniques and concepts that managers adopt without any formal evaluation of their effectiveness simply because others use them. Some folklore prove useful, whereas,  others are harmful.  Research that tests management folklore is valuable… consider an analogy to medical science. Folklore (e.g., do not sit in a draft, get lots of rest, or eat an apple a day) is tested along with new treatments, and the testing is replicated and extended. Ideally, those who do the replications and extensions strive for objectivity. Such a process helps to determine which treatments are useful. Management folklore probably developed as a way of recognizing certain– beliefs, customs…; what seem to be obvious. In research by J. A. Lee; he examined popular management techniques and concluded that much folklore are simply; common beliefs. An example of folklore used in management is Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’, which was adopted based mainly on the argument that it made sense.  Another example of management folklore is the ‘experience curve’, which states; ’costs decrease as cumulative production volume increases’. Here, advocates advise managers to increase production to gain economies of scale and, in cases, that can prove to be harmful to the company.  Many researchers have successful careers by doing research that supports folklore. For example, the 1995 Nobel in economics recognizes the claim that people have rational expectations about the future (some are folklore). Similarly, many findings in psychology appear to be based on common sense. In research by W. Mischel; he asked fourth and sixth-grade students to predict the outcome of 17 classic experiments in psychology…  the students correctly predicted the outcome for 12 of them (suggesting that much folklore is just common sense). Folklore is probably the most important and well-acclaimed component of the cultural heritage of a nation, people, company… as such, the truthfulness in folklore must be supported, but also, the falsehood in folklore must be exposed…

In the article “Business Folklore: Origin of the Expression– You are Fired!” by Nagesh Belludi writes: The term ‘fired’ is a colloquial expression for dismissing a person from employment. It became more popular owing to the TV reality show ‘The Apprentice’ where the host, Donald Trump, eliminates contestants for a high-level management job by ‘firing’
them successively. Indeed, in 2004, Donald Trump filed a trademark application for the catchphrase– You’re fired! Some sources suggest that the term may have originated from the expression ‘fire a gun’ as in ‘discharge a gun’. However, legend has it that the term
‘you’re fired’ originated, in the 1910s, at the National Cash Register (NCR) Company by John Henry Patterson (1844–1922) who was widely recognized as the pioneer of sales management and for developing formal methods for training and assessing sales persons. Nevertheless, Patterson, for all his genius, was quirky. He often dismissed employees for trivial reasons just to break their self-confidence and recruited them back soon after. John Patterson’s employees and customers branded him abusive and confrontational. Patterson once dismissed an executive by asking him to visit a customer then when the executive returned, to NCR headquarters, he observed his desk tossed out onto the lawn. Where upon, at the right time, his desk burst-out into flames: He was ‘fired’. Famously, NCR’s star sales executive, Thomas Watson Sr. met a similar fate. In 1914, Watson argued that NCR’s dominant product, mechanical cash registers, would soon go obsolete and proposed that NCR develop electric cash registers. Peterson resisted the idea and demanded that Watson focus on sales and not worry about innovation. Following an argument, Patterson  in a fit of anger, had workers carry Watson’s desk outside and had it lit on ‘fire’, thus Thomas Watson Sr. was ‘fired’. Thomas Watson Sr. then joined a smaller competitor, named IBM… there Watson led IBM for forty years and turned IBM into the world’s leading technology company. The stories of being ‘fired’ at NCR by Patterson became folklore.

Folkloristic is the term preferred by academic folklorists for the formal, academic discipline devoted to the study of folklore. The term itself derives from the nineteenth-century German designation folkloristik (i.e., folklore). In scholarly usage, folkloristic
represents an emphasis on the contemporary, social aspects of expressive culture, in contrast to the more literary or historical study of cultural texts. According to Dundes, folkloristic work will continue to be important in the future and writes, ‘folklore is universal: there has always been folklore, and in all likelihood there will always be folklore.’ According William A. Wilson, the study of folklore is not just a pleasant pastime for whiling away idle moments. Rather, it is centrally and crucially important in our attempts to understand our behavior and that of our fellow human beings. According to Patrick Jory; while the study of folklore is important for full understanding of ‘humanity’, I have to admit that I have no idea what it has to do with ‘management’ and why we should study folklore in order to ‘manage’ people. Peter Drucker says, management; in the last analysis, means the substitution of ‘thought’ for brawn and muscle, ‘knowledge’ for folklore and superstition, and ‘cooperation’ for force.

Folklore and myths are cultural. Ethnic groups of every country have their beliefs and views and they are gradually changing as societies evolve…

Original article posted by http://bizshifts-trends.com/

We must dare to think about ‘unthinkable things’ because when things become ‘unthinkable’, thinking stops and action becomes mindless.  ~ J. William Fulbright

In this complex and rapidly changing world, it’s an imperative that you dare to think the unthinkable thoughts and explore all the options and possibilities that confront business; without it you lose. In order to perform better than other businesses you must think differently, and you must learn to welcome and not to fear the voices of change. Managing in an uncertain world means spotting market trends, preferences, and potential threats and turning them into opportunities. Business leaders must be the catalyst for new ideas, creators of innovative cultures, and the motivators for making the unthinkable a reality. In the article ‘Think the Unthinkable’ by Jane Simms writes: Business leaders must challenge institutional knowledge, traditions and explore unknown areas for innovation. She notes that people have become more arrogant and conceited as they acquire more knowledge and expertise. Business leaders miss opportunities to innovate when they are comfortable with being reactionary, safe, and predictable thinkers. In our fast-changing world, when business certainties are no longer certain, the ability to imagine things as they never were, and ask: What if? This is an essential part of every executive’s skill set. Quote from George Bernard Shaw says; … see things as they are and ask: Why? Or, dream things as they never were and ask: What if?

In the book “Disrupt: Think the Unthinkable to Spark Transformation in Your Business” by Luke Williams writes: Business leader must begin to look at their business– and the world around them– through a fresh lens, one that turns assumptions and conventions upside down. Business people are trained to focus only on problems– things that don’t work and need fixing. They live by the motto, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ Consumers are changing the way they buy, and businesses need to change the way they compete. Every business needs to rethink the habits that have made it successful in the past. There are three big stumbling blocks for an organization to overcome. First, teams and individuals feel overwhelmed, directionless, and lack focus. In my experience, this is the direct result of relying on traditional brainstorming approaches. Second, many organizations think of the world in terms of isolated products, services, and information. When, they should be thinking holistically of product-service-information hybrids. For example, the disruptive idea behind the iPhone is that it blends; such as, product (iPhone + iPhone OS), service
(iTunes + App Store), and Internet (wireless providers, developers, social communities). In other words, the relationship between; product, service, and the information they provide is more important than the details of any one particular feature alone. Third, most ideas never get articulated in anything other than through casual conversations: Stop talking about it, and explain it in sensory terms. Sketch it out! Ambiguity disappears when you describe ideas in visual or written form. Paul Romer defines ideas as; ‘the recipes we use to rearrange things to create more value and wealth.’ The goal for an organization, no matter what size or what industry, should be to generate a steady stream of new recipes… ideas that alter the trajectory of the business and reinvent the competitive dynamics of a segment, category, or industry. In  the article “Revolution in Business: Disruptive Thinking” by Luke  Williams writes: Disruptive thinking is about making significant changes to the way you think about competition and business. The old adage, ‘differentiate or die’, has been a key mantra for business competition for a long time. It’s embedded in everyone’s psyche, and companies have been obsessed with trying to overcome the competition by making incremental changes to their existing offerings. Disruptive thinking is not about how to spot a revolutionary change in technology or the marketplace. It’s about how to ‘be’ that disruptive change. How to ‘be’ the only one that does what you do. How to surprise the market with exciting and unexpected solutions. How to turn consumer expectations upside-down and take an industry into its next generation….

In the article “Sustainability: Dare to Think of the Unthinkable” by Julie Urlaub writes: All change begins with an idea and an openness to explore the boundaries of the current world. We observe that those making the biggest strides are not necessarily the ones who have the greatest capacity, financial means or even the most resources. The ones who implement change are those who simply want to change, and are committed doing it. Consider your current business plans for the future. Creating a sustainable business involves more than an innovative product and a creative marketing plan. Successful companies address long-term business sustainability with an overarching and continuous expanding mindset present in all aspects of the organization; more important, through the unthinkable thoughts that shape the very core of an organization…

According to Richard Bosworth writes: What If?– you could make your team think the unthinkable? It seems that a good proportion of CEOs have an elevated opinion of their own company’s level of creativity. According to a recent survey, when 1200 CEOs were asked to rank their company’s innovation; over 52% of them felt they were in the top ten per cent of their industry. Traditionally, innovation is defined as changing and introducing new methods, ideas or products, however, in recent years it has come to mean more in the corporate environment; for example, now it’s leadership, vision, and the assumption that an increase in creativity will lead directly to above-average growth. There is no doubt that CEOs would like to develop a stronger vision for their company, but innovation doesn’t just happen; it’s a strategy in its own right. The thinking of chief executives and business owners can be clouded by the day-to-day challenges of running a business, particularly in the current economic climate. In order to plan and prioritize their innovation strategy, leaders must take a step back and think objectively. Disengage from the nitty-gritty, push boundaries and challenge the whole team to think the unthinkable about all aspects of the business. Only then is there clarity of vision; if not, ‘the vision’ that will underpin the company’s future growth.

In the article “Think the Unthinkable” by Jane Simms writes: The inability to think boldly really matters. It confines us to the reactionary, reactive, safe and predictable, and it strengthens our biases and reinforces our prejudices. It blinds us to the alternatives, possibilities, and potential and, as such, it’s the enemy of innovation and creativity that are necessary for progress. In a climate of increasing volatility and accelerating change, we are snuggling deeper into our comfort zones on the grounds that all this stuff is too big and difficult to deal with that there’s really no point in trying. To prepare and adapt businesses and countries for the future, we must grapple with the unknown, however difficult and unpalatable that might be. If we don’t, those strategies amount to wild guesses, figments of our imagination, and that really would be pointless. We have the capacity to think beyond best practice to ‘next practice’, but rarely use it because best practice is reassuring and give us a sense of control and certainty. But it’s this very control and certainty that we need to ditch, if we are to make progress. Best practice, process, and policies are important anchors, but instead of letting them trammel our thinking we must challenge them and test ourselves. Because it’s the difficult, unexplored, even taboo, areas that offer the greatest opportunities for innovation.

In the book “What Matters Now” by Gary Hamel writes: We owe our existence to innovation. We owe our prosperity to innovation. We owe our happiness to innovation. We owe our future to innovation. Innovation isn’t a fad– it’s the real deal, the only deal. Our future, no less than our past, depends on innovation. Achieving continuous innovation, lies outside the performance envelope of today’s bureaucracy-infused management practices. It requires major changes in mind and heart, new values, new process, greater adaptability, infusion of passion in the workplace, and a new belief system or ideology. Many experts agree with this thinking; that is, firms that are the masters of the future; are different. Hamel calls it ‘management 2.0’; John Hagel and John Seely Brown and Lang Davison call it ‘the power of pull’; Ranjay Gulati calls it ‘reorganizing for resilience’; and, Robert Pirsig calls it ‘radical management’. Whatever you want to call it, it’s certainly different from what is normally called ‘management’ in large organizations. The stakes are high and those firms that opt not to embrace innovation and change and think the unthinkable won’t survive…

Disruptive innovation is not just about following a process: It’s a mindset– a rebellious instinct to discard old business clichés and remake the market landscape. As Luke Williams says; it’s an eagerness to deliberately target situations where the competition is complacent and the customer has been consistently overlooked or under-served. Richard Branson captures the essence of disruptive thinking; he says, ‘one has to passionately believe it’s possible to change the industry, to turn it on its head, to make sure that it will never be the same again.’ The potential for reinvention is all around us and it’s an exciting time to be thinking about how to structure (or restructure) business, community, or life in ways that create new value. In the article “Impossible is Nothing” by M. Farouk Radwan writes: How many times have you been told that you can’t do something, because no one did it before? How many times have you told yourself that you can’t do something, because no one did it before? Even if no one did it before, does this mean that no one will do it in the future? Why can’t this one be you? Why don’t you be the first one to break the rule? Why don’t you challenge the false belief instead of helplessly accepting it? The word impossible has different meaning for each one of us: What’s impossible for someone may not be impossible to you. To compete, business leaders need a revolution in thinking: a steady stream of disruptive strategies and unexpected solutions to stay ahead of the game; they must think the unthinkable… do the undoable… reach the unreachable…

Let’s think the unthinkable, let’s do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself and see if we may not eff it, after all. ~Douglas Adams

Original article posted by http://bizshifts-trends.com/

LIBOR is currently being used by both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as an index on the loans they purchase.

One of the most important barometers of the international cost of money is under investigation for possible manipulation: It’s LIBOR (London Inter-Bank Offered Rate). This is the interest level that stands behind many mortgage rates and unsecured loans, as well as, providing the essential numbers for trillions of dollars of more complex products. But while LIBOR is an essential part of the financial scene, only a very few people have any idea what it means, fewer could hazard a guess at the rate, and just a handful know that this vital capitalism component is privately owned and not subject to external regulation. According to MindfulMoney; this lack of oversight is now under fire as its users and rate setters stand accused of manipulating the figures for their own profit. The UK watchdog– ‘Financial Services Authority’ has one investigation, the Canadians are looking into seven major banks, and U.S. authorities including the Justice Department are probing a number of big Wall Street firms. The LIBOR is the world’s most widely used benchmark for short-term interest rates. It’s important because it’s the rate at which the world’s most preferred borrowers are able to borrow money. It’s calculated every business day in 10 currencies and 15 time-zones, ranging from overnight to one year and is based on the level at which banks have been lending to each other. The sterling three-month LIBOR rate influences the level at which lenders set some rates on loans, especially mortgages to consumers and to businesses. It’s the rate at which banks lend to each other; also, a measure of how much they trust each other and a measure of the credit crunch. The LIBOR is derived from a filtered average of the world’s most creditworthy banks’ inter-bank deposit rates for larger loans with maturities between overnight and one full year. Countries that rely on the LIBOR for a reference rate include; U. S., Canada, Switzerland, and the U.K.  Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac use LIBOR as an index for loans they purchase.  Considered one of the most important barometers of the international cost of money, LIBOR has historically reflected money market rates more accurately than ‘prime‘ and Treasury-based indices. The LIBOR rate can be found daily in The Wall Street Journal ‘Money Rates’ table.

In the article “What’s in a Number?” by Donald MacKenzie writes: The ‘London Inter-bank Offered Rate’ (LIBOR) matters more than any other set of numbers in the world. LIBOR anchors contracts amounting to some $300 trillion, the equivalent of $45,000 for every human being on the planet. It’s a critical part of the infrastructure of financial markets, but it doesn’t usually get noticed. The rates on borrowing, amounting to around $10 trillion (e.g., corporate loans, adjustable-rate mortgages, private student loans…) are pegged to LIBOR. The level of LIBOR determines the monthly payments on around half of the adjustable-rate mortgages in the U.S.: Rates are set as ‘LIBOR plus a fixed margin’, and reset periodically as LIBOR changes. Even in the UK, where explicit pegging of this kind is rare, LIBOR is a big influence on mortgage rates. LIBOR is an even more important factor in the huge market for interest-rate swaps. The swaps market is the biggest financial market, and most depends on LIBOR. The British Bankers Association’s (BBA) System for calculating the LIBOR involves a fixed procedure and predetermined panels of banks that was set-up in 1985. The BBA System has worked very well, which is why the participants in financial markets are prepared to have $300 trillion indexed to LIBOR. Much of the most vocal criticism of LIBOR has come from the U.S., and has focused on dollar LIBOR– especially three-month dollar LIBOR, which is the rate used more than any other in the swaps market.

In the article “Why LIBOR Rate is Important to the U.S. Economy” by MoneyRates Team writes: LIBOR is base interest rate paid on deposits between banks in the Eurodollar  market. A Eurodollar is a dollar deposited in a bank in a country where the currency is not the U.S. dollar. The Eurodollar market has been around for over 40 years and is a major component of international financial market. London is the center of the Euromarket in terms of volume. The index is quoted for one month, three months, six months as well as one-year periods. LIBOR rates quoted in the Wall Street Journal are an average of rate quotes from five major banks: Bank of America, Barclays, Bank of Tokyo, Deutsche Bank, and Swiss Bank. The most common quote for mortgages is 6-month quote. LIBOR’s cost of money is a widely monitored international interest rate indicator. LIBOR is currently being used by both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as an index on the loans they purchase. Most adjustable rate mortgages and credit card interest rates are based on LIBOR. As rates reset, the high LIBOR makes the monthly payment also higher, which will cause higher mortgage rates for this type of loan. Also, higher LIBOR rates will reduce liquidity in the economy.

In the article “The Basics of LIBOR- London Inter-Bank Offered Rate” by Joshua Kennon writes: The global inter-bank market provides means for financial institutions with excess capital to earn higher rates-of-return by its loaning liquid assets to those in need of the funds.  LIBOR is released each day at 11 a.m. London time. It then fluctuates through the day based upon the market’s expectations for economic activity and future direction of interest rates.  LIBOR loans are expressed in Eurodollars; U. S. currency held by foreign entities, such as British, German banks or insurance company. Eurodollars are often the result of U.S. companies using U.S. dollars to pay internationally-domiciled  corporations for goods, service, and merchandise purchased.  LIBOR is important because it’s used as the base for variable-rate government and corporate loans and derivative-based products such as credit swaps. A spread of a percentage point-or-two above and beyond the established LIBOR rate will result in a corresponding rise or fall in its cost of borrowing.

In the article “LIBOR Probe Morphs Into Criminal Investigation” by Kyle Colona writes:  The U.S. Justice Department investigation into possible shenanigans affecting LIBOR has now reportedly become a criminal probe, according to Reuters. This is a world-wide effort of ‘serious nature’, says Reuters. Investigations are underway in Japan, Canada, and the UK, and the probe includes a host of regulators and law enforcement agencies who are looking under the hood of several major worldwide banks including; Citigroup, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS, and among others. But thus far, none of these firms or their employees has been criminally charged in the LIBOR probes, so it’s not clear which way the probe will go, or even, if there is a case for wrong doing. As many in the industry know, LIBOR is set daily in London town for 10 major currencies and debt transactions and bond offerings for a range of maturities. The rate is supposed to reflect the rate at which banks lend to one another and is the peg to which, up to $10 trillion in loans; consumers, companies, and $350 trillion in derivatives transactions are linked. Manipulation of  LIBOR could have serious consequences for the global markets; and the ripple effect will surely be felt throughout the financial system. Investigators are trying to determine if traders at the banks in question ‘tried to influence’ the direction of LIBOR up or down, where a shift could mean a windfall of tens of millions of dollars if a trader has bet correctly. In the end this matter  goes far beyond just a civil matter, since manipulating LIBOR does not happen on its own or by negligence, if criminal wrong doing is proven, then the consequences are very serious.

Beyond these current shenanigans– the question being asked is: ‘What happened to LIBOR during the credit crisis?’ According to A.W. Berry; when the most recent credit crisis began and the U.S. Federal Reserve was lowering interest rates and making funds more accessible, the LIBOR continued to rise, while still in the credit crisis.  Essentially, this meant the British Bankers Association responsible for setting LIBOR rates was either unable to convince banks to lower rates or not fully cognizant of the implications high LIBOR has on financial markets.  The causes of changes in LIBOR have been measured statistically by comparing the rate to other market lending rates.  The LIBOR is an important banking-lending rate tied to a large amount of money worldwide: When credit and lending risk for banks rise then so does LIBOR. However, when these risks become resolved or are less important than the need for commercial growth, the LIBOR declines. During the unresolved concerns of the credit crisis, LIBOR rose dramatically, even as the U.S. Federal Reserve had consistently lowered its lending rates. Because LIBOR is not regulated, there appears to be a lack of ‘Chinese walls’ at many banks between rate-setters and the traders who can profit if they are ‘better informed’ than rivals.  According to ‘The Financial Times’ the most likely way forward is for regulators to start regulating the rates or at least demanding more information on the process. Also, there is a strong likelihood that this will mean the end of the BBA sponsored process: Watchdogs may consider that an organization which lobbies for banks should not be involved in such a delicate rate setting operation. It could also end the Thompson Reuters role in reporting rates and looking at anomalies– or at least it will have to comply with a demand that reports and other investigations are made public…

The rate at which the banks say they are willing to lend to another is a central plank of the world’s financial system.

Original article posted by http://bizshifts-trends.com/

The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.  ~Warren G. Bennis

The term ‘lights out’ has been used to describe fully automated factories. Human hands never touch the products during the manufacturing process. IBM already has a keyboard assembly factory in Texas that is already totally ‘lights out’. A few engineers and technicians are on-site to support the machines producing computer keyboards. People drive trucks up to the factory doors, delivering raw materials and picking up finished products. The factory operates 24/7 with down time only for scheduled maintenance or repair. At a dinner in Silicon Valley last year, President Barack Obama reportedly asked Steve Jobs what it would take to bring iPhone manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. to which Jobs replied, “Those jobs aren’t coming back.” The late Steve Jobs was right. Even though advances in automation, 3-D printing, and the rising costs of labor in China will cause manufacturing to return to U.S., we won’t need the millions of factory workers we needed in the past. That’s because the manufacturing jobs we need filled today are different from the ones we sent abroad. The new manufacturing will create new types of jobs. The one thing we can be sure about is that we will require a workforce with much different skills and education than what was required for the manufacturing jobs of yesteryear. The companies and countries that can attract, develop, and retain the highest skilled talent, those that innovate to stay ahead of competition, and those that can find clean energy strategies and effective energy policies. With competition increasing for so many resources and capabilities– and with the prosperity of nations hanging in the balance– policymakers must be actively looking for the right combination of trade, tax, labor, energy, education, science, technology, and industrial policy levers to generate the best possible future for their citizens…

In the article “The Future of the Manufacturing Industry” by Tiffany Misrahi writes: Manufacturing is no longer what it was in the 19th century; it’s not dirty or reserved for blue-collar workers. Think of the high-tech and innovative products now manufactured around the world, like iPhones or Dyson vacuum cleaners. Indeed, modern manufacturing contributes to economic growth and raises both the technological stock and skills of a
country. It is the backbone of any industrialized society and still today can be a strategic advantage for countries worldwide. I am not disputing the fact that manufacturing has become less strategically important for some countries. The facts are there; the U. S. for instance: in the 1950s, 30% of GDP came from manufacturing, compared to 12% in 2008. Nonetheless, I believe, in the next 10 years, manufacturing will regain importance and, as a sector, bring a competitive edge. As countries face high unemployment rates, they are likely to turn to labor-intensive industries, such as manufacturing. The world’s complexity and interconnectedness demand a new type of model and solutions for the industrial sector. The new model for manufacturing must come from a multi-stakeholder dialogue accounting for all relevant issues affecting the sector, including; the rising middle class in emerging economies, innovation, job creation and skills gaps, trade policy, supply value chain evolution, environmental impact and more.

In the article “Making the Future– How Robots and People Team-Up to Manufacture Things in New Ways” by ‘The Economist’ writes: Back in the 1980s, when America’s carmakers feared they might be overwhelmed by Japanese competitors, many in Detroit had a vision of beating their rivals with ‘lights-out’ manufacturing. The idea was that factories would become so highly automated that the lights could be turned off and the robots left to build cars on their own. It never happened. Japan’s advantage, it turned out, lay not in automation but in lean-production techniques, which are mostly people-based. Many of the new production methods in this next revolution will require fewer people
working on the factory floor. Thanks to smarter and more dexterous robots, some ‘lights out’ manufacturing is now possible. Yet manufacturing will still need people, if not so many in the factory itself. All these automated machines require someone to service them and tell them what to do. Some machine operators will become machine-minders, which often calls for a broader range of skills. If people on the factory floor or in workshops are provided with easy-to-use robots they can become more productive, says Rodney Brooks. Bring together these new robots with innovative manufacturing technologies, and you could get a manufacturing renaissance. However, manufacturing revolutions never happen
overnight, but this one is already well under way. There is enough transformative research going on in the biological sciences and nanotechnology to spawn entirely new industries, like making batteries from viruses. Additive manufacturing, like anything else digital, is already becoming both cheaper and more effective. The big breakthrough would be in workflow. The aim would be to build things faster and more flexibly rather than to achieve economies of scale.

In the article “What the Robotic Age Means for U.S. Manufacturing” by Alyssa Sitig writes: In the last fifteen years, manufacturing in the United States has undergone a fundamental shift. As millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost to outsourcing and automation, output has steadily continued to grow. And while U.S. manufacturing output has decreased by only 1% since 1990, manufacturing jobs have decreased by over 30% in the same time period. Bottom line– we’re producing more goods as a nation, but we no longer need the same amount of manpower to make it happen. And the trend shows no sign of slowing down. Since U.S. factories began adopting robotics into their assembly
lines, national production has risen over 30%; so it’s not surprising that automation is a natural move for manufacturers looking to stay competitive. Japan was one of the first nations in the world to capitalize on the low overhead of factory robots. As negative population growth drove up wages, Japanese manufacturers turned to automation to cut costs. The nation has already invested over $50 million in programs and currently controls
40% of the total factory robotic population around the world. By 2025, the Japanese government predicts 15 million manufacturing jobs will be replaced by robots. Germany, on the other hand, is leveraging robotics to grow the nation’s manufacturing base and bring factories back home. It’s no coincidence that the country with 43% of Europe’s
factory robot population and an export ratio of 63%. Government incentive programs encourage Germany manufacturers to adopt automation and help sustain the nation’s global competitiveness. With results like this worldwide, it’s not surprising that the U. S. is beginning to take an interest in automation. In the first half of 2011 alone, North America nearly doubled robotic orders, due to heightened demand in U.S. automotive factories. Although some fear that we are in the midst of a robotic takeover, the impact of new technology in the workplace is nothing new.  Consider the job landscape when computers were introduced into the workplace in the 1970s-1980s, secretaries feared their jobs would be taken over by machines that could complete the same tasks quicker and for less money. But in reality, computers enabled administrative assistants to take on more complicated tasks and manage more responsibility than ever before– increasing their earning capacity and value in the workplace. If history repeats itself (as it commonly does) the transition to a fully automated manufacturing floor is inevitable. According to John Dulchinos; “not only is the robotic takeover inevitable, but it is a natural part of a continually advancing society. If you look out far enough, machines are going to win. The human body . . . was not designed to be a factory machine. It was designed to be a thinking machine.”

In the article “The Future of Industrial Automation” by Jim Pinto writes:  We cannot figure out future trends merely by extending past trends; it’s like trying to drive by
looking only at a rear-view mirror. The automation industry does ‘not’ extrapolate to smaller and cheaper… Instead, future growth will come from totally new directions. Industrial automation can and will generate explosive growth with technology related to new inflection points; nanotechnology and nano-scale assembly systems; MEMS and nanotech sensors (tiny, low-power, low-cost sensors) which can measure everything and anything; and the pervasive Internet, machine-to-machine networking. Real-time systems will give way to complex adaptive systems and multi-processing. The future belongs to nanotech, wireless everything, and complex adaptive systems. The factory of the future will be small, movable (to where the resources are, and where the customers are). For example, there is really no need to transport raw materials long distances to a plant, for processing, and then transport the resulting product long distances to the consumer. In the old days, this was done because of the localized know-how and investments in equipment, technology and personnel. Today, those things are available globally…

Today’s manufacturing is changing; factories are smarter, safer, sustainable, which is quite the opposite from the public’s perception. We need to embrace manufacturing’s critical role in our economic future. The potential for manufacturing innovation is enormous. Today, control, communications, information, and power technologies are converging to enable the next industrial renaissance. At the heart of this renaissance are advanced, smart manufacturing technologies that blend the best in people, physical assets, business processes and data, and seamlessly connect the plant floor to the enterprise, supply chain and the customer. These advanced technologies make manufacturing more productive and globally competitive. With smart manufacturing, an entire plant can be optimized. Real-time information flows from machine-to-machine and across production lines.  Smart
manufacturing is a growth engine for a sustainable economy. The European Union has already approved 1.2 billion Euros for a new ‘Factories of the Future’ research program as part of their economic recovery plan. The European Union is ahead of the U.S. in the race to re-industrialize their manufacturing base… The U.S. can stay in the race by re-thinking the role of manufacturing, investing in advanced automation technologies and re-tooling plants into smart factories that become the execution machine for innovation. Smart manufacturing can be an important factor in the growth of the U.S. economy. However, high technology alone cannot provide all these benefits without a skilled and knowledge workforce who are continually being updated and trained to get the full benefits that each new technology can provide. The U.S. cannot regain global economic leadership unless there is a continual renewing and honing the skills of current and future employees, such that they can work successfully in the modern manufacturing environment. It’s a new age and the days of the dirty, noisy manufacturing assembly lines with relatively unskilled workers are gone… Factories of the future will be highly sophisticated with smart robotic-based machines requiring highly skilled, well-trained knowledge workers who will design, develop, install, and support the automated factory of the future…

Countries cannot afford to stop making stuff with the hopes that it can compete by just doing design and innovation. Being competitive, globally, requires a tight intertwining of design, innovation, and manufacturing.

Original article posted by http://bizshifts-trends.com/

Inflation is when you pay fifteen dollars for the ten-dollar haircut you used to get for five dollars when you had hair. ~Sam Ewing

Like everything else in the economy, it works until it doesn’t. And then bad things happen. ‘Flation’ by itself is not in the dictionary. However, when adding prefixes to ‘flation’, various words are created which appear often in economics, for example: inflation, deflation, stagflation, mass inflation, hyperinflation… and the dreaded panflation.  Inflation has a corrosive effect on business performance, undermines profits, encourages under-investment, and distorts resource allocation. In the article ‘Why Companies Should Prepare for Inflation’ by Ulrich Pidun, Daniel Stelter, and Katrin van Dyken write: Despite near-term deflationary pressures in at least some developed economies, especially those that are carrying high levels of debt, we think that today’s business leaders should really be
worrying about the threat of inflation. In many respects, the current economic condition is a perfect breeding ground for inflation. The loose monetary policy of many central banks, extremely low-interest rates and unprecedented quantitative easing schemes that have strongly inflated the monetary base and central banks’ balance sheets. At the same time, ongoing fiscal-stimulus packages have left many governments with huge debt levels, which they may be tempted to inflate away. Although, higher inflation rates can appear to be beneficial but, on the contrary; continued inflation destabilizes the economy, discourages productivity growth, leads to inefficient capital allocation, depresses company valuations, and carries the seeds of future recessions. That’s why senior executives need to start now, to think through the consequences of inflation on their business, understand the company exposure, and prepare for an inflationary scenario that may materialize sooner than many expect…

In the article “Which Flation Will Get Us?” by Gary North writes: There are five flations to consider: deflation, inflation, stagflation, mass inflation, hyperinflation, and we had better consider all of them. We should always keep in mind the fact that there are two ways to define flation: (1) as a change in the money supply; (2) as a change in the price level. Most of those who forecast deflation have in mind price deflation. Price deflation can come through the free market, and it results from steady increases in economic output in an economy with stable money: More goods chasing the same amount of money. On the other hand, monetary inflation produces price inflation. If the central bank expands the money supply, prices will rise. The expansion of money by the central bank is the source of economic booms, and specific asset bubbles. The expansion of money briefly lowers the interest rate, and for as long as the Federal Reserve creates money, we will have price inflation. But before we get to this, we will suffer from stagflation. This was the burden of the 1970′s. There was monetary expansion and massive Federal deficits. That combination of events was dubbed stagflation. The potential for economic stagnation in today’s world is obvious. Just about every mainstream economist and forecaster is predicting slow economic growth next year. The mass inflation phenomenon appears when the Federal deficit cannot be covered by private investment and purchases by foreign central banks.  Mass inflation is defined as double-digit price inflation above 20% but below 40%. No industrial nation has seen this except after a major military defeat. The worst-case scenario is hyperinflation, which ‘Ludwig von Mises’ called the crack-up boom. It cannot last long because the currency system is rapidly destroyed, and it no longer serves as a tool of economic calculation.  Just think about it (or maybe don’t); the value of money becomes worthless. No modern industrial economy has suffered this since the recovery after World War II. Now, these are the options; pick your ‘flation’…

In the article “The Devaluation of Everything–The Perils of Panflation” by ‘The
Economist’ writes: Price inflation remains relatively subdued in the rich world, even though central banks are busily printing money. But other types of inflation are rampant, thus we have ‘panflation’. Panflation needs to be recognised for the plague it has become, for example; take the grossly under-reported problem of  size inflation, where clothes of any particular labelled-size have steadily expanded over time. Estimates by ‘The Economist’ suggest that the average British size-14 pair of women’s trousers is now more than four inches wider at the waist, than it was in the 1970s. In other words, today’s size-14 is really what used to be labelled a size-18; a size-10 is really a size-14. (U.S. sizing is different, but the trend is largely the same.) But when three out of four American adults and three out of five Britons are overweight, the danger is that size inflation reduces women’s incentive to eat less. Meanwhile, food-portion inflation has also made it harder to fight the flab. Pizzas now come in regular, large and very large. Starbucks coffees are Tall, Grande, Venti or (soon) Trenta. Small seems to be a forbidden word. Inflation is also distorting the travel business. A five-star hotel used to mean the ultimate in luxury, but now six and seven-star resorts are popping up as new hotels award themselves inflated ratings as a marketing tool. ‘Deluxe’ rooms have been devalued, too; many hotels no longer have ‘standard’ rooms, but instead offer a choice of ‘deluxe’ (the new standard), ‘luxury’, ‘superior luxury’ or ‘grand superior luxury’. The value of frequent-flyer miles is also being eroded by inflation. Some other strains of inflation have more serious economic effects. One example is academic grade inflation, in Britain the proportion of ‘A’-level students given ‘A’ grades has risen from 9% to 27% over the past 25 years. Yet other tests find that children are no cleverer than they were. A study by Durham University concluded that an ‘A’ grade today is the equivalent of a ‘C’ in the 1980s. In American universities almost 45% of graduates now get the top grade, compared with 15% in 1960. Employers are themselves distorting the jobs market with job-title inflation, which has recently accelerated because a fancier-sounding title is cheaper than a pay rise. Firms are awash with an excess of chiefs and directors, such as Director of First Impressions (receptionist) and Chief Revenue
Protection Officer (ticket inspector). This is not just a laughing matter. Job-title inflation has economic costs if it makes the jobs market more opaque and makes it harder to assess the going pay rate. Inflation of all kinds devalues everything it infects. It obscures information and so distorts behaviour. A former German central banker, Karl Otto Pöhl, compared inflation to toothpaste: easy to squeeze out of the tube, almost impossible to put back in. The usual cure, monetary and fiscal tightening, will not work for panflation. Women will never squeeze back into their old clothes unless they reject size inflation. Instead, it is time for everybody to tighten belts (literally) and fight all sorts of inflationary flab.

In the article “Director of First Impressions, Startbucks Trenta and the Inflation of Everything” by David Nelson writes: An article in ‘The Economist’ titled ‘The Perils of Panflation’ writes; consumer prices and waist-lines are not the only places where inflation is a concern. From the article, here are my favorite examples of non-price inflation:

• Grades: In U.S. universities almost 45% of graduates now get ‘A’s, compared with 15% in the 1960s.
• Beverage Sizes: Starbucks recently added the ‘Trenta’ size, which is almost one full liter of coffee. According to the ‘National Post’ this is larger than the capacity of the average adult stomach.
• Job Titles: Doesn’t it sound cool to be ‘Director of First Impressions’? Better than ‘receptionist’ at least.

In the article “China Has a Pork-Flation Problem” by Uri Friedman writes:  The news that China’s government will try to tame inflation by releasing pork reserves from freezer facilities, and subsidize live pigs in large farms might reasonably strike you as bizarre, but as The Wall Street Journal explains, the move actually makes sense. China, after all, is the pig capital of the world. The country is the world’s biggest pork consumer, with the average Chinese person eating about half a grown hog each year, and China produces more pigs than the next 43 pork-producing countries combined. Furthermore, volatile pork prices are perhaps the most important contributor to inflationary pressure in China. Because China’s favorite meat is, by one estimate, the single largest component of China’s Consumer Price Index (or, as some call it, the China Pig Index), which measures the change in price of a basket of typical household consumer goods. The government is now trying to boost supply to meet demand, the Journal notes, but its stockpiles represent a tiny fraction of China’s annual pork consumption of 50 million tons… If China can’t get inflation under control, it risks undermining economic growth and social stability…

Bad things happen when a lower dollar fosters inflationary pressures and, according to some economists, rising inflation and rising interest rates are likely to become a rally killer sometime soon. A chief measure of price inflation is the inflation rate, which is the annualized percentage change in a general price index (CPI) over time.  Economists generally agree that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply. Views on which factors determine low to moderate rates of inflation are more varied. However, the consensus view is that a long sustained period of inflation is caused by money supply growing faster than the rate of economic growth. According to some experts: The U.S. dollar is turning into dust– Gold and silver prices have soared. Gas prices are outrageous. Yet, ‘official’ inflation is said to be low, and the government keeps printing money and running ever so increasing deficits. But, policies designed to fight inflation and unemployment usually clash. Right now, unemployment is high and inflation (real inflation: money supply growth) is essentially non-existent. Some experts suggest;  It would be best for the Fed to ignore inflation and pursue policies to benefit unemployment. Then, if inflation begins to get out of hand, it can easily be reigned in once we’ve seen an improvement in employment. What we don’t want to see, though, is a period of stagflation, where the Fed loses control of inflation while the economy stagnates. High unemployment coupled with inflation are the death knell for any economy…

We live in an interdependent world and we must reckon a balance between developed and developing markets, and between revenue growth and managing inflation.

Original article posted by http://bizshifts-trends.com/

New research suggests that having a single leader, the CEO, will no longer work in this era of globalization.

The rapid evolution of executive roles in today’s hyper-dynamic business climate is like the game of ‘musical chairs’, where roles in the executive suit are constantly evolving with the ever-changing globalization of the business environment. The fundamental concept of executive leadership is changing. CxOs must have a radically new type of creative, innovative mindset. According to Andrew Stein, the roles and responsibilities of just a few years ago of the CEO, CFO, CLO… is much different today, and it’s still changing. Some
traditional tasks have even shifted from one title to another. Today, every executive in the
C-suite must communicate effectively, confidently, and convincingly to all stakeholders, partners, and especially customers and employees. The business priority has changed, it was compliance but now technology innovation is the most profound driver of role change. As a baseline, corporations were historically measured by revenue and profit, whereas  today companies are measured on creative ability to innovate in all aspects; functions and service levels across the business. The economic drivers of the last few years forced global businesses to innovate to a higher level and at a faster rate, than ever before. It forced the executive team to make innovative decisions that forced seismic-level change. Shifts from efficiency measures to innovation initiatives produced profound results. Customers are seeking out the innovative companies over those just holding on and riding out the economic storm. Leaders that want to stay on top must reinvent their role; they must be visible and build trust with their organization and extended stakeholders…

In the article “CEO or CFO: Who’s in the Driver Seat?” by Lisa Yoon writes:  In a study by Deloitte titled ‘The Chemistry of CEO/CFO Relationships’, they identified four personality types that CEOs and CFOs fall into:

• Drivers: Analytical,  logical, experimental, determined, decisive, direct, tough, competitive, pragmatic.
• Guardians: Concrete, process-detail-oriented, traditional, socially connected, loyal, conscientious.
• Pioneers: Adventurous, creative, interested in new experiences, high-energy, spontaneous, optimistic, adaptable.
• Integrators: Web-thinking, intuitive, imaginative, empathic, expressive, diplomatic.

In this study, researchers at Deloitte asked 91 large-company CFOs which personality type they themselves identified with, as well as the type that described their CEO. Just over half the finance chiefs self-identified as ‘drivers’, while 29% said they were ‘guardians’. The other 20% split evenly between ‘integrators’ (11%) and ‘pioneers’ (10%).  While, 34% said their CEO was a ‘driver’, another 33% called the CEO a ‘pioneer’; even though that was the category were the fewest CFOs saw themselves. Also, CFOs saw CEOs as ‘guardians’ 22%, and ‘integrators’ 11% of the time. In terms of CFO-CEO pairings, it appears ‘drivers’ are the key component in amicable and lasting partnerships. More than three-quarters of the pairs (77%) had at least one ‘driver’. According to Deloitte, this suggests the versatility of
the ‘driver’ type; it’s harmonious in pairings with any personality type. It may also be that the decisive and practical styles of ‘drivers’ are simply an essential part of an effective CFO-CEO partnership. In this Deloitte view ‘driver’ CFOs, presumably, being able to pair well with different CEO types, enjoy important benefits among other CFO types. The ‘drivers’
versatility affords them more career options, better partnerships with their CEOs, and the ability to adapt to CEO changes. That same flexibility, meanwhile, might even help ambitious CFOs ‘drive’ toward the CEO role in the future.

In the article “Chief Legal Officers Have More Power Than Ever Before” by ‘The Economist’ writes: The Chief Legal Officer (CLO) is now one of the mightiest figures in the C-suite. The main reason is that the legal thicket has grown thicker. In the U.S., the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley act inserted federal law deep into corporate governance. The Dodd-Frank act of 2010 made running a financial business much more complicated.  In the book ‘Indispensable Counsel’ by Norman Veasey and Christine Di Guglielmo, they argue that a CLO must be a ‘courageous renaissance person’. He must be a business partner and a guardian of corporate integrity. He (or she; 20% of America’s big-company CLOs are women) represents the entire corporate entity, not just its managers. He answers directly to the CEO and the Board of Directors, as well. Professional ethics often require the CLO to say ‘no’, to the other suits in the C-suite. Sarbanes-Oxley, in particular, has increased the lawyer’s responsibility to keep his company straight, or face punishment. The CLO must protect the company’s reputation with customers, suppliers, journalists and non-governmental organizations. Perhaps the hardest balancing act for a CLO is that he/she must be both a cautious lawyer and a member of the strategy team. Only the best CLOs excel in both roles. A visionary thinks about the future, but a lawyer’s stock-in-trade is precedent. If he gets too involved in business, he may forget to be a lawyer. (The U.S. courts have ruled that a CLO’s purely business advice is not covered under attorney-client privilege.) Good lawyering can be good for business. For example; sharp legal departments can enforce a sound anti-bribery policy, while rival firms run into swamps. It can knock down competitors’ patents; handy when so many technology firms are warring over intellectual property. It can smooth takeovers; tricky in any industry under scrutiny by trustbusters…

In the article “Two Leaders in the Corporation of the Future” by Marianne Lepa writes: New research suggests that having a single leader no longer works for the corporation of the future, and that the roles of CEO, CFO, CTO… should be given equal say. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) as visionary leader is a thing of the past, says Dr. Philip Tulimieri. Dr. Tulimieri believes that the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) should also have equal billing and responsibility for corporate leadership. Tulimieri says his research suggests that the
distinction between the two roles is blurring and that changes in corporate structure and in society at large indicate that the two roles are merging in many ways. Tulimieri says the forces of globalization have created a confusing and complex set of responsibilities for corporate leaders. The two positions of CEO and CFO while very distinct in duties tend to be recognized now as ‘necessary counterforce’ in the business structure, says Tulimieri. The CEO is the ‘eternal optimist’ leading the way and the CFO is ‘the realist’ being cautious and warning of risk. The two roles, both address the need for growth and responsibility must function as a team rather than adversaries. The CEO-CFO partnership provide the engine for the new-millennium corporation, and serve as a starting point for the new corporate model of ethical behavior, sustainability and true stakeholder value.

In the article “The New Path To the C-Suite” by Boris Groysberg, L. Kevin Kelly, and Bryan MacDonald write:  We know that different times and different circumstances call for different leadership skills. Prior to the early 2000s the typical CFO was a bean counter, responsible mainly for reporting the numbers, measuring performance with integrity and accuracy, and managing the company’s checks-and-balances processes. CFOs had accounting and financial acumen, as well, as strong quantitative skills but their purview was relatively narrow and confined mostly to their department. The typical CFO was also country-centric, even at firms with an international presence, operating on the theory that
regulatory differences made global finance too complicated. Today, however, regional differences loom larger than ever, and multinationals no longer have the luxury of keeping finance issues within geographical boundaries. As the retired head of finance of one U.S. manufacturer pointed out to us; ‘CFOs now need experience with capital markets, mergers, and information technologies’. The CFOs of the future will operate around the globe, in multiple time zones, and will regularly partner with nonfinancial areas of the business on growth initiatives and international expansion. Thus they will need both a commercial sensibility and a global mind-set. Whereas, today CFOs are required to develop and implement systems and processes for budgeting and performance metrics, tomorrow they’ll also be required to provide the management team with real-time, operational, and financial data and analyses. They’ll continue to perform the traditional
functions of managing the finances, reducing costs, and putting in place the appropriate controls, but strategic thinking will become more important…

Corporate executive leadership can be divided: The positions of CEO, CFO, CLO… while very distinct in duties tend to be recognized now as ‘necessary counter-forces’ in the business structure. The top job has simply become too large, too complex and too demanding for one person.  A CEO-CFO-CLO partnership will provide the engine for this new-millennium corporation, and serve as a starting point for the new corporate model of
ethical behavior, sustainability and true stakeholder value. For the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), a few trends are emerging that are influencing the direction of the role, such as; strong communication, empathy, collaboration, and trust building. As the face of the company, one skill of foremost importance is the ability to elicit public trust. As one
executive put it, ‘The C-level person today needs to be more team-oriented, capable of multitasking continuously, leading without rank, and having an open office plan. In other words, a whole new breed of top executive’. For the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), trends show an active role in talent management, contributing to areas beyond finance, and assuming the role of CEO designate. No longer is the CFO only preoccupied in building credibility for the finance function, he must instill a sense of confidence among employees, customers, partners… It goes without saying that the CFO’s level of understanding of the business has evolved tremendously from what it was a few years ago. For the Chief Legal Officer (CLO), trends show heightened attention to risk management, which includes; safety, security, and reputational risks, which are all central to the senior team’s agenda. The CLO reports directly to CEO, but also functions as high-level advisers to the Board of Directors in matters affecting the corporation. Whereas, corporate lawyers were once expected to understand just the rules in ones own country; today the CLO needs to operate across geographic boundaries, and deal with a range of new and evolving challenges in the era of globalization…

The CEO is the moral and ethical leader that bring a sense of optimism and purpose. The CFO is naturally prudent and cautious having developed in an environment of statutory financial information. The CLO is the risk manager and provider of corporate stability.
These roles working together, in partnership, is the ‘platform’ for building a successful
enterprise.

Original article posted by http://bizshifts-trends.com/

Frivolous lawsuits are booming in this county. The U.S. has more costs of litigation per person than any other industrialized nation in the world, and it is crippling the economy. ~Jack Kingston

Litigation is inevitable, and in some cases they are probable warranted, but lawsuits are destroying businesses. It doesn’t take much to tie a company in knots with litigation; and the process saps the soul, dispirits, and it’s very expensive. It seldom results in the sort of triumph everyone imagines when it starts. Legal fees, alone, can be crushing and many litigators fail to gauge the cost to their clients as it relates to the potential benefit. According to JW Howard, litigators approach lawsuits as fixed structure that should be played out in every way the law allows, irrespective of cost or likelihood of success or even if that means destroying the business. Obsessed people can hijack the U.S. legal system: For example, remember that ridiculous lawsuit that litigated for $67 million from a local ‘dry cleaners shop’ for losing pants. Well, the litigator lost the legal suit, but the damage was done and the lawsuit destroyed the business; all over one pair of pants. A Roper poll reported in the Wall Street Journal showed that 70% agree that liability suits give lawyers more money than they deserve, and 63% agree that some people start frivolous lawsuits because the awards are so big, and there’s so little to lose. About 70% would limit punitive damage awards. By contrast, survey of lawyers and judges reported by the Wall Street Journal found that only 22% viewed the civil justice system negatively, while 77% blamed the media for clogging the courts and the breakdown of the system. The fact is lawyers are overwhelming in the U.S.  The U.S. has one lawyer for every 265 persons– about 50% of the world’s attorneys (there are 1,143,358 lawyers in the U.S.). The concern is that some not so ethical lawyers inspire panic to promote litigation, while judges’ efforts to resolve cases all too often have resulted in a perverse incentive– causing more cases and more backlog…

In the article “Litigation is Destroying U.S. Companies” by Glenn W. Bailey writes: The U.S. civil justice system is hurting business; business is becoming less competitive and jobs are disappearing. What exists is a ‘lawsuit lottery’ that leads to legalized extortion. Lawyers feed on the ‘entitlement generation’ to create panic over products. Attorneys blame the suppliers of products despite, the fact, that warnings on packages are ignored by workers, unions, and employers. Lawyers wrongly claim that suppliers are overly concerned about profits, more than they are about people. They preach; taking from rich and giving to poor, yet two-thirds of the money goes to attorneys. Opportunities for large fees drive attorneys to recruit more plaintiffs. Trials feed on limiting the plaintiffs’ responsibility for ignoring posted warnings and the employer’s responsibility for not providing a safe workplace or product. They focus on the supplier and permit the introduction of irrelevant and inflammatory evidence, resulting in verdicts not related to the extent of the plaintiffs’ injury, but the heat of the lawyer’s rhetoric. This inevitably leads to more litigation with cases yielding unpredictable, inequitable and arbitrary results. Juries, confronted with essentially the same facts, have awarded damages ranging from zero to millions of dollars! This ‘lottery’ has motivated lawyers to recruit increasing numbers of unimpaired claimants in order to fuel their fee-feeding frenzy…

In the article “The Five Limits of Litigation” by Michael Lee Hanks writes: In the life of most businesses, it’s inevitable that owners will either sue or be sued at some time. Hopefully, these instances will be few, but they are increasingly the case. It’s important for business to understand what is possible with litigation, it is also important to understand the limits of litigation, for example:

• Litigation reduces predictability in decision-making. Lawsuits place the outcome of a dispute in the hands of lawyers, and the outcome of litigation is unpredictable at best.
• Litigation places your fate in the hands of persons not familiar with your problems. Lawyers are the main players and they strive to educate and persuade judges and juries about complex matters that are subject to uncertainty and dispute.
• Litigation impedes efficient problem solving. Operating an ongoing business through a court procedure, such as receivership or bankruptcy, is hellish.
• Litigation is extremely expensive. Litigation tends to acquire a destiny of its own. It takes-on a momentum which becomes irreversible and moves toward an unpredictable resolution.
• Litigation destroys relationships. Litigation destroys the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. It may also require a considerable effort to collect or enforce a judgment, which increases the intensity of the hostility.

In the article “Business Dispute Resolution: Litigate or Mediate” by Jean D. Sifleet writes: In any business, disputes happen. Getting issues resolved, ASAP, is critical, so that parties can limit costs and minimize disruption to their business. Effective dispute resolution can preserve beneficial business relationships. Going to court to resolve a business dispute is a costly, lengthy, and adversarial process that’s unlikely to produce a satisfactory resolution. So unless the dispute is eligible for ‘small claims’, you are better off using an ‘alternative to litigation’, such as: Mediation: In mediation, a neutral person(s) helps the parties to define the issues in dispute and facilitate the discussion of possible settlement options. Mediation works when both parties want to resolve the dispute. Another dispute alternative is Arbitration: Arbitration is a more formal process adopting specific rules, such as; American Arbitration Association, International Arbitration Rules, or Chambers of Commerce. Arbitration is used for international contracts with the rules being less formal than litigation. The merits of the dispute are evaluated by independent people who usually have expertise on the subject matter and the resolution is usually binding. Still another alternative is writing contract dispute resolution provisions into the contract. However, a contract is worthless unless it’s enforceable, and enforcing contracts through the court system for many businesses is unrealistic due to the expense and delays of the court system.

In the article “Introduction to Online Dispute Resolution for Business” by Colin Rule writes: Disputes are a fact of business life, however, with the Internet and virtual businesses, many companies are facing disputes they’ve never dealt with before. In the virtual world, transactions take place globally, 24/7, and often between complete strangers. Statistics show that one to three percent of these transactions will go awry. The online/Internet dispute is relatively new and it can develop between any person and any firm; business, customers, suppliers, partners, regulators, insurers… Companies that do business online will increasingly get entangled in these kinds of disputes. It is obvious that the existing legal system and redress options that are provided in the physical world are not appropriate for the virtual world.  You can’t merely recreate offline judicial mechanisms online and expect them to work, for example a legal system model using; e-judges making e-rulings enforced by e-police running e-jails… just won’t work. For business litigation in the virtual world other alternatives are required, ones that provide for ‘online business dispute resolution’. There is a growing movement and a consensus is building for the use of such a process. While there is some debate about the mechanics of the process, there is no debate over whether or not an online solution is the best option for redress of disputes on the Internet. Many international organizations are calling for such an alternative, and they include; OECD, Hague Conference on Private International Law, United Nations, Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogue, Better Business Bureau, U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Department of Commerce, European Union, Association for Conflict Resolution, American Bar Association, American Arbitration Association, Global Business Dialogue on E-Commerce, International Chamber of Commerce…

Abusing the legal system for political, social, or greedy ends is fast becoming the U.S.’s favorite pastime. Billions of dollars, millions of jobs, and the survival of legitimate businesses are at stake. Personal injury lawyers are clogging the courts with frivolous lawsuits and unharmed plaintiffs. There is growing evidence that some personal injury lawyers have teamed-up with so-called medical experts to manufacture abusive ‘junk lawsuits’ propped up by ‘junk science’. Junk science is questionable or misleading information put forth as medical or scientific fact. ‘Junk science’ is medical or scientific claims that are not supported by fact and not validated by others within the scientific and medical community. These lawsuits erode the credibility and value of expert witnesses, delay, and dilute justice for those who have legitimate claims. It seems like everyday, we read in the news about abuses of our court system, both serious and wacky, and all have serious costs and business consequences. Personal injury lawyers make a living from inventing new ways to sue deep-pockets. Some lawsuit schemes are so ridiculous that we find ourselves laughing, but the cost of this kind of lawsuit abuse quickly ceases to be funny. All lawsuits, even unsuccessful ones, cost money and the public foots the bill… If you are faced with litigation involving a business transaction or any aspect of your business, a lawyer can provide assistance and counsel regarding your jurisdiction, court, and possible legal options for the situation. However, for many disputes a business can avoid a complicated and expensive court battle by using, instead, an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method.

It’s highly unlikely that you will resolve a business dispute with the legal system and satisfy all parties.

Original article posted by http://bizshifts-trends.com/

• Myth: Everyone can be a leader–Not true.
• Myth: People who get to the top are leaders–Not necessarily.
• Myth: Leaders deliver business results–Not always.
• Myth: Leaders are great coaches–Rarely.

Inspired leadership is not working in many organizations. Leadership is like a lid or ceiling and organizations will not rise beyond the level that leaders allows, or are capable. According to Mike Myatt, poor leadership cripples businesses, ruins economies, destroys families, loses wars, and can bring the demise of nations. Society has essentially commoditized leadership resulting in a leadership bubble of sorts. Because leadership has become the latest version of an entitlement program, too many unqualified leaders have
been allowed to enter the ranks. When leadership is perceived as little more than a title granting access to a platform for personal gain, rather than a privilege resulting in an opportunity to serve, we’ll continue to find ourselves in a crisis of leadership. Corporate leadership structure needs radical change and true change must be fundamental: Reinventing governance structures, boards of directors and oligarchic public company leadership models. According to Kelvin Thompson, today’s companies are increasingly complex and global– they need to be managed more as a neural network than as a
command-and-control business. The 21st century has already spawned a sizable volcano of
daunting new challenges and they represent a permanent change of rhythm for most organizations. This change requires a rethinking of the role and decision-making initiatives for leaders, such as:

• Broadening the scope of employee freedom by managing less, without sacrificing focus, discipline, and order.
• Creating an organization where the spirit of shared values and community dominate.

In the article “Why Leaders Fail” by Mark Sanborn writes: In the recent past, we’ve witnessed the public downfall of leaders from almost every area of endeavor– business,
politics, religion, and sports. One day they’re on top of the heap, and the next day the heap is on top of them.  The distance between beloved leader and despised failure is shorter than we think. This shift can occur in several ways. Often, leaders simply lose sight of what’s important. The laser-like focus that catapulted them to the top disappears, and they become distracted by the trappings of leadership, such as wealth and notoriety.  Leaders are usually distinguished by their ability to ‘think big.’ But when their focus shifts, they suddenly start ‘thinking small’. They micro-manage, they get caught up in details better
left to others, they become consumed with the trivial and unimportant. And to make matters worse, this tendency can be exacerbated by an inclination toward perfectionism.  A more subtle leadership derailer is an obsession with ‘doing’ rather than ‘becoming.’  A lack of focus and its resulting disorientation typically lead to poor communication. Followers can’t possibly understand a leader’s intent when the leader isn’t sure what it is! And when leaders are unclear about their own purpose, they often hide their confusion and uncertainty in ambiguous communication. Leaders at risk often begin to be driven by a fear of failure rather than the desire to succeed. When driven by the fear of failure, leaders are unable to take reasonable risks. They want to do only the tried and proven; attempts at innovation– typically a key to their initial success– diminish and eventually disappear.  A leader’s credibility is the result of two aspects: What they do (competency). Who they are (character). A discrepancy between these two aspects creates an integrity problem.  The highest principle of leadership is integrity. When integrity ceases to be a leader’s top priority, when a compromise of ethics is rationalized away as necessary for the ‘greater good,’ when achieving results becomes more important than the means to their achievement– that is the moment when a leader steps onto the slippery slop of failure…

In the article “Influential Leadership Styles” by Shrilaws writes: The message is clear, ‘command and control’ leadership is obsolete. A different leadership style, one that depends on ‘influencing’ rather than ‘telling’, is required to deal with current market complexities and fast-paced environmental changes. Traditional leadership worked well in less turbulent times where companies ran on simple departmental lines, and the CEO had time to think, plan, schedule, act… Communication was straight-forward, markets were predictable and people delivered consistently, but now few businesses run this way. We rarely think or act in isolation in the workplace, we influence and we are influenced by people, both in and out of the organization… In his book, ‘The Unconscious Conspiracy’, Warren Bennis highlights how leaders can positively influence others to bring about change. Interdependence, not hierarchy, is today’s watchword. In fact, ‘organization’ means ‘interdependence’ – with each relying on wide networks of stakeholders. Today’s leaders work across many boundaries – with globalized business units, partners, suppliers, customers, cultural diversity… A lack of leadership, generally, means the leader has allowed things to remain unchanged and losing relevance. Successful leaders of change may not always be successful leaders of stability, consolidation, continuity, or thriving leaders in periods of massive disruption. These different conditions require a different style of leadership, which may not necessarily be found in the existing senior management, and thus requiring a change in leadership…

In the article “The Decision-Driven Organization” by Marcia W. Blenko, Michael C. Mankins, and Paul Rogers write:  CEOs tend to believe that company structure is closely tied to performance, so therefore it follows that nearly half of all CEOs reorganize their companies during their first two years on the job. But, a study by the Bain & Company reports that of 57 reorganizations they studied less than one-third saw significant
performance improvement. This failure, they believe, is rooted in a misunderstanding about the link between structure and outcome… In truth, a company’s structure only results in improved performance, if it allows the firm to make key decisions better and faster than the competition. This requires a shift in the way we manage organizational change. If there is alignment between structure and decisions, then the organization will work better and performance will improve. To reorganize around decisions, leaders should follow six steps: Identify their firm’s key decisions; figure out where in the company those decisions should happen; organize the macro-structure based on sources of value; determine how much authority decision makers need; align the rest of the organizational system with that related to decision-making; and help managers acquire the skills they need to make better decisions. The ‘new normal’ means constant change and companies must reinvent themselves, continuously, if they want to survive.

In the article “Two Leaders in the Corporation of the Future” by Marianne Lepa writes: New research suggests that having a single leader no longer works for the corporation of the future, and that the roles of CEO and CFO should be given equal say. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) as visionary leader is a thing of the past, says Dr. Philip Tulimieri. Dr. Tulimieri believes that the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) should also have equal billing and responsibility for corporate leadership. Tulimieri says his research suggests that the distinction between the two roles is blurring and that changes in corporate structure and in society at large indicate that the two roles are merging in many ways. Tulimieri says, the forces of globalization have created a confusing and complex set of responsibilities for corporate leaders. The two positions of CEO and CFO while very distinct in duties tend to be recognized now as ‘necessary counterforce’ in the business structure, says Tulimieri. The CEO is the ‘eternal optimist’ leading the way and the CFO is ‘the realist’ being cautious and warning of risk. The two roles, both address the need for growth and responsibility must function as a team rather than adversaries. A CEO-CFO partnership will provide the engine for this new-millennium corporation, and serve as a starting point for the new corporate model of ethical behavior, sustainability and true stakeholder value.

Intellect is a driver of outstanding CEO performance. Cognitive skills such as big-picture thinking and long-term vision are particularly important. But when calculating the ratio of technical skills, IQ and emotional intelligence (EI), as ingredients of excellent performance; EI proved to be twice as important as the others. ~Daniel Goleman

In the article “Pick A CEO Who Truly Fits The Company” by Nat Stoddard and Claire Wyckoff write: Leadership fit is absolutely crucial, and there are ways you can calculate it. Turnover of CEOs, a prime indicator of wrong leadership, was 50% higher coming into this
recession than at the start of the previous one, in 2001. Several statistics cited in the book ‘The Right Leader: Selecting Executives Who Fit’  likewise indicate that as we entered the
current recession, more and more companies were discovering that they didn’t have the right leaders to guide them through normal economic conditions, let alone those we face today. Some 40% of new CEOs are fired or retired, within their first 18 months, and 64% of them never make it to their fourth anniversary on the job. Surprisingly, the problem is not that leaders can’t do the jobs for which they were hired. On the contrary, everyone in the final slate of candidates for any top leadership position invariably possesses all the abilities, knowledge, skills, experience and personality to do what is needed. The reason so many of them fail, and are replaced so quickly, is that they don’t fit well enough in the organizations’ cultures or one of the powerful subcultures; to be able to do what is needed in ways that will be accepted by the people they’re supposed to lead. The lack of leadership fit, not a lack of competency or capability, is what causes failure.

According to John Kotter, leadership is a set of processes that creates organizations, in the first place, or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles. Management is a process that can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include; planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem solving. This distinction is crucial: Successful organization transformation is 70 to 90% leadership and only 10 to 30% management. Many organizations, today, don’t have much leadership. Managing change is important, and without competent management, the transformation process can get out of control. But for most organizations, the much bigger challenge is leading change. Only leadership can blast through the many sources of corporate inertia. Only leadership can motivate the actions needed to alter behavior in any significant way. Only leadership can get change to stick by anchoring it in the very culture of an organization…

Until the very foundations of leadership alter, businesses will continue to struggle with innovation and employee engagement. We won’t get rid of the stultifying metaphor of the organization-as-one-person (CEO), and where employees are cast in the role of mere ‘hired-hands’. ~ Mitch McCrimmon

Original article posted by http://bizshifts-trends.com/