The year of the paywall | The Economist

January 5, 2010
Another reason for the interest in paywalls is that a handful of publishers have made a success of them. The two most prominent are the Financial Times, which lets web users view just a few articles each month before it asks them for money, and News Corp’s Wall Street Journal, which charges for much business and finance news. The FT says revenues from digital subscribers rose by more than 30% last year. This year the paper expects to generate more from sales of content—including the paper’s print edition—than from advertising. With the help of its online paid subscribers, the Wall Street Journal was the only big American newspaper to report a gain in circulation last year.

I think news organizations will be marginally successful here, if they collude and synchronize their efforts, and there is no acceptable substitute. The intuitive grasp of the obvious reason behind the FT and WSJ success is that their news is need to know for businessmen and investors, while the NYT, USA Today, and its ilk are “nice to know”.

Posted via web from VEMBA


20 BS Examples Of ‘Corporate Speak’, And What They Really Mean

January 4, 2010
20 Horrible Examples Of ‘Corporate Speak’, And What They Really Mean

Nice snark via The Business Insider. Although, Bob West, Walt Tymon, and Al Chiaradonna will call you on this kind of BS.

Posted via web from VEMBA


MBAs: Students or Customers?

January 4, 2010

The New York Times editors posted an interesting commentary on the "Room for Debate" blog today in response to a recent Trib article about the appropriateness of business schools treating students as customers.

I imagine this debate is even fiercer among deans of Executive MBA programs that have traditionally attributed a large chunk of revenue to corporate sponsors. Are students being short changed when schools consider them (and the companies who sponsor them) customers? Is curriculum development geared too much toward the interests of a small minority of institutions paying the majority of tuition?

Or, is it in the best interest of students for the schools to treat them as customers? Do Executive MBA students have a more accurate pulse on what's actually happening in the business world and, therefore, offer invaluable insight to business schools that are behind the times?

Is it wrong to develop new executive programs at schools to cater to the specific needs of corporate customers or does that benefit the school overall by driving revenue, awareness and the alumni base?

I tend to agree with Richard Vedder of Ohio University who says, "The “student as customer” philosophy has created an underworked and overindulged group of future national leaders, something that likely will prove costly in the long run." There has to be a balance between the students' perception of what they need from their school and what is actually in their best interests. Furthermore,  as Stephen Joel Trachtenberg of George Washington University points out, business schools should remember their first mission of educating students, not just milking the cow.

Now, VSB, where is my "challenging and well-compensated position?"

-erb

Posted via email from VEMBA


Keeping America’s Edge

January 4, 2010

The United States is in a tough spot. As we dig ourselves out from a serious financial crisis and a deep recession, our very efforts to recover are exacerbating much more fundamental problems that our country has let fester for too long. Beyond our short-term worries, and behind many of today’s political debates, lurks the deeper challenge of coming to terms with America’s place in the global economic order.

Our strategic situation is shaped by three inescapable realities. First is the inherent conflict between the creative destruction involved in free-market capitalism and the innate human propensity to avoid risk and change. Second is ever-increasing international competition. And third is the growing disparity in behavioral norms and social conditions between the upper and lower income strata of American society.

These realities combine to form a daunting problem. And the task of resolving it turns out not, by and large, to be a matter of foreign ­policy. Rather, it compels us to consider how we balance economic dynamism and growth against the unity and stability of our society. After all, we must have continuous, rapid technological and business-model innovation to grow our economy fast enough to avoid losing power to those who do not share America’s values — and this innovation requires increasingly deregulated markets and fewer restrictions on behavior. But such deregulation would cause significant displacement and disruption that could seriously undermine America’s social cohesion — which is not only essential to a decent and just society, but also to producing the kind of skilled and responsible citizens that free markets ultimately require. Moreover, preserving the integrity of our social fabric by minimizing the divisions that can rend society often requires ­government policies — to reduce inequality or ensure access to jobs, education, ­housing, or health care — that can in turn undercut growth and prosperity. Neither innovation nor cohesion can do without the other, but neither, it seems, can avoid undermining the other.

Reconciling these competing forces is America’s great challenge in the decades ahead, but will be made far more difficult by the growing bifurcation of American society. Of course, this is not a new dilemma: It has actually undergirded most of the key political-economy debates of the past 30 years. But a dysfunctional political dynamic has prevented the nation from addressing it well, and has instead given us the worst of both worlds: a ballooning welfare state that threatens future growth, along with growing socioeconomic disparities.

Both major political parties have internal factions that sit on each side of the divide between innovation and cohesion. But broadly ­speaking, Republicans since Ronald Reagan have been the party of innovation, and Democrats have been the party of cohesion.

Conservatives have correctly viewed the policy agenda of the left as an attempt to undo the economic reforms of the 1980s. They have ­therefore, as a rhetorical and political strategy, downplayed the problems of cohesion — problems like inequality, wage stagnation, worker displacement, and disparities in educational performance — to emphasize the importance of innovation and growth. Liberals, meanwhile, have correctly identified the problem of cohesion, but have generally proposed antediluvian solutions and downplayed the necessity of innovation in a competitive world. They have noted that America’s economy in the immediate wake of World War II was in many ways simultaneously more regulated, more successful, and more equitable than today’s economy, but mistakenly assume that by restoring greater regulation we could re-create both the equity and prosperity of that era.

The conservative view fails to acknowledge the social costs of unrestrained economic innovation — costs that have made themselves ­powerfully apparent in American politics throughout our history. The liberal view, meanwhile, betrays a misunderstanding of the global economic environment.

To grasp the difficulty of this moment for America, we must see more clearly the pain involved in economic innovation, the price we would pay for stifling innovation, and the daunting social obstacles that stand in the way of balancing the two.

A very nice center-right proposal by Jim Manzi, discussing business regulation, education, and immigration policies designed for business growth and productivity.

Posted via web from VEMBA


Craft a narrative to instill optimism

January 3, 2010

Good blog by John Baldoni from HBS

Brooks' explanation about choice of narrative can apply to leaders seeking ways to navigate our recession. The relentless tide of bad news may tempt those in charge to adopt a pessimistic view point, but leaders owe it to their followers to spread optimism. Without excluding reality, leaders need to inspire not simply hope, but also resilience. Storytelling can help in this effort. Here are some suggestions for crafting your own story to make sense of adversity.

Start at the beginning. Focus on what is happening. Be straight about the challenges your organization is facing regarding external factors like the economy and competition as well as global influences. Talk about what your company did right as well as what it might have done better to prepare for the downturn.

Develop characters. An organization is a collection of individuals. Discuss how you need the skills as well as the will of your team to survive. Make it clear you don't want to go through the motions, you want new ways of doing things. Highlight the good things that people are doing despite the tough times.

Address the conflicts. Drama requires adversity. Be certain to talk about how those forces are affecting your ability to do business, positively or negatively, and the impact they have on your people. Be as specific as possible. Talk about how the situation is affecting your customers buying habits as well as your ability to service current needs. Address the employment picture; if jobs may be at stake, tell people.

What is happening now. Adversity can bring about positive change. It may be an opportunity to optimize operations as well as provide new development opportunities for employees. Likewise, hard times may cause some competitors to go under, opening the door for your company to get new business.

Never make assumptions about the ending. Yes, we all want a happy ending to our story. You can talk about desired outcome in terms of business metrics (increasing revenues and improved profits) as well as people metrics (continued employment and better compensation). But do not promise the outcome unless you are certain you can deliver. It's better to undersell and over-deliver.

Weaving a positive narrative cannot be an excuse for overlooking adversity, though. Any manager who paints too rosy a picture, that is, one that ignores market realities and the effect they may have on business, employees, and customers, is not only woefully out of touch but proves himself to be less than credible. The spine of any narrative these days must contain the very distinct possibilities that hard times will be with us for the foreseeable future. That is not pessimism; it is realism.

But, stories that surface optimism in the face of adversity are not naiveté. They are a way to look at possibilities rather than foregone conclusions. If you craft a narrative that includes a context of the way things were as well as the way things can be, you provide a road map to make sense of the world in ways that inspire hope.

 

Posted via email from VEMBA


Alan Murray, on Leadership Styles

January 3, 2010

Leadership Styles

Posted By Chris Hardesty On April 9, 2009 @ 2:32 pm In Developing a Leadership Style | Comments Disabled –>

Adapted from the upcoming “The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management” by Alan Murray, published by Harper Business.

Leadership is less about your needs, and more about the needs of the people and the organization you are leading. Leadership styles are not something to be tried on like so many suits, to see which fits. Rather, they should be adapted to the particular demands of the situation, the particular requirements of the people involved and the particular challenges facing the organization.

In the book “Primal Leadership,” Daniel Goleman, who popularized the notion of “Emotional Intelligence,” describes six different styles of leadership. The most effective leaders can move among these styles, adopting the one that meets the needs of the moment. They can all become part of the leader’s repertoire.

Visionary. This style is most appropriate when an organization needs a new direction. Its goal is to move people towards a new set of shared dreams. “Visionary leaders articulate where a group is going, but not how it will get there – setting people free to innovate, experiment, take calculated risks,” write Mr. Goleman and his coauthors.

Coaching. This one-on-one style focuses on developing individuals, showing them how to improve their performance, and helping to connect their goals to the goals of the organization. Coaching works best, Mr. Goleman writes, “with employees who show initiative and want more professional development.” But it can backfire if it’s perceived as “micromanaging” an employee, and undermines his or her self-confidence.

Affiliative. This style emphasizes the importance of team work, and creates harmony in a group by connecting people to each other. Mr. Goleman argues this approach is particularly valuable “when trying to heighten team harmony, increase morale, improve communication or repair broken trust in an organization.” But he warns against using it alone, since its emphasis on group praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected. “Employees may perceive,” he writes, “that mediocrity is tolerated.”

Democratic. This style draws on people’s knowledge and skills, and creates a group commitment to the resulting goals. It works best when the direction the organization should take is unclear, and the leader needs to tap the collective wisdom of the group. Mr. Goleman warns that this consensus-building approach can be disastrous in times of crisis, when urgent events demand quick decisions.

Pacesetting. In this style, the leader sets high standards for performance. He or she is “obsessive about doing things better and faster, and asks the same of everyone.” But Mr. Goleman warns this style should be used sparingly, because it can undercut morale and make people feel as if they are failing. “Our data shows that, more often than not, pacesetting poisons the climate,” he writes.

Commanding. This is classic model of “military” style leadership – probably the most often used, but the least often effective. Because it rarely involves praise and frequently employs criticism, it undercuts morale and job satisfaction. Mr. Goleman argues it is only effective in a crisis, when an urgent turnaround is needed. Even the modern military has come to recognize its limited usefulness.


Article printed from Management: http://guides.wsj.com/management

URL to article: http://guides.wsj.com/management/developing-a-leadership-style/how-to-develop-a-leadership-style/

Alan brings superb insights on leadership and coaching, the true leaders can instantly determine which style necessary. Almost frightening in a “Sybil” sort of way true leaders can change personalities depending on the circumstances.

Posted via web from VEMBA


lovely pieces in 19 Dec Economist

January 3, 2010

img191.jpg

It is no secret that I'm a huge fan of the Economist.  Both in print and audio, it is the weekly newspaper that I never miss.

A recent flight to New Orleans gave me time to savor the double Christmas edition, dated 19 Dec 09, and I thought I'd share a few worthy reads, notably absent of finance and economics.  I do share Schumpeter, however, since business and management crosses almost every organization and entity.

vrsb

Posted via email from SEB


Glass-Steagall II

December 29, 2009

Dec. 28 (Bloomberg) — A one-page proposal gaining traction in Congress could turn back the clock on Wall Street 10 years, forcing the breakup of banks, including Citigroup Inc.

Lawmakers in both parties, seeking to prevent future financial crises while soothing public anger over bailouts and bonuses, are turning to an approach that’s both simple and transformative: re-imposing sections of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that separated commercial and investment banking.

Bye-Bye Gramm-Leach-Bailey!

Posted via web from VEMBA


2009 Year In Review

December 27, 2009

A few particularly good "2009 Year in Review" pieces.

Stephen Bates
T  +1 202 730-9760
E   stephen.bates@alum.villanova.edu

Linkedin Facebook Twitter

Posted via email from VEMBA


Goldman Sachs, The New York Times, and Corporate Risk

December 26, 2009
The New York Times building in New York, NY ac...
Image via Wikipedia

No doubt those that are finishing Module 4 are enjoying their Christmas holidays (not at Macy’s or any other Federated department store), but Wu Tang Risk Management wishes to call your attention to an exchange between the New York Times and Goldman Sachs.

The money shot from the GS response?

“We consider hedging the cornerstone of prudent risk management.”

Leaders and managers get paid to increase top line revenues and bottom line profitability.  They can then choose to continue to invest in growth for additional top line revenue or deliver those returns to shareholders.  Prudent leaders and managers employ risk management techniques at all levels to ensure the greatest likelihood of these returns.  That’s not to say all risk is to be avoided, but as much risk needs to be identified and mitigated as well as possible.  Hence the point of the GS response, to hedge against possibility of failure or default.

You can read more about the exposures to counterparty risk via AIG at Zerohedge.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]