The few employees remaining are being more productive
People are drinking more cheap liquor and not in restaurants.
Am I the only one to conclude that drinking cheap liquor increases productivity in the workplace and may be a key variable in increased unemployment and the recession?
First. The Labor Department says new claims for unemployment insurance rose again (this was 2/4/10 report). Surprise, huh? Oh. And it’s a separate post but what am I counted as? I am not working but I don’t claim unemployment insurance. I cannot envision I am the only one. I guess once again I am just “unclassified.”
Second. In another report Thursday, the Labor Department said worker productivity rose more than expected in the October-December quarter as companies squeezed more output from their employees. All I can say is “cheap bastards.”
Anyway. Productivity rose a seasonally adjusted 6.2% in the fourth quarter, above analysts’ expectations of a 6% rise. The increase follows two quarters of sharply rising productivity. Overall, productivity has risen 5.1% in the past four quarters, the most since the 12 months ending with the first quarter of 2002.
Third. In a third report last year, the lowest-priced liquor segment, with brands such as Popov vodka that can go for less than $10 for a fifth, grew the fastest, with volume rising 5.5%, after edging up 0.6% in 2008. Meanwhile, the most expensive price range, roughly $30 or more for a 750 ml bottle (think Grey Goose, owned by Bacardi), fell the most, tumbling 5.1%. Sales in stores — which make up three-quarters of liquor sales — rose about 2.1%, while sales in restaurants fell 3%.Sales volume for the cheapest versions of tequila rose 21%, the fastest of any type of spirit.
Fourth. Hey. I am no Einstein but I do know that A + B = C (or squared or whatever). So. I conclude cheap liquor is helping create this recession. Eliminate liquor and employees will be less productive and then companies will need to hire more people to maintain their productivity. (Hey, I took Economics in college).
Once again Enlightened Conflict combats ignorance and is the first to tell the truth about the recession.
I believe the amount of time people spend on developing or thinking of taglines is nuts. Yes. They are important but in the scheme of things I would envision if you are analyzing your time (or people’s time in general) by billable hour, the amount of time invested in this type of thing is … well … not a good investment.
Second.
Here is why I think the time invested is out of whack. In general, here are the guidelines for developing a brand line.
If the company/brand name is more aspirational/inspirational, or less descriptive, like Nike’s company name, err on the side of aiming for a more descriptive tagline telling people what the company offers or does (like Nike’s original line of “superior performance athletic shoes”).
If the company/brand name is more descriptive of the product/service that is being offered then the tagline can assume a more aspirational feel & direction.
The exception: when a company has achieved such a strong awareness that it has achieved a brand status, meaning that people know what the company actually does/offers, a tagline can take on more of an aspirational aspect (use Nike as an example when it shifted to “Just do IT” after they had attained 90+% awareness).
Third.
The main rule of the road for descriptor/tagline development:
When the logo/name of company and tagline are stand-alone, make sure people can tell you exactly what that company does or offers. In other words, don’t be tricky or creative and lose an opportunity to be clear about who and what you are. And this is REALLY important when you come out of the starting blocks. Look. You can always change later. Upfront be clear. Making people guess (and you don’t have enough money to answer their guessing) is a silly investment.
Why? Anything other than meeting that main rule translates into having to invest a lot of money, and time effort, to educate people.
There you go.
All these “inspirational taglines” and such are kinda silly.
Do other things to inspire people.
Plus. I am also a believer that a tagline can change. Almost as often as you would like (as long as it stays in the same sphere of character).
I have been slamming on our government in some of my posts lately.
It is probably more a sign of frustration than anything to do with democracy (because I am a huge democracy fan).
So.
I will try and back off by offering them a couple of thoughts (should any of them deign to read my little post) and an idea to discuss.
1. Please remember our forefathers:
“I am not a Virginian, but an American.”
Said in speech in the first Continental Congress, 1774, by Patrick Henry.
You will see my idea (a proposed solution) below but at minimum if they could remember that while representing local constituents they are Americans. And making choices for the good of America not just locally (and sometimes what is not good for local may be good for “the whole”). We need to remember Henry is known for his “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech.
He is remembered as one of the most influential, radical advocates of the American Revolution and republicanism, especially in his denunciations of corruption in government officials and his defense of historic rights.
2. Take a field trip to the Lincoln Memorial:
While they all probably walk by the memorial every day, maybe there should be an organized field trip so they can all take a moment and reflect. They can use the time to reflect on a time when the country was divided and Americans were killing Americans. And what it took to lead at that time and reconnect a divided nation.
We aren’t killing each other (at least only figuratively at the moment) but divisiveness is running rampant. And they are feeding the divisiveness. We elect them to lead us not just to follow us (or what we say). They should stand in the shadow of the memorial to one of our greatest leaders and remind themselves of that.
When in DC I have to admit that when standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial I feel the enormity of leadership responsibility as well as the greatness of America. The House Representatives and Senate members could use a good dose of that feeling.
So.
Here is the idea.
I don’t really like politics or pay much attention to it. Because I tend to be straightforward and logical and politics is anything but straightforward and logical.
Ok.
I have a random, completely non-doable solution (which reminds us that unreasonable ideas are often reasonable solutions to problems):
I am willing to let everyone currently in office serve an additional term with no election.
Just once.
They can act and vote as “Americans” without fear of “oh. I won’t get reelected if I do what I believe is the right thing to do”.
This idea has 2 obvious benefits:
Their decisions have some time to actually come to fruition to show some valid proof versus getting slammed solely for a voting record.
The country gets to save all that money and time that gets invested in trying to prove why you should vote for “X” politician.
(a male view of the Valentine’s situation having also accumulated a zillion research data points over multiple beer events discussing everything but Valentine’s Day)
All this talk about Valentine’s Day being created by Hallmark, the myth behind St. Valentine … a massacre for god’s sake.
Confusing.
Well … maybe confusing to some but I have put some strategic thought to this whole concept.
Because the thought behind it is really very simple.
Basically we men are idiots <that is the theorem underpinning>.
Therefore Valentine’s Day plays an important role in a “stimulus-response” type model for men.
The day is a valuable stimulus to stop us from thinking solely with our dumb stick and with some random portion of our brain that isn’t being used for sports, work, alcohol, oogling <not ogling … there is a difference>, mindless daydreaming or sleeping.
Below you will see a diagram that outlines how we think without Valentine’s day and then with Valentine’s day.
(click on the image for a larger, somewhat more legible version)
As you see.
Valentine’s Day is not something created by Hallmark.
Nor is it stupid.
It is an important event with a use benefiting men <kind of like the Super Bowl and March Madness but not as important>.
Strategically Valentine’s Day makes sense to the existence of men <and possibly romance but in a non linear way>.
The strategic foundation is so simple and clearly good it is a worthwhile read for anyone in business. Whether you actually use the disruption methodology or not the idea of positioning in a way to create disruption (and therefore being distinct) is a powerful concept.
Drawing from experiences as the founder and chair of a global advertising agency, Dru gives us this practical, refreshing approach to thinking about advertising, positioning a business in the marketplace and … well … thinking in general.
His compelling concept of “disruption” is a three-step reasoning process for creating a set of new visions for successful growth.
Dru first explores how firms can get in a rut with their advertising strategies.
He then offers hundreds of examples of advertising in Europe, the United States, and Japan to explore cultural differences and government rules and regulations about advertising. Dru’s last section provides more detail and looks toward the future.
Rich with examples, this timely book is recommended for advertising-agency and marketing professionals as well as for corporate executives, consultants, and advanced students and academicians.
I have written on a variety of issues with regard to running a business and effective organizations (Running a Business Part 1 and Part 2, Collaboration & Consensus Part 1 & Part 2).
But I came across this video which discusses “the surprising science of motivation.”
It is a long video (18+ minutes) and Daniel Pink, the presenter, is a little practiced on occasion in his delivery but the information is nice. There were two things in the video which I appreciated.
One I had felt but had never been able to confirm.
The other I already knew but hadn’t written about yet.
1. Motivation Incentives.
Maybe it’s because I have worked with several advertising agency owners who wanted to run their agencies like manufacturing plants, but this issue has been near and dear to my heart for quite awhile. The video talks about “carrot and stick” motivational techniques and crap like that.
He uses some nice simple illustrations and some fact based conclusions for why the typical ways we try to motivate each other fail in business today.
A Daniel Pink Quote:
“There’s a mismatch between what science knows and business does.”
Possibly because most of the organizations I have either consulted for or worked at have been more “idea driven” versus “product output” organizations I have always believed (maybe more a feeling) that financial based reward models sucked. Daniel finally gave me some facts (from studies):
“Once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skills a larger reward led to poorer performance.”
“As long as task involved only mechanical skills, bonuses worked, i.e., higher pay = better performance.”
Halleluiah.
That isn’t to say people in a cognitive driven business shouldn’t be fairly compensated; it simply states that rewarding financially to increase productivity is not the most effective path.
So if it isn’t financial rewards, what does help productivity?
2. Constructed Autonomy.
This is all about self direction within a solid construct of vision and company ‘direction.’ This is something I have believed to be an effective characteristic of effective organizations for some time. It is most likely embodied within larger franchise organizations (in some form or fashion) but it is easier to see it in those organizations because they are obviously fragmented and local autonomy works within some “rules” construct.
So.
The video.
In addition to talking about motivating employee behavior he also talks about creating an environment for productivity. I wrote about this in Organizational Alignment.
But.
He reminded me when he discusses the idea of autonomy about what I call “constructed autonomy” environments (yup. I do love contradictions).
I used the whole Constructed Autonomy idea in a consulting presentation in early spring (with a source reference) as I discussed organizational alignment and creating the most effective organization.
I apologize but for the life of me I cannot dig up the source for that autonomy business idea but I believe there was a big European based study on organizational behavior that talks about it (if I can find that presentation on some thumb drive I will source it).
My “twist” on the Autonomy thing was to tie it to a tightly constructed organizational vision. To me it’s all about giving employees within the organization lots of freedom within a well defined construct (not a box but rather a guiding star they can always locate).
Ok.
Maybe not lots of freedom but enough freedom on some key things (whatever they may be that is relevant to that particular organization).
Ok.
So here’s the deal with Autonomy.
Every time I have used the word “autonomy” to an organizational owner, President, Sr. VP, whatever…their faces pale, hands grip the table a little harder, they may even gasp a little and their voices quiver slightly with fear.
Autonomy means lack of control.
Autonomy means I need to trust my employees.
Autonomy means “so then what do I do”? (sorry, had to throw that last one in).
But autonomy on the ground:
permits a slight level of localization (if that is relevant to an organization)
certainly creates a higher level of responsiveness (good for customer satisfaction)
actually is a good idea/innovation generator (as long as you have a feedback mechanism)
automatically creates a higher level of energy within an organization
builds a happier organization because it creates a stronger sense of ownership & responsibility
It takes a strong leader with a clearly articulated vision to make autonomy work within an organization (if you don’t, then autonomy simply fragments an organization by permitting pieces to go flying off in every direction aimlessly).
So.
That’s the “Constructed” portion of it. In my Running a Business Part 2 I described this as one end of the bookends. A clearly articulated vision, mission, okay … what ‘the organization is going to be good at’. And ruthlessly good at.
If that is provided as the “North Star,” then Autonomy always knows what direction to steer toward. And because of that North Star, autonomous groups can wander slightly but have an opportunity to course correct (
which, by the way, is also a good evaluation mechanism for employees).
There you go.
A nice video sparking some clarification on my part.
It’s a marketing ploy used in a marketing environment (doesn’t a double negative erase itself?).
It is all about tiny sharp insights. Sharp insights that have the possibility of expanding to something big. Unfortunately I now have a visual of one of those stupid little sponges that expand when you put a drop of water on them).
Maybe Big Ideas are crap is overstating it a little. It is the concept of “finding” or “uncovering” the Big idea that is crap.
What is the Big Idea? Simply by starting your thought process out with this question you have complicated your life and in fact you are saying you are seeking the wrong thing. For in seeking something big you find something that can be torn apart into meaningless little nothings.
I cannot tell you how many times I have seen presentations where someone presented “the Big Idea” and I admit it looked really good. Really Big. And everyone walks out of the room feeling like they have been in the presence of something Big and Big things are gonna happen. Then reality enters the room. The Big Idea needs to be implemented. And the implementing organization starts picking at parts & pieces. And the implementers start dealing with all the individual parts & pieces needed to … well .. actually implement the Big Idea. All of a sudden the Big Idea (which was probably a pretty good looking puzzle when it was all together) is a jumble of little puzzle pieces (which don’t fit together to make that really nice Big puzzle again).
Compounding the “Big Idea is crap” issue is that the Big Idea originator (who really didn’t think through all the littleness needed to bring it to life) starts compromising on the Little implementation components (and they don’t need to be just tactics, it can be words and phrasing and things like that) and that makes the jumble of little puzzle pieces become even more jumbled and even less likely to fit back into the Big Idea puzzle.
Oh. And the Big Idea Originator always sits back and blames the Big Idea Organization Owner because they couldn’t see the Bigness in the Idea well enough to not break it apart. Silly. Each component of the Big Idea Organization thinks of themselves as Big in their own right with Big needs and wants to own their Big part. The Big Idea Originator forgot, and consistently does, that without all the Little parts in the organization working to become Big (or even just thinking Big thoughts) the organization is neither Big nor Little, it is simply nothing.
That is why the Big Idea thinking process is crap.
As an acorn becomes an oak. We should be seeking the acorn. We need to learn to revel in the smallness and power of what it is. And understand the gloriousness of what this little thing can become if it is watered and nurtured.
But.
Small isn’t sexy in marketing. It needs to be Big to be meaningful. Too bad. Because Big Ideas are crap.
A rare Picasso painting at New York’ City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art was damaged with a 6-inch tear when an art lover lost her balance and stumbled into the $80 million work of art.
She lost her balance and fell against The Actor, damaging the lower right corner.
Insert a HUGE ‘uh oh’ here.
I do not believe they allow alcohol within the Met so it was sheer clumsiness.
What the heck do you tell your mom when you get home?
If you tell the truth she will absolutely think you are lying.
If you lie (or say nothing) you run the risk of her picking up a paper and seeing you trip and do a face plant in a Picasso.
Anyway.
I personally believe she improved the Picasso and wish the hot dog mustard had splashed a little more.
I have recently read three articles on decriminalization:
One on Portugal’s national drug decriminalization program.
One on a local US program which didn’t decriminalize but attacked the problem with a treatment option (in High Point, NC).
And an article from Cynthia Tucker in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
To be clear. Decriminalizing drug usage is not about making drugs legal. It remains illegal, in particular selling of drugs is a felony, but users & possessors are given the opportunity to be treated rather than punished. And I would like to also note that decriminalization isn’t selective to the drug. It’s not just about marijuana but everything (yes. Including heroin, crack, etc.).
I don’t want to get into a debate on “punishment matching the crime” I simply want to make a point on solving a problem. I read that oftentimes our existing programs are driven by the fact that voters want vengeance and politicians (wanting the voters) accommodate their requests and set up strong punishment programs. But after awhile even the most naïve have to see that whatever we are doing isn’t working.
Portugal is a wonderful example of how a treatment decriminalization program can positively affect usage numbers and all the violence that is typically associated with a thriving drug community.
Decriminalizing versus legal. Just to be sure everyone is on same page. Drug usage in Portugal is still illegal and drugs are confiscated when in possession and offenders are sent before a commission. What this means is that instead of entering the judiciary system (or legal system), offenders are sent to “dissuasion commissions.”
This encourages addicts to seek treatment (without fear of legal repercussions) and stop recreational users from falling into addiction.
And it works. Addicts entered into drug substitution programs have risen from 6000 to 24000, 1999 to 2008. Drug usage (trial) in general has decreased. And most notably, drug usage among vulnerable younger age groups has declined.
The evidence from Portugal since 2001 is that decriminalization of drug use and possession has benefits and no harmful side effects (headline in August 2009 The Economist). So the United States, which has been mired for years in discussion of whether marijuana should be legal or not, maybe should take a bigger view on things. Or maybe get some perspective at minimum. I am not a drug user (unless you count Advil)…well…not anymore at least.
As the article points out, when Portugal created this legislation there were no lack of doomsayers across Europe (“pure lunacy” … “planeloads of people would head to Algrave to smoke marijuana” … it kind of makes me think of Bill Murray in “Ghostbusters” … “madness. dogs and cats living together”).
To top it off, earlier this year an American research company (yes. American) published a study stating:
“In numerous categories Portugal drug usage is now among the lowest in the European Union”
Is Portugal the USA? Surely not. Does it showcase an example worth pursuing? Absolutely.
To me selling and trafficking drugs is a crime. And deserves to be punished. Using drugs is not a crime…it is a problem that needs treatment. Once again I am forced to point out (because most people who challenge and debate bring it up) there will be exceptions. But, please remember, you don’t build programs based on serving the exceptions. You develop successful programs to meet the majority.
While I envision that writing my thoughts on this stemmed from the fact I guess I never really thought that hard about how to help resolve a drug problem (beyond the fact I thought burning fields in Columbia didn’t seem to be a great long term solution), this whole decriminalization and community support talk has reminded me of a lesson. “Treating the problem” is often not as popular (it sometimes appears to the public to not have a strong enough sense of urgency), but it is often the most effective path. Maybe it is time America should think of a program like Portugal’s.