Dispelling The Myth Of Corporate!

When I was in college studying Biomedical Sciences, I learned the importance of experimentation where accuracy in measurement and duplication of results are cornerstone to success. I worked as a research assistant conducting antiviral experiments on the eye under a grant for a now defunct pharmaceutical (Telios). It was at this time in my life that I realized that the most efficient of disciplines provides the vehicle of large revenue for big business. That research and development requires a huge investment or cash outlay that's very often a part of sunk costs. That R&D defines innovation where the return on investment in most cases is determined by how well business can make use of it! If big business is effective then huge revenue can be generated by their activity and individuals will thrive with an increase in commerce. Unfortunately, this is where the public's perception of corporate America gets distorted and how individual business success is overrated.

Numbers, numbers and numbers followed by poor analysis or lack of data treatment! Very many people view business professionals as analytical and their success is closely associated to material or monetary values. It would be nice if this were true, but it's not as many aspects of business is more about efficiency and effectiveness of business leaders and the organizations they operate. Business is more about overcoming initial obstacles to success, finding appropriate funding for operations and sustaining operations and growth over competition. Through all of this more companies than not are woefully inefficient in their operations and are able to exist short-term eaking out some profit! Surprised? You shouldn't be, as the balance between business financials allow for some to exist and profit over competition if there's inefficiency within industry. In large companies, "leaders" are often chosen by their ability to "team" and by their project successes. Now, keep in mind that "teaming" in corporate is more about likability and doesn't ensure success through diversity as true diversity is more about cultural or idealogical variance than ones phenotypic expression. Acceptance of the differences, values and processes is what help create a better team and fosters innovation.

 Today, "the proper fit" has become a "high school popularity test" where friends hire friends or people who they get along with (which doesn't resemble a diverse "think tank") for networks of professionals for hire. Now, don't get me wrong, this is fine especially given the "state of play" in the market where employers rule, wages are gun down as worker values are played against one another. However, if the fundamentals of business efficiency, the essence of innovation and vision of leadership is what we strive for then the strategy of compiling the right folks is questionable. The point is "you don't have to be a brain surgeon to be in business," but you have to assemble people who completely understand or who are skilled in business disciplines to effective and efficiently operate a mid-to large size company! Networking as the rule and not the exception, only exacerbate the problem in business if the problem can be identified. As most large companies are filled with "fluff" it is highly unlikely that there's any existing process or people in place to analyze the numbers and identify the operational errors.

"Perception Is Reality?" Bull!

During an evaluation, I had the pleasure of receiving feedback which included comment that I viewed as disconcerting and indicative of intellectual weakness. After hearing about what a great job I was doing managing the worst tour of the three shifts, he transitionEd to the individual rating suggesting preconceived impressions and obstacles to a superior rating. This along with the usual "it's very competitive" as if he matriculated through such was insulting. At this point, I began to provide some introspective about his statements by giving him a foolish look when he said "you know, perception is reality!" Oh yeah, when? And with whom? We are not in high school, instead we are running a multinational corporation,idiot!

The idea that business and leadership decisions are made based on perception and not analytics leads to many questions about efficiency and effectiveness. How are we evaluating performance? Are there enough checks and balances within large organizations? Are investors getting the best discount rate for the associated risks? If they only knew that risk assessment is absent in over 95% of decisions. That most leaders in large corporations have no concept of this valuable tool and most rely on a "hunch!" In business very many decisions are made without formal analysis where managers are empowered to use their perceptive powers. This is fine for some decisions, not for most and more appropriate for a very small business. What ever happened to deploying skill to reduce error and mitigate risk for improve efficiency in an effort to reduce cost? How much would you entrust to someone who may be unskilled in evaluating business performance? Vision beyond one functional tasks is an exceptional quality to have, a skill that is not often taught on the job!

So, when I hear folks expect or "perceive" that business is about getting the most for the investment (ROI), I laugh because most business decisions are made without any concept of ROI and proper analytical skills.

INVESTORS: What Do I Have To Say About The Bottom-line?

Statements of Income, cash flows and balance sheets...All purport to financial success and good company health, so what's the problem? The huge cash outlay! Is it worth it? Well, sometimes not! Financial success is routinely followed by annual dispersement of leadership compensation for a job "well-done" and as a consequence, promotions are in place for the supportive staff. Of the many with their hands open, how many can we say have significant contributions to the bottom-line and are deserving of the grossly exaggerated bonuses? How granular is the evaluation of their respective contributions? Can we differentiate between improved results that may be influenced by factors other than the decisions of our leaders?

I say that we must analyze the data further, like most corporate investments. Let's incorporate proven analytics like the financial industry where professionals evaluate the skill of portfolio managers against an unmanaged fund where human intervention is absent. Or start the economic term by adding a pace setter like in horse and dog races. Let's stop fuzzing the numbers and really eliminate the easy, most common decision managers use that help create false profit like reductions in workforce! Come on that's the easiest trick in the business because all the company is going to do is hire them back! More than likely, leadership will get rid of some of the most talented, losing some to the competition. This just leads to more questions. Have we undersold proper (effective & accurate) leadership evaluation? How parasitic have we made the recipients of leadership compensation? How much do the rob the bottom-line? Obligate intracellular parasites or viruses...can this be applied?

The Value Of An MBA. Is It Worth It?

It's been a while, since my last post where over the past two months, I've noticed several articles in refute of the value of an MBA, by folks that currently hold a bachelors! After considering many of the arguments that focus on cost and the added value to corporations without individual experience, to some extent, I would have to agree. In these distressed financial times of rising costs to education and extreme downward pressure on wages due to an employer's market; the view of most financially savvy individuals is that ROI for an MBA is long-term with a higher risk than normal, not to recoup costs. However, when we consider America's ever rapid decline in education against the world, there's cause for concern as recent comments by certain business and community leaders have worked to undermine the importance of education.

In contrast, very many scholars would argue in favor of an MBA (with concrete evidence as a backing) that if ever there were a need to educate the masses, it's now as the global market pressure to compete within the technology sector increases exponentially year after year, as technology itself influences the rate of change. Other arguments in support of an MBA, come from the fact that upon entry into a program, most MBA candidates are not sure of their career options, making a relationship with experienced academic staff all the more important.

Finally, how do we gauge individual proficiency of relative the disciplines without institutional guidelines? Sure, there will always exist a few smart and self-reliant persons who can show discipline and aptitude to educate themselves on finance, accounting and read various books on leadership, but for most of us institutional structure is desired and needed. When we consider that in the past like the 17th century, people like Ben Franklin and others were self-taught and successful, but times were very different and competition with a need to adhere to standards were non-existent. So, it maybe feasible for small number of us to sell-educate, however, who's going take a chance on an individual based solely on their claim for aptitude? And an MBA is not all about reading books on the subjects it's about professional networking, the intangible and practical aspects of leadership!

The Greatest Threat To Your Identity: Your SmartPhone/Device?

Although credit card theft remains the primary breech of security for one's identity, access through the smartphone and devices will soon supplant this crude criminal method. As technology expands, rendering manual activities for purchase and verification of identity obsolete, so to will the criminal endeavors to acquire consumers most valuable information. Currently, smartphones and devices are overtaking conventional methods of payment, communication and access. Advancements in technology are occurring much faster than our ability to secure against violation. As such, we can expect to see a rise in the complaints of identity theft through handheld smart-devices.

Augmenting the ever increasing trend of technology, are the advancements in technology that feeds itself, causing an exponential rate of change and undermining the ability of most governments to offer counter security measures. Technology advents like nanotechnology, IPv6 and new more powerful computing are enabling the criminalistic endeavors of many that includes some governments. Considering the manner in which consumers make use of smart devices (making material purchases, paying utilities and mortgages) that require housing of personal information with quick access to passwords; our behavior continues to provide tremendous opportunities for criminals, a fact that will rise at a rate commensurate with advances in technology. And lke it or not, criminals are consumers and they keep up with technology like experts, showing an adeptness for technology with creative cryptic actitivies.

Finally, as consumers abandon LAN lines for wirelsss connections, using the airways to make communication connections, the free "air" or medium will become the highway for criminal getaways. Unless authorities, equipment suppliers and ISP's work in collaboration to improve security and enforcement, an end to this activity, is more than likely, not soon forthcoming. At some point, the "air" that we breath may not entirely be free anymore, as consumers will inevitably have to subsidize any new security measures. So, caution to those consumers that are quick to replace secure methods of communication with new technology, for the price for convenience, may come at a cost, far too great to imagine!

Is Your Organization Globally Competitive?

Managers who have been shaped and developed within a mentoring environment are handicap, as their views distort the perception of leadership. Traditional forms of development like mentoring shape managers, not leaders in the image of their predecessor. This type of development quagmire a company's performance, freezing the competitive strategy and back-dating results to the original date of strategic inception. Many managers adopt behaviors that appear on surface, as successful, when in reality they prove obsolete and counterproductive with today's workforce. As current managers, choose successors from a mentoring pool of "likeables personalities" competition among potential leaders is thwarted, leaving miniature copies of past business ideology for replacements. Missing within this group of chosen few, like chapters from human development, are the improvements brought on by failure and a coalesce of diverse cultural creativity.

When we speak of competition within industries, most people would conclude that we are referring to a set of products or services, and would fail to realize forces at work that enable competitive advantages. Intellectual resources embodied in human capital form the innovative aspirations, provide the vision to forecast beyond the here and now, and personify the mission for the organization. Often, this most valued resource is neglected by a time-lapsed decline in material support, a lack of development or an incapacity to appropriately lead.

Traditional forms of management are obsolete in today's global environment, as they are absent of the principle leadership qualities that equip aspiring leaders of those behaviors that are indicative of team success. As organizational leaders, cling to old forms of development like "mentoring" the competitive landscape for most industries decline. The natural consequences of reduced or substandard competition is a slowing of innovation, declining profits and workforce reshuffling, as the overall skill-sets change due to retraining. When the competitive landscape changes as the adaptiveness of an organization is called into question, can we then check our leadership strategy?

Leading From A Smaller Chair!

Over the years, we've become familiar with the typical conference room setting of Corporate America where there sits a "whale of a conference table" end-capped by one or two, high leather chairs and flanked by a series of substantially smaller chairs. For those of us who have attended a corporate meeting, we have observed and at times, participated in the shuffling of positions where hierarchy has often been closely monitored by those whose professionalism is defined by their authority. During these occasions, we experience traditional corporate symbolism in it's finest form where definitively and demonstratively, leaders exact their positions of authority for subordinates to align behaviors in accordance. Powerful are these images for first-time managers, especially as veteran colleagues wisper advice on corporate etiquette while they smudgily greenhorn your reputation to cohorts. Considering the effort to produce this orchestrated display of authority, how much if any can be attributed to higher productivity? How effective is symbolism in gaining admiration from subordinates and does it contribute to improved workplace efficiency?

Times are changing, as younger generations show immunity to figures of authority and desire almost immediate access to positions of authority. In contrast, many mid-career professionals only aspire to have enough authority to lend credence to their "qualified" opinions. Faced with the ever increasing complexity of employee behavior, leadership has been forced to capitulate on traditional forms of organizational behavior. As symbolic gestures that perpetuate authority prove ineffective, leaders are finding it advantageous to allow for greater team independence, create more opportunity for freelance work, and streamline pathways to leadership. This is done to accomodate the demands of future leaders, tomorrows innovators freshly graduated from most colleges or B-schools. Forgotten in the equation are mid-career professionals who often opt-out of executive-level positions in favor of mid-level management positions as workplace balance outweigh career goals. These seasoned professionals understand the importance of the individual contributor and are satisfied with possessing enough "juice" or authority to remain effective, and a credible professional. To them, leading from a smaller chair offers significant reward as there are fewer headaches than from assuming the overall responsibility of an organization which is typically a never-ending proposition.