View Russell Fisher's profile
Filed under: innovation, leadership | Tags: change, checks, Christian Science Monitor, Clarke American, Harland Clarke, newspapers
At the end of October venerable publication The Christian Science Monitor dropped its century long tradition of daily publications to move nearly completely online.
A few years ago, I attended a marketing course that was also attended by a large contingent of Clarke American managers who were trying to find a way to save their dying check printing business. They wouldn’t accept that their entire industry was dying. At least not in it’s present form.
Now they no longer exist. Not as Clarke American anyway.
But it looks like the The Christian Science Monitor will.
One of my first jobs included the responsibility of acting as the initial screen for aspiring inventors wishing to add their product to our company’s product line. As you would gather in such a situation, I told a lot of people “No.” Most simply didn’t pass the basic framework that I’d set up for what was needed for us to have a successful product launch. And most of those who did found other ways to dissuade me from pursuing.
When I did turn down these queries, there was hardly ever a question asked about my rationale. And, on the off chance that my rationale was read, I was usually congratulated for my thorough refusal of the potential vendor. In one refused case in particular, when it was discovered that the proposed product turned out to be harmful, I was publicly complimented and compensated.
There were a handful of times though that I said, “Yes … this is perfect for our customer base”; or “Yes … we can beat a major competitor to launch with a better product”; or “Yes … this is a little bit different than what we currently do, but it is a wonderful opportunity.”
When that happened, I was excited to propose such a great addition to our product line. The inventor was excited, product tests seemed to go well, marketing figures checked out, and then, usually, someone felt that it was politically harmful, or it was too different, or there wasn’t time to look at it. And then, slowly, any support that the project had would ebb away and finally die.
It’s not about how “Yes” is inherently better than “No.” Sometimes, saying “No” is the best thing to do. But it does take courage is to say, “I know this is against the current way we do things, but we should change.” And I am not saying I was courageous; I had nothing to lose by recommending these changes. But for those in the power to really make decisions (which I find myself more in now than then), that is where you have to be willing to occasionally swim against the corporate cultural and strategic stream. Because, if you don’t, you might find your business slowly ebbing away and eventually dying.
Filed under: economy, leadership | Tags: Alan Mulally, bailout, Buick, Cadillac, CEO, Chevy Volt, Chyrsler, Congress, economy, environment, Ford, General Motors, GM, GMC, Hummer, hybrid, Johnson Controls, Keith Wandell, president, Richard Wagoner, Robert Nardelli, Ron Gettelfinger, Saab, Saturn brand, UAW, Volvo
In addition to starring in a singularly scary photograph (Wall Street Journal)—
—executives of the big automakers (and associated groups) outlined a plan for action with their asking for federal funds from Congress (see below):
| General Motors | Ford | Chrysler | |
| Requested Funds | Term loans of up to $12 billion through end-2009; $6 billion line of credit | $9 billion line of credit | $7 billion loan by end-2008 |
| Fuel Efficiency | Will launch predominately high mileage, energy-efficient cars and crossovers | Improve the fuel economy of its fleet an average of 14% for 2009 models, 26% for 2012 models and 36% for 2015 models compared to 2005 models | 73% of the 2009 models will have better fuel efficiency than previous models |
| Green Initiatives | Will invest $2.9 billion in alternative fuels and technologies through 2012; will offer 15 hybrid models by 2012. Chevy Volt scheduled to be produced in 2010 | A battery-powered commercial van due in 2010, a battery powered sedan in 2011, and a plug-in hybrid by 2012; will invest $14 billion on advanced technologies during next seven years | Introduce first full-function electric-drive model in 2010; will produce more than 500,000 electric vehicles by 2013 |
| Brands | Will focus on Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC; will consider selling Saab and Hummer; sell or consolidate its Saturn brand | Explore selling Volvo | |
| Operations | Plan plant consolidations | Cut the number of dealers selling its vehicles, and retool plants to make small cars in the U.S. | Further factory rationalization, sharing platforms and components and other technical innovations expected to yield between $3.5 billion to $9 billion annually when fully implemented |
| Staffing/Labor | Wants further changes in labor agreements, including on job security, paid time-off, and health-care | Negotiating with UAW for more cost savings | Plans to cut work force and reduce health-care benefits |
| Financial Restructuring | Trying to cut $30 billion from its debt load; dividend will remain suspended during the life of loans. Expects North America to break even by 2012 | Expects a return to profitability in 2011. | Expects a return to profitability by the end of 2009. |
Source: Wall Street Journal
Not only does Alan Mulally look like the nicest of the bunch, but it also appears that his organization has the most concrete plans for action in this crisis. Specific benchmarks, both in terms of time and result, evidence of current action, and a willingness to scrimp with the rest of us; these steps win out. Mulally is by no means without blame, but he does appear, both in this article and others to be changing his tact in light of the new economy.
We need a lot more “This is what I will do” rather than “This is what I will consider” in times of crisis.
Filed under: economy, leadership | Tags: corporate America, economy, layoffs, Montana, Nevada, New York, New York Daily News, New York Times, Sam Gallup, Stillwater
Sam Gallup, New York miner lost his job in August, found a job in Montana, took the few days drive out to the mine, worked one shift, and was laid off as one of the 500 the mine let go.
He now is waiting for his one day check.
It would be different they found out he lied, or he got in a fight, or something else. But to be laid off, after just being hired …
The good news (hopefully) is that he is now interviewing with a company in Nevada and he has received some help along the way. Amid the multitude of calls for greater corporate transparency in times of crisis, this group simply missed it. My wife mentioned to me that she was surprised at the internal miscommunication; the executive team completely failed to mention to the hiring team that there would be some needed cutbacks.
Now they have all this negative press because they thought it would be better to leave everyone in the dark. I suppose this is their subtle introduction to new media.
We understand layoffs, and we understand hiring freezes, and Stillwater, the company he worked one day for, should have understood that these usually go in reverse order. But to do something like this … this is why so many people hate corporate America. What a shame.
Filed under: design, leadership | Tags: Archibald Wheeler, Chris Langan, Dilbert, Imaginary Time, IQ, Malcolm Gladwell, Participatory Universe, Royal College of Art, Stephen Hawking
While reading about Malcolm Gladwell’s new book, I came across a name I’d never heard before: Chris Langan. So I decided to find out more about this guy.
Turns out, Chris has had a rough life. Born into poverty, he wore rags to school and was always the smallest. He noted that he was always “treated like scum by the rest of the kids.” As early as when “he was five, his mother—who’d in the meantime married and divorced a struggling Hollywood actor and given birth to two more sons—married a mean, hard-drinking tyrant.”
“He figured the best way to raise three boys would be to set up his own military platoon,” Chris says.
[...]
At six each morning, his stepfather would sound reveille on a bugle, line up his little soldiers at attention, heels cocked at 45 degrees, thumbs along trouser seams. He’d stand before each of the boys and feign a punch, usually a right jab that he’d stop an inch or two shy of their noses. If one of the kids flinched, he would sock him for real. Chris’s body was always covered with welts.
[...]
One morning when he was fourteen, Chris awoke to a flash of white light, followed by intense pain across his eyes. He jumped out of bed half blinded. Just home from an all-night drunk, his stepfather had wrapped his garrison belt around his fist and punched Chris while he slept. Since he was four years old, Chris had never once talked back. It was always, No, sir, Yes, sir; he’d never even said boo. Now he just went mental. Chris flew at him, knocked him across the room, against the wall, out the door. He beat down the old man in the front yard, told him never to return. He didn’t.
After high school, he dropped out of further education twice because of financial difficulties and spent the next few years doing odd jobs and temp work, such as at times working as a bartender and other times as a bouncer.
That’s one side of him.
The other half of his life was forcefully revealed in 1999, when he was tested and it was found that his IQ was 195. That’s like one in a billion smart. He spends a lot of his free time working on his
Cognition-Theoretic Model of the Universe. The result of ten years of solitary labor, the CTMU—pronounced cat-mew—is, says Chris, a true “Theory of Everything,” a cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s “Participatory Universe” and Stephen Hawking’s “Imaginary Time” theory of cosmology.
There is so much talent, so many diamonds that we miss because we expect people or ideas to fit within a certain framework. Chris was treated as a freak and simply ignored for years because he didn’t fit in. Two years ago I had the opportunity to meet with artists at the Royal College of Art. I was a business student in a design leadership program and we were working on a project together. They thought quite differently from us, and it took some time to grasp the differences, but when we finally broke down those walls, the results were astonishing. We need to do that sort of thing more often.
You know the other cool thing about Langan? It’s like we have Dilbert’s garbage man in real life.
Filed under: brands, community, leadership, marketing, online media | Tags: BusinessWeek, CEOs, Forbes, Johnson & Johnson, Logic + Emotion, moms, Motrin, social media, TwitScoop, Twitter
 |
twitscoop The motrin story is1more proof brands need to monitor social
networks – the graph + reading first tweets tells it all: http://bit.ly/eR8x
|
|
|
twitscoop Motrin ad makes moms mad on twitter, follow it here:
http://tinyurl.com/6khfzv #motrinmoms
|
I received these Tweets yesterday. At the same time, motrin.com went down. Today, motrin.com continues to be down. It’s actually inaccessible. These same Twitter moms knocked it down (I guess they don’t like being condescended).
For more information, see Logic + Emotion—they give a nice running commentary of the “headache”.
In other news, BusinessWeek has noted that a large number of CEOs do not support social media, reasons ranging from lack of knowledge to lack of relevance. Consider this:
While 62% see social media as having an impact on a company’s reputation, only 48% say it can change sales.
Time will likely tell that Johnson & Johnson (Motrin) may disagree that perception.
Filed under: leadership, politics | Tags: biden, factcheck.org, mccain, obama, palin, politics, truth
You know what’s great about America? We can have something like FactCheck.org as a check to illiterates, rumormongers, and outright liars—whether these spewers be elected officials or emailing trolls. If you are not aware of FactCheck.org, you should check them out. They are a group out of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania and they are really good at filtering political slime.
On the same note, what’s bad about America is that we need FactCheck.org. I understand that there will always be those troglodytes who find some semblance of joy in spreading falsehoods, but with our leaders? Of course, I understand that in a debate you may misstate information, but in plan and published advertisements—it is unfortunate to see the blatant disregarding for truth.
For example, FactCheck.org reports that
An Obama-Biden radio ad hammers McCain for being opposed to stem cell research. Not true.
[...]
By saying that “John McCain has stood in the way – he’s opposed stem cell research,” the Obama ad seriously misstates the view that McCain has held on this issue since 2001, when he began backing embryonic stem cell research, a position that was out of step with that of many of his fellow Republicans.
And some time before this, we read that
The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new ad that once again distorts Obama’s tax plans.
The ad claims Obama will raise taxes on electricity. He hasn’t proposed any such tax. Obama does support a cap-and-trade policy that would raise the costs of electricity, but so does McCain.
It falsely claims he would tax home heating oil. Actually, Obama proposed a rebate of up to $1,000 per family to defray increased heating oil costs, funded by what he calls a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
When we cut through the clutter, it is easier to chose who more closely aligns with whatever policies we more closely position ourselves, but it is this purposefully and deceitfully presented clutter that is most alarming. Giving credit where it is due, our CAO discussed with me yesterday that it is interesting that organizations like ours are held to such a high standard of what we can and cannot say, but those who ultimately have the greatest responsibility don’t even cause alarm when they misrepresent the truth.
They love truth when she shines on them and hate her when she rebukes them. For because they are not willing to be deceived and wish to deceive they love her when she reveals herself and hate her when she reveals them.
Filed under: leadership, politics | Tags: Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, backbiting, business, gossip, leadership, poison, politics, religion
Goodby Silverstein & Partners produced one of the most memorable advertisements of all time with their 1993 “Got Milk?” ad about the famous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.
It was classic, but underscoring the advertisement was the duel. A “matter of honor” between the current Vice President of the United States and the former Secretary of Treasurer and perhaps the greatest mind on constitutional interpretation in US history, this death was precipitated by Burr’s corrupted view of Hamilton’s distaste for him. Of course, even though he was the victim, Hamilton was no saint either—his political fights with Jefferson, Clinton, Adams, and Madison were so complete that even in death his opponents spit pure vile at him and his legacy.
I mentioned to a fellow traveler a few weeks back during a discussion about Adams and Hamilton that these founding fathers were in ways much better and much worse than we grasp in our brief history book and filmstrip caricatures. It was in their squabbles that we find the most heartbreaking destruction. In many ways, their lives were clouded by this infighting, to the point that in each other they could see no good.
These clouds of spitefulness are ever-present today. We see them in business, in entertainment, in politicians, in religious groups, in social classes—among individuals and organizations and communities throughout the world. The effect is poison. Relationships that could have been most productive are wasted, conversations are tainted, and individuals vilified.
And this poison doesn’t always just stop with these interchanges. In quiet corners, on Internet forums, within newspaper commentary, and over neighborhood fences we may find this poison ever-spreading, destroying not only the object of disdain but the holder of the vision and to those with whom they reach out. It heralds the death of civility and the destruction of love for our fellowman.
We should not accept this as simply a part of the status quo. And while we must require our leaders to be better, we need to look within our lives at how such backbiting has corrupted our viewpoints. Each of us may be surprised to see how its ugly effects have infiltrated our lives.
We should be better than that.
Filed under: economy, leadership, politics | Tags: economy, oil, reward, risk
Why is that every time bad investments made by private institutions go belly up, the U.S. taxpayers are called upon to socialize the financial risk?
This is a fair question, but I see a bit of hypocrisy in this discussion (not necessarily from this source, but from public outcry). In May, CNNMoney reports:
Politicians are eyeing oil profits like a fat juicy glazed ham.
The argument for windfall taxes is the reverse of the previous critique. Why should we privatize risk and then socialize profits? Organizations should be accountable and if we deem them “too big or too essential to fail”, they should also be deemed too integral to be lucrative for the shareholders. But we cannot have both. We cannot demand that when companies that have privatized the risk reap major returns that they share those rewards with everyone.
We should not forget the Little Red Hen—even if it is politically popular.
