Catarina's World

Are you, or want to be, a game changer? Do you use the power of your ideas and connections to grow and change? Watch Nilofer Merchant, strategist and author,” in one minute tell Harvard how the way we do business is changing:

We don’t  create value on our own but when we connect with other entities, people and ideas. People who master  networking will be thriving in the social era.

The power of networks

How many networks do you belong to on and offline? Admittedly far from all networks are useful. They have to consist of people with shared interests and goals in order to produce returns and serve our needs.

Unfortunately there are plenty of networks consisting of individuals who just talk and seem to be stuck on the same treadmill forever. Such networks, needless to say, will not produce results. When it comes to networking, action definitely speaks louder than words.

Connected individuals taking over from institutions

It’s almost strange, isn’t it, that power today more and more comes from individuals connected in some way at the expense of institutions. Personally believe that’s a wonderful development.  And it gets even better because because we can create value by connecting to individuals who are not working in our company. We can, for instance, hire a consultant at the other side of the world who can carry out work for us without leaving his/her home.

Let your customers have their say

Making your customers part of your innovation process is a wonderful aspect of the social era.  How do you connect with your customers?

It’s also interesting that it’s mainly our values and goals that unite us in the social era. Not a company or product. It allows us to organise companies to be more fluid, work faster and increase their market share.

Isn’t it time to stop thinking in old ways and adapt to our new reality – the social era? We don’t need to work out of an office anymore. Maybe it’s time to to re-define what an organisation looks like and how it is structured? More and more individuals have their own company and successfully cooperate with other business owners as if they were one organisation. Do you agree that the amount of business owners working together along those lines will continue to increase? Are you operating that way? If so, what are your experiences? 

Video: HarvardBusiness

For decades governments that dared to challenge the IMF model swiftly found themselves out of favor in Washington and other Western capitals.

Capital inflows are not always beneficial for a country, the IMF concludes.

But the financial crisis that started in 2008 prompted a new debate over free market policies and IMF ideology. So now after sixty years of zealously insisting on free market economic policies, the International Monetary Fund has traded its dogmatism for pragmatism, it seems.

IMF admits mistakes

It recently admitted that their policies for bailing out Greece has caused a lot of damage to the country. The IMF estimated that unemployment would go as high as 14% but it has now gone as high as 27%.

Capital controls cab be beneficial

The IMF has acknowledged that in some instances, developing countries might actually benefit from controlling how much foreign capital enters their economies — and how it’s used. After examining the experience of governments that have regulated capital flows, the IMF concluded that such policies helped reduce “financial fragility.

There is no surefire one-size-fits-all way to deal with the impact of potentially destabilizing short-term capital inflows. While controls can be helpful to individual countries under certain conditions, their widespread use could have deleterious effects on the efficient allocation of investment across countries, and harm prospects for global recovery and growth.

Glad to note that the IMF seems to have adapted a more flexible approach. Governments all over the world have complained to me about the inflexibility of the institution. Maybe in this respect something good came out of the global crisis? Plans are important, but we always have to be flexible about how to reach our goals. Do you think the new IMF flexibility will have a positive impact on global recovery and growth? Or is it just  temporary and sooner  or later they will become dogmatic again? Maybe it’s actually your opinion that all countries should stick to free market policies no matter what? Even when, as in Greece and Spain, unemployment hits 27 %?

Photo: Flickr – businesspictures

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was adviced by Bill Clinton to schedule time to think strategically on a regular basis. Watch this short video of him talking to Garth Saloner, Dean of Stanford Graduate School of Business, about Clinton’s advice:

What Tony Blair has to say applies to all of us, no matter what we are doing. Not least when we run our own businesses. It’s easy to devote all our time to dealing with day to day business and forget about how to reach our goals.

Have events taken over your life?

If so, you are not alone. Apparently most people in high positions spend less than 5% of their time dealing with their priorities. Above all we lose our grip on strategies when dealing with a crisis.

Did Bill Clinton give Tony Blair good advice? Do you schedule time for strategic thinking on how to succeed with your priorities? Is finding time to do so hard? Have you noticed what a difference it makes when you find time for strategic thinking? Have not done so yet, maybe it’s time you do?

Video: stanfordbusiness – You Tube

No, it’s not a joke. The Economist were debating if the economy would be better off without MBAs. Have some fun and watch, or rather read, this short video on opinions voiced in their recent debate:

The video speaks for itself and looks at both sides of the coin.

Needless to say the debate took place because MBAs are blamed for calculating financial instruments that contributed to, or caused,  the financial crisis.

Bloomberg Businessweek made a survey to find out if MBAs make better CEOs. They found that roughly 40 percent of the S&P 500 chief executives have MBAs. Half of the top 10 CEOs had MBAs. In other words their findings are on par with what The Economist debate concluded about MBAs.

Do you agree with the The Economist and Bloomberg Businessweek that it’s 50-50 if an MBA makes a difference or not? Or are you of the opinion that MBAs are good for the economy? Or do they harm it? Would we have avoided the recent financial crash if MBAs had not made faulty calculations? Or would it have happened anyway? Maybe a bit later? Should companies keep a close eye on MBA students straight out of university to avoid faulty calculations? Or should they be allowed to be as innovative as possible? 

Video: EconomistMagazine – You Tube

Can true democracy really be practiced in a business? Would one employee – one vote make it possible not only to run a company but also make sure it’s profitable? Definitely, if you are a small jointly owned company. But how about a huge multinational with say, 250,000 employees?

Is democratic leadership that makes everybody happy just an illusion?

Imagine if all employees had to vote before a decision was made. Everybody would be looking after number one and the company would not only be ungovernable but lose money as well.

Fair decisions based on dialogue

Different stake holders should have their say and to aim for fair and emphatic decisions based on dialogue is definitely not only possible, but already practised in a multitude of companies.

Democracy – next fad in leadership theories?

With all the current emphasis on empathy in leadership I can’t help wondering if democratic leadership will soon become fashionable? The timing is right because many employees feel they have been badly treated by management during the current economic crisis.

Leaders are solely responsible

As a leader you are responsible to the board, share holders and all employees. There are no excuses for chosing the wrong path. You, and only you, are accountable and pay the price if your decisions fail. Or as President Truman put it, the buck stops with you.

Show me a truly democratic government

In all democratic countries politicians are elected because they promise the electorate they will do X,Y and Z. However,  once in power they frequently proceed with doing something else. Sometimes because they discover that what they would like to do isn’t possible for, usually, financial or legal reasons. Isn’t democracy more of a concept than reality? How much say does the electorate really have? The fact that a lot of politicians say what the electorate wants to hear and then do something else, doesn’t help. To get votes by pretending you stand for something you don’t is not what democracy should be about. But that is what happens in most countries.

In fact I don’t believe you can find any democratically elected government in the world that hasn’t failed to deliver on quite a few of their promises. As we all know, private companies operating that way would eventually cease to exist.

Staff can’t have more influence than board and shareholders

It’s impossible to allow employees to have more impact on decision making than the owners and board of directors do.

Sometimes taking decisions can be severely difficult and you will have to defend them not only to shareholders but colleagues as well. It’s particularly hard if you don’t agree with some of the decisions implemented. But you still have to be able to handle criticism for them and make sure as many as possible understand, accept and are motivated by your decisions.

Do you believe perfect democracy exists in any company or government in the world? How much more democratic can the corporate world get without jeopardizing the businesses? Is it possible to ever satisfy all and sundry and still be profitable and grow? A bit of a Catch 22, isn’t it?

(Photo: yeowatzup – flickr)

In a world mired by economic problems supermodel Gisele Bündchen in cheap flip flops made a maker of low-priced sandals really take off. Devote 1 minute to watch Bloomberg TV discuss the success story:

Have actually wondered when something “cheap chic” would become a huge hit and make headlines. The timing is perfect and the concept spot on for today’s world. Let’s face it, consumer spending isn’t what it used to be. A lot of people who used to buy haute couture can no longer afford it. But they still want to look chic and wear the right things.

Price lowered and endorsed by celebrities 

So what’s better than a celebrity endorsement of an affordable product to appeal to people who can no longer have the means for say, Chanel? Add to that lowering the price even more and you have a winner.

And it worked, no other shoemaker in the world has had such a rally. Can’t help thinking of those flip flops as “equality shoes”. They make poor girls feel like supermodels and the ones that lost a lot of money feel they are still buying what’s trendy and chic. “Gisele wears them, darling”. They love being able to afford the same things  their friends who are still mega wealthy buy.

The shoemaker actually made 195 million pairs of sandals last year and the average price was $7. That really shows how concentrating on huge volumes, as opposed to high prices, can be a winner in times like these.

Grendene´shares have doubled the last year. Compare that to the average shoe company that has risen by approximately 23%.

The power of celebrities

Personally had never heard of Grendene before despite the fact that the Brazilian company was founded 1971 and today is a conglomerate with 20,000 employees.

Grendene has been using celebrities such as Claudia Schiffer and Sharon Stone to promote their products for a long time. But despite that, I have never come across the name or any of their adverts before. It’s probably not a coincidence though, since it’s in times like these that their strategy really pays off handsomely. A world mired in deep recession absolutely loves cheap chic. And having Gisele introduce her own line of Grendene plastic sandals in such times is absolutely perfect. A lot of Westerners frown on celebrity endorsements. But it has always worked and always will, especially during hard times.

Have you come across other cheap chic concepts that have become successful recently? Do you agree that looking good for less is a concept bound to become even more popular at the moment, above all in the West, where economic recovery hasn’t yet taken place? Do you think the flip flops, and Grendene, would have been such a hit if it had produced expensive shoes? Or would they have succeeded without Gisele and Shakira? Are we bound to see more cheap chic success stories coming up?

Video: Bloomberg – You Tube

Nowadays the market is constantly changing and businesses adapt or die. Preferably you should be a leading player who determines what changes take place and when. So, if you haven’t yet developed a culture of innovation, it’s high time you do. Even a start-up with a proactive philosophy can over time become a market leader. Do you for instance reap the benefits of ideas generated by someone in your organisation?

To succeed in developing a good suggestions is as crucial as realizing when an idea is too expensive and time consuming to be worth while. Especially if it’s questionable if the company will really benefit significantly from it.

In today’s market you need to develop and evolve on a continuous basis. If not, stagnation sets in and you are on the wrong path. What customers want and desire change all the time, competition intensifies, the need to be efficient accelerate, economic fundamentals are altered, re-financing has to be done, new techniques are introduced and your staff turn over. It’s actually easier to list what doesn’t change constantly than what does.

Nothing ever stays the same

Gone are the days when you could just sit back and run your company like a machine. Something is always happening that has an impact on your business. Or as Lewis Carrol put it: “It takes all the running you can manage to stay in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you have to force yourself to run at least twice as fast.” The same goes for risk, to prioritize stability and safety and not taking any risks would be difficult, if not impossible, in today’s integrated world.

Beware of stagnation 

Catalysts for change can come from an abundance of stake holders such as; customers, you, your colleagues, the board, science, new and improved technologies, the media, new theories, world events, new competitors and your own strategic planning. What was new half a ago is already out of date.

If you haven’t yet started to innovate on a continuous basis, even change for the sake of change can actually be a good thing. It will add a momentum that break stagnation and stop mold from growing.

From here to success

Innovation equals change and shows a desire to improve. It can happen in a multitude of ways. Could be new products, new marketing, services, business processes or even changing your organization as a whole.

No matter what, the ability of turning ideas into progress is a true mark of a successful innovation. To succeed in developing a good idea is as crucial as realizing when an idea is too expensive and time consuming to be worth while. Especially if it’s questionable if the company will really benefit significantly from the idea in question.

Look at the pros and cons

Unless you have to, don’t start implementing any idea that could be lucrative. Evaluate it carefully by looking at pros and cons. A SWOT analysis is one way of determining the likelihood of succeeding and will give you a good platform for deciding if you are likely to benefit from going ahead or not.

Determine and evaluate results

Before starting a new project it’s vital to decide what would constitute success and what result would be good enough. How will you measure if it’s a success or not? Can it be achieved quickly or do you have to look at the project long term? To measure and follow up results is also a great way of determining how to succeed with future developments. What made it a success? Why was the result just good enough and not excellent? What factors contributed to an outcome that was merely OK? Why did the idea fail?

Step by step

Innovation can actually be fun and challenging. It will facilitate if you can break it down and take one step at a time. Frequently organizations start a project without finishing it. So do it gradually, take action, make sure you are making progress and finish the project. The worst that can happen is that you fail and learn from it.

How do you develop and innovate? Does your business have an innovative culture? Or maybe a culture of creating value? Do you focus on evaluating ideas and suggestions for change? How do you set goals and determine what would constitute a positive change? How do you follow up and determine what mistakes you made and learn from them? Change happens through evolution or revolution but make no bones about it development and innovation needs to be done on a continuous basis. It’s how you go about it that determines if you succeed. If you resist change you will stagnate and competitors will gain the upper hand. And then, one way or another, a revolution will take place, for better or for worse.

Photo: o5com – Flickr

Loved it when I came across research indicating that might be the case. Am tired of hearing about the benefits of getting up at the crack of dawn. It’s a habit we have inherited from traditional societies when mankind rose with the sun and went to bed at sunset. But does it really suit the world we live in today?

Would US presidents age as much as they do if they didn’t have to get up at the crack of dawn like in a traditional society? Would it benefit mankind to adapt office hours that reflect the world we live in today instead of doing things the way they have always been done?

One study carried out by The University of Liege looking at how our brains are able to focus attention throughout the day found differences in rhythm between “morning” and “evening” people. Their conclusion is that early risers get tired earlier and are hence less productive.

Kanzawa claims more intelligent children go to bed later as adults

And according to another study by Satoshi Kanazawa,”Why Night Owls are more intelligent than morning larks” evening people are of higher intelligence than morning people. He claims that analysis of a large representative sample of young Americans show that more intelligent children grow up to be more nocturnal as adults than less intelligent children.

Both studies believe that evening people usually get more work done and resist the pressure to sleep better than the larks.

Do morning people have the upper hand in business?

Considering such conclusions I can’t help wondering why is it considered that when it comes to being successful in business it’s a virtue to be an early riser and that evening people will be less successful?

Honestly doubt the conclusion that evening people are more intelligent. It has nothing to do with intelligence but body rhythm, endurance and energy. For some reasons we are all different in those areas but the fact that evening people seem to be more productive could be of importance to society.

Time to rethink?

From what I understand about 20% of the population of the world are night owls and only 10% are early birds. And most of us, 70%, can handle both. Honestly why are we adapting business hours to suit 10% of the population of the world?

Intelligence enables flexibility

Kanazaka correctly points out that the more intelligent people are the more prone they are to adapt behaviour that is beneficial to the human race – as opposed to doing things the way they have always been done. Initially new behaviour is scorned but then become the norm. Much of what we do today will be considered absurd by future generations.

Flexible hours a sign of change?

More and more businesses have flexible hours above all because many businesspeople are night owls. And we shouldn’t forget that many intelligent people are entrepreneurs. The current recession is also creating an abundance of small businesses, most of them with much more flexible hours than huge corporations.

Will next generation be prepared to get up at dawn?

Another aspect is that younger people are more likely to be night owls and not happy to get up in the morning while pensioners frequently fall into the rhythm of getting up and going to bed with the sun. But they are now retiring and younger people will fill their positions. And they may not be as willing as the previous generation to adapt their body rhythm to the company. They may simply leave and find jobs where they don’t have to get up at the crack of dawn.

So is it time for the business world to wake up and realize that things are changing? Having workers coming in later and working later will, according to the studies, result in increased productivity and eliminate the afternoon fatigue so obvious in all offices.

What’s your opinion? Do you agree with the studies that night owls are more intelligent than early birds? Or do you believe it’s the other way round? Or maybe you agree with me that it’s not about intelligence but other factors? Will more and more businesses implement flexible hours? Would starting later and working later increase productivity? Is it likely that working hours will change? Will night owls have the upper hand in the future?

(Photo: United States Government Work – Flickr)

The day after Obama was inaugurated visitors touring the White House were surprised to meet the president and first lady. Watch this short video to see what happened and how the visitors reacted:

Personally believe what the first couple did in combination with releasing the video is as good as PR can get. Disagree with me? Well, Merriam-Webster defines public relations as follows: the business of inducing the public to have understanding for and goodwill toward a person, firm, or institution; also :the degree of understanding and goodwill achieved.

So is it possible to do better PR than the Obamas did that day? The busiest man in the world takes the time to say hello to visitors in the White House. If you are pro or con the Obamas is beside the point. What we are looking at here is an excellent way of doing PR for yourself as a person and what you are doing. Also keep in mind that the president cannot be elected again, which makes what they did even better from a PR point of view since it doesn’t look as selfish as it otherwise would have.  Obviously if the video had not been released what they did would have had less impact.

The same type of goodwill is created when the CEO of a company takes the time to visit and say hello to employees of all levels in their offices and plants. Such gestures benefits the company tremendously because, as we all know, staff that feels valued, work harder and get better results.

Do you think it was excellent PR for the Obamas to surprise visitors at the White House? Do you think it increased the visitors goodwill and liking of the first couple? Should company leaders do as the first couple and visit as many employees as possible to make them feel valued and important? Do you believe PR can be much better done than what we have seen in this example? 

Video: whitehouse

Leon Panetta just became a hero to American women by announcing that the U.S. ban on women in combat positions will be lifted. It’s hence an interesting  moment to look at gender equality in business. In this short video Tory Burch talks about how women entrepreneurs should find their passion and be just as ambitious as men:

Let’s hope it doesn’t take too long for the Pentagon to live up to Panetta’s promise. For about half a century women and men have been equal by law in Sweden. But inequality between the sexes is still so bad the government is of the opinion that to achieve equality in the business world it will be essential to legislate.

Out of 100 start-ups in Sweden only 23 are started by women and they are less likely to get financing than a company started by a man. So much for me telling my Saudi girl friends that in Sweden we are equal.

Davos: Women are important to the world economy

In Davos this year the World Economic Forum, for the first time, had a discussion on getting more women into economic decision making.  Prominent women such as Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust, European Commissioner Viviane Reding, Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook and Saudi business leader Lubna Olayan took part. They discussed how the gender gap at the highest levels of business can be closed.

Their conclusion was that ambitious women are often regarded as aggressive. The Harvard president pointed out that’s because women are judged according to the stereotypes we grow up with. It was also said on the panel that successful women are frequently disliked by both men and women. Why? According to them it’s again all to do with  the stereotype of a woman. It’s hence essential that we move away from such old fashioned stereotypes.

Lubna Olayan pointed out that King Abdullah has now appointed women to 20 percent of the seats in the shura council. (that’s as close to a parliament they get in Saudi Arabia). Immediately the objection was that the women were not qualified but appointed just because they are women. Their CV’s were published and that clearly showed that they were indeed qualified, not only highly educated but experienced as well.

We need more female business owners

Tory Burch who you watched in the video, started her company in 2004 and nine years later her clothes are sold in more than 800 stores all over the world.

She also leads the Tory Burch Foundation that offer mentorship and provide micro loans to women entrepreneurs. Her advice to female entrepreneurs is “don’t give up. There are so many times it seems insurmountable but keep the hard work going. It’s worth it and you and your hard work can make a difference”.

There is a need to make more woman start up their own companies and succeed. And get more women to sit on boards. Tory is not alone in having a foundation that makes a contribution in this respect. There are an abundance of such programs and with the European Union making it clear they want  to get more women into high level business it makes sense.

In the World Economic Forum panel discussion, Viviane Reding talked about how the EU first tried to persuade companies to get 40% women in leadership positions on a voluntary basis. Nothing happened. The EU hence legislated to get talented, educated women into top positions in companies. The law is intended to allow women to make a breakthrough into business, taking into account that 65% of university graduates in Europe are women. The first year saw 3% more women in senior positions in corporate Europe.

Do you believe it’s a good thing that Leon Panetta has lifted the ban on women in combat? Is it a good idea to close the gender gap at the highest levels of business? Should women be as ambitious as men not only in the military but in business as well? Do we need more female business leaders and entrepreneurs? Is it fair that successful women are regarded as aggressive? Would it be a good idea to have more qualified women on corporate boards? Should there be equality between the sexes when it comes to getting funding for a start-up? Has the time come for women to be proud of their accomplishments and be treated as equals in the corporate world? 

Video: stanfordbusiness