dlehnersauder

I may be the only youth in the world who is more interested in Facebook as a business than Facebook as a service. Facebook’s success as a private company can be largely attributed to the freedom co-founder, President and CEO Mark Zuckerberg grants his employees.

The following video offers a little insight into Zuckerberg as a manager, and the Facebook work environment:

The organizational culture created by Zuckerberg is relaxed, unstructured and open. Employees can come and go as they please, with no standard work schedules, thus more employee freedom. The Facebook offices are open, with undivided desks scattered across large rooms. Zuckerberg himself works among the employees in the open workspace.

The openness, according to Zuckerberg, encourages collaboration, team-work and an informal atmosphere and communication. Moreover, if employees need to unwind on the job, they can play video or table-top (foosball/table tennis) games.

Employees working to their suitability permits employees to self-determine their job satisfaction in the Facebook organization. Job satisfaction is the primary factor in intrinsic motivation. Productivity is a direct result of intrinsic motivation. Therefore, due to the organizational culture established by Zuckerberg, Facebook employees are satisfied with their jobs and as a result do their jobs well.

The next challenge that will test Zuckerberg’s managerial abilities is the inevitable transition of Facebook from a private to a public company. Zuckerberg is worried that going public will reduce Facebook’s flexibility. If Facebook’s organizational culture can be maintained once the company is public, Facebook will most likely prove to be a very successful company for years to come.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

http://www.fastcompany.com/mic/2010/profile/facebook

Gap, Inc. is currently in the process of reshaping their brand identity. Annual sales have not increased since the 2005 fiscal year, and Gap has devised a new business strategy, setting their target market as “consumers in their 20s and early 30s”[1]. Not only is Gap changing their target market, but their brand identity as well, “switching from ‘what was classic, American design, to modern, sexy [and] cool’”[1]. In order to enact this business strategy, Gap, Inc. set a new tactic.

Gap’s new tactic is a logo change. Gap believes the change in logo will revamp the brand, and show consumers that Gap is changing. The logo change is supposed to demonstrate Gap’s new image to appeal to a new target market, but initial response to the logo has been negative.

Could it be that Gap’s tactic is not to simply change the logo to re-position their brand to consumers, but to change the logo to garner consumer outcry and media attention. This would bring more attention to Gap’s reshaped brand identity and new target market. A logo change may garner some consumer intrigue and awareness, but news coverage and public commotion elevates publicity of Gap’s new strategy plan to a new level. If this is the case, the logo change is an impressive tactic executed by Gap, Inc.  to achieve their strategy.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marka-hansen/the-gaps-new-logo_b_754981.html

In class 7, finances was the topic at hand. Among the vast array of topics involving finances, investors’ decisions on safe or risky investment opportunities was mentioned. More specifically, the topic of stocks as an investment to receive return was discussed. Stocks are a risky method of investment, and thus often yield negative return.

With that in mind, I came across a morsel of information regarding Microsoft that could attract or repel current or potential investors: “Microsoft will formally unveil Monday a lineup of smartphones using the revamped version of its mobile operating system, Windows 7. The phones will be available through AT&T and T-Mobile USA.”[1]

This small piece of information grants investors the insight they need to decide if they want to, or do not want to invest in Microsoft. Investors could look at the successes of competitors in the smartphone market, such as RIM’s Blackberry, Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android and think Microsoft phones would thrive in the marketplace and the investment would yield positive returns. Other investors might look at the past failures of Microsoft in portable electronic devices (the Zune) and decide not to invest.

The relationship of risk and reward in business finances is often indistinct, and an individual’s interpretation of information can lead to a great, or terrible investment.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

Proctor & Gamble innovated brand management when they released Tide to the laundry soap market in 1946. They created a new kind of product, laundry detergent, and thus positioned Tide as the first, and the leader, in the newly created market of laundry detergent. Flash-forward sixty-four years, and Tide laundry detergent is still positioned as the most popular brand of detergent in North-America.

So why re-position an industry leader? Following the 2008 world economic crisis, consumers became more frugal. To appeal to this growing, new demographic of consumers, Tide launched Tide Total Care. The detergent was initially targeted to the fashion adept by promising that Total Care preserves clothing better than competitors. However, Proctor & Gamble knew that Total Care, more importantly, would appeal to the thrifty consumer because of the promise of the product allowing the consumers to stretch the lifespan of their wardrobe.

Proctor & Gamble continually prove that effective brand management is essential in competitive marketplaces. Playing off Tides position as number one in consumers’ minds, P&G introduce new products to appeal to a broader range of buyers, and in doing so, solidify their position as industry leader. If  P&G can keep this up, their future success as a business is a cinch.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

http://www.piercemattiepublicrelations.com/2009/04/tide_and_woolite_reposition_th.html

“‘There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud. ’”[1]

Before my time, Gordon Gekko – a character played by Michael Douglas in the 1987 film Wall Street – captured the entrepreneurial spirit of an entire generation during his iconic “greed is good”[2] speech.

In his speech, Gekko implores individuals and corporations to embrace greed. Greed, argues Gekko, “captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit”[2] and “has marked the upward surge of mankind”[2]. Both Milton Friedman and Gordon Gekko concur that the pursuit of profits or “greed … for money”[2] is the sole responsibility of a for-profit organization.

A corporation undertaking any other type of responsibility, be it “social responsibility”[1] or some other matter not concerning maximizing profits is failing in its role as a business. This is because using corporate money “for a general social interest”[1] oversteps the boundary of a business by allowing executives to direct revenue – the money of the stockholders, employees and consumers – to whatever charity they deem fit. The money used for the social cause is lost money for the corporation, stockholders, employees and so on. Friedman encourages privately investing money in social causes, but argues that it is counterproductive for company profits to be thrown at these causes. Corporate donations to social causes interferes, and is often detrimental to the pursuit of profits.

The characteristic of Gordon Gekko that needs to be embraced by the modern businessman is his unrelenting pursuit to maximize profits for personal gain and greed. In doing so, a businessman fulfills his role in maximizing profits for his business and himself. The downside to Gekko’s greed was it drove him to unethical and illegal business practices. A minor adjustment therefore must be made to the iconic Wall Street quote: Greed is good, but only if you play by the rules.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

[2] Stone, Oliver. Wall Street. Perf. Michael Douglas. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, American Entertainment Partners L.P., Amercent Films, 1987.

The Government Accountability Office released a report finding that 4 out of 15 for-profit colleges investigated are encouraging prospective students to “falsify their financial aid forms to qualify for federal aid.” Moreover, all 15 schools’ college personnel made “deceptive or otherwise questionable statements” to college applicants.

Applicants were encouraged to add non-existent dependants and misrepresent income and savings to qualify for student loans and grants. Why the deceit? Maybe because “89 percent or more of [the for-profit college’s] revenue [comes] from federal student aid.”[1] To garner students – because more students means more monetary gain – the colleges misrepresented facts such as salaries after graduation and the duration/cost of offered programs.

I may not be an expert on the subject of business ethics yet, but I am entirely convinced that encouraging prospective students to commit student loan fraud is unashamed, unethical company behaviour. Not to mention deceiving and recruiting students with falsified “facts” is a gross disservice to the higher education community.

Business ethics often takes a backseat to the pursuit of profits. But outright advocacy for fraud and deceitfulness should have no place in the business world, especially when that business is education.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

http://business-ethics.com/2010/08/04/1404-for-profit-colleges-encouraged-fraud-and-used-deceptive-marketing-watchdog/

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!