Dimitrije Gacic's Blog

After viewing the eye-catching video pertaining to the work culture at Zappos during lecture, it struck me as the exact opposite of what I envisioned to be my ideal workplace. During reflection period, I couldn’t help but note that the linkage between the concept of organizational culture and human resource management was incredibly interesting, prompting me to do additional research.

A look into the workplace of Zappos

In a particularly interesting blog post I stumbled across, Jessica Dahlstrum discusses “how having a strong culture can increase employee engagement and productivity”, and reinforces her argument by providing examples with explicit connections to the culture at Zappos. Prior to our Human Resources lecture, I always believed that it was the duty of the employee to ensure their own satisfaction, and maintain engagement within the workplace. After all, individuals should ideally apply for jobs they are passionate about and thus have incentive to perform at a high caliber within the workplace.

However, to my surprise, an article issued in 2015 declared only 31.5% of employees are engaged within the workplace, meaning they are enthusiastic about and engaged and committed to their work; a slight increase of from 29.6% in 2013. Moreover, certain individuals are prone to choosing jobs that they view as dull and that they dislike, solely because of a larger pay. Based off of this information, I believe that it is important for a company to develop a work culture that successfully engages employees and gives them a sentiment of joy, and accomplishment. In fact, a healthy company culture can create a positive cascade effect that is beneficial for the company, employee, and consumer. A positive work culture and environment causes an employee to be in good spirit, and work at their best, which leaves the consumer satisfied with their service. Satisfied consumers will be inclined to return and purchase more, plunging them within the loyalty loop of the company. In essence, having a healthy company culture is rewarding for all parties- everybody benefits.

The consumer decision journey

In her post, Dahlstrum touches on open communication, praise and recognition as well as setting clear goals. Each of these aspects are crucial to establishing a healthy company culture, and can be explicitly related to Zappos. For instance, Zappos stresses open communication by placing their executives at the same level as other employees, facilitating and easing communication between each other, and sets clear goals and standards by putting each of their employees through the same rigorous training program.

Ultimately, company culture can play a large role in determining the success of a company. An effective workplace will engage their employees, in turn creating a positive cascade effect in which employers, employees and consumers are satisfied.

Word Count: 441

Over the past years, the topic of political correctness has gained a substantial amount of traction. Most recently, an allegedly racist ad published by Dove, a personal care brand, has prompted an outrage causing men and women globally to hold a knife to their throat. I gained inspiration to write on this topic after reading Cara Adensamer’s blog, and reflecting on her response to the issue at hand and contrasting it with my own.

In my respectful opinion, this situation was vastly blown out of proportion, and the population had a false conception of the true meaning behind the ad. The original advertisement published by Dove was in fact thirty seconds in length, and featured a variety of women changing their shirts in quick succession. However, the shortened version of the ad used on Facebook only included the clip of an African American being “whitewashed” signifying that, as Cara suggested, that women of color are dirty, and inferior to white women.

The issue at hand is the general population’s naivety; they made the quick assumption that Dove is a fundamentally racist company, without watching the entire ad and attempting to understand the underlying message. The full version of the advertisement reveals the Caucasian woman taking off her shirt and becoming an Asian woman shortly after. By the same logic employed by those deeming this ad as racist, this implies that Asian women are superior to white women, which is simply untrue, dismissing their poor argument.

A more complete version of the ad, demonstrating that the white woman turns into another woman of color shortly after, dismissing the racist argument.

Following the outrage, the black woman in the ad, Lola Ogunyemi, spoke with interviewers at BBC and affirmed that her experience with Dove was nothing but positive, and that every model was “fascinated with the concept” of the advertisement and were blessed with the opportunity to be on set. In fact, Ogunyemi argues that Dove were not completely in the right for issuing a brief public apology on Twitter, and should have instead defended themselves from the colossal backlash on social media.

An image showcasing a BBC interview with the black dove model, who believes had a positive experience and did not see the ad as racist.

Although I disagree with Cara’s overall opinion, I completely resonate with her valid argument that Dove made a grave mistake in not noticing that the shortened Facebook ad could be perceived as racist based on the few seconds shown, when in fact, it is evidently not. However, I uphold my opinion that the ad portrays an effective product that works on women with any skin color, affirming Dove’s value proposition of empowering woman of all races.

Ultimately, many people, myself included, believe this to be severely overlooked and one of the many demonstrations that people are consistently looking for something to be upset about, and that political correctness is unfortunately getting out of hand.

Word Count: 441

Over the past decade, social media has become a phenomenon that has rapidly evolved, cementing itself as second nature for most individuals. Industry leaders have found themselves in a hectic toe-to-toe race, seeking to grab the attention of users and gain an inch over their fierce competitors.

A recent article suggests that Snapchat may just have forgotten to tie their laces in such a heated race, with Facebook attempting to prohibit its rise as the ultimate social media platform. Snapchat has become notorious for its multitude of features that cater to the millennial and Generation Z demographic, from offering appealing filters, stories to broadcast the entertaining moments of your life, and streaks to boast imaginative popularity points. In an attempt to overshadow their success, Facebook has recently implemented similar features.

Although the article proposes a valid argument, it is easy to disagree with the notion that this will lead to the inevitable downfall of Snapchat, assessed through both personal experiences, and several marketing analysis tools. It is evident that Facebook is seeking a transient advantage- the necessity of frequently generating new advantages and cementing them, as opposed to building a single one, and defending it. Such is necessary for a company to strive, however the critical issue at hand is that these features have already been flawlessly established by Snapchat, and are not new or innovative by any means. More importantly, Facebook has a dominant over-35 and elder demographic which simply and statistically do not find the appeal in these new features, resulting in Facebook’s recent implementations essentially becoming irrelevant.

An image showcasing the age demographic of social media users, including Facebook and Snapchat.

Although it can be difficult to establish a transient advantage or a deal-breaking point of difference between companies with similar value propositions, Facebook’s recent actions, in my opinion, have demonstrated a poor customer segmentation strategy. Speaking from personal experience, a vast majority of users make little to no use of Facebook’s story feature, and have opted to continue using Snapchat. The fact of the matter is, “young users don’t want to be on the same social network as their parents, grandparents or teachers”.

Snapchat has done a great job of keeping their users within the loyalty loop of the consumer decision journey- consistent updates, new filters, and lack of scandals as opposed to Facebook have enabled them to prosper, and will allow them to continue rising amidst their fierce competition. Ultimately, I must disagree with the notion that Facebook is soon to knock out Snapchat from the race. Each platform has a specific time-frame under which they strive, and if Facebook fails to obtain an innovative transient advantage in the future, they may find themselves following the footsteps of dead platforms, such as mySpace. Snapchat is only beginning its rise.

Word Count: 450

Businesses are often proposed with the opportunity of taking risks which could potentially enable them to prosper. Although ostensibly intimidating, risk-taking is essential, and can act as the living embodiment to a successful company. However, companies can sometimes find themselves taking risks that breach the ethical code, and thus inevitably receiving pressure from various protesting groups.

This is demonstrated in a recent article concerning the construction of the Enbridge 3 Line, which would increase the capacity of the already existing pipeline, running “from Hardisty, Alberta, clip[ping] a corner of North Dakota, and cross[ing] Minnesota.” The issue at hand not only pertains to underlying ethical issues with the construction of pipelines in general, but also entails key concepts including assessing the potential risk and reward of pipeline construction from a financial standpoint.

An image showcasing a few details pertaining to the construction of Line 3, in comparison to the existing pipeline.

Environmentalist groups are horrified at the consequences of a potential oil spill, which would not only be detrimental to Enbridge’s assets, but most importantly the environment. Within this situation, there are two outcomes- one in which Enbridge must accept the unlimited liability of a potential oil spill, or one where they produce significantly more barrels of oil per day. Enbridge is desperately gambling on the latter, ultimately showcasing Milton Freidman’s Shareholder Theory by seeking to maximize profit, and further ignoring the immense backlash received by many environmentalist groups.

Enbridge’s actions can be further analysed through assessing their investment decisions with respect to both long-term and short-term benefits. From a financial standpoint, the transportation of oil is essential to create successful trade relations with other countries, thus the expansion of Enbridge’s Line 3 serves as a long-term financial investment. Its cost of construction, valued at 7.5 billion dollars and multiple years of labor will have a great trade-off; by creating significantly more barrels of oils per day, Enbridge will be able to provide petroleum shippers and refineries in the region with greater amounts, to create greater profit. As great as the long-term may sound, Enbridge is currently suffering short-term effects including heavy protest from locals.

However, the outcry of many environmentalist groups raises the question: Realistically, what are Enbridge’s options?

An image showcasing ongoing protests as a result of pipeline construction.

The current safest means of transporting oil is through pipelines, by using strong steel to minimize any potential incident. Alternatives including railroads have a greater margin for error; it is vital to acknowledge that “as environmentally disastrous and common as pipeline leaks are, the alternative may be worse.” In a world where certain trade relations rely on oil, I believe that companies and governments must be willing to take the risk, of-course, whilst taking heavy precautions.

At the end of it all, if Enbridge succeeds in their public hearing, they could find themselves with deep pockets. However, the construction of pipelines is almost rarely a two-way street- rising tension may very well ensure that Line 3 never sees the day.

Word Count: 448

The world of business revolves around certain significant objectives which companies strive to achieve. Companies have a heavy burden on their shoulders and can consequently find themselves in ethical debacles attempting to simultaneously fulfill consumer, employer and financier satisfaction.

Such is the case with one of the world’s largest and most prosperous technological companies, Apple Inc. In a recent article, Apple has been accused of mandating a policy of planned obsolescence, which brings into question the concept of business ethics, and the social responsibilities of a company.

As conveyed by Jonathan Sterne in his article, Apple’s removal of the headphone jack for their latest iPhone model (1.1) can be described as “innovation to keep people buying the same things in new packages.” To elaborate, Apple has transformed the universal standard of a headphone jack admired by all consumers and companies alike for decades, replacing it with a Bluetooth alternative which achieves a marginally superior sound output, at a significantly higher cost. By doing so, thousands of consumer headphones have been rendered obsolete, giving us the notion that Apple deliberately wants us to spend more on their newest product. The colossal backlash from the consumer community can be used to demonstrate the consequences of a company that does not conform to all stakeholders, in this case, consumers.

(1.1) An image showcasing the loss of the headphone jack on the iPhone 7

Most importantly, Sterne mentions that Apple themselves have explicitly admitted to setting a three-year life expectancy rate to their notorious iPhone, raising the question: Is your iPhone doomed for failure the moment you purchase it?

This ethical question can be analysed through a comparison of shareholder and stakeholder theory, explored by Milton Freidman and Edward Freeman. According to Freidman, the only social responsibility of a business is to maximize profits to its shareholders, whilst abiding by the law. Here, parallels can be drawn between Freidman’s stance and Apple’s value-based management. By setting a three-year life expectancy rate to iPhones, removing the headphone jack and intentionally slowing down previous iOS software upon the release of newer models (1.2), Apple is tugging at the sleeves of consumers to make constant expenditure on their products for shameless profit.

(1.2) Statistical Analysis of Apple’s Planned Obsolesence

Is Apple technically considered to be in the right for doing so? Freeman, and myself included, would argue they are not. All stakeholders working together is “what makes capitalism tick”. For a business to be successful, a company must “create value for customers, suppliers, employees, communities and financiers.” It is undeniable that Apple does not conform to this theory- it puts its profits first, observed through the removal of the headphone jack and deliberate sabotage of its older models.

To all future consumers- I encourage you all to delve into Apple’s intentions, and ensure your money is spent wisely. You may be purchasing from a company which violates business ethics, plunging the free market into peril.

Word Count: 444

Dimitrije Gacic