From http://goo.gl/NlnfGB

Imagine getting ranked for your company performance, and then being fired if you are under a certain performance level among your colleagues. Companies like Yahoo or Microsoft use these methods to manage their human resources, as discussed in this recent Economist article titled “Ranked and Yanked”.

In Comm 101, we learned about how to manage employees to get the best quality work and efficiency from them. The old, general belief is that “intimidation” is the greatest motivator for work; similar to how corporal punishment was used in schools to motivate children to study harder. However, like school systems, businesses have transitioned from “intimidation” to “incentives”.

Providing lots of employee benefits and making their time at work enjoyable and stress-free is the best way to obtain maximum efficiency from employees. By making employees happy and excited to actually be at work, it creates a positive organizational culture, which creates lots of benefits for companies. For example, if your customer relations staff are generally always positive, they’ll respond to customers with an enthusiastic attitude!

However, as the Economist article points out, this “rank and yank” system is mainly used for large firms that hire a plethora of staff and need a way to “filter out” unproductive employees.

Still, I believe that a “rank and yank” system disrupts an organization’s culture, which dramatically harms a business.

From http://goo.gl/VMvAd1

Recently, a fellow Comm 101 student, Michael Wong wrote a blog about how Pirate Joe’s business model is unethical because they are simply “stealing” Trader Joe’s products and selling them in Canada. You can check out his blog here!

In the entrepreneurship class, we learned that companies can have “vitamin” or “pain-killer” products/services. In Pirate Joe’s perspective, they are filling the need of Trader Joe’s products in Canada, so they could be considered a pain-killer.

Thus, this raises an interesting question: Can companies harm other companies to better suit the needs of society? Let’s look at the case between Netflix and Blockbuster. Netflix created a media-streaming platform that better met the needs of customers (more convenient, expanded choices, less expensive) in terms of entertainment. By doing this, they essentially eliminated Blockbuster from the entertainment market because borrowing DVDs became futile and inconvenient. Was this unethical for Netflix to do? I’d say no, because business is about serving society; if a company offers better products/services than an existing firm, it’s not unethical, it’s simply competition. I realize this is a bit different from Trader Joe’s situation, but still proves the idea that it is not unethical to risk another country to better serve society.

With this utilitarian framework mind, I believe companies can put other companies at risk, if they serve a greater benefit for society.

From http://goo.gl/V3UXXu

Penelope Trunk, a well-known blogger for start-ups wrote a blog titled, “Your Biggest Barrier To Starting A Business”.

In this blog, she identifies finding “a great partner” as the greatest barrier for launching a start-up.

I definitely agree that trying to seek a reliable partner, whether the partner provides capital, advice, or simply positive morale, is usually the make-or-break of start-ups.

However, I think one of the greatest obstacles for a person to truly commit themselves to a start-up is risking their careers. A person could have the best social connections and have investors, but if that person can’t convince him/herself to throw away everything they have, there’s no point.

Many start-ups fail, and it’s difficult for many people to quit their jobs and take stakeholders’ capital to launch businesses that could be the next Facebook or join a graveyard filled with failed start-ups.

For some people, taking this risk is easier because some people may not have much to lose. For others, they have their family’s welfare, children’s college funds, financial debt, and so on, all on the line. Once a person is able to 100% believe in his or her business, and allow that commitment to drive their business, then they are past the most difficult step of starting a business.

From http://goo.gl/0lr04R

Twitter’s stocks will be locked up in a birdcage for almost half a year. After a very successful IPO launch, Twitter announced a “181 day lock-up period for its shares”.

What does this mean for investors? In some ways, this move may not be the best method for delivering confidence to its shareholders. The fact that Twitter has constrained shareholders from selling stocks may indirectly display a lack of confidence from Twitter; the company does not want shareholders to leave Twitter in the case that share prices drop. I know if I had shares in Twitter, I would not feel at ease about having to hold Twitter shares for 181 days despite how the market is doing.

However, a finance professor at the University of Florida argues that this should provide confidence because it shows “insiders are not going to be dumping shares at the first opportunity.” From this view, I can understand why Twitter would have such a long lock-up period. After the failure of Facebook’s IPO launch, people may not feel very safe with a giant volatile social media firm.

Still, the best method of keeping its shareholders would be to show sustainable stock prices, not simply locking-up the shareholders.