I was a 15 year old when I first seen the movie The Wolf of Wall Street. At the time,  I was fascinated by the movie due to the glamour of his lifestyle and riches for at the time I did not question whether his behaviour was ethical or not. Revisiting the film as an OB student,  the unethical practices of how Jordan Belfort got his riches became prevalent.

Martin Scorsese’s film was based on the real life of Jordan Belfort. He made his riches by selling fraudulent securities in a pump and dump scam and by doing so, he amassed a huge fortune in a small period of time. A pump and dump scam is “a scheme that attempts to boost the price of a stock through recommendations based on false, misleading or greatly exaggerated statements”. Because the firm usually holds stock in the company before, they sell the shares at the inflated price which makes the firm rich but the customers lose their money.  Belfort became rich at the expense of his clients, many of whom were ordinary, working-class people his firm cold-called. The finance industry in the 80’s relied heavily on the large grey-area of the law, allowing them to get away easier with this unethical behaviour.

Though Jordan Belfort made “over $200 million” from selling fraudulent securities, we have to give credit where credit is due. He was able to build up Stratton Oakmont from a small boiler room trading firm to an anchor in Wall Street with “over 1000 employees”. He was able to expand his company so quickly because he was able to satisfy his employee’s extrinsic and intrinsic needs. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, “people are motivated to achieve certain needs and that some needs take precedence over others”. The needs, listed in order that need to be fulfilled first, are physiological needs, security needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization. He was able to satisfy his employees’ extrinsic needs through the high commission his model allowed them to have. And he was able to provide a sense of purpose to his employees through his gift of motivating others with his speeches which fulfilled their higher needs. He tells his employees to “deal with your problems by becoming rich” which gives them the purpose of accruing as much wealth as possible. By satisfying all of his employees’ needs Jordan Belfort was able to build his own empire.

References:

http://time.com/104734/jordan-belfort-real-wolf-of-wall-street/

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_74.htm

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The Wolf of Wall Street: The True Story

Google is one of the top destinations for college students to work after they graduate and they are consistently ranked one of the top places to work at. According to Fortune Magazine, “Google/Alphabet is the No. 1 place to work for the seventh time in 10 years”, and for good reason. They seem to have found the perfect balance between employee satisfaction and productivity.

Google employees are spoiled. Their head office boasts a free gourmet cafeteria for their employees, free gym membership and intramural sports, and a 3-month leave for employees to give time for them to travel. It is extraordinary how Google is able to offer these services while being able to get their employees to consistently extrapolate new ideas and products.

Google is able to hire the best and brightest minds due to their brand name and their unrivaled work culture. Google receives over 3 million applications and they only hire 7000 employees which gives them an accepting rate of only 0.2 %. Google is able to offer all of these perks to their employees because they hire candidates that are passionate intrinsically motivated. In Google’s terms, they look for employees that embody the quality of “Googelyness”. Bock, a former Google employee, explains what Googleyness is in his book “Work Rules”. An employee embodies Googleyness if he/she enjoys having fun, is intellectually humble, are conscientious and comfortable with ambiguity, and having evidence that courageous risks have been taken in the past.

These employees who have Googleyness are intrinsically motivated. They want to add value to Google by offering creative ideas.  Yes, money is important, but it may not be the primary motivator for these people. Theory Y suggests that employees have an internal desire to do something that interests or challenges them and they look for personal satisfaction in their work.

The best way to get intrinsically motivated people to work productively is to provide an environment for them where they can get their work done happily and stress-free as possible. Because Google recruits the best minds who are intrinsically motivated, they provide all these perks to keep them at the office so they can work longer hours without burning out.

Word Count: 357

Resources:

http://fortune.com/best-companies/

Organizational behaviour: Concepts, Controversies, Applications (4th ed.)

https://www.cleverism.com/google-way-motivating-employees/

Salary is without a doubt one of the biggest deciding factors for an employee to work for a company. However, what may be equally important is the culture within the company which is also known as organizational culture. According to John McLaughlin from study.com, organizational culture is defined as “a system of shared assumptions, values, and beliefs, which governs how people behave in organizations”. Organizational culture encompasses the intended “personality” that employees of the company expresses to their customers.

Organizational culture is important for a company as it sets what the behavioural norm is for employees and how the company intends their customers to view their brand. The Human Resources department is responsible for hiring potential employees that will reflect the company’s culture. Therefore, when choosing to hire potential candidates for their respective companies, Human Resources does not solely look at a person’s merits and qualifications, but they also look at a candidate’s personality to see if it encompasses the company’s values and culture. We can see the degree of importance companies hold their cultures on their websites. Most career pages on company websites include their core values to find the most suitable candidates for their company. For example, on Southwest Airline’s career page, they outline their company values which are to have: a Warrior’s Spirit, a Servant’s Heart, and a Fun LUV-ing attitude.

“A Culture of ‘LUV’ at Southwest Airlines (Part 1)” is a blog written by Max Chopovsky from Chicago Creative Space and he discusses how Southwest Airline’s culture of a fun-luving attitude is vital to their success. Their culture has made the airline rated as having one of the best customer service and consistently landing on the Best Place to Work and Most Admired Company list. The culture at Southwest Airlines allows employees to share their fun personality at work which in turn enhances the customer experience. Southwest Airlines is well-known for their hilarious safety briefings which is made possible through the encouragement of having a fun loving attitude.

Sources

1. http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-organizational-culture-definition-characteristics.html
2. https://www.southwest.com/html/about-southwest/careers/culture.html
3. http://chicagocreativespace.com/a-culture-of-luv-at-southwest-airlines/
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuP6-CUR0U4

On October 27, 2016, Twitter announced that they will be discontinuing Vine. For those that are unfamiliar with the popular social media app, Vine is a short-form video sharing service where users can share six-second videos that play on a continuous loop. Vine was founded in 2012, and in its 4 year lifespan it has accumulated over 200 million users. The app owed its success to content creators who captured interesting moments of their lives, made various sketches, parodies of trends, etc. It was a shock to me when I first found out about the news because of Vine’s heavy cultural impact in our generation.

Fellow COMM101 blogger Suprahbe Ballary’s post, “Growth vs. Sustainability”, explains the importance of companies to adapt new technology to their products and services in order to maximize productivity and stay competitive. I could not agree more. Vine’s failure is a testament that companies must keep up with their consumer’s desires and strive to gain new competitive advantages.

Although there were several problems that led to Vine’s downfall, the most prominent issue that they all fall under was their inability to adapt to changing users’ desires. McGrath’s Transient Advantage Theory explains how Vine’s stagnant approach to their service led to their demise. The Transient Advantage Theory states that a company must constantly adapt to volatile customer needs by always looking for a new competitive advantage over competitors. This especially applies to the social media industry because of the consumer’s unquenchable thirst for new content to satisfy their boredom.

The first issue that Vine faced was that the producers of content felt they were not being compensated for their work. These “Vine Stars” generated a lot of traffic for the app by amassing billions of views on their videos. DeStorm Power, a prominent Viner who had over 6 million followers, explains in a video below that despite their contributions to the app’s success, Vine did not monetize their content or provide support to content creators for more opportunities. As a result, many Viners chose to shift their focus to other platforms which did financially incentivize their partners, such as YouTube.

In 2012, Vine was the predominant social media application for sharing short videos. However, other social media apps caught on and included video sharing as one of their services. For example, Instagram made it possible for users to share 15 second videos and with that, Vine lost its unique competitive advantage.

Instead of expanding to possible new features, Vine remained stagnant and stuck to their guns. With other social media apps, taking over their market share and content creators shifting to other platforms, the app died on the Vine.

Word Count: 442

References

http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/28/13456208/why-vine-died-twitter-shutdown

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/25-things-know-vine/87383/

https://hbr.org/2013/06/transient-advantage

https://blogs.ubc.ca/suprabheballary/

Apple is undoubtedly the market leader in the the smartphone industry with the iPhone but they should watch their back because Google is hot on their heels. Google is stepping foot into the smartphone industry with their newest phone, the Google Pixel. There is no better time for Google introduce their new flagship phone as the market runner-up, the Samsung 7 Note, literally burst into flames, having “caught fire as many as 112 times after only one month on sale” (Hollister) ^[1]. The Pixel has the potential to take the number-one spot and cause a shock wave to the smartphone industry.

What the Google Pixel is expected to look like. Image link: http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/259412-image/google-pixel-and-pixel-xl.jpg

The Pixel’s specifications and new features certainly make it a candidate to be the iPhone’s biggest rival in 2017. The Pixel’s specifications not only match but in some cases outweigh their Apple counterparts. The Pixel competes with the iPhone 7 with a better camera, a longer lasting battery, and a higher resolution screen ^[2]. New features of the Pixel include the Daydream, a virtual reality experience made possible by the Pixel’s ultra HD screen; and Google Assistant, a voice-activated digital assistant similar to Siri.

Google was traditionally a tech company that focused exclusively on making software. They are most well-known for their software services such as Google Search, YouTube, and Gmail. The advantage of working solely in software is that marginal costs are thin which in turn gives the company a higher profit margin. However since 2002, Google has begun to develop hardware as well ^[3]. It may seem counter-intuitive for Google to move into making hardware but it was a necessary move for them because they had to find a way to extend their software services to their customers.

Google’s ventures into the hardware industry is an example of the company using a vertical integration strategy in the forward direction. Previously, Google had to rely on established hardware companies such as Samsung and Apple to make their services more accessible to users. These hardware companies have power over Google because they “get to decide which software comes pre-loaded onto their devices” (Vara) ^[4]. By making their own devices, Google eliminates the external hardware companies and is able to effectively offer users the full extent of their software services through their own hardware.

In Apple vs. Samsung: Competitive strategy ^[5], written by fellow COMM 101 blogger Makeda Adefris, she explains about how vertical integration can create a competitive strategy for tech companies. Samsung goes backwards in the supply chain and spends “a generous amount of money investing on […] capital expenditures” (Adefris) while Google goes forward in the supply chain to increase accessibility to users.

Word Count: 443

References

1. https://www.cnet.com/news/why-is-samsung-galaxy-note-7-exploding-overheating/

2. http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/google-pixel-price-release-date-8869704

3. https://www.google.com/about/company/history/

4. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/googles-software-sell-for-hardware

5. https://blogs.ubc.ca/makeday/2016/10/02/apple-vs-samsung-competitive-strategy/

If there is one word to describe Kanye West’s place in the music industry, it would be legendary. He has used his influential status to not only build a brand for himself but to expand to new business ventures. Not only is he selling records and performing on world tours, Kanye West has expanded his brand by stepping foot in the fashion industry and starting his own clothing line.

Kanye West started his music career by producing instrumental beats and eventually soared to fame as he began rapping. He has won a total of 21 Grammy Awards making him one of the most decorated artists of his time. Through his thriving music career, he gained capital and worldwide fame and like many successful artists, he started his own record label, GOOD Music. However, what differentiated Kanye from his fellow artists was his vision to create something larger, outside of producing and making music.

Equipped with capital from his music money and the worldwide “Kanye West” brand, West pursued his passion of fashion. He is most well known for his collaborating with Adidas in 2013 to create the luxury YEEZY line of streetwear and footwear. The sales for his YEEZY line were extremely successful and Adidas claims that each sneaker that West has released has “played a major role in propelling Adidas to the most popular sneaker brand”. Kanye West has not only established himself as a music mogul but he is leaving a mark on the fashion industry as well.

Now in the fourth season, the YEEZY line continues to be a well known brand. Equipped with his name and business acumen, Kanye West will definitely continue to be a successful fashion mogul as he gains more experience in the fashion industry.

Word Count: 290

References

http://fashionista.com/2016/03/adidas-2015-earnings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/02/13/nyfw-what-kanye-west-gets-right-about-fashion-and-what-he-gets-wrong/?tid=a_inl

In private sectors all over the world, the primary goal of a company is to maximize its profits. However, in the pursuit of profit, companies may take actions that harm their surrounding societies. Therefore, a question arises: if maximizing profits leads to a detriment in the well-being of communities, to what extent do businesses have a social responsibility while attempting to maximize its profits? Through examining Milton Friedman’s article, “The Social Responsibility of Businesses Is to Increase Its Profits”, and R. Edward Freeman’s explanation of Stakeholder’s Theory, it becomes prevalent that the ethical role of a business is to simply strive for profit while maintaining long term goals to thrive in the community they are in.

As long as a company has long-term goals to be successful in its society, it is fulfilling its social responsibility. A business’ role in a free-enterprise system is to maximize its profits and by doing so it benefits the society it belongs to. According to Stakeholder Theory, a business must create value for customers, suppliers, employees, communities, and financiers in order to be successful. If any of these stakeholders’ interests are not met, the business will collapse only by a matter of time. Therefore, a manager or entrepreneur’s duty for running a successful business is to align the interests of the listed stakeholders.  

In “A Seismic Shift in How People Eat”, Hans Taparia and Pamela Koch explain that big food manufacturers are reacting to the changing eating habits of consumers by “cleaning up their ingredient labels, acquiring healthier brands and coming out with a prodigious array of new products” [1]. Because consumers are opting for healthier foods, major food companies must react to the consumers’ healthier tastes to stay competitive for the long term. These food companies are spending enormous sums of money to create healthier products. For example, in an effort to promote a healthier brand, “General Mills purchased the organic pasta maker Annie’s Homegrown for $820 million — a price that was over four times the company’s revenues” [1]. This goes to show that companies, by pursuing to remain competitive to the changing marketplace, already contribute to social responsibility. This ties into the concept of Stakeholder Theory because companies must compromise their profits to financiers in order to balance the interests of consumers and communities.
The best way for a company to create profit is to aim to thrive in the long term because it is better for a company to have steady profits over a long period of time versus having a dynamic but short life span. This requires businesses not only to focus on profits, but to be sensitive to all five parties in Shareholder Theory.

Word Count: 443

1. The New York Times

   Hans Taparia – Pamela Koch – http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/opinion/a-seismic-shift-in-how-people-eat.html