Monthly Archives: September 2014

I found Chris Brogan’s blog titled “Find Intensity” very interesting and relatable. He describes what intensity really is, and the difference between doing, and doing with intensity. Included is also a video of the famous body builder and inspirational speaker CT Fletcher.

Chris explains how the realization of intensity, and performing with it, can change things for the better. He emphasizes two things in particular: stick to the plan and work with intensity. How does this relate to me and business?

I am a wrestler. Wrestling is the most intense sport both physically and mentally. Wrestlers understand toughness, the grind, and pain, but above all, wrestlers know intensity. The training is unlike anything else, and just as Chris put it, you don’t know it until you’ve done it. Rather than a sport, most wrestlers identify wrestling as a lifestyle. The dietary changes to keep a minimal body fat percentage, the daily 6:00am jogs, the weekly trips to the States for competition, and the weight cuts that can literally put you inches from death are just some examples of the lifestyle changes necessary to succeed in the sport. There is no fame. There is no million dollar contract. At the end of the day, it’s just you and your love of the sport.

Two Wrestlers Locked in an Intense Match

Wrestling has certainly taught me a lot about myself and made me a tougher person, but only after reading Chris’ blog do I realize the true nature of intensity. If you love something, intensity need not be forced. Rather, it should come naturally. This leads to dedication and passion, which in turn leads to success.

This is very applicable in the business world. Instead of focusing on the grades and getting my degree, I can work with intensity because I show up to class everyday eager to learn and better myself. And I don’t just mean from the books, but also from the people. And we see time after time, intensity and passion fosters success.

For the Chris’ blog post, click here.

Image source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrestling

SeaWorld’s shares are, yet again, in massive decline. The decline is even more so than what analysts had predicted. This trend comes as no surprise to some. After CNN’s release of the film documentary “Blackfish” in 2013, a controversial documentary that revealed the questionable treatment of orcas, SeaWorld’s performance has been seeing a downward slope.

First off, let me say that I care about our earth and the treatment of humans, animals, and living things on it, however, I have always questioned if “Corporate Social Responsibility” made sense from a business perspective. I do believe that a firm’s responsibility should be to the maximization of profits. It does seem like there’s a dilemma in my beliefs (as social responsibility is not always a by-product of profit maximization).

People Protesting Seaworld’s Animal Cruelty

I used to believe that both of these ideals could magically work themselves out. Over the years, I have realized this is not always the case. Rather, my belief has now extended to something in between involving another party, the government, as the rule setters. This recognizes that firms are best at maximizing profits by meeting consumer demands (responsibility to shareholders and consumers), while the government is best at finding something in the public’s greatest interest (social responsibility to stakeholders and society).

What does this all mean and why does SeaWorld’s performance pleasantly surprise me? Well, the market is generally run by consumers voting with their dollars. It is commonly argued that companies have to take the charge with social responsibility. This is a fine pursuit, yet this always feels slightly artificial in a business sense. SeaWorld’s performance is truly when social responsibility meets profit maximization in the most natural sense. Consumers are dissatisfied with SeaWorld’s treatment of animals, they vote with their dollars, and SeaWorld suffers as a result and faces eventual bankruptcy if they do not change their ways (become socially responsible) to meet consumer wants.

When consumers want change, vote with their dollars, and vote for social responsibility, nature takes its course.

For original article, click here.

Image source: http://www.peta.org/blog/screaming-orca-fated-for-seaworld-urges-public-to-watch-blackfish/

A Dollar General store located in Michigan. (Photo Credits: Wikipedia)

The recent offer made by Dollar General to purchase the Family Dollar company has been turned down, leading to Dollar General’s attempt at a hostile takeover. In the billion dollar war of the dollar stores, Dollar General is now offering $80/share (a $9.1 billion offer), higher than their previous offer of $78.50/share.

The board of directors rejected the most recent offer because of antitrust concerns. These were addressed by Dollar General, offering to sell up to 1500 stores to appease the FTC, and pay $500 million to Family Dollar if the deal goes sour for antitrust reasons.

Are the “antitrust concerns” really as they say they are, or is there an ulterior motive? After all, board of directors often become replaced after hostile takeovers, so they may simply be protecting their jobs by hiding behind the convenient excuse of “antitrust” issues.

Or, are things transparent as they claim? Perhaps they are genuinely concerned for the fate of their shareholders. While this may be the case, the management executives are nonetheless acting as agents of the company, and ultimately, its shareholders (as discussed in Friedman’s article). With shareholders being fairly informed of the risks (unless they have been hiding under a rock), they should be able to determine what to do with their own shares.

So, is a hostile takeover really “hostile”? Perhaps to the board of directors, but not to the shareholders. Business ethics can be confusing, as illustrated in the film, Billy Madison.

For the original article, see this link.

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