Monthly Archives: April 2017

Sasson with the first digital camera

Last week, I had come across an extremely interesting blog post published by the Harvard Business Review and written by Scott Anthony discussing the failure of photography giant Kodak. At one point, Kodak was one of the most powerful companies in the world, dominating the camera market during the era of film. As such, it is hard to believe that the company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012 to soon sell of its patents in order to liquidate. How exactly could this have happened?

Anthony describes their failure simply as “myopia”, the company failed to adapt to the changing market and was blinded by their success (1). In COMM 292, we had discussed the judgement shortcut of overconfidence bias: the tendency to be “overconfident about our abilities” (2). In Kodak’s case, the large amount of overconfidence bias that their management was evident. Steve Sasson, an engineer who once worked at Kodak was the inventor of the first digital camera prototype. He presented management with his product, which then prompted management to invest billions into developing a range of digital cameras. However, the shortsighted management was so concerned about matching the performance of their current film cameras instead of “embracing the simplicity of digital” (1).

Simply put, Kodak had analyzed the situation partially correct, by investing into a product that would eventually displace film cameras. However, they were unaware of their overconfidence in their current product, as they attempted to match their film cameras’ performance. This led to them producing a sub-optimal product and losing millions of dollars. Eventually, Kodak’s inability to fully adapt to the digital market led to their demise.

This does leave an important lesson for future companies regarding overconfidence and shortsightedness. While basing your change on future technologies, one should be able to approach the situation in a new light. Essentially, such as in the Four D’s of Appreciative Inquiry, companies should visualize “what might be”. It simply is not good enough to grab a new idea and add it onto a preexisting success, there must be more thought behind the process of change.

1. Langton, Robbins, Judge, Organizational Behaviour, 7th edition, p. 419.
2. Anthony, Scott. “Kodak’s Downfall Wasn’t About Technology.” Harvard Business Review. N.p., 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 02 Apr. 2017.

A few weeks ago, I sat in a meeting for one of the various clubs that I am a part of. This meeting was very typical, each role discussing the work they had done in the past week, and putting forward any items that may be of attention. When the roles behind marketing brought up their current projects, I quietly sat and nodded in agreement to their ideas as were the rest of the group. However, I felt as if their implementation plan could have been improved upon with a few adjustments. I felt as if I was just a first year representative, and he knew better as the Vice President of Marketing. More importantly, I was a victim of groupthink. 

Groupthink “describes situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views” (1). In this particular case, I was exactly conforming to team’s agreement on the idea, without expressing my own. Consequently, I was not playing to the strengths of the group decision making process. Groups are strong in bringing more input into the decision making process, opening up “the opportunity to consider more approaches and alternatives” (2). It is important to note that I might have not been the only other member that exhibited silence at that time. Other members may have felt the same way but had stuck to conformity for the same reasons, thus further perpetuating weaknesses within the group. So how do groups play to their strengths and avoid groupthink?

In an article by Dr. Ben Dattner, he views a case study that fields potential solutions to groupthink within a team. He highlights former U.S. President Robert Kennedy’s initiative in playing devil’s advocate throughout the Cuban Missile Crisis, “vigorously arguing against contemplated courses of action in order to force the group to discuss and debate the contingent merits of different strategies” (3). As such, Dattner highlights the importance that leaders should take in order to force further discussion on decisions, might it be through playing devil’s advocate such as Kennedy. This will lead to the increased input that groups look for, being able to formulate a more well-devised plan, and minimizing the hindrances of groupthink.

1. Langton, Robbins, Judge, Organizational Behaviour, 7th edition, p. 423.
2. Langton, Robbins, Judge, Organizational Behaviour, 7th edition, p. 422.
3. Ph.D., Ben Dattner, Gwen Dewar Ph.D., Alex Lickerman M.D., and Nando Pelusi Ph.D. “Preventing “Groupthink”.” Psychology Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2017.

Last summer, I had the opportunity to work as a sales associate at a large retailer. During my training phase, I was taught in depth on how to present an effective sales pitch to a potential customer. This meant communicating only the truths pertaining to the product, and also in regards to the warranty packages that we try to sell as well. The overall goal was to achieve an honest reputation of a retailer in the eyes of customers. Despite this, the company was infamously known to have employees that use cunning tactics in order to make their product and/or warranty more appealing to the customer. It is clear that these employees who do not follow the expected communication procedures may end up damaging the company’s reputation. Why is this the case?

In sales, effective communication is everything. According to Stuart Leung, editor of SalesForce, the goal of a sales pitch is to be able to accurately present information on a product/service, “address[ing] potential sales objections that may come up” (1). However, barriers to communication, which are displayed on a regular basis in retail environments, are the obvious antithesis to that. The most popular ones being used in creating sales pitches include filtering, in where the salesperson will highlight the pros of the product while neglecting the cons, and lying, or sometimes stretching the truth in order to make something appear better than they are not.

While these barriers are often explained in regards to internal communication within a company, it is evident that these can be detrimental in a retail setting. In my experience, I have seen countless product returns and negative reviews of our business. This is because the customer would have found out at some point that the salesperson assisting them with the product exhibited one of these  barriers to communication, and did not end up purchasing the product that was advertised to them.

Conclusively, for businesses to maintain an honest reputation, they have to go beyond just training their staff to practice effective communication. Businesses, such as the one in context, have to be able to maintain these expectations in communication by monitoring staff more closely and letting staff know that exhibiting these barriers cannot be tolerated.

1. “How to Make a Good Sales Pitch in 7 Steps.” Salesforce Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2017.