https://www.pinterest.com/pin/344243965249819189/

In this day of age, it’s a commonality for business executives to place values on every possible aspect of their business on everything except the daunting aspects that would increase their immediate costs. A great example would be the lack of focus on employee treatment and work environment. Obviously, immediately improving these factors would lead to increase in costs for businesses, which detriments the gold to these businesses, which are profits. However, perhaps it is time for businesses to change this way of doing things, and look at the hard facts of the importance of good employee treatment. 

In an article written by Jena Mcgregor for the Washington Post, it is mentioned that ‘ More Americans ranked workers above all other issues or stakeholders — things like customers, products, the environment or communities — when it comes to determining a business’s behavior.‘ Obviously, the way consumers determine a business’ ethical practices and integrity hugely relies on the satisfaction of the employee of said businesses. And as we learned in class, brand positioning, or rather the question of how consumers view a business plays a major role in their consumption decisions. Therefore, it would be wise for businesses to focus on the factor of employee satisfaction – just like Zappos, a company that was talked about in our lecture about Human Resources, and widely praised for its exceptional employee treatment. 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjR_47v7brXAhUW6mMKHfsEAqgQjRwIBw&url=%2Furl%3Fsa%3Di%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dimages%26cd%3D%26cad%3Drja%26uact%3D8%26ved%3D0ahUKEwjR_47v7brXAhUW6mMKHfsEAqgQjRwIBw%26url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.groupon.com%252Fcoupons%252Fstores%252Fzappos.com%26psig%3DAOvVaw2w4dV5JYv97FqIyQIyKW2R%26ust%3D1510638703404902&psig=AOvVaw2w4dV5JYv97FqIyQIyKW2R&ust=1510638703404902

Zappos is a company known to put their values on having ‘purpose’, and according to them ‘satisfied employees are a crucial part of a purposeful company‘. So, Zappos ensures that their employees are satisfied by setting aside for employees to do fun things such as Oreo eating competitions, electric car races, etc… In doing so Zappos is positioning themselves as a company that provides exceptional care for their workers, and is ALSO providing grounds for not only ‘smarter employees, but for more social employees who take more pride in their collective work’. So, in the end Zappos is not only appealing to the majority of Americans who place their value priorities on employee treatment, but is also a company that is filled with high productivity workers. In addition, my classmate Joshua Ting wrote an interesting blog post regarding the benefits of starting a business with a friend, and mentions that ”people are 12% more productive when they are in a happy environment and 10% less productive in an unhappy environment.  That’s a 22% difference in productivity! ”.  

Besides the fact that the MAJORITY of Americans view employee treatment at utmost importance, it also provides numerous benefits such a higher productivity in workers. So, to all you profit-maximizing businesses neglecting their employee satisfaction to cut costs, how’s that for an increase in profit?  

Entrepreneur.com, a popular blog that posts regularly about things relevant to entrepreneurs posted this article in the beginning of October this year: 7 Patient Strategies for Growing Your Business Online. The reason that this article piqued my interest is that I have recently been very into Shark Tank, a show about passionate entrepreneurs trying to go far in their business endeavors by pitching their products and ideas to well known and successful entrepreneurs in hopes that they will get an investment and partnership, and observing the correlated qualities of failed products.

These are the seven points that were made:

• 1. Stop copying other entrepreneurs.
• 2. Be clear about who your core audience is.
• 3. Keep it simple.
• 4. Don’t rely exclusively social media.
• 5. Focus on what’s important.
• 6. Don’t be afraid to charge a fair price.
• 7. Keep pushing towards your goals.

A good example of a failed product on Shark Tank that did not follow the guidelines of a successful product would be in one segment where two doctors introduced their app, Rolodoc. Rolodoc is a social media app designed to be used by doctors and their patients. However, the Sharks argued that it wasn’t a real service or business and was overly complicated with complicated terminology and slang. In hindsight, they have broken many of the fundamental successes of a successful product/service.

Mark Cuban (Shark) congratulating Rolodac entrepreneurs on having the worst pitch for a product. http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/551eadceeab8ea3e75a43755-480/mark-cuban-shark-tank-rolodoc.jpg

Firstly, they did not keep their app simple. The amount of overcomplicated slang and new terminology that a user of Rolodoc had to learn was ridiculous. For example, messages instead of being called messages was called a ‘Blimb’, and the homepage was known as ‘The Waiting Room’. The learning curve to use the app was simply unappealing for consumers to even consider using. As the article states, ‘’Don’t fall victim to information overload because it can easily keep you from making progress’’.

Relating to the complexity of the app, the second problem was that the developers did not exactly have a clear purpose for their app. The blog post states, ‘’Learn the biggest struggles your target audience is facing. Create products and services that help solve those problems. Rinse and repeat’’. However, all it offered was a messaging service and a homepage where Doctors could post their schedules. It was ultimately an over complicated Facebook only available to patients and doctors which accentuates another point from the article that you shouldn’t copy other entrepreneurs. Why would consumers use this app when they could just use a platform that they’re already comfortable with?

Rolodoc Logo
http://gazettereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1-7.jpg

Evidently, a successful business that will flourish and grow will take advantage of all the guidelines stated by the blog post, however, even a couple of mishaps will prove to be detrimental to the entire success of the product.

The idea of implementing anonymous peer reviews, and the whole notion that it would be beneficial to students in terms of improving team dynamic and efficiency did not sit easy with me. In fact, I believe it does the opposite of that. The way I view anonymous peer evaluations can be modelled by a soccer ball not only missing its goal but backfiring and scoring on its own goal. Of course, having anonymity in evaluating your peers has its ups, I am not denying that, however, when looking at the bigger picture, having anonymous peer evaluations simply is counter intuitive to the whole entire point of providing students the path to the most efficient, most authentic team experience possible.

First off, I do agree that in some respects, anonymous peer evaluations can be beneficial when it comes to working in a team. As stated in Class 2, anonymous peer reviews are a counter-measure to things such as social loafing, where certain individuals would put more energy into non-work related during important times such as team meetings. It also allows evaluators (professors) to get an accurate evaluation, as members wouldn’t be afraid of any social backlash or awkwardness. In these cases, anonymous peer evaluations certainly do their job.

Visual interpretation of two team member struggling to one up another

http://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/every-man-for-himself-vector-id534305796?k=6&m=534305796&s=170667a&w=0&h=_rVjw6lrUaAsSGZ_w03rG_vEBCa5P1ydVufIuf4JT3g=

Now, here is why I believe that the stated intentions of the anonymous peer evaluations backfires completely. Defined in class 2, a team is ‘’ [a] small number of members with a mutual goal, [that acts] as cohesive unit’’. If a team cannot be cohesive then they simply won’t work as a team. However, when putting the pressure on each member to perform to get a good evaluation from their peers a ‘me vs. them’ mentality begins to formulate. Instead of each individual focusing on the well-being and efficiently of the team, they are more inclined to focus on themselves in order to achieve the highest mark on their evaluations that they can. This alone puts a strong obstacle on the goal to be cohesive as the team is already provided the foundation to be divided. In addition, with the evaluation in mind, group members are more oppressed in what they choose to say. They may begin to think ‘’ if I openly critique him/her, I’ll receive a lower mark ‘’. In class 10 on Performance Management, we were told how valuable good criticism is, yet again, the anonymous peer evaluation proves to be a worthy obstacle in achieving something that is heavily encouraged and proven to be effective.

To sum it up, anonymous peer evaluations do not improve the dynamic or efficiency of the team by providing an obstacle for teams to become an cohesive unit.

Patagonia Made $10 Million On Black Friday And Donated Every Cent To Save The Environment

Patagonia, a brand based upon its premium outdoor clothing and gear had projected that it would hit $2 million in sales on Black Friday, but instead made $10 million. The company has announced that they will donate 100% of this income to charity. Patagonia brands itself as an environmentally and socially responsible company, and in relation to this, it plans to donate to “hundreds of grassroots environmental organizations.” In the point of view of the typical business mindset of maximizing profit, this may seem to make entirely no sense. This raises the question of how Patagonia, a brand in a heavily competitive industry can stand its grounds with its competitors.  However, after close inspection of the core strength of Patagonia, that is, their strong branding, they are still relevant competitors seeking to maximize profit.

First off, a quick look at their website would lead you to two observations. First, their prices are insanely high in comparison to a cheaper brand of outdoor clothing. A standard shelled jacket that would cost ~$80 to $199 for reputable brands like Columbia Sportswear and Bench, goes for $529 by Patagonia. Secondly, you would notice that they are heavily rooted in their values to be environmentally and socially responsible. In fact, their mission statement is: Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis. This is where their strengths lie – to establish themselves as a socially and environmentally responsible brand to appeal to an array of customers that are willing to pay more for the brand. Because of their branding and amazing showing of business ethics, their products although priced considerably higher than its competitors are still in a competitive demand for profit. If not for this core strength, Patagonia would be guaranteed to make minimal sales if they were to stay at the prices they are now. Therefore, by donating 100% of their profits to charity they are reinforcing their strength in brand and purpose, making them more desirable in the eyes of consumers which allows Patagonia to raise their prices. One quick look at the opinion of the people of reddit can affirm this. User monsieurpommefrites states ‘An company with actual integrity. In the year of our lord 2016. Consider me a future customer.’

Of course, it is foolish to say that Patagonia only instills their values of being a socially and environmentally friendly business to maximize profit. Instead, it should be viewed as a wonderful business plan and strategy that maximizes both business ethics and profit at the same time.

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

Capitalism has allowed businesses to have immense power and influence over the lives of citizens globally. In fact, business now plays a significantly larger role in our daily lives than does government. Not only that, but in upholding business ethics, businesses are maintaining trust from the public which is an important factor for shareholders and investors. Therefore, business ethics, known as the moral code that all businesses should follow, must be held in upmost importance. Otherwise, not only will major detrimental effects ensue in society, but the trust that will be broken between the consumer and business will take a big toll on the profits of the business itself. The effects of Mylan’s absurd raise in the price of the Epi-pen showcases this well. Epi-pen, which is owned by the company Mylan, is a life-saving medication used when someone is experiencing a severe allergic reaction, known as anaphylaxis. With at least 1.6 percent of Americans… suffering from anaphylaxis it is a widely necessary medical product. However, Mylan increased the price of the Epi-pen by 400 percent over the past decade, causing it to be 600$ for a two-pack. As a result, many people have been suffering. For example, Dr. Purvi Parikh, an allergist and immunologist that mentions: “Not only have I seen it save lives, but I’ve seen the opposite happen, of when an EpiPen wasn’t available and both children and adults passed away.”. Outrageously, pharmaceutical industry experts estimate that [EpiPen]… cost around $30 to produce.

http://alphanewsmn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Epipen.jpg

What Mylan has done with the Epi-pen pricing is against the principal of business ethics, and the price Mylan has been paying outlines the importance of following it. First, Mylan has gotten an enormous amount of negative exposure over the past few years. This negative exposure has given Mylan a bad reputation, even to the point where politicians such as Hillary Clinton have commented on their malice. For this reason, stockholders for Mylan have been wary and Mylan’s shares have decreased immensely in value. In it’s efforts to maximize profits by going against ethics, Mylan has achieved the opposite effect. Furthermore, the amount of suffering that people have gone through because of Mylan cannot be understated. As said by Dr.Purvi Parikh, there have been deaths of those without an Epi-pen, which could have been prevented if Mylan had raised their product to absurd costs. Human beings are priceless, yet, the breach of business ethics has caused money to be valued over humans which is completely absurd.

Mylan’s blunder in breaching business ethics has displayed the importance of maintaining the moral code, not only for themselves as a company seeking to maximize profits, but for the well-being of consumers who are priceless human beings.