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.