Re: “Sudden death and succession: any company’s worst nightmare”‘ by Andrew Hill on Financial Times blogs.

In this course, we have talked about starting a business and how it maintains profitability through sustainable strategies. However, we haven’t really gone over what happens when a main figure, such as the CEO, is no longer part of the company. This is what Andrew Hill talks about in his blog post, with the issue being a sudden death of the CEO.

This blog caught my eye because it talks about a topic that does not really come up in the daily practices of a business, but is a very real situation that could happen at any time. That being said, succession planning should definitely be important in company discussions. However, Hill mentions that many companies do not have an emergency succession plan in place, or they have a hard time implementing it when the situation arises.

Tragedies like the death of the CEO would definitely take a toll on the company’s performance. Unfortunately, the rest of the market does not stop for one loss. Like it says in this article, losing a figure, such as the CEO, can have consequences on the company’s stocks, internal operations, and/or relations with other businesses if there isn’t enough communication about their next steps. I think that while events, which will make it hard for a company to stay competitive, will inevitably arise, good decisions can allow the business to recover and become stronger.

Photo: http://mspmentor.net/site-files/mspmentor.net/files/archive/mspmentor.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/msp-succession-plan.jpg

With the advances technology has made in the last century, consumers are now able to get anything they want, from anywhere in the world. Online shopping has taken customers and businesses by storm with the convenience and variety it offers. E-commerce services can be considered a disruptive innovation to retail businesses, seeing as so many people can shop for anything they need online. While online shopping definitely poses a threat to retail stores sales, I think there is still much value to shopping in store, as opposed to shopping online.

Matthew Torres compares in-store and online shopping using customer values, such as availability, variety, price, etc. I am reminded of how we talked in class about different companies of the same industry being pressured by consumer demands. In-store and online shops emphasize the values that they have to offer to shopping experiences (i.e. atmosphere and customer service in-store, and more deals and product variety online). This pretty much leaves the choice to the consumers, depending on their preferences.

I think there is still much value in shopping in-stores, so I don’t consider it outdated at all. In fact, I think that the introduction of online shopping improves my in-store shopping experiences. Looking for what I want online is much more convenient than looking in-stores. So I think in this case, the disruptive innovation did not displace retail stores, but they are able to co-exist and advance the industry.

Photo: http://recommender.strands.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/small.jpg

Investing in a franchise can be a good way for an aspiring business owner to get experience and earn money, with the advantage of having the franchisor’s name attached to the business. However, Patrick Clark argues that franchises actually lose money, rather than earn it. He shows that many franchises were terminated or went out of business, losing money in start-up fees, loyalties and operational expenses. Franchisees incur many costs, and don’t have much say in the brand, but is buying a franchise not worth the risk?

I would say that franchisees aren’t exactly entrepreneurs or intrapreneurs, but have qualities of both. Franchisees invest in their franchise and run it, like an entrepreneur. However, since they have the backing of the franchisor with less risk, they’re also similar to intrapreneurs. That being said, do people buy franchises to help build the franchise, or simply because they want to see profits rise? Perhaps the latter may be most of the franchisees Clark is referring to.

I think one key aspect that franchisees should look into is innovating within the brand. They can have more impact on the franchise and their large investment would overall be more rewarding. However, this means that franchisors should be willing to let franchisees innovate. Buying a franchise can be risky even with the brand already established, but seeing it as more than a way to earn money can make it worth the investment.

Photo: http://www.thecrowdcafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/franchise-logos1.gif

Re: “Hiring Slow and Firing Fast” by Carlene Loughlin.

Post-secondary is a usually time in everyone’s life where they start becoming more independent, including finding internships or jobs. If you have never been interviewed, then your first could be extremely nerve-wracking. And even if you thought you nailed the interview, you still might not get the position, but thought you were the most qualified. However the hiring managers have it hard too.

Carlene mentioned in her post that “the idea that firing… is simply a necessary process to maintain happiness and productivity in the workplace for all involved,” and I agree. It can be easy to take a job rejection personally, but it’s also important to remember that the managers interviewed dozens of candidates and can only choose one or two. On top of that, they also have to be responsible for the new employee(s) when they work, help the existing ones adapt to changes in the workplace, and more. They have to worry about the business as a whole, because if they choose the wrong people,it can affect everyone else in the company.

This reminds me of two questions asked in lectures: “What did Sauder hire you to do?” and “What did you hire Sauder to do?” Employees are a key resource in a business, so the right ones are chosen. If you didn’t get hired right away, then there’s still a chance to find the position that’s right for you.

Photo taken from here.

All businesses have external factors that pose threats on operations, however, industries in natural resources such as mining and forestry face challenges and delays in projects because of relationships with First Nations.

Take Taseko Mining for example. They have proposed their New Prosperity mine, which would take place near Fish Lake, but failed to get the rights to proceed because of environmental risks, and because the First Nations claimed the land as theirs and is used as a tribal park.

Should businesses be allowed to carry on with projects to increase jobs and the GDP, or should the land be preserved in the hands of the indigenous peoples – the ones who are the rightful owners of the land we live on? The issue of land rights is a controversial, yet common one in BC. Our very own UBC sits on Native land, and we proudly recognize this. Of course, it is important to leave certain areas alone, as the land is rightfully theirs, but these companies are able to provide jobs and stimulate the economy.

Personally, I believe that the First Nations should have the say on what goes on their lands. However, the operations of industries like mining and forestry are also important to the economy, so there should be limited regions in which they are allowed to proceed with environmentally sound projects.

Photo: http://www.antaresmultienergi.com/wp-content/uploads/indonesia_mining_consult.jpg