“If the UN was fully funded, would we still need social enterprise or Arc?”

The United Nations is a multi-purpose organization that strives to address the many social, economical and environmental issues that plague the world. However, the UN can only do so much on its own, and that is where social entrepreneurship, and subsequently, programs like the Arc Initiative, steps in. Even if the UN is fully funded, money can only temporarily alleviate the problems developing countries face, while a collective effort to take action is necessary for a long-term approach to diminishing these problems. How I think of it is that if the global issues that need to be addressed are diseases, then the UN provides donations for medicine, which will help in the short-term, while social entrepreneurs are the researchers that examine the problem from many angles to try to find the core of the problem, and educate others on how to prevent the disease from spreading. That is not to undermine what the UN does, as resolution of global problems requires the work and assets of both the UN and social enterprises.

Then, the ARC initiative and other social programs are so necessary and important because they foster the growth of social entrepreneurs and provide them with the knowledge, relationships, and opportunities they need to make a difference. These programs encourage the participation of a larger community, and the exchange of ideas allows for a multidimensional view on global issues, which will be a more efficient and effective approach to coming up with relevant and innovative solutions than relying on just the UN.

With the influx of problems that plague the world today, what we need is not temporary relief; we need a solution, and that is what social enterprise and the UN collectively work towards.

The importance of employee engagement and a strong corporate culture to the success of businesses is becoming increasingly recognized. In a recent class, there was a discussion on Zappos and how its corporate culture has enhanced the company’s profit and success through increasing employee satisfaction.

However, this blog post adds a layer to the debate of whether of not a corporate culture like Zappos’, where employee satisfaction is so prioritized, is the best strategy by arguing that the passion of employees is more crucial to the long-term success of the company than the happiness of employees. Reading the blog post made me wonder: does happiness necessarily lead to passion? I do think that happiness leads to employee engagement, but I also believe that employee satisfaction is a one-time push that may result in employees adopting better attitudes, but won’t continuously push workers to actively seek challenges to reach higher performance levels. Of course, the conditions employees work under are important, but the core issue still remains in the work itself. No matter how pleasant the work environment is, whether or not employees reach their full potential still stems from their excitement about what they are doing. That is why I think businesses should reassess their work environment to hire workers who are more inclined to be passionate, and to encourage workers to work on projects they are interested in. After all, there is a difference between compliance and commitment. High levels of employee satisfaction or happiness may increase compliance, but passion (and employee happiness should naturally develop if there is passion) is what fosters commitment and is what will push the employee to go that extra mile.

Tealeaves’ website allows consumers to purchase tea as well as view promotional short films.

After being introduced to the direct sales model through the Tesla SWOT assignment and having the concept reinforced during Professor Mahesh’s lecture, I was excited to see an article, written by Sauder’s very own Jeff Kroeker, on Tealeaves, a local tea business that adopted a direct sales strategy to adapt to changing market trends after selling’s its luxury tea products exclusively to culinary professionals in the past.  Since the article stated that Tealeaves reaped many benefits through a personalized sales strategy, I started wondering: is there still a future for the “middlemen” of business?

As Professor Mahesh stated, adopting a direct business model brings consumers and businesses closer, subsequently decreasing the risk factor, increasing profit margins, and improving inventory turnover rates. Yet, I think there is, and will always be, demand for physical retailers. Many businesses have embraced e-retailing, but in industries like the accessory, apparel or food industry, many consumers still want to physically see and try products before purchasing them. Anyways, can you imagine not being able to purchase a bag of chips from anywhere but the manufacturer? Additionally, for relatively unknown brands, it is hard to build brand recognition without the presence of a retailer. After all, businesses do not just lose costs by cutting the middleman; they lose the marketing, the salespeople, and the reputation as well. Many startups will not have the $1.5 million budget Teavana had to produce short films to build brand awareness. Therefore, although a direct sales model may be beneficial to many businesses, I think that the presence of retailers is here to stay.

The sharing economy, which is based upon owners being able to rent out something they own for a fee, is consistently on the rise. Thus, I was excited to learn about a pioneer of the sharing economy, Airbnb, which is an online community that provides hosts and travelers with a marketplace to list and book non-hotel accommodations, through Eric’s blog post. I quickly realized that Airbnb, much like its other counterparts in the sharing economy, is more than just a cool idea; it is a disruptive innovation that is changing the hospitality industry.

Eric states that through the success of Airbnb, we may be able to see more of these companies gaining pace. However, I have noticed the protests against the legality of such companies, which are mostly fuelled by existing companies in the industry that do not want to give up their market share, and this can hinder the growth of the sharing economy. This article really describes the situation well: the stewards behind new innovations think regulators should invent new rules to adapt to new business practices while regulators think these businesses should adapt themselves to the old laws. It really just comes down to resistance versus adaptation. However, I think resistance is futile as market disruption is inevitable. Instead of trying to continuously build barriers around the hospitality industry, I think hotels can analyze the elements that contribute to Airbnb’s popularity and try to apply it to their own business models. Thus, I don’t think disruptive innovation signifies the end of any particular businesses, but rather, provides opportunities for businesses, and subsequently, industries, to grow.

Some of Airbnb’s most popular offerings…personally, I would love to stay a night in the Rosie Gypsy Wagon!