I came by this article on HBR with a title that seemed more suited for an interior design magazine: Rules for Designing an Engaging Workplace.

I initially thought that it was about the importance of aesthetics in office spaces and its effects on productivity, but I eventually realized that it was not quite so simple.

Although the writer seemed to convey a sense that a well-designed workplace plays an instrumental role in boosting productivity, I believe that motivation is not the main point here. She makes it clear that design can shape employees’ sense of security in their surroundings. This was highlighted in the chipmunk test where she suggests that architectural features should make even a chipmunk feel at ease. Without bringing up evolutionary theories, I can see her claims being supported by Maslow’s Pyramid. At the bottom of the triangle there lies the need for security, which means that it is a relevant issue that should be addressed by businesses. Although some people may have a greater need for self-actualization than physical comfort, they will still benefit from work spaces designed for optimal levels of engagement.

I think that firms with cubicle styled offices can benefit from this advice. Placing each worker in squares, or worse, all lined up on one table, creates the perfect setting for distractions. This in turn has a negative effect on productivity because people easily lose focus and get less work done. While it is not financially viable for every business to give every employee their own office, more effort should be put into this area of design. Setting up quiet rooms or giving out noise-cancelling headphones could be a way to start.

https://hbr.org/2014/10/rules-for-designing-an-engaging-workplace/

I throughly enjoyed reading Jocelyn’s blog about how Google and Walmart’s profit maximizing strategies were really one and the same. My perspective on these two companies shifted as a result. I am skeptical on whether Walmart would benefit from treating its employees better in the long run.

I believe that the way employees are treated in the workplace should reflect the company’s corporate culture. The most illustrious example would be Google, with its resort-like office space, complete with color, style, and comfort. This makes sense in that context because Google favors creativity and innovation. The success of its business model depends on its people. On the other hand, Walmart is all about having the lowest prices; it does not need such an emphasis on artistic creations. Unfortunately, this also leads to poor treatment of its employees. I would argue that Walmart’s lack of benefits for employees can be attributed to, at least in part, to the nature of its business model. There simply does not exist the need for excellent employee treatment. This does not mean that I agree with its business practices, just that it has fallen prey to a web of its own creation. 

https://blogs.ubc.ca/jocelynkwong/response-to-google-adds-benefits-walmart-cuts-them-oddly-the-logic-is-the-same/

From Chelsea’s blog post about Chipotle, she brings up several interesting points regarding the benefits of internal recruitment. However, I would like to add my thoughts on the potential downsides of this method.

While I agree on the incentive that internal promotion creates, I think it may also contribute to unhealthy competition and even demoralize employees. Although for now, Chipotle’s size is not large enough to face this kind of issue. Furthermore, I believe that by using a subjective measurement (ability to mentor one’s colleagues), Chipotle has implemented a system that rewards personal development. This is a novel concept to me and I am inclined to believe in its benefits, but I wonder how fair it is to measure performance based on something subjective.

I think internal recruitment is most essential at the beginning of a business’ life cycle because you need dedicated workers to grow the company. Corporate culture is likely not well-formulated yet, thus creating incentives for employees to work harder is crucial. After building this strong foundation, however, it should be time to add some “new blood” to the business. Eventually you need to find external talent in order to mix up the idea pool. Besides, at what point does an employee “reach the top”? Is there a different evaluation system from that moment onwards?

Today’s “Hot” Topic: Chipotle

For years, the toy industry had sales that flat lined at 22billion, but recently a new trend have started to influence the market. Young Youtube reviewers have started making tremendous impact on consumer choice, for they can connect with other children on a peer-to-peer basis. It is not surprising that toy companies have started to reach out to these bloggers. I can see that by having these new relations, businesses are able to gain access to information that will help them better address the needs of the market. As a market-oriented industry, it is important for companies to be aware of changing demand and consumer preferences.

Certain companies such as Spin Master have already reported a sales boost from using Evan’s (an 8-year-old toy reviewer) Youtube platform. Although there is benefit from a venture like this, I believe that it should be used wisely. By having access to such a personalized advertising space, companies need to choose carefully which products to promote. I find it fascinating to see that children as young as 8 are entering the world of business; they have enormous influence on demand in a way that would not be possible 10 years ago. As a result, traditional advertising spaces like television are not as effective as they used to be. This story confirms my belief that consumers trust the word of other people more than from the companies themselves. What is happening between these Youtubers and businesses is not anything new, but a repeat of what is already happening amongst the older generations. It seems that word of mouth is a powerful tool, no matter the age bracket.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/gadgets-and-gear/the-new-toy-trendsetters-youtubes-child-stars/article21457129/

Indigo Books and Music Inc. seems to be recovering from a string of losses. Fortunately, its second quarter earnings were boosted by both retail and e-commerce, which is a trend that looks promising, says CEO Reisman. As someone who used to frequent bookstores such as Chapters, it is disheartening for me to see Indigo face such difficulties. Although I appreciate the low prices on Amazon, it is odd to see traditional bookstores turn into gift shops. However, this move makes sense given the fierce competition within the market. I applaud Indigo for rethinking its business strategy and transforming itself to better match new demands, but it is uncertain how effective this will be in the long term.

The company’s plan to become the “world’s first cultural department store” by 2015 gives focus and direction to its operations. However, I would argue to make this aim more specific because Indigo is in a period of recovery. Looking to expand so soon after closing down several large stores seems like a rushed manoeuver with a low chance of success. In order to prevent repeating the same mistakes, Indigo should spend more time developing its online operations instead of opening new locations. With giants like Amazon breathing down its back, Indigo should focus on its strengths and diversify into other products. This will involve careful change management since the entire business model is being renewed. Now would be an optimal time to restructure some of the company’s key personnel, as fresh minds will bring new ideas to push the business to greater heights. I look forward to seeing how Indigo will perform in the future.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/indigo-actively-looking-to-open-more-stores/article21455710/

Conflicts have existed between First Nations and the government of Canada throughout this country’s existence. Although the modern era has seen less bloodshed and brutalities, the tentative peace has not reached a point of stability yet. As news about these kinds of situations arise, a large proportion of them is dedicated to illustrating the cautiousness of the parties in question.
The Tsilhqot’in tribe’s recent declaration about its tribal park is one such example. It would apparently include the site of Taseko’s proposed New Prosperity mine. This would not allow industrial mining or logging, which effectively puts up a barrier to entry by forcing potential mining businesses to go through the First Nations government. To have new regulations put into place is an external factor that affects an organization’s business model. Although it leaves room for negotiations, it also adds a significant strain on the planning process. A balance between cultural respect, ethics, and economic consequences is needed; it is likely that a deal of this nature will face many roadblocks. It is prudent for the vice-president of Taseko to refrain from commenting on his reaction to the ceremony. Seeing as this event could potentially cause the New Properity mine to relocate elsewhere. If the project is prone to inherent risks (environmental consequences) and or will face heavy scrutiny, it may be in the business’s best interest to rethink their initial plan.
Whenever First Nations’ interests clash with those of businesses, pre-emptive measures is necessary in the form of negotiations. Leaving out such an important step will take more time to correct in the long-term. Furthermore, not including key stakeholders in the decision-making process is not only unprofessional, but also shows negligence.
The letter of understanding signed by two government officials promotes a sense of optimism towards future negotiations. However, I wonder to what extent a compromise can be reached when the desires of the two parties are in direct conflict.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Unilateral+park+declared+Tsilhqot+includes+Prosperity+mine/10192766/story.html