Previous: Buddhism
Up: Archives
Next: CableCard
| | |
How campaigns can learn from successful businesses, part XVIIAt Google, we have a job called Google Fellow, for extremely talented, senior engineers. Google Fellow is equal in rank to a VP, with similar privileges and pay. But whereas a VP might have hundreds of people working for him, the Google Fellow has zero.
This reflects a reality in engineering: some good engineers want to be managers, but many don't ever want to stop coding. And a good organization will let the latter group keep coding since their contribution is tremendously valuable that way - while also enabling them to earn great levels of respect and be as well compensated as a manager. Good tech companies have set up arrangements like this. But in most fields, some jobs bring the big bucks while other, equally valuable jobs don't. The always intelligent Mark Schmitt ties this insight to the recent calls to fire the consultants who earn huge commissions while providing little value to losing Democratic candidates. In her article, Amy Sullivan points out that most of these not-so-useful consultants start out as very talented campaign operatives. But the money working as field director or opposition researcher for one campaign is meager, while a big-time consultant for many campaigns rakes it in. As Schmitt suggests, this is the real problem we need to fix. "The mixed-up incentives that pull people away from their strengths and toward the anomalous big-money zones is part of the problem, I think. Campaigns should certainly try to cut the ridiculous percentage that goes to media buyers, as the Bush campaign did, but some of them should also take the lead in figuring out how to pay some of the other indispensables a little more and give them more sustainable careers."Campaign consultants aren't the only place a lack of a career path threatens success. We don't effectively nurture promising writers, future TV talking heads, or other non-campaign parts of a successful party. And outside engineering, this problem is just as common in business. Many extremely talented people push themselves to go into management, whether they are talented at it or not - hence the Peter Principle. In nearly any field, it would behoove organizations to find ways to make management not the natural direction of everyone's career, but simply one of several available tracks any of which lead to personal and financial success. posted on Jan 13, 2005 11:38 am (comment) The joys of corporate lifeI just spent $93.18 to mail 35 t-shirts and other assorted corporate tchotchkes to Washington DC. (Priority overnight, Saturday delivery.) posted on Apr 23, 2004 9:55 pm (comment) Risks reduxApparently Donald Trump contrived an episode just to prove me wrong this week, in which Kwame takes a big calculated risk, loses, and doesn't get fired. It's true that he is evaluating people not just on results but on what effort they put forward, including risks.
Still, the format of the show still favors those who just follow the path of least resistance. Kwame's team did lose by taking this risk. Most importantly, the tasks generally are just not set up to allow people to do what is really important in business: trying business models, understanding customers over time, and refining your business to best fit the market. It's an inevitable effect of the television format, but the apprentices always have to sell in far too short a time period to really exhibit many of the most important qualities in an executive. Sales talent and the ability to make quick decisions are important, and certainly getting along with others and being a leader is key. I guess I am just annoyed that the show isn't what it could never be, a substantive business exercise that gets at the heart of building a business. That just wouldn't work on television. posted on Mar 5, 2004 1:43 am (comment) You're fired. For taking risks.I'm not fired. No, I just watched this week's The Apprentice, in which each team had to sell as much bottled water to restaurants, distributors, etc. in two days as possible.
The task was extremely stupid. While it might be possible to make small sales on the spot, I'm sure this business like any other is built up over time through creating relationships. Any purchases of water the stores made were more on a whim, as an experiment, rather than anything substantive. In other words, selling water in two days has nothing to do with actually building a business, where what matters most is making customers happy over the long run instead of just convincing them to buy a case or two of water. One team kept hearing from their customers that they'd buy more water, but had noplace to store it. It took until midway through the task for one of the contestants (Troy) to think of doing a deal where they would deliver some water regularly to the store. As far as we could see the other team never figured that out. How simple is this? If customers won't buy because of a specific problem, then find a way to fix the problem! But the biggest reason this show is nothing like real life business is that everything incents the contestants not to take risks. In real life a lot of people are trying to do what you do. If you try a new business plan that has a 10% chance of success but a $100M potential payoff, it is worth it. 9 out of 10 experiments may fail, but the one that wins - or even one out of a hundred - pays for all the rest. In The Apprentice, the only goal is to beat the other team - anything with a 10% chance of success is a bad idea, because 9 out of 10 times you will lose to the other team, while winning really big 1 time out of 10. The project managers, and Trump, criticize people for doing things and failing, but very little for just not trying in the first place. Someone who volunteers for a specific responsibility seems to always get picked on when their piece goes wrong, because the project manager has to blame someone and they fixate on actual things that happened badly instead of people who never tried. Some businesses definitely work this way, but it's the worst kind of culture. Trump can't help but end up with a risk-averse, mediocre leader who never has big ideas as a result of this selection process. posted on Mar 1, 2004 1:13 am (comment) | Blog ArchivesMost Popular Tags |
| | |
All text and images on this site are licensed under a Creative Commons license. |  |