| Who's Online | There are currently, 2 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
|
| Languages | Select Interface Language:
|
|
 | |
The Power of Apology Posted by Soydash on Tuesday, September 20 @ 12:52:43 GMT (3492 reads) Topic PHP-Nuke
| What Corporate managers can learn from the animal kingdom.
Forbes Magazine, Sept. 19, 2005
Bosses often think the only lesson they can learn from animals is how to roar louder. So here’s a surprising idea: Animal behavior can teach you how to resolve conflicts and drastically cut your company’s legal costs. In fact, on the question of tort reform, chimpanzees have a better answer than politicians.
Chimps are masters of reconciliation, a behavior first witnessed by primatologist Frans de Waal in the 1970s, after a raucous fight between two high-ranking chimps. The dust slowly settled—and then one male reached out to his rival, fingers extended, palm upward, an offering of peace. The two apes embraced. It was a reconciliation.
A stereotype about animals is that they spend all their time snapping at one another (a lot like some office workers). But researchers have lately identified dozens of species, from dolphins to hyenas, that also kiss and makeup. Scientists have begun to recognize the importance of reconciliations for people, too. In the past, social psychologists often studied human behavior in laboratory situations, so they hardly ever saw postconflict rapprochements. The idea that it could be a natural behavior defied conventional wisdom. Corporate executives built careers on the motto, “Never apologize, never explain.”
But apologies are serious business. Corporate managers wouldn’t be spending 42% of their time mediating workplace disputes if their fellow workers understood the natural healing power of the words “I’m sorry.” An apology can also miraculously transform a client’s hostility into honey.
For instance, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky, has a policy of admitting medical errors, apologizing for them, and initiating a claim—even when the family itself has no idea medical error contributed to a patient’s death. Skeptics predicted that “extreme honesty” would be a liability nightmare. But legal costs at the hospital are now among the lowest in the VA system. An honest apology apparently relieves suspicion and a sense of injury in the hearts of malpractice victims and their families.
People may hesitate because they equate the words “I’m sorry” with a guilty plea. Under U.S. law, an apology is protected from use as evidence in only one circumstance--when directly linked to a cash settlement offer. This encourages only those apologies that are “least therapeutic or sincere,” according to Daniel W. Shuman, a professor at Southern Methodist University School of Law. The structure of compensation for lawyers, who typically take a percentage of any legal settlement, also discourages apologies. One-third of “I’m sorry” will not buy the lawyer a tuna sandwich for lunch.
On the other hand, many states have recently passed laws making an apology or a statement of sympathy or benevolence inadmissible as evidence against the defendant, in at least some circumstances. And despite the legal risk, some companies now recognize the redeeming character of a good apology—not least because victims and juries often accept it as grounds for reducing any damage award.
The Toro Company, a Minnesota manufacturer of snow blowers and lawnmowers, used to follow standard “deny and defend” practice, and its product liability costs soared. But in 1991 it switched to a more conciliatory approach. Now, when the company hears about a product-related accident, it immediately sends staff to visit the family. They begin by expressing regret: “Setting aside the question of who’s at fault, we want you to know that we feel terrible that this happened. We’re going to do our best to resolve this thing and make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Toro says the conciliatory approach has halved the time it takes to settle a claim and cut the average cost from $115,620 in 1991 to $35,000 in 2004.
Politicians want to limit a victim’s right to sue. But smart companies will pay attention to chimpanzees instead. By 1999 an intuitive understanding of the natural history of “I’m sorry” had saved Toro $75 million—and earned the considerable goodwill that comes when you do the right thing.
| | (Read More... | 2389 comments | Score: 0) |
|
Good News For Boeing? Posted by Soydash on Saturday, September 17 @ 13:07:38 GMT (1734 reads) Topic PHP-Nuke
| Duel ... Sorry ... Dual CEOs at Airbus Parent EADS
At EADS, the parent company of Boeing rival Airbus, a brutal boardroom fight ended in June with the appointment of dual CEOs. Thomas Enders, a 46-year-old German, and Noel Forgeard, a 58-year-old Frenchman, now share power.
If we can take the struggles for alpha status within chimpanzee troops as a reasonable precedent, it will not be long before one of the two CEOs drives the other into exile. And until then, uncertainty about who's really on top will unsettle the entire company.
(If you don't buy the chimp precedent, take a look at The Ape In The Corner Office, pp. 71-72, about the brief bloody period of joint leadership after Sandy Weill moved in at Citigroup.)
Enders joked about the EADS situation to the Financial Times (September 14, 2005: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/752c2026-2481-11da-a5d0-00000e2511c8.html
| | (Read More... | 1244 bytes more | 1575 comments | Score: 0) |
|
A messy brawl at the News Corporation media empire Posted by Soydash on Friday, August 12 @ 10:22:00 GMT (2129 reads) Topic The Murdoch's and the News Corporation
| Any monkey would recognize what Rupert Murdoch was up to when he gave his kids top jobs at the company he built.
Among baboons and vervet monkeys, nepotism like that comes naturally. High-ranking elders routinely interfere at playtime to ensure that Little Tiffany Baboon and Young Percy Vervet III get their way.
The new generation thus grows up secure in the habit of defeating the family’s subordinates, and the monkey dynasty gets passed from one generation to the next.
And what’s wrong with a little nepotism? Everybody does it. Bob Dylan’s son is a hit singer. John Cheever’s kids write books. Descendants of U.S. Senator Prescott Bush get to live in the White House.
Nepotism evolved as a natural behavior partly because it’s a shortcut to trust and cooperation. But kids don't necessarily inherit their parents’ abilities. Let’s talk about work dogs.
Dogs inherit expertise at smelling things, a trait emphasized in German shepherds by selective breeding. When puppies grow up with mothers trained in narcotics-detection, 85 percent of them show an aptitude for the family business.
But here’s the surprising thing: When puppies with the same genetic predisposition get raised by untrained mothers, only 19 percent of them show this aptitude. It’s about nurture more than nature.
Children born to the founders of great companies don’t generally benefit from the kind of selective breeding that’s common with dogs. And they may not even get raised by the entrepreneurial parent, but by the divorced spouse. Or by the nanny. So whether they inherit the right stuff for running a company is a crap shoot.
And yet founding families still play a role in one-third of S&P 500 companies. Nepotism may still work. A study in the Journal of Finance found that family-controlled public companies perform significantly better than non-family companies.
But a recent Harvard Business School study refined this analysis. Companies where the founder is still in charge do in fact perform better. But descendants “destroy value,” especially in the second generation.
One problem with nepotism at any company is that it creates resentment. Other employees are likely to wonder just what a buzz-cut, tattoo-wearing thirty-three year old like Lachlan Murdoch did to earn more than $4 million last year.
But the real problem is that nepotism has no place when you’re playing with other peoples’ money. News Corp. is a public company, where the Murdochs own just a fraction of the stock but wield disproportionate influence. Paying fat salaries to the founders's kids can look like an abuse of managerial trust.
Rupert Murdoch has built a great company. But that’s no reason shareholders should let his family monkey around with it for generations to come.
| | (Read More... | 14490 comments | Score: 0) |
|
| |
| Login | | Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name. |
|
|