No body to incarcerate

There is a saying attributed to UK peer and - as Lord Chancellor, head of the courts - Baron Thurlow, which I had heard along the lines of corporations having "no soul to save and no body to incarcerate" (Stibbe, 2013, p. 126; Achbar & Abbot, 2004, 12:46). When I went looking for that particular quote, I ran across the following - also presented as a quote: "Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?" (Coffee, 1981, p. 386; King, 1977, p. 1); and even more stirringly, Baron Thurlow reputedly whispered an aside, "[a]nd, by God, it ought to have both" (p. 386, citing Menchen, 1942, p. 223). 

But I was confused. Which was the actual quote? 

"no soul to save and no body to incarcerate" (Stibbe, 2013, p. 126);

Or

"no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?" (Coffee, 1981, p. 386).

First I went looking for Coffee's sources (1981); Mencken (1942), and King (1977). I found King, who had simply listed, as quote on page 1 of the text, exactly what Coffee had cited. I could not find a 1942 version of the Mencken book. I found a 1962 edition, which contained the following:

"'A corporation is just like any natural person, except that it has no pants to kick or soul to damn, and, by God, it ought to have both!' Ascribed to an unnamed Western judge in ERNST and LINDLEY: Hold Your Tongue, 1932" (Mencken, 1962, p. 223). 

So this one was apparently not Baron Thurlow; but an anonymous judge (who could be Baron Thurlow, but perhaps the author themselves was unsure so erred on the side of safety). In seeking Mencken's sources I hit a dead end; when I went looking for the Ernst and Lindey text I could only find an updated edition, from 1950, which did not contain this quote. Hmm. Perhaps Coffee had conflated the two entries, and ascribing the King source to the Mencken quote?

So I went looking for the quote which I had remembered: roughly no soul to save or body to incarcerate, this time using Wikiquote. And I found:

"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like", citing Poynder (1844, p. 268) with the clarification that "This is often misquoted as 'Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?'"

Ah. Now this sounded roughly right. I went looking for Poynder (1844, p. 268) in the Internet Archive (here) and checked the entry. It read as follows:

"LORD CHANCELLOR THURLOW said that Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like", citing "Miscellaneous".

It is worth noting here that, in the preface, Poynder said "Where an entry is marked as 'Miscellaneous' it may either be referred to the desultory reading which had only left its impress on the memory, and where the precise authority could not be recovered; or else may be considered as original matter now first commended to notice" (1844, p. iv). Brownie points are owed to Poynder for admitting the potential for the vagaries of memory. However, I still think I will go with his account, as Poynder made a business of collecting quotes, publishing two volumes, and he was a partial contemporary of Thurlow (who lived 1731 to 1806; Poynder 1779 to 1849; Wikiquote, 2025). I could be wrong, of course in my assumption, and will keep my eyes peeled for any earlier evidence.

We do need to be careful in attributing sayings, but having so many out of print books searchable online is an amazing assist for quote-hunters everywhere.

Sam

References:

Achbar, M. (Director), & Abbott, J. (Director) (2004). The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power [documentary film]. Big Picture Media Corporation.

Coffee, J. C. (1981). "No soul to damn: no body to kick": An unscandalized inquiry into the problem of corporate punishment. Michigan Law Review, 79(3), 386-459. https://doi.org/10.2307/1288201

King, M. (1977). Public Policy and the Corporation. Chapman and Hall.

Mencken, H. L. (1962). A New Dictionary of Quotations on Historical Principles from Ancient and Modern Sources. Alfred A. Knopf.

Poynder, J. (1844). Literary Extracts from English and Other Works; collected during half a century (Vol. 1). John Hatchard and Son.

Stibbe, A. (2013). The Corporation as Person and Psychopath: Multimodal metaphor, rhetoric and resistance. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines (CADADD) Journal, 6(2), 114-136. https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/681/1/The%20Corporation%20as%20Person%20and%20Psychopath.pdf

Wikiquote. (2025). Edward Thurlow, 1st Baron Thurlow. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_Thurlow,_1st_Baron_Thurlow

read more "No body to incarcerate"

The shit sandwich

  (Grant, 2024)  

Once upon a time, in the long, long ago when I worked in a corporate, I remember being taught about the "shit sandwich". This is where we were advised by management consultants to give feedback constructed by using compliments in pairs, wrapped around a piece of criticism.

Of course, the consultants didn't call it the "shit sandwich"; they called it the sandwich feedback protocol (Von Bergen et al., 2014). It was we attendees who called it the "shit sandwich". I don't think we ever adopted it as a feedback strategy: it was just 1990s management consultant crap.

When exposed to this idea, we felt some would miss the criticism, and some would ONLY hear the criticism. Both of those were pointless outcomes. Some might lose all of it. Further, reviewing staff might spend forever and struggle to find any positives to convey (some staff were in the wrong industry, and needed encouragement to seek work that better suited them). We might lose half our day chasing down nice things to say... which are more than likely going to come across as fake, or be missed anyway.

As a result, I was entertained earlier this year in a newsletter post by Adam Grant, talking about what he called the "compliment sandwich" where we "Put a slice of praise on the top and the bottom, and stick the meat of your criticism in between" (2024). Ah: a shit sandwich with a much more polite name. Some still use it, but they shouldn't, for the reasons I have highlighted in the previous paragraph. However, Adam goes into the 'why nots' more detail:

• "Problem 1: the positives fall on deaf ears. When people hear praise during a feedback conversation, they brace themselves. They’re waiting for the other shoe to drop, and it makes the opening compliment seem insincere. You didn’t really mean it; you were just trying to soften the blow" (Grant, 2023)
• "Problem 2: if you avoid that risk and manage to be genuine about the positives, they can drown out the negatives. Research shows that primacy and recency effects are powerful: we often remember what happens first and last in a conversation, glossing over the middle. When you start and end with positive feedback, it’s all too easy for the criticism to get buried or discounted… especially if you’re talking to a narcissist" (Grant, 2024).

In addition, over time, when we get a compliment, we become primed - in a Pavolvian response - for the criticism to follow. This makes the sandwich method counterproductive. A better method has been suggested in the following four step model (Grant, 2024, citing Von Bergen et al., 2014):

1. Why. We begin by explaining why we are giving feedback; perhaps: we value your contribution to the team, you have potential, and we want to help you to develop
2. Team. Remind the recipient that we are a team; for example: "we've been working together for a while", and "I think we can help each other to be more effective"
3. Ask. Say that we have: "noticed a couple things and wondered if you would like some feedback"
4. Talk. Have an open chat about what can improve. Ask the staff member for ideas. Make it a real conversation. Adam Grant suggests we say "I want to start by describing what I saw… and see if you saw the same things…. Then we can decide what, if anything, we need to do going forward". I may have missed something important, or I may have "contributed the concerns I’m raising. How does that work for you?" (2024), and we go from there. If we channel the naive inquirer (more on that here), we can tailor this conversation to suit.

No manipulation, no butt covering. Just a conversation about what needs to improve, working together to collectively solve an issue.

Sam

References:

Grant, A. (2024, January 18). Stop serving the compliment sandwich. file:///C:/Users/Sam/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/29S7LYAT/email.mht

Von Bergen, C. W., Bressler, M. S., & Campbell, K. (2014). The sandwich feedback method: Not very tasty. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 7(9), 1-13. https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/141831.pdf

read more "The shit sandwich"

Ends versus means

Boards may be prescriptive at times – i.e. they write a list of 'thou shalts' for the CE. If the board hasn’t specifically said 'no', then, theoretically, the CE can do it. To manage potential skullduggery, the board may provide pro-scriptives, such as Standing Orders (or 'thou shalt nots'). These may take the form of "don’t spend over $x", or "don’t leave assets under-insured"; or "don’t let the key relationships deteriorate"; etc. However, it is better to use philosophy - a 'how' in the form of a set of values, and a 'why' in the form of a mission and a vision - and for board to expect the CE to act in accordance with these.

Once the philosophy (how and why) is in place, we need to consider the 'ends' (the board’s responsibility); and the 'means' (the CE's responsibility). It is the board's job to ensure that the "means [are NOT] so evil as to counterbalance the good of the end sought" (Lamprecht, 1920, p. 511), checking with the CE and taking "account of the means by which the ends are to be brought into being" (p. 510) because otherwise we are going to find ourselves trending in the media for the worst possible reasons. 

Part of the Policy Governance model (Carver, 2006), ends are where the Board decides the desired end goals needed for organisational performance and to balance risk; and means are what the CE determines the means of delivering the Board's ends.

• The ends: To focus on what the organisation needs to accomplish at a strategic level. To ensure no surprises for the CE or the organisation. To act with integrity (i.e., no secret deals wherever possible). To represent the organisation credibly. To use best governance practice. To clear the way so the organisation can achieve appropriate goals. To be absolutely honest with the CE, including matters of performance; to not be ‘asleep at the wheel’. To trust, but to verify trust with the CE and the organisation.
  
  
• The means: Focus on how to deliver the organisational goals set by the board. Give the board no surprises. Prioritise the goals set by the board. Be clear in the board's expectations. To support the board while providing fair critique. To have the freedom to exercise professional judgement. To ensure the organisation is secure and to ensure safety. To be honest with the board. To trust the good intentions of the board.

But we need to be aware that means-ends reasoning can provide an inherent tension in determining "how to adapt [...] between conflicting ends" (Blackburn, 2005, p. 238). Boards and CEs must act with care to avoid such tensions do not arise or that we create a "confining cage of bureaucratic management" (Blackburn, 2005, p. 112). Such an evocative phrase!

The board and the CE should work together to ensure that there are enough means for the organisation to meet its ends.

Sam

References:

Blackburn, S. (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Carver, J. (2006). Boards That Make a Difference: A New Design for Leadership in Nonprofit and Public Organizations (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Lamprecht, S. P. (1920). Ends and Means in Ethical Theory. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 17(19), 505–513. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939936

read more "Ends versus means"

So, what is organisational development?

Swanson suggests that organisational development, or OD, can be defined as "a system-wide application of behavioral and social science knowledge (primarily psychological, systems, and economic theories) to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies, structures, and processes that lead to organization performance" (2022, p. 286). 

While this is pretty long-winded, a shorter version is also supplied: "Organization development is a process of systematically unleashing expertise to improve performance at all levels" (p. 286). So OD can be thought of as (a) a continuous, holistic organisational improvement process, and (b) the department for change, and - somewhat tongue in cheek - (c) the hit squad. 

 Two sentences that Swanson outlines clearly shows the 'rock and a hard place' which OD practitioners may find themselves in: "Using OD to get employees to accept unfair and exploitative policies and practices is rarely discussed. Most organization bankruptcy and restructuring efforts rely on sophisticated OD tools to get employee acceptance of downward compensation and benefits while at the same time, upper management often retains and even gains added rewards" (2022, p. 287). The executive bonuses paid during the global banking crisis illustrated the latter point very well. 

 OD focuses on improving organisational effectiveness and efficiency by having: improved strategic alignment; a productive organisational structure; the 'right' people in the 'right' roles; appropriate remuneration; sound measurement and data; and reliable and rigorous management processes (Association for Talent Management, 2023a). Then the OD decisions made need to be grounded in research, tapping into the disciplines of organisational psychology; management (HR, Leadership, OB); social sciences; education (pedagogy); and research methods (Association for Talent Management, 2023a).

In thinking about the job of OD, it is to increase organizational effectiveness and competitive advantage. Organisational outcomes from improvement need to be clear, and - while differing between organisations - usually include "financial performance, customer satisfaction, organizational member engagement, and an increased capacity to adapt and renew the organization" (AIHR, 2023). 

I hope that helps!

Sam

References:

AHIR. (2023). What is Organizational Development? A Complete Guide. Academy to Innovate HR. https://www.aihr.com/blog/organizational-development/

Association for Talent Development. (2023a). What Is Organizational Development?. https://www.td.org/talent-development-glossary-terms/what-is-organization-development

Association for Talent Development. (2023b). OD Strategy [image]. https://d22bbllmj4tvv8.cloudfront.net/23/c8/3a130d734b41a011ae822f4b890c/563492443-organization-development-graphics-r2.jpg

Swanson, R. A. (2022). Chapter 14: Overview of Organization Development. In Foundations of Human Resource Development (pp. 286-305). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

read more "So, what is organisational development? "

Watching the tide go out

I have a 'soft' rule that each new thing coming into the house needs to have two things going out so there is a net decrease on possessions. I am not making this a revolution, but an evolution; as and when I feel ready.

To do that, I try to go through one 'space' each week in the house. That 'space' might be a single drawer some weeks, or half a room in another. This also applies to the office.

When parting with things, I am not rushing into divorce. Instead, I put the items into 'the waiting room', which is an intermediary space for me to think about it until I am happy that I have disconnected from them emotionally (my 'waiting room' is the spare room). Then I can decide objectively what the next best place for those things to go is.

Where things go to from the waiting room is varied. I pass things which I am not using to friends, volunteer groups or charity shops. I will try to sell some items if, (a) they have resale value, and (b) I have time. That is where the waiting room comes in handy: if I hear that someone needs something, while I am thinking about when and how to part with an item in the waiting room, I can give that thing to meet a specific need. This is the most rewarding aspect of purging possessions.

Additionally, I am trying to purchase as much as possible myself from second-hand sources. This is shifting my mindset to 'renting' items, as opposed to owning them. If we rent them, we know it is temporary. When we own them, we have a much more permanent mental hold on them.

My aim is to end up with fewer possessions, as naturally as the tide turns, over time. To have some empty spaces, and to not feel a need to rush in and fill those spaces with stuff. To break with unnecessary buying.

It is quite liberating, knowing that the high-tide mark is a millimetre further out each week.


Sam

read more "Watching the tide go out"

Tasks and the Joy of Lists

In the past I used Microsoft Outlook almost exclusively to organise those things that I had to do. I would load tasks in, and had made an agreement with myself that I could not dismiss a task until it was completed. However, with the added complication of a smartphone, my business version of Outlook, and NMIT's Outlook system, I started running into problems.

You see, there are three of me: my smartphone Outlook; my NMIT Outlook; and my business Outlook. None of them talked to each other. To get around that, instead of using Outlook's task manager, I made my Google calendar my master organiser, inviting all three of my selves to meetings and tasks (if you are interested, more about my process in getting to this point can be read about in the posts here).

This tripartite focus works well for the structured tasks: the free time shown on my calendar is actually free time. However, as we all know, tasks that are scheduled for certain times don't necessarily get done at the times they are scheduled: priorities change, deadlines change, new and urgent work appears, and very small tasks arise constantly during the day.

In thinking about this find I have four sorts of tasks:

1. Daily one-off pico-tasks (pencil list). A job of a very few minutes
2. Daily regular micro-tasks (diaried in Google calendar) and one-off micro-tasks (pencil list). Jobs which might take up to an hour
3. Medium-sized several day meso-tasks. Middling sized semi-structured tasks with a fuzzy deadline, with a critical path dependent on others' actions and a variety of one-off steps
4. Large, structured macro-tasks, containing many pico-, micro- or meso-tasks (planned in Google calendar).

Tasks two (a) and four are easy. Their structure is known and that means I can repeat previous appointments to manage them, and shifting them is easy. There are also some structured meso-tasks which I can treat like task fours.

But it is to manage tasks one, two (b) and three that I have finally resorted to old school methods, because they seem to be the most efficient (or least effort!). Those one-off pico-, micro- and meso-tasks I keep on paper, destined for the recycle bin so already printed on one side. I write in pencil, each day, jotting down a list of what needs to be done, adding tasks/steps/actions as they arise.

I think I write in pencil because these are ephemeral tasks: they will not to be carried into tomorrow.
When working at home, I strike through those items are they are completed. When I go into NMIT, I take a photo of the list with me, to keep track. I draw a line on the image of what things I have covered, or send myself a quick email if I have added new things on.

However, I would be very interested if any of you have a better way to manage these tasks without adding more complexity to planning and management.

I hope to get an avalanche of ideas!


Sam

References:

• White, M. (20 May 2019). The enduring comforts of list-making. Retrieved from https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/112847475/the-enduring-comforts-of-listmaking
• Wikipedia (17 May 2019). Level of Analysis. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_analysis

read more "Tasks and the Joy of Lists"

Organisations as Cultures

Gareth Morgan, in his book "Images of Organization" (1998), came up with a range of metaphors - or lenses - which would enable us to identify the type of organisation we were dealing with. His metaphors help us to unlock our organisational culture.

He thought of organisations in a range of metaphors: as machines, organisms, brains, cultures, political systems, Flux and transformation, and, as gruesome as these last two sound, as instruments of domination, and as Psychic Prisons.

What interests me in particular is his model of culture, like a biological culture, is a living system. Morgan describes culture as "an active living phenomenon through which people jointly create and recreate the worlds in which they live" (1998, p. 135).

He suggests that when we want to analyse culture, we ask three questions (p. 141):

1. "What are the shared frames of reference that make organization possible?
2. "Where do they come from?
3. "How are they created, communicated, and sustained?"

They are great questions to ask ourselves.Morgan also suggests that there are four key reasons to use a culture metaphor:

1. It keeps us thinking about the human side of our organisations, and helps us to see how our surroundings affect us. It allows us greater use of psychology and organics.
2. It shows the importance of creating shared meaning to align people to meet goals.
3. It makes both followers and leaders understand the impact of their own behaviour on culture. Morgan says we should ask themselves: "What impact am I having on the social construction of reality in my organization?", and "What can I do to have a different and more positive impact?" (p. 141)
4. It reminds us that our perceived relationship between the external environment and our organisation can be skewed by our assumptions about ourselves.

Powerful stuff.


Sam

References:

• Morgan, G. (1998) Images of Organization. USA: Sage.
• Slack, T. (1997). Organization Theory and the Management of Sport Organizations. In Understanding Sport Organizations: The Application of Organization Theory. USA: Human Kinetics. (pp. 9-12)

read more "Organisations as Cultures"

Greiner's Organizational Growth Model

When I was studying my undergraduate degree, I had a lecturer who showed my cohort of management 101 students Greiner's Organizational Growth Model (1972).

Being a newbie, I took absolutely no notice of whose model it was. I remembered the stages - they were, in fact, emblazoned on my memory - but I had no recollection whatsoever of who had done the thinking.

Last year, I was explaining 'crisis of control' in organisations to some of my leadership students, who appeared completely ignorant of the concept that different crises could strike an organisation at different stages of its development (rather like the product life-cycle, in fact). In realising that, I also realised that I had no idea of whose developmental work this had originally been.

So I went looking, but was unable to find what I was looking for: despite fairly thorough Google and GoogleScholar searches.

Then, as serendipity would have it, I recently attended a webinar on peer coaching in the workplace. One of the presenters mentioned what sounded like "Griner's model", and "crisis of control", and I had enough to find the name of my missed theory developer from all those years ago. A quick search later and Google knitted the two fragments into a solution for me.

Larry Greiner (1972) originally observed that organisations appear to go through different stages of development at different times in their 'lives', with each of those stages needing different strategies, tactics and actions to manage and develop the organisation appropriately, readying it for the transition to the next stage. 

Greiner's crises were crises of leadership; autonomy; control; red tape; and an indication that there were further crises, but an implication that their nature is unknown. Each crisis is driven by a preceding growth stage (1998).

Starting with five growth stages, Greiner (1998) later added a sixth stage, but didn't indicate a crisis for that one - a fact which I find interesting. The growth - or development - stages are (Value-Based Management, n.d.):

1. Creativity: characterised in a company start-up, entrepreneurship, informal communication, hard work, and poor pay; ending with a crisis of leadership
2. Direction: characterised by sustained growth, functional organisation structures, accounting, capital management, incentives, budgets, and focusing on process standardisation; ending with a crisis of autonomy
3. Delegation: with decentralised organisational structures, decentralised operational and decentralised marketing, profit centres, financial incentives, decision-making based on periodic reviews, senior management acts by exception, and using formal communication channels; ending with a crisis of control
4. Co-ordination and monitoring: having a product group structure, in-depth formal planning reviews, supporting function centralisation, corporate staff overseeing co-ordination, corporate capital expenditures, accountability for ROI at product group level, and motivating through lower-level profit sharing; ending with a crisis of red tape
5. Collaboration: taking a new evolutionary path, using problem-solving teams and cross-functional task teams, decentralising support staff, adopting a matrix structure, simplifying control mechanisms, team behaviour education programmes, advanced information systems, and team incentives; ending with a crisis of internal growth
6. Extra-organisational solutions: mergers, holdings, networks of organisations.

One of the key aspects of Greiner's model is that it flags which management theories or leadership styles will work at the various stages: which then shows us by omission which won't. 

I wonder, if he were still thinking about this now, whether Greiner would have come up with a crisis for the 'extra-organisational solutions' stage? Perhaps, in considering the GFC, a crisis of hubris?


Sam

References:

• Greiner, L. E. (1998). Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 55-68. 
• Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), 37-46.
• Mindtools (n.d.). The Greiner Curve. https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_87.htm
• Value-Based Management. (n.d.). Organisational Growth Model.  http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_greiner.html

read more "Greiner's Organizational Growth Model"

Ricardo Semler: Radical wisdom for a company, a school, a life

Most businesses are based on the efficient performance model, going back to Weber (1949) and the Gilbreths (1916). This is a hierarchical, somewhat rigid and rational structure, with many routine tasks, formal communication, and often internally competitive strategies (Daft, 2008).

However, this is not the only game in town, if you take a leaf out of Ricardo Semler's book. Brazilian company, Semco, adopts a learning organisation model, which is far more fluid, intuitive, informal, flexible, and empowering. People who work at Semco are given a clear philosophical framework to make decisions within, and so are able to be innovative, creative and independent (Bock, 2003; Daft, 2008).

The internal competitive nature of companies is not apparent in learning organisations: instead it thrives on internal and external team collaboration. Organisational culture breeds adaptability, experimentation and internal entrepreneurship (Daft, 2008).

But what happens when an organisation like this turns its attention to the development of their talent pipeline? Watch the clip, and find out.




Sam

References:

• Bock, W. (2003). Lessons from Semco on Structure, Growth and Change. Monday Memo. Retrieved 21 August 2007 from http://www.mondaymemo.net/030512feature.htm
• Daft, R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience (4th ed.). Thomson-South Western.
• Gilbreth, F. W. & Gilbreth, L. M. (1916). Fatigue Study: The Elimination of Humanity's Greatest Unnecessary Waste. Sturgis & Walton
• Weber, M. (1949). The Methodology of the Social Sciences (Translated & edited by Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch). The Free Press.
• Semler, R. (2015). TEDx Rio de Janeiro: Radical wisdom for a company, a school, a life. Retrieved 11 November 2015 from https://youtu.be/k4vzhweOefs

read more "Ricardo Semler: Radical wisdom for a company, a school, a life"

The Brazilian Maverick

In Sao Paulo, Brazil in 1982, twenty four year old Ricardo Semler takes control of his father's struggling industrial equipment company, Semco. A not insignificant company, with a turnover of $6.8 million. In a radical approach to traditional management practice, Semler immediately sacked 66% of his top management team, and insisted that workers took responsibility for their own jobs, set their own wages and their own production targets.

From that moment on, Semler made financial data available to all employees, published all staff wages and let them choose and evaluate their own managers. Meetings and paperwork were kept to a minimum, with the focus on getting the job done.

Amazingly, despite Brazil's rollercoaster and volatile economy, Semco flourished, growing at between 30 and 40 percent a year. Today, company turnover is $273 million a year and employs more than 3000 people.

It is thought that Semler enjoyed success with his management style because it tapped into what we already know about people: that they are motivated and creative and self-disciplined when given the chance to contribute and be involved in decision-making; that they will take more and more responsibility when they are part of a team which maximises opportunities for self-fulfilment.

Letting go control is a leap of faith few CEOs are prepared to take - but over the past 20 years Ricardo Semler has proved it works.

Semco doesn't have a mission statement, headquarters, an HR department, organisational plans further out than six months, an organisation chart, a rulebook or any written policies. At Semco, all employees share in the company’s profits, so freeloaders at any level are unwelcome. Company units decide every six months how many people they will need, what business opportunities they will pursue, and how they will work. Teams are formed and reformed as needed and employees must continually prove their worth to the team in order to be sure of being part of future teams. The resulting high level of worker engagement - and a staff turnover below one percent - is something more traditional companies yearn for - along with their growth rates.

As part of Semco's constant attempts to unsettle the conventional order and unleash more flexibility and creativity, the firm's headquarters have been disbanded in favour of satellite "airport lounge" offices dotted around Sao Paulo. Staff no longer have fixed offices, or even fixed desks. Says Semler: "If you don't even know where your people are, you can't possibly keep an eye on them. All that's left to judge on is performance."

However, few companies have adopted Semco's democratic workplace design. The prevailing organisational system apparently has nothing to assist people make that leap of faith and give up control. Yet just consider - $100,000 invested in this barmy firm 20 years ago would now be worth a cool $5m.

Sam

References:

• Semler, R. (1993). Maverick!: The Success Story Behind the World's Most Unusual Workplace. Warner Books.

read more "The Brazilian Maverick"

Newsletter Issue 140, November 2007

Sam Young Newsletter

Issue 140, November 2007

Hi guys,

Considering advertising? Then think about Sponsorship: the New Black.

If Your Office Could Talk, what would it say about you? Have a think about that and read on. 

Process Explorer   TLAs for SMEs        Tips, Short & Hot Keys        Hot Linx

Don't forget, if you want to be taken off my mailing list, click here to send me a reply e-mail and I will remove your name.

Sponsorship: the New Black

In a recent AMA article, Kevin Clancy and Peter Krieg of Copernicus Marketing Consulting in the US said that there is evidence to suggest that many companies are moving away from using traditional media to promote their brand, and are relying more on sponsorship and events for PR. They quoted the following to support their view:

• In 2005, a survey of Association of National Advertisers members showed 24% of marketing dollars going to event marketing
• In 2006, a George P Johnson Company study which found, across industries, event marketing accounted for an average of 25% of the overall marketing budget
• And for 2007, an IEG Sponsorship report shows North American companies plan to spend $14.9 billion on sponsorship; up more than 10% on 2006 & outpacing traditional media spend growth.

So why could companies apparently be having doubts about traditional forms of advertising?

1. Jaded: People are very jaded about advertising. We are less credulous, harder to sell to, and much more savvy in penetrating the rhetoric. Whenever we can, we avoid hearing the message, and many of us are wondering why we pay for advertisers to sell to us (ie buying magazines full of advertising, buying clothing which advertises the company, watching ads on TV).
2. Competition: The Arab Advisors Group reported that the 2005 TV Arab state advertising rates dropped significantly, with combined 30-second ad rates averaging at $3103 in 2004, down 30 percent to $2180 in 2005. They attribute this to increased competition from satellite channels.
3. Restriction: UK's Office of Communications (Ofcom) have determined to restrict marketing of high fat, high sugar foods to all children under 16, which will have significant impacts on UK advertisers & marketers (see http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/food_ads/).
4. Technology 1: Hard drive recorders are allowing people to record programmes, then skip the ads completely. Users can start to watch the beginning of the programme ten minutes after the actual start, then skip over the ad breaks, and finish at the actual programmed end time.
5. Technology 2: Internet TV and pay-per-view is relatively advertising-free (at this stage). You download your programme, watch it at leisure and pay for the privilege. This form of picking and choosing your entire viewing package is a whole new ballgame.
6. Green 1: Many more people are now going for online news subscriptions rather than hardcopy newspapers to reduce impact on the environment, and this trend looks set to increase. Pay per click ads are decreasing in value and up-take as conversion statistics are not favourable, so many ads don't transfer online
7. Green 2: Many more people are putting a 'No Circulars" or "Occupier Addressee Only" signs on their letterboxes in an effort to reduce paper waste.
8. Cost 1: the cost of making a TV advert is similar to making a short film - and it still appears horrifyingly easy to miss the target market or make a bad ad.
9. Cost 2: once you have made your ad, how widely should you show it? With the influx of satellite, there are are whole range of channels to chose, and each one will cost (although with more competition, ad placement cost will decrease, as per 1).

I suspect that traditional advertising channels have some adapting to do. Less direct forms of advertising such as sponsorship and events, product placement within shows, competitions and e-newsletters will become more mainstream marketing tools.

However, if you are going to advertise, remember that you need to review whether the campaign has reached the intended audience, been comprehended and been bought into. The checking of sponsorship and events spend efficacy needs to be just as thorough as for traditional media.

Sponsorship of people or events allows a company to align itself quite closely to a target market. I suspect that sponsorship and events will continue to provide companies with a clear way to get their messages across, and allows a more local consumer link in what is now a very global market.

If Your Office Could Talk...

If your office could talk, what would it say about you?

Is your desk on one side of your office forming a barrier between you and any conversations you might be having? Do you have a meeting space? Does your meeting space have chairs of equal size? Is your table round or square? Low or high? Are chairs at right angles to each other?

Layouts are likely to be viewed as a metaphor for the way the office owner does business. If you walk into an office and there was a meeting area with chairs of equal size set around a small table, you would probably think that that person would be informal and collaborative. If you walked into the office of someone who sat behind a formidable desk in a high chair while visitors were in low chairs, you would probably think they were authoritarian and a bit of a dinosaur.

We are very strongly influenced by symbols and what is done, rather than what is said, at work. It all comes down to culture. If an organisation is trying to create a real sense of team throughout the organisation, but they have lots of corporate-only privilege like cellphones, cars, parking, business class flights and so on, the team idea will not take. They might say 'team', but they do 'us and them', creating an divisive Orwellian culture of "'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". 

This difference between 'say' and 'do' is also an often seen, often repeated waste of change management implementation in organisations.

So. We unconsciously - or worse, consciously - communicate power and status by the furniture we select and in the way we organise our offices. While not all work spaces have enough room for a separate meeting area, you can come around your desk and sit next to your visitor when meeting, creating a sense of partnership and equality from the outset.

Make sure your office is aligned with your personal culture and the culture of your organisation. Needless to say, sitting side by side is not all a manager needs to do to create inclusive discussion, but it's a really good start.

 

 

Process Explorer

Like most of us, I notice that from time to time my PC seems to be using a shed-load of processing power, for no good reason. However, when you go into Task Manager and have a look at the processes you have running, most of them are just gobbledy-gook. You have no idea what anything really relates to or why it is running; or even if the particular item is supposed to be running flat out like that.

However, Microsoft have this neat little tool called Process Explorer. Once you install it, the software tells you what each process relates to, what product it is, who made it, how much juice it is consuming and what is related to it. You can sort all the columns in ascending or descending order, which is really useful.

Pass the cursor over the performance graphs in the tool bar to see what the CPU usage is. You can right click on whichever processes are using lots of CPU. You can right click on any of the threads, then select properties and observe what activity there is, or try killing processes to see what happens.

This is a great tool to track down if a CPU hog is something that you have intentionally installed, or something that has been slid in with installed software.

Go to http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/ProcessesAndThreads/ProcessExplorer.mspx to download and install.

TLAs for SMEs

Here are this newsletter's TLAs for you:

• PIP, Picture in Picture. This is a video effect which places several complete images on the screen at the same time - or on TV, one channel PIP while watching another. Very simple!

Please feel free to email me with any TLAs that you want to get the bottom (meaning!) of.

Tips, Short+Hot Keys

Over the next few newsletters, we are going to look at all you can do with Alt and numbers. This time it's 0 and 1:

• Excel "Select the folder list in the Open and Save As dialog boxes (in File menu); use within a dialog box; use arrow keys to select a folder in the list" Alt & 0 (Zero)
• Outlook "View 10 days; works when using general keys for moving around in the day/week/month/view" Alt & 0 (Zero)
• PowerPoint "Go to the previous folder (Back button )" Alt & 1
• Access "Go to previous folder; use within the Open, File New Database and Export dialog boxes" Alt & 1
• Excel "Go to the previous folder (also back arrow); use within the Open and Save as dialog boxes (in File Menu)" Alt & 1
• Outlook "Go to previous folder (with the File Open or Insert File dialog boxes) or view 1 day in day/week/month/view" Alt & 1
• Word "Go to the previous folder; use within the Open and Save as dialog boxes (in File Menu)" Alt & 1

Hot Linx

If you like a bit of a vocabulary challenge, then head over to http://www.freerice.com/index.php to test your knowledge, and to donate rice to the UN for every word you get right

For a novel take on the current carbon footprint debate, check out Vanity Fair's "Asshole Footprint" at http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/10/footprint200710

If you want to work out your run or walk circuit, then this new Google Maps linked tool is for you. Check out http://www.mapmyrun.com/

Paranoid? Maybe! Check out this website on global terrorist activity - from protesters chaining themselves to railings to suspicious wires and bombings at http://www.globalincidentmap.com/home.php

---

                                Catch you again soon!! E-mail your suggestions to me here

read more "Newsletter Issue 140, November 2007"