Dealing with “Malaise”

This starts out sounding like doom and gloom. It isn’t. I have come to the realization that the world of small business ownership is changing, and we have to change with it. For the next few weeks this column will discuss how we have to be different. Please read through the depressing part- it gets better. I promise.

On July 15, 1979 President Jimmy Carter delivered a nationally televised speech on the “crisis of confidence” facing the American people. It has become widely known as his “malaise” speech. although that word never appeared in it.

The country had good reason to feel depressed about things. The economy had just started growing after the deep recession of 1974-1975, but the energy crisis engendered stagflation. Inflation was at double digit levels, Congress was gridlocked, and the Fed’s loose money policies were failing to prop up the markets. By May of 1980 we had fallen back into recession, which spelled the end for Carter’s presidency.

The parallels to 2011 are obvious. Consumer confidence hovers in the low 20-percent range. Inflation, if  measured using 1980 standards, is nearing 10%. Quantitative Easing 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 have failed to revive the markets, whose volatility is terrifying small investors.

Instead of the Iran hostage crisis and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, we have Iraq and our invasion of Afghanistan. (Again? There is a reason it is called the “Graveyard of Empires.”) China is positioned to pass us as the largest economy in the world. Over 15% of the nation is unemployed or underemployed. The residential housing market is years away from recovery. Europe is threatened with financial meltdown. Half the country is becoming a dust bowl, while the other half is swimming to work. We have become gun-shy of the news- it seems to be all bad, and promises us every day that things will get worse.

The response of small business owners is consistent and universal. “All that may be true, but at the end of the day I just have to keep running my company the best way I know how.”

A valid argument to be sure; but what if the best way you know how isn’t enough? For the last 60 years we have run our businesses on the certain knowledge that things would eventually get better. “This, too, shall pass.” “What doesn’t kill you just makes you stronger.” “There is a light at the end of the tunnel.”

How would you change what you are doing if you knew that this was the way things were going to be for the forseeable future? Do you really believe that your customers are going to become less cost-conscious in the next few years? Do you think that government spending is going to increase? Will consumers regain access to easy credit to spend beyond their means? Will housing prices that have fallen by 40% or more recover in the next two years, or three, or five?

Of course not. Running your business on the assumption that everything will soon go back to the way it was is simply foolish. I think that most business owners would agree with me, at least when the questions are presented in this way. Yet most of us continue to operate our companies as if we are in a temporary trough. We have an ingrained assumption that recessions are followed by expansions.

Japan discovered that wasn’t necessarily true, or at least it wasn’t true for everyone. After their bubble burst in the early 1990’s, the Japanese economy remained moribund for the next ten years, and isn’t much better today. The rest of the world boomed, and didn’t seem to mind that its third largest economy wasn’t along for the ride.

There are lots of reasons to think that we could follow that same pattern. Our issues are systemic. For my newer readers, I refer you to my post of January 2009 on dealing with the recession and what was to follow. I put it here simply for credibility. It wasn’t clairvoyant, but rather a simple look at the facts and figures. They haven’t changed in the last 3 years. They won’t change tomorrow.

Our tendency in difficult times is to hunker down and tough it out. You can’t do that indefinitely. Most of my clients are making money, but generating a profit is harder, and they are working more. If we are to succeed in a new economy, it will be by doing things differently.

In the coming weeks I’ll discuss what those factors are that make it different this time. Then we’ll discuss what we can do about it. Every crisis has opportunities, but it is certain that those opportunities do not involve just doing what everyone else is doing.

Posted in Thoughts and Opinions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Raises and bonuses- sharing a recovery

Your business is starting to recover. You are again profitable. If you were smart and agile, you remained profitable or perhaps even increased margins during the downturn by being “lean and mean.”

One advantage of a financial recession is that employment trails the recovery. So while businesses rebuild their earnings, jobs remain scarce. Most small business owner don’t see their employees as part of a statistical anomaly, though. If you froze increases in 2009, they haven’t had raises in what seems like a long time. They also have a better view of your company’s increased revenues or improved financial health than employees in larger organizations.

When is it appropriate to reinstate raises? There are a few considerations. The first is your confidence level regarding the sustainability of your business’ recovery. Most of us are still concerned about whether another dip will cause our customers to slam their wallets shut again.

If you think that your increasing business is sustainable, then you have a few additional factors to take into account.

Are your employees in demand? In a competitive environment, you can’t afford to be the last one to offer increased compensation. This recession has hit lower wage, less educated employees the hardest. Unemployment among those with a high school diploma or less is over 12%. For those with a college degree, it is 4.5%. For professionals, the unemployment rate is less that 2%. If you are thinking that high unemployment is a factor in keeping engineers or programmers in their current jobs, you are mistaken.

Another factor, and one far more difficult to handle, is recovering your past losses, or rebuilding reserves. One of my clients is emerging from a tough couple of years. While his company remained profitable, it wasn’t anything to write home about. Two months ago they had a great month, posting their highest profits in three years. His accounting manager immediately informed him that it was time for him to get a raise.

Ironically, the profit turned out to be a bookkeeping error. The point remains, however. The employees see today’s results. They easily discount or disregard all the months you barely had enough to make their payroll, or even had to use savings to keep the doors open. It isn’t easy to explain to hem, but you can and should. They have to understand that if you ran the company based on monthly results, the next time there was a hiccup they might not have a job.

None the less, if you are growing the business your staff feels it on a day-to-day basis. They are busier, and you aren’t hiring more help. With today’s free-agent employee mentality, more work is supposed to mean more compensation. How do you deal with those expectations?

If you had to cut wages or staff to get through the downturn, you probably realized an unforseen benefit. You began talking to your employees on a different level. You had to share at least some of the bad news, and explain what your plans were for survival. As things get better, it isn’t time to go back to your old ways. Keep sharing information.

Explain not only that business is improving, but by how much. Put it in context of how much was lost during the rough times. Place a number on how much more revenue would have been done if sales had stayed at 2007 levels. Let them know that a business doesn’t just pop out of a hole and move on, the hole has to be filled in first.

Now may be a great time to announce an incentive system. When our businesses were growing year after year, many of us got sloppy with out fixed costs. We hired and gave out raises, creating structural expense that couldn’t be sustained in leaner times. We’ve fixed that, and it isn’t smart to head back down the same road.

Putting in an incentive program that shares success sends a powerful message. It tells your employees that you are willing to pay them more as business improves, but if it isn’t maintained, the benefits attached to the improvement will disappear just as quickly.

 

Posted in Management | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Can Startup America revive US small business?

A couple of weeks ago in my opinion blog “Awake at 3 o’clock” I pointed out that politicians pronouncing small business owners as the saviors of the economy is a misplaced strategy. (“SMB isn’t the cure for the economy“) Most SMB owners are ageing Boomers, disinclined to take big risks as they seek greater retirement security.

Now the government is rolling out a new program “Startup America” to foster the development of innovative entrepreneurs. The program will support early-stage companies by improving access to capital, mentorship and education while reducing red-tape and regulatory barriers.

I’m proud to note that as the owner of a franchise of The Alternative Board, I will be included in the participating mentorship partnerships.

I’m also inclined to favor an organization with a Board of real entrepreneurs. Folks like Michael Dell and Magic Johnson presumably are still close enough to their startups to remember what it was like. The CEOs of Under Armour, FedEx and LinkedIn all built companies from scratch. No politicians – now there’s a worthy idea.

As good an idea as this is, I have a not-unexpected skepticism of the role of government in the business markets. I work with a number of 8-A, HUB, WBE and other businesses that enjoy some special status in government contracting.

I’m not going to riff on the “Caucasian Males Get Shortchanged” theme. The programs that favor folks who were traditionally shut out of a lot of opportunity have a purpose. They really don’t (contrary to the belief of a lot of those left on the outside) steer a lot of work to those classifications. It is a tool that lets you hunt work, but it doesn’t just dump money in your lap.

What it does is make a lot of large corporations look at subcontractors and vendors they would otherwise ignore. I’m not sure if a giant multinational surrounded by small businesses, like pilot fish around a shark, is a good thing or not. It is, however, an opportunity. What it clearly does as well is to wrap a whole lot of regulation around the process of choosing a vendor.

So I wonder if “reduced” regulation can really mean “May the best ideas win” in a government controlled environment. How will ideas be judged? Will there be room for the next Under Armour, which is “merely” another, albeit innovative clothing company? Or will we quickly see a predisposition towards “cool” industries – clean energy, technology, and the Internet?

An interesting feature of the Board is the number of members whose companies are largely or wholly based in the USA. I’m entirely in favor of building jobs at home, but it is a global marketplace. Might there be a bias towards companies that locate in the “right” area or hire from the “right” population? 

How does a government-supported organization not have  politically correct agenda?

Let’s hypothesize an example. One company is working on an idea for storage cells, located in Gary, Indiana, with a business plan that calls for fabrication and distribution by training high school dropouts in depressed inner-city neighborhoods. Another has a similar product concept, but plans on developing it with an international team of engineers located both here and in Asia, and manufacturing where it costs the least.

The latter company may have the better idea, but can Startup America handle a headline that says “Taxpayer Supported Businesses Send Their Jobs to India?”

Could the current (or any) administration say “We think entrepreneurial creation is a chaotic and wide-open world. We accept the fact that not all will succeed, not all will get a fair shake in the marketplace, and not all will do things in a manner that pleases everyone. In the long run, we think making something happen is more important than trying to only make the right things happen.”

I’d love to see it, but I can’t quite envision it. None the less, I plan on finding out how I can support Startup America. Standing on the sidelines being cynical isn’t accomplishing anything. I do believe that making something happen is better than worrying about whether it’s exactly the right thing.

 

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Thoughts and Opinions | Tagged , | 1 Comment

One Response to Can Startup America revive US small business?

  1. Tom Morton says:

    Thanks John — a very interesting and thoughtful piece. On our side of the Pond we also have a continuing series of Government initiatives to stimulate small business, and they also suffer from the same constraints you identify.

    Your last sentence, however, is key (and to many other fields as well)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Catch 22 of IT management

Are you big enough for an “in-house” IT professional? With the rising cost of service by outside firms, many smaller businesses are trying to hire someone to take care of their technology needs.

Of course, many small businesses are still trying to ignore their technology needs. I am surprised at how many times I get a belated answer from someone that starts “Sorry, but our email has been down for a week.” Those companies are simply playing roulette with their business. I’m talking about the ones who are really trying to maintain secure, up to date systems.

Like any skill you bring into your business, you’re going to start with one person. You can’t make the leap from nobody to a whole department. So how do you approach hiring a single technology professional?

As with any other position, you could aim high or go cheap. Let’s say for a moment that any compensation within reason is acceptable. Do you pay, say, $75,000 for someone with certifications and extensive experience, or more like $40,000 for someone who is self taught?

Part of your thinking, or course, revolves around how much you are paying for outside support now. That support won’t go away entirely, however. No single technician knows everything about everything, no matter what he claims, but service-by-the-hour gets more and more expensive (See my “Subscription IT column” of 6/27). 

If you under-hire, there is the very real danger of your in-house tech getting into something over his head, or making a mistake. Then getting the outside firm to come in and do  break-fix is going to be really expensive.

Do you remember the old joke about auto repair rates? I’ve seen this sign or one like it on the wall of a hundred shops (but then, I sold to auto shops for 10 years.) The times (and prices) have changed, but the sentiment remains the same. If you call a professional to undo the work of an amateur, you are going to pay a premium for that service.

So then the logical alternative would be to hire a top gun, right? That is where we run into the Catch 22 of today’s title. Computer technology is a rapidly evolving field. Staying current is a critical core competency for any professional. In a service company, the technicians are regularly installing the latest equipment. They see how many different configurations interface. They get a heads up on new problems almost daily.

But individual private companies don’t change their equipment frequently. The technician can expect to work on the same hardware for years. That is a problem that causes may of the most skilled to avoid one-man shops. The ones that accept such a position really start falling behind in their technical skills the day after they start.

Now you have an expensive employee with deteriorating skills. It should come as no surprise that his paycheck doesn’t decline with his market value. We see many companies who keep upgrading outmoded technology because “It’s what our IT guy knows.”

If you want  to have the quick service and attention of an on-site IT employee, by all means hire someone to handle the help desk and general hardware/software support. Unless you plan on building a department, however, don’t try to run your business with an all-in-one-man (or woman) solution.

 

Posted in Thoughts and Opinions | 1 Comment

One Response to The Catch 22 of IT management

  1. Great post! I’ve been toying with the idea of hiring an in-house IT person for quite some time now. Useful insight on having a one man shop vs. building a department. I agree that building an IT department is the way to go so your business doesn’t end up falling behind the IT curve.

    The Small Business Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

“Intuitive” Doesn’t Work for Organization

Apple Computer has become the most valuable company on the planet by making products that are “intuitive.” Most Apple fans brag that you don’t even need a user’s manual to get started on their products.

Intuitive is a relative term. With Ipods and Macs, it means that you can figure out commands without guidance. It presumes, however, that you know what the commands are before you start. Turn on. Look through the files. Start. Stop. Reverse. Copy. Save.

Organization isn’t intuitive. How a group of people perform a collective task, or work towards a common goal, has as many intuive approaches as there are participants.

Take filing for example. How many human-hours of productivity are spent looking for a document on the company server? Have you ever had a conversation that goes something like this?

“Where is the ABC proposal? I looked in the marketing files, the customer files, the correspondence files and the presentation files. I can’t find it anywhere.”

“Oh, those are filed in sales commissions under the last name of the salesman handling the account. We don’t open a customer file until the proposal is accepted.”

The next hurdle is often the naming convention for each file. Looking under the saleman’s name you find “Machine Tool Proposal” and “Proposal to Johnson.” Neither is identified by company.

Or you find the supposedly well-organized and documented “Proposal to Johnson,” filed together with “Proposal to Johnson ver 2,” Proposal to Johnson ver 3,” and “Proposal to Johnson April 17.” Which is the one that was sent to the customer? Is April 17 the first one or the last? Or, maybe you need to look further to see if there is one called “Johnson Proposal-final,” or perhaps “ABC Proposal for Johnson?”

The rise of the individual

The power of personal computers has caused two trends in the workplace. First, it encourages employees to “Have it Your Way” in a resurrection of the old BK slogan. Their computer is a part of their personal space. They have their own individual Outlook themes, email rules, and Internet bookmarks. They customize their desktops and screen savers. The personal computer is, after all, personal.

The old centralized computer systems had no provision for individualization. They were regimented. They were organized according to a rigid heirarchy. Employees disclaimed “I am not a computer!”

Now the employee and his or her computer are linked in a weird symbiosis. Even approaches to common tasks are individual. Have you ever tried to rework someone else’s spreadsheet formulae, or reformat a graphic document created by someone else? You almost have to transcend logic, and understand what went on inside the mind of the creator. Often it is easier just to start from scratch.

I know that I’m being a bit “old school.” My staff seldom looks through the files for a document. The improvements in file indexing software make it much easier to just search your drives like you would the Internet. A few key words can bring up what you seek.

The Room of Requirements

That leads to the second problem. The cost of storage capacity has shrunk to a miniscule relative number. Like a house full of closets, our computer drives fill up just because they are there. With indexed search, no one has to look at what is actually in the files, just whether what they need is available. So “Johnson Proposal” quickly returns versions 1 through 79, along with the Jackson Proposals, the specifications for Johnson Wax, and the script for that poor geek in the mailroom from when he asked his online heartthrob for her hand in marriage.

All the searcher needs to do is pick out the one document he or she wants. The rest go back into the pile. I think of the Hogwarts “Room of Requirement” where centuries of broken and discarded items accumulate, only to be found by someone who needs them.

Am I dating myself? Is there something outmoded with liking the clean efficiency of good organization? Perhaps I’m just too slow to adapt, to understand that computing power makes putting things in the right place an anachronism.

What do you think?

Posted in Leadership, Management | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *