Showing posts with label ceo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ceo. Show all posts

Monday, January 2, 2012

5 CEO gốc Việt được truyền thông thế giới ca ngợi

Đây là những người Việt Nam trẻ tuổi, thông minh, năng động đang làm việc tại một số nước trên thế giới.  
1. Giám đốc sách lược của Bank of America
Thong Nguyen, người Mỹ gốc Việt, được đề cử làm Giám đốc sách lược của Bank of America, vào tháng 11/2011. Tờ Wall Street Journal đưa tin, khi ông Brian Moynihan, Tổng Giám đốc Điều hành của Bank of America, ra trước hội đồng quản trị trong tuần qua để thảo luận về kế hoạch năm 2012 của ngân hàng, đã xuất hiện cùng với một chiến lược gia mới tinh là Thong Nguyen, khiến cho các giới chức ngân hàng hết sức ngạc nhiên.
Thong Nguyen (giữa) vừa được đề cử làm Giám đốc sách lược
của Bank of America (Ảnh: Wall Street Journal)
Thong Nguyen được đề nghị vào chức vụ nói trên sau khi người tiền nhiệm là Mike Lyons đột ngột từ chức vào tháng 11/2011. Trong vai trò mới, ông sẽ trực tiếp làm việc với Tổng Giám đốc Điều hành của Bank of America.
Vị "sếp" gốc Việt này đã "kinh qua" các chức vụ phụ trách thương vụ, quảng cáo và phát triển kinh doanh của công ty General Electric, McKinsey & Co., IBM và U.S. Trust, trước khi gia nhập Bank of America vào năm 2004. Ông cũng từng làm việc chung với "sếp tổng" Brian Moynihan trong ban quản trị tài sản, trước khi ông này lên làm CEO của Bank of America.
2. Chủ tịch Jack Truong của Electrolux Major Appliances Bắc Mỹ
Jack Truong, một người gốc Việt vừa được tập đoàn Electrolux AB của Thụy Điển bổ nhiệm chức Chủ tịch kiêm Tổng giám đốc điều hành công ty Electrolux Major Appliances Bắc Mỹ và Phó Chủ tịch điều hành tập đoàn Electrolux, từ ngày 1/8/2011.
Ông Truong sẽ báo cáo trực tiếp cho Chủ tịch kiêm Tổng giám đốc điều hành của tập đoàn Electrolux, Keith McLoughlin và là thành viên Hội đồng quản trị tập đoàn. Trước đó, ông Truong giữ vị trí Phó chủ tịch và Tổng giám đốc công ty Phát triển nhà đất và xây dựng toàn cầu thuộc tập đoàn 3M.
Chủ tịch Jack Truong của Electrolux Major Appliances Bắc Mỹ
(Ảnh: Dow Jones)
Sinh năm 1962, ông Truong có bằng tiến sĩ ngành kỹ sư hóa học của Học viện Rensselaer Polytechnic ở Troy, New York.
Phát biểu trong thông báo bổ nhiệm, ông Keith McLoughlin, Chủ tịch Electrolux, cho biết: “Chúng tôi rất vui được chào mừng ông Jack Truong đến Electrolux. Tại 3M, ông đã cho thấy khả năng thúc đẩy tăng trưởng bằng cách áp dụng các công nghệ và cách tiếp thị mới nhằm đáp ứng nhu cầu luôn thay đổi của người tiêu dùng.
Kinh nghiệm của ông sẽ giúp đảm bảo sự tăng trưởng dài hạn của chúng tôi với việc tập trung vào các nhãn hàng mạnh, sản phẩm mới có tác động cao và tiết giảm chi phí, tất cả là những thành tố quan trọng trong chiến lược của Electrolux".
3. Một trong những nhà lãnh đạo trẻ toàn cầu
Cho đến nay, ông Dzung T. Bùi (Bui Tien Dung) được xem là  một trong những người thành công nhất trong tập đoàn tin học IBM.
Bui Tien Dung sinh ra tại làng Trình Phố, An Ninh, Tiền Hải, Thái Bình. Khi lớn lên, ông theo cha mẹ vào sống ở TP HCM. Năm 17 tuổi, Bùi Tiến Dũng sang Mỹ du học với vẻn vẹn 150 USD trong túi và không ngại dấn thân trong mọi lĩnh vực.
Sau khi tốt nghiệp thạc sĩ chuyên ngành kỹ thuật điện tử tại Đại học Minnesota, tiểu bang Minnesota (Mỹ), Dzung T. Bùi nộp đơn xin làm việc tại Tập đoàn IBM và được nhận làm ở phòng thí nghiệm Rochester. Tại đây,  ông nhận thấy sở thích và năng lực bản thân phù hợp với lĩnh vực bán hàng, nên xin chuyển qua làm martketing và tiêu thụ sản phẩm (sales).
Từ đó, ông liên tục được đề bạt và đảm nhiệm những trọng trách trong mảng kinh doanh sản phẩm của Tập đoàn IBM, từ Phó chủ tịch phụ trách thị trường Mỹ Latin, Tổng giám đốc Sales và Marketing châu Âu, Giám đốc điều hành phụ trách chuỗi cung ứng, Tổng Giám đốc phụ trách giải pháp công nghệ thông tin. Hiện, ông là Phó Chủ tịch phụ trách nhóm điều hành kinh doanh toàn cầu của tập đoàn này.
Phó Chủ tịch điều hành kinh doanh toàn cầu
Dzung T. Bui của Tập đoàn IBM
4. Tính kiên cường là bí quyết thành công của Chủ tịch Tập đoàn Augen
Ủy ban tuyển chọn của Diễn đàn Kinh tế Thế giới, do Nữ hoàng Jordan Rania Al Abdullah làm Chủ tịch, đã lựa chọn doanh nhân kiều bào Mitchell Pham, Chủ tịch Tập đoàn công nghệ phần mềm Augen (New Zealand), là nhà lãnh đạo trẻ toàn cầu, vào ngày 9/3/2011.
"Được Diễn đàn Kinh tế Thế giới vinh danh là một điều thật khó tin vì tổ chức này bao gồm những người kiệt xuất trên toàn cầu. Đây là cơ hội có một không hai, mà tôi sẽ nắm bắt bằng cả hai tay", doanh nhân Mitchell Pham phát biểu.
Mitchell Pham sinh ra tại Việt Nam, trong một gia đình cả bố mẹ và mấy anh chị em đều là kỹ sư. Năm 12 tuổi, anh theo gia đình sang định cư ở New Zealand, với cái tên Việt là Pham Đang Khoa. Khi đặt tên mới là Mitchell Phạm, ba mẹ anh đã gửi theo mong muốn con của mình sau này sẽ thành đạt về học vấn cũng như trong cuộc đời. Mitchell nghĩ mình đã thực hiện được phần nào tâm nguyện của đấng sinh thành.
Khi được hỏi về bí quyết thành công trong sự nghiệp ở xứ người, Mitchell Pham chia sẻ: “Tính kiên cường chính là bí quyết thành công của tôi”. Và để minh chứng điều này, Mitchell đã nỗ lực học tập tại trường phổ thông và sau đó là trường đại học, làm thêm buổi tối và cuối tuần để kiếm tiền trả học phí. Năm 1993, với vốn đầu tư ban đầu 4.000 NZD (1 NZD tương đương 14.500đồng), Mitchell cùng 4 người bạn thành lập công ty phát triển phần mềm máy tính Augen, với quyết tâm phải làm bằng được một sản phẩm công nghệ thông tin.
Chủ tịch Mitchell Pham của Tập đoàn Công nghệ Phần mềm Augen
Năm 2000, các thành viên bắt đầu tách ra hoạt động độc lập. Mitchell ở lại duy trì mọi hoạt động và tiếp tục phát triển Augen, với doanh thu mỗi năm khoảng 10 triệu USD; đồng thời, mở thêm 11 công ty con tại New Zealand, chuyên kinh doanh phần mềm và làm dịch vụ công nghệ thông tin trong lĩnh vực thể thao, phần mềm giao dịch tài chính cho ngân hàng.
Trong chiến lược phát triển giai đoạn 2010-2015, theo doanh nhân gốc Việt này, tại New Zealand và trên thế giới, Tập đoàn Augen sẽ chọn cách “đứng trên vai người khổng lồ” để thâm nhập thị trường, nghĩa là tập trung khai thác và làm tốt dịch vụ công nghệ thông tin cho các công ty phần mềm lớn có thị trường tại nhiều nước. Thông qua họ, Augen có thể rút ngắn con đường mở rộng thị trường. Riêng đối với khu vực châu Á – Thái Bình Dương, tập đoàn sẽ chỉ làm phần mềm ở 2 mảng bảo hiểm, chăm sóc sức khỏe và đầu tư làm dịch vụ phục vụ ngành năng lượng xanh - sạch.
5. Giám đốc điều hành tổ chức phi lợi nhuận KOTO
Cùng với doanh nhân kiều bào Mitchell Pham, Jimmy Pham, Giám đốc điều hành của tổ chức phi lợi nhuận mang tên KOTO, cũng được Diễn đàn Kinh tế Thế giới vinh danh là nhà lãnh đạo trẻ toàn cầu.
Khi nhận được giải thưởng này, Jimmy Phạm, cho biết, anh cảm thấy vô cùng vinh dự trước giải thưởng mà World Economic Forum dành cho và coi đây là niềm khích lệ với những công việc mình đang làm.
Jimmy Pham (giữa hàng sau cùng) được vinh danh
là nhà lãnh đạo trẻ toàn cầu
Jimmy Pham sinh ra ở Hà Nội và lớn lên tại Sydney, Australia. Với tấm lòng nhân hậu và khả năng lãnh đạo tuyệt vời của mình, Jimmy đã giúp hàng trăm trẻ em lang thang trở thành những đầu bếp giỏi, những nhân viên nhà hàng chuyên nghiệp tại nhiều khách sạn và nhà hàng nổi tiếng ở Việt Nam thông qua việc thành lập tổ chức KOTO, một tổ chức đào tạo nghề nhà hàng phi lợi nhuận.
Gửi lời chúc mừng tới Jimmy, Đại sứ Astralia tại Việt Nam nói: "Những việc anh đã làm được không chỉ là niềm tự hào của bất cứ một người Việt cũng như người Australia nào, mà còn là một điển hình khuyến khích mọi người dân và tổ chức có điều kiện quan tâm hơn đến việc giúp đỡ những trẻ em thiệt thòi trong xã hội"./.

Monday, June 27, 2011

Why a Great Individual Is Better Than a Good Team

Anytime a CEO, quarterback, engineer or author is paid ridiculous amounts of money, dozens of investors, armchair quarterbacks, and scholars jump in to debate the value of individual contributors versus teams. Bill Taylor wrote the most recent of many interesting pieces, where he argued provocatively that "great people are overrated," in response to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's comment that a great engineer is worth 100 average engineers.
I have heard plenty of people argue that no one individual is worth the price of many. But interestingly, I have never heard it from a leader.
As a CEO, I have run public companies, private companies, startups, turnarounds, and divestitures — in each and every case, I have never seen a situation where quantity is better than quality when it comes to people. Never. Great people are both hard to find and worth an infinite number of average people.
And as a brain scientist, I know that great individuals are not only more valuable than legions of mediocrity, they are often more valuable than groups that include great individuals. Here's why:
The truth is, our brains work very well individually but tend to break down in groups. This is why we have individual decision makers in business (and why paradoxically we have group decisions in government). Programmers are exponentially faster when coding as individuals; designers do their best work alone; artists rarely collaborate and when they do, it rarely goes well. There are exceptions to every rule, but in general this holds true.
There is clearly not widespread acknowledgment about the benefits of individual contributors — in many ways, it goes against our inclination towards equality. And thank goodness, because that gives those of us who understand the real value of great people a huge competitive advantage! But for anyone interested in making better decisions about their teams, it is worth spending some time understanding the science behind individual greatness.
In many ways, individual people follow an inverse rule relative to networks of people. Consider the two fundamental laws of networks: both Metcalfe's Law and Reed's Law assume that as a network of people grows, the value of the network increases substantially. (In Metcalfe's Law, the value of the network is proportional to the square of the number of people in the network, whereas Reed's Law demonstrates that the value for any individual within a network grows exponentially with every new member.) But with individuals, the opposite is true: The value of a contributor decreases disproportionately with each additional person contributing to a single project, idea, or innovation.
This is true across all areas but only so far as there are discrete pieces of work to be done. To be sure, there is clear value in having a marketing person work with a programmer on a project or a biologist working with a chemist on a problem. Proper team building is a powerful thing. But when an activity can be performed sufficiently by one person with adequate skills, doing the activity as a group should be avoided.
The concept of declining incremental value is essentially a "power function" or, more technically, a scale invariance — where the greatest impact comes from the smallest proportion of the population. There are numerous examples of power functions, including Stevens' law, Keplar's law, the long tail, Zipf's law, and the Pareto principle (or 80/20 rule). And power laws explain plenty of events in nature (i.e., earthquakes), finance (i.e., income distribution), language (word frequency), and even ecommerce (i.e., book sales on Amazon). Virtually all complex systems follow power laws within the system itself.
Here's how power functions relate to the brain. As described in my book Wired for Thought, the brain is a complex network of neurons. There are around 100 billion neurons connected to one another in the brain and they follow a network law — the value of a neuron is exponentially more valuable as the overall neural network grows. But when the brain becomes highly active, it reverts to a power law where a spike in activity is followed by a lull. Informally called neuronal avalanches, these spikes have been linked to knowledge transfer and storage, communication, and computational power — in short, intelligence.
The same is true when it comes to people. Our intelligence is incredibly complex and as a result, a great individual can far exceed the value of many mediocre minds. This is why it is absurd to ask questions like "how many mediocre people would it take to collectively beat Kasparov in a chess match?"
Mediocre minds can also destroy the value or contribution of a great mind. No matter how good Kasparov is at chess, he would not do well playing doubles with a mediocre chess player against Bobby Fisher alone. Or take Michelangelo's David as an example. A second artist cutting into David would cause massive destruction to the sculpture, even if that artist was Picasso. With each successive stroke of the chisel from additional artists, David's value, beauty, and overall impact would diminish. A perfect — albeit destructive — example of a power function.
Leaders need to make tough decisions all the time. One decision is easy: find the best people and empower them to do great things.

Monday, May 9, 2011

CEO pay - You may think it is Ridiculous, but it is really TRUE

I just read a CEO compensation report in WSJ. I captured a screenshot in WSJ's website. It is really interesting when you look at my red square box. Will you invest in a company whose CEO only earns less than 10k per month and whose profit is billion dollar, or in a company whose CEO earns a million dollar but whose profit is just in million?

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

A Changed Starbucks. A Changed C.E.O.

RAISE your hand if you remember when Starbucks seemed cool.
Anyone?
Think back. To before the planet groaned with 17,000 Starbucks shops. Before the pumpkin spice lattes and the Ciao Amore CDs. Before the Strawberries & Crème Frappuccino ice cream, the Starbucks cream liqueur, the Pinkberry-inspired Sorbetto.
In short, to before Howard D. Schultz and his trenta-size ambition turned a few coffeehouses here into the vast corporate Empire of the Bean.
The world has often seemed three espressos behind Mr. Schultz — which is why the low-key guy sitting in his office here doesn’t quite seem like Howard Schultz.
Did he just say “but”? As in, “We have won in many ways, but ...”? Was that a “we” instead of an “I”? A note of humility?
Yes, this is Howard Schultz: the man who willed Starbucks onto so many street corners — and then, for a moment, looked as if he might lose it all.
Not even Mr. Schultz could have predicted how Starbucks would change our culture when its first shop opened here, in Pike Place Market, on March 30, 1971. Like it or not, Starbucks became, for many of us, what we talk about when we talk about coffee. It changed how we drink it (on a sofa, with Wi-Fi, or on the subway), how we order it (“for here, grande, two-pump vanilla, skinny extra hot latte”) and what we are willing to pay for it ($4.30 for the aforementioned in Manhattan).
But during the depths of the recession, Starbucks nearly drowned in its caramel macchiato. After decades of breakneck expansion under Mr. Schultz, tight-fisted consumers abandoned it. The company’s sales and share price sank so low that insiders worried Starbucks might become a takeover target.
So, after an eight-year hiatus, an alarmed Mr. Schultz returned as chief executive in January 2008. He shut 900 shops, mostly in the United States, drastically cut costs and put the company back on course.
Friends and colleagues say this hellish experience left Mr. Schultz a changed man. Starbucks, these people say, is no longer “The Howard Schultz Show.” The adjective that many use to characterize his new self is “humble” — a word that few would have applied to him before.
“Everything Starbucks did in the past, more or less, had worked,” Mr. Schultz said in an interview in January at the company’s headquarters, with a view of Puget Sound south of downtown Seattle. “Every store we opened was successful, every city, every country.”
He continued: “Growth had a life of its own — and that’s O.K., when you’re hitting the cover off the ball every time, but at some point, nothing lasts forever.”
One thing hasn’t changed: the man dreams big. In that same interview, Mr. Schultz spoke of expanding into still more products and in markets like China. He is pushing, of all things, a brand of instant coffee. The words “Starbucks Coffee” were just removed from the company’s green mermaid logo because he wants to waltz his brand up and down the grocery aisles. On Thursday, he announced that the company had struck a deal with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters to distribute Starbucks coffee and teas for Keurig single-serving systems. Shares of Starbucks jumped nearly 10 percent on the news, reaching their highest level since 2006. The stock closed at $36.56 on Friday.
Mr. Schultz and his colleagues say Starbucks will keep its feet on the ground this time, but some outsiders have doubts. Detractors say Starbucks long ago ceded its role as a gourmet tastemaker to become a “billions-and-billions served” chain like McDonald’s. Starbucks — “Charbucks,” to those who complain that its heavily roasted coffee tastes burned — will never rekindle the old romance, these people say.
“Has anybody said they came back because people love the coffee again?” asks Bryant Simon, a history professor at Temple University and author of “Everything but the Coffee: Learning About America From Starbucks.”
“They came back because they’re remaking themselves as a brand that competes on value, largely — a brand that’s everywhere, easily accessible, predictable,” Mr. Simon says.
HOWARD SCHULTZ, now 57, is a tall, sinewy man with a toothy grin and a silky sales pitch. He rarely sticks to script, preferring to speak off the cuff, whatever his audience. In conversations, he leans in, locks eyes and gives the impression that, right now, there is no one else in the world he would rather be talking to. When he speaks of “soul” and “authenticity” and “love,” you could almost forget that he runs a multibillion-dollar business that has become an uneasy symbol of globalization. Or that the British actor Rupert Everett once likened Starbucks to a metastasizing cancer.
The story of Mr. Schultz’s life and career has been told many times, not least by Mr. Schultz. (His second book, “Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life Without Losing Its Soul,” is to be published on March 29.) But some highlights bear repeating:
He grew up poor in the Bay View housing projects in Canarsie, Brooklyn, received a football scholarship to Northern Michigan University and, after a variety of jobs, joined the fledging Starbucks in 1982, as head of marketing. Inspired by Italy’s coffee culture, he left Starbucks and opened his own coffee shop. Then, in 1987, he bought Starbucks, which at the time had all of six shops. By 1995, Starbucks had 677 shops. By 2000, it had 3,501, and that year Mr. Schultz stepped aside as C.E.O.
And so it went for Starbucks, one success after another, until the recession hit and exposed the company’s overreach to the world.
In December 2007, Mr. Schultz was worried that the Starbucks brand was losing its luster, and he and the board decided that in the new year, they would push aside Jim Donald and announce that Mr. Schultz would return as C.E.O. That month, Mr. Schultz, his wife, Sheri, and their two children flew to Hawaii for their annual getaway.
But on the beach in Kona, he just couldn’t relax. He kept checking the company’s daily sales figures and was horrified to see that they were falling by double digits.
Also in Hawaii then was his friend Michael Dell, who had recently returned to run Dell Inc. On a long bicycle ride along the coast, Mr. Dell told Mr. Schultz that when he returned to Dell, he wrote what he called a “transformational agenda.” Mr. Schultz then created his own plan for Starbucks.
His goals were to fix troubled stores, to rekindle an emotional attachment with customers and to make longer-term changes like reorganizing executives and revamping the supply chain.

He returned to Seattle, handed copies of his plan to the company’s senior executives and posed the big question: Are you in, or are you out? Eight of those top 10 executives have since departed. 

“What the company needed then was what he used to be to us — the innovation, the refusal to not be a champion,” says Troy Alstead, the chief financial officer. “A lot of people were questioning, in that span before he came back, ‘Were we done?’ And Howard came back, and it wasn’t even a question anymore.”
MR. SCHULTZ usually rises at 4 a.m., without an alarm, downs a Starbucks Sumatran coffee at home, followed by a short double latte or espresso macchiato from one of two Starbucks stores he visits on his way to work. He arrives in his office by 6:30.
Friends and colleagues agree that he is as fanatical as ever about Starbucks. Millard Drexler, the chief executive of J. Crew, recently e-mailed Mr. Schultz to complain that the coffee lids at a Starbucks on Astor Place in Manhattan kept spilling coffee on his shirt. Mr. Schultz’s reply: “On it.”
Mr. Drexler, who has a habit of e-mailing C.E.O.’s with complaints, says: “I can give you many more examples when they say, ‘I’ll send this to a research department or a gatekeeper.’ ” But, he says of Starbucks, “to have that kind of quality control they have around the world is pretty extraordinary.”
It was on such a morning in early 2008 that Mr. Schultz was convinced he had a product that would re-energize the company’s tired sales. It was called Sorbetto after the Italian for “sorbet,” and the drink was a twist on Pinkberry, the frozen yogurt chain in which Mr. Schultz is an investor.
Mr. Schultz had flown to Italy to taste the ingredients of his new product and thought he had the next Frappuccino. By that summer, 300 Starbucks locations in California were bathed in pink to promote the new drink. Starbucks had shipped in ingredients from Italy, and Mr. Schultz had primed investors.
But customers didn’t like the sugary concoction. And neither did Starbucks baristas, who had to spend an hour and a half cleaning the Sorbetto machines at the end of their shifts. A few months later, Mr. Schultz abandoned Sorbetto.
“Sorbetto, we did too quickly, and that was my fault,” Mr. Schultz says.
The headlong introduction was a mistake, but it was also classic Schultz.
“He likes things moving quickly, he likes people to be decisive, he’s got this energy level, this need for driving and for winning, and I think at times it’s hard for some people to keep up,” says Michelle Gass, the president of Seattle’s Best Coffee, which Starbucks owns. After his missteps, Ms. Gass says, Mr. Schultz has become more disciplined and a better listener.
Mr. Schultz concedes that he can no longer run Starbucks through the Cult of Howard. And he readily acknowledges that he badly misread the economy and underestimated the extent to which his customers would pull back during the recession.
At the time, he says, he had a hard time accepting that Starbucks would become a poster child for excess.
After his return, he halted new store openings and, with a P.R. flourish, closed every Starbucks in the nation for three hours to retrain baristas. The chain ran its biggest ad campaign ever, emphasizing the quality and freshness of its coffee. It ordered baristas to dump brewed coffee after 30 minutes.
But growth in same-store sales dipped below zero for the first time ever, and the company’s share price kept falling. It was a new feeling for Mr. Schultz, like the A student who breezes into college and then gets C’s.
Executives concluded that Starbucks had to close 200 American shops. The board suggested 600. Executives said that if sales and the economy got worse, they would also cut $400 million in costs. The board said no, let’s start cutting costs immediately, while closing locations. Starbucks ultimately closed 900 locations worldwide and cut $580 million in costs. As the decline in same-store sales neared 10 percent, board members asked executives to model what would happen if the sales slide hit 20 percent — which once would have been unthinkable.
“Nobody knew where the bottom was,” recalls James G. Shennan Jr., a venture capitalist who has been on the company’s board since 1990. “The general agreement around the table was we better have the doomsday plan.” 

In December 2008, almost a year after he returned as C.E.O., Mr. Schultz flew to New York on the company jet. He and his team were scheduled to meet with analysts from Wall Street, where Mr. Schultz, once a darling, was now being doubted as never before.
On the plane, he reviewed the grim quarterly numbers: Profits were underwhelming, and holiday sales looked dreadful. Just before the meeting, the company’s chief financial officer, Pete Bocian, resigned.
Mr. Schultz reread the script for the presentation — and didn’t like what he saw. He worried that the stock price might drop so low that someone would swoop in and buy the company.
He summoned his executives to his Fifth Avenue apartment. Late into the night, around the dining room table, they revised the presentation.
The next day, as the executives rehearsed, Mr. Schultz kept interrupting. Vivek Varma, who had recently joined Starbucks as head of public affairs, told him that he should leave.
No one could remember anyone talking like that to Mr. Schultz. But he left. The next day, he and the other executives painted a somber picture for analysts and laid out the recovery plans. Rather than plunge, the company’s share price rose 20 cents that day.
Over the next year, Starbucks made much deeper and more difficult changes than Mr. Schultz had originally envisioned. By April 2009, same-store sales, though still down from a year earlier, were finally rising. By the holidays, they had turned positive.
INSTANT coffee: the very words leave a bad taste in many people’s mouths. But Starbucks has been developing instant coffee in earnest since 2006. Mr. Schultz says his industry considers instant a “death category.” It is, however, a $20 billion one.
Before he returned, Mr. Schultz complained that if Apple could develop the iPod in less than a year, Starbucks could surely develop an instant coffee in that time. Finally, in January 2009, the new product, Via, was scheduled for a full-scale introduction.
But there was a problem: market research was showing that skeptical customers needed a lesson about instant coffee. Some executives worried that a big rollout might flop. Ms. Gass and a few others told Mr. Schultz that Starbucks should delay Via and introduce it in two cities before going national.
“That was hard for him,” Ms. Gass says. But rather than overrule his executives, as he might have in the past, Mr. Schultz agreed. It turned out to be the right decision. After testing Via in Seattle and Chicago, Starbucks rewrote the plan for a nationwide introduction. For instance, instead of just giving away free samples, which customers forgot in the bottom of their briefcases, purses and backpacks, it prepared Via in the stores and gave customers a blind taste test.
In 2010, sales of Via were over $200 million. The instant coffee is now also sold in grocery stores and in Britain, Canada, Japan and the Philippines.
The methodical introduction of Via offered a sharp contrast to the old Howard Schultz whose gut told him — wrongly — that Sorbetto would be a winner. But he has also gone so far as to embrace big-company ideas like focus groups, which he used to shun. Delegating, and accepting other people’s conclusions, is now easier for him. “There’s been more arguing, challenging and debate in the last two to three years than there’s ever been,” says Mr. Alstead, the chief financial officer.
Mr. Schultz’s take: “What leadership means is the courage it takes to talk about things that, in the past, perhaps we wouldn’t have, because I’m not right all the time.”
Born entrepreneurs are not necessarily born managers. You need creativity and drive to start a company, discipline and delegation to run one. In the last year, people who work closely with Mr. Schultz say, he has shown he can make the leap.

Perhaps the bigger question is whether Mr. Schultz can, as he likes to say, preserve Starbucks’s soul, or whatever soul it has left. In a switch, the company is designing new stores with local woods, furniture and art, to make them feel more like a neighborhood shop. It is also buying specialty beans in limited supply, as artisanal shops do.

Whether Starbucks can recapture a neighborhood feel, as Mr. Schultz insists, is anyone’s guess. For many people, especially in areas where carefully made, lighter-roast coffee from the likes of Stumptown and Intelligentsia is trendy, Starbucks has become a place to go for free Wi-Fi, or to use the restroom, or to buy a coffee on the go.
There is a market for a convenient coffee chain, as the recent Starbucks sales rebound shows. But some customers and analysts say that the mass-market approach conflicts with Mr. Schultz’s vision of a global giant that somehow feels local everywhere.
Mr. Simon of Temple University says: “When you’re selling stuff people don’t need, you’ve got to be selling something else, and that’s what Starbucks lost. There’s a kind of dissonance between the messaging and the actual practice.”
Mr. Schultz no longer plans to blanket the United States with new Starbucks stores, sometimes with multiple locations on one block — a practice that inspired a contest on Flickr to see how many Starbucks shops people could fit into a single photograph. Instead, like so many other executives, he has his sights on China. Starbucks already has roughly 430 stores in mainland China and plans to have 1,500 there by 2015. India beckons as well. The company also plans to sell a wider variety of drinks and foods in grocery stores and its own shops, like Kind fruit and nut bars, which Starbucks put on the map.
IT may be difficult to believe, but there was a time when McDonald’s was a novelty. But, like Ray Kroc, who took over a small hamburger business and built it into the most successful fast food operation in the world, Mr. Schultz has learned that growth can be seductive, and that it can exact a price.
Starbucks and its leader are more measured than during his last stint in the corner office. “I think we are very conscious of the things that we have done wrong over the years, particularly when we just got caught up in the growth phase,” says Mr. Shennan, the Starbucks director. “We are not going to do that again under Howard’s management, I tell you, or the current board’s.”
In January, three years after his return, Mr. Schultz stood before 1,100 employees at the headquarters here. Three thousand more from around the world were patched in via Webcast. The company had finished its strongest holiday season ever, and Mr. Schultz had just unveiled its new, “coffee”-less logo. Yet his words were laced with caution.
“We have won in many ways,” he said, “but I feel it’s so important to remind us all of how fleeting success and winning can be.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/business/13coffee.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Villain or Hero?

The release of the movie The Social Network about Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg raises a good question about who succeeds in business. For the New York Times, quoting Gawker founder Nick Denton, it's the issue of "whether it is possible to be successful without being at least a bit of a brute."
Despite what you have probably read in the leadership literature, the answer to the question is almost certainly "no."
Even Robert Sutton's bestseller, The No Asshole Rule, has a chapter giving the brutes their due. He presents the evidence that bad behavior often leads to gains in personal power and stature as it helps individuals intimidate and vanquish rivals. At the level of organizational effects, he allows that it can motivate perfectionism and bring underperformers to their senses.
To those grudging compliments I would add another line of defense: People committed to an idea are often so focused on getting the idea implemented that they are insensitive to their effects on others. Their focus, persistence, and resilience blocks out anything that stands in their way — and the feelings of others belong in that category. That might be the story with Zuckerberg.
For that matter, it is probably a big part of Laura Esserman's success. She's the breast cancer surgeon and medical visionary who is featured in Chip and Dan Heath's book Switch and in a recent Wall Street Journal article (which by the way only hints at her achievement, because it covers just one of her four profoundly influential initiatives). Esserman is, by her own admission, quick to anger and sometimes hard on those who work with her. With 45,000 women in the U.S. still dying each year from breast cancer, she has an impatience for progress that is hard to begrudge. Sometimes that overrides her desire to be liked.

The fact is that people who get great things done are, like the rest of us, imperfect human beings. They have weaknesses alongside their strengths, and bad days interspersed with the good. They exhibit both appropriate and inappropriate behavior. This reality seems tough to accept. When I teach my course on power, students typically try to infer people's underlying motivations, decide if they "like" the characters we are studying, and determine whether individuals are "good" or "bad." This human leaning toward oversimplified judgments has a number of negative consequences.
First, it retards learning. Once people determine someone is "bad" or "flawed," they think they don't have much to learn from that individual. That's wrong — we should be focused on learning from all people and all situations. This is true because, as the research literature teaches us, we can learn as much from failures as from successes. It's also true because even a deeply flawed leader can have a strength worth emulating.
Second, characterizing multiply-dimensioned human beings into oversimplified categories like "good" or "bad" inevitably can only deceive us. It eliminates nuance and inappropriately reduces the complex nature of human behavior and social life. A reductionist view may make things seem clearer, but provides a not very veridical view of the world and the people with whom we need to interact.
Third, it resists useful revision. Once we categorize someone, we stop paying attention to their actual behavior and instead assimilate everything into our (already formed) judgments. That compromises our ability to interact effectively with those around us. For the "good," we become too trusting, not seeing the possibility of self-interested behavior on their part. As for the "bad," we foreclose the whole idea of interacting with people who might be beneficial.
Fourth and maybe most importantly, our creation of "heroes" or "villains" is potentially immobilizing. Author and teacher Michael Eric Dyson explains this eloquently as he reveals the dangers of lionizing leaders. Dr. Martin Luther King, for example, was flesh and blood, and "investing in King's perfection allows us to dismiss the humanity of the underregarded." Dyson notes that we would be better off to allow the man his imperfections because "with a more nuanced view of King in play, we should be inspired to create social change in our communities, armed with the belief that good things can be done by imperfect people." Similarly, commenting on the revelation that Jesse Jackson fathered a child out of wedlock, Dyson points out that "leaders cannot possibly satisfy the demand for purity that some make" and that leaders who believe they are heroes "often possess a self-satisfaction that stifles genuine leadership." Leaders, and others, who recognize that good and bad runs through every human being, are more likely to be prudent, not overconfident, and more humble.
It may be true that the search for, and construction of, heroes and villains is inevitable in literature and film and in life. One way to experience The Social Network is with the sense that we must consign Mark Zuckerberg to the one category or the other. But if we really want to understand social behavior, well enough to get important things done, we would be well served to recognize that the keys to success will never be as simple as that.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/10/facebooks_mark_zuckerberg_vill.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+harvardbusiness+%28HBR.org%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Friday, April 30, 2010

Where the Bonuses Are Biggest




Bonuses make up a much larger share of earnings for employees in the finance and insurance industry than in any other major service-providing sector, according to a Labor Department report.


The chart shows the percent of gross earnings — defined as the sum of wages, overtime, bonuses, shift differentials and paid leave — held by bonuses. In financial services, bonuses account for 6.5 percent of gross earnings; the percentage for the next highest bonus-getter is less than half as large (professional, scientific and technical services, at 2.9 percent).

Within financial services, bonuses as a percentage of gross earnings were especially high for employees who work in securities, commodity contracts, funds and trusts. There, as you can see in the chart below, bonuses make up 12.7 percent of gross earnings. (The blue bars, labeled “supplemental pay,” also include overtime compensation and shift differential pay, which is a premium paid for working during hours that are less convenient than those of the typical workday.)

So why are bonuses so big — not only in absolute numbers but also relative to salaries and gross earnings — in the financial sector? The tax code appears largely responsible.

For example, some research has found that a 1993 change to the tax code intended to curb executive pay at public companies may have instead unintentionally increased it, and has had especially detrimental effects to pay incentives in the financial sector.

Update: Here is another (more comprehensive) paper on other Congressional efforts to discourage outsize pay, and the unintended consequences of those policies.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/where-the-bonuses-are-biggest/?partner=rss&emc=rss