The rattling sound you hear behind you is that of a wheel that has fallen off of a Hummer that's being towed to the salvage yard, never to return to the GM business plan:

...the collapse of the heavier-vehicle market in the U.S. because of high gasoline prices is pushing GM to completely juggle its business plan. The company has recently introduced a few passenger cars ... that are more profitable and sell at higher prices than typical GM passenger cars. Mr. Wagoner has said it needs to transform the entire car lineup into a profit center. GM decided to consider selling its Hummer brand earlier this year when the demand for SUVs began to significantly recede under the weight of $4-a-gallon gasoline costs. Hummers are widely viewed as gas guzzlers, and that image has crimped GM's ability to sell the SUVs amid high fuel prices. It has also slowed GM's push to convince U.S. buyers it is committed to fuel efficiency. People familiar with the matter said GM isn't any longer seriously considering a complete revamp of the Hummer division into a lineup selling vehicles with better fuel economy. That would be a costly proposition for the auto maker at a time when it faces a potential liquidity crunch. One significant hurdle for GM is its relationships with Hummer dealers. Because of tough dealer-franchise laws and other agreements the auto maker has with dealers, it needs to negotiate closely with hundreds of individual store owners on the future steps it takes with the brand.

The sound you don't hear coming up behind you is a car with nothing under the hood:

Lotus is developing technology that will put the roar of the traditional combustion engine under the hoods of eco-friendly vehicles, in an attempt to make the quiet cars safer for unsuspecting pedestrians – particularly the blind – and cyclists. Some are almost silent at slow speeds. Lotus said its "safe and sound hybrid technology" simulates the traditional grunt of a combustion engine, making it "instantly recognizable that the vehicle is in motion". It has already put the system into a Toyota Prius, one of the most popular hybrid cars on the market. The device kicks in automatically to produce an artificial engine noise when the hybrid car runs on its electric motor. When the car's combustion engine takes over, sensors fitted to the engine and suspension turn off the sound. The engine noise is produced by a waterproof loudspeaker positioned next to the car's radiator, making the sound seem to originate from under the bonnet. The system produces a pitch and frequency designed to help pedestrians identify the car's speed and distance.

Posted by Starling Hunter at 4:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From NRO's Campaign Spot we learn today that the only way we'll see any business leaders (past or present) speaking from the dais at the upcoming Democratic shindig is if one is burned at the stake:

Looking over the complete list of speakers at the Democratic convention, I note... that there is not a single businessman, entrepreneur, or private sector innovator speaking in the entire four nights, barring some last-minute addition.

Groups represented include the SEIU, the NEA, AFT, NARAL and Planned Parenthood. But not one representative of any company - just politicians, representatives of unions, and leaders of abortion groups. (I suppose some wag will say that Al Gore counts, as the innovative inventor of the Internet and creator of that television channel.)

By comparison, the GOP convention features EBay CEO Meg Whitman and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. And this isn't even counting Mitt Romney, co-founder of Bain Capital.

The red carpet has been rolled out for big labor, however, as evidenced by the fact that four union presidents will be speaking: Tom Balanoff from Illinois SEIU, NEA President Reg Weaver, AFT President Randi Weingarten, and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.

Maybe the plan is to hang a CEO in effigy.

Posted by Starling Hunter at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Analysis by S. Vencilao

THEORETICAL OVERVIEW

Power can be derived from many sources. How it’s obtained in an organization depends on the type of power being sought. John French and Bertram Raven suggested five interpersonal bases of power:

* Legitimate Power: a person’s ability to influence others by being in a more powerful position. A person at a higher level has power over people below. In theory, organizational equals have equal legitimate power. However, each person with legitimate power uses it with a personal flair. Legitimate power is similar to the concept of authority.

* Reward Power: a person’s ability to reward the behaviour of others. This is often used to back up legitimate power. If followers value the rewards that the person can provide, they may respond to orders, requests, and directions.

* Coercive Power: a person’s ability to punish noncompliance of followers. Followers may comply because of fear.

* Expert Power: a person’s ability to influence others based on special expertise.

* Referent Power: a person’s ability to influence others based on charisma due to personality or style of behaviour. Charisma is a term often used to describe the magnetic personalities of some individuals. However, some contend that charismatic individuals do not always make the best leaders.

SYNOPSIS

Parts of the episode which are relevant to the theory:

* Foreman follows House’s tip to add IVIG to John’s treatment even though it contradicts the conclusions already made by Dr. Hamilton.

* Foreman informs Cameron and Chase that Hamilton has offered him a job. Cameron says that Foreman already has the most prestigious fellowship but Foreman says that Hamilton is offering him a partnership so Cameron asks why he didn’t agree right away. Foreman doesn’t think that House would let him go just to be mean to him.

* House and Foreman discuss Foreman’s job offer: “If you think he’s a better doctor than I am, then you should take the job. Otherwise, you should get him to buy you two or three more nostalgic lunches and politely decline.” Foreman: “It’s that simple? I should just ignore the mockery and abuse?”

Continue reading "The Five Bases of Interpersonal Power in House, M.D. S01E09" »

Posted by Starling Hunter at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

MEMRI reports that The Iranian government has recently reiterated their intention to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if they are attacked:

...in the event of military action against Iran by the enemies [i.e. the U.S. and Israel], the geostrategic role of the Persian Gulf, and especially of the Strait of Hormuz, will come into play as part of Iran's defense [plan, as well of its policy] of harming the interests of both the attackers and their supporters. The policy of closing the Strait of Hormuz was drawn up [expressly for this purpose]; it is made possible both by the Strait's geographic location and by the IRGC naval forces' capabilities in the Persian Gulf ... "In the event of [military] action by an enemy, no one should expect Iran to refrain from using every [available] means of self-defense, including closing the Strait of Hormuz with a view to damaging the invaders' interests. Closing the Strait of Hormuz is part of Iran's defense policy in face of the U.S. military threat..."

The Iranian policy is based on an accurate, if not obvious, recognition of the importance of oil in the global economy and thus the Strait's unique strategic importance:

"The Strait of Hormuz is one of 14 locations in the world with unique strategic importance. Over 60 percent of the world's energy reserves are located in the Persian Gulf, and 17 million barrels of oil are transported daily from the strait by oil tankers. In today's global economy, oil plays the same role as blood in the human body, and under present circumstances, it is impossible to conceive of an active and dynamic economy without oil. Industry is completely dependent on [Persian] Gulf oil for survival.

What the Iranians are not saying- and understandably so- is how they plan to keep their own economy afloat or how they plan to get their own oil and gas to world markets or even how they will keep the lights on in Teheran and Qom if and when they undertake a game that more than one can play.

Posted by Starling Hunter at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Just before graduating our first class of seniors, PBS visited the Education City campus of Carnegie Mellon University in Doha, Qatar. They produced a nice story about CMUQ and the other universities in residence here.

Posted by Starling Hunter at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Middle East Media Research Institute has a fascinating interchange between a "liberal" Syrian actor and a illiberal Kuwaiti cleric about modernization, tradition, and identity. Most important in the debate is not the differences that the men have, but where they agree: that there are certain institutions and cultural practices which serve to bar the Arab nation's advancement and integration into the global society. Chief among them are the separation of church and state, equal rights for women, human rights, and corporate and fiscal accountability (as an antidote to rampant corruption).

Posted by Starling Hunter at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For a few years now I have been using reality TV shows like American Chopper, Dirty Jobs, and Deadliest Catch, as well as The Office and Prison Break, in my courses on Organizational Behavior. I use them because they reinforce the essential dignity of hard work, as well as provide numerous valuable lessons about motivation, individual differences, job and organizational design, stress, groups and teams, power and politics, and above all, leadership.John Nolte has a great post today at Pajamas Media about why reality shows featuring very hard working men are extremely popular.

Posted by Starling Hunter at 1:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For nearly a century, citizens of North America having a problem with a business, particularly the way it does business, have been able to turn the the Better Business Bureau for assistance:

The Better Business Bureau (BBB), founded in 1912, is an organization based in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. The BBB states its purpose is to act as a mutually trusted intermediary between consumers and businesses to resolve disputes, to facilitate communication, and to provide information on ethical business practices. Its website lists BBB's core services as: Business Reliability Reports, Dispute Resolution, Truth-in-Advertising, Consumer and Business Education, Charity Review.

According to its website, the BBB has as its mission "to be the leader in advancing marketplace trust." Steven Malanga writes yesterday that there in some states in North America, you have few options but to depart if you run a business and it's the state that's ruining the marketplace. And nowhere is this apparently more true than in certain blue states, chief among them a northeastern blue state with a large city with five boroughs:

Shortly after he was confirmed as governor of New York earlier this year, David Paterson told a group of business executives that when he received congratulations from old friends he hadn’t heard from in years, he was surprised how many no longer lived in New York. "All of them basically said the same thing," Paterson told the group. "'Good luck in New York state, but we can't pay the taxes. The opportunities aren't there.'”

After that experience, Paterson presumably can understand the complaints of corporate executives recently surveyed by Development Counsellors International, which advises companies on where to locate their facilities. More than four in ten of them have ranked New York as the worst state to do business in--second only to California in unfavorable mentions. The most common gripes included high taxes and anti-business regulations. Joining New York and California on the list of most unpopular states were New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts.

The consequences for the high tax states are reflected in their budget shortfalls, as well as the lost opportunities that other states are all happy to accommodate:

The DCI study, coming as it did amidst growing talk of state fiscal crises around the country, is particularly revealing. Of the approximately $48 billion in accumulated budget shortfalls that the 29 states with projected deficits are facing, $33 billion, or two-thirds of the gap, is concentrated in those five states considered by corporate executives to be the least friendly to business. Meanwhile, among the five states ranked as having the best business environment, Texas and North Carolina have no projected budget gaps, and Georgia, Tennessee and Florida are facing shortfalls amounting to about $4.1 billion, or less than one-tenth of the states’ total.

The contrast in the geography of the top and bottom five states is as noteworthy as the policy differences. It appears that after years (perhaps decades) of being told by tax-happy legislatures and congressional delegations to stick their complaints where the sun don't shine, business people have instead begun to migrate to the Sun Belt to better business boroughs.

Posted by Starling Hunter at 12:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In business, the term "channel conflict" is used to describe a situation wherein a manufacturer sells, markets, or distributes is products through competing channels of distribution. For example, if a company already uses retailers, distributors, dealers, or sales representatives and then decides to also sell the product direct to consumers via the internet, we'd call this channel conflict. It is not always a bad thing and not always to be avoided. The airlines sale of tickets through travel agents and over the internet is an example of channel conflict that persists without major problems.

The 2008 presidential race between John McCain and Barack Obama has given a new example of channel conflict. An deeply unpopular industry (oil) and its ultimate channel of distribution (local gas stations) are implicated. But the other channel, the one around which the conflict revolves, is of the mass communication variety. It's not the internet, but rather television. The Tampa Bay Business Journal explains (Hat Tip: National Review)

A plan to campaign at gas pumps in Tampa and Miami sputtered out Wednesday when a Michigan advertising company refused to take an advertising order. Gas Station TV, which provides video content on gas pumps around the country, decided against running an ad for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Wednesday saying it’s decided to stay politically neutral. At the same time, however, Obama campaign staffers are telling media they believe the refusal had more to do with the content of the ads — which attacked oil companies for creating high gasoline prices — than for simply staying away from politics.

While the Obama campaign sees the refusal as an example of "the oil companies and their friends... standing with Sen. McCain, the candidate for president who is proposing to offer them a $4 billion tax cut", there is a simpler explanation, as Jim Geraghty of National Review explains:

I can understand Team Obama's frustration with the rejection, but it takes a lot of nerve — or perhaps arrogance — to ask a small businessman to run advertising that essentially says, "my suppliers are a bunch of greedy jerks."

There is actually a precedent for doing such a thing. Three years ago Steve Jobs publicly accused record company executives of "greediness" when they fail to pressure Apple to raise prices on iTunes. But the owners of corner gas stations have neither the clout of a Steve Jobs, the ability to play suppliers off against one another, nor an industry in financial peril. Nor, for that matter, do they have in candidate Obama, someone who understands that neither they nor Gas StationTV are friends of big oil. Rather they are channels with common and sometimes conflicting interests.

Posted by Starling Hunter at 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a post entitled "Single, Childless and Downright Terrified" Jane Gross writes in her NY Times blog about the fear of growing old (Hat Tip: Belmont Club). It's not the age that gives rise to the fear so much as the combination of being single and childless and senior. Who, Ms. Gross ponders, will care for these people in their sunset years, when they can't care for themselves.

I’ve written before about pairs or small groups of unrelated women who are ...constructing houses designed for their old age. But these arrangements, however cozy and comforting, exist outside the law, since friendship remains, and likely will always remain, an unsanctioned relationship with none of the legal rights granted to parents, children, spouses and, in some locations, domestic partners. Friends helping friends through illness or old age is a luxury of those who can afford to do it with no help from the government or their employers.

The handful of benefits available to family caregivers are not available to friends who have taken on the identical role. The most obvious example of this is the Family Medical Leave Act, which excludes friends (and also siblings!), even if they are around-the-clock caretakers...

..(A recent) essay in The Boston Globe by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow... examines the “second class’’ status of friendship in “the American hierarchy of relationships’’ and describes a nascent movement to grant it legal status. The subject seems ripe for conversation at a time when more and more of us are approaching old age outside of nuclear families.

It should surprise no one that columnists for the NY Times and the Boston Globe would favor of legalistic remedies over voluntary or private-sector solutions. There are already several publicly-traded firms like Amedisys, Gentiva, and Almost Family providing outpatient and home health care. Ms Gross and Tuhus-Dubrow are probably unaware that at the time of the penning of their laments, this sector was attracting the serious attention of institutional investors as evidenced by rising prices, volumes, and accumulation by major fund managers.

What is even less evident to them, I suspect, is that the fingers of their writing hands have also traced the outlines of a new business model. There are several small, privately-owned companies in operation that provide services for the able and affluent as long as they remain both. But that market is fragmented and under-served. The segment I'll call the self-organized living and assisted retirement (SOLAR) market is in need of viable business models. And chances are they will arise and diffuse well before the government extends legal recognition to friends.

Posted by Starling Hunter at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)