Wednesday, June 24, 2009

How Can Leadership Benefit from a Changing Environment?

Here is another article I wanted to share with you. This piece on how leadership should adapt to a changing world also comes from BusinessWeek.com via Msnbc.com. I think many people are noting a change in their perception of what the future will look like for business. Like all manners of change...some people are excited and some people are anxious.

I recently had the opportunity to attend a seminar on Integral Thinking based on Spiral Dynamics. The common question seemed to be, "Change...from what to what?". While some leaders are convinced that the best way to get ahead is to "look back" others are "looking forward" to a new way.

This article offers some interesting principles leaders can use to re-think their goals as they work through this crisis. Integrity seems to be the common thread...


Winning at all costs is for losers
10 rules (and then some) for being an effective — and ethical — leader
By Bruce Weinstein
updated 12:15 p.m. CT, Tues., May 5, 2009

"Never underestimate the other guy's greed." This isn't just a classic line from the 1983 Brian De Palma film, Scarface (written by Oliver Stone). It also reflects the attitude that has caused the economic disaster we're now clawing ourselves out of.
Isn't it time for a new way of thinking?

I propose the following leadership guidelines for C-level executives, investment bankers, entrepreneurs, and everyone else whose decisions can affect the financial well being of other people.

1. What's good for the gander is good for the goose

At a time when companies are slashing their labor forces and freezing salary increases, and when some employees are being asked to take lower-paying positions, it is deeply unethical for leaders to retain their sky-high compensation and to expect enormous bonuses. They should follow the example of Michael Kneeland, CEO of United Rentals, who recently asked for, and was given, a 20 percent pay cut. Let's hear more reports like this one.

2. Know your product

According to a recent three-part story in The Wall Street Journal, the willingness of investors to buy and sell financial products whose complexity they didn't fully understand was one of the primary catalysts of the bust. From our current sober perspective, it seems unbelievable that self-identified experts could be involved in transactions with so much at stake and at the same time be ignorant about exactly what it is they were buying or selling, but this is what happened, and on a grand scale, no less.

Because money was being made in these deals, no one thought to question what was going on or had the strength of character to speak up about any suspicions. However, knowing your product isn't a nicety of doing business. It is an ethical obligation — to your company, your clients, and yourself.

3. Winning at all costs is for losers

Most of us were taught that we should treat people the way we'd like to be treated ourselves. However, too many business leaders have failed to take this seriously. Instead, the guideline seems to be, "Get all you can by any means necessary." Look at credit-card companies that charge exorbitant interest rates, changing customers' fees without telling them why. These companies defend such practices on the grounds that they will lose their competitive edge if they don't play hardball.

This kind of leadership is shortsighted, unfair, and ultimately bad for business, since the consequences will be more federal regulation and oversight. Good leaders know that if they don't regulate their businesses themselves, someone else will.

4. Tell the truth

A leader has an ethical obligation to be honest with stakeholders about issues that directly concern them. One of these issues is the leader's own health. Consider the recent 10 percent drop in Apple stock after CEO Steve Jobs announced that he was taking a five-month medical leave of absence. Because Jobs battled pancreatic cancer several years ago, there was speculation that his cancer had returned, even though Jobs had announced earlier that he was merely suffering from a "hormone imbalance." While stockholders may have punished Jobs for his announcement, he did the right thing in saying he was taking a leave for medical reasons. There is no shame in being ill, and true leadership involves being forthcoming about one's illness — and anything else that can affect the flourishing of the organization.

5. Prevent harm

When you can reasonably foresee that a decision is likely to hurt people and you make that decision anyway, you're being both irresponsible and stupid. For example, subprime mortgage lenders and brokers who lend money to people likely to default are enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of us, since the federal government may be called upon for financial rescue.

What such predators don't realize is that in the long run, their practices will come back to haunt them in the form of bankruptcy filings, bad PR, and perhaps even prison time for the worst offenders. The good leader recognizes that preventing harm to clients and company alike is both an ethical responsibility and a wise business policy.

6. Don't exploit

It is easy to take advantage of a situation for financial gain, but doing so isn't consistent with good leadership. After Hurricane Ike hit last year, the wholesale price of gasoline shot up, which was nothing more than price gouging.

In the short run, companies that exploited a natural tragedy may have profited financially, but the long-term negative consequences are real and significant: In New York State, for example, more than a dozen companies were fined more than $60,000 for unfair business practices following Hurricane Katrina. Of course, the reason to do the right thing is simply because it is the right thing to do. But it is also true that taking the low road can be harmful professionally and personally.

7. Don't make promises you can't keep and keep the promises you make.

There are rare circumstances in which we not only have a right but an ethical obligation to break a promise, but generally speaking, we have a strong duty to be true to our word. This is, after all, one of the primary ways that we show our respect to people. Recall that last March, Dr Pepper said it would give out free cans of soda to "everyone in America" if Chinese Democracy, the long-overdue album from Guns 'n' Roses, came out by the end of the year. When Axl Rose surprised the music world by releasing the album in November, the beverage company was unable to deliver a soft drinks to everyone who wanted one (Whether it's ethical for a band that has only one of its original members to call itself "Guns 'n' Roses" is another matter.) Good leaders are careful to make only those promises they are likely to keep and keep the promises they do make. When they are unable to keep those promises, they own up to it, which brings us to the next rule of good leadership:

8. Take responsibility for your mistakes

Transparency and accountability should be the new buzzwords. This means, in part, that business leaders who make mistakes should apologize to those they have let down and do whatever is necessary to make amends. In the wake of the toy industry's lead-paint scare in 2007, Mattel CEO Robert Eckert took the high road and told a Senate subcommittee that the company failed "by not closely overseeing subcontractors in China whose toys didn't meet U.S. safety standards," and that Mattel was working with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure that these products would be safer. It must have been extraordinarily difficult for Eckert to apologize publicly, but by finding the courage to do so, he demonstrated ethical leadership.

9. People, not profits

We often recite — incorrectly — President Calvin Coolidge's statement, "The business of America is business." (What he actually said was, "The chief business of the American people is business.") But far more important is what followed that statement: "Of course the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence." Coolidge's policies are often blamed for bringing about the Great Depression, but if enough people had heeded the latter statement, perhaps our history would have been different. Money has no intrinsic value; it is good only for what it can get us. For the good leader, this means that the ultimate goal in business — and life — is not hoarding riches but making things better for all, especially the neediest.

10. Be kind, not king

The relentless quest to be No.1 can blind us to what's really valuable in life: being a decent human being. Yes, good leaders are enthusiastically devoted to accomplishing their mission, but this pursuit cannot be at the expense of the well being of others. For example, leaders with the unenviable task of letting people go will avoid taking the easy way out . No one likes being the bearer of bad news, but the good leader does so with the dignity that leadership of the highest order demands.

Bonus rule: You are not your career

It's admirable to be passionate about your job, but passion can easily become obsession, and that's where the danger starts. When your life's work becomes your life, it is time to take a step back and reevaluate your priorities. I've already shown why you ought to take vacations and stay home when you're sick. More critical than either of these is recognizing what's really important in life — and it's not your career, no matter how satisfying that may be. Good leaders not only make room for family, friends, and spirituality; they know these are the things that truly make life worth living.

It should be obvious by now that the above rules apply not just to those in the financial sector but to everyone else, too. They are, after all, based on the five fundamental principles of ethics: Do No Harm, Make Things Better, Respect Others, Be Fair , and Be Loving. As Peter Drucker pointed out, it is not enough to do things right; we must also do the right things. The good leader today is concerned not only with getting from A to B, but with deciding whether B is worth getting to in the first place.


Visit the original posting at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30328338//.

Monday, June 22, 2009

BusinessWeek asks..."Where will housing be in 2012?"


I came across a couple of pretty good articles from BusinessWeek.com via Msnbc.com. This article offers a pretty sober view of housing over the next few years. It offers a “personal” view of how this correction has impacted people and their homes…rather than merely focusing on the econometrics.

If you would like to visit the original link please go to…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31446244/ns/business-businessweekcom/



Where will housing be in 2012?
In 3 years, market will likely be governed by local issues, not credit crisis

Americans have not seen a boring housing market since the last millennium. You know — the average, ordinary kind of market where supply just about matches demand, prices are steady, and real estate ceases to be a topic of daily conversation. Instead, we've had six years of upside craziness followed by three years of downside terror. Now we're in a tug-of-war between those who think we've finally found a bottom and those who are convinced that the overhang of unsold homes is going to push prices considerably lower.

By 2012 we may finally get back to blissful boredom. With any luck, three years should be long enough for the U.S. economy to recover and for the nation's housing inventory to shrink to more normal levels. At that point, housing will return to its old ways, with prices governed not by national mood swings and global credit crises but by local issues ranging from zoning to immigration to job growth.

Prices? While they're likely to keep falling a while longer under the weight of foreclosures, the market is definitely closer to the bottom than the top. “We expect prices to drop for another year and then stabilize before starting to rise with incomes,” says Standard & Poor's chief economist David Wyss. Moody's Economy.com predicts the S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index, maintained by data specialist Fiserv, will fall about 16 percent this year before regaining ground. Based on the National Association of Realtors national median home price of $180,000 for the fourth quarter of 2008, that would mean a median of $152,000 at the end of 2009 and then a rebound to $179,000 by the end of 2012.

All real estate is local

Of course, the national median price is an artificial construct, since there is no such place as National Median, U.S.A. Different trends can have a big impact on sales and prices across the U.S.

Local job growth is one of the most important factors to study when assessing a market's prospects. Omaha, for example, which has attracted employers such as Yahoo! and Google, missed out on the boom but is likewise dodging the bust. With the city adding jobs, the prospects for home prices look good. Detroit, where home prices fell by a third from 2003 through 2008, is likely to suffer even more in coming years as the auto sector continues to shrink. Demographic change, another trend examined here, is equally influential. For instance, Salt Lake City's youthful population is primed for house buying. While the bust left prices in once-bubbly Western markets such as Phoenix and Vegas lower in 2008 than in 2003, Salt Lake prices rose 51 percent over that period.

Other important factors are even more local than those, such as how far a house is from the nearest supermarket. You'll know we're back to an ordinary, boring real estate market when buyers focus less on the intricacies of foreclosures, short sales, and the like and go back to the things that used to matter most: What are the schools like? How quiet is the neighborhood? When am I going to have to replace that roof or cut down that diseased oak?

Sellers Mark and Maura Rampolla, who put their house in Oradell, N.J., on the market early this year, are coping with ultra-local issues such as their house being on a fairly busy road. They're also up against the national housing crisis angst. The Rampollas bought their house for $556,000 in 2004. Now they need to sell it because they're moving to the Los Angeles area to set up a West Coast distribution hub for their coconut-water sports-drink company, Zico. They listed the house for $599,000, which would represent a loss after factoring in closing costs and renovations. House hunters didn't even nibble on the property that the Rampollas and their two young daughters have grown to love. In mid-June the couple dropped the price to $559,000. “People say it's a beautiful house, but they're just very nervous right now,” says Maura.

The Rampollas will probably end up being the first owners to lose money on the Oradell home since it was built in 1925 — a phenomenon that's happening across the U.S. The classic American foursquare, with four bedrooms and original chestnut molding, was sold by the Bonavita family to the Riccio family for $47,000 in 1972, the first recorded transaction price. The Riccios made out by selling to the DeSouza family for $285,000 in 1997. The DeSouzas sold just seven years later to the Rampollas for $556,000. “We actually bought the house in a day,” laughs Maura. “Mark ran through the house in 10 minutes, I kid you not, because he had to get to a meeting in Queens. ... We had nothing to sell, and we just said: ‘Great!’ ”

The good news is that the Rampollas’ loss could wind up being some first-time home buyer’s gain. From now through 2012, lots of families that couldn't afford to buy when prices went through the roof will be able to get in on the ground floor. Based on today's household incomes and mortgage rates, the National Association of Realtors' Housing Affordability Index is bobbing around the highest level since recordkeeping began in 1970. “To generalize, yeah, it is a good time to buy a house. I don't think there's any urgency because I think it'll still be a great time to buy a house a year from now,” says economist Richard DeKaser of Woodley Park Research in Washington.

Homebuilders are helping by absorbing their share of the pain. In general, the U.S. needs about 1.5 million new homes a year to accommodate the growing population and the demolition of decayed properties. Builders exceeded that rate during the boom, but now they're building fewer than 500,000 homes per year. Their cutback should reduce the glut of homes and bring the market into better balance by 2012, if not sooner.

A still-murky picture

Most important, the economy should be growing briskly again by 2012, according to Moody's Economy.com. In May, the firm predicted gross domestic product would shrink 3 percent this year before growing 1.4 percent in 2010, 4.7 percent in 2011, and a robust 5.8 percent in 2012. It's also looking for home buying and building to return to their pre-bubble paces—no higher and no lower — by 2012.

Even if the economy performs as projected, there's still plenty that could go wrong in the housing market. Because conditions have been so unusual, “it's very hard for the model to extrapolate, based on past experiences, what's going to happen this time,” says Moody's Economy.com Senior Economist Celia Chen. In a study of global real estate markets, economists Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland found that home prices fall for an average of six years after a major financial crisis. That would put the U.S. bottom in 2012, or later.

Another risk is that potential buyers will stay out of the housing market, no longer trusting in home appreciation to do their saving for them. Writes David Rosenberg, the former Merrill Lynch economist who is now chief economist at Toronto-based asset management firm Gluskin Sheff & Associates: “Baby boomers are still in the discovery process on oversized real estate being more of a ball and chain than a viable retirement investment asset.” Rosenberg also is concerned that an aging population won't need the kind of big houses erected during the boom. “The high end of the market will be in a bear phase,” Rosenberg says in an interview.

So much has gone wrong with housing lately that it's easy to imagine worst-case scenarios. But in the more likely case, the market will fall some more, bounce off its lows, then gradually start growing. By 2012, families like the Rampollas may even get a warm, fuzzy feeling about homeownership again.

Copyright © 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.