Beware of Business HIV: It's On the Rise

The less you pay, the better the deal. Right? The less time you spend, the more money you save. Right? These precepts are the foundation of a creeping business virus I call the Hidden Inefficiency Virus or Business HIV.

At its most fundamental DNA, Business HIV is the average individual’s response to too much and contradictory information. Needing to make decisions that guard profit and no longer having a grasp on the millions of pieces of data that dart in and out of their field of vision, business people have settled into a way of thinking that makes them wrong often but rarely willing to admit that they’re wrong. Doing so would require more in-depth study of data than they feel they can do. Sticking with saving money as the bottom line seems like the wisest course of action to many decision-makers.

Economic, human and social realities fly in the face of this sort of out-dated logic, however. The more time you spend investigating your own needs and the offerings of different vendors, the more money you can save – not only in the purchase but also in the long-term. The more money you spend on individuals with specific expertise, the more money you are likely to make as your operations improve.

Business HIV removes the real logic and replaces it with a sense of false scarcity and urgency. Business HIV is an emotional and intellectual disease that prevents decision-makers from seeing how off course they really are. It’s ego, comfort, fear. . . and it’s just plain illogical.

The remedy to Business HIV is a restructuring of the big picture. A realization that costs such as energy, taxes and insurance are spiraling and they’re not going to come down. Competition is more rampant than ever in the history of commerce as Third World countries replicate everything better and cheaper. A new strategy based on people creating profit through innovation is the only antidote to Business HIV.

Are you ready to move from a sick mechanical business model to a healthy organic business model? Are you ready for that shot in the arm?

CJ is a regular contributor to HRTools.coms.
You can now get your own copy of his groundbreaking book, The Squaredime Letters.
You can vist CJ online at www.cjcoolidge.com.

Rigidity: Bad for Engineering, Bad for the Economy, and Bad for Business

Rigidity has never produced a structure capable of good function in an environment of changing conditions.

• Skyscrapers are designed with the ability to "sway" in the wind, or to "flex" in case of an earthquake.
• The wings of the great airliners are designed to "give and take" in the face of changing air density and current so that the body of the plane can maintain maximum stability in turbulence.
• Bridges, towers, roads, ships are strengthened with flexibility.

Attempting to eliminate this "flux" with rigidity would result in disaster.

It works the same way when attempting to develop increasing profitability, or human capital. Rigidity kills.

Why, then, do presidential candidates like John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama continue to press as though greater centralized control and rigidity offers anything of a benefit to America's economic strength in the face of ever changing conditions?

Why do so many otherwise intelligent Americans fall for the same tripe?

The Answer is simple. They all must be ignorant of the way things really work. Or, maybe, it's a power thing.

As I will continue to suggest, whatever economic conditions may seem to create problems for our society, each is solved when individual participants learn to contribute in a value producing and meaningful way.

It's the way of the organic business model.

• Every participant can then know what he/she does best.
  
• Every participant can then discover how what they do makes a difference for the people or companies they serve.
  
• Then, because the organic system strives to compensate based on the actual value delivered, each participant may elect to contribute, and therefore earn, as much, or as little as they desire.
  

No heavyweight management is required. No supreme controller or almighty decision maker is necessary. No artificial value requirements need be imposed.

It makes sense.

All of the mechanical model "controllers" ought to pay attention to Brian Wesbury, chief economist for First Trust Portfolios, LP. In an editorial published June 11, 2008 in the WSJ. Brian astutely observes:

"In contrast to what some people seem to believe, having the government take over the health-care system is not change. It's just a culmination of previous moves by government. And the areas with the worst problems today are areas that have the most government interference – education, health care and energy."

"The best course of action is to allow a free-market economy to reallocate resources to the place of highest returns. In the midst of all the natural change, the last thing the U.S. economy needs is more government involvement, whether it's called change or not."

Only an Organic Model solves the problems.

In today's hyper-dynamic world, hardening mechanical models in attempt to improve economic conditions will prove no more successful than removing the flexability from the wings of an aircraft. Such practices will, at best, increase the discomfort of the passengers. At worst, it will render the plane unfit to fly.

Rigidity will produce the same negative impact for the economy, or for your business.

Ric Campo Talks About People, Profitability, and Corporate Culture

I just left a very interesting forum, sponsored by executive recruiting firm, Austin Allen at the River Oaks Country Club in Houston.

Ric Campo, a founding partner of Camden Living, gave a powerful and informative presentation. His comments were filled with the very precepts Camden followed to become a Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For award winner in 2008, and, one of the finest multi-family real estate development and operation companies in America.

I took copious notes. Ric was singing my song.

Ric's management principles are not the common practice in today's world. Read and see why they should be.

Just to highlight a few of his salient points:

• Camden has well defined, well communicated missions and values. These do not change with market conditions.
• Camden believes that their front line employees are the most significant contributors to the company's success.
• The Company's value isn't derived from a focus on their material assets. Ric said, "It's not about assets, it's about people. Our people are our assets."
• Camden strives to hire the best and the brightest. Then, the company strives to give them responsibility and authority to deliver Camden's mission.
• Camden recognizes success based on the creation of an increasing number of high-quality, long-lasting jobs. This is representative of their belief that people are their greatest asset.
• Camden is very concerned and intentional in maintaining and developing their outstanding corporate culture.
• In the Fortune Employee surveys, Camden had 92% of their workforce saying that Camden was truly a great place to work. The average among the Fortune top 100 was 89%.
• Camden is a stickler for "best practices" in handling people. (This is why more companies really need to engage the services of a PEO.)

That might work for some companies, but not when things are tight, or tough.

Some might argue that this is all well and good for some high margin, fluff company. Don't kid yourself. Camden's business, in today's market, is anything but that. They must thrive in a tough, highly competitive, asset intense business. Camden's profitability challenges are as big as they come.

Employee Practices Turn-Around an Acquisition

I particularly enjoyed the story Ric told about one of his mergers. Camden had acquired a fairly large company with an east coast presence. The acquisition had everything it needed on paper to be functioning well, yet, at the point of the acquisition, was not doing so. They even verbally ascribed to the same management and cultural philosophies that worked so well with Camden.

However, on closer look, their talk didn't match their walk. The reason for poor performance could be tied to this divergence, a response to some very difficult, but temporary market conditions. It turns out that the company had frozen salaries, cut bonuses, and increased the employee contributions to their medical plan. Meanwhile, they hadn't cut the executive compensation.

Ric said that these actions upset the affected folks, which, in turn, affected their ability to perform. Needless to say, Camden corrected the situation, in accordance with their mission, and the situation righted itself quickly.

Happy People: Successful Enterprise

Camden demonstrates the true, but rarely followed axiom: The happier the people, the more engaged they will be, the more profitable the enterprise.

This validates the well researched message of Richard Hadden and Bill Catlette who wrote Contented Cows Give Better Milk, and the sequel, Contented Cows Moove Faster. Companies with well placed, well rewarded, well aligned, happy employees, are able to do more, make more money and have fewer problems.

It's kind of funny that most managers still can't see it.

They will, though. They'll need to to survive.

You Can't Stop the World, And You Can't Just Get Off, Either

Everything is changing. Not a new phenomenon, but an accelerating one.

The rate of change is so great, that more than 50% of US business execs are finally confessing that they are struggling with its pace. And, let's face it, even the rate of change is increasing. I call it Hyper-Dynamics.

It effects everything in our lives, and our companies, much of which management tries to ignore.

Consider some changes we business owners tend to try to ignore.

• Employee Ability and Aspiration: What an employee once wanted to do for you, he no longer wants to do. He may have matured in his current role, and desires a new challenge. She may now have young children at home, and no longer wants to travel. Children may have "left the nest" and she now wants to travel. The individuals which hold the IP in our enterprises are changing just as quickly as is everything else, but we have no systematic way to deal with these factors, and are inept at adjusting our roles and processes to take advantage of the opportunities these changes afford. Instead, we underutilize the people we have, and we just let then go when are mechanical models no longer require their service in the box we have externally defined.

• Customer needs: What a customer wants from you today is different from what he wanted yesterday, and what he'll want in the future. They are seemingly more fickle than ever. 80% of customers who leave would say that they were satisfied, or very satisfied with your service. But they left you, hoping to find a better value from another provider. Our offerings have been devised and "perfected" from our own perspectives. Our internal systems are mechanically created to provide what we think we should provide. Adapting to customer's felt needs takes a back seat to our beliefs about the way things are. "That's not our policy." "We can't do that." We justify our position: "We've never had to do that before. We don't need to start now."

• Markets: The entire market has the potential of the international corporation. What was once a regionally valued offering may now be available from a remote producer in China. Outsourcing and off-shoring can render our offerings obsolete. When faced with these challenges, we make the false assumption that we just need to work harder at what has always worked before. We push our sales people to make more calls. We push our service people to work harder. We push our management to work longer.

• Costs: Energy, healthcare, taxation, insurance, natural resources, and people costs are rising at unprecedented rates. The forces that are pushing them are not even within our control. But we believe that we must make their containment a significant part of our strategic management initiatives. We spend a dollar to save a dime. We focus on financial statements, correcting them, as if they were the business itself.

• Product value: Whatever I can produce today will be more efficiently produced in the future. Shelf life of ideas is shorter than ever. Windows of profitable opportunity are smaller than ever. But we still function as if we can develop something, sell it profitably, and rest, as though we have arrived at something that will last. We resent the copy-cat, or the competitor that says he does exactly what we do, but at a better price. We gripe about the imitator from the 3rd world who unjustly sells to our customers.

There are many, many more, but these few provide enough to exhaust many the mechanically minded manager.

Our refusal to accept hyper-dynamics will, simply, lead us into disaster. Short term solutions will merely exacerbate our problems. Self delusion just guarantee the inevitable.

My solution? REALLY embrace change. I know it sounds trite, but the mere statement of the words does not prove the reality behind them. I mean embrace, welcome, anticipate, expect, and adapt.

With this, you'll need to grasp the concept of absolutum obsoletum. Whatever we think works today is becoming absolutely obsolete . . . and sooner than I might think.

The solution comes with the change from a mechanical, change resistant organization into an organic, change adapting one. Change from the organization that orchestrates change to one that is able to flow with the change. These are entirely different approaches.

• Instead of telling your customers what you do, and expecting them to buy, learn to discover what they want and need that you can offer.

• Instead of determining what your company should be doing in antiseptic board rooms, let the front line employees tell you what their encounters with the real world are telling them.

• Instead of defining jobs for your employees, telling them what you want them to do, discover what they would do for you and your customers, if they could.

• Instead of losing sleep and fighting against rising costs, use your people's creative and innovative energies to identify your own company innefficiencies and redundancies.

• Instead of thinking you have the totality of responsibility or all the answers, free your people to create entirely new, high value offerings for your current customers, and for customers not yet reached.

Besides, you and I already know that the greatest opportunities for excitement, value and profitability exist, not in the middle of the pack, but around the edges, where risk is sometimes the greatest. The rate of change means that yesterday's performance is not the end. Everyday comes with new, high value opportunity. It's up to you to find them, but you need to be looking, hoping and expecting.

And, best of all, you don't need to go it alone. Get your people in the act. Teach them that you value their looking, hoping and expecting. Then, don't ignore what they'll show you.

You might as well make a lot of money, too.

A Strengths Based Approach Makes the Job Search Easy, and A Lot More Fun

I’ve been counseling college students to forget what they think they know about “getting a job” to pursue a “strengths based” effort to become involved with an employer where they can maximize their entry value in whatever enterprise that may be fortunate enough to hire them.

It’s a simple and effective process.

Let's say you want a job.

Begin with a change in perspective. You are really not simply looking for a job, as if you were taking something from someone, but, instead, you are looking for an opportunity to serve someone, as if you are actually giving something valuable.

To do this confidently, you must absolutely know how you naturally work best. This knowledge is what Marcus Buckingham calls a talent, which is the foundation for a strength. Once you can identify your real and natural strengths, you can approach employment in a new way. What you'll learn isn’t what job you should do, as is customary for career counseling services, but how you should uniquely approach anything you might choose to do.

It’s a five step process:

• Discover your strengths. Read Now Discover Your Strengths, and take the online assessment.

• Understand these strengths as areas of near perfect performance. Learn what results they can almost automatically offer, simply because of who they know they are.

• Research companies to discover ones with visions and missions that are aligned with the kinds of things they can be passionate about.

• Take a different approach. When talking with a prospective employer, don’t ask things like, “What positions are you currently looking to fill?” and then try to make the resume look like a fit. Instead, using their knowledge of their strengths, engage a business on the basis of the expected outcomes that their employment will produce for the company. This helps the prospective employer frame the hiring decision. It changes from, “Do I have a position for your?” to “Do I want the outcome you offer?” Managers and business owners are hungry for outcomes, and the average applicant rarely offers any.

• If the first company declines, ask what other companies in the space are in need of the outcome you deliver.
  

Experience tells me that this approach leaves a better impression than the typical employment interview. Rather than the employee-centered approach, this one shows a business owner that the primary interest of the applicant is producing a beneficial outcome for the business. The applicant is there to help him. If the offer of a great outcome is declined, consider that it may lack clarity. Revise it.

No business person worth his salt forgets the approach. And, if the outcomes are well presented, few can resist the strong temptation to take advantage of the opportunity you present. After all, should they pass on a great outcome, their competitor might get it. This is a risk too great for many managers to take.

Besides, you don't really just want a job, or do you?

Off-Shoring and Outsourcing: Problems for Mechanical Model Enterprises

I responded to a wonderful article by David Williamson Shaffer on Epistemic Games. The article was titled, The End of the American Century, and is a good description of America's misunderstanding of the changes that have, and are, taking place in the world economy.

My comments, reprinted here, clarify the difference in perspective between "mechanical" and "organic" business models, and how this difference highlights our cultural dislike for outsourcing and off-shoring.

******************************************************
David, this is a well written piece. Thanks for your thoughtfulness, and insight.

Yes, the reality is certain, and it is different from that which most Americans assume to be true. There is a larger economic world out there, and most of it is not American.

I was reading Thomas Freedman’s The World is Flat a while back, and, somewhere in the middle, I became frightfully aware of this fact, and of the reality that most of my associates in business believed otherwise. The world’s business models have already changed, and many of us are ignorant of that reality. It became eminently clear that, as Americans, we are erroneously convinced that our long established, mechanical business models, remain the right and true way, and that we should continue to force our businesses to fit those models. This is our form of insanity.

If we are to survive, we must get with the program.

I appreciate your inclusion of the account of the Dallas attorney, Mark Richardson, who said that, out of ethical obligation, he must do what’s best for his clients, and “that includes saving them money.”

His assessment reflects what I believe to be a misapplication of the economic reality he describes. His ethical responsibility is not to “save his clients money,” rather it is to allocate their resources to produce the greatest value for their investment paid to him. His description of off-shoring to a lawyer in India at $60 per hr instead of using his in-house attorneys at a rate of $395 per hr, or his $225 rate for a junior associate, suggests that his rates are, somehow, too high.

I think this perception is common, and a misunderstanding of the real value proposition to be considered. There is a world of difference, and understanding that difference will illustrate the problem many Americans have with concepts such as outsourcing, or off-shoring.

We have a natural distaste for both. It appears that available talent off-shore will take jobs away from Americans. We can’t possibly remain profitable if we are forced to reduce our fees to compete with these off-shore providers, so we think. And, so we fear. However, we miss the basic economics of the opportunity.

America’s infrastructure is considerably well-developed and expensive to maintain. We are also well-entrenched in it. We can’t, and shouldn’t expect to eliminate it, which would be necessary if we are to attempt to compete in this world economy taking the fear-based approach inherent in our “save money” models. Instead, we need to embrace it, to recognize its value, and then use it to our real advantage in the development and delivery of the products and services it can produce. That infrastructure affords us opportunity unavailable and undeliverable by our “competition” in places, which like India, are as of yet under-developed.

The basic tenant of our capitalist economy is the free exchange of resources to gain other, more valuable resources for the betterment of our lives and our companies. At the core of every financial transaction is the idea that all participants gain value in the transaction. A consumer receives greater value from the transaction than what he spends. The seller receives greater value than what he spends to provide the product or service. Done right, both sides profit.

Take the case of the attorney. The law firm's client chooses to buy legal services that provide a greater value than their associated expense. It is the ethical responsibility of the attorney to do just that. Here is where the decision to off-shore aspects of the transaction comes in. The basic research task described in Shaffer's article is an example of a non-strategic offering. Grunt work in simple terms. Such work may provide some value to the client, but the value of that work should not be understood in the framework of the cost to produce it, but in the value of the impact of the work done. The two are really not related. If attorneys in India can provide the entirety of the value to be received for 25% of the cost of attorneys in America, so be it. The value realized is not diminished at all. If attorneys in India are happy and fulfilled only requiring $60 per hr, an efficiency is created, making it possible for the American attorney to deliver the same value to his client at a reduced cost, first to his firm, and secondly, if he should choose to reduce his fee to deliver that value, to his client.

So, off-shoring actually enables the attorney to increase his value to his client, but that value does not lie in his ability to “save his client money.” Such a limited view diminishes his value to his clients, and violates his ethical responsibilities toward his own firm. Both parties have the ethical responsibility to maximize each other’s value, and earnings. Saving money may occur, but cannot be the foundation for value description. Since there is an opportunity to off-shore, the greatest value can now be realized from better utilization of the American attorneys. They can now apply their creativity to strategic activities with the opportunity to add vastly greater value to their clients, tasks well worth the $300+ per hr that they need to maintain the operation and necessity of the firm.

The distinction between the two perspectives lies in the way we tend to view a pricing model. We tend to choose something from our mechanical, manufacturing business models. We consider cost, add some “fair markup,” and assume the rate to be some sort of value. In reality, there is no cost + fair markup anywhere in the value equation. The value exists only in the mind of the customer, and it is not a cost plus proposition. The cost has no significance to him, only that, all things considered, the purchase costs less than the economic value received. Should the law firm be ethically able to charge $300+ per hr for services it provides? Absolutely. However, and this is the critical distinction, it can only support the fee if the value provided is worth multiples of the fee to the customer.

Only when American companies end their love affair with cost plus pricing and adopt value based fees, will we be able to fully embrace every opportunity to send our less-strategic work overseas, and then become what our well-developed infrastructure requires, that is high value/ high margin enterprises.

When Numbers Don't Tell the Truth - But You Pretend They Do

I wonder at the logic of some executive decisions.

• Q: Why would otherwise intelligent executives spend a dollar to save a dime?

• A: Because they don't realize that they are.

They've been doing it ever since they learned to manage by financials.

If you consider what happens when business people start to think like financial people, it will make sense why. Financial people manage by manipulating line items on financial statements.

Here's the logic. Decrease an entry = reduce a cost.

All is proper. All is true. All is right. Manage by the numbers, and numbers don't lie - that is, unless you won't honestly look at all the numbers.

It's the age old, mythical discussion of "hard" costs vs. "soft" costs. And, this thinking is costing you money.

• Lie: Hard costs are real costs. Soft costs aren't.

• Truth: If money goes out, it is real.

There are no such thing as "soft" costs, only costs that cannot be connected to invoices, with corresponding line items on financial statements. As I said, if money goes out, there is a real, "hard" cost, even if you have trouble accounting for it.

The Health Insurance "Shop and Change" Model

Here's the real case of a 35 person company I worked with recently. It's the same strategy followed by countless companies, every day, all across the fruited plain.

The owner/operator is a prosperous fellow in his mid 40s. He manages by financials. He didn't like the 12% increase in his health insurance premium he was given upon renewal. It would increase a line item on his P & L. It would reduce his profits.

So, in accordance with his "mechanical" model, he had already fixed things. He had already followed the very same tried and true method he always used to handle any cost increases he faced. He shopped. He needed and got a better number for his financials.

Good strategy? Appropriate accounting? Not really.

My friend needed a lesson in real math, a lesson in real expenses, a lesson in accurately assessing the cost of anything. You see, his methodology makes financial sense unless the change causes the company to "spend more money" making the change than the change nets.

In his case, as in many others, it did. He just hadn't really looked.

Where Else do Costs Exist?

Here is the typical dynamic at work for most companies in their effort to manage the cost for employee health benefits. You'll recognize it. It is part of a cycle that goes something like this:

• Set expectations based on rumors, news reports, comments by insurance people calling, wanting to “give you a quote”.
• Become anxious about an approaching renewal date.
• Get your renewal. It is usually "too high."
• Listen to explanations, justifications, and excuses from your agent.
• Go out for other quotes.
• Shop plans, and plans, and more plans.
• Set up spreadsheets.
• Compare apples to apples. (Which cannot be done.)
• Make the difficult decision to change.
• Hold employee transition meetings.
• Answer many questions. What? Why? Oh my?
• Adjust, breath a sigh of relief if nobody quits, and pretend that you’ve done something good, something right, something necessary.
• Begin the entire process all over again in 9 months.

You know the drill. So did my friend. He'd done it countless times before.

The problem was that he wasn't accounting for all his real costs. He never accounted for:

• Cost of the distraction, the loss of his executive focus.
• Cost of meetings with brokers and subordinates. (He held 6 over the course of 2 months. that is at least $1500 for a leader making $150k/year.)
• Cost of non strategic use of his mental bandwidth. (Profitable projects needed his brain.)
• Cost of subordinates time building projection models. (At 6 hours, at least $300, not counting other things that weren't done.)
• Cost of the 120 minutes each member of the staff spent in direct transition meetings. (That single expense was $5500 for 35 employees averaging $45k/year.)
• Cost for the breakdown and rebuilding of employee confidence that accompanies any change to benefits. (Employees talk among themselves and spend countless hours doing their own comparisons while at work. Let's be conservative and give each employee only 1/2 hour of wasted time. Cost: $1500.)

So, this corporate leader cost his company a minimum of $8800 to make the transition.

What Did it Get Him?

For all of his efforts, he was able to moderate the 12% increase ($15k) to 6% ($7.5k). He reduced a line item on his financial statements. He could report this "success" to the board.

However, the real bottom line reflected something completely different.

When you spend $8800 to save $7500, no matter how you do the math, you lose $1300. And that's only counting the actual labor dollars he could actually identify. Guaranteed, the losses are far greater if he were to account or any loss of attention, or loyalty, or goodwill, or whatever else he had the guts to consider.

Upon closer discovery, with the courage to be honest, my friend discovered that his real costs surpassed the financial savings he anticipated, and reported, in the change. – This means he, and his company, lost money making the change. He spent a dollar to save a dime.

Numbers really don't lie. They just don't have a chance to be accurate when the real variables aren't included in the equation.

Get smart. Count the real cost of your "cost saving" measures. Otherwise, you won't really be saving any money at all.

You might even save your way right into bankruptcy.

Companies Must Discover Corporate Culture as the Foundation to Effective Marketing: Marketing and Culture are Inseparable

Marketing: Communication of your ever increasing value and impact to your clients, prospects and your marketplace over time.

Corporate Culture: In a nutshell, a company’s culture is identified by all communications that take place inside and outside the company. They include communications between the management, the employees and all their friends and family, spreading to customers, suppliers and associates of both. Any and all communication is duplicated and repeated many times by the people involved. The sum total of all communications defines corporate culture.

Unintentional Corporate Culture Diminishes the Value of Marketing

Culture as described, is often in conflict with the expensive, carefully crafted and communicated marketing messages. Because of this, the marketing message loses much of its power and credibility. This is why many of your perfect prospects don’t buy from you.

Communication is Usually Inconsistent

In the typical scenario, employees say certain kinds things to their bosses. They say different kinds of things to peers, still different things to subordinates, and different, things to clients. They say still other, different, things to family members and friends. This inconsistent communication creates a veritable cacophony of mixed and varied messages producing confusion in the marketplace, no matter how carefully the “formal” marketing messages are created. The “informal” messages are continuously and naturally transmitted through “portals” of interaction, so many, in fact, that they actually overtake the intentional, “canned” corporate message.

As a result, it doesn’t matter what your brochure says. The culture is already communicating some louder and clearer message within the marketplace. The marketing messages are then in conflict with the “cultural messages” already in play.

An Intentionally Crafted Culture is More Important than Good PR.

Culture "happens" whether you're intentional about it or not. Most companies just "let it happen."

You'd never handle your marketing unintentionally. In fact, you’ll invest a lot of money designing perfect marketing strategies. You might even have no problem paying professionals to assist. But you’d never even consider making even a small investment crafting your culture.

“Soft,” you say. “Not too smart,” I say.

This one single practice will absolutely prohibit your company or your ideas from expanding virally. Too many communications are in virtual conflict. The marketplace’s thinking about your company isn’t consistent and clear enough for natural customers to flow to you.

You can only imagine how well the cultural messages must be honed so that something distributed on YouTube, produced by some randomly involved “man-on-the-street” will present exactly the same message that in an ad costing the company thousands.

Get Better Results, Year After Year, Without Always Working Harder and Harder
Your company’s communication via culture must become clearer, tighter, and more intentionally directed, all the time. This one thing will grow a your revenues, customer loyalty and equity far faster than hiring more salespeople, offering more training, doing more marketing, or firing the CEO and hiring a new one.

It even makes sense to bring in expert help, a PEO, or a total service enterprise like Insperity, or a "Best Places to Work" consultant to get to work on your communications, that is, your corporate culture.

The good news is that if you make the investment to intentionally craft your internal communications, that is your corporate culture, you’ll begin to realize ever increasing benefits automatically . . . organically.