Tuesday, May 24, 2011
career defining decisions in life
How to deal with ' career defining moments' in life ? How do CEO s do it ? A Wharton interview .
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2718
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2718
Labels: Knowledge at Wharton
Deloitte CEO Bary Salzberg on Leadership concepts & institute
Deloitte CEO Barry Salzberg, on Leadership is the Norm, not the exception ; the old command & control era is passe..
http://mytoday.com/u/1975 and
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2771
-------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, Salzberg said, leadership needs to be "flat" today. It needs to be transparent. And to thrive in an ever-changing world, companies must actively commit to cultivating younger leaders throughout the organization, encouraging older leaders to pass on what they know. "Leadership now needs to be the norm, not the exception," he noted. "No longer is leadership about a few exceptional leaders at the top of the organization. Rather, the future is about exceptional teams and the leaders within those teams who can out-maneuver, out-manage and out-innovate their competition."-----------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His first leadership lesson came on his third day. "Bosszilla," as he calls his first boss, asked him for a photocopy of a tax ruling. Eager to please and show off his legal savvy, Salzberg included his own two-page interpretation. "Mr. Salzberg," Bosszilla hissed, "I asked you for a copy of the ruling, not your interpretation. One copy, stapled."
"Well, I will tell you that right then I knew the kind of leader I never want to be," Salzberg said, "the kind who gives orders, not encouragement, who expects people to speak only when spoken to. I knew then, and I've proved it over and over during my career, that you never know where the best ideas will come from. If you build a supportive environment where everyone is expected to contribute, you'll get synergies and creative ideas you never imagined were possible."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up the 'Lattice'
That, Salzberg noted, is why leadership needs to be flat. In a global world, leaders are required at all levels of the organization, not just at the top. In fact, he said, Deloitte has "kicked away the ladder. In my organization, we talk now about the lattice, not the ladder," where people can move not just up and down but also sideways. If employees need to ease up on the intensity of work to take care of a child or an aging parent, the lattice structure allows them to do that without destroying their career. "The corporate lattice metaphor signals a shift in mindset. It's better reflective of today's employees, who want variety and flexibility and reject a one-size-fits-all approach."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As head of Deloitte's U.S. operations, Salzberg visits as many as 25 to 35 offices every year, sitting down with partners to hear their concerns. When he becomes global CEO, he plans to travel more, he said. "There's nothing that can replace face-to-face interaction. Getting the rubber on the shoes worn out is how to do it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The experience helped him develop what he calls his "no ostriches, no elephants" principle. "No burying your head in the sand if there's a problem, and no ignoring the elephant in the room. Much better to name and tame an issue, no matter how difficult it is," than to ignore it or pretend it isn't there, he said. "Making sure the truth is told and discussed with all is the foundation of leadership. Without that, you can't build trust."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"While mentoring was naturally a part of the process, it was not a hard-and-fast requirement. Rather, it was something you did if you kind of felt like it. It was optional, and nobody really monitored it. As I look back on it, the old model left too much to chance as far as developing leaders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The board eventually approved the $300 million initiative, and Deloitte University is now slated to open in Westlake, Tex., later this year. The 100-plus acre campus is dedicated to the idea that leaders learn best from other leaders. "Call it 'apprenticeship' if you will. It's an age-old model for turning the young into talented, experienced professionals and leaders."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The university will give Deloitte professionals a chance share their experience and wisdom with the next generation -- a trait Salzberg believes comes naturally to good leaders. "The best leaders are ... generous with their experience, time and understanding that leadership is a life-long journey that is best made with trusted companions," he said. "If you have became a leader, the likelihood is that someone mentored you. Someone helped you, someone championed your career.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mytoday.com/u/1975 and
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2771
-------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, Salzberg said, leadership needs to be "flat" today. It needs to be transparent. And to thrive in an ever-changing world, companies must actively commit to cultivating younger leaders throughout the organization, encouraging older leaders to pass on what they know. "Leadership now needs to be the norm, not the exception," he noted. "No longer is leadership about a few exceptional leaders at the top of the organization. Rather, the future is about exceptional teams and the leaders within those teams who can out-maneuver, out-manage and out-innovate their competition."-----------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His first leadership lesson came on his third day. "Bosszilla," as he calls his first boss, asked him for a photocopy of a tax ruling. Eager to please and show off his legal savvy, Salzberg included his own two-page interpretation. "Mr. Salzberg," Bosszilla hissed, "I asked you for a copy of the ruling, not your interpretation. One copy, stapled."
"Well, I will tell you that right then I knew the kind of leader I never want to be," Salzberg said, "the kind who gives orders, not encouragement, who expects people to speak only when spoken to. I knew then, and I've proved it over and over during my career, that you never know where the best ideas will come from. If you build a supportive environment where everyone is expected to contribute, you'll get synergies and creative ideas you never imagined were possible."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up the 'Lattice'
That, Salzberg noted, is why leadership needs to be flat. In a global world, leaders are required at all levels of the organization, not just at the top. In fact, he said, Deloitte has "kicked away the ladder. In my organization, we talk now about the lattice, not the ladder," where people can move not just up and down but also sideways. If employees need to ease up on the intensity of work to take care of a child or an aging parent, the lattice structure allows them to do that without destroying their career. "The corporate lattice metaphor signals a shift in mindset. It's better reflective of today's employees, who want variety and flexibility and reject a one-size-fits-all approach."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As head of Deloitte's U.S. operations, Salzberg visits as many as 25 to 35 offices every year, sitting down with partners to hear their concerns. When he becomes global CEO, he plans to travel more, he said. "There's nothing that can replace face-to-face interaction. Getting the rubber on the shoes worn out is how to do it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The experience helped him develop what he calls his "no ostriches, no elephants" principle. "No burying your head in the sand if there's a problem, and no ignoring the elephant in the room. Much better to name and tame an issue, no matter how difficult it is," than to ignore it or pretend it isn't there, he said. "Making sure the truth is told and discussed with all is the foundation of leadership. Without that, you can't build trust."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"While mentoring was naturally a part of the process, it was not a hard-and-fast requirement. Rather, it was something you did if you kind of felt like it. It was optional, and nobody really monitored it. As I look back on it, the old model left too much to chance as far as developing leaders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The board eventually approved the $300 million initiative, and Deloitte University is now slated to open in Westlake, Tex., later this year. The 100-plus acre campus is dedicated to the idea that leaders learn best from other leaders. "Call it 'apprenticeship' if you will. It's an age-old model for turning the young into talented, experienced professionals and leaders."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The university will give Deloitte professionals a chance share their experience and wisdom with the next generation -- a trait Salzberg believes comes naturally to good leaders. "The best leaders are ... generous with their experience, time and understanding that leadership is a life-long journey that is best made with trusted companions," he said. "If you have became a leader, the likelihood is that someone mentored you. Someone helped you, someone championed your career.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Attraction & Entrepreneurship
Fiscal Fatal attraction and idiosynchracies of entrepreneurs
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2762
How Money Impacts Marriage
When it comes to marriage, do opposites attract? Or do birds of a
feather flock together? While men and women are known to
gravitate toward mates with personal qualities similar to their own
in most respects, Wharton marketing professor Deborah Small
found the opposite to be true when it comes to money.
find that stingy spenders tend to marry those who splurge freely,
and vice versa. The pattern amounts to "fatal attraction," the
researchers argue, because it causes conflicts over money and
thus has a negative effect on marital well-being.
"There's a lot of academic literature and interest in individual
decision making, [but what has been] largely neglected is that
people are often making decisions jointly and the outcomes of
financial decisions affect other people," Small says. "It's important
to understand that even though two individuals are involved in a
decision and are being affected by it, their attitudes and
preferences may not be aligned."
he majority of relationship research suggests that people are
attracted to those with similar demographic characteristics,
attitudes, values and even names. But Small and her co-authors
based their hypothesis of spendthrift/tightwad attraction on a
theory that men and women also tend to seek out a mate who
has qualities that are the stark opposite of those they most strongly
deplore in themselves -- in this case, the tendency to spend too
much or too little.
Two subsequent experiments asked different sets of respondents to
rate their own and their spouses' behavior on the spendthrift-
tightwad scale. In both cases, the researchers found that stingy
spenders were more likely to be married to profligates and high-
rollers gravitated toward the miserly.
People might think "that someone on the other end of the
spectrum might heal them in some way," Rick notes. "If I'm a
tightwad, I want to find a spendthrift to loosen me up, because
tightwads by definition want to loosen up. Spendthrifts also by
definition want to change their behavior.... They might think that
an opposite would help reel in that misbehavior. That [is not] what
we find."
Even though these couples may have assumed that marrying an
opposite when it came to money would balance out their own
behavior and lead to greater financial health, Small and her co-
authors discovered that such matches did not necessarily make for
happier relationships. Indeed, the research shows that conflicts
over money created more marital strife for these "opposites
attract" couplings. "We have some findings suggesting that two
spendthrifts are happier than a spendthrift and a tightwad [even
though] two spendthrifts are much more likely to end up in debt
and have other financial problems," Small says. "It's not clear that
what makes you happier is also going to make you more financially
secure."
the current findings suggest that couples should talk about
financial habits and practices early on in a relationship, and form a
set of shared expectations, plans and goals. "I think doing that
helps people recognize if the differences are too broad to
overcome," she adds.
"Entrepreneurs create so much wealth in our society, but we don't
understand what makes a person become an entrepreneur," says
Wharton finance professor Nikolai Roussanov. "This question of 'why'
is fascinating for economists because entrepreneurs benefit society
as a whole to such a great degree. We would be worse off without
them."
"Why do certain people take the entrepreneurial leap?"
His conclusion is that entrepreneurs have unique social aspirations
that other people typically don't share. "They weigh risks and
outcomes differently," he notes, which leads to atypical, but
rational, conclusions about risks and opportunities. Contrary to
common perception, entrepreneurs are not less averse to taking
chances; they simply view relative hazards with a different eye.
Socially, Roussanov says, aspiring entrepreneurs do not want to
merely keep up with the proverbial Jones; they want to get
marginally ahead of them. "Absolute wealth is not as important to
them as relative wealth." Entrepreneurs also save more and spend
less as a portion of their incomes than other people, according to
Roussanov. The consumptive value of money isn't their motivation.
Rather it's the social esteem that comes with achieving
incrementally greater wealth than they had previously, and than
their perceived peer group has. Of course, "Who 'the Jones' are
changes as you progress," Roussanov points out. "First you think, 'I
know these guys are successful and I would like to be like them.' But
as you progress, you change your comparisons. You want to be in
the Forbes 400, then in the top 10 and so forth.
In his paper, Roussanov notes that "if the satisfaction brought by
'getting ahead of the Joneses' outweighs the danger of falling
behind, risky activities with highly idiosyncratic payoffs, such as
entrepreneurship, can be particularly attractive." By contrast,
"Other people may not have this preference for status. They look at
the risks and say, 'This is too much for me.'"
What is perplexing about an entrepreneur's endeavors, Roussanov
adds, is that, "from an economist's point of view, the risk in
entrepreneurial ventures is high." These people "commit a large
fraction of their human and financial capital to their ventures, thus
exposing themselves to large undiversified risks," he writes in the
paper. "Economic theory predicts that higher risk should be
compensated by higher average return, [yet] returns on
undiversified entrepreneurial investments are no higher than the
average return on publicly traded equity."
For Luxury Goods Aficionados, Knowledge Equals Wealth
Many consumers buy high-end products to signal wealth and
status to those around them, aided by explicit branding such as a
large Mercedes symbol on the front of a car. But if consumers buy
expensive goods in part to clearly communicate things like status
to others, why would shoppers spend thousands of dollars on
handbags or other goods that have no visible logos?
In the paper, "Subtle Signals of Inconspicuous Consumption,"
Wharton marketing professor Jonah Berger and Morgan Ward, a
marketing professor at Southern Methodist University, suggest that
manufacturers of consumer goods wanting to sell to a high-end,
niche customer base should offer exclusive product lines with
smaller logos and more subtle branding elements. Based on studies
of consumer preference among ordinary shoppers and those who
were more fashion conscious, the researchers found that "insiders"
in a given consumption range (e.g., fashionistas, car enthusiasts,
etc.) prefer products that identified them as being "in the know"
only to a select group of peers.
The consumer study groups examined products with both highly
visible branding, such as the word "Gucci" emblazoned in tall
letters on a handbag, and more subtle signals of price -- for
example, the signature cherry-red soles on Christian Louboutin
shoes.
The majority of "typical" consumers preferred the products with
larger brand identifiers, and tended to misidentify products with
subtler branding. Among products with subtle signals, "typical"
consumers "thought the high-priced options were no more
expensive than their cheap alternatives," the authors write. But
the "insiders," in this case fashion students or people with an affinity
for high fashion, not only could tell the difference between a low-
cost generic item and a high-priced item with a tiny logo, but also
preferred the subtly-branded products.
To understand such "insider" shoppers, companies need to realize
that the handbag these shoppers carry or shoes they wear is
largely about sending signals, Berger notes, almost like
communicating a coded message to members of a select group.
"A Rolex is a widely recognized status symbol, but might be looked
down upon by true watch enthusiasts," the paper states. "A
Vacheron Constantin, on the other hand, will be invisible to most
people, but respected by watch aficionados."
Another lesson, conversely, is that being selective with branding
techniques comes with risk. A consumer goods company that
wants to target high-end shoppers might select a subtle pattern or
small logo, but that could turn off the majority of shoppers -- those
who can't tell the difference between a cheaper product and the
expensive item."Most people think a $6,000 Bottega Veneta bag is
no more expensive that a cheap Wal-Mart bag that has no logo,"
Berger says.
According to Berger and Ward, from the point of view of an
"insider," being identified as such is vitally important, to the point
that they will opt for possibly being mistaken for lower-end shoppers
by the masses in exchange for recognition by their fellow high-
fashion fans. The researchers also suggest that "discretely marked
products, subtle but distinct styles or high-end brands that fly
beneath the radar" have a longer life on the market than their less
expensive, more loudly branded alternatives.
"The value of signals is that they distinguish social groups, so when
outsiders start copying insiders' signals, insiders may abandon that
product and search for a new signal," Berger says. "Because explicit
signals, like large logos, are easier to observe, they are more likely to
be poached or copied, and thus more likely to eventually be
abandoned in favor of a new group marker."
That has clear implications for products with explicit brand
markings, even on expensive high-end products. "Explicit status
symbols may generate large sales in the short term, but this will only
persist if enough of the buyers are truly wealthy," the researchers
write. "If not, the symbolic value will shift towards being a marker of
the wannabe rich, and sales will decline as consumers search for
the next aspirational symbol."
More generally, the researchers suggest, the role of wealth as a
status marker is changing, being replaced by knowledge or
"cultural capital." With the expansion of credit and leasing
programs, and the wider availability of knockoff items, "it is a lot
easier now for someone who is not truly wealthy to be able to
purchase something that seems expensive," Berger notes. "Cultural
capital, though, remains elusive. Acquiring the right knowledge
requires time, effort and the right connections -- things that are
hard to fake."
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2762
How Money Impacts Marriage
When it comes to marriage, do opposites attract? Or do birds of a
feather flock together? While men and women are known to
gravitate toward mates with personal qualities similar to their own
in most respects, Wharton marketing professor Deborah Small
found the opposite to be true when it comes to money.
find that stingy spenders tend to marry those who splurge freely,
and vice versa. The pattern amounts to "fatal attraction," the
researchers argue, because it causes conflicts over money and
thus has a negative effect on marital well-being.
"There's a lot of academic literature and interest in individual
decision making, [but what has been] largely neglected is that
people are often making decisions jointly and the outcomes of
financial decisions affect other people," Small says. "It's important
to understand that even though two individuals are involved in a
decision and are being affected by it, their attitudes and
preferences may not be aligned."
he majority of relationship research suggests that people are
attracted to those with similar demographic characteristics,
attitudes, values and even names. But Small and her co-authors
based their hypothesis of spendthrift/tightwad attraction on a
theory that men and women also tend to seek out a mate who
has qualities that are the stark opposite of those they most strongly
deplore in themselves -- in this case, the tendency to spend too
much or too little.
Two subsequent experiments asked different sets of respondents to
rate their own and their spouses' behavior on the spendthrift-
tightwad scale. In both cases, the researchers found that stingy
spenders were more likely to be married to profligates and high-
rollers gravitated toward the miserly.
People might think "that someone on the other end of the
spectrum might heal them in some way," Rick notes. "If I'm a
tightwad, I want to find a spendthrift to loosen me up, because
tightwads by definition want to loosen up. Spendthrifts also by
definition want to change their behavior.... They might think that
an opposite would help reel in that misbehavior. That [is not] what
we find."
Even though these couples may have assumed that marrying an
opposite when it came to money would balance out their own
behavior and lead to greater financial health, Small and her co-
authors discovered that such matches did not necessarily make for
happier relationships. Indeed, the research shows that conflicts
over money created more marital strife for these "opposites
attract" couplings. "We have some findings suggesting that two
spendthrifts are happier than a spendthrift and a tightwad [even
though] two spendthrifts are much more likely to end up in debt
and have other financial problems," Small says. "It's not clear that
what makes you happier is also going to make you more financially
secure."
the current findings suggest that couples should talk about
financial habits and practices early on in a relationship, and form a
set of shared expectations, plans and goals. "I think doing that
helps people recognize if the differences are too broad to
overcome," she adds.
"Entrepreneurs create so much wealth in our society, but we don't
understand what makes a person become an entrepreneur," says
Wharton finance professor Nikolai Roussanov. "This question of 'why'
is fascinating for economists because entrepreneurs benefit society
as a whole to such a great degree. We would be worse off without
them."
"Why do certain people take the entrepreneurial leap?"
His conclusion is that entrepreneurs have unique social aspirations
that other people typically don't share. "They weigh risks and
outcomes differently," he notes, which leads to atypical, but
rational, conclusions about risks and opportunities. Contrary to
common perception, entrepreneurs are not less averse to taking
chances; they simply view relative hazards with a different eye.
Socially, Roussanov says, aspiring entrepreneurs do not want to
merely keep up with the proverbial Jones; they want to get
marginally ahead of them. "Absolute wealth is not as important to
them as relative wealth." Entrepreneurs also save more and spend
less as a portion of their incomes than other people, according to
Roussanov. The consumptive value of money isn't their motivation.
Rather it's the social esteem that comes with achieving
incrementally greater wealth than they had previously, and than
their perceived peer group has. Of course, "Who 'the Jones' are
changes as you progress," Roussanov points out. "First you think, 'I
know these guys are successful and I would like to be like them.' But
as you progress, you change your comparisons. You want to be in
the Forbes 400, then in the top 10 and so forth.
In his paper, Roussanov notes that "if the satisfaction brought by
'getting ahead of the Joneses' outweighs the danger of falling
behind, risky activities with highly idiosyncratic payoffs, such as
entrepreneurship, can be particularly attractive." By contrast,
"Other people may not have this preference for status. They look at
the risks and say, 'This is too much for me.'"
What is perplexing about an entrepreneur's endeavors, Roussanov
adds, is that, "from an economist's point of view, the risk in
entrepreneurial ventures is high." These people "commit a large
fraction of their human and financial capital to their ventures, thus
exposing themselves to large undiversified risks," he writes in the
paper. "Economic theory predicts that higher risk should be
compensated by higher average return, [yet] returns on
undiversified entrepreneurial investments are no higher than the
average return on publicly traded equity."
For Luxury Goods Aficionados, Knowledge Equals Wealth
Many consumers buy high-end products to signal wealth and
status to those around them, aided by explicit branding such as a
large Mercedes symbol on the front of a car. But if consumers buy
expensive goods in part to clearly communicate things like status
to others, why would shoppers spend thousands of dollars on
handbags or other goods that have no visible logos?
In the paper, "Subtle Signals of Inconspicuous Consumption,"
Wharton marketing professor Jonah Berger and Morgan Ward, a
marketing professor at Southern Methodist University, suggest that
manufacturers of consumer goods wanting to sell to a high-end,
niche customer base should offer exclusive product lines with
smaller logos and more subtle branding elements. Based on studies
of consumer preference among ordinary shoppers and those who
were more fashion conscious, the researchers found that "insiders"
in a given consumption range (e.g., fashionistas, car enthusiasts,
etc.) prefer products that identified them as being "in the know"
only to a select group of peers.
The consumer study groups examined products with both highly
visible branding, such as the word "Gucci" emblazoned in tall
letters on a handbag, and more subtle signals of price -- for
example, the signature cherry-red soles on Christian Louboutin
shoes.
The majority of "typical" consumers preferred the products with
larger brand identifiers, and tended to misidentify products with
subtler branding. Among products with subtle signals, "typical"
consumers "thought the high-priced options were no more
expensive than their cheap alternatives," the authors write. But
the "insiders," in this case fashion students or people with an affinity
for high fashion, not only could tell the difference between a low-
cost generic item and a high-priced item with a tiny logo, but also
preferred the subtly-branded products.
To understand such "insider" shoppers, companies need to realize
that the handbag these shoppers carry or shoes they wear is
largely about sending signals, Berger notes, almost like
communicating a coded message to members of a select group.
"A Rolex is a widely recognized status symbol, but might be looked
down upon by true watch enthusiasts," the paper states. "A
Vacheron Constantin, on the other hand, will be invisible to most
people, but respected by watch aficionados."
Another lesson, conversely, is that being selective with branding
techniques comes with risk. A consumer goods company that
wants to target high-end shoppers might select a subtle pattern or
small logo, but that could turn off the majority of shoppers -- those
who can't tell the difference between a cheaper product and the
expensive item."Most people think a $6,000 Bottega Veneta bag is
no more expensive that a cheap Wal-Mart bag that has no logo,"
Berger says.
According to Berger and Ward, from the point of view of an
"insider," being identified as such is vitally important, to the point
that they will opt for possibly being mistaken for lower-end shoppers
by the masses in exchange for recognition by their fellow high-
fashion fans. The researchers also suggest that "discretely marked
products, subtle but distinct styles or high-end brands that fly
beneath the radar" have a longer life on the market than their less
expensive, more loudly branded alternatives.
"The value of signals is that they distinguish social groups, so when
outsiders start copying insiders' signals, insiders may abandon that
product and search for a new signal," Berger says. "Because explicit
signals, like large logos, are easier to observe, they are more likely to
be poached or copied, and thus more likely to eventually be
abandoned in favor of a new group marker."
That has clear implications for products with explicit brand
markings, even on expensive high-end products. "Explicit status
symbols may generate large sales in the short term, but this will only
persist if enough of the buyers are truly wealthy," the researchers
write. "If not, the symbolic value will shift towards being a marker of
the wannabe rich, and sales will decline as consumers search for
the next aspirational symbol."
More generally, the researchers suggest, the role of wealth as a
status marker is changing, being replaced by knowledge or
"cultural capital." With the expansion of credit and leasing
programs, and the wider availability of knockoff items, "it is a lot
easier now for someone who is not truly wealthy to be able to
purchase something that seems expensive," Berger notes. "Cultural
capital, though, remains elusive. Acquiring the right knowledge
requires time, effort and the right connections -- things that are
hard to fake."
Labels: Knowledge at Wharton
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
branding, consumer beh, signals, cultural capital
Fiscal Fatal attraction and idiosynchracies of entrepreneurs
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2762
How Money Impacts Marriage
When it comes to marriage, do opposites attract? Or do birds of a feather flock together? While men and women are known to gravitate toward mates with personal qualities similar to their own in most respects, Wharton marketing professor Deborah Small found the opposite to be true when it comes to money.
find that stingy spenders tend to marry those who splurge freely, and vice versa. The pattern amounts to "fatal attraction," the researchers argue, because it causes conflicts over money and thus has a negative effect on marital well-being.
"There's a lot of academic literature and interest in individual decision making, [but what has been] largely neglected is that people are often making decisions jointly and the outcomes of financial decisions affect other people," Small says. "It's important to understand that even though two individuals are involved in a decision and are being affected by it, their attitudes and preferences may not be aligned."
he majority of relationship research suggests that people are attracted to those with similar demographic characteristics, attitudes, values and even names. But Small and her co-authors based their hypothesis of spendthrift/tightwad attraction on a theory that men and women also tend to seek out a mate who has qualities that are the stark opposite of those they most strongly deplore in themselves -- in this case, the tendency to spend too much or too little.
Two subsequent experiments asked different sets of respondents to rate their own and their spouses' behavior on the spendthrift-tightwad scale. In both cases, the researchers found that stingy spenders were more likely to be married to profligates and high-rollers gravitated toward the miserly.
People might think "that someone on the other end of the spectrum might heal them in some way," Rick notes. "If I'm a tightwad, I want to find a spendthrift to loosen me up, because tightwads by definition want to loosen up. Spendthrifts also by definition want to change their behavior.... They might think that an opposite would help reel in that misbehavior. That [is not] what we find."
Even though these couples may have assumed that marrying an opposite when it came to money would balance out their own behavior and lead to greater financial health, Small and her co-authors discovered that such matches did not necessarily make for happier relationships. Indeed, the research shows that conflicts over money created more marital strife for these "opposites attract" couplings. "We have some findings suggesting that two spendthrifts are happier than a spendthrift and a tightwad [even though] two spendthrifts are much more likely to end up in debt and have other financial problems," Small says. "It's not clear that what makes you happier is also going to make you more financially secure."
the current findings suggest that couples should talk about financial habits and practices early on in a relationship, and form a set of shared expectations, plans and goals. "I think doing that helps people recognize if the differences are too broad to overcome," she adds.
"Entrepreneurs create so much wealth in our society, but we don't understand what makes a person become an entrepreneur," says Wharton finance professor Nikolai Roussanov. "This question of 'why' is fascinating for economists because entrepreneurs benefit society as a whole to such a great degree. We would be worse off without them."
"Why do certain people take the entrepreneurial leap?"
His conclusion is that entrepreneurs have unique social aspirations that other people typically don't share. "They weigh risks and outcomes differently," he notes, which leads to atypical, but rational, conclusions about risks and opportunities. Contrary to common perception, entrepreneurs are not less averse to taking chances; they simply view relative hazards with a different eye.
Socially, Roussanov says, aspiring entrepreneurs do not want to merely keep up with the proverbial Jones; they want to get marginally ahead of them. "Absolute wealth is not as important to them as relative wealth." Entrepreneurs also save more and spend less as a portion of their incomes than other people, according to Roussanov. The consumptive value of money isn't their motivation. Rather it's the social esteem that comes with achieving incrementally greater wealth than they had previously, and than their perceived peer group has. Of course, "Who 'the Jones' are changes as you progress," Roussanov points out. "First you think, 'I know these guys are successful and I would like to be like them.' But as you progress, you change your comparisons. You want to be in the Forbes 400, then in the top 10 and so forth.
In his paper, Roussanov notes that "if the satisfaction brought by 'getting ahead of the Joneses' outweighs the danger of falling behind, risky activities with highly idiosyncratic payoffs, such as entrepreneurship, can be particularly attractive." By contrast, "Other people may not have this preference for status. They look at the risks and say, 'This is too much for me.'"
What is perplexing about an entrepreneur's endeavors, Roussanov adds, is that, "from an economist's point of view, the risk in entrepreneurial ventures is high." These people "commit a large fraction of their human and financial capital to their ventures, thus exposing themselves to large undiversified risks," he writes in the paper. "Economic theory predicts that higher risk should be compensated by higher average return, [yet] returns on undiversified entrepreneurial investments are no higher than the average return on publicly traded equity."
For Luxury Goods Aficionados, Knowledge Equals Wealth
Many consumers buy high-end products to signal wealth and status to those around them, aided by explicit branding such as a large Mercedes symbol on the front of a car. But if consumers buy expensive goods in part to clearly communicate things like status to others, why would shoppers spend thousands of dollars on handbags or other goods that have no visible logos?
In the paper, "Subtle Signals of Inconspicuous Consumption," Wharton marketing professor Jonah Berger and Morgan Ward, a marketing professor at Southern Methodist University, suggest that manufacturers of consumer goods wanting to sell to a high-end, niche customer base should offer exclusive product lines with smaller logos and more subtle branding elements. Based on studies of consumer preference among ordinary shoppers and those who were more fashion conscious, the researchers found that "insiders" in a given consumption range (e.g., fashionistas, car enthusiasts, etc.) prefer products that identified them as being "in the know" only to a select group of peers.
The consumer study groups examined products with both highly visible branding, such as the word "Gucci" emblazoned in tall letters on a handbag, and more subtle signals of price -- for example, the signature cherry-red soles on Christian Louboutin shoes.
The majority of "typical" consumers preferred the products with larger brand identifiers, and tended to misidentify products with subtler branding. Among products with subtle signals, "typical" consumers "thought the high-priced options were no more expensive than their cheap alternatives," the authors write. But the "insiders," in this case fashion students or people with an affinity for high fashion, not only could tell the difference between a low-cost generic item and a high-priced item with a tiny logo, but also preferred the subtly-branded products.
To understand such "insider" shoppers, companies need to realize that the handbag these shoppers carry or shoes they wear is largely about sending signals, Berger notes, almost like communicating a coded message to members of a select group. "A Rolex is a widely recognized status symbol, but might be looked down upon by true watch enthusiasts," the paper states. "A Vacheron Constantin, on the other hand, will be invisible to most people, but respected by watch aficionados."
Another lesson, conversely, is that being selective with branding techniques comes with risk. A consumer goods company that wants to target high-end shoppers might select a subtle pattern or small logo, but that could turn off the majority of shoppers -- those who can't tell the difference between a cheaper product and the expensive item."Most people think a $6,000 Bottega Veneta bag is no more expensive that a cheap Wal-Mart bag that has no logo," Berger says.
According to Berger and Ward, from the point of view of an "insider," being identified as such is vitally important, to the point that they will opt for possibly being mistaken for lower-end shoppers by the masses in exchange for recognition by their fellow high-fashion fans. The researchers also suggest that "discretely marked products, subtle but distinct styles or high-end brands that fly beneath the radar" have a longer life on the market than their less expensive, more loudly branded alternatives.
"The value of signals is that they distinguish social groups, so when outsiders start copying insiders' signals, insiders may abandon that product and search for a new signal," Berger says. "Because explicit signals, like large logos, are easier to observe, they are more likely to be poached or copied, and thus more likely to eventually be abandoned in favor of a new group marker."
That has clear implications for products with explicit brand markings, even on expensive high-end products. "Explicit status symbols may generate large sales in the short term, but this will only persist if enough of the buyers are truly wealthy," the researchers write. "If not, the symbolic value will shift towards being a marker of the wannabe rich, and sales will decline as consumers search for the next aspirational symbol."
More generally, the researchers suggest, the role of wealth as a status marker is changing, being replaced by knowledge or "cultural capital." With the expansion of credit and leasing programs, and the wider availability of knockoff items, "it is a lot easier now for someone who is not truly wealthy to be able to purchase something that seems expensive," Berger notes. "Cultural capital, though, remains elusive. Acquiring the right knowledge requires time, effort and the right connections -- things that are hard to fake."
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2762
How Money Impacts Marriage
When it comes to marriage, do opposites attract? Or do birds of a feather flock together? While men and women are known to gravitate toward mates with personal qualities similar to their own in most respects, Wharton marketing professor Deborah Small found the opposite to be true when it comes to money.
find that stingy spenders tend to marry those who splurge freely, and vice versa. The pattern amounts to "fatal attraction," the researchers argue, because it causes conflicts over money and thus has a negative effect on marital well-being.
"There's a lot of academic literature and interest in individual decision making, [but what has been] largely neglected is that people are often making decisions jointly and the outcomes of financial decisions affect other people," Small says. "It's important to understand that even though two individuals are involved in a decision and are being affected by it, their attitudes and preferences may not be aligned."
he majority of relationship research suggests that people are attracted to those with similar demographic characteristics, attitudes, values and even names. But Small and her co-authors based their hypothesis of spendthrift/tightwad attraction on a theory that men and women also tend to seek out a mate who has qualities that are the stark opposite of those they most strongly deplore in themselves -- in this case, the tendency to spend too much or too little.
Two subsequent experiments asked different sets of respondents to rate their own and their spouses' behavior on the spendthrift-tightwad scale. In both cases, the researchers found that stingy spenders were more likely to be married to profligates and high-rollers gravitated toward the miserly.
People might think "that someone on the other end of the spectrum might heal them in some way," Rick notes. "If I'm a tightwad, I want to find a spendthrift to loosen me up, because tightwads by definition want to loosen up. Spendthrifts also by definition want to change their behavior.... They might think that an opposite would help reel in that misbehavior. That [is not] what we find."
Even though these couples may have assumed that marrying an opposite when it came to money would balance out their own behavior and lead to greater financial health, Small and her co-authors discovered that such matches did not necessarily make for happier relationships. Indeed, the research shows that conflicts over money created more marital strife for these "opposites attract" couplings. "We have some findings suggesting that two spendthrifts are happier than a spendthrift and a tightwad [even though] two spendthrifts are much more likely to end up in debt and have other financial problems," Small says. "It's not clear that what makes you happier is also going to make you more financially secure."
the current findings suggest that couples should talk about financial habits and practices early on in a relationship, and form a set of shared expectations, plans and goals. "I think doing that helps people recognize if the differences are too broad to overcome," she adds.
"Entrepreneurs create so much wealth in our society, but we don't understand what makes a person become an entrepreneur," says Wharton finance professor Nikolai Roussanov. "This question of 'why' is fascinating for economists because entrepreneurs benefit society as a whole to such a great degree. We would be worse off without them."
"Why do certain people take the entrepreneurial leap?"
His conclusion is that entrepreneurs have unique social aspirations that other people typically don't share. "They weigh risks and outcomes differently," he notes, which leads to atypical, but rational, conclusions about risks and opportunities. Contrary to common perception, entrepreneurs are not less averse to taking chances; they simply view relative hazards with a different eye.
Socially, Roussanov says, aspiring entrepreneurs do not want to merely keep up with the proverbial Jones; they want to get marginally ahead of them. "Absolute wealth is not as important to them as relative wealth." Entrepreneurs also save more and spend less as a portion of their incomes than other people, according to Roussanov. The consumptive value of money isn't their motivation. Rather it's the social esteem that comes with achieving incrementally greater wealth than they had previously, and than their perceived peer group has. Of course, "Who 'the Jones' are changes as you progress," Roussanov points out. "First you think, 'I know these guys are successful and I would like to be like them.' But as you progress, you change your comparisons. You want to be in the Forbes 400, then in the top 10 and so forth.
In his paper, Roussanov notes that "if the satisfaction brought by 'getting ahead of the Joneses' outweighs the danger of falling behind, risky activities with highly idiosyncratic payoffs, such as entrepreneurship, can be particularly attractive." By contrast, "Other people may not have this preference for status. They look at the risks and say, 'This is too much for me.'"
What is perplexing about an entrepreneur's endeavors, Roussanov adds, is that, "from an economist's point of view, the risk in entrepreneurial ventures is high." These people "commit a large fraction of their human and financial capital to their ventures, thus exposing themselves to large undiversified risks," he writes in the paper. "Economic theory predicts that higher risk should be compensated by higher average return, [yet] returns on undiversified entrepreneurial investments are no higher than the average return on publicly traded equity."
For Luxury Goods Aficionados, Knowledge Equals Wealth
Many consumers buy high-end products to signal wealth and status to those around them, aided by explicit branding such as a large Mercedes symbol on the front of a car. But if consumers buy expensive goods in part to clearly communicate things like status to others, why would shoppers spend thousands of dollars on handbags or other goods that have no visible logos?
In the paper, "Subtle Signals of Inconspicuous Consumption," Wharton marketing professor Jonah Berger and Morgan Ward, a marketing professor at Southern Methodist University, suggest that manufacturers of consumer goods wanting to sell to a high-end, niche customer base should offer exclusive product lines with smaller logos and more subtle branding elements. Based on studies of consumer preference among ordinary shoppers and those who were more fashion conscious, the researchers found that "insiders" in a given consumption range (e.g., fashionistas, car enthusiasts, etc.) prefer products that identified them as being "in the know" only to a select group of peers.
The consumer study groups examined products with both highly visible branding, such as the word "Gucci" emblazoned in tall letters on a handbag, and more subtle signals of price -- for example, the signature cherry-red soles on Christian Louboutin shoes.
The majority of "typical" consumers preferred the products with larger brand identifiers, and tended to misidentify products with subtler branding. Among products with subtle signals, "typical" consumers "thought the high-priced options were no more expensive than their cheap alternatives," the authors write. But the "insiders," in this case fashion students or people with an affinity for high fashion, not only could tell the difference between a low-cost generic item and a high-priced item with a tiny logo, but also preferred the subtly-branded products.
To understand such "insider" shoppers, companies need to realize that the handbag these shoppers carry or shoes they wear is largely about sending signals, Berger notes, almost like communicating a coded message to members of a select group. "A Rolex is a widely recognized status symbol, but might be looked down upon by true watch enthusiasts," the paper states. "A Vacheron Constantin, on the other hand, will be invisible to most people, but respected by watch aficionados."
Another lesson, conversely, is that being selective with branding techniques comes with risk. A consumer goods company that wants to target high-end shoppers might select a subtle pattern or small logo, but that could turn off the majority of shoppers -- those who can't tell the difference between a cheaper product and the expensive item."Most people think a $6,000 Bottega Veneta bag is no more expensive that a cheap Wal-Mart bag that has no logo," Berger says.
According to Berger and Ward, from the point of view of an "insider," being identified as such is vitally important, to the point that they will opt for possibly being mistaken for lower-end shoppers by the masses in exchange for recognition by their fellow high-fashion fans. The researchers also suggest that "discretely marked products, subtle but distinct styles or high-end brands that fly beneath the radar" have a longer life on the market than their less expensive, more loudly branded alternatives.
"The value of signals is that they distinguish social groups, so when outsiders start copying insiders' signals, insiders may abandon that product and search for a new signal," Berger says. "Because explicit signals, like large logos, are easier to observe, they are more likely to be poached or copied, and thus more likely to eventually be abandoned in favor of a new group marker."
That has clear implications for products with explicit brand markings, even on expensive high-end products. "Explicit status symbols may generate large sales in the short term, but this will only persist if enough of the buyers are truly wealthy," the researchers write. "If not, the symbolic value will shift towards being a marker of the wannabe rich, and sales will decline as consumers search for the next aspirational symbol."
More generally, the researchers suggest, the role of wealth as a status marker is changing, being replaced by knowledge or "cultural capital." With the expansion of credit and leasing programs, and the wider availability of knockoff items, "it is a lot easier now for someone who is not truly wealthy to be able to purchase something that seems expensive," Berger notes. "Cultural capital, though, remains elusive. Acquiring the right knowledge requires time, effort and the right connections -- things that are hard to fake."
Labels: Knowledge at Wharton
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
" Art of Start " by Guy Kawasaki
The Art of Start
---------------------
" There are many ways to describe the ebb & flow ; the Yin & Yang ; bubble-blowing and bubble-bursing phases of business cycles ! Here is another one : Microscopes and Telescopes !
In the MICROSCOPE Phase, there is a cry for level headed thinking, a return to fundamentals, and going ' back to basics'.
Experts magnify every detail, line item and expenditure and THEN demand full-blown forecasts, protracted market research and all-encompassing competitive analysis !
In the TELESCOPE phase, entrepreneurs bring the future closer ! The dream up ' The Next Big Thing' ; change the world and make late-adopters eat their dust. Lots of money is wasted but some crazy ideas do stick ! And the world moves forward.
When Telescopes works, everyone is an astronomer, and the world is full of stars !
When they don't , every one whips out their microscopes, and the world is full of flaws.
The reality is that, you need BOTH Microscope and Telescope, to acheive success.
The problem is that, this means, gathering information that is spread among 100 s of books, magazines and conferences ... Our goal is to help you , use your knowlege, love, and determination to create something great without getting bogged down in theory and unnecessary details. Our presumption is that - your goal is to change the world - not study it ! "
Excerpted from : " The Art of Start " by Guy Kawasaki.
Amazon review link :
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Start-Time-Tested-Battle-Hardened-Starting/dp/1591840562/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304489741&sr=1-2
---------------------
" There are many ways to describe the ebb & flow ; the Yin & Yang ; bubble-blowing and bubble-bursing phases of business cycles ! Here is another one : Microscopes and Telescopes !
In the MICROSCOPE Phase, there is a cry for level headed thinking, a return to fundamentals, and going ' back to basics'.
Experts magnify every detail, line item and expenditure and THEN demand full-blown forecasts, protracted market research and all-encompassing competitive analysis !
In the TELESCOPE phase, entrepreneurs bring the future closer ! The dream up ' The Next Big Thing' ; change the world and make late-adopters eat their dust. Lots of money is wasted but some crazy ideas do stick ! And the world moves forward.
When Telescopes works, everyone is an astronomer, and the world is full of stars !
When they don't , every one whips out their microscopes, and the world is full of flaws.
The reality is that, you need BOTH Microscope and Telescope, to acheive success.
The problem is that, this means, gathering information that is spread among 100 s of books, magazines and conferences ... Our goal is to help you , use your knowlege, love, and determination to create something great without getting bogged down in theory and unnecessary details. Our presumption is that - your goal is to change the world - not study it ! "
Excerpted from : " The Art of Start " by Guy Kawasaki.
Amazon review link :
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Start-Time-Tested-Battle-Hardened-Starting/dp/1591840562/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304489741&sr=1-2
