# data[].attributes.body
Motivation in modern management. I will always feel that when you have a a good leader, they inspire the staff to want to do their best.

# data[].attributes.body
Controlling information. The media can be your friend and boost your company but it's a double edged sword that can hurt your company. Toyota learned this lesson the hard way and have since worked on their PR.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Toyota just agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit related to complaints of unintended acceleration. When added to pending litigation and amounts already paid out for recalls, some estimate that the costs could easily top $3.1 billion. How could this happen to a company that created and maintained a quality reputation for so many years?

Some say that Toyota grew too fast, and its quality slid. On the other hand, quality experts say that in spite of Toyota's rapid growth, quality has remained at better than industry average levels. In fact, Lexus, a Toyota luxury brand, often leads the industry in quality. There is one clear answer. Toyota proved itself inept at crisis management and marketing.
Toyota accelerates the confusion
When complaints of self-acceleration were first reported, Toyota did not know how to handle them. Rather than say that they are investigating the complaints and will issue a complete report at the conclusion of their investigation, Toyota representatives reacted to the complaints in ways that confounded marketing and crisis management experts. They confused everyone by jumping to conclusions and suggesting different causes in rapid succession. First, they attributed the problem to operator error, which is the most frequent cause of self-acceleration problems in automobiles (the issue that nearly triggered demise of Audi in the US market during the mid-1980s).

Then, Toyota suggested the cause of the problem was floor mats that trapped the gas pedal. Some engineers blamed "sticky" gas pedals. This was followed by the suggestion that faulty electronics caused the unintended acceleration. Instead of reassuring the marketplace, Toyota acted in a way that caused owners to fear for their safety and prospective buyers to look for other makes and models. For example, Jim Lentz, president and chief executive officer of Toyota Motor Sales, USA, went on the Today Show and looked like a "deer in headlights" in response to Matt Lauer's cross-examination. In a poll taken before Lentz spoke, 37% said they were less likely buy Toyota cars. The negative numbers jumped to 56% after he spoke. The uncertainty created by Toyota representatives triggered a series of costly recalls, lawsuits, and lost business - causing Toyota and their dealership network to incur further losses from hefty discounts and implementing the recalls.
Were there serious quality issues with Toyota?
All makes and models of automobiles are found to have issues from time to time. The only way that these issues can be put in perspective, however, is to compare them to competitive makes and models. As the media fueled the notion that Toyota automobiles had serious defects, the actual data did not support this notion. A definitive joint study by the National Highway Safety Administration and NASA found no electronic flaws in Toyota vehicles that would cause dangerous self-acceleration issues. In a 2010 post for Business Week, Jeffrey Liker, an expert that has followed Toyota for over 27 years, debunked the issues with the floor mats and sticky gas pedals. For 2012, Toyota topped the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety's list with 15 models in 2012. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gave the 2012 Toyota Camry a 5-star rating. This is not to say that individual vehicles did not have flaws that caused problems. Any electro-mechanical device made by man can malfunction. There seems to be no definitive data that shows that there was a systematic problem with Toyota vehicles.
What should Toyota have done?
When complaints first arose about unintended acceleration, Toyota should have enlisted the very best marketing talent they could find to address the issues while their engineers and outside experts investigated the causes. Until definitive causes were found, their marketing team should have "publicized" the investigation - showing that the company was listening to the complaints and in complete control of the situation. As it was, they acted out of control. If the complaints were found to be rumors, they should have implemented the rumor procedure:

1. Do not publicize the rumor (any more than the media already had).

2. Promote the opposite of what the rumor said (using qualified marketing executives).

3. Provide proof to support the notion that Toyota vehicles are amongst the safest on the market (quoting the IIHS and NHTSA data above).

If the complaints were found to be factually correct, the marketing team should have employed the fact procedure, which involves the following steps:

1. Admit and apologize for the error(s).

2. Limit the scope (point out the fact that Toyota has more models on the road than any other automobile maker).

3. Proposed a solution so the defects are unlikely to reoccur, such a new Quality Control Procedure.

Easier said than done
I know what some are thinking. The suggestions above are "easier said than done" in the moment when Toyota was inundated with negative publicity from just about everywhere. While that may be true, the fact still remains that Toyota did not take the right approach, and as a result, incurred billions of unnecessary costs because of its inept handling of the crisis.
Needs to communicate better
In addition to following the appropriate procedures, Toyota should have created an ad that boldly made the point that there is no better time to buy a Toyota than right now. The ad should back up historic quality and safety claims with (1) sufficient independent credible data and (2) an extended warranty that would ally the fears of Toyota buyers. This would have cost far less than Toyota eventually spent and is likely to have avoided the serious damage to its previously untarnished image.

The one good outcome from Toyota's mishandling of this crisis is that it forced the company to make the fixes it needed to reclaim the number one spot from General Motors. Hopefully, it also learned that to keep the top spot, making a better car is not enough. The company also has to communicate better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Toyota's Crisis Management Failures Added To The Billion-Dollar Settlement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Toyota just agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit related to complaints of unintended acceleration. When added to pending litigation and amounts already paid out for recalls, some estimate that the costs could easily top $3.1 billion. How could this happen to a company that created and maintained a quality reputation for so many years?

# data[].attributes.body
This was actually fu to create. Its a great way to reflect on everything I have learned in this class.

# data[].attributes.body
I never owned a Toyota vehicle but have heard many great things about the brand. They seem to make many mistakes but have worked on them throughout the years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Toyota announced a massive set of recalls Wednesday to address a series of problems, including a faulty cable that could prevent air bags from deploying and a defect that could prevent car seats from remaining in place during an accident.

Toyota, the world's largest automaker, said it is not aware of any crashes, injuries or deaths caused by the problems.

The largest recall involves 3.5 million vehicles equipped with a spiral cable that can be damaged when the steering wheel turns. The frayed cable could cause a warning lamp to illuminate and a car's air bag to deactivate.

Another recall is aimed at repairing seat rails that contain springs that could break, particularly when seats are frequently adjusted. When the springs break, the seat will not lock into place and can move in the event of a crash, increasing the risk of injury, the company said.

A third recall is aimed at fixing steering column brackets installed in certain European and Asian models that can become unstable when the steering wheel is repeatedly turned with maximum force.

The others are to address problematic windshield-wiper motors and the possibility of fires in starter motors. Those problems are confined to models sold in Asia, Toyota has said.

The five recalls cover 6.39 million vehicles worldwide. The air bag problem affects 1.3 million vehicles in the United States. They include the 2009-2010 Corolla, 2009-2010 Matrix, 2008-2010 Highlander, 2009-2010 Tacoma, 2006-2008 RAV4 and 2006-2010 Yaris models.

The recalls come as automakers are under increasing pressure in the United States to move more quickly to correct possible defects and to inform regulators and the public about possible safety problems.

General Motors is under investigation by Congress, federal regulators and federal prosecutors over its slow recall of 2.6 million small cars equipped with faulty ignition switches. The defect, which GM dealers began fixing this week, has been linked by the company to 13 deaths. Company officials acknowledge that GM first learned about the problem at least a decade ago but did not issue a recall - a decision that new chief executive Mary T. Barra has said she is trying to understand through an internal investigation.

Last month, Toyota agreed to pay a $1.2 billion fine to the federal government for misleading consumers and regulators about unintended acceleration in its cars and trucks. The problem, which was traced to problematic floor mats and sticky gas pedals, prompted the company to recall more than 9 million vehicles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Toyota recalls 6.4 million vehicles worldwide over air bags, seat rails, steering or wipers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Toyota announced a massive set of recalls Wednesday to address a series of problems, including a faulty cable that could prevent air bags from deploying and a defect that could prevent car seats from remaining in place during an accident.

# data[].attributes.body
This was an interesting read for me. I had no idea how big Enterprise was. I never knew that they are a global company.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introduction - Recruitment and selection at Enterprise Rent-A-Car - Enterprise Rent-A-Car | Enterprise Rent-A-Car case studies, videos, social media and information | Business Case Studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The car rental market is increasingly competitive. Enterprise continues to expand its range of services to meet customers' needs. In addition to business rentals at airport and city locations, it also provides replacement cars for accident repairs, courtesy cars for garages and short-term holiday rentals for breaks or special occasions.

# data[].attributes.body
Transformational leadership inspires organizational success by affecting followers' beliefs in what an organization should be as well as their values

# data[].attributes.body
Something all managers or executive should read. Some mangers forget that employees look at the them for guidance and inspiration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I recently spoke to Jill Geisler, who is the author of Work Happy: What Great Bosses Know. Her companion "Great Bosses" podcasts on iTunesU have been downloaded 8 million times - and counting. Jill heads the leadership and management faculty of the Poynter Institute. She teaches, writes and consults on critical issues for leaders and counts among her clients The Boston Globe, CNN, and the Washington Post. In recognition of her lifetime contributions to journalism, the University of Wisconsin honored her with its "Distinguished Service to Journalism" award, the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association named her to its Broadcast Hall of Fame, and the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences inducted her into its prestigious Silver Circle.

In this interview, Jill talks about what it takes to be a happy manager despite the poor economy, how social media can create a happier work environment, and more.
What does it take be a happy manager in a bad economy?
It takes three things: strategic thinking, emotional intelligence and a passion for helping people do their best work, even in the face of diminished resources.

When managers think strategically, they are able to look at bigger picture goals and determine what of the many demands on their time they will make a priority.

With emotional intelligence, they can help their teams recover from setbacks and frustration while using targeted feedback to encourage their progress. (Remember, feedback is a renewable resource that costs managers nothing and pays great dividends.)

And that passion? It transforms them from yesterday's parental-type supervisors into what I believe today's best bosses must be: agents. Employees want to work for someone who approaches them as an agent would: "Sign on with me and I'll help you get to where you want to go. I'll be honest about your strengths and weaknesses. I'll guide you so you'll build a track record that serves you well here or wherever life takes you."
How can social media help build a happier work environment?
Social media is a game changer for internal relationships among colleagues and external relationships with customers. Some organizations view social media, first and foremost, as risk that must be managed. But it's wiser to think of social media as an invitation to creative communication. To instant feedback and problem solving. To putting a human face on people who once were only titles and offices. To building collaboration and relationships. The biggest risk is regulating it so tightly that people can't or won't engage.
What do you recommend for younger leaders as they develop their skills?
Don't worry about your age. Too many of the new managers I coach fear that have a neon sign over their heads that flashes "Untested-Green-Inexperienced."

But the word "new" has other meanings, including "Fresh-Innovative-Improved."

That's the focus they should have, because they bring new gifts to the world of work, including digital savvy, a healthy appreciation of diversity, and an expectation that learning is a lifelong endeavor. And then there's the oh-so-practical advice I always give young managers: When your staff invites you to an important party, by all means, accept. But drink less and leave earlier than everyone else. That way you'll remember everything you said - and you'll give them space to make jokes about and do impressions of all those bozos in management - just like you once did!
How do you think the remote workplace will impact leadership development?
I've worked remotely since 1998, so I know a bit about this. (I live in Wisconsin and commute to Florida to teach leadership seminars at our institute.) Start with the assumption that the greater the distance between people, the more important communication becomes. When I work with leaders whose teams are dispersed geographically, I emphasize the need for intentional communication to ensure that people don't fill in the empty spaces with misinformation. I underscore the need for user-friendly metrics that objectively demonstrate productivity and progress. I advocate for coaches and mentors across the miles so emerging leaders are "on the radar" even when they're not in the traditional "headquarters."
What three tips would you offer future managers?

1. As I say in Work Happy: What Great Bosses Know, "Change is the new normal," so assume you will always be managing change. Learn to become an expert at it.

2. Know what you want to be known for. What skills? What values?

3. Remember: life's too short to work with jerks. Build a jerk-free culture of excellence in your workplace. And have fun.

Dan Schawbel is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Promote Yourself: The New Rules For Career Success (St. Martin's Press).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How To Be A Great Manager That Employees Want To Work With

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jill Geisler I recently spoke to Jill Geisler, who is the author of Work Happy: What Great Bosses Know. Her companion "Great Bosses" podcasts on iTunesU have been downloaded 8 million times - and counting. Jill heads the leadership and management faculty of the Poynter Institute.

# data[].attributes.body
This was a example of what a poor leader looked like. Hewlett-Packard Co. made a great decision in replacing Apotheker.

# data[].attributes.body
Influencing can be a great thing in management. It encourages all the staff to work hard and do their best.

# data[].attributes.body
(My account seemed to have disappeared) This assignment had me completely out of my element. I have never created a survey before. I have taken many surveys and never thought about the process of creating one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Looking for targeted responses to your surveys?
Get the responses you need in minutes with SurveyMonkey Audience, our trusted panel of more than 175 million respondents from across the globe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SurveyMonkey: The World's Most Popular Free Online Survey Tool

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Use SurveyMonkey to drive your business forward by using our free online survey and forms tool to capture the voices and opinions of the people who matter most to you.

# data[].attributes.body
The discussion of in house and outside recruiting for executive managers. I stated that I felt that it is best to search in house first but if unable to find a qualified candidate then search outside.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent article in Bloomberg Businessweek is creating quite a buzz around the human capital industry. The piece, "Executive Headhunters Squeezed by In-House Recruiters," uses a patchwork of anecdotes and piecemeal data to make the case that retained search firms are facing new difficulties.

With all due respect to Bloomberg, the realities they outline are neither new, nor are they really difficulties in providing value added retained executive search services.

First, let's briefly discuss the problems with their data, which the Association of Executive Search Consultants already questioned. Businessweek appears to have chosen arbitrary data points which happen to paint a picture that retained executive search firms are suffering. Sure, a 33 percent decline in industry revenue in 2009 looks ominous; if you omit that the decline was from an all-time high; and if you omit that revenue is already re-approaching that all-time high. (There was also a minor world-wide economic event in 2008 that Businessweek may recall.)

As the AESC states:
"Although in-house search is inevitably eating into the lower end of the market by taking work that previously might have gone to some executive search firms, nevertheless, the overall market for executive search services is holding firm. Once global economic conditions stabilize, we expect to see even greater demand in response to the worldwide talent shortage-a shortage being driven by underlying demographic shifts in the developed economies and huge potential demand for executive talent from the emerging markets."
Or, in summary, "The impression given in the article that the retained executive search profession is in decline is not substantiated by the facts."

Businessweek seems mostly concerned with the impact of in-housing on the short-term bottom lines of both hiring companies and retained search firms. To evaluate the merits of retained search services, and not just the costs, one would have to complete a true return on investment calculation, which includes critical factors such as the impact on bringing the best talent in the market to the organization in the shortest time period possible, while minimizing the time and energy of key existing client executives. In addition, the extent by which true executive recruiting is done in-house is not put into context. There has been and always will be organizations which maintain and build internal executive recruiting teams. However, most of these limited numbers of organizations also continue to use some level of external support.

If they had contacted us and asked the right questions - or had done the same with any of our brethren in the retained search industry - they would have heard a polite and convincing case for hiring an executive search firm and not diverting internal resources.

A key point of added value we bring to executive search over in-house recruiters is, simply, that we're not in-house. We're impartial and data-driven. We come to the hiring process with fresh eyes and perspective.

Secondly, this is what we do. This is all we do and we're focused on it. We have in-depth research capabilities and access to a wealth of human capital across dozens of industries. We have a broader view of the marketplace and a wide reach. The Businessweek article says that Coca-Cola does 95 percent of their searches in-house. We're willing to bet the other 5 percent are their high-level and/or most specific searches. They're not going to try to find their own CEO for the same reason we don't try to make our own Diet Coke - the result would leave a bad taste.

After all, when it comes to something vital, you want to hire an expert.

In a similar vein, the article also states that GE's in-house executive search team was able to beat the retained search industry standard of 170 days to staff positions in 73 days. That's impressive. That's also about our average here at Morgan Samuels.

And conceptually, the article seems to argue against itself. It's difficult to make the case that the services provided by firms like Morgan Samuels are superfluous in an article that outlines how major corporations are hiring away our very-talented professionals in an effort to improve their performance and bottom line. That is, after all, our specialty. It's the whole idea. And imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Lastly, a firm such as Morgan Samuels that truly provides highly differentiated services within the retained search category is facing a robust market. There will always be a market for a firm that can be a strategic partner to clients, without being an insider, appropriately assesses leadership acumen and cultural fit, all the while scouring the marketplace for the best talent to meet our client's key business objectives. All of this is done with an average cycle time of 76 days, a 34% diversity placement ratio, and an average candidate review before offer of four. Oh, and by the way, of the 4, 20% of our clients will try to hire two of the four. So value like this is hard to duplicate and, frankly, from an economic standpoint, why would you?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Retained Executive Search vs. In-House Recruiting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent article in Bloomberg Businessweek is creating quite a buzz around the human capital industry. The piece, "Executive Headhunters Squeezed by In-House Recruiters," uses a patchwork of anecdotes and piecemeal data to make the case that retained search firms are facing new difficulties.

# data[].attributes.body
I also learned that clan culture is an organization culture with a strong external focus coupled with a low degree of flexibility and discretion.

# data[].attributes.body
I learned that organizational subculture is a culture embedded within a dominant culture.

# data[].attributes.body
The challenge case analysis: Zappos Doesn't Sell Shoes-It "Delivers WOW".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip Rope, Not Style

P.E. class just got better! Add flair to fitness with top sneakers.

Shop Athletic Sneakers for All

The Zappos X Brooks Limited Edition Vibes Collection

Featuring runner favorites in cool gradients and dreamy hues, so you can chase good vibes mile after mile.

Shop All Brooks

Fresh Footwear

Revamp your entire look with just-in kicks that can't be beat.

Shop Fresh Footwear

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shoes, Sneakers, Boots, & Clothing + FREE SHIPPING | Zappos.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GET FREE SHIPPING & RETURNS! We have 1000s of styles of shoes & Zappos legendary 365-day return policy + 24/7 friendly customer service. Call 1-800-92

# data[].attributes.body
Ch. 5: Plans and planning tools. Learning about making plans and applying it to management. This chapter helped me get a better understanding with planning when applying it to management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Long term and short term planning animated

# data[].attributes.body
I remember having difficulties finding weaknesses in this company because I liked the restaurant. The only weakness I could find was McDonald's was a tab bit cheaper but I had always felt like In-N-Out was worth it. In California, whenever you saw a McDonald's you saw In-N-Out not too far away, just like there's always a burger king new McDonald's on the east coast.

# data[].attributes.body
The SWOT analysis was a fun assignment for me. I have lived in California in the past and have had the pleasure of eating at In-N-Out burger and I was able to use my past experiences in my paper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At In-N-Out Burger, quality is everything. That’s why in a world where food is often over-processed, prepackaged and frozen, In-N-Out makes everything the old fashioned way.

# data[].attributes.body
Thinking about McDonald's made me remember this movie I recently watched. It the back story of how the McDonald's brand was built and how it became a global corporation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
THE FOUNDER Trailer (Michael Keaton, McDONALD'S Movie - 2016)

# data[].attributes.body
When I think of global corporations I always think of McDonald's.

# data[].attributes.body
I grew up never really noticing the hotel Marriott, it was always sort of just there. Growing up my family rarely traveled and if we did we stayed at relative homes. So I never had a lot of hotel experiences until I was an adult. This article gave me a lot of background history about the Marriott hotel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I recently had the pleasure of speaking to J. W. Marriott Jr., who is the Chairman of Marriott International, Inc., one of the world's largest lodging companies. His leadership spans more than 50 years, and he has taken Marriott from a family restaurant business to a global lodging company with more than 3,700 properties in over 73 countries and territories. Known throughout the industry for his hands-on management style, Mr. Marriott has built a highly regarded culture that emphasizes the importance of Marriott's people and recognizes the value they bring to the organization. Today, approximately 300,000 people wearing Marriott International name badges are serving guests in Marriott managed and franchised properties throughout the world.

His new book is called Without Reservations: How a Family Root Beer Stand Grew Into a Global Hotel Company. In this interview, he talks about how he grew his family business, the obstacles he encountered, the five rules that led to his success, his best career advice and more.
Why did you decide to write this book right now? What do you think makes your story relevant in today's world?
After working for Marriott for over 50 years, I decided to step down from the CEO position and hand the reigns over to Arne Sorenson. With such a significant change in our leadership taking place, now seemed like the appropriate time to write. I am so very proud of the company that my parents started as a root beer stand in 1927, which grew over the past 85 years into a global success comprised of over 3,700 hotels in 74 countries.

Companies are under an ever-sharp magnifying glass. The values that have served as Marriott's guiding principles over the past eight decades transcend the hotel business. I think they are valuable for other companies to consider.
As you grew your business, what obstacles did you encounter, how did you overcome them and what were the major milestones?
One of the largest obstacles was when we had to deal with the aftermath of September 11, 2001 and the unknown effects it would have on the travel industry. Not to mention the changes it would impose on our global expansion and the recovery of all the Marriott associates and guests impacted that day.

More recently, the global economic downturn that began in 2008 and the previous similar experience of the early 1990s were also significant obstacles to overcome. We drew upon the previous 1990s layoffs to handle the human side of the equation again in 2008. Some were inevitable, but we were able to temper the pain by keeping many people on board at reduced hours but with full health benefits.

Some of the largest milestones were when we expanded globally. Our first hotel built outside the United States was in Mexico in 1969. The first Marriott located in Europe was built in Amsterdam. The first in the Middle East was the Riyadh Marriott Hotel in Saudi Arabia in 1980. In Africa, our first hotel was the Cairo Marriott in 1981. In Asia, it was Hong Kong in 1989.
In your book, you mention five rules that led to Marriott's success. What are they and how did you originally come up with them?
First and foremost, we put people first. Then we pursue excellence, act with integrity, embrace change, and serve our world.

The first item of the five has been our company credo since my parents' era. "Take care of your employees, and they'll take care of your customers" was the daily mantra that my brother, Dick, and I heard from our father while we were growing up.

The other four values stretch back in time to the earliest days of the company, 30 years before we ever thought about building our first hotel, to our popular Hot Shoppes restaurants. Customers could count on spotless dishes and shiny floors ("Pursue excellence"), an ever-growing menu ("Embrace change"), honest value for their money ("Act with integrity") and a true sense of community second to none ("Serve our world").

Marriott has come a long, long way from the days of being known as a regional family restaurant chain, but our values haven't budged an inch. In fact, they've deepened over time into a commitment to do what great companies should do: make a lasting, positive difference in the world.
What do you think led to the success of Marriott when other chains have failed?
Well my father used to say take good care of the employees, and they will in turn take good care of the customers who will return again and again. That's putting people first! And of course it leads to profit and market share gains and ultimately a successful business.

I believe you succeed in business by being true to purpose beyond profits. From the very beginning of Marriott we believed in opening the doors to a world of opportunities for our associates.
What are your top three pieces of career advice?
1. I believe that you have to challenge yourself personally - constantly strive to improve and we believe at Marriott that success is never final.

2. We need to continue to reinvent ourselves and embrace change because our environment is constantly changing and our customers are always looking for the new big thing.

3. We need to build stronger communities and serve our world. As we do so, we create the conditions for business and personal success as well as a successful future. When the 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti in January 2010, we did not have any properties in the country. Like many other companies and communities in the days immediately following the quake, we answered the call for supplies and contributions. But it didn't feel like enough - particularly considering how incredibly loyal our Haitian associates are. So we started thinking about what else we could do that would make a difference - a tangible long-term difference - to the island's recovery. Our answer? Help development a Marriott hotel to provide jobs and signal to the world that Haiti is "open for business." Our hotel project will have a multiplier effect as we attract investors to Haiti to do business.
Dan Schawbel is the author of the upcoming book, Promote Yourself: The New Art of Getting Ahead (St. Martin's Press, Sept 3rd). Listen to his Promote Yourself Podcast on iTunes for more interviews and career advice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
J. W. Marriott Jr: From Root Beer Stand to Global Hotel Company

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
J. W. Marriott Jr. I recently had the pleasure of speaking to J. W. Marriott Jr., who is the Chairman of Marriott International, Inc., one of the world's largest lodging companies. His leadership spans more than 50 years, and he has taken Marriott from a family restaurant business to a global lodging company [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Something new I learned. I knew that Columbus discovered America but never knew that he started globalization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NBER Working Paper No. 7632
Issued in April 2000
NBER Program(s):Development of the American Economy, International Trade and Investment

Some world historians attach globalization big bang' significance to 1492 (Christopher Colombus stumbles on the Americas in search of spices) and 1498 (Vasco da Gama makes an end run around Africa and snatches monopoly rents away from the Arab and Venetian spice traders). Such scholars are on the side of Adam Smith who believed that these were the two most important events in recorded history. Other world historians insist that globalization stretches back even earlier. There is a third view which argues that the world economy was fragmented and completely de-globalized before the 19th century. None of these three competing views has explicitly shown the difference between trade expansion driven by booming demand and supply within the trading economies (e.g., the underlying fundamental, population growth), and trade expansion driven by the integration of markets between trading economies (e.g., the central manifestation of globalization, commodity price convergence). This paper makes that distinction, and then offers two novel empirical tests which allow us to discriminate between these three competing views. Both tests show: there is no evidence supporting the view that the world economy was globally integrated prior to 1492 and/or 1498; there is also no evidence supporting the view that these two dates had the economic impact on the global economy that world historians assign to them; but there is abundant evidence supporting the view that the 19th century contained a very big globalization bang. These tests involve a close look at the connections between factor prices, commodity prices and endowments world wide.

Machine-readable bibliographic record - MARC, RIS, BibTeX

Document Object Identifier (DOI): 10.3386/w7632

Published: O Rourke, Kevin H. & Williamson, Jeffrey G., 2002. " When did globalisation begin?," European Review of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(01), pages 23-50, April. citation courtesy of

Users who downloaded this paper also downloaded* these:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NBER Working Paper No. 7632 Issued in April 2000 NBER Program(s):Development of the American Economy, International Trade and Investment Some world historians attach globalization big bang' significance to 1492 (Christopher Colombus stumbles on the Americas in search of spices) and 1498 (Vasco da Gama makes an end run around Africa and snatches monopoly rents away from the Arab and Venetian spice traders).

# data[].attributes.body
I had no idea that people even cared back then. The movies and t.v. always made it seem like people was so uncivilized back then. I grew up thinking that it was the wild wild west all the time with no laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sherman Antitrust Act | Definition, History, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sherman Antitrust Act, first legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress (1890) to curb concentrations of power that interfere with trade and reduce economic competition. It was named for U.S. Sen. John Sherman of Ohio, who was an expert on the regulation of commerce. One of the act’s main provisions…

# data[].attributes.body
I just love equality in the workplace. For so many years women was told that they couldn't do many things and one of them was becoming a scientist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dave Cutler for The Chronicle

As more women choose careers in the sciences, the stakes are higher than ever before. Having women in key decision-making positions in the scientific and technological work force is critical to the future of our society. Successful senior female scientists serve as a prime source of leadership for top academic administrative positions.

A more diverse work force in the science, engineering, technology, and mathematics (STEM) fields not only allows women and other members of underrepresented groups to reap the benefits of the relatively high salaries of scientists and engineers. It may also lead to innovations in science and engineering, since people from different backgrounds bring diverse approaches to problem-solving-in the classroom, laboratories, and on the job-that can improve our daily lives.

For example, women, perhaps because of their experience caring for babies and children, have invented technologies useful for child care, such as disposable diapers, folding cribs, and the baby-changing stations found in public bathrooms. Through its gendered-innovations project, the Clayman Institute for Gender Research, at Stanford University, seeks to bring attention to the need for changes in both technology and policy to fit the needs of women, such as a different seat-belt design for pregnant women and a requirement that the new design be tested on pregnant women.

Frequently, designing products or technology for the needs of a particular group viewed as the "other" (or the minority) results in a design that is also better for the "norm." For example, the curb cuts designed for wheelchairs also make it easier for people with strollers or suitcases on wheels to cross the street.

During the past three decades, the overall percentage of women receiving degrees in STEM fields has sharply increased in the United States, but the data mask wide variance among fields. Women now earn more bachelor's and master's degrees, over all, than men do. Since 2000, women have also earned more bachelor's degrees in science (including the social sciences and psychology) and engineering than men. In 2010 they earned 50.3 percent of bachelor's degrees in those fields but only 45.5 percent of master's degrees, according to data from the National Science Foundation. Among U.S. citizens and permanent residents, women earned a majority of the doctorates in nonscience and engineering fields in 2010, but only 41.9 percent of those in science and engineering.

Major gender differences occur across the science disciplines. In short, in many of the social sciences and the life sciences, women have reached parity in the percentages of degrees received. In other areas, such as the geosciences, mathematics, and physical sciences, their percentages continue to increase but have not approached parity. By contrast, in engineering and computer sciences, the percentage of women has reached a plateau or dropped during the past decade. Unfortunately, these STEM areas, particularly computer science and engineering, where women earn fewer than 20 percent of bachelor's degrees, represent some of the fastest-growing sectors of the work force in our increasingly technological society.

Academe continues to improve for women, who represent more than 30 percent of STEM faculty at four-year institutions. Although the percentage drops precipitously at elite research institutions, particularly at the rank of full professor (about 10 percent are women), a 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences found improving opportunities nationally for women in tenure-track positions at those institutions. Because of Title VII and Title IX, virtually all institutions have articulated policies banning gender discrimination and sexual harassment. Many now have policies that facilitate balancing career and family, during especially crucial life transitions. Although old issues remain with new facets and faces, progress has been made in cultivating female scientists and changing institutional structures.

The importance of women's leadership in science has been especially apparent in such areas as health care: Not until a substantial number of women had entered the professions of biology and medicine were biases from androcentrism exposed. Once the possibility for such bias was discovered, scholars recognized the potential for distortion on a variety of levels of research and theory, including the choice and definition of problems to be studied, the exclusion of females as experimental subjects, bias in the methodology used to collect and interpret data, and bias in theories and conclusions drawn from the data.

That realization uncovered gender bias that had distorted some medical research. For example, women's health had become synonymous with reproductive health and obstetrics-gynecology, which meant that many diseases that occurred in both sexes, such as cardiovascular disease and even breast cancer, had been studied only in men or with a male-as-norm approach. Excessive focus on male research subjects and definition of cardiovascular diseases as "male" led to underdiagnosis and undertreatment of the disease in women.

Studies demonstrated that women were significantly less likely than men to be treated with coronary angioplasty, angiography, or surgery when admitted to a hospital with a diagnosis of myocardial infarction, unstable or stable angina, chronic ischemic heart disease, or chest pain. This significant difference remained even when controlling for such variables as race, age, economic status, and other chronic disease. Similarly, women had angina before myocardial infarction as frequently as, and with more debilitating effects than, men, and yet women were referred for cardiac catheterization only half as often.

Those studies led the late Bernadine Healy, a cardiologist and the first female director of the National Institutes of Health, to characterize the diagnosis of coronary heart disease in women as "the Yentl syndrome": "Once a woman showed that she was just like a man, by having coronary artery disease or a myocardial infarction, then she was treated as a man should be," she wrote in a 1991 article in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The male-as-norm approach in research and diagnosis, unsurprisingly, was translated into bias in treatments for women. Women exhibited higher death rates from angioplasty and coronary bypass surgery because the techniques had been pioneered using male subjects. This provides an important lesson that can be applied to other fields, as increased leadership by women could potentially lead to new breakthroughs and discoveries.

As President Obama has emphasized, to compete in the global market, the United States needs to increase the percentage of Americans graduating from college over all, and the numbers of scientists and engineers. To achieve this, our scientific work force needs to change from being predominantly white and male to reflect the demographics of the population as a whole. Even more than in basic research, applications for technology and inventions depend upon the experiences and ideas of the designers. More women, as well as more diversity in general, in the STEM work force not only helps to guard against bias but may lead to new ideas that will improve life for all of us.

Sue V. Rosser is provost at San Francisco State University. She is the author of Breaking Into the Lab: Engineering Progress for Women in Science (New York University Press, 2012) and many other books and articles on women and gender in science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More Gender Diversity Will Mean Better Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As more women choose careers in the sciences, the stakes are higher than ever before. Having women in key decision-making positions in the scientific and technological work force is critical to the future of our society. Successful senior female scientists serve as a prime source of leadership for top academic administrative positions.

# data[].attributes.body
This was a article I had mixed feelings about. On one hand I felt like diversity was not hard thing to achieve in the workplace because our whole country is diverse. After reading the article I realized it was correct about the country being slow on cultural change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If your company is like practically every company I've known, it's been working for years to add diversity to its leadership ranks. Why doesn't it have more to show for its efforts? I don't doubt that your managers sincerely want to reshape the talent pipeline. My exposure to countless diversity initiatives suggests that you're tripping yourself up in four ways.

You've distributed the responsibility for increasing diversity.

It's standard: You probably have a campus recruitment team, a separate group driving lateral hiring, and a diversity department concerned with retention and inclusiveness. Recruitment teams focus on hiring goals, but they aren't accountable for how well new employees perform or how many remain after two years. Diversity departments, which do track new hires' success (and, unlike recruiting, can commit funds to programs beyond the current budget cycle), are disconnected from recruitment strategies.

If no one person or group is responsible for building a diverse senior management pipeline, it's hard to develop an integrated, game-changing strategy. And outside experts, faced with your multiple stakeholders' distinct agendas, can't even have a strategic discussion with you, let alone get buy-in for a comprehensive approach. So you're not getting the "better mousetrap" solutions you get from innovative supplier ecosystems in other areas of your business.

You're managing activities, not outcomes.

Your diversity initiatives probably focus on "inputs" such as the number of mentoring programs, event sponsorships, or résumés collected, and you count them as successes that demonstrate senior management's commitment to change. Instead you should think about performance as strategically as you do in your core operating businesses: Be very clear about what success will look like in five years. Define metrics to track progress toward that vision. Prioritize among competing tactics, and drive increased investment toward initiatives that produce results. Use feedback to make refinements along the way.

Your focus is on fixing the culture.

Changing the organizational culture to level the playing field is important. But culture change happens very slowly-and usually not at all until new faces have appeared in your company's leadership ranks and new perspectives have begun to reshape its strategies. Your first priority should be to improve performance and promotion rates in underrepresented groups. You'll find that culture change comes more readily from a critical mass of diverse executives than from a series of diversity and inclusion seminars or one high-profile minority hire.

You prioritize minority candidates for diversity department roles.

This practice is everywhere, and it's understandable. But minority managers are usually struggling themselves with the issues their companies want them to solve. They may be risk-averse-especially given their awareness that, with so few senior minority members around, they and their new strategies are highly visible. A company that wants its diversity executives to advocate for bold new approaches should think about rotating high-performing line executives (whether minority or nonminority) into diversity roles. Having already established their reputations internally as revenue producers, they can navigate any setbacks that come from new approaches.

Don't undermine your own efforts to make your leadership pipeline more diverse. Instead, incorporate the same rigor and results orientation that you apply elsewhere in your operations. The problem is entirely manageable-if you're willing to manage it.

A version of this article appeared in the June 2012 issue of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If your company is like practically every company I've known, it's been working for years to add diversity to its leadership ranks. Why doesn't it have more to show for its efforts? I don't doubt that your managers sincerely want to reshape the talent pipeline.

# data[].attributes.body
The topic about different generations working along side each other.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today, at least three generations currently coexist in the workplace. Each brings to the table their own strengths, weaknesses and viewpoints that are seemingly very different from the next.

Or are they? A recent study by the IBM Institute for Business Value has found that the needs of younger generations (Millennials) aren't all that different from their older counterparts (Baby Boomers, Gen X). While it's true that each generation (and individual for that matter) brings a different form of value to the workplace in one way or another, their basic needs and desires at work are what binds them - whether they realize it or not.

A recent article I came across in Fortune highlights several unforeseen findings from the study that have proven many generational myths to be untrue. For example, the study found that Millennials desire financial security, seniority, inspirational leadership, clearly articulated business strategies and performance-based recognition just as much as Baby Boomers and Gen X employees. And when asked about workplace recognition, a higher percentage of Gen X employees felt that everyone on a successful team should be rewarded, compared to the number of Millennials who reported the same.

It's no secret that younger generations tend to get a bad rap, especially at work. But the facts are telling us a different story - one that's rooted in reality and not opinion. So why do we continue to buy into these age-based stereotypes and allow our teams to live in a state of resistance when we could, instead, help employees channel that energy in a positive way and work together for the greater good of the organization?

And when you consider that Millennials will make up roughly half of the workforce by 2020, it's pretty clear that now is the time to help our teams embrace their differences and bridge the generational once and for all. Here's how this can be accomplished:
1. Encourage Baby Boomers To Share Their Experience And Knowledge
Older employees have experience, credibility and wisdom in their favor. They've been in the game for a long time and have absolutely earned it. Encourage them to document what they've learned and be open to sharing their trade secrets with others so that they may benefit. Help them understand that judging younger generations or shaming them for not having as much experience is a waste of energy that isn't helpful to your organization. Younger professionals will definitely have their growing pains and rough patches just as we all have, that much is certain. Emphasize the importance of teaching, not judging. Have Boomers think back to when they were starting out. Did they have a mentor or colleague who provided guidance to them along the way? Chances are they did, and now this is their opportunity to give back and inspire someone else who is just starting out. Who knows, it may open their eyes to new possibilities and inspire them in return.
2. Gen X Is The Middleman. Look To Them To Help Bridge The Gap
Help Gen X employees who are in the midst of their career become the bridge builders. They are in the unique position of seeing how both older and younger generations function at work, so they have great translation skills to offer. Encourage them to remain open to what all age groups bring to the table and help in the promotion of cross-functional teams. The knowledge and insights they glean from Millennials and Boomers will make them invaluable members of your team.
3. Help Millennials Continue To Innovate, Without Overlooking The Basics
Millennials bring a tremendous amount of value and new skills to the workplace, particularly when it comes to technical savvy. Their approach is highly creative and can lead to greater efficiency. Help younger professionals understand the importance of blending the old with the new. Encourage them to seek out mentors who can help them learn, grow and understand the complexity and history of their organization. No matter what our age, we need to be careful about what we think we know for sure. Help Millennials understand the value of continuous learning and the danger of righteousness. In the end, they will see that blending their innovative sides with a tried-and-true work ethic will be a recipe for success.

As leaders, it's our job to help our teams navigate the changing landscape at work. We can't change our employees' circumstances, but we can change the way they view their circumstances. In helping our teams embrace what is and redirect their energy in a positive way, I'm hopeful we will create higher functioning, happier workplaces that benefit from what each generation has to offer.
Cy Wakeman is a national keynote speaker, business consultant, New York Times bestselling author, and trainer who has spent over 20 years cultivating a revolutionary approach to leadership. For more on Cy, check out http://www.realitybasedleadership.com/.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Perks (And Importance) Of Embracing A Multigenerational Workplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, at least three generations currently coexist in the workplace. Each brings to the table their own strengths, weaknesses and viewpoints that are seemingly very different from the next. Or are they? A recent study by the IBM Institute for Business Value has found that the needs of younger generations (Millennials) aren't all that different [...]

# data[].attributes.body
My text for 8 weeks. This text taught me so many thighs about management that I never knew before.

# data[].attributes.body
My first introduction in principle management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today's managers have access to an amazing array of resources which they can use to improve their skills. But what about those managers who were leading the way forward 100 years ago?

Managers in the early 1900s had very few external resources to draw upon to guide and develop their management practice. But thanks to early theorists like Henri Fayol (1841-1925), managers began to get the tools they needed to lead and manage more effectively. Fayol, and others like him, are responsible for building the foundations of modern management theory.

Background

Henri Fayol was born in Istanbul in 1841. When he was 19, he began working as an engineer at a large mining company in France. He eventually became the director, at a time when the mining company employed more than 1,000 people.

Through the years, Fayol began to develop what he considered to be the 14 most important principles of management. Essentially, these explained how managers should organize and interact with staff.

In 1916, two years before he stepped down as director, he published his "14 Principles of Management" in the book " Administration Industrielle et Générale." Fayol also created a list of the six primary functions of management, which go hand in hand with the Principles.

Fayol's "14 Principles" was one of the earliest theories of management to be created, and remains one of the most comprehensive. He's considered to be among the most influential contributors to the modern concept of management, even though people don't refer to "The 14 Principles" often today.

The theory falls under the Administrative Management school of thought (as opposed to the Scientific Management school, led by Fredrick Taylor).

Fayol's 14 Principles of Management

Fayol's principles are listed below:

1. Division of Work - When employees are specialized, output can increase because they become increasingly skilled and efficient.

2. Authority - Managers must have the authority to give orders, but they must also keep in mind that with authority comes responsibility.

3. Discipline - Discipline must be upheld in organizations, but methods for doing so can vary.

4. Unity of Command - Employees should have only one direct supervisor.

5. Unity of Direction - Teams with the same objective should be working under the direction of one manager, using one plan. This will ensure that action is properly coordinated.

6. Subordination of Individual Interests to the General Interest - The interests of one employee should not be allowed to become more important than those of the group. This includes managers.

7. Remuneration - Employee satisfaction depends on fair remuneration for everyone. This includes financial and non-financial compensation.

8. Centralization - This principle refers to how close employees are to the decision-making process. It is important to aim for an appropriate balance.

9. Scalar Chain - Employees should be aware of where they stand in the organization's hierarchy, or chain of command.

10. Order - The workplace facilities must be clean, tidy and safe for employees. Everything should have its place.

11. Equity - Managers should be fair to staff at all times, both maintaining discipline as necessary and acting with kindness where appropriate.

12. Stability of Tenure of Personnel - Managers should strive to minimize employee turnover. Personnel planning should be a priority.

13. Initiative - Employees should be given the necessary level of freedom to create and carry out plans.

14. Esprit de Corps - Organizations should strive to promote team spirit and unity.

Fayol's Six Functions of Management

Fayol's six primary functions of management, which go hand in hand with the Principles, are as follows:

Key Points

Henri Fayol's "14 Principles of Management" have been a significant influence on modern management theory. His practical list of principles helped early 20th century managers learn how to organize and interact with their employees in a productive way.

Although the 14 Principles aren't widely used today, they can still offer guidance for today's managers. Many of the principles are now considered to be common sense, but at the time they were revolutionary concepts for organizational management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Henri Fayol's Principles of Management: Early Management Theory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today's managers have access to an amazing array of resources which they can use to improve their skills. But what about those managers who were leading the way forward 100 years ago? Managers in the early 1900s had very few external resources to draw upon to guide and develop their management practice.

# data[].attributes.body
Some manager can build a company but hurt employee morale in the process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Steve Jobs taught us so many things... To us whose professional life strides tech, ads and media, his way of fostering innovation, of creating an obsessive culture of perfection remains both inspirational and enigmatic. For those who like design and engineering, there isn't a single field Apple hasn't entered - or at least influenced. When I fumble with the appalling multifunction display of my Prius, when I struggle with the remote control of my office A/C, or when I wonder why in hell the $2,000 battery-assisted bicycle I consider buying doesn't have an programmable memory chip to upgrade software that looks forever stuck in version 1.0, I wonder how the Cupertino guys would have handled it. Needless to say, I do the same when I look at media applications or newspapers/magazine designs, many of which seem to have succumbed to a sad mélange of sloppy execution and a lack of decisiveness in design.

For years, I have been reading everything I could about Apple from the management/innovation perspective. As a business journalist, I find Apple being the most frustrating company to follow. Very little comes out. The culture (and the cult) of secrecy extents way beyond any employee tenure; even the usually profligate academic literature is rather bare when it comes to Apple.

However, over a span of 14 years, as it impacted so many sectors, Apple's unprecedented turnaround yielded a few clues. I tried to isolate some with potential applications outside the tech world. What interests me in Apple ranges from its choice of frosted-glass for my MacBook Pro's trackpad (instead of cheaper plastic), to the use of its immense cash hoard, to the way the company prepared itself for the post-Jobs era.

1. Focus. Apple is a $100bn revenue corporation with an extremely small number of products: about 30 different models for four lines of items (computers, phones, music players, tablets). In Jobs's own words: "Focusing is about saying no" ( 1997 video here). Apple could always be tempted to wade in new markets. Especially since it expanded to the mobile space. Instead, management chose to concentrate on things it could do better than the competition, regardless of alleged customers' expectations or pundits' incantations. For now (as an example), the iPhone comes in one single screen-size (instead of dozens for each of its competitors) and Apple has been adding features only by following its quality-centred agenda.

This is connected to the perplexing question of choices. The news business, whether print or digital, is prone to external and internal influences. On the web, there are alleged "must have" or fashionable features that a digital editor can't avoid. Each editorial fiefdom demands a presence on the home page. It leads to confusion and to the reader's inability to understand what's important, what are the media's strength and sometimes what the site or the app is about.

2. Creativity/design. Not being an engineer actually helped Steve Jobs work better with them, and to connect aesthetics with function:

Some people think design means how it looks. But of course, if you dig deeper, it's really how it works. (...) Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn't really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That's because they were able to connect experiences they've had and synthesise new things.

3. Obsessive attention to details. Last August, Vic Gundotra, a Google executive, shared an anecdote about receiving a Sunday morning phone call from Jobs apologising for an tiny imperfect rendering in the Google logo as displayed on the iPhone. Jobs paid attention to every detail of the business, and demanded a correction right away if necessary. He once said:

Be a yardstick of quality. Some people aren't used to an environment where excellence is expected.

Strangely enough, when you look at the Apple ecosystem there are no discernible ''false notes", disconnectswith its environment. The vision expressed at the top cascades down to the lowest level without losing intensity and precision. In his Fortune magazine piece"How Apple works", Adam Lashinksy sums it up:

Jobs himself is the glue that holds this unique approach together. Yet his methods have produced an organisation that mirrors his thoughts when - and this is important - Jobs isn't specifically involved. Says one former insider: "You can ask anyone in the company what Steve wants and you'll get an answer, even if 90% of them have never met Steve."

4. Accountability. It meshes with the previous point and is a key element in Apple's execution process. Accountability is at the cornerstone of Apple's management. Not a single meeting without a DRI - direct responsible individual - in charge of a well-defined piece of the puzzle. At the individual level, it's obviously a double edged sword: the person feels really in charge... of both success or failure.
Here is what Jobs said about its internal organisation at the AllThingsD conference (video here, worth watching):

Do you know how many committees we have at Apple? Zero. We have no committees. We are organised like a startup. We are the biggest startup on the planet. We all meet for three hours once a week and we talk about everything we're doing, the all business. And there is tremendous teamwork at the top of the company which filters down the teamwork through out of the company.

That's Jobs' view of management:

You have to be run by ideas, not by hierarchy.

5. Marketing. Jobs said this about the Macintosh in its 1985 interview with Playboy:

"We built [the Mac] for ourselves. We were the group of people who were going to judge whether it was great or not. We weren't going to go out and do market research. We just wanted to build the best thing we could build."

Twelve years later, he nailed it in Business Week:

"A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them."

Having said that, once launched every product is supported by a strong market research and analysis of customer choices.
Most of the time, print or digital publishers perform countless pre-marketing studies and focus groups. I have mixed feelings about those. In many instances, it is good to confirm an intuition or to avoid serious mistakes. But it many others, I've seen market studies becoming the tool of choice for managers to evade responsibilities in the event of a failure.

6. Money. Apple is a fabulously rich company ($76bn in cash reserve, more than the US Treasury). Still, resources are allocated in a rather scarce way. But once a decision is made, the company will spend whatever it takes to get the best possible of everything. (The Fortune piece mentions the hiring of the London Symphony Orchestra to record the soundtrack of Apple's video editing software iMovie). Less anecdotal, Apple management won't hesitate to send a product back to the drawing board regardless of the costs. Cash is also used as a strategic weapon: earlier this year, the company disclosed a $3.9bn investment to secure component supplies and production capacity, thus affecting competition. Jobs said at the time:

We've demonstrated a strong track record of being very disciplined with the use of our cash. We don't let it burn a hole in our pocket, we don't allow it to motivate us to do stupid acquisitions. And so I think that we'd like to continue to keep our powder dry, because we do feel that there are one or more strategic opportunities in the future.

Funnily, just one week after this financial disclosure by Apple, AOL announces the $315m acquisition of the Huffington Post. AOL might have some powder left, but no gunner. And I won't mention New sCorp's misfortunes with MySpace.

7. Legacy. Very few companies in the world have set up such a systematic process of mapping out their DNA to make sure it doesn't degrade over time. To do so, Jobs went to the very best in the talent pool: Joel Podolny, at the time dean of the Yale School of Management. Podolny left his prestigious post to work at Apple, in a programme wrapped in secrecy dubbed the Apple University (for more, read this story in the Los Angeles Times titled "Steve Jobs to live on, virtually, in Apple University").

I'm particularly sensitive to Apple's lessons. For one, I had the luck to work for a Norwegian company which invested a lot to learn from others' experience. Schibsted ASA's management willingness to understand others' success and failures played a significant role in its achievements.

Secondly, as someone who loves journalism and the media business, I'm preoccupied by what I see as an unprecedented wave of mediocrity sweeping through the news business, which suffers from deteriorating business models coupled to questionable management.

At the same time, I really believe most media companies can deal with such challenges by finding out what their DNA is really about, by doing whatever it takes to preserve it, and build its future on such a foundation.

One final note. Take 40 seconds to watch this video showing Steve Jobs responding to a student who recently asked him what he would add to its famous 2005 Stanford speech.
frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Steve Jobs: seven lessons from Apple's founder

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Steve Jobs taught us so many things... To us whose professional life strides tech, ads and media, his way of fostering innovation, of creating an obsessive culture of perfection remains both inspirational and enigmatic. For those who like design and engineering, there isn't a single field Apple hasn't entered - or at least influenced.

# data[].attributes.body
His story of starting from the bottom and working his way up is a inspirational story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Uploaded by Rodney Adkins on 2014-12-05.