Who Makes Those Private Label Products In Your Grocery Store and Why?

Ever wonder who manufactures the private label products you purchase at the grocery store?  Most of us suspect it is one of the large branded consumer products companies, but it is sometimes difficult to determine which firm specifically supplied that product to the grocer.   Why do these big national brands choose to produce private label products?  Scholars Yu Ma, Kusum Ailawadi, Mercedes Martos-Partal, and Oscar Gonzalez-Benito have conducted an in-depth study of private label manufacturing, and they offer some interesting insights.  They studied the private label market in Spain, examining data for six of the largest retailers in the country.   

First, they confirm a well-known fact about private label production.  The large brands have an inherent advantage when producing private labels.  They can leverage economies of scale to produce those private label goods at low costs.  Moreover, manufacturing the private label goods, and further taking advantage of scale economies, can lower their costs of producing their branded products.  

Second, they find that manufacturers may be supplying private label products in hopes of strengthening their relationships with key retailers.  In so doing, they hope to gain more shelf space for their branded products.   The scholars confirm that retailers do carry more of a manufacturer's branded products if that company supplies private label goods to their stores.   If a manufacturer exits the private label business, they tend to lose shelf space for their branded goods.  

However, interestingly, they find that the national brands do not gain market share in their categories simply because they have more shelf space and more availability of their product in the stores.  In the end, the consumer drives the success of the brands.  More shelf space doesn't mean more sales, and ultimately, a retailer may take shelf space away if products don't sell.  

One thing that they do not examine is why some branded manufacturers are more successful at private label production than others.  I suspect that some branded goods companies simply do not have the efficiencies and cost structure required to offer private label goods at competitive prices.  Moreover, attempts to become more efficient might harm the quality of the branded goods the firm supplies.  

Why Some Employers are Disappointed with Gen Z Hires

https://www.monitask.com/

Fortune's Orianna Rose Royle reports that, "six in 10 employers say they have already sacked some of the Gen Z workers they hired fresh out of college in recent months."  She cites data from a survey of nearly 1,000 business leaders conducted by Intelligent.  Royle offers some more data from the Intelligent study: 

Employers’ gripe with young people today is their lack of motivation or initiative—50% of the leaders surveyed cited that as the reason why things didn’t work out with their new hire. Bosses also pointed to Gen Z being unprofessional, unorganized, and having poor communication skills as their top reasons for having to sack grads. Leaders say they have struggled with the latest generation’s tangible challenges, including being late to work and meetings often, not wearing office-appropriate clothing, and using language appropriate for the workspace. Now more than half of hiring managers have come to the conclusion that college grads are unprepared for the world of work. Meanwhile, over 20% say they can’t handle the workload.

Now you may or may not have experienced these hiring challenges.  Some have argued that these complaints are overblown, and that they are typical of an older generation of managers that does not understand younger workers' mindsets and habits.  Still, one cannot easily dismiss these concerns expressed by managers.  Their perceptions matter because they will affect hiring practices, as well as the experience of those new hires during their initial months of employment.  

What strikes me, though, is that these hiring managers are not complaining about a lack of business skills such as data analysis, and they aren't pointing out a lack of content knowledge in specific business disciplines.  Instead, they are focused on how young workers conduct themselves.  These managers are focused on the basic blocking and tackling of becoming a professional. Can you show up on time?  Can you communicate clearly?  Can you dress appropriately?  The lesson for those of us in academia is very clear.   We cannot focus only on teaching content knowledge and analytical skills.  We have to prepare students for the day-to-day interactions that will take place in the workforce.  For young workers, the lesson is also very clear: being smart is not nearly enough to succeed in the workplace.  If you are late, disorganized, and/or cannot communicate clearly, no one cares how knowledgeable you are. 

Reducing Customer Pain Points: The Savannah Bananas

My former student, Jon Huntley, and I are working on a new case study about the Savannah Bananas, the wildly successful and highly entertaining barnstorming baseball team co-founded by Jesse and Emily Cole.  The company provides a wonderful example of how to identify and alleviate pain points in the customer experience.  In his book, Banana Ball (written with Don Yaeger), Jesse explains how the Bananas sought to find and eliminate all the friction in the fan experience.  

“Here’s what I don’t understand about many businesses.  Why do they continually do the things that their customers hate? Why are people endlessly put on hold, while a message plays that tells them how ‘important’ their call is, but they do a slow burn while waiting to talk to an actual human being… and maybe they still hang up in frustration.  In the Bananas’ organization, we have a word for this – friction.  We looked at all the friction points from a baseball experience – ticket fees, price gouging on parking and concessions, as well as limited access to autographs and fan photos with their favorite players – and we did the opposite.”

Jesse Cole explains that improving the customer experience involves a focus on both macro-frictions and micro-frictions.  At the macro level, the Bananas had to overcome the perception that baseball games were too long, slow, and boring.  At the micro level, the Bananas mapped the entire customer journey, from buying tickets to arriving at the ballpark, watching the game, and returning to their cars in the parking lot.  They identified each of the frictions, or pain points, along that journey.  They are relentless about eliminating friction.  

They use several methods to identify and eliminate pain points. First, employees pose as Undercover Fans during games.  Second, senior leaders in the organization work on the front lines at times to see the processes and fan interactions up close.  Third, the organization takes photos and video of the fans throughout the ballpark to see when and why they are frustrated.  Finally, they constantly look for opportunities to transform pain points into moments of joyful entertainment.  For instance, most people hate being put on hold.  The Bananas have created such entertaining voicemail messages and hold music that fans enjoy the wait.  Many people become frustrated by the wait times in the concession areas.  The Bananas try to reduce those wait times, but they also have developed all sorts of entertainment on the concourse.  

Sounds simple, right? Why do many organizations fail to alleviate these pain points?  In my view, three main reasons exist. First, managers become too isolated from the true customer experience.  When they "experience" the customer journey, it's not real.  Employees know they are watching and inspecting, and they create a "false" process for managers. Second, managers do not empower front-line employees to eliminate those frictions.  They constrict their freedom and autonomy such that the employees feel powerless to address problems that are clear to them on the front lines.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, managers convince themselves that an amazing product should be sufficient to satisfy customers.  It's like the doctor who thinks that patients should be happy if they receive the appropriate treatment to remedy their illness, even if patients had to experience long wait times, confusing insurance forms, an array of unexplained fees, and unclear instructions about medication and other treatments.  A great product alone is not sufficient to satisfy customers.  How you deliver that product matters.  In baseball, a competitive, well-played game is far from enough to satisfy fans.  That's the key insight that the Bananas have used to transform the ballpark experience into a magical one for fans. 

Negotiating a Job Offer: Step Back, Think Broadly

As the new semester begins, many soon-to-be-graduates are deeply immersed in the job search process.  Some already have job offers and are contemplating whether to accept those positions.  During this process, many students and recent graduates ask me about negotiating with their potential employers.  Can I negotiate? What should be the focus of my negotiation?  How do I make sure that I don't harm the relationship before I even start working?   For those students, I highly recommend a Harvard Business Review article by my friend Hannah Riley Bowles and her co-author Bobbi Thomason.  They write:

Although reaching agreement on pay and benefits is important, failure to think more broadly about your career could mean losing valuable opportunities for advancement. For instance, women are increasingly urged to negotiate for higher pay as a way to close the gender wage gap. However, studies have shown that women’s “80 cents on the dollar” is explained more by differences in men’s and women’s career trajectories than by differential pay for doing the exact same job. Our research and our work coaching executives suggest that negotiating your role (the scope of your authority and your developmental opportunities) is likely to benefit your career more than negotiating your pay and benefits does. And at times of work-life conflict, negotiating your workload and the conditions that affect it (including your responsibilities, your location, and travel requirements) may be critical to remaining gainfully employed and moving forward professionally.

They offer terrific advice for job-seekers.  Step back from your focus on the job offer that presents itself at the moment.  Start instead by considering your long-term career goals and aspirations.  How can this job help you achieve those longer term objectives?  What will it take to achieve those goals?  How can you craft the opportunity in front of you to help fulfill those aspirations?  Work backward from this focus on career goals to the more immediate issue of the potential job you are considering.  Most importantly, think broadly about all aspects of the opportunity, rather than simply about compensation.  I find this last point so important, particularly for new graduates.  An extra $5,000 may sound enticing to a student with very little remaining in their bank account at the end of college.  However, taking the long view is so critical in that situation.  Investments in growth and development, with ample opportunities to learn, will provide a long-term payoff that far exceeds that extra compensation here and now.  

How to Ask for Advice (and Why Many Ask Incorrectly)

Source: WikiHow

When we ask for advice from others, we would like their independent opinion.  In other words, we would benefit a great deal if we did not influence their response.  However, many of us frame our question or request in a way that does bias the advice we receive.  

Jessica Reif, Richard Larrick, Jack Soll have published a new paper titled "The inclusion of anchors when seeking advice: Causes and consequences." They write, "Sometimes advice seekers include their own thinking in their requests for advice, providing anchors that make it difficult for their advisors to access their own independent judgments."  For example, you might ask a colleague: How many people should I interview for an open analyst position on my team?  Alternatively, you might ask: Do you think that interviewing five people is appropriate when searching for a new analyst for my team?  In the second case, you have anchored the other party by providing a number to them.  In the first case, the more open-ended request for advice improves the chances of receiving an unbiased perspective.  

It seems obvious, right?  Don't anchor others when seeking advice. Yet, many of us do just that. Why?  The authors find that people who worry about appearing competent and/or diligent are more likely to anchor others when soliciting advice.  In other words, we often worry about the impression that we are making.  Asking a completely open-ended question makes some us feel as they though we may seem clueless to the other party.  

How does one signal competence without anchoring the other party (i.e., while preserving the independence of the other party's advice)?  Feif, Larrick, and Soll demonstrate that one can do so by using a "preparation signal."  They offer an example: “I have calculated what I think is reasonable but am interested in hearing what you think."  In short, let the other party know that you have done some research and come to your own conclusion, but you do not wish to disclose because you want their unbiased advice.  In one of their studies, they tested the usefulness of such a signal.  They concluded, "The key insight is that a preparation signal– an indication that the advice seeker made an estimate prior to the interaction but is withholding it– may be similarly effective in accomplishing impression management objectives without introducing potentially biasing information into the advice interaction. This finding is important because it offers advice seekers a strategy for simultaneously accomplishing impression management and independence goals."

Withstanding External Pressure When Making Decisions

Source: NFL.com

Conventional wisdom often asserts that strong familiarity and cohesion within a group leads to a high risk of groupthink.  In other words, a strong sense of social belonging within a team can lead to pressures to conform, which in turn can diminish the quality of decisions that a team makes.  However, might that strong in-group familiarity be helpful when it comes to resisting external pressures?  Amanda Ferguson and her colleagues studied that question in a new paper titled, "Relieving the Pressure: Team Familiarity Attenuates External Conformity Pressure on Team Member Decisions."  

Ferguson and her colleagues conducted an ingenious study of NCAA football officiating crews.  They examined data from 2012-2015 to measure "crew familiarity" - i.e., how often had referees worked together.  Then, they evaluated officiating crews' performance during the 2016 football season.  Ferguson and her co-authors studied whether crews with more experience working together were more or less vulnerable to pressure from the home crowd when making penalty calls.  In short, the home crowd represented what they called "external conformity pressure."  They discovered a meaningful relationship between in-group familiarity and external conformity pressure, particularly when the stakes are very high: 

"Crews with 20 games of experience working together call 0.92 fewer penalties on the visiting team when under high pressure, and crews with 30 games of experience working together call 1.56 fewer penalties on the visiting team under these conditions. Although the magnitudes of changes in penalties may seem small, they represent anywhere from a 15% to 25% difference from the average number of visiting team penalties, which is consistent with effects reported in previous studies on the influence of crowds on referee penalty calls."  

In other words, in-group familiarity and cohesion seems to provide a protective effect, leading teams to not be as susceptible to external conformity pressure, particularly in high-stakes situations.  The scholars conducted a second experimental study examining the same factors.  That study largely corroborated the findings from the NCAA referee research. 

What's the practical implication for business leaders?  We know that many managers feel pressure to conform to industry standards and conventional wisdom.  Companies often tend to exhibit herd behavior in industries, with competitors mimicking the actions of industry market share leaders. Perhaps, more seasoned management teams with a history of working together are less likely to succumb to the pressure to conform to "standard practice" within the industry.  They might be more likely to take risks, be different, and stake out a distinctive competitive position.  Teams with less familiarity may not be able to resist the pressure to conform to conventional wisdom.   

Some of My Favorite Books That I Read in 2024

 

Here are some of the thought-provoking and interesting books that I've read in 2024.   I hope you enjoy taking a look at some of these stimulating reads.  

Selecting a Leader: Lessons from the Patriots' Jerod Mayo Experiment

Source: Yahoo Sports

Selecting a leader can be a vexing challenge for many organizations.  As the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance reported last year, the median CEO tenure in S&P 500 companies dropped by 20% from 2013-2022.  The median tenure of a CEO was 4.8 years according to that research.   The National Football League is even more challenging when it comes to leader selection.  The average tenure of an NFL coach equals roughly 3 years.  

Here in New England, a debate has intensified in recent days about the future of Patriots head coach Jerod Mayo.   The team has fallen mightily from its two-decade run of dominance with Tom Brady as its quarterback.   The Patriots dismissed their legendary coach, Bill Belichick, last year and replaced with him with young defensive assistant Jerod Mayo.  Now, the team has only won 3 games (against 11 losses) to date this season, and the young head coach has struggled badly.  Was it a good hire, and would it be wise to move on from a new coach after just one year?  Is that fair to Mayo?

First, we have to review a few basic facts that suggest Mayo would be an outlier if he succeeds as head coach.  

• According to an ESPN study from 2009-2018, the average head coach in the league had 19.5 years of coaching at various levels before becoming an NFL head coach.  Mayo had just 5 years of experience.
• That same story concluded that "It's common for new coaching candidates to have more than one influence."  Mayo had only played and coached for one man, Bill Belichick, in his entire playing and coaching career.
• Former Belichick assistants have mostly floundered as head coaches in the league, as I documented in a 2022 blog post. At the time, I compiled the win-loss record of former Belichick assistants. I wrote: "175 wins, 252 losses, and 1 tie for a winning percentage of 40.9%. That's awful. Only one of his former assistants managed to compile a winning record (Bill O'Brien with 52 wins and 48 losses).
• Finally, in another blog post from 2021, I examined the idea of the curse of expertise among NFL coaches.  I wrote, 
• "33 coaches have won the 54 Super Bowls that have taken place. Several coaches have earned multiple championships, including Bill Belichick (6) and Chuck Noll (4). Of those coaches, only 1 man made the Pro Football Hall of Fame as a player (Mike Ditka). Only 2 men earned Pro Bowl status as players (Mike Ditka and his mentor, Tom Landry, who made it to one Pro Bowl as a punter for the New York Giants in the 1950s). None of the other Super Bowl winning coaches earned Pro Bowl status as a player." 
• I attributed this lack of championship success by star players to the curse of expertise. I described this challenge as follows: "Put simply, experts sometimes have a difficult time teaching much less experienced and accomplished people. Why? They forget what's it like to be in the novice's shoes. They can't predict the types of challenges and problems that the novice will face when mastering a new skill. In many cases, the expert may not even be fully aware of the "how" behind certain highly effective results. It comes so naturally to them that they don't have a complete understanding of the process that leads to those successful outcomes."

Now, none of these statistics suggests that Mayo has no chance at turning things around in New England.  Some great coaches have had awful starts to their career and then gone on to remarkable success (see Bill Walsh and Tom Landry, for example).  They inherited terrible teams, embarked on a lengthy turnaround process, and learned from early stumbles.   

Some news reports suggest that the Kraft family wishes to stick with Mayo despite the tough first year.  However, the Kraft family has to consider whether they might be succumbing to the sunk cost trap.  Are they reluctant to cut their losses because of how much they have invested in Mayo?  Is he truly better than other alternatives that are going to be available this offseason?

Companies face similar challenges when hiring leaders.  Sometimes, they choose to value attributes and skills, or even personality, rather than emphasizing depth of experience.  That might be the right call; experience is not the only valuable element of a person's qualifications.  However, companies should question whether they are, at times, under-rating the value of experience - both in terms of years and quality/range of past work.   Are they being wowed by charisma, or simply blown away by how well someone interviews?  Understanding the types of experiences that are most likely to help someone succeed is crucial.  Learning on the job is difficult for any leader, but particularly for those who don't have a reservoir of relevant experiences upon which they can draw in challenging situations.  

Amplifying Ambiguous Risks at Nvidia

Source: Getty Images

How do leaders make sure they are hearing the unvarnished truth? How can they cut through the bureaucracy and access unfiltered information? Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Ben Cohen describes one technique employed by Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia. Cohen draws from a new book by Tae Kim (“The Nvidia Way").   Cohen and Kim describe the infamous T5T memos that Huang reads each week. 

T5T notes (Top 5 Things) come from employees at all levels of Nvidia.  Huang reads them all.  They describe issues that they are noticing, concerns they have, or simply exciting and interesting things that they are working on in their areas.  He reads them all while sipping a glass of his favorite Scotch on a Sunday evening.  Cohen describes Huang's rationale for reading all these emails:

"The documents that make it to a typical CEO tend to get so watered down along the way that they’re liable to leave a puddle on his desk. Huang doesn’t bother with any of them. He doesn’t believe in formal strategic planning or status reports, either. “Status reports are meta-information by the time you get them,” Huang said last year. “They’re barely informative.” He doesn’t want information that has already made its way through layers of management. What he wants is 'information from the edge,' he said last month in a public interview with Laurene Powell Jobs."

In research with Amy Edmondson and Richard Bohmer, we have described how organizations tend to downplay ambiguous risks. Leaders and their teams discount warning signs that are unclear and fraught with incomplete information. As a result, organizations miss opportunities to recover from initial problems and develop solutions. Larger, more serious failures result from the inability to assess ambiguous threats effectively. Huang seems to be purposefully using the T5T memos to identify and amplify these ambiguous risks, and to make sure that the bureaucracy doesn't dampen or paper over important threats.

In Kim's book, Huang explains, “I’m looking to detect the weak signals. It’s easy to pick up the strong signals, but I want to intercept them when they are weak.”

Do You Really Want a Team Full of Self-Starters?

Is it effective to have many proactive members on your team?   You might think the answer is quite obvious.   Who wouldn't want a set of self-starters on a team?  Well, think again.  Kyle J. Emich and his co-authors have written an interesting new paper titled "Better Together: Member Proactivity Is Better for Team Performance When Aligned with Conscientiousness."  Interestingly, they used the Everest Simulation that I co-authored with Amy Edmondson as the basis for one of two studies conducted for this paper.   

These scholars find that the alignment of proactivity with conscientious leads to the best results.  In other words, teams are most effective if highly proactive individuals are also quite conscientious.  Meanwhile, teams are better off if the least conscientious members are not very proactive.   Why does this alignment (high-high and low-low) work best for teams?  The scholars find that it leads to more effective coordination among team members. They write:

At the outset of this paper, we asked how organizations should create teams that are proactive, but that also engage in the planning necessary to coordinate that proactivity and perform well. Taken together, our studies reveal that teams in which member proactivity and conscientiousness align within team members across the team are more coordinated and perform better than teams in which these attributes are unaligned.

It makes intuitive sense to me.  You do not want self-starters who take initiative, but then are unlikely to do the hard work required to follow through on their commitments.  We have all been part of groups in which some people don't fulfill their commitments.  Think about the Project Aristotle research project conducted at Google by Julia Rozovsky.  She and her colleagues studied more than 150 teams at Google, and they tried to identify the attributes that distinguished the highest performing teams from the lowest.  Dependability was one of the five key characteristics of the highest performing teams.  In those groups, members could count on others to do what they said they would do.  

Whole Foods Tries Small Format Stores... Again

Source: https://media.wholefoodsmarket.com/

Roshan Fernandez reports in today's Wall Street Journal about Whole Food's renewed attempt at operating small format stores. Fernandez writes that "The 9,100 square-foot Daily Shop location is about a quarter the size of a regular Whole Foods, and sells items at comparable prices. 'We’re serving a previously unmet need in the neighborhood,' said Nicole Davia, a Whole Foods senior vice president."  Whole Foods has opened several of these Daily Shops in New York, with plans to expand to Washington, D.C. soon. 

As it turns out, Whole Foods has tried small format stores previously, and that effort failed. In 2016, the company launched an experiment with a series of small format stores labeled "365 By Whole Foods Market."  Those stores sold primarily private-label items under the 365 label that Whole Foods sells in its larger locations.  The notion was to offer a lower-priced selection in these small format stores, with the target being millennial customers who were resistant to the high prices at Whole Foods.  The company was reacting to the "Whole Paycheck" image that turned away some shoppers.  At the time, Fortune's Beth Kowitt reported on the launch of the 365 stores:

“Our goal is to compete in the marketplace without lowering the Whole Foods standards,” Turnas (head of the 365 stores) told Reuters during a recent store tour. He said 365 stores will complement Whole Foods’ premium, full-service sister brand – often dubbed ‘Whole Paycheck’ in popular culture in reference to its perceived higher prices. But the new chain will have to work hard to avoid being labeled “a cheaper Whole Foods”, said Kevin Kelley, a principal at strategy and design firm Shook Kelley, which has worked with Whole Foods and other grocers.

When I teach strategy, I often invoke this story as a classic example of straddling two quite different business models... and failing as a result.  365 was quite distinct from the Whole Foods' premium grocer model, but not as lean as Aldi or as much of a fun treasure hunt experience as Trader Joe's.  It was hopelessly floating in the middle, unclear about who it truly wanted to be.  The result was confusion, both internally and for the customers.  

This time, Whole Foods is sticking with its premium, upscale positioning with the new small format stores.  Thus, it seems that they have addressed one major mistake from the attempt a decade ago.  Now, the question becomes whether they can operate small stores efficiently.  Fernandez quotes former Wal-Mart executive Bill Simon, who says, “If they’re going to operate a bunch of small-fresh stores, the degree of difficulty is as high as you’ll see in retail."  Simon and others point out that many larger grocers fail at small format stores because of the logistical challenges, as well as the difficulty stocking a sufficient number of higher margin items in the limited shelf space.  Aldi and Trader Joe's have perfected the small format model, but many large format grocers don't fully understand the difficulty shifting from their supercenters to these much smaller footprints, often in congested, urban areas.   If Whole Foods can figure it out, there is clearly opportunity here, as many customers do like the concept of "fill-in" trips to smaller stores that are located near their homes and workplaces.  

When to Express Gratitude: Timing Matters

Many employees would love to hear more expressions of gratitude from their leaders.  They often indicate that they do not receive sufficient recognition for taking on challenging work and achieving  tough objectives. As Thanksgiving approaches, perhaps leaders might consider how to say thank you to team members who have engaged in an extraordinary effort in pursuit of a challenging goal. However, leaders would be well-served to not just think about how to say thank you, but when they do so.

New research by Professors Hooria Jazaieri and Olivia O'Neill indicates that the timing for expressions of gratitude matters a great deal. They write, "According to our research, however, thanking people after they engage in their tasks does not provoke the same resilience and perseverance as expressing gratitude before the task begins."

In a series of studies, these scholars found that demonstrating gratitude before an employee embarks on an unpleasant task can help "counteract some of the negative emotions associated with the task."  Moreover, they found that anticipatory expressions of gratitude can foster more persistence on the part of their employees as they encounter obstacles and difficulties.  Why do anticipatory acts of gratitude have more beneficial impact than after-the-fact thank you statements?  The scholars argue that articulating one's gratitude before employees embark on an unpleasant task "can help cultivate employees’ sense of purpose and value."   As a result, employees demonstrate more resilience when encountering setbacks and obstacles.  

Retraining Your Brain to Cope with Negative Feedback

Have you ever become incredibly stressed and anxious after receiving negative feedback?  Have you spent more time worrying than actually addressing the corrective actions you might take in light of the criticism?  David Rock and Chris Weller have written a useful article for Fast Company about coping with negative feedback.   They offer some helpful tips.   Rock and Weller argue that your brain moves into a "threat state" when you receive negative feedback, and that mental state prevents you from moving forward constructively. They write:

The stress we feel during and after a negative feedback conversation is a form of a threat state—in particular, a threat to our sense of status. The brain senses danger, so it shuts down precious cognitive resources and diverts energy toward worrying about our standing and reputation. Cognition and threat, therefore, work as a kind of seesaw. As one is high, the other necessarily is low.

Rock and Weller argue that you may need a quick break (a walk is helpful) to calm down if you are feeling extremely anxious.  Then, you should assess the situation and engaging in practices they call labeling and reappraisal.  Labeling entails naming the emotions that one is experiencing and that might be getting in the way of thoughtfully considering how to improve based on the input one has received.   Then, they encourage people to "reframe part or all of the negative situation in a more positive light. For instance, if you’re given feedback that you don’t speak up enough in meetings, instead of feeling embarrassed or dejected, can you reappraise the situation as a positive in that your manager respects your opinions?"  

Having reappraised the criticism, individuals can examine why their performance led to the negative feedback.  Perhaps some obstacles have gotten in the way of doing good work.  Or, perhaps you became sidetracked and fell into some bad habits.   To develop a corrective action plan, individuals should imagine what improvement looks like.  What will success look like?  How will they behave in the future if they have addressed these concerns?  What changes will they have made to their work habits? How will others perceive them if they have undertaken a set of corrective actions?  Imagining a better, more productive self can help one move past the negative emotions that crowd out learning and self-improvement in the face of unexpected negative feedback. 

Why Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky Doesn't Believe in One-on-One Meetings

In this interview, Airbnb founder and CEO Brian Chesky argues against the use of recurring one-on-one meetings between leader and team member.   Here is an excerpt: 

I don't believe in one-on ones and almost no great CEO in history has ever done them... the one-on-one model is flawed it's a recurring one hour one-on-one meeting where the employee owns the agenda and what happens is they often don't talk about the things you want to talk about.  You become their therapist.  They're bringing you problems, but often times they're bringing you problems that you want other people in the room to hear.  There are very few times employees should come to you one-on-one without other people.  Perhaps if they're concerned about something if they're having a difficult time in their personal life, if they want to confide in you with something that they don't feel safe telling a group, but that should be infrequent.   If that's happening frequently that is a very ominous sign.  [I prefer] recurring group meetings in which everyone hears each other's views, where there are  notes taken.  It's very transparent.  [We all know] the topic, what decision was made, who was in the room, who had input.  If the process was unfair in some way... or inadequate, there is at least a record of the process, and people can weigh.  

Chesky loves to be provocative with regard to leadership style and process.  Here again he's offering a fresh perspective, and one that warrants serious consideration.  He's pointing out a serious risk associated with one-on-one meetings.  Specifically, he has two worries.  First, Chesky doesn't want decisions being made in these meetings, rather than in group settings where the person's peers can offer their perspectives on the same issues.  He wants the productive conversation and give-and-take that emerges from group dialogue and debate.  He doesn't want to make decisions in a vacuum.  Second, he worries about the one-on-one meeting becoming what he calls a "therapy session."  He thinks that quick check-ins as needed can occur if someone has a personal concern or problem, but he sees no reason for a recurring meeting to talk about personal matters.  Moreover, Chesky does not think the employee should be driving the agenda of these recurring one-on-one meetings.  

Chesky makes some strong points.  He's certainly correct that leaders should not be sacrificing transparency and the value of constructive debate by learning about perspectives and viewpoints too often in one-on-one rather than team meetings.  On the other hand, he doesn't talk about the value of one-on-one meetings as forums for providing coaching, mentoring, and constructive feedback.  Perhaps those meetings don't need to take place weekly, but most employees do need some opportunity to solicit and receive coaching and constructive criticism in a private setting.  In the end, I don't think the issue is WHETHER to hold recurring one-on-one meetings, but HOW leaders and their team members use the meetings.  It should not be a complaint session.  It should not primarily be a decision-making meeting.  It should be an opportunity to drive personal improvement and enhance performance.  

Are You Willing to Pay More for Products Someone Loved Creating?

Writing for Kellogg Insight, Dylan Walsh reports this month on some fascinating new research by Jake Teeny, Anna Paley, Robert Smith, and Daniel Zane. Teeny and his colleagues examined the relationship between willingness-to-pay and the level of enjoyment a seller derives from creating a product. Walsh summarizes the findings:

As a whole, the studies showed that buyers actually associated production enjoyment with greater product quality and value, consequently increasing how much they were willing to pay for it. And yet sellers often charged less for the products and services that they enjoy providing, even though they also believed them to be of higher quality.

The scholars argue that potential buyers seem willing to pay more for products when they believe that sellers have experienced high levels of intrinsic motivation while creating the products.  In other words, if the seller valued the process of creating the product as much, if not more, than the good itself, then buyers seem willing to pay a higher price for the product.  On the other hand, they argue that sellers price the product with their own enjoyment in mind.  If you are performing an unenjoyable task, you might charge more for a particular service.  If you are doing something very enjoyable, you may perceive some of your "compensation" has come in the form of that satisfaction and pride.  As a result, you may not expect as high of a price for the product from the buyers.  

What does this mean for sellers?  Think carefully about showing your customer how much effort and passion has gone into the creation of a good or service.  You might just command a higher price as a result.  And sellers... not shortchange yourself when placing a value on something you loved creating. 

Does this research have lessons for employees in larger organizations? Perhaps it does.  Do we demand less monetary compensation if we truly love our job?  Are we shortchanging ourselves in these situations?  

Coping with Changing Priorities

Every employee has been frustrated at times by changing organizational priorities.  They thought the understand this year's primary goals and objectives, but then, senior leaders threw them a curveball.   They shifted the priorities.  Even worse, sometimes leaders seem to simply add priorities to an already lengthy and challenging list.  Employees wonder what really matters most. Can it really be a "priority" if it is among a list of nine or ten goals, all of which seem to be deemed equally important?  

Here are four practical questions that can guide our actions when executives confront us with changing priorities. 

1.  What clarifying questions should I ask? 

Before one starts reallocating resources and taking decisive action in a new direction, a few clarifying questions might be illuminating.  Don't just act without making sure you understand clearly what you are being asked to do differently.  One question that I love:  Is this a change in destination or just a change in our flight path?  In other words, are we really aiming at a different outcome, or are we simply adjusting how we intend to arrive at that result?  

2.  Is this change a threat or an opportunity?

Many of us might naturally frame this type of shift in direction as a threat.  If we do so, we may be subject to what scholars call "threat rigidity."  In short, we tend to adopt well-established behavioral routines when framing an event as a threat.  We tend to be more open and innovative if we frame a change as an opportunity.  

3.  What tradeoffs am I willing to make?  What tradeoffs must I make?

We have to recognize that not all goals are equally important, and that we will have to make tradeoffs if we adding new priorities to an already lengthy list of goals and objectives.  Being clear about those tradeoffs is essential.  Moreover, we have to determine what criteria we should be using to make those tradeoffs.

4.  Why might others resist the change?

Before we ask our employees to shift their behavior, we must put ourselves in their shoes. Why might they resist this change?  What are their personal goals, motivations, and incentives?  Why might this change in their daily routines or allocation of time be unsettling?  By putting ourselves in their shoes, we can determine how to address this resistance.  

Five Priorities Is Probably Too Many

Willie Pietersen, retired CEO of businesses Lever Foods, Seagram USA, and Tropicana has written a column for Fortune in which he argues that many leaders proclaim too many priorities.  The article is titled, "You can’t have 5 priorities—even Steve Jobs and Bob Iger couldn’t."  He writes:

During my 20 years as the CEO of various enterprises, I developed an ingrained habit. Recognizing that the core responsibility of a leader is to unify an organization behind a clear strategic direction, I followed conventional wisdom and developed five key priorities for the business, and asked each function and business unit to follow suit.  However, at progress review meetings I saw that executives were often trudging through these priorities mechanically like a project checklist, without connecting them to a central strategic thrust or inspiring story.

Pietersen cites research by Don Sull and his co-authors, in which they find that many middle managers can't recall the priorities established by the senior leadership team.  Sull and his co-authors write,

The CEO of a large technology company (let’s call it Generex) recently reviewed the results of her company’s annual employee engagement survey and was delighted that strategic alignment emerged as an area of strength.  Among the senior leaders surveyed, 97% said they had a clear understanding of the company’s priorities and how their work contributed to corporate objectives. Based on these scores, the CEO was confident that the company’s five strategic priorities — which had not changed over the past two years and which she communicated regularly — were well understood by the leaders responsible for executing them.

We then asked those same managers to list the company’s strategic priorities. Using a machine-learning algorithm and human coders, we classified their answers to assess how well their responses aligned with the official strategic priorities. The CEO was shocked at the results. Only one-quarter of the managers surveyed could list three of the company’s five strategic priorities. Even worse, one-third of the leaders charged with implementing the company’s strategy could not list even one.

These results are typical not just in the technology industry, but across a range of companies we have studied. Most organizations fall far short when it comes to strategic alignment: Our analysis of 124 organizations revealed that only 28% of executives and middle managers responsible for executing strategy could list three of their company’s strategic priorities.  

In short, creating a list of five priorities or more often leads to confusion, misunderstanding, and a lack of organizational alignment.  For me, the lesson is clear.  Leaders need to have a coherent strategic story.  What's the overall direction?  What is the firm's desired competitive position, and how is that distinct from the competition?  Then, with that coherent story established and communicated, leaders need to make clear what matters most.  Perhaps there are five important goals, but are they truly equally important? Which ones are more critical than others?  It is very difficult to answer that final question, but it must be done.  Moreover, leaders need to communicate that overall strategic perspective over and over, through multiple channels and using multiple forums and media.  Then, most importantly, leaders need to take the pulse of the organization.  They have to test whether the message got through to lower levels of the organization.  Leaders have to do that through direct conversation with those at lower levels, through both formal and informal opportunities for communication and conversation.  

Successfully Onboarding New Employees

https://hires.shareable.com/

Fast Company's Julia Phelan has written a good article titled "The ultimate guide to onboarding an employee successfully."  As I read the article, several key points resonated with me, and led me to think about what else I might consider as suggestions about the onboarding process.  Here is a synthesis of Phelan's recommendations and my own:  

1.  Put yourself in the new employee's shoes.  Think about a time when you were brand new to an institution, whether it was a company, a school, or a volunteer organization.  Empathize with the new team member.  Recognize how and why they might be stressed, confused, or anxious.  If you have been at your firm for a long time, putting yourself in their shoes will be more difficult.  Therefore, companies should think about having recently hired employees be part of the onboarding process, and not just rely on seasoned managers. 

2.  Set them up for a small, early win.  Don't give them a huge project right off the bat.  Give them something manageable so that they can get some experience working within the organization and delivering desired results.  

3.  Make sure they know where to go for help. Beyond their direct supervisor, who else can be a resource to them?   What other sources of information and training are available to them?  Who are the key people they need to get to know as soon as possible, including key employees in other departments?

4. Establish a clear schedule for the initial set of one-on-one meetings with their supervisor.  Make sure that these meetings can put on the calendar right away.   

5. Introduce them to other new or relatively new hires.  Help them build a cohort of new members of the organization who can help each other navigate the onboarding process.  

6.  Make sure they understand the big picture.  It's important that they understand their personal goals.  However, it is also very important that they understand the broader organizational goals and priorities.  How does their work fit into the bigger picture?  Providing that clear viewpoint will help them discover purpose and meaning in their work. 

7.  Be clear about what technical skills and capabilities they will need to learn as soon as possible to succeed in their role.  Take a quick inventory.  Make sure you know what they can do and what they can't do.  Is Tableau required for the job?  If so, make sure they know how to get up to speed on that software?  What if they know Tableau, but it is not currently used in their department?  Could it be useful?  Could they teach others, or introduce the software to make key activities more effective and efficient?   

Thinking about these key questions can take onboarding to the next level.  It is about far more than insuring new hires know the company policies and procedures.  Onboarding should be about setting people up to succeed and thrive in the organization. 

Careful about Romanticizing Failure

Source: Vistage

Have we come to romanticize failure at times in business and in the society at large?  Perhaps we have.  Is that detrimental to us at times?  New research suggests that we should be careful about romanticizing failure.  Lauren Eskreis-Winkler, Kaitlin Woolley, Eda Erensoy, and Minhee Kim have published a paper titled "The Exaggerated Benefits of Failure" in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.   They conducted a series of studies that demonstrate that we often overestimate the likelihood that people will rebound from failure and achieve success.  They write,

Across 11 studies, people in the lab and professionals in the field overestimated the rate at which health failures, professional failures, educational failures, and failures in a real-time task were followed by success. People thought that tens of thousands of professionals who fail standardized tests would go on to pass (who do not), that tens of thousands of people with addiction would get sober (who do not), and that tens of thousands of heart failure patients would improve their health (in fact, they do not).

The scholars argue that people consistently tend to overestimate how much we will learn from our failures.  In reality, we often are not effective at reflecting upon our failures, identifying the root causes of poor performance, and implementing corrective courses of action.  

I would argue that we need to stop repeating overused and inaccurate cliches about failure.  One that often bothers me: We learn more from failure than from success.  Actually, research suggests that we learn most effectively when we can compare and contrast failure and successful outcomes.  Reflecting on both success and failure leads to more improvement than only conducting lessons learned exercises after we fail.   

For those interested in practical guidance for how failure can lead to learning, I highly recommend Amy Edmondson's book, The Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well.  Edmondson does not romanticize failure. Instead, she offers a clear-eyed view of different types of failure, some that are more preventable than others, and some which can lead to a great deal of learning if we approach them the right way.  

Why Might CVS Be Breaking Up?

News reports indicate that CVS Health may be splitting up in the months ahead.   Company leaders apparently are mulling their strategic options while under pressure from Glenview Capital and other investors.  CVS Health has diversified through acquisition over the past two decades.  In 2006, CVS acquired Caremark, a pharmacy benefit manager.  Then in 2017, CVS acquired Aetna, making a major move into the health insurance business.  More recently, they have made other moves to expand in the healthcare delivery space, such as by acquiring Oak Street Health - a primary care provider.   Unfortunately, the company's stock has underperformed the S&P 500 by a wide margin over the past two years, leading to increasing pressure from investors. 

Why might CVS Health be considering a break-up after moving so aggressively to transform themselves from a pharmacy retail chain to an integrated healthcare company?  Several factors may explain the potential strategy reversal.   

1.  Diversification works best when the different business units within a corporation operate by the same "dominant logic."  C.K. Prahalad and Richard Bettis coined this term in a very famous academic paper published in the 1980s.  They defined dominant logic as "the way in which managers conceptualize the business and make critical resource allocation decisions..."   In short, what is the mental model that leaders use to think about the business and make choices?  Do the businesses make money in a similar manner, or are the value propositions and business models fundamentally different?  They argued that strategic variety and complexity means that multiple "logics" exist across the portfolio of businesses, making it very difficult for the top management team to lead them all effectively.  They cannot apply the same criteria, rules, and principles when making decisions across the businesses.   One could easily argue that the dominant logics at CVS vary considerably from pharmacy retail to health insurance to primary care provision.  Can one CEO and her leadership team manage all these businesses effectively?  

2.  Scale and scope do not always yield economies.  We often hear about the benefits of bringing multiple units together.  In short, what are the economies of scale and scope?  I would argue that managers often focus on these potential economies when justifying acquisitions, yet they underestimate the potential diseconomies of scale and scope.  How might the increased complexity of the business make it more difficult to manage effectively?  What conflicts might emerge among business units?  What costs and disruption might occur as a company tries to secure key synergies?  Do the costs outweigh the benefits of collaboration and integration?  CVS Health has become a behemoth, and at some point, that sprawling conglomerate becomes very hard to manage.  

3.  The existence of potential synergies alone does not justify mergers.  One has to ask whether one could achieve some of these benefits through some other sort of organizational arrangement (stretching from contracts and partnerships through strategic alliances and joint ventures).  Firms don't always have to merge to coordinate and collaborate in pursuit of certain economies of scale and scope.  Consider Target's decision about its own pharmacy business.  The company wanted to continue to have pharmacies within each of its stores.  However, it came to the conclusion that it was best not to try to manage and operate these pharmacies themselves. Instead, they sold the business to CVS, letting the pharmacy experts run the "stores within a store" at each Target location.  Target shed a business, but it retained some of the benefits of having a pharmacy within each of its stores (the pharmacies are good traffic drivers and lead to other incremental sales for Target).  

4.  Vertical integration has many potential benefits, but it does not come without substantial risks. One risk is that you find yourself competing with your own customers at times.  That brings challenges for many companies, including in the healthcare space.  CVS Health has embarked on quite a bit of vertical integration over the years, creating these potential conflicts of interest that can be challenging to manage.