Business Evolutionist

I'm hiring!

I've got 3 openings on my team - a full-time Java Developer and two intern positions; one HTML person and one Java person.

Details on the full time Java developer position, which can be filled at any one of three levels, is located here.

The Java Developer Intern position details can be found here.

The Web Developer Intern position details can be found here.

No relocation assistance is available for any of these jobs (location is Central Pennsylvania, Harrisburg area) and the intern candidates must be currently enrolled in an undergraduate program.

Let me know if you have any questions (jstrande [at] gmail dot com)

Favorite interview questions to ask?

I'm getting ready to interview some people and was wondering what are some of your favorite interview questions?

Ones that I really like to ask are:

1.) Tell me about the last 3 books you read

2.) Tell me how you handled a difficult situation at work?

3.) What moment are you least proud of?

4.) What moment are you most proud of?

Sort of typical, sadly, however I'm looking more at generating a conversation and seeing what type of personality the person has... as the old saying goes: skills can be taught, passion is a harder thing to come by.

So, what are some of your favorite interview questions to ask?

The misnomer of B2B

I've been in several meetings lately talking about our website and listened to people state, matter-of-factly, that we're a B2B (business to business) site - and how that is so much different than a B2C (business to consumer) site.

Hogwash.

Every site is a consumer site. The person on the other end of the connection is still a person and they bring with them all the feelings and emotions and decision-making skills of a person. Sure, they might be bound by constraints or purchasing rules set forth by the organization they work for, however they're still a person and they purchase based on the same emotional responses that they use in their daily lives.

And, as the old saying goes; "people buy on emotion and justify with logic".

If one is seeking to influence the purchase of goods or services, then understanding emotions is necessary skill. I've been reading more and more (#6) about how attractive things work better and are easier to learn (Wash and polish your car: doesn't it drive better?)

But what makes a product (or website) "attractive" to a person?

Author Del Coates, in his wonderful book 'Watches tell more than time', points out that there are just four ingredients: Contrast, Novelty, Objective concinnity, and Subjective Concinnity.

• Contrast arises from obviously different attributes (colors, textures, line curvatures, surface change, etc.) that we can measure objectively with instruments such as light meters and rulers.
• Novelty arises from perceived differences between a real product and its stereotype, an imaginary (subjective) mental model that the product automatically brings to mind. The stereotype represents what the viewer expected the product to resemble. Stereotypes are not directly accessible and measurable in the same ways real products are; they cab be measured only with psychological instruments, such as semantic differential surveys that tap the viewers mindset.
• Objective Concinnity arises from similarities among shapes, colors, dimensions, textures, and other visual attributes. Like contrast, it can be measured objectively with instruments such as light meters and rulers.
• Subjective Concinnity arises from similarities among a product, its stereotype, and its ideal - another mental model that automatically springs to mind. Unlike the stereotype, which corresponds to what the viewer most expected, the ideal corresponds to what the viewer implicitly hoped the product would resemble.

Think about just the contrast of some of the products you find attractive - your cell phone, MP3 player, car, etc. The color of pink RAZR phone, for instance. The curves of an Audi TT or Porsche Boxster. The texture of a fine garment.

I digress...

Back to main point... there are two main differences between B2C and B2B: First, the whole issue of access privileges - you need to know that the person you're giving access to should have it and continue to have it. Second, the person who is purchasing might not be the same person who is using the product. In some cases the decision to purchase was made by the person who will use it, however, consideration has to be given to the fact that the consumer and the user are not the same person (which is more than possible in B2C sites). There are a few other scenarios for number two, obviously, however, there comes a point where a person has to pick a product (or service).

So, what do you think? Am I missing something? Is there truly a difference between B2B and B2C? If so, what is it?

Products that enable crime

In my post about buying used cd's, Myles comments that doing so could be violating unfair use policies (paraphrased).

The more I think about this the more I realize that I'm not, because I'm not ripping (keeping a copy of it) and selling discs and I can't control what someone did before me. Someone could make the argument that I'm enabling the practice of unfair use through my purchases, but then again, so is Amazon, eBay and the local Used CD shops... and as long as they'll facilitate the deal, I'm a willing customer.

But the whole thing got me thinking and I ended up having an interesting discussion with some coworkers about it. We ended up on the subject of Napster and someone brought up the fact that record companies had record sales the year that Napster had the highest number of users. So what is it that Napster did that was illegal? Napster enabled a crime. They made it easy to steal, and they were held accountable for it.

So if Napster can get shut down for enabling theft, why can't gun companies be held accountable for enabling murder?

Isn't murder much worse than stealing?

To me it isn't even close. I've been robbed at gun point and trust me when I tell you that money loses all of its meaning when you have a gun pressed against your forehead.

Could this be a cultural issue? Do we put more value on entertainment than on human life?

Is this a case of powerful interest groups or lobbyists?

Before I get slammed for this post, let me make something perfectly clear: I'm not suggesting doing away with guns or gun companies. I'm suggesting that guns, or bullets for that matter (as comedian Chris Rock suggests), enable a crime to be committed and the companies that produce them should take some responsibility for who gets and uses their products.

Yeah, yeah, I know - guns don't kill people. People kill people. But guns make it easy to do. Have you ever heard of drive-by knifing?

Michael Moore did a whole documentary on this topic (Bowling for Columbine) and I think it comes down to a simple thing: Hope. If you don't have a basic belief that tomorrow is going to be better than today, what difference does it make what you do? Self-interest (in this case a recognition of the possible consequences of your actions) coupled with hope is what prevents most people from even considering shooting another human being. Okay, thats simplistic - but probably not too far off target (if you'll forgive the horrible pun).

In the end, it does come down to personal responsibility. We should each be held accountable for our actions. But what about the companies that enable crimes? Should they all be treated with the same set of rules?

What do you think? Is the comparison between Napster and Gun companies a stretch?

This is NOT me-mail

Got an email today... one that I knew was coming... "Marriott goes smoke free"

Dear Jon Strande:

In order to accommodate the preferences of the vast majority of our guests, all Marriott® hotels in the United States and Canada will become 100% smoke-free by October 15, 2006.

This is the industry's largest move to a smoke-free environment and includes over 2,300 hotels and corporate apartments under the Marriott, JW Marriott®, Renaissance®, Courtyard®, Fairfield Inn®, SpringHill Suites®, Residence Inn®, TownePlace Suites® and Marriott ExecuStay® brands. The new policy includes all guest rooms, restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms, public spaces, and employee work areas.

Currently more than 90 percent of Marriott guest rooms are already non-smoking, and smoking is prohibited in many public spaces due to local laws. Designated smoking areas will be made available outside of the hotel for our guests who smoke.

This policy will enhance the level of service and care we can offer our guests. We hope to see you soon in our new smoke-free hotel environment.

As a Marriott Silver Rewards member, I have an established preferences profile with Marriott. They know that I smoke, which is probably why I got this "personal" note.

I understand the trend in this country is away from smoking in public places. I'm cool with that. It's a bad habit and second-hand smoke can be annoying to non-smokers.

I'm not sure, however, about a few things:

1.) What constitutes "vast majority"? 70%? 80%? Did all those people really complain or was it a few really loud people?

2.) Did they look at the numbers and determine that half the smoking rooms remained empty because there aren't as many smokers?

3.) How will this policy enhance the level of service to me, the smoker? There is nothing in this email that tells me how you'll do everything in your power to make the change as pleasant as possible during my next stay.

4.) Could another course of action have been to install some air cleaners/purifiers in the smoking rooms and charged the smoking guests some fee to recoup the cost? Or could they have at least tried this first? If so, why didn't they mention that to me - someone they know is a smoker.

I don't know... at the end of the day, most hotels are the same (literally). I chose marriott because I've never been disapointed with any part of staying there, then again, I've never beed wowed either.

Again, I understand the trend... but mostly I don't like how Marriott handled it: as frequent guest who smokes, it would have been nice for them to acknowledge how this transition might affect me and offer some alternatives for my next trip (smoking in the bar, designated smoking lounges, etc).

What do you think? Any non-smokers out there who have a different take?

So what's next?

This is one of the best emails I've ever gotten:

Subject: "So what's next"
As we near the GoLive – you are probably wondering, so what’s next for our great team? I’d like to hear from each of you – what do you think we should be working on starting next week? Do you want a change – what would you like to do?

It came from the project team leader.

Leadership indeed... giving the team a chance to have a voice in both what the team does and what each of us gets to work on.

Great Quote

"although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it."

~~ Pericles

You could win $5,000!!

Saw an interesting sign in front of Home Depot on my way to work this morning - HD was inviting people to take a survey and one lucky participant is going to win a $5,000 dollar HD shopping spree.

Now, the first thing that struck me was how stupid surveys are and why was Home Depot doing this? Are they that out of touch with their customers? Think about what this took to sell the idea to management, get funding, execute the project, and then put signs up out in front of their stores.

The second thing that struck me was that they have invited non-customers to tell them what they think of home depot - again, the advertisement was underneath their huge HD logo/sign along the road in front of the store - and these non-customers now have a chance to win $5k. If they have to do this, why not just give customers a little card or something at the checkout, asking them to participate...

Perhaps the survey was to find out about the general shopping patterns of consumers. Perhaps the store is struggling and it is a way for them to find out why people are driving past the store, who knows. I went on to Home Depot.com and couldn't find a link to the survey so I didn't get to see what kind of questions they're asking. Maybe it is just this local store running the survey - there is a Lowes about 5 minutes away...

I've been inside both a Home Depot and a Lowes, and, to me, they're identical. I bet it if you blindfolded 100 people and put them in either of the stores, 60% or 70% couldn't tell you which one they were in (much less care). I know, there are some people who love hardware stores almost as much as I love book stores and they would know right away... that isn't the point.

My point is, don't companies resort to surveys like this only when sales are down? Is anyone ever really surprised by survey results? Isn't a survery just going to tell the company that consumers haven't been given a good enough reason to care about them?

What do you think? Are customer surveys like this worthwhile?

Two great service experiences...

I had two great retail service experiences last weekend - well, three to be exact.

The first came Saturday morning at Best Buy, the lady who checked me out was just one of the funniest, nicest cashiers I've dealt with in my life. She was smiling, laughing and cracking jokes. It was quite apparent that she was a "people-person".

The second was Sunday at Borders. First, one of the employees went to check on a magazine for me that they sell but wasn't on the stand. It was super cool that she offered to do that. Second was the cashier - much like the one from Best Buy on Saturday, she was smiling and laughing and having a great time.

I'm sure it isn't "work" for these ladies - it's their innate need to help people, to fit in. My guess is that you could take any of the three of them and switch the stores they were working in and it would have been the same experiences for me.

I'm not one of those people who condemns the service sector - it can be a tough and crappy job for very low wages and most organizations don't exactly give employees a reason to care about customers.

I generally get good service wherever I go and I think it is because of the way I treat people. I also think that the negative perception that most people have about the service sector is one of expectations - most of the people who "serve" you in the course of a day are pleasant enough. They might not be entertaining or jovial, they just do their job. It's the reason that exceptional or bad service stand out, because most service is just average. As humans we have expectations about the way we should be treated and some people fail to meet those expectations.

Most employees are probably told to care about customers, to "go the extra mile". However, I doubt most organizations understand how to liberate their employees’ inherent need to fit in, to be part of a community.

Interestingly enough, when I got home on Sunday I caught a show on CSPAN featuring James Carville. Someone asked a question about something and his reply was fantastic:

... you can look at it one of two ways, you can be an appleist: you know there are obviously a couple of bad apples in the barrel, we just remove the bad apples and everything will be fine. Or, you're a barrelist: is there something wrong with the barrel we're putting the apples in?

I'm a barrelist. I believe that deep-down every human being is good and wants to do a good job. Sure, there are some people that shouldn't be working in customer-facing jobs - however, that is a problem with the barrel (organization), they should figure out who those people are before they put them in front of their customers.

So, which are you? An appleist or a barrelist?

Hope and Optimism

The most recent issue of Harvard Business Review has a special section entitled 'Breakthrough Ideas for 2006' - one of the ideas, 'Why They Call It Work' written by E.L. Kersten of Despair Inc - the company that makes those demotivational products, like posters and such.

The basic idea in the article, he argues, is that people should stop looking for meaning from their work.

I get it. That is this guys schtick. He basically argues that only about 50% of people surveyed are satisfied with their jobs and that is a result of organizational behaviorists back in the mid-1900's concluding that great work environments would produce happy, productive workers and at the same basic time humanists argued that work should be a vehicle for growth and self-expression. In turn, companies and observers of companies, including management consultants and the press, set the expectations of employees that their jobs would be satisfying and meaningful and that their employers would help them grow professionaly.

"Employees may be dissatisfied becaues they have been taught to expect too much from their jobs."

He ends the piece by stating:

"Employees should not demand that companies imbue their lives with meaning. Employers and employees have something the other needs. One of the keys to a mutually beneficial relationship is a realistic understanding of what that something is."

Again, I get it. This is the drum he beats. Cool. He'll make money on other people misery. How proud he must be of his work and the positive effect he is having on the world [grin].

What I can't belive is that HBR ran this as a breakthrough idea for 2006. This might have been a breakthrough idea of 1906, but not 2006.

This piece is so misguided in that the future work force in this country - the Gen X'ers and later - have a completely different worldview from the people that this guy is used to seeing. The kids in college today are looking for meaning and it will be up to employers to help provide it or else. My buddy Fouro shared with me a really interesting paper he wrote recently about this very subject, and let's just say that businesses who fail to respond to the changing workforce are in for a big surprise.

This short piece is as scary as it is sad. Think about it: there will be some business owners or managers out there, fed up with unengaged employees, who read this, agree with it, and give up trying to discover how they can turn those lifeless bodies into vehicles of potential. That hurts all parties involved.

What do you think? Do you think leadership is about lowering expectations or raising hope and optimism?