Ikea Business Model; and Growth and Society

comments on: Peak Stuff and the Hierarchy of Useless Things

"stock analysts" don't exist for Ikea. They have no stock holders. They are completely owned by a "charity."

But all you have to do is look at all the extremely highly paid executives in USA charities to see that charities often take on the form of corporations being run 1st to make executives happy and 2nd for other reasons (charitable in the instance of charities, education in the instance of large universities, profits of shareholders and all the other stakeholders in the instance of companies).

Another similar model you can view is tax evasion trusts set up by the rich which subvert the social contract. They have bought laws and regulation that allow them to set up trusts to benefit them, and/or their kids, and/or their grandkids and have those trusts treated beneficially for the rich, at the expense of society. Some argue Ikea has the same model, pretend it is a charity and use the funds primarily to benefit those creating the charity ("What emerges is an outfit that ingeniously exploits the quirks of different jurisdictions to create a charity, dedicated to a somewhat banal cause, that is not only the world's richest foundation, but is at the moment also one of its least generous"). In Ikea's case some amount does go for the "charitable purpose of Ikea": interior design.

The growth mindset certainly permeates Ikea, as it does public USA companies and "wall street."

> "not as much in the quality of customer experience"

This is so true. As a consumer, I find the customer experience painful much more often that it is good. Basically, the best it gets in the USA (for 95% of the companies) is when you don't have to interface with them at all. Then things are good. And I do think companies have made strides in removing the need to call to get things fixed... But oh my, when you do need them to actually get a hold of them the extremely bad experience is pitiful and truly far beyond pitiful most of the time. They setup extremely insulting processes that completely disrespect your time and humanity.

The horrible experiences when needing to deal with large USA companies is by far my biggest frustration of being back in the USA. As long as you don't have to contact them things are usually decent but I dread any time I need to contact one of them.

My father really liked Small is Beautiful by EF Schumacher which I think takes issue with the growth focus that permeates society (it has been decades since I read it) and instead wishes to focus on better lives not lives with more things.

Related: Kleptocrat CEOs and Their Apologists - Pretending to Listen to Customers Rather Than Actually Doing So - Why Pay Taxes or be Honest - Corrupt Looters at AIG

Data on Medical Errors

How Many Die From Medical Mistakes in U.S. Hospitals?

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine published the famous “To Err Is Human” report, which dropped a bombshell on the medical community by reporting that up to 98,000 people a year die because of mistakes in hospitals. The number was initially disputed, but is now widely accepted by doctors and hospital officials — and quoted ubiquitously in the media.

In 2010, the Office of Inspector General for Health and Human Services said that bad hospital care contributed to the deaths of 180,000 patients in Medicare alone in a given year.

Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher — between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death, the study says.

That would make medical errors the third-leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease, which is the first, and cancer, which is second.

I wish these reports would provide some detail on what these really mean. Is it 250,000 people that were completely healthy coming in for a physical and they die when they would have been healthy if the medical system didn't exist? I doubt it. Is it 2,000 completely healthy people and 248,000 people that were under intensive medical care for years keeping them alive and now we slipped up and they died? Probably not, again, but my guess is it is closer to the second.

Preventing errors is obviously important. And in health care it is very important, of course. But just because you use data doesn't mean it isn't misleading. Medical errors leading to death is just too big an operational definition to be very meaningful in my opinion. For these numbers to provide much insight I really think they need to be segmented more:

• perfectly health person that was going to be perfectly healthy for decades but were killed by medical error.
• person that needed life saving care of they were going to die that month and we routinely should be able to provide the very easy care to make them perfectly healthy again but they were killed.
• etc…
• person that was extremely sick with many problems for years and was saved with medical care over and over again. Complex care was needed and much of it was done well but in the very challenging situation there was a mistake and that mistake is the proximate cause of death.

We should be working on making everything better and eliminating medical errors that cause damage and death. But there are huge differences between a medical error conditions that caused death and to me those differences are so huge lumping them together is hardly useful.

My understanding is we do use risk based assessment to compare things like survival rates or operations at different hospitals. A figure of survival rates comparing two hospitals when one was the hospital where all the most difficult case for the Western USA were sent to a local hospital that dealt with the easy operations for that health issue would not be very useful. So they try to adjust for the severity of the problem (as I understand it). It would seem to me a similar thing would be much more useful for medical error death rates. Was the person in such a risky state that the tiniest misstep (error or whatever else) would kill them or was it someone who is perfectly health and dies immediately due to an error.

Related: Errors in Thinking - Epidemic of Diagnoses - Health Care Crisis - Great Visual Instruction Example (taking pills)

Response to comment on my comment

Right, l think the thing I am getting at is there is a big difference between making a mistake while you are in a complex situation where any of 30 bad decisions in a pressure situation could result in death (and where doing nothing results in death) versus a situation where there is no risk of death until you do an absolutely idiotic thing that turns my visit to get a physical into death.

Everything should be constantly improved and made safer with mistake-proofing thinking... And healthcare needs this more than most everything due to the dangers and consequences involved.

When there are headlines like 100,000 deaths due to medical error every year that reads to me like John was walking along the street and boom a medical-error/piano dropped on his head and killed him. But I don't believe that is true. I bet it is true that are lots of deaths due to just unforgivable errors - someone is given a drug which was indicated in numerous sensible ways would kill them due an allergy but they were given it anyway and died.

But I don't trust how much of the deaths attributed to error are really 20% error, 19% cancer, 18% diabetes, 17% cardio-vascular disease, 16% long term high level use of powerful drugs ravaging the body, 10% car accident (which also someone else might say is 5% error, 30% cancer, 25%...). The error is still bad, and the system needs to be improved to reduce the frequency and consequences of errors. But I just don't know how to take the error to death data without much more explanation.

In reading more details on the studies they comprehend this issue with the data but I haven't found where they provide more meaningful data. What I read just talks about the contributing nature of "blame" on medical error etc..

Replying to Tweets Usefully

My response to: How can I reach out to Twitter users who have an immediate need for my services? I can see local tweets from great prospects but a reply would be spam.

I do not agree replies would automatically be spam.

I suggest you provide links to useful information. If you have a blog or web site that provides useful information that can also share that your services may be of value.

Certainly responding could be done in a spamming way. And that should not be done. But you can respond by being helpful. And rely on some of those seeing that you provide useful information wanting to learn more.

A measure of if you are providing useful replies see how often it is retweeted. I am very surprised how often mine are. I would guess it is over 50% of the time that I (@curiouscat_com) suggest a link would be useful they retweet it.

When I just send a reply without a link they are retweeted rarely. Also when I just post links to useful stuff I find those are retweeted much less often than my direct replies (I imagine if you have tens of thousands of active readers, not just "followers," this data would be less useful because everything you tweet someone retweets...

Another measure would be if people reply by saying you are sending them spam or wasting their time, etc. I have had 0 of these.

The combination of these results has led me to offer suggested links more often. I was nervous at first about people seeing it as spam. 90% of them are links to my blogs because those blog posts are what I know well enough to link so often (I also suggest other articles, blogs or products but less often).

Related: Your Online Presence and Social Networks for Managers - The Benefits of Blogging - Networking is Valuable But Difficult to Quantify

Evaluate the System for Not Just Absolute Failures But Also Consistently Bad Ethics

Thoughts sparked by: The NCAA and Auditing of Processes vs. Enforcement of Rules
I agree that the current process is not working.  I am not totally sure the answer is to make things more binary however.  One of the problems with legalistic thinking is it attempts to make everything black or white.  There is a great deal of grey.

The basic problem it seems to me is the schools basically want to get away with all the bad behavior they can that can be argued doesn't quite rise to the level of clearly provable violation. If they can do something clearly wrong, but hide it that seems fine with them. It isn't being ethical or being fair that those taking the most cash from the schools (the executive leadership, including boards, and college coaches, including assistants) care about. That is the core of the problem. The system is also setup to encourage unethical behavior. And that feeds on itself, driving away those that are not suited to work in a system where ethics hamper your ability to succeed.

I think we may benefit from accepting that bad behavior is grey and when we see lots of dark grey you get punished a lot.

When we see lots of white and this tiny bit of black where two silly violations are found we treat that as what it is - a system that is largely working but a couple special causes need to be fixed up.

A problem with this is many people want to get away with doing bad stuff that technically can maybe be seen as possibly not absolutely prohibited.  Then they want to be able to have ignored that they are largely running a dark grey to black system when they can be shown to have clearly violated specific rules.

This attitude is a horrible example that our educational institutions are giving students.  Talking about how students should be ethical when they act while the schools are being unethical and trying to get away with ever single thing they can without tripping over into provable violations.

Related: Shining light on the actions of those in power - Peter F. Drucker on a Functioning Society - The Moral Consequences of Your Decisions

Pay Practices Say More About Respect for People Than Words Say

Lean Leadership Lessons from Costco Wholesale (the broken link was removed)

"To continually provide our members with quality goods and services at the lowest possible prices. In order to achieve our mission we will conduct our business with the following Code of Ethics in mind:

1. Obey the law
2. Take care of our members
3. Take care of our employees
4. Respect our vendors
5. Reward our shareholders

If we do these four things throughout our organization, then we will realize our ultimate goal, which is to reward our shareholders."

I really like Costco's respect for people.

One thing to note is while "Costco pays the highest wages in the industry with benefits that are very good for any industry." to "workers" they don't pay the exorbitant executive pay most of the companies that scrimp on paying non-executives.  As I have said before I don't believe you can take executives seriously on claims they believe in respect for people when they pay themselves like nobles and workers like serfs.

The difference between real respect for people and just words is evident at places like Costco and Trader Joe's.  Customer's and owners benefit from organization that truly practice respect for people. Related: Focus on Customers and Employees - Respect for People

Right in What Way?

The Tyranny of Being Right

It’s such an easy thing to fall into: the desire, the need, to be right. It creates huge divides between us, drives us to say and do things that cause others to either disengage or retaliate. Later, we may console ourselves with the satisfaction of winning but it’s pretty much a cold dinner left on a table that’s been deserted by friends. And if the friends are important and powerful enough, it can even turn out to be more like a last supper. The alternative is being wrong, of course, and that’s where I believe the problem lies. After all, if I am wrong, it can become a chink in the armor of my self-confidence and self-trust, and in the self-perceived, self-protected perfection of my reputation. One chink leads to another, you know, so that the possibility is all the armor might fall away and I’ll have to just stand there, both vulnerable and alone.

The way I look at it the "rightness" depends on the question.  Normally as we live the decisions we make don't really address only 1 question.  There is the question of what will be the least disruptive action.  There is the question of if it is fair to change the rules for an employee in mid stream.  There is the question of what should you spend your time on.  There is the question of what you should do to help yourself.  Etc.  You can be "right" on 1 question and that same action can be "wrong" or problematic or dangerous for another question.

Often standing for principle may be taken as doing the "right" thing.  Lets even say it is right when asking what is in the interests of the company.  But it is certainly common that doing so is the wrong thing for your career (or any of a number of other way of considering what to do).

I do definitely have the desire to be right. But I understand it isn't as simple as being right from one point of view. It is finding the right answer that optimizes to overall success on many different fronts. Sometimes the right answer is to accept that the wrong decision will be made in the meeting today, because the things necessary to get the right decision are not worth the cost.

Related: Long Term Thinking with Respect for People - We are Being Ruined by the Best Efforts of People Who are Doing the Wrong Thing

Expressing Your Concerns and Opinions Publicly

Former Company Bashing

But somehow it doesn't seem quite right for these high level folks to take vicious and very public parting shots at their former employers' leadership on the way out.  We all have our opinions.  Often they differ from those above us.  And sometimes the difference is severe enough to make us leave.  But you know what?  That's life.  Why can't we respectfully accept a difference of opinion and move on?    I suppose I'm naive, but this kind of public and one-sided bashing of a firm and of those entrusted to run it seems  needless and unproductive.

It seems to me that is exactly what is going on. Those companies are constantly pushing their position. I don't see anything wrong with former employees sharing their thoughts. Why is what they say considered "bashing." They are expressing their opinion. People can chose to pay attention to that person or not.  I hardly think one person's blog post is pushing around companies like Google and Goldman Sachs unfairly.  The only way there is any impact at all on those companies is if the comments resonate with the general public due to many other pieces of supporting evidence found elsewhere.  A crazy rant will not have any impact.  Expressing concerns about serious failures may have an impact.  Even then it is going to be pretty small.

Some people want followers that don't question authority. Leading high technology thinkers don't take kindly to the "follow authority" and don't question authority idea. Where this line is drawn varies, there is a certain amount of following that has to be done, and their is a point at which expressing a contrary opinion should be silenced.

In my experience the point at which contrary opinions are normally silenced is far too soon. I see nothing at all wrong with what these people said. I am very happy they did so. It is a very positive contribution to the discussion that should be taking place.

Finance people do see pretty comfortable with the model of shutting up, not ruffling feathers and cashing big checks. For that reason a Goldman Sachs former employee expressing their opinions that might make authority uncomfortable is a bit unusual.

I think silicon valley is perfectly comfortable with people expressing their opinions. And I think that is the right approach. If the person does take stupid parting shots they will damage their credibility. If they express sensible differences of opinion with the current practices of the company they left they will likely gain more respect than they lose.

Related:  Ignoring Unpleasant Truths is Often Encouraged - Taking What You Don’t Deserve, CEO Style - Respect for People

Performance and character

Response to, Toxic Employees

But what if this employee is a rock star salesperson or contributor but has the bad attitude? Do you put up with the attitude issue for the great performance?

Does performance override character?

Or do we want performance and character?

What if this person when confronted, justifies their behavior with “it’s the truth and I’m the only one with the guts to speak out”?

What if this person is a top executive with political ties to the company President yet others below feel the pain?

What if this person is not an employee but a customer?

Is it following our "respect to people principle" by not addressing this person’s behavior?

We want performance and character. It is not respecting the person (and more importantly all the others that must suffer) to ignore their toxic behavior. 

I must admit I do have sympathy for the "I'm the only one with the guts to speak out" claim. But that doesn't excuse bad behavior, speak out, but do in a non-toxic manner. 

You have to confront and address toxic behavior. It isn't easy. People with power and also people with a history to getting results can get used to being able to do whatever they want. Some cultures that is normal. 

It isn't ok in a lean culture. Bottom line. If the CEO accepts it they are deciding they don't want to be lean. They might want to adopt some lean tool (which can benefit even non-lean organizations). But allowing toxic behavior directly contradicts respect for people. 

Related: People are Our Most Important Asset - Negativity - The Lazy Unreasonable Man

Can I back out of my new job if I get a better offer?

Can I back out of my new job if I get a better offer?

I recently accepted an offer with an organization and started this past week. Four days into it, another potential employer I'd interviewed with once (at the same time I interviewed for my new job) has asked me to talk with them a second time. While I like the job I just started (and the employer), I would love the other position more - it feels more closely aligned with my interests and values, and it is 20 miles closer to home.
...
response from Alison Green:
There are very few cases where I'd advise even considering taking a different job right after starting a new one, because doing so can harm your employer, your reputation, and even other job-seekers.

I don't see a significant problem with leaving. Alison Green has a great blog I just disagree with her on this question, but the points she makes are probably shared by far more people than share my views on this topic. There are costs to others and yourself, and risks to you and others. But that is part of business.

I have had candidates (that we offered but hadn't actually started yet) and new hires leave and seen other people think this is bad or unfair. I tell people to expect a higher level of turnover precisely because they were looking for jobs and the offers might not all come at the same time.

The world isn't all perfectly fair, sometimes you lose for no good reason. I don't see any reason to worry about it.

Also if you do a great job of showing people how great it is to work at your place then they probably wouldn't leave. Focus on that, not being mad at them.

But yes, if you do this, some of the people at the company you leave will probably be mad.

I do tend to take unconventional views. I like Zappos paying new employees to quit more than the idea of intimidating employees to stay because it is unfair to leave.

I would weigh the costs, myself. And the judgement would not just be what is best for me. The costs to others would definitely be a factor in trying to decide what was acceptable and what was the right decision.

I use this blog to post some of the comments I make on others blogs. You can follow my main management blog posts via RSS.

Corrupt Looters at AIG

Response to AIG Bonuses Have You Pointing the Finger in the Wrong Direction

The core problem is we have a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats that are looting companies like 3rd world dictators. For some reason people seem to think if you and your buddies conspire to loot millions it is legal and if you and your buddies conspire to take the office supplies that is stealing.

I fully understand that these people looting millions conspire with attorneys to try and make the looting appear legal (and can afford to pay the lawyers well to make such a case). My guess is you could easily get lawyers to make your looting of a few thousand dollars worth of office supplies legal if you pay them enough and can bribe others to show why your looting is beneficial. The problem is if you are only looting thousands you can't cut the lawyers in on the game and still walk away with something, you need to loot millions to have enough to buy your castle and bride lots of others so they go along with your looting.

What has people so upset is that people that obviously did about as bad a job as humanly possible are supposedly entitled to millions for creating billions in harm. Anyone with sense realizes something is very wrong with such a situation. And as they learn more they become more and more amazed at the brazen corruption within companies that are now being paid by their taxes. It is exactly the same thing people feel if some corrupt dictator steals.

They also get angry as talking heads try and make it appear that the corrupt looters are capitalists. Trying to say to people that if you don't support corrupt looters you are against capitalism makes people upset. You are against the friends of the talking heads (their corrupt cronies) if you don't support looting of companies, you do support capitalism.

People really get upset if they bought the talking heads excuses for their golf buddies ludicrous looting and now see exactly what these talking heads have been telling them for years. People don't want to admit they have been fooled into believing that they should be happy about corrupt looters that drove a Rolls Royce and angry with welfare Moms that were lazy. It gets pretty hard to accept that these imbeciles are the people that are suppose to be paid millions because they "deserve" it. Other than having a "high class" of buddies so when they loot they do so with the full knowledge of the talking heads friends what do they offer?

Eventually the evidence that the talking heads are just supporting the looting their friends have been doing for decades while you sat there and accepted their idiotic rantings gets to people. Well you really should be angry. And you should be angry that you accepted such notions for years. But it is easy to redirect that to the imbeciles that behaved so corruptly that you can't avoid the fact that you sat by as the looters and their friends looted and now your economy is in deep trouble. The buddies of the talking heads have behaved so poorly it isn't possible to accept the excuses of the talking heads any longer.

How many people will actually change based on their new understanding? Very few, is my guess. They will try and pretend like all the looters are just exceptions. They are not. The system itself is corrupt. The looters are taking what they don't earn. They are leaving behind ruins. They are convinced that they deserve their loot, just as a dictator is convinced they do.

The huge problems created by greedy fools at AIG are only a portion of the problem. Their buddies at the other financial companies are just as corrupt. And the bonuses paid 2 years ago are just as much looting as those people are mad about today. The problem is much deeper than the looters. The problem is a society that has so lost the understanding of honorable behavior and ethical standards that they think it is ok for people to loot. And while people are mad now, I don't see any evidence people have decided to stop accepting the looting preformed by brooks brother bureaucrats.

Related: Looting: Bankruptcy for Profit - Why Pay Taxes or be Honest