My mother always used to say to me “What goes around comes around”. As a young boy she would say that to me every time I felt used by a friend or taken advantage of by someone. The older I got the more I witnessed how true this was and we truly do reap what we sow, sometimes immediately and sometimes it takes years.In business and personal relations a negative action can create a chain of reactions that center around a negative thread. We enter into personal relationships never expecting things will go wrong. However sometimes they do and the “wrongs” become defined through our personal filters of what the “rights” should be. What usually ensues is arguments over who is right and who is wrong with neither party seeking to understand before they can be understood.

Rarely do such arguments end in a win win solution but when they do it is evidence of both parties ability to set aside differences while agreeing to both respect those differences and focus on the common values of the relationship.

Is This True in Business Relationships?

Business conflicts usually arise out of broken promises and expectations not being met. The fuel that drives conflict is centric to economic gain or loss by either party. However, the essence of conflicts start and end with the dynamics of the relationships.

When we form business relations it follows the model of either a supplier, employee or a customer of the business. Businesses need suppliers and employees in order to serve the end product, service or message to their customers. When things go “wrong” anywhere in the supply chain or the delivery chain, whether it be with the product or service, relationship conflicts arise and much time and money is spent trying to resolve the “wrongs”.

When a wrong carries significance, either economically, emotionally, physically or mentally the magnitude of loss determines the degree of pursuit to be made “right”. In business the larger the perceived wrong the more likely that a legal process will be used as the means for conflict resolution. As soon as any conflict gets to the legal stage the cost of resolution goes up and damage to the “relationships”, or in a larger sense markets, becomes extremely difficult to repair or even salvage.

Then there are business conflicts which never end up in legal disputes but the cost of these conflicts can sometimes be larger than those pursued through the legal system. Historically these kind of conflicts were buried in the hearts and minds of those who have loss something as a result of the “wrongs”. Everyone simply walked away and the offenders hoped the issues would never arise again and that “word of the conflict” would not spread too far. Some businesses, not all, tend to take advantage of both there size and economic muscle, power, in resolving conflicts by leveraging the offending parties inability to fuel the cost of a legal dispute. Many consider these tactics a win and will leverage these dynamics any day of the week.

Will Conflicts Now Trickle Down or Up?

The social web creates transparency to both the wrongs and the rights of suppliers, employees and customers. The transparency of collective conversations are open to discovery by anyone, anywhere about anything and everything. Today’s media is quick to report “news” formed by either major business announcements or collective conversations facilitated through the social web. A wrong or right can trickle down to the masses very quickly.

The term “trickle-down” comes from an analogy with a phenomenon in marketing, the trickle-down effect. Some economist support “trickle-down economics” and “trickle-down theory,” and propose that it works best for a collective society. Conversational rivers flow through the social web and trickle down to the point of influence over people, businesses and markets.

Given these dynamics business owners, shareholders and entire markets may need to rethink how they deal with conflict resolution in the future. Focusing on the value of good relations may mean the past tactics of conflict resolution need to be reconstructed around enhancing good will with people rather than leveraging power against them for the wrong purpose.

The alternative is that the conversational rivers of the people become a negative influence over your business, your markets, your suppliers, your customers and certainly not least, your employees. In the old days conversations and the subsequent objectives trickled down. Today the conversations may trickle up.

What goes around comes around.

What say you?

Business leaders collect data and subsequently when confronted with the aggregate analysis the typical reaction is to create organizational change aimed at improving the negative results highlighted in the data.

The subsequent change initiatives consume internal resources, already overloaded with work, and typically involve outside consultants who make their living trying to help organizations gain from implementing change. Lots of time, energy and money is spent simply trying to align an organization with customer and market preferences.

The game is being better than competition at delivering on or exceeding the expectations of the customer and the entire market an organization serves.

So the challenge for business leaders is to organize people, processes and products/services that consistently and continuously deliver beyond what is expected and prepare for future expectations.

The two points of critical measurement are 1) “the voice of the system” (internal people and processes) and 2) “the voice of the customer and markets” (customers and suppliers aggregated as a market).

Where are these voices?

The social web’s interactive nature and ability to facilitate real conversations between real people, where there is common interest, is the phenomena driving voice of the customer analytics. Customers have real needs, companies offer real solutions. Voice of the customer research is driven by this common interest and a sincere desire to share and listen. Customer driven organizations are the result of technology used to forward the idea that ‘the common good’ can be explored best through democratic systems. A democratic system must be lead and by the “voice of the system”.

The “voice of the system“, internal people and processes, is very similar to the “voice of the customer” in that the common element which provides the most valuable input and influence is the people.

What Are The People Saying?

Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) Council’s recently released a study called “Profitability from Customer Affinity“. A high level review of the most significant and noteworthy research findings included:

• Fifty-six percent of vendors perceive themselves as being extremely customer-centric, but only 12% of customers agree.
• An overwhelming majority of vendors—85%—are convinced that they are getting better at responding to customer needs, but 45% of customers disagree.
• More than half of customers surveyed described their relationships with vendors as “dependent and captive,” “struggling for common ground,” or “combative and adversarial.”
• When asked to describe their relationships with the channel, 45% of customers surveyed evaluated their channel relationships similarly.
• More than 30% of customer respondents said they would terminate relationships with companies that fail to gain their trust; 62% would scale back existing engagements, while 7% would no longer consider the vendor for future business.

The flyer we received for the report states “The full Profitability from Customer Affinity” report will help you rethink how you embrace, interact with and respond to your customers. The complete report is available for purchase for $299.00 by simply clicking here. .”

Notice how big the “gap” is between the voice of the customer and the voice of the system? Just maybe the root cause is a lack of listening by business leaders combined with the inability to effectively initiate top down changes within their organizations.

Ironically when you look at employee survey results the data pretty much reflects the same as the “voice of the customer”.

Maybe we can save a ton of money by simply paying attention to the blinding flash of the obvious. Then again leaders would have to let go of their control so that the people can fix the obvious. The rules of the game have changed and now business rules have to change.

What say you?

Doc Searls, co-author of The Cluetrain Manifesto, did a anniversary presentation at the SAP offices in New York City today and his comments were summed up by Charlene Li on a blog post at Social Media Today that is worth sharing. Charlene writes : “Doc Searls started talking about the genesis of The Cluetrain Manifesto. This was fascinating to me. He started with reflections of the overblown 90’s (Push, Pointcast). “Customers treated as plankton.” A reaction to the overblown venture investments in “capturing eyeballs” in the 90s.”

“The genesis of a lot of those ideas as he described (e.g. 95 theses, “markets are conversations”) sounds as if it wasn’t all that thoughtful. And didn’t take that long to write. But what made these ideas so fresh and powerful (my opinion here) is that it was obvious to them long before anyone else was even thinking about it. The cluetrain authors were unafraid to talk about it frankly. And — this is important — they had each other to bounce things off of.”

“Does it hold up after 10 years? Rereading it — and listening to Doc — it does. The strident tone seems a bit “of its time” — that is, they were screaming about things you don’t have to scream about any more. But the content seems as true as it did when it was written.”

“But Doc has remained way out in front of what’s happening, rather than consolidating the gains we made in getting to the Cluetrain world.”

“I love Doc’s take on Web 2.0. He implies that O’Reilly’s emphasis on the software is misplaced — and wants to know why he uses advertising as his first example. I concur. The real change is about people and how they relate to business — software is the enabler. Fascinating, as Doc points out, that Google search “Web 2.0? search yields ads about Advertising.”

“He’s still got a problem with advertisers and advertising — including on Facebook. Searls’ updated theses (numbering is not a mistake — he skipped a few)”

1. Advertising as we know it will die.

2. Herding people into walled gardens and guessing about what makes them “social” will seem as absurd as it actually is. (Facebook is his example.)

3. We will realize that the most important producers are what we used to call consumers. (Yup.)

4. The value chain will be replaced by the value constellation. (Many connections.)

5. “What’s your business model?” will no longer be asked of everything. (What’s the business model for your kids?)

6. We will make money by maximizing “because effects”. (”Because effects” are what happen when you make more money because of something than with it.) E.g. search and blogging.

8. We will be able to manage vendors at least as well as they manage us. (Agreements between companies and customers shouldn’t be skewed in favor of the companies.) At Harvard Law they call this VRM — vendor relationship management — which is what Searls is working on (projectvrm.org).

10. We’ll marry the live web to the value constellation. (The Live Web isn’t just about stars. Relationships of anybody to anybody.)

Examples: The personal RFP — find me what I need (driven by buyer not seller) I should be able to manage my own health care data. I should be able to inquire and relate to whole markets on the fly. I think Doc is still a radical — a bomb-thrower, a provocateur. But to create real change, you have to be a revolutionary — someone who engages with the powers that be to create major change. We need radicals. But we need revolutionaries too.

We’ve come to know Doc personally and all we can say is his mind sees the obvious while the masses see and engage in the clutter of the moment. Doc’s heart is as deep as his mind is broad and his perspectives are worthy of attention to those wishing to lead rather than follow.

Seeing things as they are and speaking to the obvious is frank, honest and given his reach and influence his perspectives are disruptive. Disruption is what we need to maximize the social web benefits in front of us by letting go of the paradigms behind us.

What say you?

www.relationship-economy.com 

02 13th, 2008

An average commuter will drive 60 miles a day which equates to $21,098 in cost a year per person commuting. This cost continues to rise as the cost of fuel goes up.The average worker spends in excess of 50 hours a week away from home. As businesses try and get leaner the demands on workers go up and to keep the job more is expected which means more time on the job doing more. People discuss these issues, one to one to millions daily. The conversations are abundant.

The current credit crunch and subsequent long tail effects could cause significant shifts in the “credit economy” with ripples being felt globally. Already new home housing stats are indicating a slow down in residential real estate and the bankruptcy rate is on the rise.  The conversations are abundant.

Consumer debt is at an all time high and the rate of late and default payments is increasing. The gurus of economics converse over whether this is just the beginning or the end of bad economic news. The conversations are abundant.

The debate over global warming continues and there is no denying that we are consuming more of the earths raw materials faster than they can be replaced. The push to conserve natural resources and find alternative energy sources is a global conversation which is and will continue to impact the future eco-system we all live in. The conversations are abundant.

The debate over the war on terror continues to capture our attention and that of global leaders. The different positions on the war continues to polarize people, parties, institutions, religions and governments. The conversations are abundant.

The state of our “relationships” with each other are showing signs of decay. Divorce rates are up, teenage suicide is up, criminal incidents are on the rise, employee turnover is on the rise and medication therapy for our ills is exploding with every new kind of psycho labeled malady being diagnosed and treated with yet another medication that promises to “help” us get through our mental and emotional anguish. The conversations are abundant.

The media feeds us with these stories which only sparks more conversations, responses and concerns as to what we individually need to do to cope with the issues that impact our life. The conversations are abundant.

The current political debates within the U.S. are all centric to these issues and each candidate “promises” to have the answers hoping to appeal to the masses and win their votes. The current conditions of the American landscape of issues and the possible outcomes are part, if not much, of the thread of conversations globally. Each of us and everyone of us are seeking answers to the complex problems that exist in our worlds. The conversations are abundant but the solutions are not.

Are These Abundant Conversations Converging Around Chaos?

We’re not trying to predict doomsday rather we’re only trying to illustrate what subjects are dominating today’s conversations. Subsequently what potential outcomes could come from all this chaos being discussed could indeed become part of the solutions.

Chaos is the complexity of causality or the relationship between events. This means that any ’seemingly’ insignificant event in the universe has the potential to trigger a chain reaction that will change the whole system. A well known saying in connection with this issue is “A butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world can cause a hurricane on the other side of the earth.” This is also known as the “butterfly effect“.

The issues that are dominating today’s conversations are very real and threaten to disrupt the eco-systems we live in. If one or more of the issues accelerate at the same time the convergence could create chaos that impacts our lives and subsequently forcing changes unexpected, unpredicted and adaption to these changes will be required.

In any chaotic event, remember 911, the foundational forces that create calm and adaption to unknowns is relationships and conversations.  When society feels collective stress we turn to our relationships and converse about the issues at hand and the solutions to anything that directly impacts our individual eco-systems.  When 911 occurred we reached out and conversed with those closest to us. We took time off from work and thought about the possible implications. We stayed glued to the media waiting to hear “What Next?”. We felt the need to get closer as families, communities and as a nation. Relationships became paramount and the conversations abounded.

Considering all the current issues the social web may actually become the backbone of society’s need to relate, converse and find solutions to perplexing issues facing our world, its eco-system and our communities, one to one to millions.

If the chaos of the moment forces us to spend more quality time with our relationships engaging in problem solving conversations what could the outcomes be? Self governed and self organized could we solve problems better than those who govern and attempt to organize us now?

What say you?

www.relationship-economy.com 

The internet is free. The tools are free. Content is free. Social networks are free and users have gained the freedom of expression and connectivity without constraint for free.The only factors of user and producer cost is time, attention and trust.The “free” model doesn’t fit well with traditional business models and mindsets. People have a hard time figuring out how to convert “free” to earnings. Most everyone considers the social web as a primary point of distribution for advertising and view advertising as the only means for converting free to earnings.

This paradox boggles the minds of many and most conclude that the social web does not contribute to earnings thus lets not spend lots of time, attention and resource engaging in all this “social activity”. Sound familiar?

Most Businesses Currently Provide Numerous “Things” for Free:

1. Customer support is free although a bad experience may cost plenty.
2. Slick & expensive marketing materials are free although over hyped promises may cost plenty.
3. Communicating is free although many types of communications cost plenty.
4. IT support, internal and external, is free although unresolved problems may cost plenty.
5. Mediums that provide interaction with customers and suppliers are free although most are poorly designed and cost plenty.

There are a number of other “free” things that business builds into a product or service offering and the cost of “free” is built into the overhead to run the business. However, the cost of poorly designed “free things” and the subsequent impact on relationships, i.e. customers, suppliers and markets, is rarely measured or itemized on financial statements or shareholder reports.

The gurus of industry have always proclaimed the value of good relationships with customers, suppliers and markets yet the organizational designs and collective actions tend to but up barriers and create consistently poor experiences that alienate relationships with customers, suppliers, employees and entire markets.

Lets talk about two real time examples. Previously we had written a post about a very poor experience with Verizon’s customer support system which is touted as “free”. Just last week we spent over eight hours on the phone with our bank, Bank of America, trying to tract down a trasnaction.

After dealing with numerous phone prompts to get through numerous instructions we ended up being passed around to nine, count them, nine different people and to make matters worse none of these people could provide an answer as to where the payment went.

To fuel the frustration further every time we were put on hold the automated messages kept repeating “Your business is important to us and we value our relationships. Please stay on the line until our customer service representative can assist you. The next customer service representative will be available in NINE MINUTES!”.

In between this repeated message was “Have you tried our free online banking service? Bank of America provides its customers with free online banking to serve all your personal and professional needs“.

To further aggravate this situation none of the real people we talked to were allowed to give us their full name, direct phone number or email address. Go figure, just how important or valued is my relationship? Actions speak louder than words but words spread on the social web can indeed create actions.

Will This “Free” Message Be Copied and Create Influence?

Kevin Kelly writes: “The internet is a copy machine. At its most foundational level, it copies every action, every character, every thought we make while we ride upon it. In order to send a message from one corner of the internet to another, the protocols of communication demand that the whole message be copied along the way several times. The digital economy is thus run on a river of copies. Unlike the mass-produced reproductions of the machine age, these copies are not just cheap, they are free.

There are a number of qualities that can’t be copied. Consider “trust.” Trust cannot be copied. You can’t purchase it. Trust must be earned, over time. It cannot be downloaded. Or faked. Or counterfeited (at least for long). If everything else is equal, you’ll always prefer to deal with someone you can trust. So trust is an intangible that has increasing value in a copy saturated world”.

This blog has received 180,000 pages views since Jan.1 by over 30,000 “connected users”. Those users have second degree connections of over 3 million people. The social web magnifies peoples experience with business, good and bad. Bad experiences can be remedied by simply following the basics of creating good relationships. However, the very systemic design of many businesses are not friendly to establishing and maintaining good relations rather the “relationship experiences” are anti-social to say the least. Most people who read this post will relate and pass the message on, one to one to millions.

The social web is indeed free but the cost can be very high to those businesses that don’t understand the power of free. How good or bad you are at free could influence how much you earn.

What say you?

Featured post by Jay Deragon from LinkToYourWorld.com

Many of the conversations in 2007 were about whether social networks will become centric to conducting commerce, B2B, B2C and P2P.While social networks continue to grow exponentially the next growth curve will be driven by the holy grail of economics“, social commerce. Social commerce may actually become the dominant development in 2008 and subsequently turn business models upside down and inside out.

One might ask why?

Simeon Simeonov writes “Consider for a minute how gargantuan the social shopping/merchandising market opportunity is: the current US retail market (excluding home and automotive) is around $4+ TRILLION/year and is supported by $150+ billion in advertising, the bulk of which still goes to TV for immersive, emotionally impactful ads. Capturing the proverbial 1% of that total market would represent over $40 billion/year in transactions which is huge!”

“So, clearly, whomever figures out how to get paid to unlock socially-driven product discovery and merchandising is going to make an astounding amount of money and have a huge impact on net culture.”

Is there consensus on this opportunity?

We recently asked the following questions aimed at adults throughout numerous social networks, “Will businesses and people conduct commerce using social networks?” We asked 2,000 of our contacts the question and received responses from 623 which created a 31% response rate as of December 31, 2007. The responses are still coming in as of the writing of this post. The responses carried many comments, some of which we will be sharing in future post, however the majority, 72%, said absolutely Yes. Obviously these responses are influenced by people who are engaged with the social web and see the opportunity.

On the other end of the spectrum

We were recently at a meeting with executives of a Fortune 500 company and the discussions were centric to the social web. The issue of social commerce was brought up and the opinions of the executives were that people wouldn’t buy things through their social network profiles and businesses wouldn’t engage is making purchases with other businesses via a social network.

When asked how many of the executives were active participants in social networks 100% answered they were not and 40% didn’t even have a profile on Linkedin. When asked how many of their employees (in excess of 20,000 employees) were active in social networks their answers were “We don’t know”.

How can business executives draw conclusions with no experience or understanding of the dynamic of the social web? The answer is they do and they will continue to, right or wrong. The awakening will come when markets move, when competition leads the movement, when executives engage with people who find satisfaction and benefit from engaging with other people, when the world shifts and an alarm ripples through the executive suites.

What are the factors that will drive social commerce?

• Consumer as communication channel: viral in its purest form just carries over a many to many channel an essentially one to many message from a business to its audience.
• Consumer as message author: recommendations and referrals are where the ‘consumer’ is already an ‘employee’ of the business, effectively working for the Marketing department and generating the message in addition to carrying it.
• Consumer as a transaction participant: where the business has found a mechanism to engage the consumer in more than just passing a message, in ‘closing the sale’, processes orders and (why not) takes PayPal payments.
• Consumer as co-creator of the product: from participation in product design R&D with feedback, ideas and recommendations, particularly where the ‘product’ is the message he spreads. Two more jobs: in the R&D and in the Production department of our business.
• Finally, consumer as Investor: already an insider of our business, he confidently buys our stock (and recommends that, too). Clever companies find ways to engage them even better in the share ownership through dedicated schemes.

There’s been a lot of progress made in 2007 in social commerce and 2008 will see new players, new technology and lots of money thrown at the solutions. Social commerce can encompass and influence a wide array of points on the purchase process, both before and after, and markets will move where money moves. Stay tuned for The Emergence of the Relationship Economy!

What say you?

www.relationship-economy.com

Relationship Economics

Featured post by Jay Deragon from LinkToYourWorld.com

Ever wonder where all this “networking activity is going?” For months I have been formulating my own predictive models and attributes using numerous sources of information. At the risk of sounding  a little “futuristic” allow me to provide a picture of what I consider to be a realistic model which will emerge in the not to distant future. First I will categorize my findings into what I call “Relationship Economics” and provide appropriate definitions.

First the word “Relationship” being defined as connection or association; the condition of being related. Second is “Economics” being defined as the study of resource allocation, distribution and consumption; of capital and investment; and of management of the factors of production. So I will define the collective meaning of Relationship Economics as: The people and things we are connected with or have an association to which distribute or consume our “capital” which influences our individual production outputs. We will use the term “capital” meaning that which we give or take that creates numerous forms of value.

Practical Relationship Economics Examples: We have relations with people and things. Both either take or give to our “capital“. People and things take or give us time (capital). People give or take information and knowledge (capital). We work with people to make money (capital). We strive in business to create or loose money (capital). We use machines and technology that either give or take value (capital). We interact with “things” that either give or take value (capital). We participate in institutions that both give and take value (capital). Our governments provide the means to gain or loose our freedoms (capital). In essence we have relationships with people and things that give, take or both in terms of our individual abilities to be “productive with our capital”. Collectively “Relationship Economics” is about people and things we give or take which influences numerous forms of value, our “capital“.

When you think about the primary means of most interactions we have with people and things it is technologically based. Whether your working, playing or relaxing you ultimately interact with some form of technology, everywhere and in everything. For the most part technology increases the value of our interactions with people and things. It is hidden and assumed.  Initially any new technology takes your time (capital) to learn how to optimize it. However, once proficient you begin to appreciate the value but expect more from it.

When we engage in human relations it takes time to learn whether the interaction creates value and whether the values are in common. When relationships become “disconnected” the primary basis is usually differences in value given or taken and differences in “values”. The primary difference between our interactions with people and things is one of values vs. value. Technology produces value while people dictate the “values” that technology enables for either the building or tearing down of relationships and the related capital.

Relationship Economics is just beginning to take shape and its future has significant rewards. The future,not to distant, will naturally emerge into a convergence of collective technologies which connect us to everything, everywhere. Imagine the following scenarios:

We will have our own network “ Link to Our World” in which we define what is interfaced into our world. Our mobile phone, PDA, Automobile, Television (s), landline telephones and any device in which we receive or transmit communications will be integrated and connected to our Link to The World. Our World portal will have a set of “button” interfaces with people and things categorized by a matrix of relations. Said buttons will appear on our desktop, our mobile phones, our PDA, Televisions, our car screen and any other communication device we use. Some of our devices will contain voice recognition software so we’re able to multi-task safely, i.e in our automobiles, boats or planes. I think you get the picture, everything and everywhere we are able to connect to people and things.

So How Do We give and receive value?

Many of us currently sell products and services in exchange for economic value. The future of Relationship Economics will be based on “value taken vs. value given“. The oldest exchange of value is that known as tithing and it is largely tied to religious organizations. Another exchange of value is that of “tipping for services rendered“. Another old paradigm which the masses have adopted as socially acceptable and expected. Fast forward.

In a world connected to everything everywhere we as individuals are enabled to profile and exchange our value and our values. Already, in today’s market, we’re seeing an exchange of value in terms of relationship introductions and the process of using the means for job recruitment. Job recruiters make money off of placement, an old model of exchange for value which HR departments have adopted as a better method to internal staffing and screening. Now combine the old models of value exchange with a new model. A model in which in the “networked world” we buy tokens of economic value globally. When some one provides us value it is assumed and expected, but not written in contract form, that we would be rewarded according to the perceptions of value by the receiver. The receiver would simply credit our token account with a value they deem appropriate for the benefit gained. In turn we would do the same for those that deliver us value.

Since the technology of the “networked world” provides us with the luxury of efficiency and effectiveness we are able to produce value to whatever degree we choose. The choice is individual. Some will work overtime because others will compensate them for their ability to produce. Others will receive and not compensate, they will be quickly identified as takers, not givers and the entire network will know the difference. The Global exchange of value ignites competitive propositions but the rewards provided are an individual choice, not unlike today’s market of products and services. Deliver value and you gain customers, Deliver defects and you loose them, period.

Relationship Economics will create new mediums, new measures and accelerated exchanges that will displace traditional mediums and totally disrupt and displace existing paradigms. A new world order driven by value exchanges and relationships will emerge and mankind will learn to adapt or lose. Those that don’t adapt and create value will be quickly identified and set apart from the larger network. Value migration will build momentum and create significance, individually and collectively.

More details on this prediction and the related models later. For now: Far fetched or realistic?

Copyright © 2006 Vision Business Concepts Inc

How does a business growth specialist differ from someone who specializes in marketing, sales, or even in business management?

When you hire a specialist, you’re hiring someone who understands their area of expertise, and can help you improve the way you are currently doing business with that technique. They may offer you ideas, strategies, and even individual techniques to help you get your business back on track, and moving in a forward motion.

But the one thing most specialists won’t do is guarantee you growth. They will help you improve your current systems, but whether or not the ideas you paid for will help grow your business is another matter entirely.

(more…)

Copyright © 2006 business-cards.com

A dictionary suggests that a mentor is: A wise and trusted counselor or teacher, (dictionary.com/ c2006).

In business terms the description ‘wise’ translates into someone who is experienced in running a successful business operation, and who is adept at passing on that knowledge. With over 65% of businesses failing in their first year of trading, the suggestion would be that new business entrepreneurs should seek all the assistance the can get!

(more…)

Copyright © 2006 http://www.BusinessSystemsManager.com

As business owners and managers we find ourselves thrust into our position through what is commonly referred to as “Promotion into Incompetence”. We move up through the ranks or start our own businesses based on our technical skills. Little consideration is given to the actual (non technical) skills and mindset required to manage people and run a business effectively.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you are having difficulty with something in your life (either personal or in business) it can generally be solved by learning new skills.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A business coach will assist you to build these essential skills that you need to lead and manage a successful business. They will help you in setting your business development goals and ensure you become more accountable for what should be your most important work, the work of developing your business.

Business Coaches provide you with objective feedback about what you need to do to get your business on track. A healthy business coaching relationship will provide an honest ongoing assessment of your Business Development Activities, assisting you to focus your efforts on the areas that will have the greatest long term positive impact on your business.

(more…)