« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

When You’re Presenting Strategy – Elegance Matters

The difference between Apple and PC is, in my opinion, design. The calligraphy class that Steve Jobs attended at Reed College added the degree of elegance to Apple’s products that have enabled it to position the PC as, well, so pc. Design does matter, as much in the world of intangible strategy as in the concrete world of the desktop computer.

The outcome (or deliverable) of a strategy is usually an implementation plan, so the content of a strategy is geared to the future. The success of the strategy depends very much on the outcomes achieved after it is implemented. For that reason, a strategy can never be proven to be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ during its useful life. As a case study it can prove of immense value, but then it’s an historical case study and not a strategy. Until someone invents a time machine, a strategy provides the ways and means to achieve a future objective – proof only comes with time. Mathematicians refer to Pythagoras’ Theorem as a ‘beautiful’ proof. In this case it possesses not only beauty, but also truth. As we cannot know the future, strategy cannot possess truth – it has only the beauty component that allows it to resonate with its audience. It’s elegance.

How can strategy be elegant? That’s probably a matter of opinion, but once again the field of mathematics has formalized what elegance means for them (and they don’t have the advantage of using full colour imagery, even music, in their proofs – they are restricted to numbers and letters and squiggly things that only they know the meaning of). However, luckily for us, mathematics has defined what it means by describing a proof as beautiful:

  • It uses a minimum of previous results (i.e. data)
  • It is short
  • It derives a result in a surprising way
  • It is based on new and original insights
  • It can be easily generalized to solve a family of similar problems.

I feel that the following strategy is an elegant one, although many may not agree:

My good friend Max Blumberg and I decided (sometime during the 1980′s) to visit Sun City. We were both somewhat unusual, in that we would do unusual things. Such as sitting at a street cafe calling out ‘Michelle’ to every girl who walked by. Approximately 1 in 20 girls responded with great excitement that they had been recognized. Max was gifted at playing the piano. I was tone deaf. We were a formidable team.

There was a giant parking lot outside Sun City where day visitors were instructed to park. Max confidently drove up to the gate, and informed the guard that we had come to collect our instruments from the Lucas Mangope Room. The guard stated that we were not ‘on the list’. Max refused to back down. “But how are we supposed to get our equipment?” he exclaimed with so much urgency that the problem was clear to see. The guard then stated that we could drive in, but if he did not receive our registration details from the hotel, we would be in trouble. We agreed.

I did not understand what Max was doing, but it was to become abundantly clear when he parked outside the hotel, strode to the reception desk with a confident gait, and proclaimed to the pretty girl behind the counter: “Hi, I’m in room 5142 – I’m expecting some friends to join us for lunch, would you please be a darling and phone the gate to let this registration number in?”

We had a whale of a time in the casino. And we got to stay over when we were offered a room by a young lady whose friends had not arrived. So, we weren’t day visitors after all.

What an elegant strategy.

An effective strategy uses the minimum of data, is brief, has a fresh approach, has current insights and could be understood by a ten year old. That’s elegance.

When pitching for new business, the prospective client does not want to see that you have done your homework. They want to feel it. It’s so beautiful when the presenter proceeds straight to the heart of the matter with insight and sensitivity, so that the process can move forward, as opposed to wallowing in a sea of supposition further clouded by data which is as appealing as a soggy sand-filled bathing costume.

Tags:

A Clearer and More Present Danger

There have been endless debates over the moral justification for the preemptive strike against Iraq. Suffice to say such action, to be even considered justified, must be in proportionate response to the documented authenticity, severity and immediacy of the threat in question. I will pass on that particular debate for now, but as to the justification for or morality of a preemptive strike per se, it would be foolhardy to reject such an option out of hand. Case in point: Iran.

Iran, a country whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, recently demanded that “Israel must be wiped off the map” and whose totalitarian regime punishes “un-Islamic” behavior among its own people. Iran, a country which has attempted to acquire nuclear-bomb technology. Iran, a country that flouted a previous agreement to stop enriching uranium. Iran, a country that is an avowed and documented enemy of the United States repeatedly calling for “Death to America.” Iran, where the Ayatollah Khomeini was the first to install a modern Islamic theocratic system, I.e., a totalitarian blend of mosque and state. Iran, the country that seized our embassy in Tehran in 1979 and murdered hostages. Iran, a major sponsor of terrorism; financing, sheltering and training terrorists from groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida. It is submitted that Iran presents a far greater danger to the United State’s security than did Iraq, for Iran poses a clear and present danger inasmuch as it may be building nuclear weapons sooner rather than later.

Iran’s asserts that its nuclear objectives are solely for achieving nuclear energy for civilian purposes. Those who believe that engage in whimsy. Iran is one of the largest oil producer in OPEC and has large gas reserves; in fact, it has more oil to generate electricity than it could possibly consume. Clearly, any need for nuclear energy is absurd.

More to the point, Britain, Germany, and France are currently engaged in diplomatic efforts with Iran. These efforts, supported by Washington, are seen as a win-win way to resolve the issues associated with Iran’s suspected program to develop nuclear weapons. Ironically, such talks were triggered in the first place by Iran’s flouting of a previous agreement to stop enriching uranium. By negotiating with Iran and its mullahs and granting them economic incentives, including the possible purchase of commercial aircraft and entry into the World Trade Organization, some believe Iran will forego its darker ambitions and the West can thereby avoid a military confrontation. Of course, while the incentive can help strengthen Iran’s economy, they also turn it into an even greater threat. What Iran really wants is a nuclear weapon…..the better to use as a blackmailing wedge at future negotiating tables (as is the case with North Korea) and far worse, the better to use against its enemies such as Israel. If it can accomplish this while having become economically stronger thanks to the Euro economic give away’s, all the better.

This entire deal smells of mortgaging the future by purchasing the sinecure of peace today; a “deal” that would allow Iran to gain critically valuable time in which to engage, if not complete, its nuclear-weapons research. This approach could very well result in Iran declaring at some future date (as did North Korea to everyone’s recent horror) that it has succeeded in building nuclear weapons.

Only the intellectually naive and high flying doves, who dangerously ignore the harsh lessons of history, can truly believe that such fear-based diplomatic appeasement will deflect Iran from its not-so-hidden agenda. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.” Far more telling is this quote by Jose Maria Aznar, former Spanish President, in June of this year, “Europe likes appeasement very much; this is one of the most important differences between us and the States…”

Some may recall that in 1981, Israeli war planes, in a widely criticized but extremely successful preemptive stealth attack ordered by then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin, destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. The raid rendered Iraq’s nuclear capability null and void. Nevertheless, based on a subsequent and hotly debated perceived threat of weapons of mass destruction, the United States launched a preemptive invasion against that country–even though the threat of biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq was never truly established after the invasion. Surely a more real threat of weapons of mass destruction of the nuclear variety exists in Iran today and suggests strong consideration of a manifestly more justified strike against that country. The time is now to zero in on Iran within the context of what kind of threat it presents. Iran should be condemned forthwith and its nuclear ambitions effectively muzzled. If not, we can expect a far deadlier avowed enemy to confront.

Most assuredly, The United States should actively encourage and actively assist the efforts of the pro-freedom fighters and courageous students in Iran in order to launch a revolution from within that will overturn its terrorist-supporting regime. No one despises Islamic theocracy more than the young people and Iranian students who, for the past several years, have held mass protests in the streets. Despite strong and brutal opposition, this rebellion is growing and The United States should encourage it in whatever way it can. This is the ideal solution. But the United States also has an obligation to defend its people from Iran’s continuing and escalating threats–and to do this by whatever means necessary.

“No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb.” –Franklin D. Roosevelt

Tags:

Negotiating the Best Price on a Home

Nobody wants to pay too much for something, especially something as expensive as a home. No doubt you have friends or relatives who always seem to get great deals. What you should recognize is that there are proven tactics to negotiations, ones you can learn that will help you get a good deal on a home.

Have you ever heard the old saying, “don’t go grocery shopping on an empty stomach”? Very simply, it means that you shouldn’t put yourself in a situation where you’re apt to buy without thinking. This is very important if you want to negotiate a good price on a home.

The best time to buy a home is when you don’t absolutely need to. You won’t be feeling pressured to get a house before you have to move out of your existing home. When you’re not feeling pressured, you’ll be able to clearly spot a deal, and you’ll feel more comfortable walking away from negotiations that aren’t going the way you want them to.

Of course, in order to spot a deal you have to know what the going prices are. If you’re looking to get the best price on a house, spend some time researching homes that have sold in the areas you’re looking at. Pay particular attention to the homes that most closely resemble what you’re looking for.

Obviously, the best time to buy is in a down market such as we’ve seen in 2007 through 2009 (and maybe beyond). There are many times, though, when certain areas of the country are experiencing depressed prices. These times are to your advantage as a buyer.

When you’ve found a home you’re interested in, and you know its approximate value compared to other homes that have sold, you need to size up the seller. Is he wiling to negotiate? If not, it may be due to a few reasons: he isn’t strongly motivated to sell; he’s reduced his price as much as possible already; or he’s just being stubborn. If you don’t think the home is priced fairly, and the seller won’t budge, walk away. Chances are you’ll still see it on the market months later, and the seller will probably be more inclined to haggle on price.

Negotiating the best price on a home shouldn’t be a negative experience. In fact, the more pleasant the transaction, the more likely you are to get the best deal. The art of negotiating involves making the seller feel as though he’s winning, even if he isn’t.

Perhaps you’ve experienced this when buying a car. The sales person is ultra-friendly, comes across as being on your side, and wants to be as helpful as possible. When you make an offer on the car, though, the sales person has to “run it by the sales manager.” All the sales person is doing is letting the sales manager be the bad guy, and letting him say “no” to your offer.

You can do the same thing when negotiating a home price. Do your best to get concessions from the seller, then say that you need to run it by “the boss.” The boss could be your spouse, your father, your realtor, or just some imaginary person you created on the spot. The point is that you want to let someone else say no to the seller’s offer, while you remain his friend. If the seller has already made some concessions to you, there’s a good chance he’ll make more to satisfy “the boss.”

If the seller agrees early on to a price you think is good, don’t accept it right away unless you absolutely have to. Remember, you want to make the seller think he’s winning the negotiation. By accepting right away, you’ll make him wonder if he’s made a mistake. If you come back with a counter offer, he’ll likely think that he’s still winning, and may be open to reducing the price further.

Your demeanor is an important factor in negotiations. Most people talk too much after the other party presents an offer. It’s much better to say something along the lines of, “you’ll have to do better than that,” then wait to see what the seller has to say.

Contrary to what many people think, your demeanor shouldn’t be cool and collected when the seller present his offer. A look of shock or surprise on your part can throw the seller off balance and make him think he’s made a big mistake. If he really wants to sell, your reaction may get him to reduce the price further.

In almost every transaction, one party says, “why don’t we split the difference.” Don’t let that party be you. If you let the seller offer to split the difference, you’re again making him feel like he’s winning. If the negotiating continues, you’re still the one in control.

It always helps in negotiations to have something in your back pocket you’re willing to give up, even before the negotiations begin. It can be almost anything, as long as it makes the seller feel as though he’s winning.

One thing you must absolutely have in your back pocket is a clean offer. You wont’ be in any position to negotiate if you have to wait for the mortgage lender to approve you for a loan, or if the purchase is contingent upon the sale of your existing home. If you want to be able to negotiate, get pre-approved for the amount you want to borrow, and either sell your existing home or get approved for a bridge loan so you can carry your existing mortgage until the house sells.

You’re not going to be able to wheel and deal on every home you come across. Some homes attract buyers like bees to butter. Other homes will be so attractively priced that trying to negotiate would be pointless. If you come across one of these, and you want the home, buy it without reservation.

If the process of haggling on home prices isn’t something you enjoy, consider having someone else do it for you. Many people use realtors as buyers agents to good effect. The realtor will know the market, and should have the negotiating skills to get you a good price.

Tags: