Penchuk.com

The health care debate is raging in this country and a key part is how to pay for it all.  President Obama believes a big chunk of the cost savings can be achieved through “cutting wasteful spending“.

“The President is dedicated to restoring a sense of fiscal responsibility in Washington, which is why his plan will be deficit-neutral. He explained that by simply cutting wasteful spending, we can pay for 2/3 of health reform right there.”

Color me skeptical.  There have been various cost estimates bandied about, but for the sake of argument, let’s use $150 billion annually.  Two-thirds of that is $100 billion, which is not a small sum.  How can we get to that much savings?  Today’s Wall St. Journal has an article about the $102 million in savings that the entire government has found through such exercises as:

• Emailing daily press clips rather than printing
• Not immediately repainting cars upon purchase
• Deleting unused email accounts
• Turning off unused telephone lines
• Putting more people on flights
• Printing on both sides of a piece of paper
• Getting news online for free rather than print subscriptions

Is this a joke?  Our government hasn’t ALREADY implemented things like this?  So, the same massive organization that just figured out that unused telephones and immediately painting new cars is costly will be able to save $100,000,000,000.00 annually in health care?  Can you seriously tell me that and keep a straight face?  It doesn’t make any sense to believe that we’re going to see massive savings in spending by bringing in millions of more people under the government’s health care umbrella.  Obama just said, “The biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid.”  If that’s the case, prove that costs can be cut there BEFORE tinkering with the health care of millions of other Americans.

Watching the boob tube last night and saw an ad for Ford that had the tagline “Why Ford.  Why Now.”  Mike Rowe (who I’m a big fan of) stars in this commercial and follows up the tagline with “Why Not?”  Seriously?  Is this the best that Ford could do?  “Why not?”  The message I got was, “Hey, why not buy a Ford?  Why?  Why not?”  Oooh, now I’m convinced.  What does this say about their brand?  It’s not good.

My suggestion would have been to drop the “why’s” and just go with “Ford Now”.  Make the tagline a call to action, get people thinking about buying a Ford today.  They could have followed up “Ford Now” with benefit statements that bolster the brand.  Best fuel efficiency.  Low price.  0% APR.  Not enough?  How about the $4,500 tax break?  Buy American.  Ford Now.

I typically don’t criticize Detroit because I think they’ve got a bad reputation that precedes any actions they take, but this is a bad marketing idea.

I was on the news this week…

Recently, I heard about a company that ran a 360 degree review.  If you don’t know what that is, here’s what the omniscient Wikipedia has to say:

In human resources or industrial/organizational psychology, 360-degree feedback, also known as “multi-rater feedback,” “multisource feedback,” or “multisource assessment,” is feedback that comes from all around an employee. “360″ refers to the 360 degrees in a circle, with an individual figuratively in the center of the circle. Feedback is provided by subordinates, peers, and supervisors.

I’m all for feedback.  The only way to improve is to understand what you’re doing right and what you’re doing wrong.  In my past leadership positions, I’ve continuously asked for feedback.  I conducted named and anonymous surveys.  I held meetings where I encouraged my employees to speak their minds (those that wouldn’t could use the anonymous surveys).  I implemented regular client surveys to assess my and others’ performances.  So, I like the idea of 360 degree feedback.

Back to that company I mentioned.  The person at the head of the company didn’t participate in the exercise.  She ran it, had others provide all types of feedback, but didn’t solicit any of her own.  She didn’t have subordinates review her.  I guess that’s her prerogative, especially if it’s her company, but if you’re the one calling it “360 degrees” and you are encouraging all of this feedback, you need to be wary of omitting yourself.  You look silly and your exclusion negatively impacts the “rank and file”.

First of all, it segregates you in a negative way.  It doesn’t make you look like a leader but instead sends the message that you don’t want or care about feedback from the “little people”.  Secondly, it robs you of a fantastic opportunity to hear what your employees think about you, your style, your decision making process, etc.  You can’t succeed without them, so it would behoove you to listen to them.  If you can improve based on their comments, why wouldn’t you?  Finally, I believe it creates resentment.  Your actions have said there are two sets of rules here, mine and yours.  Put yourself in your employees’ shoes.  Would you like it if everyone around you (e.g. your peers) critiqued your performance but your boss was untouchable.  That’s the kind of thing that will get discussed at the water cooler, at lunch, when you’re out of the office, etc. and it will cause dissension in the ranks.

In the end, if it’s your company, you get to do what you want.  But remember, your success depends on the loyalty and performance of your employees.  Do you want them resenting you at crunch time?