Welcome! — Bienvenue!
<<< Welcome to the UNCONVENTIONAL WIT, your bilingual source of alternate commentary on Politics, Business and Society! You may read and discuss our top pages: Special Reports, World Events and Society and Culture. Drop us a note if you feel like it! >>>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<<< Bienvenue sur « UNCONVENTIONAL WIT », votre source bilingue d’analyses décalées sur la Politique, l’Économie et la Société! Lisez et discutez nos pages populaires: Grandes Enquêtes, Actualités et Société et Culture. Laissez nous un message si vous le voulez!>>>
My “5 Cents” on Growing Revenue Through a Smart, Targeted IT Overhaul
Not long ago in the European Business Review, Stephanie L. Woerner, Peter Weill and Mark P. McDonald made a case for operational efficiency, arguing that companies can save a lot of money through something called “digital reuse,” that is, the ability to reap operational efficiency by using (and reusing) technological processes already in place and reducing the overall time-to-market.
This analysis is brilliant because it unveils salient ways you can curb costs by streamlining your IT processes as well as injecting consistency, efficiency and stability into your operations.
To get to that level of IT efficiency, you should pay attention to your IT risk management and governance framework along with your overall technology strategy. Here are my five tips on what I think you should specifically do as you embark on your IT streamlining bandwagon:
First, hire a skilled chief technology officer and task him or her with drawing up an IT strategic blueprint. Demand accountability and make sure the blueprint constantly is in sync with your overall operational model, including your company’s IT risk comfort.
Second, think short-term. Figure out how your existing IT processes can deliver value to your business. I always tell clients to focus on the operational part of IT and to attain the right mix of in-house delivery versus outsourcing. If too much value is delivered from outsourcing posts, there exists a medium- to long-term risk that your company will lose competitive prominence.
Third, think long-term. Implement an IT approach to improve your operational and strategic agility, making sure your operational plans mirror the full potential of technology to improve the company’s performance.
Fourth, make sure your existing IT infrastructure is integral to your business delivery processes, most notably your e-commerce approach. I suggest you overhaul your technology strategy and align it with your B2B and B2C tactics. The idea here is to integrate IT in client interactions, be they offline or online—via your company’s website, blog, e-commerce platforms and social-media profiles on outlets as varied as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+ and Pinterest.
Lastly, construct an IT investment portfolio in sync with opportunities and threats in your industry. In this day and age, trends in IT are quickly altering the basis of competition. As a corporate executive, your goal is to study those trends; zero in on key variables; disregard outlier variables; and come up with an IT roadmap that makes economic, strategic and operational sense.
To your success,
Marquis Codjia
Creating systemic consistency
Last week, a very talented executive at a midsize company sought my opinion on an important question: how to create strategic consistency in her business—amid the myriad challenges, and often competing goals, the organization is facing? My answer was simple: seek consistency in everything you do, from idea conception and analysis to implementation and post-execution review.
Sounds easy enough, right? But you’d be surprised how little attention this topic draws in corporate boards across the world. See, as a manager, your shareholders, bankers and other stakeholders demand consistency from you. And so do your personnel. They may not say it openly, but it certainly is a salient topic in their minds.
How do you achieve consistency?
Three things are important here: corporate culture, clear vision and managerial involvement.
Corporate culture means the “tone at the top.” In other words, how you convey your professionalism and ethical bent to your staff. Are you a “laissez-faire” executive or a hands-on manager? I’m not passing judgment on leadership fitness here, but you must determine your managerial style to ascertain the right steps to take. Time and again, clients are telling me the virtues of clear communication in promoting camaraderie among the top management team, an important mindset that trickles down positively to the rank and file. To create a productive corporate culture, work with your Corporate Communications, Human Resources and Corporate Social Responsibility departments—and craft consistent, clear and frequent content to keep your personnel interested and involved.
Clear vision means you define and stick to a strategic plan, regardless of the whims of financial markets. I know; this is a difficult one. But clients who have remained true to their operational ideals tell me they have been better off over time. Not in one quarter or two years, but over time—meaning a reasonable period to harvest the operational seeds you’ve planted. Timing is essential here, and depending on your company’s situation, you may not have time. But don’t underestimate the importance of vision clarity.
Management involvement doesn’t mean basking in adulation in front of midlevel personnel, hoping they’ll execute your plans right off the bat because you’ve showered them with a few thousand bonus dollars or praised some of them for their unique leadership style.
See, it doesn’t happen that easy, my friend. You should create effective communication channels through which you can get feedback, and act on it. Have periodic town halls and out-of-town excursions to gauge manager morale. Seek their involvement when mulling strategy. I’ve seen that even small involvement can make a manager feel appreciated, which, in turn, boosts his or her morale and overall productivity. Happiness at work augments productivity, you know that already. But what you may not suspect is the overall positive effect that clarity of mind and employee welfare typically have on your bottom line. Don’t take my word for it; just read the brilliant article penned by Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton in Harvard Business Review, to see how investing in your staff can create happiness—and a happy uptick in your overall return on investment in the long term.
To your success,
Marquis Codjia
5 Tips on Résumé Writing
By Marquis Codjia
For a job applicant, résumé writing can be a powerful tool to obtain the dream job. For active workers, it serves as a way to build and maintain their professional brand name – in other words, it epitomizes how they portray and where they position themselves in the job market.
Due to this significance, extensive care should be exercised in drafting a résumé. Job seekers who understand the importance of a well-written résumé – but are unable to pen one – usually resort to professional résumé writers or occupational coaches. Although these specialists can provide invaluable advice in the job search process and produce a high-quality work, job applicants can also author excellent résumé if they strictly follow some simple rules.
Use proper grammar
A résumé provides an account of the relevant work experience and education. It introduces the job seeker to a potential employer; it is thus critical that the first impression – the résumé – be a good one. Employers rarely offer interviews to applicants with error-filled résumés, unless the job is in a field where proper English and good spelling are priorities. (Those jobs are rare). Applicants should write, proofread and edit their résumés until they’re satisfied with the quality. It is advised to have a second person – and even a third – proofread the résumé before sending it out to potential employers. Avoid common mistakes (e.g.: it’s vs. its, you’re vs. your, two vs. too vs. to, they’re vs. their); they reflect poorly on your work and your personality.
Write in a concise, professional manner
The résumé is a professional document that describes work accomplishments, among many things. As such, it should be written in a professional manner. It should also be concise, dealing directly with the relevant aspects of one’s career or academic life. Aspects of one’s private life that do not relate directly to – or are not pertinent to – the job sought should be avoided.
Be truthful
Integrity is the cornerstone of everyday’s life, whether in politics, business, or society. Voters rarely elect individuals perceived as lacking honesty; companies seldom partner with unreliable institutions or individuals. Consequently, it is absolutely important that the résumé be truthful in all its aspects because this affects one’s reputation. Warren Buffet once said: ‘It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ‘.
Include only your major, relevant achievements
Sometimes it is tempting to include an exhaustive list of accomplishments on the résumé to impress a potential employer. However, this can be counter-productive because employers often have many résumés to sift through and won’t spend too much time on a lengthy, verbose résumé. It is more effective to include only the major achievements that relate to the position sought.
Use your résumé as a marketing tool
The résumé is your ultimate tool to manage your brand name, your professional positioning. At each stage in a career, the résumé can serve to differentiate top-caliber candidates from the rest of the pack. To stay in the top-caliber, it is critical to use all the tips already mentioned, but also maintain an extensive professional network where the résumé can be periodically exposed.
Beyond Greece, Eurozone Has Other Achilles’ Heels
By Marquis Codjia
The current brouhaha over Greece’s budgetary mischance and its alleged adverse effects on Europe are an epochal episode in the history of the emergent European economic zone, but these are not the decisive areas where decision-makers, including political leaders and financial markets participants, should pay heed.
Greece’s debt pains would ultimately be resolved, because Eurozone behemoth Germany will strategically come in line with its continental peers; also, supranational channels – such as the European Central Bank and the IMF – will be coerced into using their balance sheets to provide liquidity to cash-strapped Hellenes.
The real fear presently is contagion – avoiding that the ambient financial pandemonium metastasizes into other economically comatose countries within the union. If any of these countries, clustered under the unflattering acronym of P.I.G.S. (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain), is downgraded by rating agencies – as was recently the case for Spain and Portugal who lost a few notches, the potential bailout costs and risk premia will rise stratospherically.
Eurozone leaders should swiftly settle Greece’s problems because of perception risks. No doubt the country is a financial and geostrategic dwarf (2% of Eurozone GDP and no major federal institution headquartered). Plus, other ‘weakest links’ such as Spain and Italy possess far greater self-financing capacities and have a different debt structure (domestically held vs. 95% of Greek debt held by foreigners). Notwithstanding, if trans-European perception is that Eurozone will not show geo-economic solidarity vis-à-vis its members in times of uncertainty, then the concept of political union loses its relevancy, and economic agents, including financial markets, will certainly reflect their despondency by driving the single currency lower.
Broadly, other systemic inefficiencies continue to thwart progress within the Eurozone.
First is the lack of a clear political structure in the federation. European leaders, particularly those from prominent countries (UK, Germany, France), seem at this point more content with a federal hierarchy replete with political figures (preferably from minor countries) who pose no leadership threat to them, and a plethora of bureaucratic institutions filled with functionaries picked on an unwritten pro-rata rule to satisfy member states. This strategic stance of an elusive political union grounded in an economic zone is antithetical to the very concept of federation that subtended the initial EU agreement.
To illustrate this, let’s consider a simple example: whom would current U.S. President Barack Obama or China Premier Wen Jiabao negotiate a strategic partnership with if either leader needs a European counterpart? Would they call upon the current President of the European Commission José Manuel Durão Barroso? Or the current President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy? Or the current (6-month rotating) President of the Council of the European Union José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero? Or EU heavyweights French President Nicolas Sarkozy or German Chancellor Angela Merkel? Or a combination of all of these leaders?
Second, the lack of a clear, single political leadership begets an absence of a uniform socio-economic agenda in the union. It seems as though European leaders want the pros of economic integration, but abhor its cons altogether without attempting to minimize or obliterate them. EU citizens must define what the Eurozone stands for: is it a free-trade area, similar to NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) or ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States), where partner countries retain their political, economic and social independence, and can compete against each other? Or is it a political and economic union steered by broadly uniform national social policies, similarly to a single country? Or is it, rather, something in between, or neither?
Third, European Central Bank’s powers must be broadened beyond price stability. Unlike the U.S. Fed, the bank’s only primary mandate at the moment is to keep inflation low, with other objectives subordinate to it. The ECB should intervene further in the regional economy, and help avoid systemic disequilibria if need be. In sum, the institution should be allowed to use its gigantic reserves to calm jittery markets in times of uncertainty, among other roles.
Fourth, Eurozone membership should be reviewed; this includes not only the admission process, but also membership conditions and stipulations for exclusion. Understandably, the political undertones of this process call for some diplomatic verbiage, but overall, countries seeking membership in the privileged “Club Euro” must meet stringent criteria, and such criteria should be thoroughly enforced. The current Stability and Growth Pact, which aims to limit budget deficits and debts, is a good start but the ineffective control scheme around it permitted the kind of statistical fraud that Greece authored when seeking admission nearly a decade ago. In sum, sound economic fundamentals and strict governance rule, in addition to geography, should be the rationale for co-opting new members into the Eurozone.
Finally, the EU enlargement process should pay special attention to two key dossiers: U.K. and Turkey. The argument here is not in favor of a quick admission (in Turkey’s case), but for a clearer acceptance framework, more effective than the current 31-chapter “Acquis Process”.
Both dossiers are complex and politically charged, but their quick resolution will do more good than harm to the EU. Turkey has many woes (human rights concerns, Cyprus dispute, perception of Islamism despite the country’s secularism, business regulation, etc.), but its advantages are also interesting. It is 16th largest GDP in the world – per IMF’s 2009 ranking, outpaced in the Eurozone only by Germany, U.K., France, Italy and Spain. This means that, out of the current 27 EU members, it ranks 6th on GDP measurement. The country is geographically larger than any EU member and its ca. 73 million citizens are outnumbered only by Germany’s ca. 82 million; this may open up potential new markets for growth-seeking EU businesses. Politically, Ankara is an important geostrategic ally of the West and a member of such key organizations as G-20, OECD and NATO.
As for the U.K., a current EU member that opted out of the Eurozone, its Labor Party-led government defined in the late 1990s five economic tests that must be met prior to adopting the Euro as national currency, either via parliamentary ratification or referendum. Euro adoption remains a domestic hot button issue and thus may not be addressed for many years. But, it’d be interesting to see how politicians and business leaders will react once the euro reaches parity with, or gradually outpaces, the pound sterling. So far, the euro has risen 65% vs. the pound, from a low of 57 cents in 2000 to 94 cents a decade later, briefly nearing parity late in 2008 (.98 in December 2008).
Obamanisme contre Reaganisme – Quel modèle économique pour sauver l’Amérique?
Par Marquis Codjia
Dans les années 80, Ronald Reagan déclarait avec emphase que «le gouvernement n’est pas une solution à notre problème», mais plutôt, que “le gouvernement est le problème.” Aujourd’hui, de nombreux spécialistes analysent le bien-fondé d’une telle affirmation à la lumière des plans de sauvetage massifs que les pouvoirs publics ont de part le monde enclenché pour préserver le tissu économique mondial.
Ces experts ne sont pas seuls. L’actuel chef de la Maison Blanche, qui a affirmé ouvertement pendant la campagne présidentielle de 2008 son admiration pour la personnalité politique de Reagan – au grand désarroi de certains irréductibles démocrates –, a jusqu’ici mené des politiques économiques trop antithétiques au Reaganisme.
Beaucoup d’Américains se remémorent le côté débonnaire, jovial et hollywoodien du Président Reagan ; pourtant, l’ancien dirigeant développa une érudition économique qui lui servit tout au long de la récession qui marqua sa présidence.
Face à une économie dysfonctionnelle au début de son mandat, le président Reagan enracina sa politique dans le dogme de l’économie de l’offre, promouvant un quatuor de mesures qui finirent par révolutionner la dynamique sociale de l’Amérique et relancer sa croissance.
Tout d’abord, il proposa des réductions d’impôt sur les fruits du travail et du capital pour inciter les entreprises et les entrepreneurs à investir et innover, tout en encourageant les contribuables, inondés de liquidités en raison du niveau d’épargne élevé, à consommer pour relancer la machine économique. Ensuite, la déréglementation de secteurs économiques ciblés visa à éviter des coûts inutiles pour les investisseurs. Troisièmement, il promut une série de coupures budgétaires importantes – à partir de 1981 – qui résultèrent en une réduction de 5% des dépenses publiques (environ 150 milliards $ EU courants). Quatrièmement, Reagan chercha à resserrer la politique monétaire pour combattre l’inflation.
Le plan du défunt président eut un succès mitigé.
L’inflation connut une baisse spectaculaire de 1980 à 1983 (13,2% vs 3,2%), les recettes fédérales augmentèrent à un rythme plus élevé que les dépenses (au taux moyen de 8,2% contre 7,1%), et les 16 millions d’emplois créés ont contribué à la chute du chômage de 3 points (7,5% par rapport à un pic en 1982 de 10,8%). D’autres dithyrambes du Cato Institute, think-tank libertarien, incluent une véritable augmentation du revenu médian des familles de 4000 $ EU et une augmentation de la productivité.
Cela dit, le reaganisme et ses paradigmes libéraux ont structurellement dévasté des pans du tissu socio-économique de l’Amérique: les coupes budgétaires couplées à la hausse des dépenses militaires dues à la guerre froide ont créé un gouffre béant dans les finances publiques (par exemple: déficits budgétaires importants, expansion du déficit commercial). En outre, une certaine culpabilité peut être attribuée au leader républicain en ce qui concerne le krach boursier de 1987 et la crise des banques d’épargne des années 80 et 90, tout simplement parce que, au minimum, ces deux crises survinrent sous son mandat. Afin de résorber les déficits budgétaires, l’administration se lança frénétiquement dans des emprunts obligataires qui catapultèrent la dette nationale de 700 milliards $ EU à 3 000 milliards $ EU, dont une partie (environ 125 milliards $ EU) servit à subventionner l’industrie de l’épargne bancaire paralysée par les faillites de 747 institutions.
Le mot-valise « Obamanisme » – utilisé pour décrire la politique économique actuelle défendue par le président américain Barack Obama – est un nouveau concept qui, naturellement, a besoin de temps pour se développer avant qu’une analyse plus poussée ne puisse être effectuée sur ses mérites.
De toute évidence, l’administration actuelle – face à une économie chaotique – a adopté jusqu’à présent, ou envisage d’adopter, des politiques diamétralement opposées aux préceptes de Reagan: impôts plus élevés, réglementation accrue, plus de dépenses et une politique monétaire laxiste.
L’initiative de sauvetage des banques du président Obama était correcte pour deux raisons: d’un côté, la décrépitude des marchés de capitaux aurait métastasé en un chaos général plus coûteux, et de l’autre, le fait que les banques sont maintenant relativement stables témoigne de l’efficacité du programme, malgré le travail restant à accomplir dans ce schéma de sauvetage bancaire.
Même si le plan de relance économique actuel prendra un certain temps pour atteindre les objectifs souhaités, les résultats préliminaires à ce jour sont tout à fait mixtes: les banques hésitent à prêter, le secteur des prêts hypothécaires est toujours léthargique, la consommation privée atone entrave les investissements des entreprises et la productivité économique mondiale. L’économie enregistre peu à peu des milliers d’emplois mais le taux de chômage reste encore à 9,7%.
Alors, entre l’Obamanisme et le Reaganisme, quel modèle économique peut sauver l’Amérique aujourd’hui?
La réponse est : aucun.
Aucune politique économique ancrée dans un dogme partisan ne peut sauver l’économie; pour être efficaces, les autorités doivent utiliser une combinaison d’idéologies, extirper les meilleures zones d’efficacité de chacune et les amalgamer dans un plan cohérent profondément enraciné dans les préceptes d’une l’économie prudentielle.
Premièrement, le gouvernement doit équilibrer son budget en maîtrisant les pertes bureaucratiques au niveau fédéral et étatique, en cherchant une plus grande efficacité dans ses programmes sociaux et en maintenant une base d’imposition capable de fournir des rentrées fiscales suffisantes. La récente nomination de Jeffrey Zients au poste de Chief Performance Officer (Chef des services de l’analyse de performance) des Etats-Unis est une heureuse décision.
Deuxièmement, le gouvernement et le pouvoir législatif doivent accepter de supprimer ou de réduire sensiblement les dépenses électoralistes ; même si certains des projets subventionnés sont valides, le manque de transparence et le fait que trop de pouvoir reste dans les mains d’un député sont des faits troublants. Citizens Against Government Waste (Citoyens contre le gaspillage des deniers publics), organisme privé et non-partisan, a estimé dans son dernier rapport de l’année 2009 que les dépenses électoralistes se sont élevées à 19,6 milliards $ EU, en hausse par rapport aux 17,2 milliards $ EU de l’année précédente.
Troisièmement, le gouvernement doit investir dans l’éducation, les sciences, la santé et les services de loisir afin d’assurer une main-d’œuvre productive et une population éduquée. Tout citoyen apprécie un bon système scolaire local, une police efficace, et des services sociaux opérationnels. Quatrièmement, un processus progressif et équilibré de réglementation des secteurs vitaux est nécessaire pour égaliser les chances de tous les agents économiques et éviter les effets négatifs des risques systémiques.
Enfin, le code fiscal devrait être plus efficace et plus facile à comprendre pour que plus de recettes soient recueillies. Actuellement, on estime qu’il coûte au fisc américain entre 25 et 30 centimes pour chaque dollar derecettes fiscales collectées, sans compter les milliards dépensés par les citoyens dans leur planification fiscale. Nous avons un code d’imposition foncière simplifié dans nos villes, pourquoi n’en serait-il pas de même au niveau fédéral?
Recent Comments