BUSINESS

BRUCE MEHLMAN, Assistant U.S. Commerce Secretary for Technology Policy, February 7, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What is your assessment of the future of nanobusiness and research and development in nanotechnologies? Is this potentially a revolutionary industry, or is it an industry with a risky and uncertain future? The Federal government is involved in assisting this research. How involved should the Federal government be with nanotechnological research?
MEHLMAN: Although the hype is at times excessive considering how early in its development we are, nanotechnology stands as the next great frontier for exploration and conquest---perhaps the greatest scientific frontier we’ve ever faced. The ability to manipulate matter at the atomic level---to build new materials and devices molecule by molecule---promises more change in the next 30 years than we saw in all of the 20th century.
The National Science Foundation predicts the market for nanotech products and services will reach over $1 trillion in the United States alone. Leading experts gathered by NSF predicted nanotech’s impact will be at least as significant as antibiotics, the integrated circuit, and man-made polymers were in the 20th century.
The Bush Administration is very excited about the future of nanotech, investing $679 million (up 61% over 2001). Nine Federal agencies are involved in a cooperative National Nanotechnology Initiative, working closely with academic and industry scientists across the country to advance this research.

JAMES K. GLASSMAN, American Enterprise Institute Resident Fellow, March 20, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have any opinion on whether Compaq should merge with Hewlett-Packard?
GLASSMAN: It’s a close call. I am a huge fan of Dell (I own the stock), and Dell has clobbered Compaq and Gateway, especially during this recession. The computer box biz is a commodity biz. So my first impression is that this is an awfully strange thing for HP to do---buying Compaq. Still, in the end, I would probably vote for the merger. Fiorina is a smart operator and she clearly sees value in Compaq, and she is getting the company at a decent price.
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t it nearly impossible to make accurate stock market forecasts? If that was the case, investors would immediately purchase the good stocks and cause their price to increase until they were no longer a decent investment to make.
GLASSMAN: Yes, yes, yes. It is impossible to predict the market. That’s why one of the chapter in my new book, “The Secret Code of the Superior Investor”, is titled “Don’t Watch CNBC in Broad Daylight”. The TV shows, like most newsletters, concentrate on predictions and market timing---which simply cannot be done successfully. Certainly, if most investors today think the market is going up, then that information is reflected in the market today. What moves the market is NEW news. Stuff that no one knows about right now. The market is not perfectly priced, of course. There are mistakes. But in general, it reflects the knowledge of millions of people with a huge incentive to get prices right. It takes a lot of hubris to think you can outfox it.

ROB ADAMS, author, April 10, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: How do you know when you have a killer product? If you ship a product to the market too fast and it bombs in sales, you misjudged that it is a killer product. Yet, if you test market it too long, you’ve missed sales opportunities. What is your advice on balancing these?
ADAMS: You have a killer product when your customers tell you that you have one. Some of the signs are people are so anxious to get it they’ll take it in an incomplete form, they are not cost sensitive to what you are offering, and they are willing to sing your praises to their peers.

PAUL TIFFANY, University of Pennsylvania Wharton School Adjunct Management Professor, July 31, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: How would you compare business ethics of today to that of the 19th century? Is it different crimes for different eras, or do you think there has been some maturity in ethical behavior whereas lapses, though, still occur?
TIFFANY: Your recollections of the so-called “robber barons” are no doubt being vividly refreshed these days. Indeed, the scale of the current round of corporate scandals, at least in terms of the dollars involved in some of them, compares favorably to those of the past. But how far can we extend the comparison?
Let’s begin with a brief overview. It is always worth recollecting that American was---and is, above all else---a capitalist nation. As Carl Degler, the late Stanford historian, once noted, “capitalism came to American in the first ships that landed here from Europe.” Unlike the nation states of Europe, the business interests---the bourgeoisie---did not have to overthrow a landed aristocracy in order to assume power. There existed, essentially from the first European settlers onward, a profound belief in the positive value of making money. And just as strongly these new immigrants also believed that the role of government was not to inhibit the individual accumulation of money, but rather it should be a force to assist it.
This notion of individual primacy over the collective is at the heart of the American experiment in democracy. Fearing, and in many cases fleeing directly from, a powerful state, the so-called “founding fathers” consciously created a new nation in which the government could not interfere in the individual wealth creating activities of its citizens (or at least not as much). This is, perhaps, the single most critical issue that differentiates us from our forebears in the “old country”.
This ethic of individual wealth creation amidst a weak government is still with us. It continues to amuse me to hear those who complain about the power of government relative to business, as if they did just a bit of comparative analysis it should be obvious that America has done the least to constrain its businesspeople relative to other advanced nations.
So, that being said, we have given our business interest a large responsibility: that are to pursue their activities in a largely self-regulated manner. And the result? A long history of abuses by those who would not/could not place the public interest over their own desire for wealth outside the existing norms. The “robber barons” might have been among the first, but their legacy lives on today.
CZIKOWSKY: What do you believe Congress should do, if anything, regarding corporate responsibility?
TIFFANY: Do something which, unfortunately, they appear utterly incapable of doing: clean up political campaign financing. They have prostituted themselves to donors, who because of the nature of American society are primarily (but not only) corporations. As such, they give in way too much in order to source funds that they perceive necessary to stay in office (and which is more than perception, it is actual). But can they do this? So far, no. McCain-Feingold is the aberration, not the rule.

LAWRENCE MITCHELL, George Washington University Law School Professor, August 14, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: How well do most CEOs know the details of their company’s finances that they could capably ascertain that the company’s financial records are accurate?
MITCHELL: CEOs should know their financials pretty well. In the original concept of this certification (that CEOs file sworn statements attesting to the accuracy of these reports), that CEOs be absolutely liable, I was opposed to it, because it created the incentive for CEOs to spend all of their time looking at the numbers rather than running the business. The certification is to the best of their knowledge after examining the financials. That seems perfectly reasonable. It at least forces them to ask more questions about unusual things they see---Bernie Ebbers would never have been able to get away from such a requirement.

ARTHUR LEVITT, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman, November 20, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What do you think of the criticism that accounting has become so advanced that it has lost its effectiveness? In other words, we can handle and verify so much data that accountants can scrutinize books and records at great detail over time. Yet, there are less people going into the field verifying there really is a company with actual inventory there. Indeed, with high tech companies, there often is no inventory to verify. Hasn’t this new era of investment opportunities made investing riskier, and regulating these companies more difficult?
LEVITT: Yes, the tons of new products available in the market today increases the leverage and increases the penalties for mistakes as well as the time to correct these mistakes. I think we have to take a fresh look at both accounting and auditing standards to address loss of public confidence as well as some of the legitimate concerns by the accounting profession about some of the issues you raise.

FRANK AHERNS, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 13, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: When (former AOL Chairman Steve) Case sold his AOL stock, was this public information? If so, how does one find out when an executive is selling his company’s stock? When this happens, why doesn’t the press publicize this more?
AHERNS: Yes, it is public in SEC filings and you’re right, we should report on it better. Usually, it comes in stories like today’s. In 2001, Case cashed in something like $120 million in AOL TW options.

JASON WILSON, writer, February 10, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Who writes greeting cards, and how do these people get their jobs? Most Americans assume Maxwell Smart writes greeting cards while secretly serving as a secret agent. Who really writes those writings?
WILSON: The creative people at Hallmark come from all walks of life---former schoolteachers and college professors, nurses, journalists, actors, engineers, housewives, and even former card shop employees.
The thing they all have in common is that they’ve all impressed the company’s editors with their writing in a portfolio of creative writing exercises that Hallmark gives to every potential hire.

ELIOT SPITZER, New York Attorney General, May 2, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Thank you for you fine efforts in protecting investors. Few state Attorneys General have been willing to take on corporate malfeasance as well as you have. How much of a deterrent factor do you believe this will have? It is upsetting to see a continual stream of lack of ethics in the investment community. Do you believe there will now be a general awareness and return towards ethics in Wall Street?
SPITZER: The structural reforms we put in place will eliminate many of the incentives to wrongdoing that led to the general debasement of analytical work in the investment world over the last couple years. Having said that, one of the most important deterrents certainly will be the civil and criminal actions that will be brought against individual analysts in the years ahead. These cases take longer to make than the overarching cases against the companies, so the structural reforms were put in place first and the individual actions will follow in the future.

STEVEN PEARLSTEIN, Washington Post Business Columnist, June 11, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: There is a report that some in Congress are questioning the severance pay given to some of those recently dismissed from Freddie Mac. Do you have any information on what these questions are?
PEARLSTEIN: I’m sure Congress and the regulators will be all over that. There may be some severance that is due under employment contracts signed years ago. Unless the employee engaged in some sort of fraud or gross negligence, it will be hard to get out of those obligations, though.

GUSTAVO TORRES, CASA de Maryland Executive Director, October 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: One thing that upsets me about the English Only movement is, for those that demand that public documents be published only in English, they fail to recognize that some employers fail to inform their non-English speaking employees that they have rights that may be different from what they had in other countries. I believe labor rights forms should be in multiple languages and posted in areas where people live so they may learn the guarantees that our country provides and so they may learn how to report labor law violations. Would you agree and, if so, what should government be doing to better inform non-English speaking employees of their rights?
TORRES: I agree that employers and local and state agencies, and the Federal government, each need to do more to inform workers about their workplace rights. Unfortunately, we see many cases where employers exploit workers, whom they perceive do not know about their rights. Knowledge is power.

JIM CITRIN, author, December 1, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: John Lennon once said “Life is what happens while you’re planning to do other things”. Isn’t a lot of creating our success not that we will necessarily follow the path we think we are building, but because we have gained the preparations (through education and experience) that allows us more paths to take (i.e. “luck”).
CITRIN: One of the more inspiring findings from our research was exactly as you describe, that most who reach extraordinary success are not necessarily those who planned for it in a methodical fashion. In fact, there is a negative correlation between those who try to micro-manage their way to a CEO position and the actual attainment of those posts. So, indeed, those who apply the patterns over time end up finding themselves in those kinds of role for which they’re most naturally suited. Call it luck, call it divine intervention or call it applying the five patterns (“The 5 Patterns of Extraordinary Careers” by Richard Smith and Jim Citrin). Those people who find a way over time to play to their strengths and work in an environment that is a great natural fit for them will be those who are most professionally and personally satisfied.

WILLIAM GASKIN, Precision Metalforming Association President, December 2, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: As a lowering of tariffs will cause more job loss, or, if you dispute that, should it cause job loss, what plans should the Federal government have in place for economic conversion policies that will create new jobs for these displaced employees?
GASKIN: Eliminating the steel tariffs will not cause job loss for the overall U.S. manufacturing economy—it should help create new jobs. There are 57 jobs in steel consuming industries for every job in the steel producing industry. Much of the reorganization of steel producing companies, and related job losses have been completed, so an end to the tariffs will help steel-consuming companies rebound and create new jobs.

JEAN CHATZKY, author, December 18, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: There was an Economics Professor who taught at Yale University who was a notorious grumpy person who one day stated “what good is money, all it can do is buy you happiness?” It is interesting you used a survey (in her book “You Don’t Have to Be Rich”). I am glad to see that. While some people place too much faith in statistical data, I see too many financial advice books that offer no quantitative backing for what they state. How did you develop the population you sampled?
CHATZKY: I worked with the folks at Roper ASW. They pulled together 1,500 Americans who were representative of the U.S. adult population demographically. They then analyzed the data for me--I’m not a statistician—and helped me understand what it was really saying so that I wouldn’t come to conclusions that weren’t defensible. It was a really interesting, wonderful experience.

CHRISTIE HEFNER, Playboy Enterprises Chair, December 23, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Is there any division of Playboy and its enterprises that has yet to turn a profit? What do you account for your business success: do you do intensive market studies, or do you decide to continue and expand your expertise into other ventures and hope for the best?
HEFNER: All four divisions of the company (Publishing, Television, Licensing, and On Line) are profitable. Playboy On Line reached break-even, as planned, at the end of last year, and this year has been a solid profit contributor. We made two significant moves to grow the enterprise: into pay TV in the 80’s and onto the Internet in the 90’s. In both cases it was a combination of seeing an opportunity driven by a new technology, understanding (through research) the power of the Playboy brand and its ability to move into other media and then developing and carefully monitoring business plans and budgets.
CZIKOWSKY: What was it like growing up with your famous father?
HEFNER: Well, I didn’t really get to grow up with my father. He was away, building the magazine and the company. My mother remarried when I was very young and I grew up in a pretty typical upper middle class home in the suburbs of Chicago, attending New Trier High School.
So, although I never saw my father except for birthdays and Christmas, my mother really raised me. And, to the extent I turned out well, she gets all the credit.

KIM MASTERS, author, February 13, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Michael Eisner is the identity of Disney. Mention his name; people know which company is his. What alternative management styles could Disney have taken, and would Disney be significantly different had it been led by another, or led by committee, as many other companies are?
MASTERS: Wow. This is a question that Roy Disney has strong feelings about. He has addressed it point by point and you can check out his point of view at his website. But certainly Eisner has made decisions that haven’t worked for the company. The California Adventure theme park has disappointed the public and performed poorly. The ABC network has stalled for years. It had a brief blip with “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” But the network programmed it four nights a week and when the fad ended, the network was left with a bare cupboard. Disney has also failed to produce strong home-grown animation for years. It still faces litigation over Eisner’s hiring and firing of Michael Ovitz. It lost the case over the dismissal of Jeffery Katzenberg…You get the idea.

KIM MASTERS, author, March 4, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: George Mitchell, to me, is one of the great political heroes who was an excellent Governor, Senator, and negotiator for our country. I am not surprised to learn he is now part of the Disney leadership. What strengths does he bring to his new position, and what are the greatest challenges he is likely to face? MASTERS: Given the record to which you allude, the great challenge Mitchell faces is credibility. It may not seem fair to those who respect his political record but in the context of Disney, that will not be the issue. (Maybe Ireland seemed simple compared with this.) He has no strong operational executive background that I’m aware of and given Eisner’s long history of running things on his own, few expect Mitchell to have a big impact.
CZIKOWSKY: Do George Mitchell and Michael Eisner get along? Is there going to be a major clash between the two and, if so, what does that mean for the company? If they get along, will that anger the stockholders who want to see that Eisner is totally removed?
MASTERS: Obviously George Mitchell and Eisner have been allies. Eisner wanted to hire him as a number two man in the past. Mitchell has been a board member, then presiding director, and now chairman. Most of Eisner’s long term business relationships do seem to end in bitter clashes (e.g. Katzenberg, Ovitz) but so far, he and Mitchell seem to be united. I have to assume that Mitchell might be telling him privately that the company needs to work out a graceful exist strategy for him. Eisner might perceive that as a betrayal.
CZIKOWSKY: In my observation of corporate culture as a client of Disney and Comcast, I may find the smiles and attempt to help at Disney fake, but at least they are smiling and someone always is attempting, perhaps begrudgingly, to help. At Comcast, I have observed a corporate culture of not caring for clients. Employees aren’t smiling; they seem bothered you are there. They can never help you, and they have no idea who to connect you with that can solve your problem, and you are presented a long maze of people who can’t help you until you ultimately reach a recorded message of a person who never returns your call. Further, I have learned from people in electronics stores they have a series of ways to dissuade disgruntled customers seeking to end service that they instead need non-existent electronic equipment that customers are told will solve their problem in hopes they will give up and retain, or at least extend while hunting for this equipment, their Comcast service. To me, Comcast is a huge, non-caring entity that has practices that shows they don’t care about customers, and that they would rather cheat their customers than build good will. In sum, do you believe Disney would lose its corporate culture if it were gobbled up by an even more giant and more alienated corporation?
MASTERS: Maybe Disney shareholders have expressed a similar concern. Nothing could be more foolish for any owner or executive than degrading the Disney brand, but greed makes many people foolish.

JODIE ALLEN, US News & World Report Managing Editor, March 8, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: We in Pennsylvania are being told not to worry about job losses that are being outsourced to other countries because the total number of American jobs eventually will increase. As I told a reporter once, I will suggest you do the same: take a survey of 10 people at U.S. News and ask them whether they all would be willing to lose their jobs if they knew that 15 new jobs would emerge elsewhere in the country? My question: why isn’t more done on economic conversion policies to help with the specific jobs that are lost?
ALLEN: I think we both know what the answer to your survey would be—altruism is no more alive at US News than anywhere else; like everyone else we have families to feed. For decades there have been lots of “trade adjustment assistance programs” that try to retrain and relocate displaced workers and their record is poor. The problem, I think, is that the only kind of training with a solid payoff record in on-the-job training and that means the initiative has to come from companies creating jobs, and that’s very hard for government to simulate.

MIKE FLAGG, Washington Post Business Editor, April 26, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What do you see as the long term prospects for these top 200 companies (in the Washington, D.C. area) staying in your area at the same or higher employment levels? Many were burned by the explosion of high tech companies that rapidly grew and then imploded. Do today’s companies appear to you as steady and secure enterprises, or do you fear some many leave the area or downsize within a few years?
FLAGG: Good question. Employment, as you know, has been growing here though the recent down years for the national economy, unlike in much of the rest of the nation. Last year, I think, we added in the area of about 17,000 people. But then, of course, there are the industries that continued to bleed people, especially telecom. Those guys aren’t even close to the employment levels of a couple years ago. So it depends, of course, on where you are and in what industry Now, though, telecom seems to be stabilizing (at least in employment levels) and I think generally most industries will have a good year this year and their employment will be stable or grow somewhat. As for the companies themselves, we’ve seen the number of public companies here shrink from 161 in 2002 to 141 now. They’ve gone under, been bought out or, like Savvis, moved away. So we are seeing fewer corporate name plates, but it seems to be more of a natural attrition than some kind of structural thing. For one, the number of public companies got a little inflated after a bunch of IPOs in the tech boom of the lat 1990s, so the rate of new public companies coming into the market that we have now may be more of a natural rate. I wouldn’t read anything too dire into it.

ROBBIE MILLER KAPLAN, career expert, May 14, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: A guy has on his resume that he once won the Philadelphia Beer Chugging Contest. I advise him to take it off his resume. He sees it as an asset that prospective employers may see that he will be good at schmoozing prospective clients. What do you say: take it off, or keep it on the resume?
KAPLAN: Wow—I’ve heard of including golf for that reason but nor beer chugging. What response has he gotten from his statement? My sense would be to take it off.

ALEX KLEIN, Washington Post Staff Writer, June 17, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Some say everyone has a price. What will it take to allow (Time Warner) to allow the Internet line to be sold?
KLEIN: That’s the multi-billion-dollar question. Periodically, sources close to AOL tell me that Steve Case, the former AOL Chairman, would still like to buy the ailing division, run it himself and show the rest of the world that it’s a good thing after all. And yet, Dick Parsons, the CEO of Time Warner, has repeatedly said in public that he has no plans to sell the division. Why, he said, would he sell something at its low point? And now that the division is beginning to pick up, there may be even less incentive to sell.

CAROLYN HAX, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 6, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I believe one can learn a lot from a person from how he or she treats animals. I once recommended someone who seemed to be a sharp, enthusiastic, dynamic person for a job which he got. I ignored the disturbing fact that he cruel towards his dog when I visited him at his home. It turned out he was devious and mentally cruel in his new position. I will never trust an animal abuser again.
HAX: As you shouldn’t. I also think the way people treat those in service jobs is telling—waiters, receptionists, anyone who isn’t in a position to fight back. That’s when the real bullies come out.

HAROLD EVANS, Sir, author, November 15, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Who do you believe are the great inventors of today, and what qualities do they have to make your list?
EVANS: Greatest innovators of today have to include Steve Jobs and Pierre Omidyar (ebay). Qualities: vision and persistence, but as Georges Doriot says in my book—he was the inventor of venture capitalism: “If you have a grade A man with a grade B idea and a grade B man with a grade A idea, go with the grade A man.”

MARCELLE LANGAN DiFALCO and JOCELYN GREENKY HERZ, authors, January 10, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: As one woman said, “of course there is a glass ceiling” in the business world. Her recommendation was to carefully sweep up all the glass after a woman breaks through it. Good advice?
HERZ: It is sound advice to support other women in the workplace. It’s taken us all a very long time to move up and to secure these positions at all levels at the salary that we want and the benefits we want. Glass ceilings are tough because many times, we (women) can see the job we want and then we choose to have children and it slips from us temporarily.
We are all doing a great job of balancing family and jobs…now we need our corporations to support us and each other.
CZIKOWSKY: Who would you consider to be good role models in the business world?
HERZ: My role models vary. I respect people who have launched their own careers. I respect people who have clearly respected others while managing their business.
“The Apprentice” has done wonders for Donald Trump and showcasing his ability as a manager. He respects his employee’s opinions, he manages his business without emotions, he demands only the top quality people as employes, he works in his particular line of business because he LOVES it.
I respect Dana Fields, a woman that I worked for at Rolling Stone magazine. At that time she was the publisher of Rolling Stone and US magazine. She is now the President of FHM Publishing. She was always very straight-forward with me. Her directions were black and white. She was a woman who was very senior to me and supportive. She evaluated all business situations with a sharp eye and tongue. She never took any business situation personally. To this day, I would work for her again.
I respect David Pecker who brilliantly ran Hachette Filipacchi and now owns and runs American Publishing.
DiFALCO: I tend to respect any business person that is respectful. When you think of people with whom you have worked and would work with again in a heartbeat…those are the best role models, no matter on what level they wrok..and yeah, Bary from the M. Shankden mailroom, that means you!

GEORGE ANDERS, author, February 10, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What happens to Carly Fiorina (ousted executive at Hewlett-Packard) now? What do you see as her most likely career path?
ANDERS: Interesting question. My guess is that she’ll take at least six months to collect herself, etc.
After that, I’m sure there will offers of corporate board seats, jobs at smaller companies, etc. But given the turmoil at HP, my guess is that these will be at much less prominent businesses, and that they may not appeal to her.
She’s been interested in government and education for a long time. I think it would be hard for her to win an election, but it wouldn’t surprise me if she eventually got some interesting appointed post.

BOB WOODWARD, Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor, March 1, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What do you think George Mitchell’s presence does to the Disney corporation? Does he bring in some sense of sanity while maintaining Eisner’s trust, or is he too much of an Eisner ally to really accomplish much?
WOODWARD: The information about George Mitchell, the former Senate Democratic leader, emphasizes his passivity. His character really doesn’t come alive in the book (“Disney Wars”). It’s one of the areas I would have liked to see more on.
CZIKOWSKY: It was interesting reading your review (of “Disney Wars”) along with that of Edward Epstein’s new book. It seems that while we have greater choices in channels and entertainment selections, there are six companies that own the vast majority of all television networks (including cable networks) and movie studios. Are independent voices being drowned out, or may they continue to be heard although by smaller audiences, or is there some sense of obligation among the leaders of the large media corporations to allow independent and creative voices find avenues to be heard?
WOODWARD: There are actually lots of independent movies and other entertainment that does get distributed, probably not enough, but it’s approaching—or at times approaches—a situation similar to the Internet. There are incredible numbers of small independent movies that get around and get into theaters or get on television. By and large, the big studios have the hammer, but it seems to me there is a trend toward democratization.

NORMAN M. SCARBOROUGH, Presbyterian College Information Science Associate Professor, November 7, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Many new small businesses offer no benefits to employees. Is this giving them a competitive advantage against older businesses or may it cause such businesses to experience slow growth as they may face difficulty in obtaining and keeping a skilled and dedicated workforce that might for soon leave for employment with benefits?
SCARBOROUGH: You’ve hit on an issue that many business owners face today. Small companies often find that they cannot afford (especially in the face of ever-climbing healthcare costs) to offer the benefit packages that their larger competitors do, which makes it more difficult to attract and retain quality workers.
However, owners of small companies can use their creativity to reward their employees in other ways. One way is to offer key potential employees a share of the company’s profits, something that not only gives them an incentive to stay but also to work hard to make the business more profitable. As the company grows, so does their compensation.
Also, owners of small companies can do lots of little things for their employees that managers at large companies cannot. One entrepreneur rented a move theater in the middle of the day and treated all of his workers to a movie---on company time. Others have provided refrigerators stocked with snacks and lunches for workers to enjoy. Promoting from within gives employees the chance to move up a small organization must faster than they could at a large business. Also, praise and recognition not only are powerful motivators but they also are quite inexpensive.

E.J. GRAFF, Brandeis Institute for Investigative Journalism Senior Researcher, November 14, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t it a shame we seem to have two sense of how to handle sexual harassment: the overreaction and the total neglect of it. While there are bosses who physically grab and demand sex from women and the company looks the other way, there are other companies that make it a rule that there are to be no jokes of any kind whatsoever and, essentially, no socializing at all so the place is a drab place to work. What will it take for managers to realize the seriousness of the problem without reducing it to ridiculous levels?
GRAFF: That’s a very astute comment. A number of people have written in saying that, at their workplaces, someone can get their hands slapped simply for telling a bad joke. I don’t know what to do about the overly managed workplaces, but I can say this: only when there’s “zero tolerance” for real harassment (as in, day after day of: hey, honey, while you’re down there, why not give me a blow job?) can it be stopped from metastasizing into a truly hostile experience that exhausts women and puts lives at risk. Good luck lightening up the overly careful workplaces, but I worry more about the women with no protection at all.

TOM GARDNER, The Motley Fool Co-Founder, November 28, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: How does one learn all that is needed to survive? For instance, if I want to start a magazine, how does one learn how to get distributors to accept it? I am worried that one could know the most about a skill, but getting someone to buy may be a big risk. Isn’t it true that many good ideas fold? How can that be avoided?
GARDNER: Indeed, it is true. Most businesses fail. Why? In my experience, it’s because their founders gamble (often without knowing it). They make big bets before they’ve ever mastered the small bet.
Focus, instead, on making small bets. If you want to start a magazine, how about creating a single abbreviated issue in an online format and emailing it to friends and family. This is precisely how The Motley Fool started. I don’t want to blunder by using the hammer-nail analogy (once you learn how to use a hammer, everything looks like a nail), but in this case, my experience and my observations have aligned.
Starting small, proving out the concept, seeing whether you really love the undertaking…this approach leads to far many more and far greater successes than the decision to go big or go home at the outset.
CZIKOWSKY: One problem I note that some new small business operators face is that they don’t know what they don’t know: they start a business without knowing about zoning restrictions or the laws regarding workers compensation, unemployment compensation, and making payroll deductions. Is there a good resource for small business owners to learn what they need to know about the legalities of owning a business?
GARDNER: NOLO Press often has useful information. I don’t know if it would be useful for local concerns.

KELLY PERDUE, “The Apprentice 2” winner, January 23, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Many private organizations have found benefits to a military style of organization. Chains of command and flow of information are clear. Yet, a complaint in the private sector is these military type models can be too rigid and that the private sector demands more flexibility and thinking outside of the box. How would you recommend reconciling this?
PERDUE: I disagree. All good plans (including military plans!) have flexibility built into them. You can call it scenario planning, contingency planning or whatever, but every good military planner includes this. In fact, “Flexibility” is one of the key leadership principles I discuss in my book, “Take Command”.

PEPPER SCHWARTZ, PerfectMatch.com relationship expert, February 8, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I don’t know about your match company, but aren’t several of these match companies basically frauds? Didn’t one company essentially send customers fake ads of beautiful women who responded and enticed the men to keep their memberships extended, and then failed to meet them, and then it turned out they were employees sending out these messages to scores of men?
SCHWARTZ: Actually, I think that accusation was proved to be false---it was made against Match.com, the biggest company, and I think it was found to be totally made up I know several companies, such as our own, perfectmatch,com, e-harmony, match.com, matchmaker.com and yahoo.com—and I know that is not true for any of them---some of the newer ones may not be dependable---I can’t vouch for all of them---but most I think are really careful about having internal integrity---after all, you lose that---you are done for!

SHEL ISRAEL, author, February 24, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I am finding the old adage that “the customer is always right is an ancient myth. Often customers speak to an employee whose job it is to take complaints and keep repeating there is nothing they can do about it. So, hasn’t business really forced consumers to respond in the last place they can: take their complaints to the Internet?
ISRAEL: I agree with your frustration with businesses who seem to have used technology and other practices to relegate customers out to the edge of the organization. But the Internet—and blogging—are part of the solution. Bogs, and SS subscriptions, are extremely empowering. Companies that refuse to listen to customers are suffering the consequences of not realizing that every unhappy customer now has a powerful tool that lets them share their frustration with the rest of the world. It’s a lot better than shouting at your TV set. Companies like Dell Computer, Electronic Arts, and a great many others are learning they can suffer immensely by ignoring the blogsophere.

STEVEN L. KATZ, author, March 22, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Some of what you write reminds me of the old management theory that people rise to their level of incompetentcy: meaning that people who perform well at lower level positions are promoted to higher level positions where different skills are required and people continue to be promoted, as long as they demonstrate they have the job skills for the current position, until they reach a job where they do not excel at the job skills required for that higher level job. What are your thoughts on that theory?
KATZ: I believe that there is a hidden dimension to people’s careers when they are promoted to manager, boss, or executive and no one in the private or the public sector bothers to teach or train them on how to do it.
As a result, whether the person had strengths or not as an employee or specialist, unless they are an unusual person (and some do exist) they are not living and working in a fish bowl and it is their incompetencies as bosses that shine through.
I have worked with too many leaders and bosses and helped them be successful in new ways to simply accept the phrase you have suggested as truth—and that is why I believe most people’s real job is to be a lion tamer—and by the way, if they roar back, guess what, you’ve got their attention!
CZIKOWSKY: I have an attorney who advises his associates that there are times to “mad dog” it: in other words, if you are not getting what you want from an office, throw an outrageous tantrum until you get what you want. How does one deal with people who are “mad dogging” it?
KATZ: Mad dogs and mean swinging lions are a lot alike. What you are seeing is “overkill” which is a pretty inarticulate way for people to use emotion instead of words and feel that they need to demonstrate their dominances all at once.
My approach is to stand my ground in perhaps a more direct way than people may try—and the way I do it is to tell them right back to their face that ‘I want to help you but not when you are screaming at me, so you decided, should we do it now or do you want to schedule a meeting?”
You can say no to the mad dog or lion respectfully and with candor, but if you back down they’ve got you. On page 237 of my book “Lion Taming” there is a set of great stories both from real lion tamers and professionals in the workplace who have had to say no to the lion and you may find them useful.

WAYNE W. ECKERSON, Data Warehousing Institute Research Director, March 22, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Would you please briefly explain what the performance measures are that you see as the ones that should best be considered in evaluating a company?
ECKERSON: My book (“Performance Dashboards”) has a list of evaluation criteria in the appendix. I’m currently turning this into an Excel spreadsheet that companies can use and modify to evaluate multiple products.
CZIKOWSKY: What steps should businesses take to see that they not only recognize dashboard warning but they then respond to the information and act accordingly? Too often I see companies that see the warning signs but ignore them.
ECKERSON: Good question. I suspect two things are happening: 1.) the alerts are not set finely enough so that people are either getting bombarded with too many of the alerts they see aren’t really urgent. 2). People aren’t being held accountable for the metrics and the processes they measure.
A common mistake is that people publish too many metrics on a dashboard. They don’t really prioritize metrics by aligning them with strategy and thus over-saturate users.

LOUANN BRIZENDINE, neuropsychiatrist, August 22, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I now an executive who states she always wants both females and males in the decision making process because she believes woman and men can bring totally different perspectives to the decision making process. Would you agree with this, and what is it about male and female brains that allows each to see different perspectives on problem solving?
BRIZENDINE: In Chapter Six: “Emotion” The Feeling Brain” (of the book “The Female Brain”) I describe in the story of Sarah and Nick how the female brain is working to pick up on emotional nuance and emotional meaning through activating her “mirro neurons” and describe the basic brain differences in taking into account and reading the emotional situations and intentions of others better. The female brain brings a different perspective to problem solving than the male—we need “all kinds of minds” to run this complicated world we live in!

ALEX YEARSLEY, Global Witness Director, December 12, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Are there any diamonds you would recommend as fine to purchase? If so, how does one learn that these are the proper diamonds to purchase?
YEARSLEY: That is a tough one-as an independent organization we can’t promote or recommend any particular diamond company…however an easy way around it is to purchase antique jewelry…remember as soon as you buy a new diamond: as soon as you walk out the door you have lost 25% to 5-% of its purchase value…they don’t tell you that when you buy it.

BENJAMIN BARBER, author, April 10, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: How has this (the premise of his book “Consumed”) changed over recent decades? I remember TV commercials from the 1960s that told children to run and tell their parents to buy them things. Did this generation of young people grow up more commercialized?
BARBER: We have of course lived in a consumer society for a long time. Remember Galbraith’s “Affluent Society”? And the concern with “conspicuous consumption”? That was a half century ago. But the totalizing of market society, and the ubiquitous marketing cultures and the targeting of children have all become far more pervasive in the last thirty or forty years. Particular since the “privatization” that came with President Reagan.

LESLIE BENNETTS, author, April 17, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I recall it was a mantra in the 1970s that women could have it all” career and a family, and this was in a decade when far fewer women tried both. As more women tried it, many found success, and others found difficulties balancing the two. I am wondering how your own perceptions have evolved. Did you enter journalism being career oriented and remained so for several decades, and now looking back, how have your own attitudes evolved?
BENNETTS: I worked for the Philadelphia Bulletin for five years, for The New York Times for ten years, and I’ve been a writer at Vanity Fair for 19 years. Yes, I have a lot of experience as a reporter! During the early years of my career, I did not have children, but after becoming a mother I never would have considered depending on my husband to support us. In more than three decades as a reporter, I’ve seen too many women’s lives ruined by assuming they would be taken care of in that way. I have been married to my husband, the father of my two children, for nearly twenty years, but I always understood that I had to take responsibility for myself, whether I was married or not.

STANLEY BING, author, August 2, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: If an estimated one fifth of the population suffers from a mental health ailment, presumably some people with mental health issues have made their way into management. Has there been any study as to what percentage of manages suffer from mental health ailments, or what would be your estimate from what you have observed?
BING: I think virtually ALL managers suffer from mental health ailments. The ones who don’t have an ulcer.

RANDALL PINKETT, “The Apprentice” season 4 winner, August 30, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: When I was in college, I recall that some of the entrepreneurs of small campus businesses indeed went on to organize and run their own companies. How should students best organize and use their campus experiences to prepare themselves for the outside world: is it best to get a feel for business, learn to deal with people, or what?
PINKETT: The best way for students to use their campus experience is threefold: 1.) network with other students, 2.) build meaningful relationships with mentors (i.e. professors and alumni, etc. with entrepreneurial experience) and 3.) gain experience, either through launching your own venture or working and/or even volunteering in another venture. Campuses are great environments for feeding the entrepreneurial spirit these days. Also look for business plan competitions, courses, and student clubs/organizations focused on entrepreneurship.
CZIKOWSKY: In your future business life, which of your fellow Apprentice contestants would you consider hiring in your company?
PINKETT: I would consider hiring quite a few of my fellow Apprentice contestants. In fact, Josh Shaw and I are working together right now. My company, BCT Partners, is helping him launch his next entrepreneurial venture. I would also be excited to work with Alla, Felisha, Mark, Marcus, Marshawn, Chris, Kristi, Jennifer, and Clay, as I have kept in touch with all of them.

STEPHEN R. COVEY, author, July 17, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How quantifiable are your observations? For instance, are people able to identify the characteristics you describe as existing within successful organizational leadership teams and then are able to calculate that more successful organizations have these traits than those that do not?
COVEY: Yes. Our observations are quantifiable. We have tested them in man, many environments so we are confident that our findings can be institutionalized, enculturated, and transferrable to any organization, public or private. We look at four basic criteria to define greatness. First, sustainable superior performance from an economic angle. Second, a winning culture of unleashed people measured by xQ (execution quotient). Third, high next promoting score from customers and all business partners done by scientific research. Fourth, distinctive contribution using tailored information based on the nature of that contribution.

CHARLES NELSON, Sprinkles Cupcakes founder, July 23, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I have found that good leaders seek out information and opinions from all levels of staff rather than sitting in their offices reading reports. Would you agree with this observation?
NELSON: The best ideas always come from employees on the line. It has been my experience that you must seek out answers from the people who do the job every day in order to be successful.

NANCY F. KOEHN, Harvard Business School Professor, July 28, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How do businesses best assess what their customers want? Are there particular feedback or survey techniques that work better than others? Do managers talk to customers directly and when they do, do the important direct customer reactions compensation for the small sample size?
KOEHN: My own research suggests that smart, savvy companies use a combination of tools and channels of communication to understand what their customers want. Some of these involve traditional market research; others are more free-form and creative, such as storytelling, which involves having a consumer speak to a company representative or a third party about his or her life. Through the telling, companies sometimes discover an unmet need. An interesting example of this came about with Pull-ups, diapers for three and four year olds. What companies discovered asking Moms and Dads to tell their stories is that parents, especially parents who both work outside the home, were toilet training their kids later—sometimes as late as four—and so needed a product for children who could no longer wear diapers.

SCOTT CHRISTOPHER, author, July 31, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: It was mentioned on the M*A*S*H TV series, which was based on a true story, that the MASSH units in Korea that created a more jovial atmosphere performed better and had higher rates of surgical success than did the MASH units that were run on a strictly military style. Allowing frivolity makes people enjoy work more, creates social cohesion, and improves productivity.
CHRISTOPHER: Thanks for bringing that example up. We generally like to use the MASH example when talking about using levity in “serious” industry, but it always seems like such a cheap copout to use a TV series as evidence. THANK YOU for mentioning the study.

JOHN READ, Outward Bound President, August 4, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How did you go from participant to President of Outward Bound? Were you active in between and, if so, what did you do with Outward Bound before becoming President?
READ: Not really sure…Took a course that changed my life (at age 40), took another and volunteered to help. After several years of experience on one OB Board or another and having become something of a critic of how were organized, the National Board said either take the top job or “put a sock in it” (or words to that effect).

MARSHALL GOLDSMITH, leadership coach, August 8, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How would you motivate the employees of an organization that have undergone very public scandals, with its leadership under indictment, and public confidence in their work at its lowest point ever?
GOLDSMITH: Great question! I would not focus on the COMPANY-since that is going to take you nowhere. I would focus on the individuals, their jobs, their customers-and the positive differences that they can make in the world!

ALICE SCHROEDER, biographer, October 2, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Legend has it that Warren Buffett attended the Wharton School and did not graduate, announcing he had learned enough. Is this true, and what does he seem to think of his formal business school education, or lack thereof?
SCHROEDER: He transferred from Wharton School to Nebraska and graduated, then attended Columbia. In general, however, he views a college degree, especially from a competitive schools, as a “badge” that is useful in getting a good job. What he thinks is important is learning. He is largely self-taught.
CZIKOWSKY: Warren Buffett believes there may be profit in investing in some of the current debt. Yet the government will likely lose an enormous amount. What does he think about our system where our government rushes in to shore up debt but seldom participates in its profits?
SCHRODER: Warren obviously would not choose a system where we lock the barn door after the horse is long down the trail and escaped---you are quite right about that. However, the situation is this: the house is on fire, and you can either get out the hose and extinguish the fire, or you can argue about who pays for the water and how much it should cost. He’s in favor of the former, and worry later about where the water came from/
CZIKOWSKY: Why did Warren Buffett contribute so heavily to Bill Gates’s charity? I understand concentrating efforts, you some (not all) of the Gates charities, such as seeing schools have computers, have some financial implications for Microsoft down the road. Does this bother Mr. Buffett?
SCHRODER: Warren looked at it this way: He viewed the Gates and the smartest philanthropists he knew. It is just stunning, if you are in Bill’s office, to see the number of books on philanthropy, all of which he has read and virtually memorized. He can talk on this subject for hours; he is fascinating to talk about on philanthropy. Second, the Gates are the only people who have ever given away such large sums. Third, he has a basic trust in Bill and Melinda and knows they will steward the money properly. Fourth, he agrees with their philosophy which is that every life is of equal value and the money should be used to save the most lives per dollar spent. Yes, you can make the computer argument, but on the other hand, what the Gates have done with the small school movement is impressive. Warren is looking at the big picture.

JOHN SMITH, General Motors Group Global Product Planning Vice President, December 4, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Would you accept the bailout money with conditions for the type or standards of automobiles that are produced? If so, are there breaking points where you would not accept the conditions and, if so, what are those conditions?
SMITH: We’ve laid out some very specific conditions to protect taxpayers in our submission---draws are conditions on achievement of specific actions, all overseen by a Federal Oversight Board which we propose.
Our Plan commits us to meeting CAFÉ. More importantly, virtually all of our new product launches the next four years are high FE cars and crossovers. Our Plan also specifically calls out our investments in hybrids (we’ll have 20 models in 2012, and we already have more than any other manufacturer), and extended-range electric vehicles (first edition, the Chevy Volt). We commit ourselves to be the industry leader in FE and related to greenhouse gas emissions reductions.