FEMALE BOSSES ARE BETTER FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH!

The smirk on my face all but got wiped out when I saw the University of Colorado 2005 report [‘Worker wellbeing and supervisor gender’] which confirmed beyond doubt that “working in a more female dominated environment” was truly beneficial for employee health! Chauvinist that I was, I couldn’t digest the fact that finally, to get ‘healthier’, I had to work under – of all blistering barnacles – a female boss!!! I mean, there obviously had to be better methods to get healthier than getting fried in the devil’s pan, right?! And there began the quest of my team members to escape perdition.

In fact, if one thought that not having a female boss would lead to productivity losses, the National Business Group on Health [representing 185 companies, primarily Fortune 500 firms covering more than 40 million workers...] shows how, for US firms, “...productivity loss resulting from... smoking related diseases cost a staggering $157 billion every year.” [In fact, the Purdue University’s Health Care Special Report puts this at a killing $234 billion]. This dirge is just the tip. The US Office of Technology & Assessment conclusively proved [in ‘Burden of Tobacco on Your Workplace’] that smokers averaged a whopping 300% more sick leaves than non-smokers. Seattle University showed how “the propensity for smokers to become disabled and retire early is almost 600% greater than for non-smokers!” But what left me stunned was this incredible research of Cappelli, Pauly & Lemaire of Wharton, [‘The Effects of Obesity, Smoking & Drinking...’] who quote that “obese individuals have 30%-50% more chronic medical problems than those who smoke or drink heavily!”

The authoritative US National Bureau of Economic Research and Chicago GSB confirm in their benchmark September 2008 paper that “expenditures on health care in the US are likely to rise from a current level of about 15% to about 29% of GDP by 2040.” That is a mind boggling $3 trillion even at current prices! So are global firms getting worried? Hewitt Associates’ April 2007 survey found out after surveying 8 million workers that now 77% of firms are “profiling chronic health conditions prevalent in their workforce!” This figure was a mere 43% just a year back. Without doubt, employee health & productivity are perfectly correlated! Period! GEMI, a top non-profit research firm with Fortune 500 firms as members, irrefutably proves [in ‘Clear Advantage: Building Shareholder Value’] that excellence in health [and even environment and safety issues] can add dramatically to shareholder value by almost 50 to 90%, apart from reducing operational and capital costs [16% less for high performing companies, as per the noted Towers Perrin ‘2008 Health Care Cost Survey’].

So who should take the blame for all the productivity losses occurring due to bad health habits? The big league Watson Wyatt covered 5 million workers in their stupendous 2005/2006 survey [‘Staying@Work: Employee Health...’] and established that a compelling 74% of organisations believe that “their employees should be held accountable.” Weyco Inc, a top health care firm, now has a policy of throwing out employees even if they smoke at home. BusinessWeek’s February 2007 cover story shows how the ‘totally-smoke-free’ $2.7 billion Scotts Co. throws out its employees for failing nicotine detection tests [for which, Jack Welch exclaimed to Scotts’ CEO Jim Hagedorn, “Man, you have balls of steel!”]. Tell me now boys, after reading all this, doesn’t it occur to you that there are obviously better ways to improve productivity than to have female bosses?! Tony, to have the guts to say yes, all you will need, like the thrice-married Jack mentions above, are two metallic spheres! Got them?

Everything you always wanted to know about web community, and then some

It's been a long time since I posted, and I apologize. In addition to doing a bunch of work for clients at Rubicon, I have been preoccupied with a big strategy project we just finished, on online community. We released the results today, and I think you might find them interesting, so here's a summary.

In our strategy work with tech companies, we're frequently asked about web communities -- how they operate, what they can and can't do, and how a company should work with them. The companies we deal with generally fall into three camps when it comes to community:

--Many companies are still learning about online community and don't know what to do or what to expect.

--Some companies have already tried some online community activity, but were disappointed -- often because they attracted only a few enthusiasts rather than the masses of end users they expected.

--And of course some companies run successful web communities, either as a sideline or as their core business. They're very hungry for information on how other communities operate, and insights on what they could do better.

To help deal with all of those questions, we conducted a study of online community in the US. We surveyed more than 3,000 US web users on their overall internet usage, and then dived deep on their use of online communities and what impact those communities have on their lives. I know some of you will be disappointed that the survey is US-only; we'd be delighted to repeat the research in other parts of the world if anyone wants to sponsor it ;-)

Meanwhile, here are some of the key things we learned:

--Small groups of enthusiasts dominate most online conversations, but that doesn't mean online communities matter only to a narrow segment of people. Most web users read community content rather than contributing to it, and are strongly influenced by the things they see there, especially product reviews and recommendations. Those reviews are now second only to word of mouth as a purchase influencer for web users.

--Because most web users are voyeurs more than contributors, if you're running an online discussion, you should think of it as theatre -- it's a performance in which the community leader(s) interact with a small group of contributors for the education and amusement of the rest of us. All the web's a stage, but we're not all players in it. At least not equal players.

--This means companies that turn away from web communities because they're populated mostly by enthusiasts are missing the point. They've mistaken their fellow actors for the audience. If you're running a community, you need to take care of the active participants in a community so that the rest of the audience will watch and learn.

--If a company needs more incentive to work with the Internet, it turns out that the web has also become the number two source of product support information for web users. After checking the manual, web users are more likely to check a company's website for information or search the web than they are to take traditional steps like calling the manufacturer or asking a dealer. That will be comforting to many companies that want to reduce their support costs, since phone support is very expensive. But how many of those companies have bothered to put detailed support information online, and make sure it's well indexed by the search engines?

--There are an enormous number of tidbits in the study regarding web use. A few items that stood out to me include:

• -About a quarter of US web users say they have dated someone they first met online.
• -Although Twitter and SecondLife get a lot of press, their audiences are very narrow when you compare them to major social sites like MySpace, Facebook, and even LinkedIn.
• -Yahoo is the second most valued website in the minds of US web users, after Google. It's ahead of major web properties like YouTube and Facebook. All of the negative press about Yahoo sometimes makes people forget how strong its user base is.
  
• -The major social networks are much more satisfying and useful to teens than they are to adults. In fact, satisfaction with the social sites declines steadily after age 14.
• -Since we're coming up on an election in the US, it's interesting to look at political ties on the Internet. Democrats are more active online than Republicans, and say the web has a greater influence on their behavior, including voting.
• -Young people dominate online conversations, with people 22 and under producing about half of all user-generated content and comments. So if you sometimes feel like you're dealing with kids online, it may be because you are.

A full report on the findings is available in PDF format here (link). I know many people don't like to read PDFs online, and besides you can't easily comment on them or link to sections in them. So we've also posted the report online, cut into several sections for easy reading:

Part one summarizes the report, and gives detailed information on the use of community online, and what that means for business (link). This is the section that gives information on community usage rates and the "most frequent contributors" who dominate online conversations.

Part two discusses the leading web destinations in the US, measured in several ways, and discusses the role of community in them (link). This is where you'll find learn about the remarkable membership rate of Classmates.com, the #3 social community site in the US when measured by profiles. We also answer questions like: "Is Facebook more popular than MySpace?" "What do web users value more, Wikipedia or NYTimes.com?" and "What are the top five most-visited types of website?"

Part three talks about the role of community sites in the social lives of Americans (link). This is where we compare Republicans and Democrats online, and look at how different age groups use the social networking sites. We answer questions like: "How many young people lie about their age to get access to websites?" and "How many web users create fake identities online?"


What does it mean to mobile?

I always get that question when I post something that's not directly related to the mobile industry. In part, my answer is that I think this information's useful to anyone who's interested in technology. You're soaking in the internet, and it's good to understand how it works.

But community users don't limit themselves to only PC access, so online community will have a big effect on the mobile industry. It's important to understand what's really happening in the wired internet so you can sort out which mobile web opportunities have the best prospects. For example, I saw a presentation by someone senior at a mobile company the other day, and he was touting the importance of Twitter as a driver for the mobile web. I almost laughed out loud, because I had just been working on our report, and I knew how tiny the Twitter audience is. It's a classic case of people in the tech industry assuming something they use a lot is also being adopted by the masses.

That's not to beat up on Twitter specifically; they have a great base of users. But mainstream they ain't.

The other thing mobile people should think about a lot is the huge role that young people play in the generation of online content. As a group they are vastly more active online than older people. We aren't sure exactly what the cause is. Some of it may be that high school and college students just have a lot more time on their hands, and they spend some of it posting to the web. But probably also some of it is generational. Whatever the cause, it's likely that young users will be some of the heaviest drivers of use of the mobile web, especially the uploading of content and comments.

Not that Apple needs another advantage, but that probably plays to the strengths of the iPhone, because Apple has such a good franchise with young people in the US. It also helps to explain why RIM is trying to reach out to young people. In Europe, I think Nokia and SonyEricsson have a better chance at those users, because their brands are strong with young people. But they'll need the right products as well, which is a subject for other posts...

THE ‘LEGEND’ OF THE VAINGLORIOUS VISIONARY

Narcissistic! That’s how it was described. I found myself staring at the report quite disbelievingly. But I should have known, the warning signs had already been there for years. You tell me, would you ever like such a person around you, especially as your superior – a person who dominates meetings, a pathetic listener, not at all showing empathy, with a clear distaste for helping others and one who believes in giving vainglorious visionary speeches? In fact, would you want your CEO to be a narcissist?

Well, I’ve seen such losers all around. This man was born to a teenage unwed girl, who gave him up for adoption! A dropout from the Illinois University, he’s known for his ultimate arrogance, and has not spared even his family members, what to talk about employees. The four times married – thrice divorced – man once boasted to BusinessWeek many years back, “As long as Stanford keeps turning out beautiful 23 year old women, I will keep getting married.” His best friend, not surprisingly, is Steve Jobs, another temperamental leader with many similarities [including being put up for adoption and being a dropout]. Till date, this man doesn’t know who his real father is. Another friend, Andy Grove, warns in the BusinessWeek report, “I would beware of him as a businessman,” while Gates adds, “His hype has expanded to fill his ego.” In 1977, he founded Software Development Labs. From 1986 till late 2008, he has made its shareholder wealth grow by 950% to a super $102 billion!!! His vision is stupendous. His objectives are as arrogantly audacious as his attitude. He’s the 14th richest person in the world. His company is better known as Oracle. He’s Larry Ellison, my vainglorious visionary, whose biography is titled, ‘The Difference Between God & Larry Ellison: God Doesn’t Think He’s Larry Ellison!’

But does one example prove the complete hypothesis? Unbelievably, ivy league research now supports the concept that visionary leaders are narcissistic. In fact, considered amongst the ‘Best of HBR’ is their 2004 report, ‘Narcissistic Leaders – The Incredible Pros...,’ that says, “Many leaders dominating business today have a narcissistic personality. That’s good news for companies that need passion and daring to break new ground.” The report confirms that productive narcissists – like Welch, Soros etc – have “the audacity to push through massive transformations..., and have compelling, even gripping visions” due to their intense desire to compete and – through their awe inspiring speeches – have the capacity to inspire scores of people, despite their being poor listeners, lacking empathy and hating criticism. Professors Chatterjee and Hambrick of Penn University proved in their spectacular May 2006 paper, ‘Narcissistic CEOs...’, that narcissism in CEOs “is significantly positively related to several company outcomes, including strategy dynamism...”

Think about it. From the sniggery “You’re fired!” Donald Trump to the volcano-headed Steve Jobs, from the shoot-from-the-hip Michael Eisner [Disney CEO, added 2747% to shareholders’ wealth from 1984 till 2005, when he quit] to the don’t-know-don’t-care Roberto Guizueta [CEO, Coca Cola, 7100% increase, 1981-1998], the world’s top CEOs have been atrociously egotistical. Which brings me back to the report I started with at the top of this editorial. Lest you be mistaken, the report did not pertain to my ego-state [Oh please, I’m married; not a visionary!]. It was my irritating cook’s. His annual checkup – on which my money got wasted – threw up what I always knew. The ego-maniac is pompous, cooks up visionary unpalatable dishes, hates criticism, is a pathetic listener, and goddammit, behaves like a CEO all the time!