In my case, right now, I have taken four subjects. Each subject has two sessions in a regular week - therefore 4 X 2 = 8 sessions. When you move another half-week's sessions (Friday's still on btw!) to a previous Sunday, we then have an additional 4 sessions in the previous week. Therefore, that makes a total of 12 (Yes, I know mathematics). Here's the kicker.. the full time students typically have 6 subjects in each quarter. That makes 12 sessions for them in a general week. THEREFORE, I just had to do the schedule of a full-time student this week, even though I spent a major portion of my time working. I'm happy to report that I'm alive, and that only the left half of my brain has stopped working, while the right half is contemplating different methods to fall asleep, unchecked by its neighbouring twin.
Let me help you out with this loooong post here. I like the experience from the Social Entrepreneurship and B2B class best. So I'd recommend that you check these out for certain!
Entrepreneurship and New Venture Creation
This week we delved a little more into HOW a person goes about starting a venture. This covered the basic attributes of an entrepreneur and his style of execution, the kind of people he mixes with to start something, and how he reacts to situations as and when they come into play. And finally, how he prepares a business plan if he was to convince someone to put some moolah into his venture (here's four litres of my sweat, "show me the money!", Jerry Maguire-ishtyle).
The first session was about how a person got involved in a venture, with two other people, all because he hit it off well with them and liked their attitude. They got into a field where none of them had any expertise, yet they did have the relevant expertise in their actual tasks. That means, I don't know jack about call centres, but I have been in marketing in my previous company, therefore I can market my good. etc. etc. So we analysed how he should choose to get into the next business, and what kind of thought processes run through his head. The next session was all about effectual entrepreneurship. This is typically a characteristic of serial/expert entrepreneurs. As it turns out, these guys just depend on who they are, what they know and who they know. So they just catch people along saying "Hey, you want to do something together? Cool.. get on board this ship", and then before you know it, they've got a Viking ship hurtling through a storm, with someone manning the sails, someone steering, someone cooking, someone rowing etc. Now this sounds counter-intuitive, I mean, do we really think one tender idea can be sufficiently grown in between multiple interests? Turns out that that the idea is constantly evolving due to the multiple partners... only the ones with interesting twists are being brought on board to lend a better shape to the idea, even if it is pulling the idea towards a different direction. Apparently, this has a better chance of success, and most serial entrepreneurs do stuff this way. I can see how it's successful... when multiple people are committed towards making an idea well, and the people are inherently good and proactive, there's a good chance of success. And that's what a VC banks on. He's not banking on the project, or the idea, he's banking on the team that's behind it... since he's sure they'll take his money someplace safe. And bring it back multiplied.
The third session was to do with the all-so-important business plan. Apparently, VCs have seen enough of the "We can change the world" business plans. Everyone seems to think their ideas are the best-est and they don't stop crowing about it. While pushing all the good points to the front, they quietly keep all the scary parts at the back. Why? Well, someone's gotta give them money, sure can't get money if you scare them away. The VCs must have learnt this trick early on, because they no longer buy sweet smelling poop. The VCs actually look to see if the team is good, again lending credence to the last idea of effectual entrepreneurship, as they know that no forecasts or planning can really be certain, because if it was, this world would have been a better place and all businesses would succeed. Sure, they are interested to know about your business and about where you plan to take it to, but they HATE it when someone puts all the nice stuff in front leaving out the bad. We need to remember that they care about the fact that their money should be put behind something good, and it's not their job to investigate our ideas. Instead, when we bring them the entire research, through their experience they know whether they should be backing this, or they give tips on which areas to watch out for. There was a whole lot more, but I can't cover that now. Only two things to remember - VCs look to see if the team can execute well, and one way they check it is by knowing if the team has sufficient experience in the arena they're pursuing. The second thing, VCs don't want to grow old and die with you and your company, so they're looking for an exit option (preferably within three-five years). Give them that option.
Social Entrepreneurship
After hearing enough criticism of microfinance over the last two weeks (well, the prof kind of feels that while some parts maybe good, for the most parts it's affecting more than helping. Remember that this comes out of experience of watching this on the field, and is not armchair theory) it was a little surprise to see someone come to talk to us about microfinance. Turns out that this person has been watching microfinance very closely, and a professor at another of India's best management institutions, so he comes with high credibility. One thing for sure, when we get guest lecturers here, they come armed with research and live field experience, nothing can be better than that. So he comes and talks to us about how microfinance works, explains the cogs and cracks, and then goes onto describe how the microfinance model has been evolving. In fact, while most people trumpet about the Grameen model and are implementing it everywhere, apparently Grameen itself has stopped using that model, and have moved on to Grameen 2. This seems to suggest that the optimal method has not yet arrived, and that the microfinance industry is slowly evolving. To the allegations that microfinance seems to be causing more pain in some areas, and that it's being exploited in yet other areas, the prof says that you can't help it when some people take control of a really good funda and use it for the bad. Yet, not to worry, a string of legislations and other legal clauses are on their way to set some of the things right in the microfinance arenas.
The last session for the week covered co-operatives, and how they've come to be in today's state. The shining example that was spoken about was Amul, one of the few successes (and might I add, what a scale!) and how it came to be. While the prof seemed to suggest that most of the co-operatives today are toothless sheep masquerading as tigers, there are quite a few that are having the intended results. Now why would he say that most of the co-operatives are pawns? Turns out that these are controlled by govermental bodies, and that the legislations that are currently in effect seem to actually hamper the true growth and acceptance rates of such movements. When the whole objective of co-operatives is to empower the society, and its constituents by bringing forth solidarity, when you take away the control from the people and leave it with a governing body that is far from facing a similar lifestyle (however well meaning, under claims of "They're illiterate, and don't know how to manage, we need to help them.." etc), you invariably dumb down the essential funda of societal empowerment. People are more likely to take something forward in a motivated manner, when they're in control. They don't know something? Teach them, and then let them be... trust them enough to be in charge of their fate. The prof however agrees that you can't suddenly tell people to wake up and start a co-operative. More often than not, an external impetus (maybe in monetary terms) is required to get things moving. But taking that off after a while, and avoiding steering the whole way is important.
An anecdote that was mentioned comes to mind. Apparently, one of our earliest Prime Ministers once wanted to visit Anand (the area from where AMUL began), and Dr. Verghese Kurien (the Father of the White revolution in India) urged him to spend a night in one of the villages nearby, before dropping in to meet him. Since this was the time when we didn't have reporters falling out of helicopters to cover every damn thing, not many people were really aware that the PM was coming down. All that the host in the village was told is that a foreign guest is coming to town, so keep your house clean, but don't have to do much else. But sooner or later, the village got to know the PM's in town, and so instead of sleeping, the PM actually spent the night talking to the people to know what's up.
Now I wasn't there when this happened, I dont think my mom was born yet, so this is not a direct quote, but try to get the gist. The next morning, when he went to meet Dr. Kurien, he asks him.. "Dr., I was very curious to know why the co-operative in Gujarat seems to be doing so well, while it's struggling in other states. I first thought it had to do with the land, or weather, or people here. But there are other states with far better tillable land, with more amenable weather. Last night, I find that the villagers are also very similar. So I dont get it, how?". Dr. Kurien replies "In Gujarat, the villagers are in charge of the co-operative. That's why it works here." Again, long before B-schools, this visionary man seems to have understood the power and connection between giving the responsibility to the people and its resulting motivation. He spent a long time fighting the powers that be, to get this in place. 60 years he's been there. AMUL is now recognized as the most successful example of co-operatives across the world. India, from a milk-deficit country at the time, is now the world's leading exporter in milk. Now, that's social entrepreneurship.
Business 2 Business Market Management
The last two weeks, all I've been hearing is Value, Value and more Value. This kind of value, that kind of value. So much so in fact, that I've been dreaming value. For real! My alarm's ringing, and I'm thinking "What is the value that I get out of an extra half hour of sleep? What is the value I get by reading the rest of the case that I have left in that half hour? Which one is more?". I actually woke up frightened because I realized that this was one of those instances when the "engineer" was slowly being transformed into the "businessman". Anyway, not like you care much about my fears... your time is more valuable than this. SEE??! I did it again!
Anyway, this week didn't really have too much. I'm serious. I've got the funda now. While the word "Value" is being twisted into different phrases for different meanings, and we've moved from chapter 2 to chapter 3, the funda still remains the same. When you're trying to sell something different, and want to know the price, see how much benefit is accrued to the customer because he uses your product. Then, based on that extra moolah he makes, you get to take a partial share in the name of "But, I've given you much more value!". This week started out no different. New product, this much savings, that much extra work, everyone happy, my share -> ka-ching!
The last session seemed to be no different. This was a cool guest lecturer, who had a different style of teaching. His energy seemed to be constantly high. Anyway, some yada-yada about how one company found an ingenious way to save some time and money for its customers by modifying the build structure of a tool being used. They then do a couple of field trials, and they can't believe their eyes when they see the amount that it saves their customer. Apparently, the previous tool weathered out quite soon, and had to replaced 40 times during a particular job, but with the new and improved tool, this came down to 1 replacement or so. And so, we get into how much money do they save, how much time do they save (changing the tool each time it wears out, and the increased effectiveness of the new tool), and then we find that for a piece that used to cost around 2$, our new costs are 25$. Bummer we say. But hey, look at the revenues for a second. We just got the client an extra 950$! OMG! Therefore, the benefits I'm giving is 950, the cost increase is 23, can you see the value? So, the final question turned out to be, "How much do you charge the customer now?". Here's the awesome part. The part for which I'm paying through my nose. (Why am I giving it out for free?)
The world is divided into different kinds of people. One kind says "Charge them 900$". Yes, let's take all the money and leave them the extra 50$ in tips. The second kind says "No, charge them 500$", some for me, some for you. The third kind says "Naah.. we don't need so much, charge them 200$", we're business guys who're anyway going to make shitloads of money here... serve the deal to the customer! And the last set says "Charge them 30$, we need to protect ourselves from new entrants!". The 'let's-be-caution' gang, that sees that market penetration is more important than charging premium. So which would you go for? And here's where the prof says, "If you guys are going to charge 30$, or 200$ or something low, then what the hell do we need B2B marketing for? Your job, as marketers, is to educate the customer about the value that he's making by using your good, and to take a reasonable share of it, because you had a part to play in it. Do not underestimate the power of marketing. Marketing is all about knowing if (1) Do you have a value proposition? (2) Can this be explained by you to a non-PhD? and (3) Having understood this thing, can this be converted into the required sale?"
Because, if you're giving away the value for cheap, then you're avoiding the whole issue of value just because you're trying to play safe. Don't be afraid to charge your price for the value that you bring to the customer, that's what you're there for. It won't be too soon before you're fired, because you're giving away valuable expertise and technology for peanuts, while drawing a big fat salary. You're in B2B Marketing, don't undervalue the advantage you bring to your customer.
I like this guy.
International Business Negotiation Skills
This week was more to do with negotiations, or atleast that's what it seemed to be like. Like I've said before, the prof's in "moral of the story" mode, at a 40000 feet level. Yet, he did come down to our level a couple of times. For one thing, he explained how the process works out. Negotiations start even before you sit at the table, there's a lot at play. We then spoke about the people part. About the fact that companies don't negotiate, people do. It's extremely important to be hard on the problem at hand, and soft on the people. While the typical memory of negotiations seems to be "I win, you lose, sucker!" right out of high-profile English movies, the reality couldn't be further. Turns out, we're evolving to a point where creative solutions which turn out to be a win-win are coming to be far more present. To which the following addendum is highly important. While persuasion is key to a great negotiation experience, effective persuaders can be themselves persuaded. To be able to bend another's mind, it's supremely important that one's own mind should be capable of bending. As such, it provides the signal to the other party that this person is capable of accepting my points and is not all out to be aggressive. And effective negotiators dont plan the sequence of what happens at what stage. Only the stage is set for the game, and relevant chapters identified. But checkpoints are not maintained, because doing so would mean you've already planned out what is to happen, and by direct derivation, there is no room to negotiate.
In any case, he doesnt say that aggression is not present in negotiations. When you have powerful parties at the table, maybe one party gets away with just being dominant. But the true flavour seems to come about with well-matched parties. That's when aggression by itself does not work, or flexibility might end up being disastrous. And hence, the next important point and one I remember strongly, you need to perfect your strongest negotiation influence style, and just maintain a moderate level in all the other styles. You can not afford to neglect any of those weaknesses under the shadow of your strength. Because you never know when you need to switch from one to the other. If you're unable to play a moderate game in one of your weak areas, how in the world would you then be able to steer the style towards your strong area.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment