Hire Slow, Fire Fast.

In today's economic downturn more than ever acquiring and keeping the best sales people is a major challenge for small & medium sized businesses. SMBs too often do not put a concerted effort both in looking for and recruiting the best talent. This can be attributed to a number of factors such as the owner who continues to take it upon himself to be the go-to person for everything including the company's marketing & sales - He's the "closer". The systemic mistake made in sales is the one that permeates through other operational aspects of an SMB and that is the boss' inability to let go of some operational control to others such as his designated gun-for-hire, sales expert.

Mistake one, is hiring too fast. Sales people are in the business because they can sell and when a salesperson seeks a job with your company they are selling to you. Owners need to be deliberate in assessing the quality of the candidate. So what if the person pulled in $10 million in sales at that Fortune 500 company. In that company he had an enormous infrastructure support and a huge brand when he walked into a prospect. How much of those sales were from an existing client base versus new account acquisitions? Hire that animal that has proven himself in new account acquisitions and has experience in selling with limited organizational resources. If you are able to pluck a gorilla from an enterprise firm, assess if his client base would be transferable to your SMB. In other words will those clients buy from a smaller organization? Are those clients loyal to the brand or salesperson? The best opportunities are in acquiring a top performer from a competitor with an offer greater than their existing situation is providing.

Mistake two, is firing too slowly. SMBs do not have the same room for error as do larger corporations. They can neither wait as long for results nor can they afford it. The salesperson sold himself to you and you took a big chance on them. If you believe you were honest in your organizations' representation to that person and you provided the resources you indicated you would, then assess their performance fairly & quickly. Lack of results mean they have to go. Remember, in the end you and your other employees are relying on that sales revenue.

Finally, pay for quality people. Simply putting a body in sales will not provide a security for generating sales revenue. You will spend more time and resources in the end on a less qualified person than you would on paying a premium for a closer. There is a reason some can ask for "$X+1" versus "$X". Top performers for the most part care little about your personal reality or about the potential as so much as they are motivated by dollars and they will only leave where they are living well if they can live better with you.

See CBC's Dragons' Den judge Arlene Dickinson and Leyland Brown, VP of Commercial Solutions at HP discussing the hiring challenges for SMBs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz3MvPYIiUk

Why are SMBs thriving in Germany?

According to Statistic Canada's "Survey of Employment, Payrolls and Hours" (SEPH) on average in 2008, 64 percent of private sector employees covered by SEPH were employed by small and medium sized businesses. SMBs employ the most people and they create the most jobs. Yet, 43 percent of SMBs "reported a significant reduction in business revenue" in the last 12 months according to The Strategic Counsel and the Canadian Bankers Association survey released this past October. This while in Germany small businesses are thriving during this time. Why? A major reason is their access to money. Today, the country's 450 public savings banks and 1,200 credit cooperatives finance three-quarters of all SMBs. "In hardly any country is the cooperation of local banks with small businesses as important as in Germany," says Sigurt Vitols of the Center of Social Science Research Center in Berlin. In Canada the concentration has left much of the lending resources to the largest financial institutions which have been more reticent in their lending practices during these economic times. Western nations such as the US have complained about the modest stimulus package Germany's government has made ($66.9 billion US). For the most part SMBs in Germany are not in favour of large government expenditures. "The danger people see is that we're going to leave huge debts to the next generation, " says Frank Wallau, head of the Bonn-based Research Institute on Small & Middle-sized Enterprises.

See article in Christian Science Monitor: www.csmonitor.com/2009/0412/p18s01-woeu.html
Direct Engagement show on what is being done to support SMBs: www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnwwbdvWLh8

Harmonized Sales Tax is good for business but...

On a show held on June 15, 2009 the panel and the vast majority of the audience composed of small, medium and large businesses were in favour of implementing the 'Harmonized Sales Tax' ("HST"). They all cited that it would streamline operations making them more efficient and in turn increase their organizations competitiveness in doing business domestically and internationally (See video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoQ7GMbRDg4 ) Rick Spence, a small business commentator, also agreed the essence of the reform the HST was to bring about was positive. His reservation though was that it would put tax on new items or increase the tax of some items that would effectively impede consumer consumption and thus inadvertently impact the sales of small businesses in particular. I too agree with the HST for the operational efficiencies it will impose on companies. That being noted considering the harsh economic realities presently besetting our market economy the present HST consideration should be modified. The government should grant a reprieve on taxing items that are not taxed under the existing system. This would benefit the struggling consumer and small businesses that would bear an inordinate financial burden under the HSTs implementation. If the government is simply seeking new revenues lost during these lean times it should then simply state it and let the people decide the eventual course to be taken.

The business case is in for diversity.

A sold out show and networking event on November 24th complemented the excellent content provided by the panelists and the questions posed by the audience on the topic of organizational diveristy. The Honourable Harinder Takhar, Minister of Government Services has an extensive and successful leadership background in the corporate world. He aptly stated that organizations should see implementing diveristy in the terms of the positive "business case" that it has proven to be. It should not be legislated he stated. He was supported by panelists that represented a cross-section of industry that included technology, banking and media (IBM, BMO Financial Group and CBC/Radio-Canada). All put forward how their organizations are putting forward diversity and "inclusion" initiatives because of the established business case their organizations have seen for it. Noelle Richardson, Chief Diversity Officer, Ontario Public Service, added to the discussion the need to address "invisible minorities" - e.g. mental health issues. She also brought forward a poignant comment on racism. Noelle noted that racism and prejudice were not the purview of Canada, US and Europe but they can be found throughout the world as she herself witnessed and noted as an example while visiting Africa. This acknowledgement I believe helps give us a pluralistic perspective that what we need to address is part of our collective human condition and not but the responsibility of one group or people. See video excerpt on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/DirectEngagement#p/a/u/0/O5MzoQVawro

Organizational Diversity. Another imposed cost?

There are those when speaking with business colleagues who see organizational diversity as but another bureaucratic imposition of our politically correct times. They see it yet as another burden towards their operational budgets. But is it? Studies in fact show that organizational diversity has a profoundly positive impact on businesses that adopt its practice. This includes a more positive moral, ethical and social corporate character with increased staff retention and productivity. In an increasingly globalized economy - Re: a demographically diverse world of customers - it can also provide opportunities. Organizations will be better equipped to address market changes and in turn increase their marketing & sales creativity accordingly (Ann C. Schauber, 2001). Further operational examples come from research that indicates that firms with higher percentages of women managers report relatively higher financial performance (Shrader et al., 1997) and greater effectiveness (Richard & Johnson, 2001. Numerous studies support the positive impact implementing organizational diversity will have on your organization. That being noted Canada's corridors of power both politically and corporately are woefully under represented by those of a non-white male demographic ( only 7.2% of the top corporate positions in the largest companies in Canada are filled by women, Rosenzweig & Company, 2009). This number is even lower when you factor in ethnic minorities of both genders. In the end implementing organizational diveristy is the moral and ethical thing to do and the business case for it backs it up. Should it be legislated? Where would you begin? What would the quota levels be based on - i.e. colour of one's skin, religion, gender, etc? It can not and should not be legislated other than to have laws in place regarding racism in society period. Perhaps it is more about education and if businesses see a possible advantage and return - which there is - they will adopt organizational diversity without government legislative coercion.

Cease the notion of '3' founding peoples of Canada

The notion of '3' founding peoples as is bing put forward under Ottawa's new citizenship guide is in itself outdated. What are they the founders of exactly? The Canada we know today or that of a decade ago and the decades preceding that, is the result of a highly plural development. It is not of one, two or three peoples but a diverse origin of citizenry that is the result of valuable input from people the world over. Canada's success is not the purview of three peoples as is intimated with the establishing them as the 'three' founding peoples but the fact is clear that today's success is the result of a diverse base of cultures and peoples. It could be argued that if left to the stipulated founding three, Canada would not have been the success it is today. All the successful societies of our world's history were based on taking in what the rest of the world had to offer (e.g. Greeks, Romans, British, American, etc.). I suggest we should therefore cease the illogical concept of '3' founding people and in its presumed arrogance that the substantial and no less significant input of all others have had no input in founding the country we know as Canada today.