Business Blog on The Huffington Post

Three years after introducing an addressable TV advertising offering, satellite broadcaster Dish's ad sales division is now turning that play programmatic.

Dish Media Sales is calling its launch "the pay-TV industry's first impression-by-impression programmatic marketplace for linear television". It follows Clypd's launch of a TV ad-buying software platform.

Using it, advertisers can, internet-style, buy ads in linear TV using a real-time bidding system. But, although the bidding is real-time, it will still take a couple of days to deliver ads to users' boxes, ready for airing.

The inventory will be available to buy through demand-side partners DataXu, Rocket Fuel and TubeMogul, says Media sales and analytics VP Adam Gaynor.

"This is a first for our industry, to be able to take linear television and apply the programmatic marketplace to it," he tells Beet.TV in this video interview.

"(It lets us) reach out to brands that brands that traditionally spend in the digital marketplace.

Programming Note: Gaynor will be speaking at the Beet Retreat next month in Florida about this and related topics.

You can find this post on Beet.TV.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

This October, Tesla Motors unveiled its highly anticipated Model X SUV. A sleek, supercharged sports car that features falcon-wing doors and "bioweapon defense mode," the Model X is completely battery-powered and has zero emissions. With its 6-figure price tag, the Model X isn't your hippie uncle's car -- it's the ultimate status symbol of Silicon Valley's elite.

That an electric car totally free of carbon emissions is now the hottest purchase for the well-heeled is a pretty big deal. And it's just the latest sign that ethical consumption -- the idea that consumers can positively affect human rights and the environment with more informed purchasing decisions -- is now a permanent part of today's marketplace.

According to a 25-year study by Young & Rubicam's BrandAsset Valuator, 66 percent of consumers prefer to purchase products from companies that align with their values. This is the largest shift in consumer behavior recorded by the group in the last quarter century. Even the authors of The Myth of the Ethical Consumer, offer that with increased access to information the market will move towards the alignment of values and purchasing decisions. Five years later it is clear that the conscious consumption movement is picking up steam.

Of course, the buzz around Tesla's hip new release is just one example of the hunger for products that are more sustainable -- and it's not just among the super-elite. Consumers of all income brackets have more awareness than ever of the ethical implications of what we eat, drink, wear, and put in our homes.

As a startup founder and social entrepreneur, it is this shift in consumer behavior that excites me -- and it's what motivated me to leave the field of humanitarian response to start deliberateLIFE. After years of advocating for policy change and foreign assistance for people in crisis, I knew there was an untapped resource that could change the game forever: consumer spending.

However, the market is lagging in its response to this consumer demand. Consumers are expecting sustainability, transparency, and curation -- and, frankly, they want things to look good. (Thanks, Steve Jobs!)

There are companies making strides in particular sectors, like fashion retailers Zady and Apolis Global, and the eco baby retailer The Honest Company, but for those looking to fully match their spending with their values, there is no one-stop-shop. We must do more to marry curation and convenience if we want to see the long-term positive changes that can come from mass conscious consumption.

I started deliberateLIFE to address this gap in the market. I believe our individual choices can change things. At deliberateLIFE, we believe there should be a platform that guides shoppers to the products that are good for people and planet, and we're setting out to build it.

My approach to these exciting shifts in consumer awareness of ethical spending is informed by the time I spent working with nonprofits like Oxfam and Human Rights Watch. I know firsthand the deep impact our dollars can have on lives across the globe.

We have an opportunity to end slavery, slow climate change, foster transparency and create better jobs for people around the world. And I believe we can do it without quitting our day jobs. It's an exciting thought -- and a great time to be part of this movement.

Whether you are in a position to purchase a Tesla or not, there is still quite a lot we can each do. I hope you'll join us.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

There is no free lunch. Or dinner either. So if you get an invitation in the mail to a wonderful meal where an expert will be discussing an important retirement topic -- such as maximizing your Social Security or estate planning and living trusts -- don't go!

You will find yourself paying for that "free meal" many times over. How do you think they can afford to make such a generous offer? They are expecting a good percentage of the attendees to purchase expensive products like annuities, or spend an exorbitant amount on an estate plan.

I'm sorry to paint all those events with the same brush, but I'm not alone in doing that. Last week the major securities regulatory agencies, including the SEC, and FINRA, and the NASAA (North American Securities Administrators Association) listed those "free lunch" seminars as one of their greatest concerns when it comes to "elder financial abuse."

But with 10,000 Americans reaching age 65 every day there is a growing need for advice about how to manage retirement assets, and a desperate search for trusted advisors. That creates a wide open opportunity for financial fraud or abuse on the part of slick salespeople who gain the trust of naïve seniors.

When it comes to investment issues, FINRA, (the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), recently created a toll-free helpline to assist seniors with questions about their brokerage accounts, including statements and individual investments. The toll-free number (844-57-HELPS or 844-574-3577) is staffed from 9 a.m to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday.

But the best problem resolution is no substitute for financial abuse prevention. One way to get unbiased advice is to use a fee-only certified financial planner, who has no incentive to sell you a specific product or service. NAPFA (the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors) maintains a planner search tool at its website www.NAPFA.org.

Elder Financial Abuse

It's one thing for a confused senior to make a mistake in trusting the wrong person -- or falling for the "free lunch" deals. But the problem of taking advantage of seniors rises to another level when investment ignorance is supplanted by actual financial elder abuse.

Over the years I've written several columns about the fast-growing problem of elder financial abuse. It happens even to those who have concerned family members. Their adult children are afraid to discuss the issues of estate planning and budgeting and bill payment with their aging parents. As a result, many seniors send their money to online ministries or are victimized by home repair scams or all sorts of other fraudulent activities.

The time to discuss those issues with your parents is over the upcoming holiday season. Elderly parents have the right to be insulted at the possibility they can't control their own finances. But they also should be grateful to have children who care.

On the other hand, a growing amount of financial elder abuse actually comes from adult children, who rip off their parents' savings on the rationale that "they're going to get the money anyway after they die, so let the state take care of them now." That's illegal. And if you know it is happening in your family, it should be reported to law enforcement or the state department of aging.

What happens to the millions of seniors who have no one but a caregiver looking out for them? Sadly, caregiver fraud is another growing form of elder abuse. An isolated, dependent senior may turn to the caregiver out of need or fear, with no one around to prevent the theft.

Even banks, which should be the front line of prevention because they can see changing patterns of spending and unusual withdrawal are handcuffed by privacy laws. Somehow they are able to alert you to a potentially fraudulent use of your credit card. But they cannot deny a withdrawal to a senior who comes to the teller window with a caregiver.

FINRA, the securities watchdog, has proposed a rule (FINRA 2160) that would place a temporary hold on disbursement of funds from investment accounts if there is a concern of exploitation.

Financial elder abuse is a growing, and devastating problem that will only increase as more seniors are left vulnerable. It's hard to believe, but there is still no national law covering financial elder abuse. Every state, however, has an elder abuse hotline as part of its department of aging. The best place to search for resources is the website of the National Center on Elder Abuse.

It's time to start paying attention to the issue of elder abuse, not only for the sake of our parents, but because one day we, too, could need protection from elder abuse. And that's The Savage Truth.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Dear Reader,

If you're like most people, you've made a few hair-brained money decisions in your time. That's just being human. However, if you're striving to get yourself on track, I suggest that you review these ten smart money management tips. This Halloween, treat yourself to a more secure financial future!

1) Stick to your budget -- no matter how large or small
Living beyond your means is dangerous no matter how much money you make. So even if you're lucky enough to earn a big paycheck, it's important to create -- and stick to -- a realistic budget. Use an online budget tool and make a list of your essential expenses and another list of your nice-to-haves. If your income won't cover both, start crossing off the extras you can live without. And don't be tempted to pull out the credit cards to cover any excess. Keeping on top of debt is an important part of smart budgeting. While you're thinking about debt control, remember to stay on top of any student loans!

2) Don't put off saving for retirement
To me, the scariest thought of all is facing retirement without adequate resources. So put retirement savings first -- before saving for a house or a child's education. Start by contributing at least enough to your company retirement plan to capture the maximum match. Then contribute more if you can to either your 401(k) or an IRA, putting contributions on automatic. Remember, the earlier you start, the smaller the percentage of your salary you need to sock away.

3) Expect the unexpected
Unexpected expenses can land on your doorstep at any time. To protect yourself, set aside enough money to cover three to six months worth of essential expenses in an easily accessible savings or money market account or short-term CD. Retirees should try to increase this amount to cover a year's worth of expenses.

4) Know where you stand
Set up a personal net worth statement to get a clear view of your finances. List both your assets (what you own) and your liabilities (what you owe), then subtract liabilities from assets to find out if you're in the plus or the minus. This will give you a benchmark so you can measure your progress.

5) Sharpen your investing skills
With market volatility a fact of life, it's easy to get spooked. But don't hide from your portfolio. Instead, take a good look at your long-term goals and feelings about risk. Are your current investments still working for you? Are you diversified enough? Remember, if one stock represents more than 20 percent to 25 percent of your portfolio, that's probably too much -- and you run the risk of big losses. A diversified portfolio designed for the long-term is the best way to ride out howling market storms.

6) Make sure you have the right amount of health insurance
A single illness or accident could wipe out your savings unless you have adequate health insurance. If you don't have coverage through your employer, take the time to research your best options under the Affordable Care Act to avoid the potential horrors of having to handle healthcare costs on your own.

7) Create an estate plan
Not having a will that names a guardian for your minor children is a pretty frightening proposition, so make that your first estate planning step. Beyond a will, the complexity of your estate plan will depend on your financial situation. But if you don't put at least the basics in place -- including an Advance Health Care Directive -- you may be leaving your heirs with a web of difficulties.

8) Maximize your Social Security benefits
Jumping the gun on Social Security benefits could cost you big time. That's a chilling thought. On the bright side, every year you delay collecting between age 62 (the earliest you're eligible) and age 70, your monthly benefit goes up. If you're married, there are strategies for couples that could increase your combined benefits even more. Of course, the right time to take benefits is different for everyone -- but it's definitely worth it to look carefully at your options. Read my recent article for more on this.

9) Ask for help
The complexity of financial planning can be pretty unnerving, but no need to go it alone. Even if you usually bravely follow your own financial path, when it comes to planning -- especially retirement planning -- it's good to have a guide. Talking to a financial advisor, at least occasionally, can give you a more realistic picture of where you're headed. Even financial professionals turn to each other for a little guidance!

10) Don't keep your family in the dark
Things are always scariest in the dark so don't be afraid to shed some light on your finances with your family. Talk to your spouse openly about expenses, credit and debt, savings goals and retirement. And when it comes to estate planning, make sure your adult children know what to expect.

Halloween comes once a year, but smart money management means staying on top of things year-round. Start using these tips now -- and enjoy this holiday and all the holidays to come.

For more updates, follow Carrie on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Looking for answers to your retirement questions? Check out Carrie's new book, "The Charles Schwab Guide to Finances After Fifty: Answers to Your Most Important Money Questions."

This article originally appeared on Schwab.com. You can e-mail Carrie at askcarrie@schwab.com, or click here for additional Ask Carrie columns. This column is no substitute for an individualized recommendation, tax, legal or personalized investment advice. Where specific advice is necessary or appropriate, consult with a qualified tax advisor, CPA, financial planner or investment manager. Diversification cannot ensure a profit or eliminate the risk of investment losses.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC. (MEMBER SIPC.) (1015-6392)

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

SEOUL -- Once upon a time, two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, held summits to reduce the danger of a nuclear war. Today, the summitry is between the U.S. and China, a large part of which is to reduce the dangers of confrontation and conflict in cyberspace.

The stakes could not be higher. How the world responds to the threat of cyberattacks will determine the extent to which future generations will be able to benefit from the digital era. In addition to the possibility of conflict, there is the danger that governments will overreact, erecting barriers to information that undermine the potential of the Internet.

In a way, we are already in a low-level continuous conflict in cyberspace. China is not the only country that is engaging, through direct or indirect state action, in massive cyber operations against other countries' political and economic structures. We are in the midst of one of those historic shifts when offensive technologies are cheaper and more powerful than defensive ones.

Clearly, there is a need for rules of the road in cyberspace, and perhaps cyber-power summitry -- the U.S. is the Internet technology leader, while China has the largest numbers of users -- is the first step in this direction. But the danger is not only political confrontation between states. Fear of loss of control within states is driving new data localization requirements and other new barriers that would ultimately fracture and even balkanize the Internet.

In Russia, the Kremlin clearly has its own reasons for stipulating -- despite the unavoidable economic cost -- that all data generated within the country be stored on Russian-based servers. But equally worrying are policies in the European Union that, in the name of defending citizens' privacy, are leading to the erection of barriers to the free flow of data.

How the world responds to the threat of cyberattacks will determine the extent to which future generations will be able to benefit from the digital era.

In some European countries, not least Germany, there seems to be a conviction that citizens' data will be safe only if it is stored on European soil, out of reach of, say, evil American spies. This simplistic philosophy also seems to have underpinned the European Court of Justice's recent decision invalidating the so-called Safe Harbour agreement, which facilitates the free flow of information across the Atlantic. As a result, the entire legal framework for these data transfers has been thrown into disarray.

Ensuring the protection and integrity of data is indeed a vital issue. But this has very little to do with where data are stored. Attackers based in China recently broke into the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and stole files with sensitive information on federal employees that compromised some 22 million people. Chinese and Russian hackers routinely penetrate secure industrial and government networks in the U.S. and Europe. And several countries are tapping underwater cables carrying the world's communications. So what problem does data localization actually solve?

The solution to privacy concerns lies not in data localization, but in the development of secure systems and the proper use of encryption. Data storage actually means the continuous transfer of data between users, with no regard for Westphalian borders. Security in the digital world is based on technology, not geography.

With the rapid development of global value chains, our economies are becoming increasingly dependent on the free flow of data across political borders. With the advent of new, global technologies such as blockchains -- continuously growing transaction databases used, for example, to sustain virtual currencies -- the notion of data localization becomes even more misguided.

The OECD has just issued a report highlighting how data-driven innovation will increasingly drive the economies of the future. Crucially, it stresses "the need to promote the 'openness' in the global data ecosystem and thus the free flow of data across nations, sectors, and organizations."

These principles are enshrined in the just-concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will govern trade and investment among 12 Pacific Rim countries, including the U.S.. The rest of the world should follow suit.

The solution to privacy concerns lies not in data localization, but in the development of secure systems and the proper use of encryption.

Indeed, a huge global agenda of digital governance -- the new domain of diplomacy -- lies before us. It includes the establishment of formal and informal norms for state behavior, better legal mechanisms for addressing cross-border cybercrime, transparent national legislation for law enforcement and endorsement of the need for encryption to protect the integrity of data. In all of these areas -- and more -- efforts to deal with cybercrime and terrorism must not undermine the principles on which the Internet is built.

China will face a choice. Today, it talks about its so-called "One Belt, One Road" initiative to link its economy with those of Central Asia and Europe. But China's global future will be as dependent as everyone else's on One Net -- an open, free, dynamic and secure Internet.

Europe also faces some important choices. The EU must not allow a muddled understanding of digital realities to give rise to profoundly damaging digital protectionism. It must overcome the institutional barriers that make it seemingly impossible to forge a common position on external cyber policy. And it needs to take the foreign policy implications of its actions seriously: When EU countries talk about data localization, others do, too.

Finally, the U.S. needs to adapt as well. It must accept that it is no longer the only global cyberpower, and that its own behavior must comply with globally accepted norms to which all must adhere.

The Internet has already become the world's most important infrastructure. But this is only the beginning: soon it will be the infrastructure of all other infrastructures. Policies born of confusion, chaos and confrontation have no place in this new world of opportunities.

© Project Syndicate

Also on WorldPost:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

On Wednesday, the wide field of Republican candidates vying to become the 45th president will arrive in Boulder, Colorado for a debate on the economy. As a former governor, I appreciate the importance of the traditional key economic metrics that will no doubt be part of the conversation, but I also firmly believe that the health of our economy is inextricably linked to our environment. The two absolutely must be discussed in concert.

America's wealth has always been rooted in our vast natural resources. The health of our economy will depend on our ability to recognize this link and our responsibility to act as stewards of both.

Along this thinking, I offer two recommendations for framing the conversation on Wednesday. First, environmental inaction leads to very real costs and risks to our economy. Here in the West, wildfires have racked up annual federal costs averaging $3 billion since 2002, double the costs in the 1990s. In other parts of the country, climate change manifests itself in the number and magnitude of floods, hurricanes, and draught. These escalating costs represent a crippling threat to our economy. Those of us concerned about government spending, not to mention the health and welfare of the American people, should agree that it is government's role to manage the growing risks of runaway weather just as any rational business would seek to minimize its costs and risk.

The good news is that these risks can be managed through leadership and proactive public policy. There are many Republican leaders who are implementing clean energy agendas at the state level. In Nevada, Governor Sandoval signed legislation to close the oldest coal fired generating units and replace them with natural gas and renewable energy. In Michigan, Governor Snyder has said that his state will assemble a plan to comply with the EPA's Clean Power Plan. In 2006, Governor Huntsman in Utah challenged the state to increase energy efficiency 20 percent by 2015 and just weeks ago, a study on home energy efficiency by WalletHub rated Utah the most efficient state in the country, saving residents millions of dollars each year.

A second point to frame the economic debate is that investing in clean energy, and by extension a healthy economy, is good business and big business. The New York Stock Exchange Bloomberg Clean Energy Index is outperforming the rest of the stock market with gains of 6 percent in 2015, double those of the S&P 500 and Russell 3000 Index. Advanced Energy Economy estimates the global market for advanced energy at nearly $1.3 Trillion dollars. That is too big a market for the world's leading economy to ignore.

Clean energy is also putting America to work. The Solar Foundation counts more than 173,000 solar workers in America; the American Wind Energy Association reports the industry added 23,000 jobs in 2014 for a total of 73,000. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy reported in 2012 that there were 830,000 jobs in energy efficiency and growing at a rate of 3 percent per year.

Few issues touch as many voters and communities as climate change and few have as great an ability jumpstart our innovation economy. Yet, no issue appears to divide our national political parties as much as climate change, even as state and local officials continue to cross political aisles to protect their communities from its impacts. Unfortunately, no Republican presidential candidate has yet to release an energy plan that challenges energy markets to innovate toward a clean energy future.

A new poll by ClearPath finds that 73 percent of registered voters and 56 percent of registered Republicans understand that the climate change is real and that humans are contributing to it. Perhaps even more compelling, 72 percent of GOP voters support taking action to accelerate clean energy deployment in the U.S.

There is a political will among Republicans to address climate change. The words we use to frame the conversation matter. I believe that the Republican candidates would be surprised to learn how receptive conservative voters are to greater economic and national security through a renewed focus on innovation, environmental stewardship and investment in America's rightful place as a clean energy superpower.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Imagine that you are training for a marathon. The date is one month away and you've been training for a year. You really want to do well, so you decide that you are going to run all day every day for the last 30 of training. You won't even take a break for lunch because you don't want to interrupt your 10 hours of non-stop running.

Can you imagine the effects that would have on your body? You would definitely not perform well on race day. In fact, you would probably be injured and unable to run.

There's a good reason why marathon training regimens include lots of rest in between training runs. The body needs rest in order to repair itself and prepare for the next training run.

We all know that our muscles need rest between periods of intense exercise. However, many of us don't seem to realize that our brains, too, need rest between intense periods of exercise.

The Science of Breaks

Two recent studies conducted at the University of Illinois and the University of Canterbury suggest that our performance is improved when we take breaks and disengage from what we're working on. Another study at the University of Canterbury even suggests that the longer one performs a task, the longer breaks need to be in order to prevent a decline in performance.

Over the long term, we're actually much more productive if we take breaks than if we work non-stop for hours on end.

The brain is the most energy intensive organ in the body. According to this article in Scientific American, despite comprising only about 2 percent of the mass of the body, the brain uses more than 20 percent of the energy in the body!

If we don't give the brain breaks, it simply fatigues and becomes less effective.

A Productivity Plan that Includes Breaks

Many productivity experts encourage taking a five-minute break every 25 minutes (the Pomodoro Technique) or a 10-minute break every 50 minutes. The idea is to be hyper focused on whatever task we're working on for a specified period of time, and then intentionally relaxing the mind for a period of time.

Because I'm a morning person, the sweet spot for me tends to be working for 50 minutes with a ten-minute break in the mornings, and then shortening the time of intense work as the day progresses after lunch time. If you're an afternoon person, you might want to reverse this, starting with shorter periods of work in the morning and then lengthening them as you feel more energized.

I'm always amazed by how quickly solutions come after taking a break, or even while on I'm on a break. Often times, after working to find a solution for 30 minutes or more, clarity on the best way to proceed often comes almost instantly during a break, or when I first start to work on the task again after the break.

Boost Your Breaks with Mindfulness

To get the most out of your breaks, I highly recommend taking at least a few minutes to allow your mind to completely disengage from thinking by practicing mindfulness. Whether you practice while walking, standing, sitting, or doing some simple task like cleaning your desk, or washing your hands, or eating, or drinking (proper hydration and blood sugar levels are also essential components of brain effectiveness), make an effort to let go of intentionally thinking.

Instead, try to notice whether or not you are thinking and keep your awareness open to what's actually happening in the present moment. You may notice that there is a lot of thinking, which is to be expected on a break. Just recognize that there is thinking present and be open to what else you notice. You might notice sounds, sights, physical sensations, or even smells or tastes. Whatever is happening, just keep an open, curious attitude of "What's happening right now?"

Have you experimented with being intentional about taking breaks?

What have you noticed as a result?

I'd love to see your comments below.

*****

Matt Tenney is the author of Serve to Be Great, and the forthcoming book The Mindfulness Edge: How to Rewire Your Brain for Leadership and Personal Excellence Without Adding to Your Schedule. To be among the first to get a free preview of Matt's new book, visit www.TheMindfulnessEdge.com.
To connect with Matt, visit www.MattTenney.com.

Image Credit

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Our challenge as marketers is to navigate the world of big data in order to harness the power of the right data.

IDC estimates that by 2020, we will generate 40 zettabytes of data - that's 40 trillion gigabytes! This growth represents a 15X increase over 2012 and is driven by a proliferation of both structured (e.g., customer and sales transactional data) and unstructured data (e.g., social media conversations.)

With this proliferation of data about seemingly each and every brand interaction, it can be both overwhelming and easy to get lost. However, with a well-thought out vision, the right data can ensure that insights are business-relevant and that actions derived from these insights are aligned to achieving strategic objectives.

Here's a five-step process to both identify and leverage business-relevant data and insights through a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) framework:

Establish strategic objectives: your strategic objectives (5-7) should be macro-level objectives that define specific and measurable outcomes for your organization and/or initiative. Examples include: increase market awareness, decrease cost per sale, increase quality of social media content, improve customer net-promoter score, etc.

Develop a measurement plan: for each strategic objective, define a specific measure as the KPI. Examples of KPIs include: year over year increase in brand familiarity, year over year decrease in cost per sale, month over month increase in social engagement rates, etc. For each KPI, establish a target (definition of success) or achievement goal for each measure (e.g., 5 percent as the target for year over year increase in brand familiarity, 10 percent as the target for decrease in cost per sale, 5 percent as the target for increase in social media engagement rates, etc. )

Measure: implement a business intelligence plan of action for the measurement plan through the creation of dashboards and data visualizations. The business intelligence solution should provide stakeholders with transparency into how each KPI is performing against its target, including percent achievement of the stated goal. The dimensions of the business intelligence solution should align to those outlined in the measurement plan (e.g., Worldwide, Region, Industry, etc.)

Communicate: provide performance assessment readouts to stakeholders in a way that both excites and engages the audience. Some individuals are more visually oriented (pictures and graphs work better); whereas, others are data oriented (numbers and data tables work better) -- so know your audience and engage with them in the way they prefer. The cadence of the performance assessment readouts should align to your business operating calendar (e.g., monthly business reviews, bi-weekly executive read-outs, quarterly updates, etc.)

Action planning: the true value of leveraging the right data is creating a platform for continuous improvement - against achievement of the strategic objectives. Through this process, we should answer the following questions: How are we achieving against goals? What worked? What didn't? Why? How can we be better in the future? Action planning helps us identify and execute strategies and tactics that increase performance of strategic KPIs.

The common (and most important) thread that runs through each step of this process is the human one - our people. For success, it's imperative that each step include up-front input, expertise, and engagement from the right people -- not only for executive support and thought leadership, but also for buy-in, adoption, and execution.

How do you and your organization leverage the right data?

Jerry Nichols is currently the Global Head of Marketing Performance Management at SAP, where he leads the efforts to ensure that SAP Marketing achieves its organizational objectives. Prior to rejoining SAP in 2013, he built and led the analytics and measurement practices for JWT New York, SAP North America, and Cisco Systems, Inc.

Jerry is both a marketing and analytics enthusiast: writing blogs and speaking at the DMA and other professional venues. He is on the DMA programming advisory and is on the Board of Directors for Marketing EDGE. Jerry has a Master's Degree in Mathematical Sciences/Statistics from Virginia Commonwealth University and lives in New York, NY.

Follow: @jerry_l_nichols
To visit SAP's key owned digital properties; visit sap.com, SAP Community Network and our corporate Linked In, Twitter and Facebook and You Tube pages.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

So, the much-heralded U.S. freedom of navigation operation in the South China Sea has finally seen daylight. The designated lead, the USS Lassen, is a guided missile destroyer which has already been patrolling the South China Sea in recent weeks. After leaving port in East Malaysia this morning, the destroyer sailed on a course for the Spratly Islands that would take it within 12 nautical miles of the Subi and Mischief reefs, two submerged features occupied by China and recently built up into artificial islands. Earlier U.S. officials had suggested the U.S. warship would would be accompanied by patrol aircraft, to demonstrate overflight rights in parallel.

The aim of the FoN operation is to physically demonstrate the U.S. Navy's legal right to operate in the area -- including in proximity to low-tide elevations that are not entitled to generate a territorial sea -- but not to challenge China's sovereignty claims per se. FoN "assertions" are meant to be conducted with restraint in order to emphasize their legal character, and to counter allegations that such operations amount to a modern form of "gunboat diplomacy."

In the background, however, the over-the-horizon presence of a U.S. aircraft carrier group signals that the U.S. takes the threat of escalation seriously and can respond if Chinese civilian or naval forces were to seriously challenge U.S. warships or aircraft.

The greater risk is that China will use U.S. FoN operations to justify an overtly military phase to the island construction project.

The operation is unlikely to end here and will probably usher in a sustained U.S. naval and air presence in the weeks ahead. To address Chinese charges of double standards, the U.S. Navy should avoid involving Southeast Asian Spratlys claimants directly in the operations, and should be prepared to assert FoN where they have also engaged in creeping jurisdiction. In the next, more open-ended phase, U.S. allies including Australia could make their own distinct contribution, though this should avoid the appearance of clutching on to Uncle Sam's coattails.

It didn't have to be like this. By prevaricating so publicly and for so long the U.S. unnecessarily put its credibility on the line and has also made it harder for China to calibrate its reaction. For all that the U.S. genuinely believes it is acting in the common good by upholding "freedom of the seas," the South China Sea has already become a symbolic U.S.-China sparring ground, raising the temperature for what should have been a routine operation conducted months ago.

Ultimately, it may take a crisis for the U.S.-China relationship to reach a stable equilibrium. But in the current context, I believe the doom-laden scenario of a U.S.-China naval clash in the South China Sea to be remote. As I have argued elsewhere, the greater risk is that China will use U.S. FoN operations to justify an overtly military phase to the island construction project.

The best that can probably be hoped for is that Washington's belated actions, although conducted at higher cost and risk than should have been the case, can hold the line on U.S. resolve until the next administration. Depending on how Beijing frames its response, one silver lining could be improved clarity about the extent of China's maritime boundaries within the ambiguous U-shaped line in the South China Sea. But don't hold your breath: we're in this for the long haul.

Also on WorldPost:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

I once worked for a Senior Vice President who had no plan. Really, he had no plan for where his business was headed. To make sure his peers never figured that out, he barked out orders in meetings. His team was constantly working on some tactical project. When they were done, he was never satisfied and told them to redo their work. There was lots of activity, tons of frustration, and zero achievement.

There are bad managers, and then there are bad managers who belong in a special class all their own.

Spend enough time in the workforce, and you are bound to run into one of these characters. Their presence is often a warning sign of deeper problems within an organization. They make life difficult for themselves, and it seems like their life goal is to make everyone around them crazy too.

Managers have a great opportunity to lead and be a positive role model to others. However, too many do not take their role or their responsibility seriously.

They do not recognize the potential impact -- good and bad -- they can have on others, and they squander the opportunities they have to make a difference.

As the CEO of Aha! I now have the privilege of handpicking the leaders in the organization. And I look for managers that work really hard and treat others with openness and respect. But earlier in my career, I did not get to choose who I worked with and I witnessed the collateral damage that some bad managers can cause to others.

Now that I have some distance from those situations, I can see that the most troublesome ones often fell into three categories of craziness: the rock collector, the double-speaker, and the life-styler.

You may not be able to completely escape these crazy managers throughout your career. However, here is some advice on what to watch out for and when you should start running the other direction, and hopefully you will emerge with your own sanity still intact:

The rock collector
The Senior Vice President that I mentioned above fit this category. The rock collector has no idea what he really is looking for. But that will not slow him down. Instead of moving forward with purpose, his direction seems to change course each day. He sends you chasing after a goal that was never defined, and thus impossible to achieve. If you have a rock collector for a manager, you will rarely please him and your self-confidence can waver over time.

I call him a rock collector because no matter what you bring back, it is never the right rock. It's too smooth, or shiny, or even too large. How can you avoid the scavenger hunt each day? Try to pin him down on specific, measurable goals that you can achieve to mark your progress. Ask him to clearly define what he wants you to accomplish.

The double-speaker
This manager is well-versed in the art of duplicity and manipulation, always looking out for #1. Depending on who she is talking to, she will share whatever she thinks the other person wants to hear. She is so used to double-talk that she does not even realize she is doing it.

If you have this type of manager, you may have to dig deep to find the truth and compare notes with others to determine which story is most accurate. My suggestion: Learn her body language, which will betray her dishonesty. And take careful notes whenever she gives you a direction. When she flip-flops, you have the evidence and can kindly point out that she is flipping around like a fish out of water.

The life-styler
This manager is joie de vivre personified, and his careless attitude towards life extends to work. While he does not want anything to come between him and his fun, he seems blissfully unaware of everyone else's hard work on his behalf. If you have something important to discuss, you have to catch the life-styler in between long lunches and hours spent on the links.

Someone needs to be the adult, so it might as well be you. Step up, and be equally cheerful but firm. Explain that you need answers, and that the work cannot be accomplished until you have them. Your boss will hopefully realize his laziness is costing the organization and will start behaving more responsibly. Your co-workers will be silently celebrating your courage as well.

These managers are not necessarily bad people. They have simply picked up bad habits or never learned how to lead well.

But their poor management style poses a real hazard to the rest of us who are trying to just do our jobs and make our way in the world.

My final word of advice: Stay away from crazy managers if you can. But I know that is silly because it's not always possible. So, when you figure out your boss is nuts, increase the transparency in your communications, work more broadly across the organization, do your job to the best of your ability.

Most crazy bosses survive about a year. So, try to wait him out. But if he carries on for more than a year, it's time to put your running shoes on and start stretching out.

How have you coped with a crazy manager in the past?

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

I'm still surprised when I find unexpected connections with innovation in different industries.
---
In a recent workshop with a large company focused on the Innovation@50x process, I mentioned that founders and intraprenuers operate more like artists than accountants - on day one they see something no one else does. One of the innovators in the room said, "It sounds like you're describing exactly what Ed Catmull the CEO of Pixar wrote in Creativity, Inc."

Say what? I kicked myself knowing that I should have thought of Pixar.

While I'm sure Ed Catmull doesn't remember, when Pixar was a startup selling the Image Computer, their VP of Sales and Marketing brought me in to put together their marketing strategy. John Lassiter was just beginning to make commercials, Alvy Ray Smith was building Iceman and Loren Carpenter and Rob Cook were writing Renderman.

I should have realized there was a ton I could learn about corporate creativity by looking at Pixar.

So I bought the book.
-----
I always thought that when I used the "founders as artists" analogy, the "artists" I was describing were painters, writers, sculptors and composers. I wondered what lessons Pixar, an animation studio, could have for founders. What were the parallels? Startup founders operate in chaos and uncertainty. Founders get out of the building to talk to customers. We create minimal viable products to test hypotheses/our vision, and we build a culture that supports innovation. It never occurred to me that the directors of 3D animated movies at Pixar could be the same "founders as artists."

It turns out that they are. And in fact, the creative process at Pixar has a ton of lessons for both startup founders and corporate innovators.

Directors = Startup Founder
Pixar is a filmmaker-driven studio. That means the entire company is driven by directors - the artists - not by corporate executives in management with MBA's or financial models or a development department.

A director at Pixar is the equivalent of a startup founder. At Pixar a director's vision for a film is much like a founder's vision for a startup. The director starts with a vision of a great story he wants to turn into an animated movie. On day one, all a director has is his vision - she doesn't yet know the exact path to get to the final movie. (Like a startup founder.) Pixar directors use their ability to tell a compelling story to convince management that their initial idea is powerful enough to be a great movie. (Like a startup.) They get approval, build and rally a team, get their team out of the building and do research and iterate and at times pivot the story/film as they refine the vision of the movie. (Like a startup.) Once their idea is approved, the company organizes its technical and production resources (hundreds of people on each movie) behind those directors to turn their vision into a great movie that lots of people will go see. (Like a startup.)

It Starts With a Vision
While the parallels between a director and a startup founder are striking, what's even more surprising is the match between the creative process Pixar uses to make its movies and our implementation of Lean for startups in the Lean LaunchPad and I-Corps incubators.

When Pixar begins a new movie the movie doesn't exist yet. It's only an idea in the head of the director (or in the case of a startup, the founder.) How the director crafts reality out of this vision is exactly like how a founder creates a startup - it's a combination of vision, reality distortion field, tenacity and persuasion.

Directors, like founders, develop mental models for how they search for an unseen destination - they "get in the zone." Some directors view it as finding a way out of a maze, or looking for a light at the end of a tunnel or uncovering a buried mountain.

Greenlight = VC Funding
At Pixar, if you're a director with a passion for a project you pitch a very simple minimum viable product - in this case storyboards which are just rough illustrations that help to tell the story page by page. If you can convince John Lasseter, Pixar's chief creative officer, the film will be greenlit - it gets funding. The process is akin to pitching a VC firm.

Braintrust = Continual Feedback
One of the systems that Pixar has put in place to keep the development of a movie on track is regular doses of open and honest feedback from other experienced directors in regularly scheduled meetings called the "Braintrust." A director shares his latest progress in the the form of storyboards, demo reels, etc. (what we in startup world would call the minimum viable product) and the critiques from other directors take the the form of comments like, "Have you considered x or thought about y?" Directors are free to come up with their own solutions. But if feedback from the Braintrust is given and nothing changes... that's a problem. And if the director loses the confidence of his crew, Pixar management steps in.

In the Lean LaunchPad/I-Corps our equivalent to the Braintrust are weekly meetings where teams present what they learned from talking to customers and show their latest minimum viable products, and instructors provide continuous feedback.

I found other parallels between Pixar's method for managing innovation and what we built in the Lean LaunchPad/I-Corps incubators. (Oren Jacob, Pixar's ex CTO has been teaching with us at Berkeley and Stanford and has been trying to point out this connection for years!)

Innovation Management - Animation and Startups
Dailies are the way animators (and movie makers) show and measure progress. Everyone can comment but the director decides what changes, if any, to make. Dailies are Pixar equivalents of showing your incremental MVP's- minimum viable products. In the Lean LaunchPad/I-Corps, we make our teams show us MVP's weekly to measure progress.

Research trips - Pixar wanted to avoid the trap of cutting up and reassembling what was done in previous movies so they instituted research trips - "getting out of the building" to get authenticity and keep clichés at bay. Pixar animators flew to Hawaii and went scuba diving for Finding Nemo, to Scotland while they were making Brave and drove Route 66 when making Cars. Pixar movies feel authentic because they're modeled after the real world.

Lean Startups are built around the same notion as Pixar research trips. With startups, there are no facts inside your building so founders have to get the heck outside. Entrepreneurs work hard at becoming the customer, so they can understand customers needs and wants and experience the customer's the day-in-the-life.

Pivots - Directors can pivot as long as their team can believe the reasons for changing course. When you lose your team's trust, the team will bail. Same is true for startup founders. And if pivots don't work or the Pixar Braintrust feels that after lots of feedback, the movie still is heading in the wrong direction, they replace the director - identical when a founder loses the the board's confidence and gets replaced.

The power of limits - Although Pixar movies are incredibly detailed, one of their strengths is knowing when to stop. In a startup knowing that every feature isn't necessary and knowing what not to ship, is the art of a founder.

Postmortems - After a film is completed, Pixar holds a postmortem, a meeting to summarize what worked, what didn't and what they could do better next time. In the Lean LaunchPad/I-Corps classes, the teaching team does post mortems weekly and then a final wrap-up after class. More importantly, our teams' final presentation are not a Demo Day, but a Lesson Learned presentation summarizing what they hypothesized, what they did and what they learned.

Continuous corporate innovation @ Pixar
While the parallels between individual Pixar movies and startups is striking, Pixar's CEO Ed Catmull has built is a company that has continued to innovate, making hit after hit. While part of Pixar's success has been built on a series of world class directors (John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Brad Bird, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich), what makes Pixar unique is that in a "hits-based business" they've figured out how to turn directors' visions into blockbuster movies repeatedly. Pixar has built a process of continuous corporate innovation.

Innovation Killers - Pixar Lessons for Corporate Innovation
Ed Catmull points than one of the impediments to innovation in a large company is the "fear of failure". In a fear-based culture people avoid risk. They repeat things that are safe and have worked in the past. His solution at Pixar was to get directors to talk about mistakes and their part in them. Surfacing failure publically by the most respected innovators makes it safe for others to do the same. (Getting middle management to tolerate and not feel threatened by problems and surprises is one of the biggest jobs of Pixar's CEO and senior leadership.)

The second innovation insight at Pixar is the power of iterative trial and error - the notion of being wrong fast. (One of the key tenets of the Lean Startup.) Catmull observed that even the smartest person can't consider all possible outcomes. Managers who over-plan just take longer to be wrong. Managers see change as a threat to their existing business model - and it is. Self-interest motivates opposition to change but lack of self awareness fuels it even more.

Finally, Catmull's observation that "originality is fragile" speaks to the startup process as well as to making movies. At Pixar in it's first moments, originality is often far from pretty. Early mockups of Pixar films are called "ugly babies." However, while it may be ugly, it's the opposite of the established and entrenched. (We remind large companies that version 1.0 of disruption - these ugly babies - coming their way always looks like a toy.)

Lessons Learned

Founders are closer to artists than any other profession

Founders and Pixar directors have uncanny parallels

Pixar, more than Apple, Google, Amazon or any other large company, holds the record for continuous innovation

Pixar and the Lean LaunchPad/I-Corps share common ways to support repeatable innovation and market success

Steve Blank's blog: www.steveblank.com

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

For more than a year now, headlines in Singapore's government-controlled press and some independent outlets have taken shots at the three-year-old Yale-National University of Singapore College, an experiment in liberal-arts education in Asia that some of us warned would encounter obstacles underestimated by Yale's globe-trotting trustees and administrators. But even the negative headlines veil the real problem here: Liberal-arts colleges shouldn't commit their good names and their principles to the care of tightly run, authoritarian regimes.

A recent story in Singapore's Straits Times ballyhooed the impending departures of three of Yale-NUS' four deans. Another depicted students as dissatisfied with the curriculum, citing "feedback from students about erratic grades and confusing lectures in some science topics." Singapore's TODAYonlineclaimed that "Yale-NUS courses do not match students' academic expectations" and that "Lack of depth in modules, staffing issues [are] among reasons for students dropping out."

Most of these stories were so poorly reported and dubiously sourced that they read more like politically motivated warning signals than like serious journalism. But that only suggests a deeper problem -- as did Prime Minister Lee Hsieng Loong himself, in a speech at the October 12 inauguration of the newly-completed Yale-NUS campus.

Speaking in the presence of Yale's former president Richard Levin, who led Yale into the joint venture, and of current president Peter Salovey, Lee declared that a Yale-NUS education must not be a carbon copy of a Yale liberal education and that Yale will have to adapt to suit Asian ways. "Singapore PM Lee Warns Yale-NUS: This Isn't New Haven," read the headline in the Asian Sentinel.

Lee's rather musty, faux-multiculturalist invocation of "Asian values" was diplo-speak veiling his more narrowly instrumentalist, authoritarian, state-capitalist assertion that Yale-NUS is now in its paymaster Singapore's pocket. That should prompt us to recall the Yale political theorist Seyla Benhabib's more prescient warning, sounded four years ago in "Why I Oppose Yale in Singapore":

"If [Yale's] purpose is to set a model for a liberal arts education, why not engage India, the country with a free and contentious public sphere and an extra-ordinary intellectual life both in India and in the Indian diaspora? " she wrote. "Experiments in democratic education are best performed with in genuinely open, multicultural and multi-faith democracies, such as India, rather than in the artificial, boutique-like security of places like Singapore or Abu Dhabi."

At Benhabib's urging, Yale College faculty passed a resolution expressing concern about "the lack of respect for civil and political rights in the state of Singapore," ideals that "lie at the heart of liberal arts education as well as of our civic sense as citizens," warning the Yale administration not to compromise those ideals "in any dealings or negotiations with Singaporean authorities." Four months later, Levin announced that he would resign as Yale's president. (He now heads Coursera, the MOOC giant in California.)

Yale-NUS does deserve a chance to prove itself, and Singapore's mean-spirited gestures only suggest that the college is trying to vindicate liberal education in a regime that's as unreceptive to its letter and spirit as Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, and the American Association of University Professors have shown Singapore to be.

Perhaps in belated acknowledgment that those warnings had merit -- and possibly in a more immediate response to Prime Minister Lee's own triumphalist pronouncement that Yale must do things his way -- President Salovey on October 15 signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the vice-chancellor of India's Ashoka University "that codifies and reaffirms how [Yale and Ashoka] universities have previously worked together and establishes a framework for potentially deeper collaboration in the future," the Yale Daily Newsreported.

Salovey emphasized, revealingly, I think, that "Yale's faculty have been involved with Ashoka from its start and the cooperation represents the kind of global engagement that I want to foster -- faculty-initiated and faculty-directed activities that benefit students and contribute to the research, teaching and service missions of Yale. Over the last decade, Yale has been deliberately expanding its engagement with India through the Yale India Initiative and this cooperation with Ashoka fits into the goals of the initiative to expand Yale's ties with India." It also departs markedly from the model that Salovey's predecessor pursued with Singapore.

In the hall of blue smoke and mirrors where heads of state and heads of universities seem condemned to tread, Lee's warning and what we might call Salovey's pivot to India may, like Obama's "pivot to Asia," reflect an eagerness to shift perceptions about past blunders as well as to regain opportunities not taken. Such shifts are always announced with professions of smooth continuity, great good feeling, and the dawn of a bright new day, but Yale's declarations about faculty initiative and liberal transparency in the India relationship differ almost pointedly from its secret contract with Singapore.

I don't mean to suggest that Yale is pulling out of Singapore or rebuffing offers from the regime there -- as more than twenty universities have done. Just as Obama and the national defense establishment aren't leaving Afghanistan and the Middle East in their "pivot" to East Asia, Salovey and the Yale Corporation aren't withdrawing Yale-NUS from Singapore in turning to India.

But both know that their predecessors rushed them into arrangements that have compromised democracy and liberal education, and they're trying to offset them. Those of us who've warned about those blunders extensively here and elsewhere and have urged more constructive advances in liberal education at home and abroad hope that Yale's venture in India will incorporate the hard lessons of its blunder into a university-to-regime contract in Singapore whose terms have never been disclosed.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

For those who have been following this week's food fight between Theranos and The Wall Street Journal, there are illustrative lessons to be learned surrounding the power of disruption.

Theranos is a white-hot biomedical startup that has become the tech success story darling of the decade, founded by a bright Stanford drop out named Elizabeth Holmes. Theranos, which began in her dorm room, was designed to simplify and disrupt the very lucrative field of blood testing. Instead of having to fill several vials with blood extracted by needles in a doctor's office, Theranos would only need a finger prick at a local Walgreens. From that, their unique (and proprietary) technology called Edison would use a minute sample of blood to generate up to 240 tests. On its face, Theranos would revolutionize medicine in a fashion unseen in generations. Best of all, they would get the tests back faster and maintain a high degree of accuracy.

Theranos soon raised $400 million in funding and soon had a valuation of $9 billion, making Holmes a billionaire in her own right in her early 30's. She soon became the voice of her generation and she and her black turtleneck could be found up on the dais at major tech or medical conferences. Her photo shoots often had her looking wanly into the distance as if she saw something in the future that nobody else could discern. The story of how Ms. Holmes founded Theranos bubbled virally throughout Facebook and on to other online communities. She quickly became a superstar of her own right and often found on a variety of media outlets.

However, The Wall Street Journal article throttled Theranos to the core. In it, writer John Carreyrou charged that the technology does not live up the hype because instead of using Edison, they were using preexisting technology for the great majority of their medical tests. As for Edison, it was only being used for 15 of the 200 tests and there were concerns that the medical accuracy was off when judged against traditional blood testing machinery.

Worse, Theranos' response has been more damning than the allegations. Holmes has suggested that there are companies that would like to see Theranos fail. They have charged that The Wall Street Journal is a tabloid. However Theranos has failed to agree to publish their findings within peer reviewed journals. They have also refused (as of this printing) to compare their results to their traditional rivals to address accuracy. When it comes to Edison, Theranos is secretive to a fault about its propriety technology, which will do more harm than good.

Theranos can bullet-point all the rebuttals it wishes in a PR campaign, but if the science is bunk they know their goose is cooked. Unlike a newly hyped product that tanks, Theranos focuses on life and death issues. Faulty data from incorrect blood tests could lead to an erroneous medical diagnosis. In this case, a false positive might lead to the difference between having and not having diabetes.

Worse, the legal fallout from this would be catastrophic and Elizabeth Holmes would become the face that launched a thousand lawsuits. If the Edison technology by Theranos is little more than medical vaporware, Elizabeth Holmes will join Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (the disgraced inventors of cold fusion from the 1980's) in a special ring of hell as opposed to having a special island getaway on Mustique.

So what happened? This is where Theranos has become its own worst enemy. The Wall Street Journal story alleges that employees at Theranos (who are unnamed in the article) understood that their technology, while promising, simply failed to live up to the hype. Might this simply be a case where aspirations were way ahead of the available technology, like introducing a personal computer in 1950 as opposed to 1980? Is this a situation where a company and a culture believed its own hype even when a simple investigation proved otherwise?

However, by stonewalling and pointing fingers at The Wall Street Journal, Elizabeth Holmes has thrown up a big red flag to federal regulators and the investment community. Her board, which seems better suited for nuclear disarmament talks than a biotech start up, needs to step up. To move past this crisis, the proof would be found in the pudding. They need to show how their propriety technology works and not hide behind the legalese of trade secrets. The technology at Theranos either works or it doesn't and people want answers now.

This brings us to another storied disruptor, Elon Musk of Tesla. Consumer Reports, which was initially blown away by the Model S, removed its vaunted "recommended" rating in a stunning turnaround. The magazine noted that "the main problem areas involved the drivetrain, power equipment, charging equipment, giant iPad-like center console, and body and sunroof squeaks, rattles, and leaks." Boiled down to its basics, The Model S might be cool to test drive but it soon begins to have the very problems that Musk himself once mocked the Detroit automakers.

Musk responded that the issues were with older versions of the Model S and these problems have been resolved. However, what is troubling is that the downgrade was prompted by 1,400 reader comments, which caused Consumer Reports to rethink their rating.

Today the average car is on the road for 11.6 years before it joins the junk heap or is sold to Asia or South America. Based on what Consumer Reports has written about Tesla, would the Model S rival the average lifespan of a current car on the road today? So instead of creating the future, Musk may have created a very expensive and problem-plagued 1981 Chevy Citation.

This brings us to the larger Achilles Heel of disrupters. Disrupting the marketplace today is one thing--but product durability is the key to long term sustainability. Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, and the pantheon of great entrepreneurs had both. Theranos and Tesla now have question marks over their brands.

However, the great concern is that both Theranos and Tesla might suffer from the "IKEA Syndrome." Furniture at IKEA may look cool and you can see the intelligence in the design, but we all know it lacks the durability of what is found at Thomasville. If the Wall Street Journal article holds up, then Theranos is in big trouble. Tesla needs to address their quality control issues with something more than a tweet. These are unforgiving times. Unless somebody moves quickly, both Tesla and Theranos may discover that simply being a marketplace disrupter may not be enough.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

This article is part of the Young & Entrepreneurial series that features young startup founders and entrepreneurs. You can see past features here.

Student entrepreneurship is one of the hot topics right now. While we've all heard about the magical stories of Stanford students being able to start companies right in their rooms with Silicon Valley investors right in their backyard, more and more students in the East Coast are starting to hop into the startup craze. However, being a student entrepreneur is one of the hardest jobs anybody could have.

As an aspiring student entrepreneur and a community ecosystem builder myself, I wanted to see how universities are supporting student entrepreneurs. After writing an article about WayUp Cofounder JJ Fliegelman, I was able to get in contact with their main investor General Catalyst. After hopping on a Skype call with General Catalyst, I would soon get the chance to speak with the 25 year old General Catalyst Partner Peter Boyce III who started Rough Draft Ventures, a student-run VC firm in Boston.

The Cofounders of Rough Draft Ventures: Peter Boyce and Nitesh Banta

I ended up speaking with Peter for an hour about the genesis of Rough Draft Ventures, the value they provide startups, what he has learned, his advice to aspiring entrepreneurs and how he initially got into this world of startups.

The Genesis of Rough Draft Ventures

It was during his time at Harvard where Peter saw how hard it was for student entrepreneurs to balance the everyday grind of being a student while also running their company. At the same time, he saw how many students would either not pursue their idea due to the lack of funding and support or decide to fully commit to their idea and dropout. Where was the in-between?

He shared, "I worked with a bunch of friends on an accelerator program called HackHarvard which helped students build their companies; some of the startups ended up going to Y Combinator while some of them dropped out to raise their seed round."

What Peter felt though was that often teams just needed a little bit more help in order to really take their idea to the next level. He added, "I basically spent a bunch of my time thinking about the right model of programs that could support students who were interested in entrepreneurship. So senior year, I went to talk to General Catalyst since they were big supporters of technology startups and we worked together to come up with rough draft so we could help students who were founding companies."

Upon graduating, Peter would join the General Catalyst team to continue working on the program. Fast-forward 3.5 years later and Rough Draft Ventures has helped just under 50 teams with these teams raising over $130M collectively. Peter along with the 'super-hero' crew of ten student-partners help these startups in a variety of ways.

How can we help student-entrepreneurs have a higher chance of success?

Given the complex dynamic of being a student-entrepreneur, Rough Draft Ventures really tries to focus on solving the problems these student-entrepreneurs face by helping them overcome the early challenges of starting a startup.

Peter shared, "The promise of translating product into a company requires so many things that folks have never done before. Figuring out how to setup a bank account, getting incorporated, raising money, finding an office space, hiring--these sound so trivial but as smart as these founders are, this is unchartered territory."

In response to this, Rough Draft has a founder handbook that has all the different blog-posts, websites and resources aggregated into one. Additionally, Rough Draft also tries to provide runway for these students to work on their ideas for a few more months than they normally could. This is done through the pre-seed funding Rough Draft provides and the additional resources they have secured from partners like Amazon, Stripe, Github, Dropbox, Gusto, Hubspot and a bunch of other companies.

Peter shared, "We basically tell them we want to use your tools to help students build their companies. We then collaborate with them to offer student rate packages to extend the runway so they can work on their idea for a few extra months."

Aside from the resources and services, Rough Draft puts a big focus on community and mentorship. With a cross-campus community that includes student founders and student partners from Harvard, MIT, Babson, Northeastern, Tufts, Boston University, Boston College, Olin and a few other schools, the reach of talent and collaboration is taken to a whole new level.

Peter added, "Suddenly, student founders gain access to a much larger network."

Student Entrepreneurs pitching to Rough Draft Ventures Student-Partners (Photo taken from Erik Jacobs)

The Value-Add of Rough Draft

The conversation then shifted to specific services and examples of Rough Draft really helping student founders take their startup to the next level. Peter shared, "When they need expertise in a certain area, we connect them with somebody from the general catalyst team. Founders hop on a call with one of the experts here and it does so much to enable them."

Peter expounded by giving the example of press outreach and how a lot of student founders never really had a press call or never wrote a press release. He shared, "we have press kit, a press kit 101 package that we can hand to students and say these are the strategies and material."

Furthermore, Rough Draft organizes office hours on specific topics to help provide students with tangible takeaways and skillsets they otherwise wouldn't have learned in class. For quick questions, Rough Draft also has a Slack group where founders can just hop on and chat with each other, including alumni founders. Peter shared, "for example, if somebody is interviewing for tech stars, they can hop on slack and say, hey we have an interview coming up for tech stars, has anyone done the program before and can offer some advice?"

Rough Draft Success Stories

Peter gave examples of recent success stories like Mark43 as proof of Rough Draft's work. He shared how Mark43 started with students working on a school project that eventually turned into a startup with Rough Draft being one of the first to back them. Where are they now? They just finished raising their Series A round.

The other success story Peter shared was Cymbal, a music discovery app powered by your friends. Peter shared, "This was a young team out of Tufts University. They wanted to create a mobile community for music, an Instagram like experience for sharing music. It was their senior year, and they were a team that wanted to take their jobs in Facebook and Google since they had return offers. So how do we convince them to work on their idea?"

Peter ended up taking them aside during a community dinner and introducing them to some of the founders Rough Draft worked with so they could learn more about the program. The end result? Cymbal ended up raising their seed-round and the founders are all now in New York working full-time on Cymbal.

Aside from these two examples, three Rough Draft backed-startups participated in YCombinator's most recent batch: Tetrascience, CloudStitch and Omboard IQ.

The inter-college community of Rough Draft is one of its biggest value-adds (Photo taken from Rough Draft)

From Building Things to Empowering The World's Future

While Peter enjoys building products having started a computer consulting business at 14 years old, he has found his love in working along side folks that want to build things and helping them achieve their goals and dreams.

I asked him if he plans on potentially leaving VC to start a startup, and he replied, "I love working alongside entrepreneurs and find the key ways that I can be helpful to them. I see Rough Draft ventures as my startup; I kind of built it from the ground up."

He added, "I think about my mom who is a horseback riding instructor and her decision to be a horseback riding instructor as opposed to being an Olympic rider; She gets to train and help teach the best riders in the world as opposed to being the best rider herself. She gets to meet many more people that way and she derives her happiness and livelihood from doing that."

Finally, looking back at what Rough Draft has become after its founding, Peter shared, "It wasn't clear at that time how big this could become. I was literally on the verge of failing one of my classes as we were getting rough draft of the ground and I remember emailing of my professors a Tech Crunch article about Rough Draft and I was telling him, you have to give me credit for this because I've been working on this even more than my classes."

Whether or not he got credit for that TC article doesn't matter anymore because Peter has built something worth more than any class he took--a support system and network for the student entrepreneurs who'll be revolutionizing our world.

Check out this video below featuring Peter in an interview with OneWire:

---About the Author---

David Ongchoco is a student entrepreneur and avid storyteller from the Philippines studying at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in what he likes to call, LIFE. He is currently working on expanding his for-purpose organization YouthHack. It's David's goal to make an impact in the lives of as many people possible while constantly learning new things every single day. If you have any interesting startup stories, David can be reached via Twitter @DOitChoco. You can also email startupinsider.official@gmail.com.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Emotional Intelligence. We hear the term all the time, thinking it's some abstract leadership model that only the elite use to improve themselves and their teams.

I'm here to tell you that EQ is real and the opportunity to use it occurs many times a day, if you're willing to listen and use it. Here are three recent stories of how I successfully, and unsuccessfully, used my EQ in challenging situations.

Scenario 1: The Two-Minute Story Turned Tragic

I spoke at a team retreat, and although the word "retreat" might conjure up team building in a forest, these sessions took place in a classic Washington, DC corporate conference room, complete with overhead lighting, and a mammoth, glossy, wooden table surrounded by black chairs on wheels.

It Never Occurred to Me That My EQ Was About to Get Tested

While teaching a class on the 3 levels of listening, I asked an older man to share a 2-minute story about a time in his life when things just couldn't get any better. The purpose of this exercise was for the rest of the class to listen and share what they heard at each of the 3 levels of listening, which are what you hear, what body language you observe, and what you feel energetically as you listen. I've used this exercise many times; it never occurred to me that my EQ was about to get tested.

As the man shared his story about taking a vacation with his wife, it was clear there was a misalignment with his words and his body language. He spoke about enjoying delicious food, meeting interesting people, and learning about new cultures, yet his voice was monotone, his mouth was turned down and his shoulders slumped. You could hear a pin drop when his concluded; I looked around the room, trying to fathom what just happened during a simple exercise.

I Was Trying to Fathom What Happened

I found out. Sadly, his wife had just passed away.

I had just unknowingly walked into an emotional land mine, where the man was clearly upset and the rest of the room was silently staring at him with tears in their eyes.

What were my options at this point?

Ignore the story and say, "Who else would like to share?"

Avoid the emotions of the moment and announce that it's time for a 15-minute break.

Encourage the man to continue to share his story with the group for another 10 minutes.

Use my EQ.

How Should I Handle This Situation?

At a very basic level, EQ is about self-awareness (what am I feeling now?) and social awareness (how will my emotions impact the people in the room)? So while all this was happening, I had to quickly self-assess my feelings, which were sadness, embarrassment, panic and a host of others. I then had to self-manage my emotions so they didn't impact the rest of the training. So here's what I did:

Acknowledge the enormity of the situation by saying gently and with emotion, "I'm so sorry for your loss," then waiting a few seconds before speaking again.

Acknowledge the man by saying "Thank you for your courage in sharing this moment with all of us. I know that must have been difficult for you. You are a brave person.", then waiting a few seconds before speaking again.

Acknowledge the others by saying "I know many of you may be feeling a variety of emotions right now. Please take a moment and jot them down for yourself."

Use the moment as a learning opportunity by saying "These types of personal, emotional conversations occur at work more frequently than you think. People often have hardships in their personal life that they inadvertently bring with them to work. As leaders, you need to embrace these moments instead of running away from them. You don't have to go into therapy with the person, yet you do need to treat the situation with humanity and dignity before moving on. They will respect you for it."

It Takes Courage To Use EQ

This was one of the hardest teaching moments in my life. Why? Because using EQ takes courage. It's choosing the conversation that may be uncomfortable, scary and unfamiliar. Yet the rewards are trust, credibility and confidence.

Scenario 2: My Appetite Ate My EQ
dog-126164_640

Now let me take you to a hip tech company, the kind of wide-open office where you might see a French Bulldog sleeping under a desk, or a few guitars laying around. Don't get me wrong, this company is full of professionals, but they work hard to keep their culture unique, welcoming, and people-centric. The conference room I spoke in was airy and full of fresh, fun energy.

While teaching a course on energy management, I was working with a group of young, emerging leaders on setting achievable physical goals that would help them reach peak performance. We were overdue for a break and I could tell that everyone was getting antsy; my own stomach was grumbling for a snack.

I Could Tell Everyone Was Getting Antsy...

One young woman shared that her goal was to go to the gym for an hour daily, while also running 3 times a week. Since the topic was about achievable goals, I asked her how achievable it was. I meant it as a rhetorical example for the group; she took it literally and started to share that she knew he could do it. I politely suggested we talk about it after break; she persisted and wanted to share how she was going to do it. I then again politely suggested we discuss it after break and called a break for the group.

I Was Stunned

During break, within earshot of others, she told me that I was rude and disrespectful to her. I was stunned and angry; that was not my intention at all. How dare she call me disrespectful?!

I had just unknowingly walked into another emotional land mine, where I was hungry, only had 6 minutes left for break, was called rude and the rest of the group was quietly watching this encounter.

What were my options at this point?

Loudly disagree with her, allowing the conversation to escalate.

Dismiss her point and tell her to "Grow up; it's just one comment."

Tell her to talk to her boss if she didn't like the training.

Use my EQ.

How Should I Handle This Situation?

Self-managing my emotional reaction was not easy because I had low-blood sugar and needed to eat; I also knew the clock was ticking and people were watching. However, looking at it from her perspective, I also knew she was right. I could have handled it better. I had failed this EQ test.

I Got an "F" On This EQ Test

So I apologized for the misunderstanding. I looked her in the eye, apologized if I had offended her, and told her my intention was not to be disrespectful. I then shook her hand and thanked her for teaching me a valuable lesson. It was challenging to do this while my emotions were still running high and my stomach was still grumbling, yet I know that although I failed the initial EQ test, I had redeemed my EQ in that moment.

Scenario 3: The Questioning Scientist

Luckily at this gig, lunch was part of the program! Specifically, I was teaching a class on coaching at a "Lunch & Learn" for a large tech company, only this time--to a room full of scientists.

Coaching skills are one of the hardest management skills to learn, especially for people who work with data and facts on a daily basis. Why? Because coaching involves watching for non-verbal cues which can be hard to quantify.

It Was Time To Move On When a Woman in the Back of the Room Said...

After completing an exercise on non-verbal cues, it was clear the group was starting to understand how to watch for, and interpret, non-verbal cues. It was time to move on to teach the next phase of coaching when a woman in the back of room said in a loud, strong voice, "I don't see how watching someone's non-verbal cues is going to make me a better scientist or move our science ahead of the competition." Every eye turned to me, to see how I was going to handle this woman and her comment.

I Walked Into a Land Mine

Yet again, I walked into a land mine. We had three more exercises to do in a short period of time, the rest of the group seemed to understand the importance of non-verbal cues and I was irritated that this person had thrown me a curve ball.

What were my options at this point?

Shame her by saying, "If you had been paying attention to what I had said earlier, you would be able to answer your own question."

Ignore the actual question and ask her to talk to me after the session.

Redo the exercise, despite the fact that the rest of the group seemed to understand the point.

Use my EQ.

How Should I Handle This Situation?

As I mentally checked in with myself, I smiled to the group and took a deep breath to help self-manage my emotions. I then said, "Great question! What do others in the room think?" Two people then explained non-verbals from a scientific perspective, which not only helped the woman who asked the question but also complemented my information for the rest of the group.

Using EQ happens daily, in real-time. Challenging or uncomfortable conversations appear at random times, unexpectedly, at work, at home, in the community and everywhere in between. Your next text message may even require the use of EQ!

Yet, globally recognized leader in talent strategy and a pioneer in building the business case for brand humanization, Meghan M. Biro, Founder of TalentCulture, says few people actually exhibit emotional intelligence.

Maybe people don't display emotional intelligence because it's not always easy. Often the conversations that need EQ the most are the messiest ones. Choosing to have the messy conversation, instead of avoiding it, takes courage. But if you are willing to be in uncomfortable territory, you can look at these challenges as an opportunity to build deeper relationships and develop trust.

I would love to hear your successes and failures when it comes to EQ! It's something we all experience. Tell your story in the comment section below, send me an email, or let's connect on Twitter.

Curious if you have a high or low EQ? Here are some clues to help you figure it out. If you think it's on the low side, here are four ways to amp up your EQ today.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

These days, having a great idea just isn't enough. Everyone and their cousin has great ideas; ideas about transportation, time management, food, energy, consulting, healthcare, technology, delivery, manufacturing -- you name it, and it's been thought of. In fact, we even have entire organizations and infrastructures designed to generate and promote ideas. From something as small as a new synthetic fabric softener, to bigger things -- like developing the precursors of a time machine, we are far from being short of new thoughts.

Everyone thinks they are the next Steve Jobs, whether it's an idea for a new type of self-programming watch, a radio system, or a dog whistle. Yet, with so many innovative concepts flying around, why do so few get brought to fruition? And "few" is an extreme understatement. One out of every few hundred thought-leaders will successfully found a company, and turn it into some form of recognized organization for some period of time. Of these self-created CEOs and founders, a fraction -- and I mean less than one percent -- succeed in the long run. Coming up with an idea is easy. Growing a company from seed stage to IPO is extremely difficult. But at the same time, we see success all the time. Snapchat. Facebook. Pinterest. New ideas churn out millions of dollars, and it seems like a new one is born almost every week.

Success is possible, therefore. It just takes some work. The question then becomes -- what separates the companies who make it from those who don't?

There are many steps one must take to turn their idea to revenue. Gaining supporters, raising money, and growing an audience are a few of the early methods that can help in the long run. In your company's early stages, it is important to get feed back and iterate as much as you can until you can achieve product market fit. Investing in your idea and your team are good ways to ensure your security long term.

When you are part of a new company, getting your name out there is tricky. There are already a mountain of other, established companies, many of which might be doing something similar to what you are trying to do. Getting the right press, media, and marketing is crucial to your company's early success. Marketing expertise and execution are two of the most important aspects for a new company, and doing them right will help you get traction and expand your audience. As a part of your marketing initiatives, know that managing the media effectively is one of the most important things that a startup can do, early on.

Once you have gained an audience, some initial traction, and product market fit, it is important to revise and expedite your sales process. Creating an effective sales process is key to your company's success. Utilizing email marketing to increase sales is a great way to drive up business. As with any new company, you will have to rely heavily on cold-calls and cold-emails, until you can afford the marketing dollars to generate warm leads yourself. Referrals are the most secure, cheapest way to acquire new business opportunities. Respecting your clients, partnerships, and contributors will enable you to expand your reach beyond your existing network. Building your brand, at this stage, is hugely important for your success.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

As the founder of a tech PR agency based in New York, I am constantly being asked when we are going to open an office on the West Coast. It's been a question that I've grappled with for the last few years but each time I speak with other agency executives, potential clients and VCs, it gives me pause. Operating an agency in New York, arguably one of the most expensive and competitive markets in the U.S., seems hard enough.

The war on talent is something we've dealt with since our inception back in 2002. Agencies are a dime a dozen in this city. We're keenly aware that our employees field numerous recruiter calls each week and could find another job by literally crossing the street. It's one of the reasons why we put so much emphasis on creating a strong corporate culture and offering impressive benefits.

But all of that is nothing compared to what I hear from my colleagues who have tried to open offices in San Francisco. One agency leader from a prominent midwestern firm told me about the ongoing nightmare of building an office in the Valley. In the eight years that they've been operating in the market, they've had five general managers and staff members are considered long-term if they stay more than six months. That revolving door of talent and competition in the market has meant that their California operations have yet to turn a profit but, as a tech agency, it seems a necessary evil to have an office in Silicon Valley.

Earlier this year we were hired by a Palo Alto-based start-up to help launch their company. I had the opportunity to meet with a senior portfolio manager from their VC firm to talk about potential collaboration on other companies they've invested in. Since she was an agency veteran herself, I thought that she would have plenty of local connections to tap to service the companies she works with. She thought so too but quickly ran into some frustrating issues. Agencies that she wanted to work with would tell her that they had a six-month waiting list before they could take on a new account - and they'd have to hire to service it. Other agencies would happily take the assignment but between the time they'd sign a contract and start the program, they'd lose key team members to another opportunity. If Millennials in New York were only staying at jobs for 12-18 months, the ones in Silicon Valley seemed to have a six-month expiration date.

I have also seen it happen with so many colleagues who seemed like agency lifers. Although initially it may have been the California sunshine that drew them West, once they arrive, the allure of working at a tech industry giant like Google or Facebook is just as appealing as taking a risk on a hot new start-up to be part of Silicon Valley's primary narrative. All the while, some companies still insist on having a local agency with team members on the ground to service their accounts.

So how are agencies going to compete? A foosball table and a beer keg aren't going to be enough to make working at an agency 'cool' again. Firms are going to need to reinvent themselves to hold on to great talent as well as draw in new graduates. Even if agencies were to try to emulate the start-up compensation model that promises equity or stock options to employees, with the current culture focused on instant-gratification, that won't be enough to keep folks interested in a long-term commitment to the field of PR or a single agency. We haven't had a revolution in communications, or even an evolution, since the start of the mass adoption of social media by corporations in 2008-9, when PR and advertising agencies were sought after to lead the strategy and implementation for corporate marketers who were not yet sure how to tackle this new medium. In addition, we were all still feeling the burn of the economic downturn and the safety of agency life seemed more appealing than the risk of working at a less stable start-up. However, it didn't take long for corporations to adjust and bring social media expertise in-house.

Public relations agencies don't just need to adapt - we need to innovate. We need to figure out how to invigorate our industry and the profession to attract and retain talent and to draw back some of the great minds that have left for the start-up world or established tech giants. We'll also have to bring in new disciplines to spark that spirit of entrepreneurship that our industry is sorely lacking. As the start-up community grows in New York, we'll have to accelerate our process to ensure we stay competitive on both coasts.

This post is a part of a series exploring communications and media trends in honor of the second annual Communications Week, a week-long series of events celebrating the communications industry, held from October 19-23, 2015. Follow @CommsWeekNY.

Post by Sandra Fathi, founder and president of Affect, a public relations and social media agency, based in New York. Prior to founding the agency in 2002, Fathi worked in-house at a number of technology start-ups and even started her career as a reporter covering the high tech market. She has provided communications strategy for companies such as EDS, Ericsson, Microsoft and Nokia. Sandra can be reached at sfathi@affect.com or @sandrafathi.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

If you walk in to any corporation around the world today, you might see a lot of smiling faces looking back at you. Perhaps there is a buzz in the air. On the surface all might seem well, however, since we know from Gallup's latest research that 87% of the global workforce identifies themselves as disengaged (68.5% in the US) why so many smiling faces? The disconnect is that you can still be smiling on the outside, while also crying on the inside.

Most disengagement is silent, unless someone is actively so and wants everyone around them to know it. The majority of disengaged people have become adept at hiding their feelings. Many times managers might not have any idea someone was disengaged until it came out during an exit interview. Smart organizations are those that become adept at figuring out how engaged their employees are before it gets too late.

I remember being asked by a mentor why I left our organization when we ran into each other after my departure. I said that I became disengaged over time and needed a change. She said, "why didn't we know" and my instant response, without thinking much about it was "because no one asked me." This conversation stayed with me a long time and ultimately led me to create the ALIVE Treatment Plan for engagement.

The core concept that drives the ALIVE plan is that an exit interview shouldn't be the first time that managers find out an employee might be disengaged and unhappy in their role. Today many people choose to stay right where they are, even after they have mentally checked out of their jobs. I call this the 'quit and stay' phenomenon. There isn't a more damaging practice for a company that wants to be successful and profitable.

The foundation for the ALIVE plan is a stay conversation. In a workplace setting, this is a two-way dialogue between a manager and an employee designed to discover what motivates and engages the employee or conversely what is causing their disengagement, all of which impacts their decision to stay or go. Done right, companies can increase employee satisfaction and address any issues that might surface before they become serious and irreparable simply by conducting a stay conversation.

Managers should get in to the habit of holding these conversations twice a year. It's important to note that this is not a performance management discussion or task status meeting. It's also not the time to slap a label on someone as being engaged or disengaged. Instead, it's all about getting to know your employees better, which if done right can pay huge dividends down the road.

Here are the five steps to keeping employees alive and thriving:

A Is for ASK
This all begins with a manager reaching out to an employee to invite them to meet and puts them at ease by letting them know this is a 'touch base' to see how they are doing and not related to performance.

Here's some sample questions to get the dialogue going...

What's the one thing you would change about your job, team or the company if given a chance?

What talents, interests or skills do you feel are most underutilized in this role and which you'd like to use more?

What opportunities for development, beyond your current role, would you like?

What about your job makes you sick at the thought of coming in to work?

L is for LISTEN
It's critical that the manager pay close attention not just to what was being said, but also to what is left unsaid. If the right atmosphere is created from the beginning, that of a conversation, not a performance discussion, then a two-way dialogue can occur naturally. Someone who is engaged will be quick to speak up and share feedback. Anyone just going through the motions at work will tend to answer the questions in as few words as possible and leave you without an opening to probe further. It's so important to listen to the hidden message in what your employees are saying (or not saying) that can give you important clues as to what really matters to them.

I is for IDENTIFY
Once the stay conversation is done, managers should take a day or two to digest the shared information and then identify two to three concrete re-action steps that they can commit to doing for the employees. These should be something that can be reasonably accomplished and are designed to reengage and reignite the passion of the employee, tying directly back to what was heard and seen in the initial meeting.

V is for VALIDATE
In this step the manager gets back together with the employee and thanks them for the conversation and goes over the re-action steps they'd like to take. This validation process is key to ensuring that the manager did correctly capture the essence of what's important to the employee and shows that the manager is committed to engagement.

E is for EXECUTE
Just do it, go forth and execute on your plan!

If done right, this treatment plan is quick, easy and cost effective, with no lingering side effects. It's the best holistic medicine out there!

Ruth K. Ross is a former senior human resources executive with over 30 years of experience at some of the world's most admired companies. She is the author of Coming Alive: The Journey To Reengage Your Life And Career and gets to live the dream everyday by writing and speaking about her passion for engagement. Connect with Ruth on her website or at ruth@rsquaredresources.com.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

2015-10-27-1445906440-3571975-5mostimportantingredients.png

You can have an amazing product, be a true innovator and could even have uncovered a way to satisfy an unmet demand and still not grow. Your processes and procedures could be razor sharp, your technology groundbreaking and your team the smartest and most talented in the market and you can still be stagnant. Unless you have these five key ingredients, sustainable growth will be undoubtedly something just beyond your reach. The good news is that none of these ingredients require capital, retooling or even necessitate a change in strategy. They simply require a paradigm shift, an adjustment in view, behavior and attitude.

Unless you have these five key ingredients, sustainable growth will be undoubtedly something just beyond your reach.

The first ingredient is clarity. You must clearly define your organization's purpose, its vision, values and desired outcomes. Let's break each one of these down a little deeper. Organizational purpose is your call to action. It is what gets you and everyone in the organization out of bed in the morning. It is your rallying cry, the unifying force of the company. Vision is your definition of success. You have to know what the finish line looks like if you are going to compete. The values of an organization are more than just its moral compass. It is its personality, its culture. The values are the descriptors used by people when they talk about what it is like to work for or do business with the company. It is critical to control that conversation. Desired outcomes are the measurable proof points that you have achieved your vision, that you have in fact won the race. A company that is foggy or confused with any of the above is a company not primed for growth.

The values of an organization are more than just its moral compass. It is its personality, its culture.

The second ingredient forth growth is knowing your path. It is critical that you are able to see and understand what will get you to your desired outcomes. Your path is the action steps that must be taken, they are your deliverables. This is the organizational roadmap which includes the milestones that when passed should be predictive of the achievement of your desired outcomes and the manifestation of your vision. If you don't know what actions need be taken, then nothing meaningful will get done.

The third ingredient is the development of your leaders. Leadership is about getting things done through others. The more capable your leaders are, the more things get done. But, today's leadership is more than just drive, accountability and performance. It is about people and the ability to make them feel heard, cared for, valued and respected. This is integrative leadership, which is the blending of the strategic and tactical with the mind and spirit of those you lead. Companies whose leaders aren't present to validate and listen to their team are never going to get the kind of output needed to drive real growth.

It is about people and the ability to make them feel heard, cared for, valued and respected.

The fourth ingredient is having enlightened employees. These are employees who know their role and understand how it connects to the organization's purpose and vision. They see that their contribution matters. Enlightened employees feel their values and personalities are aligned with those of the company. They are inspired by their leaders and are loyal because they make them feel heard, cared for, valued and respected. These are employees that will drive growth.

The fifth and final ingredient is to practice mindful sales and marketing. In my last article, "If you Want to Grow, you Need to Stop Selling" I wrote about how the traditional art of selling is dying. The "push" concept of marketing is close behind. The mindful approach to sales and marketing, is a "pull" strategy and it is comprised of four key steps; questioning, listening, learning and committing to adding value in every interaction. People don't want to be sold, they want to be heard and informed. Companies that recognize this, will be positioned for growth.

People don't want to be sold, they want to be heard and informed.

I recognize that what I have laid out here is radical, and I am sure there will be many differing opinions as to the efficacy of this approach. So, I would welcome the discussion. Please use the comment section below to share your thoughts or to take issue with any of my ideas. I will do my best to respond to each and every one.

Thanks for reading.

Elliot Begoun is a Business Growth Consultant and the Principal of The Intertwine Group. His purpose is to help businesses and business leaders grow. He works to solve real issues, establish strategic guardrails, develop integrative leaders and foster employee enlightenment.

Connect with Elliot:

GROW | Website | LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ |

This article first appeared in the GROW Blog.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

(VIDEO) Dish Opens Up Addressable TV To Real-Time Bids

What We Can Learn About the Future of Consumer Behavior From the Tesla Buzz

No Free Lunch!

Happy Halloween! 10 Tips to Treat Yourself to a More Secure Financial Future.

Why Technology, Not Geography, Is Key to Cybersecurity

Republican Economic Debate Must Confront Reality of Climate Change

How to Be More Productive by Taking Breaks

The Right Data

America Just Sent a Destroyer to the South China Sea. Now What?

You Should Run From These 3 Crazy Managers

Pixar, Artists, Founders and Corporate Innovation

Yale's Pivot to India Offset Its Mistakes in Singapore?

Theranos, Tesla, and the Achilles Heel of Disruption

Young & Entrepreneurial: The 25-Year-Old Venture Capitalist Empowering Student Entrepreneurs in Boston

It Takes Courage To Use Emotional Intelligence

How to Turn Your Idea Into the Next Billion Dollar Company

Talent Wars: How Silicon Valley and the Start-up Allure Is Draining Talent from PR Agencies

Smiling on the Outside, Crying on the Inside

Here Are the 5 Most Important Ingredients for Growth

I Want a Carbon Fee -- or 'Clean Reward' -- Because I'm Selfish, I Breathe, and I Want My State to Prosper