It’s Time To Kill The “S Word” Once And For All!

Today I got another one of those pieces in the mail from a nearby hospital—you know, the one with the vanilla husband and wife, both frolicking on the beach, he in is tan swim trunks and full head of shocking white hair, she in her one -piece bathing suit, her capped teeth gleaming in the bright sunlight.

Hospitals are looking to “align” with what they believe are the wealthier market segment—those 50 years and older (of course, the hospital’s brochure, in its unintended patronizing way, refers to them as “50 years and better”). The hospital marketing department’s thought process is to solicit folks in this age group to join its“senior membership” program. Get discounts at neighborhood retailers by flashing them your telltale membership card. Partake in free “seniorcize” classes at the hospital’s health and fitness center, where silver-haired warriors can get their blood pressures checked and the hospital can ultimately get a few heart procedures.

Honestly, I have no issue with programs that are set up to attract older individuals approaching or already in retirement. Banks do this all the time. And hospitals are not just trying to improve their payer mix and volume of patients with these membership programs. The material is educationally important and the programs provide excellent socializiation opportunities in addition to healthy living habits thatmany people in their advancing years need. But what really irks me is that people 55 years of age or older are still being called “seniors”. People in their thirties and forties aren’t called “juniors”, are they? I’m not aware of any “juniorcize” exercise programs out there. Every other market group rails when it is stereotyped. Why are we, the growing bald and bunion market segment, letting society get away with this??

Rather than refer to us as seniors, why not just call us “smart shoppers”? We know a good deal when we see one, and we know when marketers are really just after our money (which we don’t have a lot of anyway). So please, no more commercials with Wilford Brimley droning on about spending our golden years on some crappy insurance plan. And no more cheesy brochures with that lady with the pearly whites.

Be well.
--TMW

The Flexible Workplace: Hardly Working, Or Working Hardly?

A lot is being written these days about flexibility in the workplace. Is the traditional five day a week, eight-hour work-week relevant in today's marketplace? I am not aware of any study that definitively proves that the forty-hour work week yields maximum productivity for employers. Quite to the contrary, my hypothesis is that, at best, the average non-self employed individual produces five quality hours in a workday, if that. The other three hours are just not as productive, and are filled with personal phone calls, furtive use of the internet, day-dreaming, and worst of all, sitting through endlessly boring meetings. Of course, this brings into question: what does productive mean?

Are we talking efficiency or effectiveness? Or both?

If I, Joe Employee, can accomplish my widgeting in four hours instead of eight, am I 200% productive, even though my widgeting results in a significant number of errors? Or suppose I take longer than eight hours to achieve the targeted widgeting, but with great results?

A good example that illustrates the difference between the two is the opposing quarterbacks in a football game. One team’s quarterback may complete 75% of his passes (he is highly efficient) yet never score a touchdown (he is highly in-effective). Conversely, the other team’s quarterback may complete only 45% of his passes (he is very inefficient), but four of his completed passes result in touchdowns (he is highly effective). Of course, each quarterback’s efficiency and effectiveness ratings are dependent on the ability of his wide receiver to catch the ball—which is where team productivity comes into play (no pun intended).

I recall once reading in one of my graduate school management classes about a consultant who was supposedly hired by a company that developed a recipe for a soft drink to give it recommendations on how it could build market share. The consultant's report comprised two words: "bottle it". Those two words resulted in millions of dollars in sales. Would the consultant have been more productive if he had issued a one-hundred page report listing dozens of recommendations? Should he have been paid more for that two- word report than if he had issued the one-hundred page report?

I also recently read that Google has been cited as a workplace that offers flexibility, but even Google generally follows a traditional eight-hour workday. Free food during the day, and maybe a nap, but all to basically squeeze as much ingenuity and "productivity" out of a happier workforce.

The Whisperer would be interested in hearing from those of you out there in the 9 to 5 crowd. Take the poll and register your opinion.

Work Smart. Not Hard.
--TMW