Are Organisations Looking After Elderly Consumers?

Back in 1984, Charles Schewe mentioned in an  article that “the usefulness of ‘minorities’ as a means of segmenting markets has been a fertile area for market researchers for many years, but that they have largely neglected the elderly, those consumers over the age of 65. Marketers have failed to fully explore or understand the dimensions, character, and potential of this market. Furthermore, marketing activities directed specifically at this ‘older’ market seem to be a missed opportunity of sizeable importance. From a sales and profit potential, the elderly market is well worth the research effort necessary to secure accurate information about how to satisfy them. The elderly constitute a significant and growing market, where women outnumber men 3 to 2 and only 5 per cent of these seniors live inside institutions. Only 10 per cent of them live with children. Household size logically is reduced as is full-time employment. While health is generally poorer, only about 15 per cent require special health or social services. The elderly are not poor. Per capita income in households headed by 65+ persons is but 7 per cent lower than the general population average; and it has been estimated that the elderly need only about 60 to 80 per cent of former income to maintain their standard of living, and are given to ‘dis-save’ rather than to hold on to their assets.”

 

Nearly twenty years later in 2003 research by Yany Gregoire highlights that little has been done to address the ‘elderly consumer’ both from a strategic, service and product focused perspective. In fact if you read academic articles on this subject most still site references going back to the 80’ and early 90’s because so little seems to have been done since then.

 

Part of the problem is that you have to be ‘elderly’ to understand this segments needs and concerns; and if not elderly you have to have been performing the role of a carer to even start to understand all the dynamics that are going on. The problem is that you have young minds trying to imagine their older counterpart and in my experience, as a carer, missing their needs, expectations and hence the opportunities by a mile.

 

It’s worth remembering that the over 65 age group is a significant market size now, and is just going to grow in size in the future becoming a ‘powerful’ market force to those that can learn to understand their needs and communicate with them effectively. The steps behind the theory are no different to any other target-market segment, you must understand their expectations and create the products and/or services meet them.

 

Another part of the problem I’ve noticed is that many ‘front-office’ staff simply don’t have the patience to deal with this ‘target-market’ – so as they show their frustration, their customer either walks away or hangs-up the phone and the potential sale is lost. Worse still this customer segment will not forget and will not engage with that firm again – contrary to what many seem to think, this age group are very ruthless when they receive poor service (whether real or perceived) and yet can be extremely loyal to the company or individual that gives them the service they need.

 

Two key facts are that, firstly this is already a huge lucrative market segment that is only going to get bigger – so it’s worth making some effort to listen to their needs and attract their custom; and the second fact is that, if you’re lucky, you’ll be that age one-day so treating people like you’d like to be treated is an old axiom worth remembering.

 

Organisations are missing out on real opportunities within this ever growing target-market and hence are leaving the door open for sme’s and entrepreneurs with the right vision and patience, to carve out a nice little niche for themselves – which if developed correctly will give them a loyal and growing customer base, and a sustainable business going forward.  

 

References

 

Charles D. Schewe. (1984). Buying and Consuming Behavior of the Elderly. Findings From Behavioral Research. Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 11, p.558-562.

 

Yany Gregoire (2003). The Impact of Aging on Consumer Responses: What Do We Know? Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 30, p.19-26.

How Do You Manage ‘Summit Syndrome’?

The summit syndrome afflicts extreme overachievers who thrive on challenge. They can be found in abundance in tightly wired organizations—in the premier investment banks and consulting firms; in start-ups; in semiconductor, computer, and software development companies; and in the elite units of multiproduct corporations. These supercharged individuals exult in winning, mastering new skills, acquiring knowledge, and surpassing previous benchmarks of excellence. They are addicted to their own adrenaline. But the rush from pushing beyond their limits tends to dissipate once the new territory has been mastered; an identity built around the galvanizing effects of meeting and conquering daunting challenges loses its purchase as such people near the summit of a job’s learning curve. They can’t or find it extremely difficult to motor along on flat terrain. An S-curve aptly describes the rapid ascent to proficiency and the gradual loss of career momentum that occurs when such individuals master a job. It’s near the top where the troubles begin. (George D. Parsons and Richard T. Pascale, HBR, 2007).

The problem with this syndrome is that is hard enough to identify and manage in a ‘normal’ business environment – so when you add a global financial crisis to the mix, you are creating a potential environment for many high achievers to succumb to summit syndrome and for the organisation and the individual to completely miss the signs.

George Parsons and Richard Pascale highlight in their brilliant 2007 article that “paradoxically, disorientation at the summit is more profound for the more proficient. Those with the smoothest glide to success in a challenging job tend to experience the greatest degree of confusion. Costs to the individual can go way beyond dropped balls at work or other slips in performance. Inner turmoil can build to the point where it hurts health and family. The search for stimulation may lead to extramarital misadventures or other self-destructive behaviour. Distraction and confusion can result in bad career decisions, causing people to leave the fast track and end up drifting from one job to another. They can join the ranks of those highly promising men and women who somehow never managed to achieve the positions or goals that colleagues and friends always assumed they would one day claim.”

Within the syndrome successful overachievers can start to blame themselves for a perceived crisis their organisations are in, when no crisis actually exists. The personal internal struggle with their genuine perception of their business ability, proved through past performance, starts to conflict with the reality facing them and they can find the turmoil too much to take.

Parsons and Pascale highlight how in a ‘normal’ business environment, “the summit syndrome unfolds in three phases, each with its own distinct indicators. The first is approaching the crest of a job, when a person, having mastered most of the challenges of the role, is nearing peak proficiency. This is a time when some may push harder to recapture the adrenaline rush of the climb. The second phase is plateauing, when the summit has been reached and virtually all of the challenges have been conquered. While the less ambitious person is apt to coast at this point, the overachiever bears down even harder to produce ever more stellar results. The third phase is descending. It is the terminal stage of the syndrome, when a leader’s job performance begins to slip noticeably, triggering an accelerating slide. As the person’s superstar status fades, he jumps ship, accepts a demotion, or takes a lateral transfer.”

This process for recognizing and treating the summit syndrome can dissipate the disorientation that often strikes overachievers as they approach or reach the crest of a job. It can dispel the confusion and create a new context for a balanced, challenging, and fulfilling working life. Once they can see and accept that their condition is not unique, that a periodic reorientation is a natural and regenerative part of the inner work of leadership, overachievers can look ahead with far greater discernment. Generally speaking, better mental maps foster wiser choices. Ultimately, some may decide to seek a different context in which to grow and excel in their current organizations. Others may reflect, and then seek greener pastures. Summit work separates signals from noise.

Organisations need to look after their talent and not simple take historical performance as a guarantee of future success. Also individuals need to become aware of the signs of ‘success syndrome’ and not be too proud and stubborn not to act on them. The natural instincts of the over-achiever are paradoxically to assume that this couldn’t possibly happen to them – until of course it does – and even then they might fight the concept. It then needs a ‘good friend’ to bring them down to earth, help them analyse their own ‘personal’ strategy, looking at where they are now; how they got their; and where they are going in the future; then re-defining your personal career strategy with your eyes wide open and any pride and ego safely stored away.

As Parsons and Pascale conclude, “all parties—senior managers, human resource departments, and high performers themselves—must remember that a successful career is not a straight line to the top; it is a series of S-curves, each of which begins with a major promotion or job redefinition. Confusion and loss of bearings come with the territory, but they do not have to derail promising careers. Anticipating the summit syndrome, recognizing its onset, and dealing with it in its earliest stages can revitalize careers and propel talented leaders to greater heights.”

References

Parsons, G.D. and Pascale, R.T. (2007). Crisis at the Summit. Harvard Business Review. March.

How Effective is Your Corporate Social Responsibility Program?

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is supposed to be an extension of an organisations strategy and intertwined with its planned sustainable growth – but how many organisations today take CSR seriously?

 

It’s not just a matter of how much money an organisation contributes to ‘social’ causes or the ‘flowery’ rhetoric found on websites or in annual reports since CSR is supposed to be a focused, integral part of your organisations strategy for sustainable growth. Which means if ‘money’ is being donated to seemingly worthy causes the organisation should be ensuring that those funds are being used to really add-value to their community and be able to articulate the real benefits that have been achieved by their donations.

 

The global financial crisis has brought misery to millions and in some cases has ‘encouraged’ or even ‘forced’ people to look after ‘number one’ – which makes solid, social sense, since you can’t help others if you have to worry about your own basic month-to-month survival.

 

At the corporate level – big profits are still being made and as many believe extortionate bonuses being paid for some pretty poor performance achievements in some sectors. The argument by big business is that they have to pay the bonuses to keep their talent – but some may argue whether they are sure this is the actual talent they want to keep for long term sustainable growth. 

 

CSR has always been about finding the strategic and budgeting balance that allows an organisation to ‘invest’ in improving its local community and its environment. It’s about having a real plan that is both long-term and consistent that can be tracked on a month-to-month, year-to-year basis to prove that the CSR strategy in practice is adding real value and having a positive measurable impact on their community.

 

There is a danger that your organisation has ‘lost the plot’ with respect to your CSR strategy and maybe it’s time to revisit it and re-focus your efforts based on real human and environmental needs, that will make a tangible difference to your community for the long term.

 

CSR is not a ‘nice to have’ and is a genuine strategic imperative in our global economy. Those that ignore it, as an unnecessary expense, do so with a purely short-sighted view of their business environment. Poverty and pollution are two key economic drivers that will affect medium to long-term business success – ignoring them now, for short-term benefit is not only a dangerous it’s blindly arrogant (and ignorant).

 

Faced with a complex business world some leaders approach it as visionaries, with an all-encompassing view of their business environment, appreciating that their communities hold potential customers and employees for the future. Where a secure, safe and ‘happy’ community infuses its way into an organisations culture – just as much as a deprived, unsafe and unhappy neighbourhood will eventually start to have a negative influence on employees, talent retention and business performance.

 

Other leaders feel overwhelmed by stakeholder demands and prefer a blinkered approach to their surroundings – where they can ‘con’ themselves into believing that if they can’t actually see the suffering in their communities then it doesn’t exist and can feel content maximising whatever profit they can in the short-term confident that this will keep them safe and secure until they can save up enough to a point where they don’t really care what happens to their tenure – as they can retire to some out-of-the-way place and live happily ever-after avoiding the ‘chaos’ they have left behind.

 

All organisations should have some form of value adding CSR strategy that adds real long term, sustainable benefits, that can be measured and celebrated. It’s not just the CEO’s responsibility – it’s down to the board and all stakeholders not just to ask, but to demand a genuine cohesive CSR strategy that is results driven.

 

There are a lot of people suffering in ‘our’ world and since we aren’t able to choose how and where we are born – we can at least choose how we want to help and support the communities we live in. Many people who are suffering aren’t doing it out of choice and are desperate to find work – and we should be trying to help – as a healthy community, breeds a healthy economy.

What Kind of Future Leaders Are We Creating?

An article by Hannah Richardson, the BBC education reporter, published on 15th April this year, mentions how “two-thirds of UK children feel under pressure to cheat at sports because of a ‘win-at-all-costs’ culture on the playing fields, a survey suggests. A quarter of the children questioned for the survey thought team mates would cheat frequently if they could get away with it. 90 per cent of the 1,002 8 to 16-year-olds said their team-mates felt pressure to win while playing sport. More than a third said they felt no remorse at winning by cheating.”

 

In a similar article in the Guardian, Richard Garner highlighted that “only 16 per cent felt their team-mates would feel guilty if they won through cheating, while 37 per cent believed their team-mates would not care while 5 per cent said they would be happy or proud if they cheated.”

 

This should be very alarming to all of us and is unlikely to be unique to the United Kingdom. If ‘we’, through the media, sports personalities, celebrities and other means, are encouraging children to cheat in ‘sports’ then we’re teaching them to ‘cheat’ full-stop. It’s a state of mind, which defines individual and group values, where people, in this case children, re-define the ‘rules’ of competition and will use any means fair or foul to ‘win’.

 

As we ‘fight’ corruption in the workplace, we must also stop and ask what ‘values’ we are openly or tacitly accepting and thereby teaching the younger generation on a global level, as some of these will be the leaders of tomorrow. If they believe that cheating to any degree is okay - as long as you’re not caught, and is just part of the ‘new rules of competition’ - then we mustn’t be surprised when cheating takes place in other activities, which could be from the classroom to the business environment.

 

Richard Garner reports how “a separate survey of parents showed that nearly two-thirds (65 per cent) believed cheating by high-profile sportsmen and women had led their offspring to believe it was acceptable for them to follow suit. Opinion is divided, though, on whether cheating has got worse in school sports in recent years, with 34 per cent of parents saying it has got worse and 36 per cent that it has not.”

 

This survey in 2013 follows on from a similar survey in 2010, and by the look of it not much has changed. Back in 2010, Aidan Radnedge of the Metro reported that "72 per cent witnessed cheating in team sports. And 58 per cent of 8 to 16 year olds say they would break the rules in team games compared with 13 per cent playing individual sports. 54 per cent of 8 to 16 year olds say they witnessed bad sportsmanship in every game they play.

 

Encouragingly, 67 per cent said seeing a sportsman break the rules to win would not make them do the same. Seven in ten say they would describe a sportsman who played unfairly as a ‘cheat’, with just 4 per cent saying they would consider them ‘cool’.

 

Meanwhile more alarmingly, in the 2010 report, only half of parents believe it is their responsibility to deal with their child’s unfair play – which is, or was, simply crazy.

 

If the development of leadership qualities is part nature and part nurture then we better get the nurturing bit right if we want to develop solid, strong and effective leaders for our future generations, in and out of the business environment.

 

References

 

Garner, R. (2013). Win at all costs: most children admit to cheating at sport. The Independent. [On-line: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/win-at-all-costs-most-children-admit-to-cheating-at-sport-8572533.html]

 

Radnedge, A. (2010). Child sports players are 'happy to cheat to win'. The Metro. [On-line: http://metro.co.uk/2010/04/25child-sports-players-are-happy-to-cheat-to-win-262357/]

 

Richardson, H. (2013). Pressure to win 'turns children into sports cheats. BBC News [On-line: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22126301]