More on Mission Statements: Stating Your Mission in No Uncertain Terms

Published: September 1, 2009

“Scores of business planning and strategic experts state a mission statement is mandatory for your company’s direction,” Darrell Zahorsky writes on About.com. “Other advisers suggest writing a mission statement becomes a meaningless few sentences collecting dust somewhere in your office. Is a personal and corporate mission statement necessary for success in today’s hostile business climate?”
The answer according to the experts is “no” if you are never going to look at it again, you make it so wishy-washy that it does not mean anything or you decide not to live up to it.
But for those who take mission statements seriously, they can be quite valuable. A mission statement can help you, among other things, develop an answer to the famous question posed by the management sage Peter Drucker, “What business are you really in?”
If you think a formal mission statement may benefit your company, the following ideas can get you started.
START HERE SmallBizMarketingTips.com does a good job of defining what you are trying to create.
“A mission statement is your customer-focused business definition. It’s your sense of purpose. The reason why you get up every day and do what you do. It encapsulates your values and visions, your employees and community, your suppliers and stakeholders. It literally is the foundation for your company’s future.”
WHY YOU WANT ONE Suite101.com, an online magazine, succinctly points out the benefits of a mission statement and what your goal should be as you set out to create one.
“The statement should be clear, powerful and broad enough to guide your decision-making and help explain your organization’s efforts to potential funders.”
HOW TO WRITE ONE Tim Berry, writing on Bplan.com, a planning and strategy Web site, says a mission statement “is an opportunity to define your business at the most basic level.” He adds, “It should tell your company story and ideals in less than 30 seconds: who your company is, what you do, what you stand for, and why you do it.”
With that as background, he suggests these guidelines in constructing one:
¶It’s about you. While you may want to look at the way other companies have put together their mission statements, “make sure you actually believe in what you’re writing; your customers and your employees will soon spot a lie.”
¶“Don’t ‘box’ yourself in. Your mission statement should be able to withstand the changes that come up over time in your product or service offerings, or customer base. A cardboard box company isn’t in the business of making cardboard boxes; it’s in the business of providing protection for items that need to be stored or shipped.”
¶Think short. No more than four sentences.
¶Ask employees for their thoughts and suggestions and to see if the wording is clear, easily understood and something they endorse.
THE PAYOFF Rose Halas, writing on Essortment.com, an information and advice Web site, summarizes the benefits of a great mission statement.
“A handful of words can do much to rally employees around a unifying idea and organize job tasks to meet a specific objective. Having a mission statement can bind each person to the rest in establishing a common goal.”
LAST CALL Of course, when done badly, mission statements invite ridicule and parody, as the cartoonist Scott Adams so aptly demonstrates with his Dilbert comic strip.
Here are two of our fictional favorites from “Dilbert’s Automatic Mission Statement Generator”: “It is our job to continually foster world-class infrastructures as well as to quickly create principle-centered sources to meet our customer’s needs.” And “Our challenge is to assertively network economically sound methods of empowerment so that we may continually negotiate performance-based infrastructures.”

What to Do If Your Boss Is the Problem

By DENNIS NISHI
A bad boss is the most common reason employees quit their jobs, according to staffing firm Robert Half International. And a survey of workers by the Workplace Bullying Institute, a nonprofit group that does research and training on the subject, conducted last year found that 27.5% of respondents reported that ill treatment by superiors got worse after the start of the financial crisis. You don't have to suffer silently. Here are ways to deal with a difficult boss without scuttling your career:

• Cool down. If you've had a disagreement, sit on it for a couple of days, says Richard Hart, director at ProActive ReSolutions Inc., a Vancouver, Canada, company specializing in workplace conflict resolution. Do an honest self-assessment of your own work to determine whether you're doing anything to cause the problem. Ask coworkers and personal friends for some outside perspective. "If you're still thinking about it after two days, it's probably important enough to require resolution," he says. At that point, take the time to write down recent incidents of abuse, arguments and anything else that falls outside of a normal employee/management relationship. Be objective about your observations, since your notes may be used down the line if any actions are filed. Writing your thoughts down can also be cathartic.

• Go to the source. Employment experts say talking with your boss is usually the best way to solve a problem. "Have a regular conversation and focus on the problem and not the incident," Mr. Hart says. You might find the boss isn't aware there is a problem. A recent study done at the University of Iowa showed bad behavior can often be enabled by supervisors who overlook abuse if the boss delivers results. "Whatever you do, don't be confrontational," he says. "Be ready for the fact that the conversation may not go well."

• Find allies. If it seems reasonable, consider talking to another manager within the organization who you trust. They may be able to approach the problem boss as a peer or offer perspective about the behavior that could temper the issue. Look for somebody who is respected by coworkers, who doesn't play office politics and who understands the role that you and your department play in the company.

• Seek outside help. If these tactics don't work, seek guidance from the company human-resources department, says Rich Falcone, a labor attorney and partner with Payne & Fears LLP in Los Angeles and San Francisco. They may be able to give you very specific advice, but aren't likely to be able to immediately solve the problem for you. Unless the HR person believes there's a harassment or discrimination issue they're legally bound to report, "they can keep the matter confidential and work with you," Mr. Falcone says.

• Grin and bear it. If it's critical to your career to simply put up with the boss, try to make the best of the situation. Focus on doing your job well and minimizing conflict. Lean on your friends and family for empathy and support says Joel Mausner, a business psychologist at Irvington, N.Y.-based Workplace Psychology. "Find other ways to cope like taking up a new hobby or using relaxation techniques," he says.

• Walk away. If nothing else has helped, consider asking for a transfer to another department. "If you decide to quit, plan ahead," or you could end up being traumatized by long-term unemployment, says Dr. Mausner. "You don't want to quit precipitously since you can traumatize yourself even more by facing extended unemployment."

Write to Dennis Nishi at cjeditor@dowjones.com

Work Therapy: How to Handle a Bully Boss

From the Wall Street Journal
Q: I have a boss who has morphed into a bully, and chosen me as her pincushion. Unknown to her, I plan to retire at the end of year and have been trying to train her to be nicer. Whenever she bullies me, I tell her, "I'll fix that problem," or "No, that won't happen again." Then I email one of her bosses or human resources about her behavior. I believe I'm entitled to write these emails and think I'm providing a service to the coworkers I'll leave behind when I retire. What do you think?

A: While it may make you feel better to blanket the office with tattletale emails about the boss, it's not an effective way to get her to behave. There's a simple way to tell that the letter campaign isn't working: No one's ever done anything about your notes. No department head or human-resources representative has ever swung by your desk and said, "Can you come in and talk about these?"

"I'd conclude they're useless," says Debra Comer, a psychologist and professor at the Zarb School of Business at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, who's researched bullying. In short, you're doing something, "but not achieving anything," says. Dr. Comer.

More Work Therapy

.When You Are The Odd One Out at a Family Firm
When a Trusted Mentor Goes Astray in His Personal Life
Learning To Work Together When You Don't Get Along
.What may work is confronting the boss about why she's become so unpleasant. Challenging someone, especially a person who's been strongarming you and screaming at you, isn't as easy as firing off an email, but if you go directly to her at least you know she'll hear what you have to say. "It's pretty tough to tell a boss, 'You've been abusive,' " Dr. Comer says. But, it's better than complaining about her in a message she'll never get.

Before you go to talk to her, keep in mind there are two general reasons for why she may be tormenting you. You wrote that she wasn't always a tyrant. That means that some sort of stress at work or home could have changed her temperament. Remember how nice Ray Liotta was before the Goodfellas took him in? Since she hasn't always behaved like this, it means the boss is not a diehard bully. There could be hope for morphing her back.

"Some people are proud of being a bully. That's their way," Dr. Comer says. "But some people don't know. They don't understand the effect. If a boss has morphed into a bully, it might have been a gradual process, and by telling them, they could have an epiphany."

Work Therapy Email
Anxious that you're not doing a good job? Angry that your boss is taking credit for your work? Worried that a junior co-worker is going to leapfrog ahead of you? Write to worktherapy@wsj.com with your workplace stresses for tips on how to cope. Please indicate if you don't want to be identified.
.Or, if it's not about her, the boss could be beating up on you because of something you've done. It seems like she's singling you out, since, as you wrote, she's chosen to lash out at you instead of any of your coworkers. She could have become tougher on you because your work isn't as good as it used to be. "Retirement could lead to someone slowing down in a way they're not aware of," says Dr. Comer. "Maybe performance has been lacking, prompting criticism from the boss."

Either way, during the actual conversation, stay positive. The goal is to figure out how to work well together, no matter what's fueling her invectives. It's not to attack or insult her, which will only make her defensive and unresponsive. Helen Friedman, a St. Louis-based psychologist who specializes in dealing with difficult people, suggests saying something like: "I value working with you. You're my boss, and our relationship is important to me. But I've noticed a behavior change with you. You seem sharp with me and I don't think anyone deserves to be talked (to) that way."

"Usually if you go to the boss in a heartfelt way about wanting to work together, he or she will respond well," Dr. Friedman says. "If people feel cared for, they listen."

As for your desire to help out the coworkers you're leaving behind, it's too soon to be magnanimous. As long as you're still going to work each day, focus on enjoying your last few months, not fretting about how everyone else will manage after you're gone. If the boss morphs back into a pleasant leader because you had the courage to confront her, that will be a greater legacy than any stack of emails you leave human resources.

Write to Kayleen Schaefer at worktherapy@wsj.com

Managing Your Boss

Managing Your Boss
You can hate your boss, kiss up to your boss or learn to manage your boss. Only one of these options is worth it for everyone in the long run.
Thomas J. Zuber, MD, and Erika H. James, PhD

Great organizations, whether they are medical practices, medical schools or hospitals, are the product not only of dynamic leadership but, perhaps more importantly, a dynamic following. While most physicians
assume some sort of leadership role in their organizations and indeed in the health care system at large, they also often find themselves accountable to a medical director, physician manager, administrator, etc. Yet for many, this role can be difficult. Some days, they perceive the "boss" as a roadblock to success; other days, they believe the only way to succeed is to follow blindly. How do you strike the right balance? The answer is in learning to manage upward.
Do you tend to be rebellious or overly compliant?
Managing up is the process of consciously working with your boss to obtain the best possible results for you, your boss and your organization. This is not political maneuvering or "kissing up." Rather, it is a deliberate effort to bring understanding and cooperation to a relationship between individuals who often have different perspectives.
Managing up may seem counterintuitive in a world of top-down organizational structures. Physicians often invest significant time and effort in managing the nurses or office personnel they directly supervise, yet they take a passive approach to managing their supervisors. Doing so can harm the individuals and the organization. For example, failure to manage your boss can result in misunderstandings about what you expect from one another and cause you to waste time on tasks that are not in line with organizational goals. Furthermore, career progress and satisfaction rarely occur if you don't manage your boss. In fact, some suggest that the primary duty of all employees is to have a successful relationship with the boss. Are you up to the task?
Recognize the value of the relationship
Managing your boss begins with an understanding of the value of the relationship, which has been described as "a mutually dependent existence between two fallible individuals."1 You depend on your boss for direction, feedback and support, while your boss depends on you for new ideas, hard work and cooperation to achieve the organization's goals. Both sides have needs, and both sides have something to offer. It is a critical relationship worth tending to. Here's where to start:
KEY POINTS:
Great organizations rely not only on dynamic leaders but dynamic followers.
Managing up means being proactive but not presumptuous, supportive but not sycophantic with your boss.
Although it requires great patience, emotional maturity and courage, managing up can improve your organization, your job satisfaction and your boss.
Get to know your boss. The first rule for managing bosses effectively is to understand who they are and what they want. In other words, put yourself in their shoes. While many physicians have a superficial understanding of their bosses' goals and pressures, they often fail to assess the individual strengths, weaknesses, aspirations and work styles of their supervisors. Exploring these issues will help you think outside of your own needs, identify commonalities you never knew existed and gain insight on how to interact more effectively with your boss. For example, some bosses are "readers," meaning they prefer to receive information in written form (e.g., e-mail and memos). Others are "listeners," meaning they prefer to receive information verbally (e.g., face-to-face or telephone conversations). If you want your ideas to be heard, make it easy for your boss by communicating in the manner he or she prefers. You'll be meeting your boss's needs as well as your own.
Get to know yourself. Developing an effective working relationship with your boss also requires that you understand yourself. Recognize your strengths, weaknesses, goals and personal needs, and pay particular attention to how you respond to being managed. For example, do you tend to be rebellious or overly compliant?
Managing up requires patience, emotional maturity and the courage to take action.
Rebellious physicians often resent their bosses' authority and rebel against their decisions. This type of behavior is common among those who are used to being the experts or authorities in their relationships. Subordinating themselves or having to respond to or comply with the desires and demands of a boss can be very unpleasant to them. They may, in fact, view the boss as a hindrance to progress and react impulsively and negatively to the boss. If you are a rebellious physician, what you need to remember is that how you deal with your negative feelings toward your boss will often determine the course of the relationship. Failure to recognize your tendencies and actively manage the situation early on can lead to a dysfunctional relationship.
Overly compliant physicians are at the other behavioral extreme. They swallow their emotions and become passive even in the face of poor decision making by their supervisors. Because these individuals always want to agree with the boss, they often fail to provide needed input on key decisions. If you are an overly compliant physician, what you need to remember is that your inaction can cause great harm to the organization, in part by perpetuating poor decision making by those at the top.
While not all individuals fall into these two extremes, it is important to understand your tendencies. If you can predict your reactions (or overreactions) to your boss, you may be able to avoid distressing situations and build a more productive relationship. You will also be better prepared to advocate for your own needs.
Dare to follow well
Suggested Reading
"How to Manage Your Boss." Lynn M. Management Today. January 2000:66-69.
"I Can Manage, Boss!" Phillips KJ. Supervision. January 1995;56(1):17-18.
"Managing Up." Meagher D. Australian Financial Review. May 8, 2000:39. Accessed online, May 12, 2001: http://www.boss.afr.com.au/magarticle.asp?doc_id=18139&rgid=2&listed_months=26
"Managing Your Boss." Gabarro JJ, Kotter JP. Harvard Business Review. Boston: Harvard University Press; 1993:150-157.
Militant Managers: How to Spot - How to Work With - How to Manage - Your Highly Aggressive Boss. Elbing C, Elbing A. Burr Ridge, Ill: Irwin Professional Publications; 1994.
Managing up is no easy task. It requires patience, emotional maturity and the courage to take action, but its rewards are worth the effort. Here are some specific ways to practice the art of managing up:
Solicit clear expectations and priorities. One of the worst mistakes you can make is to assume you know what your boss expects. Most bosses do not spell out their expectations, and the burden of discovery falls on those below them. Don't wait for your boss to provide you with this information. Instead, initiate a series of informal discussions on "our objectives," helping your boss clarify and communicate his or her ideas - and making sure you communicate your own ideas as well.
Provide adequate information. Information is power, and for many physicians, withholding information from their boss is a way to feel some sense of power. However, ultimately this tactic works against you. A poorly informed boss cannot advocate for your needs or make the best decisions for your organization. Be willing to share what you know and to keep your boss informed at the level that fits his or her work style.
Relay good and bad news. Some supervisors give both verbal and nonverbal clues that they only want to hear good news; they don't want to hear about problems. These bosses can represent a particular challenge. Great organizations do not ignore their problems or try to sweep them under the rug. Instead, they face them head on with courage and innovation. For the good of the organization, you must communicate failures with successes, but do so delicately and appropriately. In addition, you should be prepared to accept good and bad news yourself, whether it focuses on your individual performance or the organization at large.
Build trust. A key element in managing your boss is building trust in the relationship by being trustworthy. Most physicians are dependable, hardworking and well-meaning, but because of misunderstandings or mismatched priorities, they can be inappropriately labeled as problem physicians. To combat this, make every effort to maintain honesty and dependability by honoring commitments and deadlines. Your positive example will impact not only your boss, but others around you.
Help your boss manage his or her time. For most supervisors, time is a precious commodity. Effectively managing your boss will require that you respect his or her time. Every request made of the boss uses up resources, so make sure your requests are necessary. Don't take every issue to your boss for his or her opinion. Instead, come up with your own ideas to solve problems and then act on your own, where appropriate. You might even want to try doing something intentionally to make life easier for your boss. Perhaps your boss will spend that free moment advocating for your needs.
Sell your issue. Bosses aren't mind readers. To get what you want in your organization, you have to ask for it and you have to sell your boss on the issue. This isn't manipulation but a legitimate set of techniques to make it easier for your boss to understand and accept your ideas. Don't expect your boss to understand your issue automatically. Learn how to present it, for example, by "bundling" (connecting your issue to another important issue for the organization) or by "framing" (placing it in a moral or business context that your boss can understand). You should also carefully select your language (e.g., speak numbers if your boss is a numbers person) and, where appropriate, involve other individuals in the selling effort. With some bosses, you'll be more successful selling your issue in private versus trying to convince them in a public setting. And of course, pay attention to your timing, making sure you present the issue when other more pressing issues are not consuming your boss's attention.
Being angry, disgruntled, accusatory or passive will only make things worse.
Give positive reinforcement. Everyone within an organization needs positive reinforcement. You need it; your boss needs it. Some experts even suggest that the most important objective for employees is to appear supportive of their bosses. Empathize with the boss. Praise his or her achievements without appearing sycophantic. And express appreciation whenever it can be honestly conveyed. It will help your boss do his or her job better, which is ultimately in your favor.
Choose your words. Physicians often are meticulous and critical in their clinical work; however, in organizations this critical nature can be threatening. Learn not to pass judgment immediately as you learn about a new technology or a new way of practicing. Where you are right to pass judgment, do so with tact and good intentions. For example, if you disagree with a policy, thoughtfully explain your reasons, rather than saying simply "this is bad and should be axed."
Focus on what you can change. Let's face it. There are a lot of terrible bosses out there, and it is unlikely that you will successfully change anyone. While you can't control your boss, you can control your attitude. And to a large extent, managing up is simply that: having the right attitude. Being angry, disgruntled, accusatory or passive will only make things worse. When you realize that you do have the power and influence to make things better, you are on your way to creating a more effective organization, a more fulfilling career and a better boss indeed.
Dr. Zuber is an assistant professor in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. Dr. James is an assistant professor in the Department of Organization and Management, Goizueta School of Business, Emory University. Conflicts of interest: none reported.

Gabarro JJ, Kotter JP. Managing Your Boss. Harvard Business Review. 1993:150-157.

Managing Your Boss

Managing Your Boss
How to Play Your Cards RightOne of the most important talents in the workplace is managing your boss. Of course most of the time it's your boss's job to manage you, but there are key situations when reversing that equation can get you what you want.
I See You and I'll Raise You 
Think about asking for your next raise. You know that the job market is pretty tight, but before asking for the moon, gather some information on what comparable jobs are paying at other companies. Then put your research, your specific objectives (including the actual numbers), and your reasons on paper. Send these to your boss ahead of time so he or she has time to think about them. Go into the meeting prepared to listen and consider all the options offered. You don't have to threaten to leave -- that part is implied. Whatever the outcome, be sure to finish the meeting on a positive note. You should have control over your own career.
Are You Calling Me a Cheater? 
Asking for a raise is a pretty familiar scenario. But what if you think your boss is doing something illegal or unethical? Should you tell someone? If so, how should you do it? Before you act, make sure you have enough facts to back up your accusation. Then formulate a plan, evaluate the risks, and prepare for some difficulty. You're threatening someone's livelihood, so be prepared to suffer a few accusations yourself. To minimize your own personal damage adhere to the following guidelines:
List the risks and the possible results. Plan your strategy if you succeed and what you'll do if you don't.
Evaluate your reputation. The more highly regarded you are, the more likely that people will pay attention and believe you.
Discreetly find out if others have had the same experiences with your boss. Then get them to go along with you. Group consensus is always more plausible than a single complainant.
Find out what the procedures are for these types of complaints. Make sure you stick to them and take good notes.
Let's See What You've Got 
What if your boss makes a business decision that you don't agree with? Should you take the issue over his or her head, or just grin and bear it? When faced with this kind of dilemma, assess the issue carefully and determine whether it is worth the hassle, because there are certain to be some hard feelings. Try the direct approach. Ask your boss if you might try out the idea on some other executives. The answer may just be, "go ahead." It could also be "get lost". In any case, get your resume ready. You may decide that transferring or jumping ship is preferable to the end run.
Nicely Played (or Playing It Nice) 
Finally there's the management tool called flattery or schmoozing. Some say the best businesses are led by the people who ignore flattery and value those who tell the truth. Be that as it may, there are many places in the real world where kissing up works.
Randall A Gordon, a University of Michigan psychologist who reviewed 69 studies on the topic, concluded, "ingratiation shrewdly employed will get you ahead. If you have two people who are both competent at what they do, but one is really good at schmoozing...the one likely to get the raise is the schmoozer. It gives you the edge."
Another professor, Ronald Deluga of Bryant College, studied 152 sets of supervisors and employees who fessed up to trying to flatter their bosses. He concluded that the flatterers actually had a 5 percent edge over the non-flatterers in their evaluations. "No one wants to do it," he says, "but you are at a disadvantage if you don't do it - and no one wants to take that risk."
First published in Passages, Johnson Smith Knisely, (1998 All rights reserved.) 
http://content.monster.ie/career/team/managingboss/

Lights Off: Circuit City 1949 – 2009 | homemediamagazine.com

Lights Off: Circuit City 1949 – 2009 | homemediamagazine.com: "Lights Off: Circuit City 1949 – 2009


By Erik Gruenwedel | Posted: 09 Mar 2009
egruenwedel@questex.com


Bankrupt Circuit City Stores March 9 officially closed the doors on 567 retail locations after 60 years of business.

The Richmond, Va.-based No. 2 consumer electronics retailer, which ceased operations Jan. 16, has been under the direction of liquidators seeking to sell $1.7 billion worth of product, including more than $50 million in DVDs.

In total Circuit City owes more than $650 million to its biggest unsecured creditors, which include CE manufacturers and Hollywood studios. Banks and lending organizations will be the first to recoup what will likely be pennies on their loan dollars, say experts.

The chain’s Canadian operations are reportedly being purchased by Bell Canada. Hilco Merchant Resources, one of the liquidators involved in the clearance sales, said it hoped to acquire the Circuit City brand name and Web properties."

Execs’ Top Online Fears: Employee Sabotage, Info Leaks

Execs’ Top Online Fears: Employee Sabotage, Info Leaks

More than two-thirds (67%) of global executives fear that their companies’ reputations are at risk of being compromised by online activities - including leaked information and employee sabotage - but many still underestimate the magnitude of these threats, according to a survey from Weber Shandwick and the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

The survey, “Risky Business: Reputations Online” found that online reputation management (ORM) has now made it to the top of leadership agendas as execs become increasingly aware of the challenges posed by digital communications. Nearly 6 out of 10 global executives say their companies are now rigorous about online reputation management and expect to be more rigorous three years from now.



Despite this increased focus, the survey found that a majority of leaders are still out of touch with their employees online, even though employee criticism (41%) tied for first place with leaked confidential information as the greatest online reputation risk to a company’s reputation.

Employee Sabotage

Two-thirds (66%) of global executives are either unaware or do not want to admit that employees are badmouthing their companies online, while only one-third (34% ) of executives worldwide say they know of an employee who posted something negative online about their company despite the ongoing prevalence of damaging digital chatter.

In addition to global executives’ lack of knowledge about their employees chatting online about work and their company, the research also revealed that far fewer global CEOs/chairmen are concerned than non-CEOs/chairmen (21% vs. 43%, respectively) about employee work-related discussions on social networking sites, video-sharing sites and employee grievance sites.

“Leaders’ short-sightedness about employees going online to complain about their bosses, discuss salaries and leak confidential information highlights one of the most dangerous threats to corporate and professional reputations now and in the years ahead,” said Dr. Leslie Gaines-Ross, chief reputation strategist at Weber Shandwick.

Loose E-mails

Fully 87% of global executives admit to having erroneously sent or received at least one electronic message (private e-mail, text or Twitter), while 80% of CEOs/chairs have mistakenly sent or received electronic messages themselves. The unintended and unexpected consequences of misdirected electronic messages can taint, sometimes permanently, company reputations in seconds, said Weber Shandwick.



“Risks that did not exist a decade ago are now on full display - internal e-mails going astray, negative online campaigns by dissatisfied customers, and online grumblings from disenchanted employees, bloggers and anyone else who has an opinion to voice,” Gaines-Ross said.

Sustaining Reputation Online

When asked about the effectiveness of the internet as a resource for judging reputation, global executives reported that the best uses of the internet are for investigating business rivals (64%) and partners (60%), capturing customer feedback (63%) and exploring new employment opportunities (60%).



On the other hand, global executives are less likely to find the internet useful for assessing corporate responsibility track records, charitable organizations and activist groups or NGOs.

Mistrust of Blogs

By far, the greatest perceived cause of overall reputation damage is negative media coverage (84%), the survey found.

However, the majority of executives believe that traditional media, vs. online and social media, plays a larger role in shaping corporate reputation. Specifically, global executives believe that only half of information in corporate blogs is accurate and only 14% of execs trust them as a good source for assessing reputation.

Moreover, global executives believe that the least effective way to protect corporate reputation online is to build relationships with influential bloggers. Only 10% consider this strategy helpful in keeping reputations secure.

About the survey: Risky Business was conducted among 703 senior executives in 62 countries spanning North America, Europe, Asia Pacific and other markets. The survey was conducted online in June and July 2008. Weber Shandwick will be following up on this initial release of Risky Business survey results with additional reports that will focus on select segments such as executive rank, geographic region and age. Other segments will include business-to-business vs. business-to-consumer companies, and privately vs. publicly held enterprises.

Related topics: Online Networks, New Tech, Opinion, Privacy, Online, Signs of What's to Come, Integrated/Cross-Media/Convergence, Europe, Asia Pacific, Topics, Behavioral Marketing, Blogs, Email, Interactive
Feb 6-09

7 Tips for Surviving a Merger or Acquisition

When the economy goes south, merger and acquisition activity goes up, as companies seek efficiencies and economies of scale to weather the storm.



By Rich Casselberry

December 31, 2008 — CIO — The company I work for recently announced a joint venture with a much larger company. While calling this business transaction a joint venture makes it sound harmonious and collaborative, the reality is, it's probably an acquisition. My firm does a few hundred million dollars in annual revenue with 900 employees; the other firm is almost twenty times our size. They outsource their entire IT organization; ours is almost entirely in house. We actually looked at outsourcing our IT department to the same company that manages their IT a few years ago and decided to continue to run it ourselves. We felt we would get better service and could do it for about 20 percent less than what it would cost to outsource.

Only the Strong Retailers will Survive from Bloggingstocks.com

Only strong retailers will survive
Posted Nov 20th 2008 5:20PM by Lita EpsteinFiled under: Wal-Mart (WMT), Target Corp. (TGT), Best Buy (BBY), Circuit City Stores (CC)
While you probably won't see many more doors closing before the end of the year, expect to see weak retailers facing liquidations if the holiday season is as bad as many predict it will be. We've already seen 22 retailers file for bankruptcy including Steve & Barry's, Circuit City and Linens 'n Things. Some may survive bankruptcy reorganization and live to see another day. Other retailers may not be able to find the funds to refinance and will be forced to liquidate and close.Locally, near me in Florida, only one Circuit City has closed and you don't see much evidence of the bankruptcy. Shelves are not stocked as well and advertising is down, but you'd only know that if you watch the stores closely.The top retailers, such as Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) and Best Buy (NYSE: BBY) will survive easily, but many second and third tier retailers will be struggling to make it. Standard & Poors downgraded the credit rating for 53 retailers already this year, which is higher than the total number of downgrades for all of 2007, and it expects to downgrade more before year end. Deloitte Research Chief Economist Carl Steidtmann told Business Week, "It's been a long time since we've seen an environment as challenging as this."Target (NYSE: TGT), Wal-Mart's key national competitor, announced Monday it will begin aggressive price cuts to increase the number of bargains available this holiday season. Its apparel and home products led Target's third-quarter earnings to fall 24 percent. Fourth-quarter earnings will likely be lower as well.Business Week also expected regional department stores, such as Bon-Ton, which bought 142 stores from Saks two years ago, and Dillard's, which has already closed 30 stories, to face significant financial hardship as every retailer fights to be the low-end "go to" for shoppers. While these retailers may succeed in selling inventory, will there be enough profit to make it through another year? Small local retailers will likely face even bigger problems as they try to compete with the big boys on price. Lita Epstein has written more than 25 books including "Reading Financial Reports for Dummies."

Yahoo News Video

Yahoo News: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=10624692&ch=4226713&src=news

The World's 100 Most Powerful Women

Edited by Mary Ellen Egan and Chana R. Schoenberger 08.27.08, 6:00 PM ET
http://www.forbes.com/leadership/2008/08/27/most-powerful-women-biz-powerwomen08-cz_me_cs_0827women_land.html
Our annual ranking of the most powerful women in the world measures "power" as a composite of public profile--calculated using press mentions--and financial heft. The economic component of the ranking considers job title and past career accomplishments, as well as the amount of money the woman controls.

A chief executive "controls" the revenue of her business, for instance, while a head of state gets the country's gross domestic product. The raw numbers are modified to allow comparisons across financial realms.

For the third year running Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, is the world's most powerful woman. U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (overall rank: 28) is the woman with the highest public profile, resulting from the intense media scrutiny of her failed presidential bid.

More ...

The World's Hottest Job Markets

Tom Van Riper, 06.18.07, 1:00 PM ET
In Pictures: The World's 10 Hottest Job Markets
http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/18/manpower-employment-economy-biz-cx_tvr_0618globaljobs.html


To live in one of the world's hottest job markets, you may need to move to South America.

At least that's the case into the fall of 2007, as Argentina and Peru join traditional economic powers like the U.S., Canada and Hong Kong among the countries with the most robust job outlooks for the third quarter of the year.

While both countries have a long way to go to escape the ranks of the world's poor, they're booming, in recovery from the downtrodden 1990s. Freer trade, private sector investment in the mining and telecom industries, plus rising commodity prices that have boosted export dollars, have begun to show signs of paying off. Peru's economy grew 6.5% last year, while Argentina's shot up 8.5%.

In Pictures: The World's 10 Hottest Job Markets

"A lot of Latin America is starting to find its feet," says Jeffrey Joerres, chief executive of global placement firm Manpower (nyse: MAN - news - people ), which recently studied employment trends around the globe. He and others caution that the economic run in that region is still based more on a somewhat inevitable recovery than on a lot of structural change.

Bart van Ark, executive director for economic research at The Conference Board, says Latin America still needs to develop more labor-oriented industries to complement the capital-intensive telecom and mining sectors.

"We'll have to see if this is sustainable," he says of the recent boom.

Manpower's quarterly Global Employment Outlook, which surveyed over 50,000 employers across 27 countries, ranked Peru No. 2 and Argentina No. 4 in expected job growth for the July-September quarter. The firm scored each country by subtracting the percentage of companies that said they plan to cut back on workers from the percentage that said they plan to add them. A country where 75% of employers plan to add to their workforces and 25% plan to cut them, for example, scores +50%. Peru rated +48%, while Argentina weighed in at +38%.

Explaining the rest of the Top 10 list is pretty simple: Free markets and minimal government interference mean more jobs. Of the 10 countries with brightest employment outlooks, six also show up on the Top 10 on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, a guide the free market think tank uses to recognize those countries that adhere to relatively lower taxes and a light government touch to running the economy.

The six: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, the U.S., New Zealand and Canada. All are also among the seven countries rated highest by the World Bank for "ease of doing business."

Meantime, Europe is mostly absent from Manpower's list of job-creating countries. Norway, benefiting from high oil prices, is the only representative. The continent is lagging in the all-important services sector, though Germany has managed to shake its "Old Europe" tag a bit to become a bigger exporter in the past year. Germany's 14% score is a big jump from the 1% it registered last year. Ireland, riding a strong tech wave in recent years, is due to cool off some in 2007 even as job growth remains positive.

While oil and metals prices can carry an economy for a little while, sustained growth invariably comes down to structural improvements in technology and productivity, asserts van Ark.

And it's Asia, sleepy for so long outside of Japan, where most of the progress is being made in those areas, with Vietnam and the Philippines joining China as converts to the notion that increased efficiency through technology is key to boosting wealth and jobs.

Facebook Traffic Up 50% Over Last Year; myYearbook on the Rise - Search Marketing News Blog - Search Engine Watch (SEW)

Facebook Traffic Up 50% Over Last Year; myYearbook on the Rise - Search Marketing News Blog - Search Engine Watch (SEW): "September 26, 2008
Facebook Traffic Up 50% Over Last Year; myYearbook on the Rise
Facebook's market share is up 50% year-over-year, according to data released by Hitwise. myYearbook.com saw a 256% growth, propelling it into the third spot for most visited social network sites in the United States in August 2008. Still, they only had 1.65% of the total share.
MySpace lost market share, 10% to be exact. But it still holds the number one spot at 67.54% of the market.
Here are the charts:



Related Reading:
5 Million Users Hate the New Facebook? No Problem"

Ad Age Lineup Player

Ad Age Lineup Player
Check out ad age videos.

The Growing Frustration of eBay Sellers - BusinessWeek

The Growing Frustration of eBay Sellers - BusinessWeek: "The Growing Frustration of eBay Sellers
Changes at eBay, especially its new ratings feedback policy, have many longtime sellers angry. Some are even leaving for upstart sites like Shopify

By Karen E. Klein
Related Items
EBay: Amazon-ification Takes Hold
Tough Times for eBay Entrepreneurs
Auctions on eBay: A Dying Breed

The idea for 'The Growing Frustration of eBay Sellers' came from longtime BusinessWeek subscriber Rafael Rodarte Jr. He runs an eBay business with his wife, Julie, featured in the story. Rafael also works for oil and gas producer Aera Energy.

When Julie Rodarte and her husband started selling on eBay (EBAY) six years ago, they stored their meager inventory in the family garage. As sales grew, and Rodarte carved out a niche in party and wedding favors, the operation expanded and she created JDR Supply. Now, the Bakersfield, Calif., company leases a 2,000-square-foot warehouse and has three employees. Rodarte, a mother of two with a third child due any day, says her 2008 sales revenue has averaged $23,000 a month, providing her with profits to invest in operations and a salary of about $25,000 annually."

Managing your boss

Managing Your Boss
It's not manipulation—it's forging ties based on mutual respect and understanding
by John J. Gabarro and John P. Kotter
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2007/ca2007102_963954.htm?campaign_id=rss_null
The Idea in Brief

Managing our bosses? Isn't that merely manipulation? Corporate cozying up? Out-and-out apple polishing? In fact, we manage our bosses for very good reasons: to get resources to do the best job, not only for ourselves, but for our bosses and our companies as well. We actively pursue a healthy and productive working relationship based on mutual respect and understanding—understanding our own and our bosses' strengths, weaknesses, goals, work styles, and needs. Here's what can happen when we don't:

A new president with a formal work style replaced someone who'd been looser, more intuitive. The new president preferred written reports and structured meetings. One of his managers found this too controlling. He seldom sent background information, and was often blindsided by unanticipated questions. His boss found their meetings inefficient and frustrating. The manager had to resign.

In contrast, here's how another manager's sensitivity to this same boss's style really paid off:

This manager identified the kinds and frequency of information the president wanted. He sent ahead background reports and discussion agendas. The result? Highly productive meetings and even more innovative problem solving than with his previous boss.

Managers often don't realize how much their bosses depend on them. They need cooperation, reliability, and honesty from their direct reports. Many managers also don't realize how much they depend on their bosses—for links to the rest of the organization, for setting priorities, and for obtaining critical resources.

Recognizing this mutual dependence, effective managers seek out information about the boss's concerns and are sensitive to his work style. They also understand how their own attitudes toward authority can sabotage the relationship. Some see the boss as the enemy and fight him at every turn; others are overly compliant, viewing the boss as an all-wise parent.

The Idea in Practice

You can benefit from this mutual dependence and develop a very productive relationship with your boss by focusing on:

• compatible work styles. Bosses process information differently. "Listeners" prefer to be briefed in person so they can ask questions. "Readers" want to process written information first, and then meet to discuss.

Decision-making styles also vary. Some bosses are highly involved. Touch base with them frequently. Others prefer to delegate. Inform them about important decisions you've already made.

• mutual expectations. Don't passively assume you know what the boss expects. Find out. With some bosses, write detailed outlines of your work for their approval. With others, carefully planned discussions are key.

Also, communicate your expectations to find out if they are realistic. Persuade the boss to accept the most important ones.

• information flow. Managers typically underestimate what their bosses need to know—and what they do know. Keep the boss informed through processes that fit his style. Be forthright about both good and bad news.

• dependability and honesty. Trustworthy subordinates only make promises they can keep and don't shade the truth or play down difficult issues.

• good use of time and resources. Don't waste your boss's time with trivial issues. Selectively draw on his time and resources to meet the most important goals—yours, his, and the company's.

Provided by Harvard Business—Where Leaders Get Their Edge

C.E.O. Evolution Phase 3

C.E.O. Evolution Phase 3
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
Has the time come for C.E.O. Version 3.0?
The first iteration made its mark in the 1990s, as chief executives like Sanford I. Weill, Gerald M. Levin, John F. Welch Jr. and Michael Eisner built empires, not to mention their profiles, at the companies they ran: Citigroup, Time Warner, GE and Disney.
When the shares deflated earlier this decade after the burst of the tech bubble and various corporate scandals, a new cadre moved in: the Fix-it Men. They were lower-key leaders like Charles O. Prince III of Citigroup and Richard D. Parsons of Time Warner, whose job it was to repair the excesses and mistakes of their predecessors.
Now, management experts and longtime watchers of corporate America say the current environment demands, and is attracting, yet another kind of chief executive: the team builder.
“It’s someone who can assemble a team that functions as smoothly as a jazz sextet,” said Warren Bennis, a professor of management at the University of Southern California and author of many books on leadership.
In the last week, Mr. Prince and Mr. Parsons both announced they would be stepping aside. Mr. Prince’s abrupt exit followed huge losses that dragged down Citigroup’s long-stagnant stock, while Mr. Parsons is retiring at the end of 2007 after a five-year tenure, during which he stabilized the company but failed to move Time Warner shares higher.
A third chief executive, E. Stanley O’Neal of Merrill Lynch, was forced out late last month after his firm announced an $8.4 billion write-down.
Mr. O’Neal substantially increased Merrill’s revenue and profit during his tenure but has been criticized for forcing out subordinates he perceived as rivals, while several top executives left Citigroup during Mr. Prince’s reign. Now both companies find themselves searching for permanent replacements.
“They’ve got to have not just the cognitive ability to run a major firm, which Stan O’Neal definitely had, but the ability to make people feel like they’re working together,” Mr. Bennis said.
Merrill and Citi might consider looking at chief executives like A.G. Lafley of Procter & Gamble or W. James McNerney Jr. of Boeing as archetypes of the new model, according to Mr. Bennis.
“Both felt the need to make sure the top hundred people know that they’re in this together, that their fates are correlated,” Mr. Bennis says. “That’s what it will take to succeed in this century.”
Mr. Lafley and Mr. McNerney have won plaudits not merely for their personal style, but also for their bottom-line performance, with shares of Procter & Gamble and Boeing easily outpacing the likes of Citigroup and Time Warner, as well as the benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, over the last two years.
That’s no coincidence, according to Michael Useem, a professor of management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and director of the Center for Leadership and Change Management there. “The academic research says if you want to predict what the future financial performance over the next one to three years will be, you need to know the top team,” he said.
Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, senior associate dean for executive programs at the School of Management at Yale, says the style of today’s best chief executives differs from both the empire builders and the cleanup specialists.
The former were known for public swagger and boardroom-size egos, while the latter often excelled at a narrow set of skills, Mr. Sonnenfeld said. He cited Mr. Prince’s skills as a lawyer who was able to get his company back into the good graces of regulators after Mr. Weill’s departure. Others say Mr. Parsons was a strong administrator, but failed to offer a strategy that satisfied Wall Street.
Mr. Sonnenfeld says Mr. Lafley and Mr. McNerney, along with Anne Mulcahy, chief executive of Xerox, possess the vision of the empire builders without their overpowering egos, while also bringing more personal warmth to the corner office
Ms. Mulcahy, for example, was able to cut jobs and restore Xerox’s profitability “without coming across as mean-spirited,” Mr. Sonnenfeld said. Mr. Lafley “is disarmingly unpretentious,” he added. “He never comes to my summits and I’ve never been a consultant for him, but he towers over other C.E.O.’s when it comes to putting in people stronger than himself or his ability to talk about setbacks.”
Mr. Lafley has spent his entire career at Procter & Gamble, while Mr. McNerney arrived at Boeing after decades at General Electric, long regarded as something of a management boot camp, and after a successful stint as chief executive of 3M. Although clearly an outsider at Boeing, Mr. Sonnenfeld said, “he learned to listen to the culture there.”
This approach, he said, means these leaders were able to “introduce change but people don’t hate them for it; the team comes to them.”
Mr. O’Neal, on the other hand, “fired people who shouldn’t have been fired,” Mr. Bennis said. Mr. Prince, he added, “was always in the shadow of Mr. Weill; he never was able to build his own team.”
And when disaster struck in the form of billions in losses from the subprime meltdown, these weaknesses came back to haunt Citigroup and Merrill Lynch.
“Whenever you have such a stunning decline, errors become much more visible,” Mr. Bennis said.
Of course, just as chief executives shape the times, so do the times shape them. “There’s a theory that the people who get to the top at big companies should be best at solving the problems of their era,” Mr. Useem said.
In fact, Mr. Sonnenfeld said, the original archetype was what he called “the custodian,” leaders who came of age during the Organization Man era of the 1950s, but were overwhelmed by the rapidly shifting economic landscape of the 1970s and 1980s.
They were followed by the empire builders who focused on mega-mergers and financial management in the 1990s to deliver the growth Wall Street demanded while getting big enough to achieve economies of scale and beat back foreign competitors.
The cleanup artists arrived on the scene in the wake of the collapse of Enron and WorldCom and the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, which tightened government oversight of public companies.
At the same time, investors were demanding quick fixes. In Time Warner’s case, Carl C. Icahn, the billionaire activist investor, pressed for a quick breakup of the company, something Mr. Parsons was able to stave off.
Business schools are also opting for the 3.0 approach. At the Yale School of Management last year, Mr. Sonnenfeld said, the dean and faculty threw out the old first-year curriculum that emphasized individual disciplines like finance and marketing and replaced it with a team-oriented approach, with professors teaching these subjects jointly. In addition, he said, “We have students, faculty and staff assemble their own teams as part of their training to be future execs.”
What will be the main challenge in the next 5 to 10 years? Mr. Useem predicted it would be achieving double-digit growth internally, without the benefit of huge deals or accounting sleight-of-hand. “That’s why I think the baton will go to the manager who will stimulate a division and will be creative and innovative,” he said.eventive medicine/health optimization."

Spin Blog - Business Spin by Jack Flack: Merrill Lynch: How the Media Helped Fire Stan O'Neal - Portfolio.com

Spin Blog - Business Spin by Jack Flack: Merrill Lynch: How the Media Helped Fire Stan O'Neal - Portfolio.com

This afternoon, the WSJ's Randall Smith and Tom Lauricella reported one scenario for the departure of Stan O'Neal, while CNBC's Charles Gasparino reported another. Either way, the assumed exit would conclude an incredibly rapid decent down Jack Flack's "Five Levels of CEO Media Hell," revealing much about the connection between the news media and back-room power-plays.

So how did the story accelerate so quickly?

1. The espoused story was never the real story.

Espoused story: "Unexpected, massive write-offs from reckless risk-taking, combined with side-dealing without board endorsement, has forced the board to consider firing O'Neal."

Real story: "The write-offs and side-conversation made O'Neal vulnerable to the legions of enemies he's made in bluntly hacking away at the Mother Merrill culture."


The toppling of a powerful CEO is seldom actually about performance, and almost always about the control of power and the vengeance of embittered egos. Fire a bunch of type-A bankers and brokers over the years, and you better watch your back, particularly with one who felt born to the job you got instead. Urinate on the culture, and watch some scary ghosts come out of the attic.

Cablevision Deal

The Wall Street JournalCablevision Deal
Meets More Opposition
By PETER GRANT and TOM LAURICELLA
October 17, 2007; Page A3

ClearBridge Advisors, the largest institutional shareholder in Cablevision Systems Corp., plans to vote next week against the Dolan family's bid to take the company private, delivering a potentially crippling blow to the $10.6 billion effort, according to people familiar with the matter.

A defeat would end a two-year struggle by the Dolans to take private the company, which owns cable systems in the New York area as well as sports teams such as the New York Knicks and Madison Square Garden. The company has been embroiled in numerous battles in recent years, occasionally between family members. Despite these fights, the company's cable unit is an industry leader in financial performance.

ClearBridge owns about 14% of Cablevision's public stock. Three other large institutional shareholders that together control about 20% of the vote -- Gamco Investors Inc., T. Rowe Price and Marathon Asset Management -- have already indicated their intention to oppose the buyout at the shareholder meeting scheduled for next Wednesday. The Dolans -- who own about 20% of the company through a separate class of stock that they can't vote in this matter -- need approval of 50% of the public shareholders.

Like the other dissidents, ClearBridge believes the Dolans' offer of $36.26 a share is too low. Gamco and T. Rowe Price executives, for instance, have said the company is worth more than $50 a share. They have challenged the company's $4.8 billion valuation of its noncable assets, which also include Radio City Music Hall and numerous TV channels. They have also argued that Cablevision's cable systems are worth more than those at companies like Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable Inc. because they serve more affluent areas and are further ahead in rolling out phone service and digital cable.

A similar view is taken by ISS Governance Services, one of the leading proxy advisory firms to institutional investors which last week recommended that shareholders vote against the buyout because the price is inadequate. Also, Proxy Governance Inc., a proxy advisory firm based in Vienna, Va., recommended yesterday that shareholders reject the offer.

Few believe the Dolans could afford to raise the price. Even under the current plans, the Dolans are planning to add $8.5 billion of debt to Cablevision's existing $10.5 billion in debt.

Shareholders may still approve the Dolans' plan even with strong institutional opposition. Cablevision's share price has tracked the offer, closing yesterday at $33.70, down 20 cents. But as a group, cable stocks have declined about 20% since May when the family made its latest bid, making the offer more appealing.

Craig Moffett, cable analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein, noted that many of the shareholders who own Cablevision also invest in other cable stocks and that if the Dolans' bid is voted down, Cablevision's shares may fall 10% to 20%. "Any investor who has endured the pain of owning cable over the summer is going to be loath to sign up for another dose by voting this thing down," he said.

Spokesmen for the Dolans and Cablevision declined to comment on ClearBridge's plans. But Cablevision Chief Executive James Dolan said in a written statement released last night that the family won't raise its offer. The company's board recommended the bid in May, noting that it represented a 34% premium to the family's offer the previous year.

ClearBridge's decision comes at a time of rising activism on the part of mutual-fund companies, which traditionally have been loath to pick fights with the management of companies in which they invest. Most notably, T. Rowe Price earlier this year tried unsuccessfully to stop a buyout of Laureate Education Inc., and Lord Abbett Inc. opposed a proposed private-equity buyout of OSI Restaurant Partners Inc., which operates the Outback Steakhouse chain.

ClearBridge's stake in Cablevision sits in its $4.4 billion Legg Mason Partners Aggressive Growth fund, managed by Richard Freeman. Mr. Freeman has on several recent occasions squared off with the managements of companies in which he invests. In early 2006, Novartis Inc. raised the price it was offering for Chiron Corp. after Mr. Freeman criticized the terms of the merger. Mr. Freeman was a major holder of Chiron stock, owning 12% of shares outstanding.

Write to Peter Grant at peter.grant@wsj.com and Tom Lauricella at tom.lauricella@wsj.com

Ford and G.M. Expect a July Sales Drop - New York Times

Ford and G.M. Expect a July Sales Drop - New York Times

August 1, 2007
Ford and G.M. Expect a July Sales Drop
By MICHELINE MAYNARD; JEREMY W. PETERS CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM NEW YORK.
Over the last 18 months, General Motors and the Ford Motor Company have cut thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in costs and narrowed their North American losses. That helped each post unexpectedly strong second-quarter profits.

But those results may be the best that both auto companies can do, at least in the short run, in a challenging auto market beset by foreign competition and economic concerns.


On Wednesday, G.M. and Ford are expected to report double-digit declines in July auto sales on an unadjusted basis, according to Edmunds.com, a Web site that offers car-buying advice.

The companies have stepped up incentive programs, like rebates and cut-rate loans, in hopes of clearing out 2007 models in preparation for new models this fall.

G.M.'s most important coming vehicle is the new version of the Chevrolet Malibu sedan, which follows updated versions of its pickup trucks, the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra, introduced last winter.

The trucks' initial sales surge has faltered in the face of high gas prices, slowing home sales and concerns about the broader economy, however, leaving G.M. with soaring inventories of both vehicles at a time when competitors like Toyota are aggressively discounting their trucks.

Despite that, G.M. largely held off on its own deals until this month, and its decision paid off somewhat on Tuesday.

G.M. said it earned $891 million from April through June, or $1.56 a share, compared with a loss of $3.4 billion, or $5.98 a share, in the period a year earlier.

G.M.'s North American operations -- the centerpiece of its business -- lost $39 million in the quarter. That was a significant improvement from the second quarter of 2006, when losses totaled $3.95 billion in North America. On an adjusted basis, G.M. said it earned $78 million.

Either way, it essentially broke even in its biggest market, after almost two years of revamping.

G.M. has never said when it expects to earn an annual profit in North America. Still, G.M.'s chief financial officer, Frederick A. Henderson, said the company deserved credit for getting this far, especially since it did not anticipate high oil and gasoline prices, a slowdown in the housing market or the problems in credit markets that have occurred since it began its turnaround efforts.

''Given that we're breaking even, we've been pedaling pretty fast to get here,'' Mr. Henderson said in an interview. ''But we need to pedal even faster.''

Mr. Henderson said the second-quarter result stemmed from ''a performance that was less than we were hoping for, certainly in the month of June, for example'' when G.M.'s auto sales fell 24 percent.

On Wednesday, Edmunds estimated that G.M.'s average incentive rose to $3,130 per vehicle in July, up nearly $300 per vehicle from its level in June.

G.M. embarked on a reorganization plan in late 2005 that called for it to close all or part of a dozen plants and eliminate 30,000 jobs over three years. The plan was aimed primarily at stemming G.M.'s red ink in North America, the main reason for a near record loss of $10.6 billion in 2005 and a $2 billion loss last year.

Ford, which posted an $750 million profit during the quarter, said last week that it had lost $279 million in North America. It, too, plans to cut jobs -- about 44,000 of them in North America -- and close factories.

Even so, analysts were pleased that G.M. had positive cash flow of about $1.1 billion during the quarter, although they noted the company had reduced its capital spending plans to about $8 billion a year from a previous forecast of $8 billion to $9 billion annually.

Jonathan Steinmetz, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, termed the results ''better than expected.'' Neither Ford nor G.M. issues guidance to Wall Street, a reason both companies' second-quarter profits were above analysts' estimates.

Shares of G.M., which had risen this week on expectations of a strong quarter, fell 21 cents, closing at $32.40 on the New York Stock Exchange. They had risen as high as $34.28 early in the day.

The brightest news for G.M. came overseas. In Europe, G.M. earned $217 million. Profits reached $227 million in Asia, and $213 million in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. The profit from worldwide automotive operations, including the loss in North America, was $618 million.

But Mr. Henderson said he was not sure that overseas performance could continue in the current quarter, when sales in Europe, in particular, traditionally decline because customers are on extended summer vacations.

''I used to wake up in terror every morning wondering whether people bought cars in the third quarter,'' said Mr. Henderson, who previously ran G.M.'s European operations. ''You have to have a good first half in order to have a reasonable chance at a reasonable year.''

He added, ''We're reasonably pleased with the second quarter, but we have a lot of challenge ahead in Europe.''