 |
|
|
|||||
Democratic and Republican congressional leaders are heading to the White House for a meeting with President Donald Trump on Monday in a late effort to avoid a government shutdown, but both sides have shown hardly any willingness to budge from their entrenched positions.If government funding legislation isn’t passed by Congress and signed by Trump on Tuesday night, many government offices across the nation will be temporarily shuttered and nonexempt federal employees will be furloughed, adding to the strain on workers and the nation’s economy.Republicans are daring Democrats to vote against legislation that would keep government funding mostly at current levels, but Democrats have held firm. They’re using one of their few points of leverage to demand Congress take up legislation to extend health care benefits.“The meeting is a first step, but only a first step. We need a serious negotiation,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”Trump has shown little interest in entertaining Democrats’ demands on healthcare, even as he agreed to hold a sit-down meeting Monday with Schumer, along with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries. The Republican president has said repeatedly he fully expects the government to enter a shutdown this week.“If it has to shut down, it’ll have to shut down,” Trump said Friday. “But they’re the ones that are shutting down government.”The Trump administration has tried to pressure Democratic lawmakers into backing away from their demands, warning that federal employees could be permanently laid off in a funding lapse.“Chuck Schumer said a few months ago that a government shutdown would be chaotic, harmful and painful. He’s right, and that’s why we shouldn’t do it,” Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said Sunday on “Meet the Press.”Still, Democrats argued Trump’s agreement to hold a meeting shows he’s feeling the pressure to negotiate. They say that because Republicans control the White House and Congress, Americans will mostly blame them for any government shutdown.But to hold on to their negotiating leverage, Senate Democrats will likely have to vote against a bill to temporarily extend government funding on Tuesday, just hours before a shutdown an uncomfortable position for a party that has long denounced shutdowns as pointless and destructive.The bill has already passed the Republican-controlled House and would keep the government funded for seven more weeks while Congress works on annual spending legislation.Any legislation to fund the government will need support from at least 60 senators. That means that at least eight Democrats would have to vote for the short-term funding bill, because Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is expected to vote against it.During the last potential government shutdown in March, Schumer and nine other Democrats voted to break a filibuster and allow a Republican-led funding bill to advance to a final vote. The New York Democrat faced fierce backlash from many in his own party for that decision, with some even calling for him to step down as Democratic leader.This time, Schumer appears resolute.“We’re hearing from the American people that they need help on health care and as for these massive layoffs, guess what? Simple one-sentence answer: They’re doing it anyway,” he said.Democrats are pushing for an extension to Affordable Care Act tax credits that have subsidized health insurance for millions of people since the COVID-19 pandemic. The credits, which are designed to expand coverage for low- and middle-income people, are set to expire at the end of the year.Some Republicans are open to extending the tax credits but want changes. Thune said Sunday that the program is “desperately in need of reform” and Republicans want to address “waste, fraud and abuse.” He has pressed Democrats to vote for the funding bill and take up the debate on tax credits later.It remains to be seen whether the White House meeting will help or hurt the chances for a resolution. Negotiations between Trump and Democratic congressional leaders have rarely gone well, and Trump has had little contact with the opposing party during his second term.The most recent negotiation in August between Schumer and the president to speed the pace of Senate confirmation votes for administration officials ended with Trump telling Schumer to “go to hell” in a social media post.Trump also abruptly canceled a meeting that was planned with congressional leaders last week, calling Democrats’ demands “unserious and ridiculous.”Schumer argued that the White House coming back to reschedule a meeting for Monday showed that “they felt the heat.” Stephen Groves and Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Wall Street pushed higher early Monday despite growing anxiety over a possible U.S. government shutdown later this week.Futures for the S&P 500 rose 0.5% before the bell, while futures for the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.4%. Nasdaq futures climbed 0.6%.Prospects for a last-minute compromise between Republicans and Democrats appear rather bleak, with government funding set to run out Wednesday. Such political impasses have had limited impact on the market before, though a shutdown could delay the release of government data that traders, economists and the Federal Reserve rely on for clues about how the U.S. economy is faring.The government is scheduled to release its comprehensive September jobs report on Friday. The Federal Reserve cut its benchmark lending rate earlier this month largely due to concern about a cooling labor market, though officials are still paying close attention to inflation, which has remained above the U.S. central bank’s 2% target.On Friday, stocks got some help from the report showing inflation in the United States accelerated to 2.7% last month from 2.6% in July, offering some hope that the Fed could continue cutting interest rates in order to give the economy a boost.One factor threatening to push inflation higher, adding to consumer woes, is President Donald Trump’s tariffs, and he announced more late Thursday. They include taxes on imports of some pharmaceutical drugs, kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities, upholstered furniture and heavy trucks starting on Oct. 1.In equities trading Monday, shares of British pharmaceutical giant GSK rose 2.8% after the company announced CEO Emma Walmsley will step down Dec. 31 after more than eight years leading the London-based drugmaker.Luke Miels, currently GSK’s chief commercial officer, will replace the 56-year-old Walmsley, who was the first woman to lead a major pharmaceutical company.Shares of Electronic Arts jumped 5.7% after it agreed to go private in a $55 billion buyout.In Europe at midday, the CAC 40 in Paris rose 0.2%, while Britain’s FTSE picked up 0.4%. The German DAX was unchanged.In Asian trading, Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 was the regional outlier, giving up 0.7% to 45,043.75.Chinese markets advanced, with the Hang Seng in Hong Kong adding 0.9% to 26,622.88, while the Shanghai Composite index gained 0.9% to 3,862.53.Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 rose 0.9% to 8,862.80, while the Kospi in South Korea surged 1.3% to 3,431.21.China factory data are due out on Tuesday and a quarterly business sentiment survey by the Bank of Japan comes on Wednesday.In energy trading early Monday, U.S. benchmark crude oil lost $1.29, nearly 2%, to $64.43 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, declined $1.25 to $67.97 per barrel.Reports that the OPEC plus oil producing nations might raise their production limits next month have added to worries over oversupply, analysts said.Gold rose 1.2% to a record $3,854.60 an ounce. Elaine Kurtenbach and Matt Ott, AP Business Writers
Category:
E-Commerce
I revisited my definition of strategy several years ago and realized recently that I hadnt written about it just presented it privately to executive teams in the context of my strategy work with them. I decided to rectify that oversight by writing this Playing to Win/Practitioner Insights (PTW/PI) piece on it called Revisiting my Definition of Strategy: Compelling Desired Customer Action. And as always, you can find all the previous PTW/PI here.Need for a DefinitionFor any field to develop, the terms used in the field must be defined. Otherwise, participants cant discuss the field intelligently, and it is therefore hard for the field to advance. I experienced that phenomenon when I joined the founding board of the Skoll Foundation in 1999 (on which I served for 20 years). Its stated purpose was to invest in, connect, and champion social entrepreneurs, which sounded great. At my first board meeting, when we were reviewing candidates to receive the Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship (which included $1M in funding for their organizations), I asked what I thought was an innocent question: OK, so what is a social entrepreneur?{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"","imageMobileUrl":"","eyebrow":"","headline":"Subscribe to Roger Martin\u0027s newsletter","dek":"Want to read more from Roger Martin? See his weekly Medium posts at rogermartin.medium.com.","ctaText":"Sign Up","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/rogermartin.medium.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#00b3f0","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":0,"imageMobileId":0}}I was relatively taken aback by the multitude of answers I got. Generally, it boiled down to a vague notion of a person doing good for humanity in an entrepreneurial kind of way. I asked if Mother Theresa was a social entrepreneur. No. OK, how about Steve Jobs? No. How about Muhammad Yunus? Yes. In due course, I gave up and realized that we had a vague definition that provided little guidance as to what was in or out.I found the fuzziness unsatisfactory, so I worked hard with the brilliant founding Skoll CEO Sally Osberg to come up with a clear and actionable definition of social entrepreneurship to guide our field-building work. In due course, we wrote up our definition in a Stanford Social Innovation Review article called Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition, which has gone on to be the most downloaded article in the history of that journal and the most cited article in social entrepreneurship. Its popularity demonstrated that people in the field needed a definition of the field to work productively in it.Need for a Strategy DefinitionDespite business strategy being a much older field than social entrepreneurship, it still suffers from a lack of consensus on a definition. I see every definition under the sun as I observe and practice strategy. The most common definition is a list of initiatives which the company plans to carry out and is called a strategic plan. I am not fond of that definition, as I explain in my viral video (with just under 6 million views), A Plan is Not a Strategy. Another definition is an adjective connoting importance. So, strategic sourcing is more important than sourcing. Strategic HR is more important than HR, and so on. Yet another common definition of strategy is a dream e.g., our strategy is to become the best life insurance company in the world.These, and many more definitions floating around out in the business world, are simply not helpful. A list of initiatives is just a list. An adjective is just a modifier of another word. And hope is, as my friend AG Lafley always says, is not a strategy. My Original DefinitionIn the mid-1990s, as I did a decade later with social entrepreneurship, I leaped into the breach to attempt to provide a useful definition that could guide the practice of strategy. I think I came up with my original defintion in 1995, but the earliest slide of mine that I could find with it is the one below from January 1998 (if you look at the lower-left footer). That served as my definition for a quarter-century.Funnily, I was prompted to look for the origin of this definition because I was recently asked to work alongside a consultant who parroted this exact, word-for-word definition of strategy in his presentation without citing me as the source. This kind of thing happens frequently, so I was not terribly surprised. And the beneficial outcome of his plagiarism is that it gave me the impetus to write this piece. In any event, there are five important elements of my original definition.First, it is made up of choices to do some things and not to do other things. You dont have a strategy if it doesnt identify what you are not going to do.Second, it is an integrated set. It is not a list. It is a set of choices that fit together and reinforce one another. At the same time as I was doing this work, I was helping Michael Porter with his landmark 1996 Harvard Business Review article, What is Strategy? It debuted the idea of the central importance of fit and reinforcement in strategy.Third, the set of choices positions the firm in its industry. This definition was designed to complement the five-question Strategy Choice Cascade, which I created contemporaneously, and this is a reference to the Where-to-Play choice.Fourth, the set of choices is designed to create sustainable advantage relative to competition, which is an obvious connection to the How-to-Win choice.Fifth is the payoff of doing the first four and that is superior financial returns, which are both the reward and the proof that choices accomplish the third and fourth elements.My New DefinitionI liked the definition a lot, which is why I kept using it for a quarter-century. But about three years ago, I started including a modified definition (shown at the head of the article) in the presentations I give to clients as I work them through exercises to create strategy.Elements KeptAs is clear, I kept the first two elements exactly as they were in the old definition. Nothing changed in my thinking. These are both critical to a useful definition of strategy and counter to the conventional practice of what most executives and consultants call strategy. These many years later, strategy is still primarily a disconnected list of initiatives called a strategic plan. That is why integrated set and choices are so very important and are still the opening elements of my definition.One aspect on which I have elaborated is the choice element. I have come up with what those working on strategy find to be a useful test for whether or not they have made a strategy choice. A strategy choice is one for which the opposite of the choice is not stupid on its face. For example, a choice to be customer-centric is not a strategy choice because the opposite ignoring your customers is stupid on its face and will result in abject failure. That doesnt mean such a choice is not important. In fact, if the opposite is stupid on its face, then it is what I call an operating imperative it is imperative that you make that choice. But choosing an operating imperative wont generate advantage because it is so obvious that every competitor should and will choose to do it too.Elements SubtractedI removed the other three elements of my old definition and replaced them with one new element. I didnt remove the third and fourth elements because I no longer believed they were relevant or appropriate. They Where-to-Play and How-to-Win are both still critical elements of strategy. But this definition is meant to accompany the Strategic Choice Cascade, and those specifics are covered precisely and thoroughly in it, so I dont need either here in this definition at least I dont think so. However, for any practitioner using this set of tools, I would encourage you to link this definition directly and explicitly to the Strategy Choice Cascade.I could have continued to include superior financial returns in the new definition. But I didnt because after using the original version for a long time, I wanted to simplify wherever possible. And it felt to me that this aspect is obvious. If a strategy produces crummy financial returns, it isnt a strategy worth having.Plus, the added element below incorporates this financial aspect implicitly.Element AddedOver the past decade or so, I have been thinking a lot about why I am so committed to strategy especially when so many others (e.g. them and her) downplay its importance or even relevance. Companies have gotten so big, so rich, cant they do anything they wish? What is wrong with just asking every business or function what it wants, assembling that list, then funding each initiative and calling that its strategy?But so many big companies fail! Nearly once every two years of the 140-year existence of the Dow Jones 30, one of these 30 corporate giants gets kicked out of the index because it has fallen on hard times. It became clear to me that while they are big and powerful, and control lots of things, they dont control everything.A company controls how many employees it hires, how much it pays them, how many factories/service operations it builds, how many dollars to spend on advertising, how much to invest in R&D, through which distribution channels to sell, and on and on. The lists of things companies control is exceedingly long.However, the one essential element over which the company has zero control is the customer. Customers can take whatever actions they please unless the organization is a regulated monopoly like the Department of Motor Vehicles, which customers are forced to use if they want to drive a car. Normal customers cant be forced to do anything. Companies cant impose decisions on them.Hence, the task of strategy is to make choices in areas under the control of the company that together compel desired customer action. Generically, the desired action is for customers to buy enough of the companys offering at sufficiently high prices to earn attractive returns over the short and long term. If many buy but are willing only at too low a price, that does not amount to desired customer action. If customers instead buy at the target price but there are too few of them, that is also a failed strategy. Quantity and price are both necessary aspects of customer action.Happily, since I am a Peter Drucker fan, this view of strategy is consistent with his view of the purpose of business which is to create and keep a customer. (It is not completely clear that he actually included the and keep part of that definition, but I think it is logically implied). I see the purpose of the strategy that guides a companys action is to compel potential customers to become customers at prices and volumes that make the economics attractive.Practitioner InsightsA big enemy of strategy is fuzzy definitions that make the job of creating effective strategy harder than it really needs to be. Strategy cant be anything you want it to be. You need to embrace and enforce a tight definition to assist you in creating a valuable strategy.My latest and tightest definition has three elements: choices, integrated set, and desired customer action. An essential feature of the choices is that the opposite of each choice is not stupid on its face. It is an integrated set if the choices across the five questions of the Strategy Choice Cascade fit with and reinforce one another. And the choices must be configured to compel the thing the company does not control, which is desired customer action.If you ensure that you are guided by those three elements of a tight definition, you will be able to create productive, winning strategies.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||