More Than an Oracle – The Employee Engagement Practices of Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett is in the news these days after publicly expressing his confidence in the future of American corporations and recently investing $8 Billion Dollars to purchase interests in GE and Goldman Sachs. With the recent stock market turmoil, many look to the world’s wealthiest man for guidance, and rightly so. Buffett is widely recognized as an exceptional judge of corporate value. “The Oracle of Omaha,” as he is known, is arguably the most successful investor in history. Corporate leaders regularly make the trek to Omaha, Nebraska, seeking his wisdom. With so much attention on Buffett’s investment acumen, it’s easy to overlook another talent: motivating people. It’s one of a host of reasons his investments tend to outperform the market.

The talented managers who run Buffett’s companies remain with him because he keeps them engaged in their jobs. In Buffett’s own words, “Charlie [Charlie Munger, Buffett’s longtime business partner] and I mainly attend to capital allocation and the care and feeding of our key managers . . . Most of our managers are independently wealthy and it’s up to us to create a climate that encourages them to choose working with Berkshire over golfing or fishing.”

A closer look at Buffett shows, at least in part, how he does it.

He imparts an inspiring identity to members of the Berkshire Hathaway family. The vision he constantly communicates is that Berkshire companies are well managed and have great people. It’s not unusual to hear him tell employees to “just keep on doing what you’re doing . . . we’re never going to tell a .400 hitter to change his batting stance.” Who wouldn’t be flattered to be praised by Buffett?

Buffett shows that he values people in several ways. He is trusting and forgiving. By investing for long periods in the companies he owns, Buffett indicates that he trusts his managers. He delegates decision-making authority, in his own words, “to the point of abdication.” And when a manager makes an honest mistake, he keeps it in perspective. One manager who informed Buffett that his business had to write off $350 million was stunned when Buffett told him, “We all make mistakes . . . if you didn’t make mistakes, you can’t make decisions …You can’t dwell on them.”

Buffett models civility and respect for others. His secretary has said she hasn’t seen him mad once in the nine years she has worked for him. The one time I met Buffett at a meeting in New York City, he patiently waited around to speak with everyone who wanted to meet him. He was attentive and focused on them, never projecting the slightest hint of self-importance.

He is confident, yet humble. Buffett knows he’s very good at what he does, and he projects an easy confidence rather than superiority or arrogance. He credits his managers for his success, remains plain spoken, works in a modest office, lives in a modest house, and proclaims thrift as a virtue (the vanity plate on his former car read “Thrifty”).

Compare Warren Buffett to Donald Trump, for example. It’s hard to imagine Buffett prominently displaying his name all over everything he owns or relishing in telling someone “you’re fired.” Instead of everything being all about him, Buffett insists it’s all about others. He appears to be guided by the Golden Rule rather than Machiavelli’s The Prince.

Given the way Buffett treats people, it should come as no surprise that some private company owners report turning down more lucrative offers to join the Berkshire family. It is telling that no manager who sold a company to Buffett has ever left for a competitor, and several continue to work well into their eighties. Put simply, “people want to work for him,” proclaimed another satisfied manager, Rich Santulli, head of NetJets.

Buffett promotes communication by being approachable and candid. At the annual meeting he hosts in Omaha for Berkshire shareholders, Buffett and Charlie Munger sit on a platform, listening to shareholder opinions and answering questions for hours on end. In dealing with his managers he follows the data they provide him in periodic reports and makes himself available if they want to talk. Buffett writes and speaks with candor, even pointing out mistakes he made and what he learned from them.

Warren Buffett’s ways make the managers of Berkshire Hathaway feel proud to be affiliated with the company, feel valued as human beings and feel they can communicate openly and honestly with Buffett. These feelings (or emotions) make people want to give their best effort in their work and make them more energetic, optimistic, trusting and cooperative. Warren Buffett’s behavior reflects common sense and yet studies have shown that such behaviors are uncommon in practice among those with power in organizations. It is yet another reason why Buffett deserves to be called the Oracle of Omaha.

Trademarks In Film – Best Practices

Coca-Cola, Nike, Reebok, Adidas, UPS, McDonalds, FedEx, Dairy Queen, Kodak. You may ask what these brand names have in common. These brand names (and many others) all represent trademarks. “That sounds expensive! How can I afford for the protagonist in my film to be drinking a Pepsi and eating a slice of Dominos pizza during dinner? I will have to cover up all of the labels.” Unfortunately, this is how most filmmakers think. The thought that producers must obtain permission and cough up more of their dwindling production budget to use every label, sign, or shingle in their film is not entirely true. This concept is a very misunderstood notion of trademark law.

The important part of a trademark is what the mark represents. A trademark represents the source – it identifies who made the goods you are buying or who provided the services you are enjoying. So the big question remains, “Can I use someone else’s trademark in my film?”

The good news is that as a filmmaker, your right to include a trademark in your film is clear. You have a right to include the trademark in your film as long as the trademark or the product bearing the trademark is used as it was intended to be used without any consequences of its use being abnormal or out of the ordinary. Therefore, as long as a filmmaker is using a trademark or logo as it was intended to be used, and do not disparage or tarnish the trademark or logo in your film, you may include such trademark or logo without asking permission to do so. Simple, right?

Like any other rule, there is always one caveat. You as a filmmaker do not have the right to commit trade libel, not even in the name of entertainment. Trade libel occurs when a product or service is falsely accused of some bad attribute. For example, if you showed someone in your film eating a McDonald’s hamburger, then that person immediately keeled over because the food was poisonous, that would libel the trademark.

Another major question that arises sounds something like this, “So if I can use a trademark in my film in a non-libelous manner, why would I want to pay a license fee to clear it?” While the law does not require the filmmaker to obtain permission to use these items in film or television shows, there may be some good business reasons to do so anyway. For instance, broadcast television is an advertiser- supported medium. Therefore, if you used Coca-Cola labels on every beverage, and these beverages are prominently visible on the television screen, you have essentially given Coca-Cola free airtime.

I do not think the network broadcasting your show would be too thrilled giving away free airtime. Additionally as a filmmaker, you may potentially create more than one film. By showing goodwill and possibly paying or asking permission to use a trademark in your current film, the trademark holder may be willing to support, or even finance a portion of your project (assuming of course the trademark holder liked the use of their product or trademark in the film). So while permission to use a logo or trademark may not always be necessary, it might make good business sense to get permission anyway.

Exit mobile version