Perhaps you should promote the poaching?

Seeing your star employees being poached by a rival always seems a bit of a bummer. And rightly so. We know from research, on industries as varied as semi-conductors and mutual funds, that they often take valuable knowledge with them and therefore enhance the performance of your rivals. And indeed, research on Silicon Valley law firms as well as on Dutch accounting firms*, shows that moving employees do not only enhance the survival chances of the poaching firms but also decrease the survival probability of the firms from which they were poached. This was especially true if the employees moved in groups and if it concerned geographically proximate rivals, because they are the ones you are especially in competition with.

Customers poaching

So far the bad news. But can there be any upside to your employees being recruited? Well, yes, actually there is definitely a potential upside to that as well � especially if your employees are being hired by your customers, as professors Deepak Somaya, Ian Williamson and Natalia Lorinkova discovered. They examined the movement of patent attorneys between 123 US law firms and 109 Fortune 500 companies from a variety of industries. And they found strong evidence that if a client company recruited a patent attorney from a law firm, subsequently that law firm would start to get significantly more business from that company.

Hence, your employees leaving for your clients can be a good thing; they bring you valuable business. McKinsey � always ranked as one of the most admired professional services firms in the field � understands and manages this process particularly well; once you have been employed by McKinsey you automatically become �an alumnus of The Firm� (rather than a deserter). The firm carefully nourishes its relationship with its �alumni�, because they subsequently bring a large chunk of their business through the door.

Competitors poaching

Recently, professors Rafael Corredoira from the University of Maryland and Lori Rosenkopf from the Wharton School even found a beneficial effect of your employees being poached by rival firms. Using patent analysis studying US semi-conductor firms, they examined the transfer of knowledge between pairs of firms: the firm from which the employee was poached and the poacher. Not surprisingly, there is quite a bit of evidence that when this happens, knowledge transfers to the poacher; it comes in the form of the brains of the newly arrived recruit. However, Rafael and Lori also discovered that, as a result of employees moving to another firm, the old employer also experienced knowledge inflow from the recruiting firm!

Now, how is that possible? Someone moves out and, as a consequence, you gain knowledge from the place they went to?! Well, that�s because in real life we often socialize with our colleagues. When they start to work for a different firm, this does not mean that we stop talking to them. And what do they talk about? Well, work� While having a drink or two, former colleagues exchange information about how things work at their new place, how they solved a particular problem over there, what technology they use, and how they have got their processes organized. And you benefit from that.

Perhaps slightly surprisingly, Rafael and Lori�s findings showed that this exchange of knowledge was especially pertinent if it concerned a geographically distant firm. They conjectured that that is because there are other means in which you can get knowledge from rival firms that are nearby; perhaps then it is likely that you already have friends there, go to the same local conferences anyway, or that your kids go to the same school. Whatever the reason, it seems evident that if your employees are at risk of being poached by a rival firm, make sure it is done by one far away: you don�t suffer the adverse consequences of a strengthened competitor as much, but you do get the knowledge inflow upside.

Hence, scrap the non-compete agreements and gardening leaves, but only on the condition that they are moving far away, and promise them a sumptuous dinner and lavish drinking budget if they come back to visit their old friends at the firm.

Does the stock market appreciate management consultants?

Management consultancy has boomed over the past decades. I recently saw a statistic which showed that in 1980 global revenues in the consultancy business equalled $3 billion. By 2005, it was more than $150 billion.

But what does it say about you, as a company and management team, when you are hiring a management consultant to help you out, with your strategy or organizational structure? On the one hand it is a good thing, right; you are not afraid to ask for help, and management consultants can bring in valuable outside knowledge, ideas, and experience. On the other hand, it could be interpreted as a bit of an admission of defeat� �we�re not able to figure it out ourselves�, �we have run out of ideas and options�, �we�re in seriously trouble; we need help� or something along those lines. Plus, these pin-striped guys do not exactly come cheap.

Whatever way you put it, it is some sort of a signal � either openness to outside ideas or a signal of brewing trouble. And signals are what the stock market is always on the lookout for, like a vulture spotting the slightest of limps in a wounded animal or, perhaps more kindly, some green shoots to announce the arrival of spring. So, it is an interesting question: does the stock market usually respond negatively or positively to a firm hiring a management consultant?

Professors Don Bergh from the University of Denver and Patrick Gibbons from University College Dublin set out to examine exactly this question. They collected information on 116 listed firms that publicly announced hiring a management consultancy, and statistically analyzed whether such an announcement increased or decreased the firm�s share price. And the answer was clear: share price increased with an average of 1.4% by the hiring of such an advisory firm. Now that�s value for money for you; the pin-striped guys haven�t even done anything yet and your company has already increased in worth.

But did everybody experience this uplifting effect? Not really: Don and Patrick also found that this entire effect could be attributed to well-performing firms; firms that already were healthy and profitable before bringing in the advisor saw quite an upsurge in their share price � apparently the market thinks that the combined forces will be able to make the company grow even faster. However, underperforming firms � firms with a more dismal financial track record � did not benefit at all from hiring a consultant. As a matter of fact, the stock market�s reaction would even turn negative for the real sub-par performers. Apparently, in that case it is interpreted as a sign that the company is in even more dire straits than originally assumed.

But might this not be dependent on who you hire, thou might wonder? Surely McKinsey, BCG, Bain or Booz Allen must be viewed differently by the market than some second-tier cheap-suit shop? Well, ehm� no. The stock market�s reaction was exactly the same no matter who the firm hired; whether it was McKinsey, some local chaps, or one of the big accounting firms doing a bit consultancy on the side; the market did not care. Apparently, it doesn�t matter whose help you ask, but it sure matters whether you ask for any at all.

The stock market generally hates acquisitions, but here is an exception to the rule

In about 70 percent of the cases, the stock market responds negatively to the announcement of an acquisition. Put differently, despite their popularity, the average take-over destroys value for the acquiring firm. There are literally hundreds of good academic studies that consistently show that effect. For long, it was actually quite impossible to find any category of acquisitions that defied this rule and made some money, but lately a few studies have started to emerge that identify types of acquisitions that are seen in a more positive light by the ever elusive stock market.

One such sub-sub-subcategory of acquisitions that do appear to make at least a little bit of money are international acquisitions that were preceded by an alliance between the merging firms, especially if it was a strong form of an alliance, i.e. an R&D or Marketing alliance or prior buyer-supplier relationship (rather than a mere equity stake or licensing agreement). I know, it sounds like a very very specific category but I am already glad we have at least found one.

Although such alliances-turned-acquisitions are pretty rare � as evidenced by research by professor John Hagedoorn from Maastricht University � there are examples of firms doing it that way consistently: Cisco is well-known for turning dozens of small equity alliances into full-fledged take-overs and also Heineken has been using this incremental approach over the years with much success, consistently first cooperating with local breweries before fully acquiring them.

And in a way I find it understandable why, although rare, this type of acquisitions has a pretty decent track record. Acquisitions are just very hard to do. They usually are fraught with information asymmetries; basically most firms don�t have a clue what they�re buying. And due diligence is not going to solve that problem; acquisition integration is often hampered by cultural differences, incompatible systems and plain mistrust � something you don�t just look up in the company�s books beforehand. Hence, the troubles are hard to avoid.

But a preceding alliance might actually do that trick for you. Having lived through a lengthy alliance before the deal (�a lat relation before moving in together�) will have reduced these information asymmetries and unfamiliarities while, crucially, in the process, may well have bred some much needed trust. Because trust is definitely what you require abundantly when merging households (although precisely then, it often is in short supply�).

Professors Aks Zaheer, Exequiel Hernandez and Sanjay Banerjee from the University of Minnesota examined such alliances-turned-acquisitions and assessed how the stock market responded to their announcements. Let�s say it was a weak �yes�: unlike the average take-over, the stock market had a weak but positive appreciation of these types of deals. Where the stock market usually responds negatively to an acquisition, they found that if the take-over was preceded by an alliance between the firms, the share price of the acquiring firm increased after the take-over announcement.

This results was really only true though (i.e. �statistically significant�) if it concerned an international acquisition. And in a way I find that understandable, because the issues of information asymmetry, cultural differences, and mistrust are clearly aggravated in the case of a cross-cultural merger. Hence, in these cases, a prior alliance proves particularly helpful.

So, see, there is a glimmer of hope after all, for the track record of M&A. All it needs is a bit of patience and fidgeting around before engaging in the real thing.

Acquisitions � finally something to cheer about�?

Decades of research scarily consistently shows that most acquisitions destroy value, and only cost the acquirer money. There is really no denying it � all �ifs� and �buts� have been raised, examined and rebutted � about 70 percent of acquisitions fail. That is because acquirers are usually inclined to overpay (under pressure from bankers, the press and their own adrenaline; a take-over premium of 60-80 percent is really nothing unusual) and because managers systematically overestimate their potential for value creation; integration is often much harder to pull off than one thinks and �synergies� carry you only so far. So far the (familiar) bad news.

Slightly to my surprise though � although not unwelcome � over the past years a few studies have emerged that managed to identify categories of acquisitions which on average do create surplus value. And the first category identified is actually quite a sizeable one: the acquisition of private firms. Pretty much all of the research on M&A is conducted on public firms; that is, firms listed on the stock market. And that is understandable because we simply have much more information on them; because they�re public firms, they more consistently gather and report data and, of course, share price data is available. Hence, we can examine them better.

Professors Laurence Capron from INSEAD and Jung-Chin Shen from York University managed to obtain data on a large number of private deals and, guess what, in contrast to the public deals they examined, these did create some value! Where the take-over of a public target made the share price of the average acquirer fall by about 1 percent; the acquisition of a private target raised it by an average of 4 percent. That may not seem overly impressive to you but it�s really quite a bit of peanuts if you calculate its monetary equivalent � certainly in comparison to the abysmal take-over track record of public deals.

But how come these private take-overs do appear to create some value? Well, that�s a bit of speculation, but Laurence and Jung-Chin had an informed suspicion: information asymmetry. Because, by definition, information about private firms is usually not publicly available, there would also be much fewer buyers aware of the juicy take-over target, and that it was possibly available at a bargain. Consequently, there were fewer bidders and more opportunity for value creation for the eventual acquirer.

Consequently, private deals usually do better than public ones. They might be a bit murkier, hidden and not as glamorous, but hey, they actually make you some dosh!

The looks of a leader

Attractive people are generally seen as more competent and fit for their job. For example, experiments using headshot photographs of people mixed with random CVs generally show that people rated as physically more attractive also receive higher ratings in terms of �job competence�. Men deemed to be handsome are more likely to be regarded good business leaders. Yet, we know that, at the same time, for example intelligence and physical attractiveness don�t correlate (positively or negatively!). Hence, it is purely a physical preference; and nothing else.

The most striking example and evidence of this I found was not in an experiment on business leaders but from an experiment on political leaders � although I am sure the situation won�t be much different for business leaders.

Two researchers from the faculty of business and economics at the University of Lausanne - John Antonakis and Olaf Dalgas � ran an experiment in which they gave 684 people in Switzerland photographs � and nothing else � of the pairs of faces (the winner and runner-up) from the run-off stages of the 2002 French parliamentary election. These Swiss people would never have seen and did not know anything about these sets of two candidates. Subsequently they asked them �who do you think will win this election?� In 72 percent of the cases, having seen only the two photographs, people predicted the results of the elections correctly� That�s probably a lot better than most political analysts.

Then they got a little mischievous; they gave the photographs to 681 children and told them �we are going to play boat; who do you want as captain of our ship?� In 71 percent of the cases, the children�s� choice correctly predicted the winner of the local French parliamentary elections.

We pretend � mostly to ourselves � when selecting a job market candidate, filling out a ballot, or choosing a leader, that we carefully weigh the pros and cons, assess someone�s experience and competence, and make a well-informed rational choice. Yet, in reality, at the end of the day, we�re all just playing boat.

Why analysts appear racist

The following experiment caught my eye: Professor Stephen Sauer, from Clarkson University,
together with two colleagues recruited 101 analysts to review information to value the stock of currently privately held company. All analysts were given the exact same information with two �minor� adaptations: In some of them the CEO had gone to a prestigious university; in some of them to a second-tier school. In some of them the CEO was white; in some of them the CEO was black, thus basically creating four groups (prestigious & white; prestigious & black; second-tier & white; second-tier & black). Then the compared the analysts� valuations�

In spite of it being �the exact same (fictitious) companies� there were major differences in valuation. By far the highest value the analysts assigned to companies whose CEO was white and from a prestigious university, followed by those from second-tier schools who were black, and second-tier schools who were white. Rock bottom were those companies headed by a CEO from a prestigious university who was black�

Stephen and colleagues found this a rather scary find�

So they decided to run yet another experiment: They recruited another 62 analysts and gave them the same company information. However, this time on half of them, they explicitly stated the following about student recruitment at the CEO�s alma mater:
�The university [had used] a double-blind procedure with no special consideration for gender, race, or ethnicity�, so that it was unambiguous that the CEO had made it into the (prestigious) school purely based on merit, and nothing else.

Now the results changed spectacularly: The companies with CEOs from a prestigious university who were black received the exact same valuation as companies with CEOs from a prestigious university who were white. Apparently, people do not just devalue a company because its CEO is black � phew! � there is something else at play.

Why did they then in the first experiment assign the lowest value to those companies with a CEO of a prestigious company who is black? Well, apparently, whenever people see a black person from a prestigious university, they are inclined to assume that he might have been admitted there not based on merit but because of some sort of affirmative action�: positive discrimination. And hence, that it is likely that he is not as good as his credentials might suggest. And of course, statistically they are right�; black males are more likely to have been admitted to B-school due to affirmative action than white males (for the simple reason that the number of white males admitted due to affirmative action is quite certain to be zero). Take away that possibility and analysts don�t care about the colour of someone�s skin.

But that of course does not mean that all black males are admitted to a prestigious school due to affirmative action. It doesn�t even mean that most black males are admitted to a prestigious university for that reason. So analysts do get it wrong rather often, and that must be one darn annoying thing, if you�re a black male at a prestigious university who simply made it in based on merit, and nothing else.

Does an MBA make you unethical? Finally some evidence

While, a year or two ago, the dust clouds of the fallen giant investment banks were still settling, at many a place the discussion opened whether it was these CEOs' business school education that caused him (invariably him�) to act in such a selfish, destructive and unethical way.

For example, Forbes debated the issue heavily under the title �are B-schools to blame?� while at the Harvard Business Review a discussion raged under the highly similar header of �are business schools to blame?� (as if they plagiarised each other� which I thought would add some juice to an ethics discussion�). Although there was the occasional stern defendant of the system, most treated the question as a rhetorical one (�yes, of course!�) and vehemently declared denial itself to be almost as unethical as the destructive actions themselves.

But what�s the evidence; was there any presented? Do we actually know whether earning an MBA makes one behave more unethical and less socially responsive? No we don�t. I was asked by a BBC World presenter, after giving a speech at the Rotterdam School of Management, whether it wasn�t true that most of the corporate villains had MBAs? I had to admit I didn�t know but, even if it were true � that most of the disgraced (and sometimes jailed) corporate villains were lauded with an MBA � what does it prove?

Suppose that 60 percent of the villains had MBAs; perhaps 70 percent of all major corporations in the world are headed by MBAs; this would actually imply that of the villains relatively fewer have an MBA than of all (non-villain) corporate big shots! It is irrelevant whether most villains had an MBA; the relevant question is whether getting the MBA made them more likely to be vile. And frankly, that we did not know.

And I say �did� because now we do � at least sort of. Professors Daniel Slater from Union University and Heather Dixon-Fowler from Appalachian State University decided to, rather than contribute yet another 'informed opinion' and 'point of view', actually test the conjecture. And, in retrospect, that wasn�t so hard to do�

Because they simply looked up the �corporate environmental performance� score for 416 Standard & Poors 500 firms as put together by the company KLD Research and Analytics Inc. Nowadays there are quite a few corporate social responsibility rating agencies and systems around but KLD�s is generally regarded a very good one, because they are fully independent and really track a variety of indicators, gathering the information from multiple sources, including extensive inspection of public records, surveys, and on-site facility inspections. Dan and Heather also looked up whether those companies had CEOs with or without an MBA, and used that to compute whether firms with MBAs at the helm performed any worse in terms of corporate environmental performance than firms with a CEO who did not go to B-school.

And the answer was a resounding no. They checked whether this effect could be due to all sorts of confounding variables (like the CEO's functional background, age, education level, firm size, prior financial performance, type of industry, etc.) but, nope, really: the companies headed by MBAs were no more likely to be vile.

As a matter of fact, they were less likely to be vile! Companies with CEOs with an MBA generally did better in terms of corporate environmental performance; it were the non-business-educated chief executives that engaged in the bad stuff. I reckon that�s quite a shocker to the average righteous blogger in leftish spheres: business school actually makes one more socially aware and responsive!

And, on a final note, it didn�t make any difference whether you were from Ivey League Harvard or had your MBA from the University of New South Nebraska State; programme rank had no influence on these blissful results.

And now I am going to take a walk down our corridor to the office of our Ethics Professor and apologise for calling her course �pointless�� See you later.

Management myths

Have you ever heard that the Great Wall of China is visible from outer space? Well, it is a myth. But also a very persistent one, despite there being clear evidence that it is not. Similarly, there are quite a few myths in business that are very persistent, despite clear evidence exposing them. Let me tell you about three types of business myths, and give you some examples.

Self-perpetuating myths

First there are self-perpetuating myths, and they exist in pretty much any industry. Take the film industry. Film distributors have preconceived ideas about which films will be really successful. For example, it is generally expected that films with a larger number of stars in them, actors with ample prior successes and an experienced production team will do better at the box office.

And sure enough, usually those films have higher attendance numbers. However, professors Olav Sorenson from Yale and David Waguespack from the University of Maryland discovered that, because of their beliefs, film distributors assign a much bigger proportion of their marketing budget to those films. Once they acknowledged this factor in their statistical models, it became evident that those films, by themselves, did not do any better at all. The distributors� beliefs were a complete myth, which they subsequently made come true through their own actions. And there are other examples for different industries.

Management fads

The second type of business myths are known as management fads. They concern management practices that at some point emerge and become popular, such as the old Total Quality Management, ISO9000 system or SixSigma. They usually behave like popular fashions, like the ones in design or clothing: they come and go, and sometimes reappear many years later under a slightly different guise.

Although often quite harmless (yet seldom really useful), some of them can actually be quite detrimental, without the adopting firms realising it. Take ISO9000. ISO9000, in a nutshell, helps firms to identify best practices within their organisation, document them, and make sure that everyone in the firm follows that one standardised best practice. Thus it leads to efficiency and productivity gains.

However, unexpectedly and unfortunately, as professors Mary Benner from the University of Minnesota and Mike Tushman from Harvard Business School discovered, the firms that adopted ISO9000 several years down the line saw a decrease in their innovativeness, in terms of new technological inventions. The system of homogenised best practices stimulated efficiency but it also blocked deviations from the standard, consequently limiting the discovery of new innovations.

Reversing cause and effect

The third type of business myth pertains to the issue of so-called reverse causality. Over the years, popular business books such as In Search of Excellence, Built to Last, and Profit from the Core made recommendations to managers by comparing highly successful companies and finding out what they have in common. Although at first sight this may seem like a logical approach, there is one big catch to it: the risk of reversing cause and effect.

Several of these books, for example, recommend that firms should develop a strong, coherent organisational culture. That is because most of these highly successful firms had one at the time of writing the book. However, research tells us that firms often develop a strong coherent culture as a result of having been successful for several years. Hence, their strong culture is not the cause of their success; it is the consequence of it. Trying to develop a strong coherent culture might not help you to become successful at all. Quite possibly it could even be harmful and counterproductive, because a coherent culture could also lead to �groupthink� and a lack of innovation, which could be dangerous especially in a fast-changing business environment.

There are many myths in business; some specific to particular industries and some more general. Some myths merge but also disappear after a while. Other myths though are surprisingly persistent. They almost act like business viruses; they have a detrimental effect on their �host� (the adopting organisation) but they also spread rapidly, because they are easy to replicate.

You could describe this as �the sneeze theory of management myths�; companies affect each other because they do business with one another. For example, ISO9000 is easy to imitate because it concerns a standardised set of rules and procedures. Moreover, firms that have adopted it often start to expect that their suppliers follow the same system, making the practice spread.

Furthermore, we know from research � among others by Professor Mark Zbaracki at the University of Western Ontario � that executives are inclined to overstate the benefits from the adoption of systems such as ISO9000 to other people within their firm and to other firms in their industry, thus stimulating the further diffusion of �the virus� and keeping the business myth alive.

Communicating strategy

Whether you are heading up a team, a business unit, or an entire Plc, you�re going to need a strategy. And you are going to have to communicate that strategy clearly to others, because only if others are aware of it can they actually contribute to it, and will it have any effect � a carefully crafted strategy document, no matter how elaborate and sophisticated, is not going to resort to much if it merely disappears in a drawer unnoticed.

There are several rules � litmus tests � that any strategy must adhere to, for it to be communicated effectively, whether you are the CEO or a team leader.

Rule 1: Make some genuine, tough choices. Often you hear things like �our strategy is to be a good employer�, but that is not really a strategic choice. Something is only a genuine, tough choice if the converse is meaningful. �Our strategy is to be a lousy employer� is unlikely to be anyone�s preferred choice. CEO Stevie Spring�s choice for Future plc to focus on making magazines for young males is one; magazines for middle aged women, for example, could have been a genuine option.

Rule 2: You should be able to capture the essence of your strategy in just three of four points. One point (e.g. �we do magazines�) is meaningless and does not provide any direction. If you provide twenty pointers you are basically telling people what to do � moreover, no-one will actually remember them. We �1) do specialty magazines, 2) for young males, 3) in english� provides lots of direction but also leaves ample room for creativity and growth.

Rule 3: Communicate not only the �what� but also the �why�. Trinity Mirror�s CEO Sly Bailey told me recently that if there was one thing she learned about strategy communication it is that we are always inclined to carefully explain what the choice is, but underestimate communicating the reasons behind it. Research on �procedural justice� proves her right; if people understand and believe that the decision making process had been solid and just, they are inclined to cooperate, even if they do not entirely agree with its outcome. Vice versa, people who agree with the choices but feel the process used to arrive at them was wrong are inclined to withold cooperation regardless of their agreement. Hence, carefully explaining the �why� is at least as important as explaining what the strategy is.

The porpoise�Jack Welch connection

Porpoises truly are very cute animals. They are fun, playful, cuddly, bubbly, and social. Moreover, in many countries and cultures, stories exist about how porpoises saved sailors whose ships sank in stormy weathers far from land, by tirelessly pushing them to safety with their snout. The saved sailors, once firmly ashore, would of course tell everyone the tale of their miraculous saviour, and the porpoises became revered and adorned.

Yet, somehow, whenever I see one (in SeaWorld or on television), they make me think of Jack Welch�

Not because Jack Welch is fun, playful, cuddly, bubbly, and social � not many would put Neutron Jack in that category � but because of selection bias.

�Selection bias� thou might wonder, �what the heck is that?� Well, it basically is a statistical term that explains how we make mistakes and draw erroneous conclusions if we base our analysis only on what we observe, and not on what we don�t see. Let me explain.

Given the abundance of stories, there probably really are sailors who were pushed ashore by a rather helpful porpoise. Porpoises are playful animals and they like pushing things around � including swimming sailors. However, it is quite likely that they don�t give a rat�s ass where they push their newly found toy. They probably push the sailors found in open sea in all sorts of directions; some of them happen to be headed toward land. Yet, for every sailor safely pushed ashore there probably are several seamen who were pushed in all sorts of directions but to land. Unfortunately, they just did not live to tell�

The sailor who was pushed ashore by the porpoise told everyone about his miraculous rescue but his unfortunate colleague who each time was pushed back into open sea whenever he got land in sight, vigorously cursing the bloody animal, did not quite get to tell his version of events.

That�s selection bias, and the world of business is full of it. We analyze companies, investment strategies, and the chief executives of the cases that became a success, but we don�t quite see how many went under following pretty much the same path. Jack Welch�s famously hard-headed management style worked well for GE and pushed it ashore, but who is to tell how many companies drowned receiving the exact same treatment? Basically, we just don�t know, but it would be unwise to just take any �successful� strategy for granted, and mimic the actions in the determined (but possibly false) belief it will lead us to safety too.

The hidden costs of outsourcing

I�d say there are even more hidden dangers to outsourcing than giving up control of key activities. What is also a major risk, is that of the loss of particular capabilities which � and you might not quite realise this at present � are crucial to your performance in further downstream activities.

Let me give you an example. My colleague at the London Business School Markus Reitzig, together with his co-author Stefan Wagner, examined outsourcing in one particular process; a firm�s filing and enforcement of patents. Firms that do R&D usually try to protect their inventions by getting a patent. Once the patent is granted they often need to engage in enforcing it, for example through proactive and reactive litigation. These different types of activities � patent filing and patent enforcement � are such specialised activities that usually they are carried out by different individuals within an organisation.

And now comes the trick: Quite often, firms would chose to outsource the patent filing to some external, specialised law firm � �because they�re the experts and can do it more efficiently than we can�. At first sight, that seems to make sense. However, one of the crucial activities conducted for patent filing is the identification of �prior art�. Prior art encompasses all knowledge disclosed to the public before the patent is applied for. And if a firm outsources the entire patent-filing activity, it also leaves this identification and interpretation of prior art to the external solicitors. The problem is that, in the process, the firm will also lose a rather important �by-product�, namely knowledge about the firm�s technology competitors. That is because, as a result of investigating prior art, firms usually learn an awful lot about competitors working on similar issues. And that knowledge is rather relevant further down the line�

Markus and Stefan examined the firms that had outsourced patent filing and statistically compared them to a bunch of firms which continued to do both activities in-house (despite many telling them �you should really stop doing that, you know; it�s old-fashioned; haven�t you ever heard of outsourcing?!�). And they found that the firms that had not outsourced their patent filing activities were much better at identifying potential technology competitors (and their weaknesses) early on. This gave them the possibly to successfully attack them proactively. Firms that gave up on their own in-house patent filing function, and outsourced it to some external specialist, found themselves ill-equipped for patent enforcement activities. Consequently, their downstream performance plummeted.

My guess is that what Markus and Stefan found for patenting is true for many activities; outsourcing one sub-process might have undesirably (hidden) consequences for some other function somewhere else within the firm. These linkages are largely unknown and often impossible to observe, quantify and measure. However, that does not mean that the costs are not very real!

You have to be careful with outsourcing. What may seem like a relatively tangential activity to you, which you could safely put in some externals� hands, might accidentally make you lose a capability which is critical further down the line. And once you�ve lost that in-house capability, it will be very hard to get it back.

The hidden dangers of outsourcing

Outsourcing is one of those words that have become hideously fashionable in corporate lingo in the last 5 to 10 years. A business cynic � which obviously I am not! � might conjecture that perhaps it is popular because it appeals to some fundamental human desires for shirking and procrastination, finally telling managers �to stop doing certain stuff� rather than always pushing them �to do more�. I, as a more thoughtful business observer, on the contrary, think that outsourcing often makes sense, simply because you cannot, and should not try to do everything yourself. Other companies can sometimes do a particular thing better and more efficiently than you, if alone because they can bundle and specialise in it, and then you�re better off buying it from them.

Some companies take it a bit far though� Some time ago I was talking to a senior executive of a major airline and they actually had the idea that in the future they might be able to get rid of all their staff, facilities, pilots, planes, and so forth, and concentrate on �being the director of the chain�; that is, not actually do anything but tie together all the activities conducted by others. Hence, outsource everything accept for the coordination between all the parts. Well� here is my opinion: You can forget about that. Try that, and it won�t be long before nobody needs you anymore.

The classic example of that is IBM�s PC in the 1980s. It was IBM�s plan to outsource everything, add its brand name and just one little microchip connecting all the PC�s ingredients. They outsourced the PC�s microprocessors to some geeky guys who owned one of those founded-in-a-garage little companies in Palo Alto (the little company�s name was Intel) and the operating system to yet another geeky guy with big glasses heading a founded-in-a-garage little company in Seattle (the geeky guy�s name was Billy Gates), in the process provoking the genesis of the most powerful alliance the world of business has ever witnessed: Wintel (Windows and Intel).

Because following in IBM�s footsteps towards Palo Alto and Seattle were all the other computer manufacturers which copied the PC; hence buying their microprocessors from Intel and their operating system from Microsoft. And not for long, Intel, Microsoft and end users alike could not quite remember why they needed IBM in the first place and completely �disintermediated� them. It were Intel and Microsoft that reaped the great big benefits of the booming computer market and not grandfather Big Blue IBM, which ended up in a severe crisis as a result of it.

Hence, be careful with outsourcing; giving up control might get you more than you bargained for (especially if it concerns geeky guys in a garage).

Forced to be stupid

Jessica Nolan, a researcher at the University of Arkansas, was interested in persuading residents of a particular California Community to conserve more energy at home. For this purpose, she designed four types of notes, to be delivered to people�s homes. These notes (roughly) said the following:

1. do it because it helps the environment
2. do it because it benefits society
3. do it because it saves you money
4. do it because everybody else is already doing it

Before using the notes, she knocked on a number of residents� doors and asked them which of the four arguments would most likely persuade them. Pretty much everybody said, �Not the fourth! (I care about the environment, I care about society, I certainly care about money, but I couldn�t care less about what everybody else is doing�). But did they?

Subsequently, Jessica sneaked out at night and hammered one of the four notes on each door in the community.

Some time after that, she went back to check people�s meter readings. And guess what: households that had received the fourth note (�everybody else is doing it�) had by far the biggest reduction in energy consumption.

We are hugely affected in our decision-making and behaviour by our notion of what others are doing, although we usually don�t quite realise it (and deny it vigorously!). We might think that �oh no, I don�t care what others are doing� but reality is: we do. It is only human

Even top managers can be almost human (or at least some of them). For example, there is a lot of research on what influences managers� strategic decisions (e.g. whether to choose strategic option A or B). And guess what, it�s imitation.

There is research on where firms choose to locate their new plants, whether or not they enter a particular market, adopt a new type of organizational structure, a governance instrument, etc. etc. Consistently, results show that managers are led by one simple question: �what are my competitors doing?� And then just do the same thing.

The problem is, sometimes what your competitors are doing is stupid. For example, research has indicated that (in certain industries) ISO9000 quality norms are counter-productive. Yet, throughout the 1990s firms imitated each other anyway and adopted the system.

And it gets worse. Sometimes, if you�re the odd one out that does not adopt the new practice, you start to look �illegitimate�. Analysts, shareholders, customers and so on start asking questions: �everybody else is doing it; shouldn�t you?� �Surely, everybody else can not be wrong�. But yes they can!

In this case � because customers start to shun them, investors criticize them, analysts downgrade them, etc. � firms may actually start to suffer from not having adopted the silly practice.

This places pressure on the firm to also act stupid, just to fit in, and be accepted. It takes a brave firm, to stop such a vicious cycle of imitation.

How big is your yam? (not that it matters)

Why are so many executives so pre-occupied with the size of their company? Like bigger is always better. It especially annoys me when it is used as an excuse for acquisitions.

�This take-over will immediately make us the largest company in the industry�. So?! What is your point?!

I am sure being the biggest can have certain advantages, but that doesn�t mean that bigger (let alone being the �biggest�) always automatically is better. If you can explain to me why more scale is better, ok, but until then, I remain sceptical.

Of course company size is often associated with (financial) success. For example, the firms that always feature on �the most admired companies� lists are usually Behemoths such as Toyota, Dell, Intel, Wal-Mart, and Pfizer. Several of them became big through acquisitions.

And I am sure a company worth �10 billion attracts quite a bit more attention (for instance in the business press) and admiration than any of the 10 companies that they acquired that were worth a mere �1 billion. But that doesn�t mean that our ten billion Behemoth generates more profits than the 10 smaller ones would have made in combination. It wouldn�t have been as eye-catching, to have 10 small ones instead of one biggie, but it just might have made more sense (and money).

Importantly, managers who opt for a strategy of increasing size reverse cause and effect; although success will likely make you bigger, striving for size per se is not necessarily going to make a company more successful.

They actually remind me of the aboriginals on the Micronesian island of Ponapae. What in their society contributed to a man�s prestige was owning a very large yam. This cultural trait had come into existence because it represented an indication of a person�s skill as a farmer. However, gradually people�s efforts to obtain or grow one big yam started to be detrimental for their welfare, in the sense that it distracted effort and attention away from all other activities, causing malnourishment and hunger. People were putting all their resources, time and effort into growing one giant yam, while their fields were left unattended, their huts crumbled around them and their children cried of hunger.

Similarly, striving for size itself may be counterproductive for companies. It is quite possible that focusing all ones resources and efforts on becoming bigger (for the sake of being big) might actually decrease the firm�s chances of becoming successful. Gaining size may result from firm success, pursuing size per se, rather than success itself, may be quite detrimental.

PJTV: Young men and violence

Today, I interview Lawrence Kane who (along with Kris Wilder) wrote The Little Black Book of Violence: What Every Young Man Needs to Know About Fighting. Even if you are not so young, watch the show to hear about how to handle yourself in a violent encounter, keep from getting involved in a domestic dispute, or how to deal with a violent woman. Also, Kane answers a question by one of our commenters. Kane has some great advice and a warning: "guys, the system is stacked against you."

You can watch the show here.

Would you buy this book?

Many times, people tell me I should write a book given all the fabulous content I get from my readers (that would be you) about men, marriage, relationships, sex and society. I see books out like Kathleen Parker's Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care that look at men's issues in terms of what is good for women. What about writing about men for the sake of men, and not just for how their lives will affect women?

First off, I will admit that I am very lazy and the thought of writing another book is a daunting task. However, I think it's important. I would like to write a book that looks at men's lives, thoughts, and feelings through the eyes of men, in their own words, not that of a woman, or a man who is trying to understand men for women like so many of the "men and relationship" books do. The book might use kind of a Nancy Friday approach. In Friday's book, My Secret Garden, she had women tell their sexual fantasies and just tied the stories together in chapters to give the reader a private view into the sex lives of these women. Would you be interested in such a book? Answer the poll and let me know.

Would you buy Dr. Helen's book about men's views on marriage, relationships, sex and society?
	Yes, absolutely.
	Maybe, if I heard it was good.
	Probably not.
	Hell, no!
pollcode.com free polls

Mr. Right has left the building....

Richard Whitmire, author of Why Boys Fail has an interesting article in the WSJ (via Hot Air). The article, entitled, "The Right Man Is Getting Harder to Find," takes a look at why:

There's no single answer to the "why" question, but social scientists agree that the education mismatch Ms. Downtain experiences with men is a significant player behind the increase in college-educated women choosing single motherhood.

This mismatch signals the emergence of a phenomenon studied more commonly in the animal kingdom than in the human one�the "operational sex ratio," the scientific term describing what happens when one sex outnumbers the other. In human populations, gender balances can tilt following world wars or times of migration (think California Gold Rush), resulting in a shortage of men or women of marriageable age. Currently, the most blatant outbreak of the operational sex ratio is playing out in China, where sex screening or, worse, infanticide has led to an estimated 32 million more males under the age of 20 than females.

The rest of the article seems to go on about how women cannot find guys suitable enough for them because they (the women) are too highly educated and too "high level" [my words] for the men they date. And most "worrisome" according to Whitmire is the following:

A more worrisome issue arises when men take advantage of their relative scarcity by making life miserable for would-be girlfriends. Why settle down when you are a guy and the supply of eligible women appears to be unlimited? The female students hate such a situation, which is one reason admissions offices end up accepting male applicants who are less academically qualified than their female counterparts.

So our society has created a mess where men are vilified in the classroom, fed PC rhetoric, told their life's goal is to make women happy and do anything that assists her with her goals, while simultaneously told that he is a dope, idiot and unable to care properly for children, and now people are questioning where Mr. Right went?

He just became the stereotype that society has portrayed him as for the last 20 years. It is certainly no mystery that women can no longer find "Mr. Right."

Jules Crittenden on Scott Brown: Triumph of Dad.

Will miracles never cease?

Uh-oh....:

Here's a new warning from health experts: Sitting is deadly.

Scientists are increasingly warning that sitting for prolonged periods - even if you also exercise regularly - could be bad for your health. And it doesn't matter where the sitting takes place - at the office, at school, in the car or before a computer or TV - just the overall number of hours it occurs.

Research is preliminary, but several studies suggest people who spend most of their days sitting are more likely to be fat, have a heart attack or even die.

I have been sitting a lot lately in front of the computer, now I find out it could kill me. Is anything safe?

Michael Barone, author of The Almanac of American Politics on PJTV: "The Democratic health care bills are dead, they will not be passed."

He has a lot more to say here.

It seems like everywhere you turn, you are supposed to produce a gift these days. Now there is a new service for couples who are separating--a divorce gift list, kind of like a wedding gift registry except the honeymoon is over instead of beginning:

A UK retailer launched a divorce gift list service Monday to cater for the growing number of people saying "I don't" rather than "I do," various British newspapers reported.

The new service offered by department store Debenhams follows rising popularity of "congratulations on your divorce" greeting cards and divorce celebration parties made famous by celebrities like Heather Mills.

The group said its Divorce Gift List service stemmed from a noted spike in couples deciding to divorce over the festive period....

"Divorcing can be an expensive time and registering for a Divorce Gift List means that family and friends can help the newly separated begin their new life," Moore said.

Would you register for a divorce gift list or give a gift to a friend or family member who is getting divorced?

Thank you Massachusetts!

"I got too many Brown voters."

This morning while checking around the blogosphere on the Massachusetts race, I saw this update from a reader at the left-leaning blog Talking Points Memo:

I called into Mass. today via Organizing for America and it did not give me a good feeling about tomorrow. The people I spoke with who said they would vote for Coakley were clearly already going to the polls; my call wasn't necessary. But considering that I was presumably calling a list of reliably Democratic voters (the script was GOTV, not persuasion), I got too many Brown voters.

I am hoping this is indicative of how things will go tonight, too many Brown voters!

Why men use prostitutes?

The Guardian: Why men use prostitutes:

One of the most interesting findings was that many believed men would "need" to rape if they could not pay for sex on demand. One told me, "Sometimes you might rape someone: you can go to a prostitute instead." Another put it like this: "A desperate man who wants sex so bad, he needs sex to be relieved. He might rape." I concluded from this that it's not feminists such as Andrea Dworkin and myself who are responsible for the idea that all men are potential rapists � it's sometimes men themselves.

Hmm, the woman writing the article, Julie Bindel, already admits she's a biased researcher. She, like Andrea Dworkin, believes "all men are potential rapists." Then she finds a couple of men who will confirm her bias, not so hard to do, I'm sure. If you start out with a biased hypothesis and look for confirmation, what do you expect?

"I seriously wanted to punch Oprah after watching that."

A great line from an Althouse commenter after watching a segment on Oprah in Copenhagen oohing and ahhing over their universal coverage:

"Just imagine, you don't have to work or marry to get health insurance. Everyone has it at the moment of their birth!"

(Oprah, pretending to have heard of this situation for the first time ever in her life, with dead-on mimicry of Michael Moore in France, in "Sicko")

"So wait, you tell me that a woman doesn't have TO MARRY A MAN TO GET HEALTH INSURANCE OR TO SURVIVE IF SHE LOSES HER JOB? That they can marry a man for LOVE and not like they do now, for benefits??"

I seriously wanted to punch Oprah after watching that.

Hey honey. Just because you hate men, or people from your background primarily want a man for their ability to pay your rent and groceries, doesn't mean the rest of us were raised like that.

The world isn't a ghetto, where life would be so much easier if the government would support you, without any effort on your part. Moocher. Man hater. Get lost lady.

Update: Here is the video of the Oprah show (with her comments 1 min. 15 sec in) (via commenter vbspurs).

BaltoNorth blog: Martha Coakley, the Amirault case, and the demonization of men in the 1980s:

I remember it as a milestone in the rise of day care sex abuse hysteria in the 1980s and think of it still as a tipping point in the demonization of men in our culture.

I remember it as the case that caused a generation of men to view interacting with other people's children as a risk.

It was the case that caused men to hesitate before volunteering at the Y, hesitate before helping out with the girl scout cookie drive, and hesitate before signing up to coach youth sports.

It was the case that caused men to think twice before watching a neighbor's kid, think twice about driving a child's teammate home from practice, and think twice about entering the teaching profession.

That's just sad.

''They're not going to save you any money. I can sit down and write 100 ways to save on health care.''

I saw an article (via Newsalert) about a new book that sounded interesting called 101 Ways to Save Money on Healthcare:

Fighting a stomach bug? Stay home and drink Gatorade or make your own rehydration solution using one teaspoon of salt, eight teaspoons of sugar, five cups of water and an optional half-cup of fruit juice.

Want a cheap way to banish those acne blemishes? Use an over-the-counter product with benzoyl peroxide, a tried-and-true, inexpensive acne treatment.

Need a wheelchair? Check out your local Goodwill or Salvation Army stores.

These are just a few of the no-nonsense, consumer-friendly tips offered by Akron family medicine specialist Dr. Cynthia Koelker in her new self-published book, 101 Ways to Save Money on Healthcare.

''I wrote this for the patient,'' Koelker said. ''If people would take the time to look around, they would find a lot of things.''

During 20 years in solo practice in Akron's Ellet neighborhood, Koelker has dispensed plenty of advice to patients looking to make their medical care more affordable.

So when she heard politicians on TV early last year talking about how they wanted to fix the nation's health-care system, she thought: ''They're not going to save you any money. I can sit down and write 100 ways to save on health care.''

I kind of like the idea that this doctor felt there was something she wanted to say, in the way she wanted to say it and self-published her own book. Just for that alone, it makes me want to support her by buying it.

Is Statism the new normal?

Rasmussen: 32% Favor Marriage Law That Punishes Verbal Abuse:

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 32% of Americans say the United States should have a law that punishes individuals for verbal and psychological abuse of their spouses. Forty percent (40%) are opposed to such a law, and another 27% are not sure.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of men are against a law that cracks down on arguing in marriages. Women are much more narrowly divided on the question. Adults ages 18 to 39 think the law�s a better idea than their elders do.

Interestingly, married adults are less enthusiastic about a law against verbal and psychological abuse of spouses than unmarried adults are � by a 43% to 36% margin.

When I read that 32% of people agreed that verbal and psychological abuse should be prosecuted and 27% are unsure, I really start to wonder about a society that even considers such draconian ideas. How did we get to this point?

And why is it when someone threatens to kill others or harm others in institutions such as schools or in the military, that is okay--especially if they are politically correct about it? The worst that happens is a psychological evaluation, typically. Or is it is just the same old war against boys (and men) that is really the key here? Or is statism just the new normal in the US?

"The so-called value of tax-free Roth income is just goofy...."

I was reading up on the Roth conversion for 2010 and found this article from MercuryNews.com:

With all this talk about Roth IRA conversions available to everyone in 2010, I don't see the attraction. It seems so simple to me to understand that if I don't write a big check to pay the taxes a conversion requires, I will have a lot more money, along with compound earnings, to pay whatever taxes I might owe on future distributions.

Plus, I control all the money and I have hedged my bets against what might be changes in tax policy or another market crash over the next 40 years.

I agree. I just don't understand all the people who think that converting to a Roth IRA in 2010 is a a good idea. Do you?

"....most of them are just plain out of luck."

Marketplace: Liberal arts job market looks bleak:

The 124th Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association is in San Diego this weekend. It's probably not the wildest of conventions even in good times, but the mood is a good bit more somber than usual this time around. It wasn't specifically reflected in today's jobless numbers, but new history PhDs looking for work -- most of them are just plain out of luck.

It just seems that PhDs are not worth it anymore. But what do you do if history or some other liberal arts major is your talent and passion? And aren't even college students already lacking in knowledge about history? On the other hand, given the revisionist history many students are learning these days, maybe it's for the best.

"'men are expected to produce' more than they consume. "

A reader sent me an interesting New York Times article on single men becoming disenchanted with homeownership. I can understand that, homes are a pain and seem to be a never ending source of expense. As I read the article, this comment by psychologist Roy Baumeister got me pondering on what kind of deal men are getting these days:

Men have no monopoly on domestic discontent. There are also women who wish they had signed their mortgage with disappearing ink. But for men, rejecting homeownership may involve broader questions of manhood, said Dr. Roy Baumeister, a psychology professor at Florida State University.

�There are a lot of extra stresses that men have,� he said, a claim he advances in a book to be published in the summer, �Is There Anything Good About Men?� (Short answer: probably.)

In almost every culture, Dr. Baumeister said, �men are expected to produce� more than they consume. In a similar fashion, men naturally compete for status. Buying a home, he said, is often tied up with those pressures.

Maybe like giving up on home ownership, it's time for men to give up on being the producers in society and let others fend for themselves. It seems that's what many of the younger guys in the next generation are doing. What do you think, should men continue to produce for a society that devalues them and their work? Or, should they produce for themselves and let others pick up the slack?

BBC show on psychological violence ban

I will be on the BBC radio (along with other guests) show "Have your say" today between 1:30 and 2:30 eastern time talking about the new law in France banning psychological violence. There will be people from around the world calling in to discuss this topic. If you want to listen live, you can go to the BBC website and click on "Listen live" on your far right to hear the show.

Update: Well, I only got a few minutes in but learned a lot. I made the point that if this law was enforced fairly, a lot of women would end up in jail. A french lawyer came on to talk about how the law is written so that men would be included-- that is, a man could also bring charges against his wife if she was emotionally abusive. I pointed out that this sounded good legally but wondered if it would work out this way in practice. How many women would really end up in jail? A man from Kenya heard what I said about men and stated that since women were more expressive, they might end up being the ones charged. It was really interesting to hear perspectives from around the world.

Go directly to jail: Women are the worst perpetrators of verbal violence against men

"In the sea of conflict, men sink and women swim"--Researcher John Gottman

Many of you have been emailing me about France's new law banning "psychological violence" against one's spouse (wife is more like it, I'm sure). Apparently, jail time might even be involved for perpetrators who dare to mock their spouse (wife). Fausta emailed me a post she had written on the topic and asked if I thought women were more likely to be the perpetrators of insults against their husbands. My answer, "absolutely."

The research bears this out. In psychologist Richard Driscoll's book Opposites as Equals, there is a section called "Women are more confrontive." Driscoll discusses the work of John Gottman who observed that women are freer and more open in expressing their anger than are men:

While we might expect men to be more forceful than women in marital arguments, the research shows just the opposite, surprising our expectations.

Women tend to be more insistent, according to various researchers including John Gottman [i] at the University of Washington. Women argue more forcefully in almost twice as many marriages as men.

In the most lopsided arguments where only one argues and the other remains silent, by a ratio of 6 to 1, it is the woman who continues to argue and the man who remains silent. ....

Men are typically more stressed and confused in arguments with women and remain bitter for longer afterward, while women are more comfortable amid verbal jousts, recover from them more quickly, in our ready for another round. Generally, it is fair to say that men are more intimidated in confrontations with women than the other way around.

So, if men are more stressed and confused by arguments, meaning that they suffer more psychological harm than women, it seems fair to say that women are the ones who should suffer because of this law.

I should note that I do not believe the government has any right to interfere this way in people's marriages. However, given that these statist laws seem to abound, it seems only fair that women should be held accountable. And lest you think this an impossibility, remember that more and more women are being arrested for assaults, one reason being that due to feminism, women are no longer getting away with their crimes as often.

"The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women"

A number of you have written (and commented) to tell me about an excellent post called "The Misandry Bubble" by the Futurist blog which you can find here. The post is long but has a very good take on why American society is on the decline:

Why does it seem that American society is in decline, that fairness and decorum are receding, that that socialism and tyranny are becoming malignant despite the majority of the public being averse to such philosophies, yet the true root cause seems elusive? What if everything from unsustainable health care and social security costs, to stagnant home prices and wage stagnation, to crumbling infrastructure and metastasizing socialism, to the utter decimation of major US cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, could all be traced to a common origin that is extremely pervasive yet is all but absent from the national dialog, indeed from the dialog of the entire Western world? ....

Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.

I just read the whole thing. I suggest you do too. There are many gems of wisdom in this essay.

The Little Black Book of Violence

I spent part of New Year's Eve reading a book Glenn ordered (after seeing it on Jules Crittenden's blog) entitled The Little Black Book of Violence: What Every Young Man Needs to Know About Fighting. With a title like that, how could I stay away?

The first thing that struck me about the book is that it states it is focused on young men as men commit about 80% of violent crime and are the recipients of violent crime at twice the rate of women. Funny then, that the authors give an example a few pages later of a male friend of theirs whose sister snuck up behind him while he was doing the dishes and tried to kill him with a steak knife. "One moment he was leaning over the dishwasher and the next there was a wedge of razor-sharp steel whistling toward his lower back. Why? She simply wanted to know what it would be like to murder someone..." Uh, okay.

Do authors ever read what they are writing when they are trying to make points? If you are going to talk about how men are the ones who are violent and this is why they need your book, stick with the program. But okay, enough with my pet peeves. This is a book for guys, hence the title, and it is actually pretty good.

It begins with a section entitled, "Before Violence Occurs" that shares a good first rule of self defense: "Don't get hit." The authors talk about how to avoid situations or locations where violence is more likely to occur. These places include traveling through the wrong neighborhoods, hanging out with the wrong people, or frequenting the wrong night spots, and/or acting inappropriately in these places. The authors--two experienced martial artists--point out that there is almost always a build-up to violence, one that many people are not aware of. They teach you to have situational awareness without being paranoid or mentally exhausting yourself. They discuss simple tips like when it's time to leave a party before violence escalates. It's good advice, especially for young men who often have to learn how to deal with aggression, even if they don't want to.

The next section gives advice on what to do during a violent encounter. This chapter is full of information on how to deal with drunks. Their advice? "Never argue with a drunk....They can be unpredictable, violent, and very difficult to corral....Hitting a drunk really doesn't work all that well most of the time....A better strategy is to either dodge his blows in order to let him overbalance himself and facilitate your escape or spin him to cause disorientation and make him fall. Once he's down,you can control him or move to safety."

In the same section, they state, "Never hit a girl...Unless she's armed." They smartly state that, "In today's world, distinctions of gender are made by friends, family, police, and courts. The role of combatant is, oftentimes, secondary." They give advice on how to deal with women, though I would have liked to see more. They do say that if "she is armed with some sort of weapon, all bets are off."

Finally, the last section is on the "Aftermath of Violence" where there is good info on how to perform first aid, handle blows to your self-esteem, deal with psychological trauma, and deal with the police without getting yourself hurt or shot. They even give advice on how to avoid a domestic violence charge and suggest that you conduct a background check on your prospective partner to protect yourself before she moves in. They at least suggest you listen to any warning bells you have and take them seriously. It seems to me that if you feel the need to hire a private investigator as they suggest or conduct a background check on your partner, you already have the answer you need about the relationship.

Anyway, the book is a good one to give to a young man (or read yourself) to fine tune his knowledge of what to do before, during and after a violent encounter. I will definitely keep it on my bookshelf.