Friday, November 16, 2012
Even U.S. Postal Service recorded a loss
The struggling U.S. Postal Service on Thursday reported an annual loss of a record $15.9 billion and forecast more red ink in 2013, capping a tumultuous year in which it was forced to default on billions in payments to avert bankruptcy. The financial losses for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 were more than triple the $5.1 billion loss in the previous year. Having reached its borrowing limit, the mail agency is operating with little cash on hand, putting it at risk in the event of an unexpectedly large downturn in the economy. "It's critical that Congress do its part and pass comprehensive legislation before they adjourn this year to move the Postal Service further down the path toward financial health," said Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe, calling the situation "our own postal fiscal cliff."
Much of the red ink in 2012 was due to mounting mandatory costs for future retiree health benefits, which made up $11.1 billion of the losses. Without that and other related labor expenses, the mail agency sustained an operating loss of $2.4 billion, lower than the previous year. Donahoe said the post office has been able to reduce costs significantly by boosting worker productivity. But he said the mail agency has been hampered by congressional inaction on a postal overhaul bill that would allow it to eliminate Saturday mail delivery and reduce its $5 billion annual payment for future health benefits. "We cannot sustain large losses indefinitely. Major defaults are unsettling," said Donahoe, who made clear that the Postal Service would now be profitable had Congress acted earlier this year.
Earlier this year, the post office defaulted on two of the health prepayments for the first time in its history. The Postal Service, an independent agency, does not receive tax money for its day-to-day operations but is subject to congressional control. The Senate passed a postal bill in April that would have provided financial relief in part by reducing the annual health payments and providing a multibillion-dollar cash infusion, basically a refund of overpayments the Postal Service made to a federal pension fund. The House, however, remains stalled over its own legislation that would allow for aggressive cuts, including an immediate end to Saturday delivery.
It remained unclear whether House leadership would take up the postal bill in its current lame-duck session. Rural lawmakers are resisting action, worried about closures of postal facilities in their communities. Congress is focused now on a Jan. 1 deadline to avert across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts known as the "fiscal cliff." While urging quick congressional action, the Postal Service acknowledged the uncertainty in its legal filings on Thursday, which anticipate that Congress will fail to act. But Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and is a sponsor of the House bill, has said he believes postal legislation can be passed this year. "The U.S. Postal Service is clearly marching toward a financial collapse of its own," said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., a sponsor of the Senate bill. "I am hopeful that now that the elections are over, my colleagues and I can come together and pass postal reform legislation so that a final bill can be signed into law by the end of the year."
Overall, the post office had operating revenue of $65.2 billion in fiscal 2012, down $500 million from the previous year. Expenses climbed to $81 billion, up from $70.6 billion, largely due to the health prepayments. The annual payment of roughly $5.6 billion had been deferred for a year in 2011, resulting in a double payment totaling $11.1 billion that became due this year. The Postal Service is the only government agency required to make such payments. The post office also has been rocked by declining mail volume as people and businesses continue switching to email and other online options in place of letters and paper bills. The number of items mailed in the last year was 159.9 billion pieces, a 5 percent decrease. Much of the decline came in first-class mail.
On the plus side, the mail agency reported that its fast-growing shipping services, which include express and priority mail, grew by 9 percent, helping to offset much of the declining revenue from first-class mail. Donahoe said package volume also is expected to jump by 20 percent this holiday season compared to the same period last year, boosted by increased consumer purchases on e-Bay, Amazon.com and other Internet shopping sites.
Joseph Corbett, chief financial officer for the Postal Service, said the mail agency expects to operate for the first half of next year with about four days of cash reserves, a low amount which he described as unheard of for any well-run business. Cash levels dipped perilously close to zero last month before bouncing higher due to a surge in election-related mail. In all, campaign mailings and mail-in ballots helped bring in $500 million, a new high and roughly double the amount in the 2008 election year. "We are far short of liquidity," Corbett said.
Fredric Rolando, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, blamed Congress for mandating the annual health prepayments in 2006, which have contributed significantly to the Postal Service's financial woes. But he suggested that lawmakers might be wiser to act on legislation next year, rather than acting too hastily. His union is opposed to the current version of the House bill, which gives the Postal Service wide leeway to close post offices and make employee cuts to balance its budget. "Rather than rushing through a flawed bill in a lame-duck session, the new Congress should start over in January and develop constructive legislation that fixes pre-funding. That would eliminate the biggest drain on postal finances," Rolando said.
Last month, the post office said it will increase postage rates on Jan. 27, including a 1-cent increase in the cost of first-class mail, to 46 cents. The rate increase, which is tied to the rate of overall inflation, will make only a small dent in financial losses. The Postal Service also originally sought to close low-revenue post offices in rural areas to save money, but after public opposition, it is now moving forward with a new plan to keep 13,000 of them open with shorter operating hours.
Without legislative changes, it said, annual losses will exceed $21 billion by 2016.
"If Congress fails to act, there could be postal slowdowns or shutdowns that would have catastrophic consequences for the 8 million private sector workers whose jobs depend on the mail," said Art Sackler, co-coordinator of the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service, a group representing the private sector mailing industry.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
10 behaviors of the hyper-successful
(from MoneyWatch)
Money and its material manifestations are the most typical measures of a person's professional success, but they're not always telling or even accurate: We all know it's possible to buy nice things without being financially successful (debt is an unfortunately common substitute for net worth). So I rarely make assumptions about a person's business or other financial accomplishments based on clothes, cars, boats or houses.
Knowing and dealing with many highly successful people, I've found that there are behaviors and characteristics that are much less superficial and more telling than just acquiring status symbols. In my observation of ultra-high achievers, the more professionally successful they are:
- The less stuff they carry: The most successful people I know never carry laptops, briefcases or much of anything else, other than (usually two) phones.
- The fewer calls they answer or return: Even with those two phones, top dogs rarely return calls that aren't critical to their own business or personal needs.
- The harder they are to reach by anyone or any means.
- The less time they spend at a computer.
- The shorter their e-mails. You might say that Alphas use less alphabet.
- The less social media they use (except for celebrities).
- The less they know, stay current, or care about pop culture (again, except for celebrities).
- The less TV they watch (except sports, especially anything involving their alma maters).
- The more non-leisure stuff they do that's not directly related to their business (charities, boards, outside investments).
- The more newspapers they take off the flight attendant's cart in First Class (unless they're on their own plane, which makes all the other points moot).
Some of these behaviors are obvious, some may seem ironic, and of course none are meant to suggest that business and money are the only measures of a successful life. Some of the observations are made with a little ribbing intended, and none are scientific, though I'll bet they could be: I don't know a single mega-successful business person who doesn't exhibit at least half of these traits.
Truth be told, much of the list doesn't bode well for me, much less my shot at that sweet Gulfstream 650 I've had my eye on. I carry a laptop (I sort of have to, since I make bags for them), I return more calls and messages than I ignore, I only have one phone, and I'm not well-known for brevity in my e-mails. And for the most part, I don't care -- I don't like some of these characteristics in others, and there are parts of my life, personality and business behavior that I'm not interested in changing. If that keeps me out of the most rarified air, so be it.
But there is an important central theme that's valuable to all of us, regardless of where we are on the ladder, whether we admire these behaviors or are put off by them, or whether the list accurately reflects our own style or aspirations. No matter what combination of these characteristics the Masters of the Universe might possess, the bottom line is the same: Without exception, the people at the very top of the business ladder don't waste time.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
10 things great bosses do
(from MoneyWatch)
In the best of all worlds, executive compensation, shareholder value, operating goals, management objectives, and employee needs are all perfectly aligned. If you ever find a company like that, keep it to yourself. Nobody will believe you. It should come as no surprise that perfect companies are about as easy to find as perfect bosses and perfect spouses. It just doesn't happen. Come to think of it, if you look in the mirror and don't see plenty of flaws, you're delusional. And companies are entirely made up of imperfect people, just like you.
Even after 100,000 years of natural selection, the human race has evolved to the point where our organizations are nearly as effective as a colony of ants with defective antennas. That's right, we still have a long way to go. Sobering thought, I know. And yet, for all the Yahoos, HPs, RIMs, Sprints, Sonys, Kodaks, Nokias, Bank of Americas, and all the executives that turned these once-great brands into laughing stocks, there's still the occasional Apple or IBM to give us hope.
It may be an imperfect world, but there are still managers who more or less know what they're doing -- after they've had their morning coffee. Here's my take on what high-performance managers do -- or are at least supposed to do -- to motivate their teams and deliver results:
- Help the company achieve its strategic and operating goals by making smart business decisions and managing their team effectively.
- Entrust their employees with as much responsibility as their capabilities will allow and hold them accountable for the same.
- Behave like a mature adult -- genuine and empathetic -- even when their employees or their management are acting out like spoiled children.
- Provide their employees with the tools, training, and support they need to effectively achieve challenging but reasonably attainable goals.
- Promote a can-do, customer service attitude with customers and stakeholders by walking the talk and leading by example.
- Promote their team's accomplishments and take the heat for their failures.
- Provide genuine feedback, both good and bad, to their employees, peers, and management. Request the same from them.
- Work their tail off and be hands-on when necessary. If they don't, they can't expect anybody else to do it either.
- Don't compromise their ethical principles in the name of "the ends justify the means" or for any other reason.
- Strike a balance between shielding their folks from the ripples of dysfunctional management and openly communicating events that may affect them.
Overall, the best managers create a work environment where people feel challenged, do their best, and are held accountable for meeting their commitments. But most importantly, they're key components in an organization that exists to serve its customers and shareholders. We're all happiest working for a successful company.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
He's too friendly
Ok, this is a true story which just happened today. The Program Management department in my company now has 1 SVP (my asshole ex-boss), 1 AVP and 1 Associate. They are assisted by 4 secondees from external consultancy company to assist on internal PM works. And they also have 2-3 consultants (from different consultant company) to do shared track initiatives.
The Management has given a directive to the ASSHOLE to take over the shared track PM from the 2-3 consultants by mid this year. This is partly to save costs as we have been paying millions to them (as compared to the puny salary that we get) and also to develop internal capabilities.
So, this afternoon the ASSHOLE had a chat with one of the consultants. The ASSHOLE requested the consultant to come up with transition and handover plan. The ASSHOLE also requested the consultant's help to assist, groom and guide the AVP (named F*za) and the Associate (named A*har) with anticipation that these two chaps will take over the consultants' roles in shared track.
The consultant is OK with the idea and willing to offer his assistance on the transition. But, before the consultant can say much further, came an advice from the ASSHOLE... "But be careful with A*har. He's too friendly with other people..."
Yupp! In the ASSHOLE dictionary, a Program Manager should not be friendly to others!
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Amber, yellow and green
As a Program Manager (or a Project or Portfolio Manager), the three most important colors in your work are amber (or red), yellow and green. These colors are used to measure actual performance against target for which amber represents not meeting target, yellow means slightly off from the target while green means you're safe or within target.
This is a true story which just happened yesterday to one of my friends, a Program Manager, in my workplace.
She was asked by the Head of Program Management (who is an asshole) to report department spendings for January against budget. So, she duly prepared the report and obviously, as a Program Manager, she colored the cell (the report is in Excel) in accordance to the variance between actual spending against the budget. Amber being overspent, yellow being slightly over the budget and green for within the budget.
She sent the report via email to the Head of Program Management (who is an asshole).
To her surprise, the Head of Program Management (who is an asshole) replied the email within minutes. She thought that was efficient! And to her surprise also, the first line of the reply from the Head of Program Manager (who is an asshole) was...
"Hi F*za, there are too many colors in the report."
Can you believe that comes from the Head of Program Management?!! Owh... he's not just a Head of Program Management, he is an asshole! And you can figure out why I left Program Management and transfer to other department.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Progress monitoring?!
As a boss to Program or Project Management Office, surely you need to have overall view or overview on the progress of programs or projects in your company. One of the famous ways to do this is to have a 'war room' where you have projects/programs update with 'traffic light' indicator to tell you which programs/projects are on track or behind schedule/target.
But sometimes, a company would not have the luxury to convert a room into a 'war room', due to space limitation, etc. If that is the case, as a boss to the Program or Project Management Office, you have to sacrifice your room to be a 'replica' to the 'war room' by pasting programs/projects update on the wall of your room, like the one in this picture. Great! Sacrifice, they call it. And expect your sacrifices to be handsomely rewarded.
Hold on!
You are a boss of Program or Project Management Office. And all you have on the wall of your office (replica of the war room) is a sheet of A3 and a sheet of A4 paper to monitore your staff's annual leave like in the picture below.
What kind of Program/Project Management boss are you?
An asshole!