Slashdot Mirror
Business Under Fire
Since the revival of the Palestinian intifada in October 2000, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in Israel -- a situation made worse by the NASDAQ meltdown of the same period. With an Israeli population of only 6.2 million, these lost jobs have had a catastrophic effect on the economy.
As a management consultant, Carrison wondered how any company, let alone an entire economy, could survive in an environment ravaged by terrorism and a recession. He questioned -- from a business perspective -- how businesses in Israel were able to stay viable in such a chaotic and destructive environment. He concludes, after spending time in Israel and interviewing many business leaders there, that even with all of the terrorism the Israeli economy is surprisingly robust.
Without getting into the politics of the middle-east conflict, nor taking sides, the book shows both technology and business managers how they can deal with the most adverse of situations.
Carrison interviews a cross section of CEOs and managers from industries hurt the hardest; namely tourism, hotel, hi-tech and biotech. What emerges from all of the stories is that every manager claims that the intifada not destroyed his company, but has actually made it a leaner and more efficient organization and one that will be ready to go into overdrive when normal economic times resume.
The five chapters have the same format: interviews with CEOs and senior directors, and a checklist for managing a business under fire. Each interviewee offers his own observations and strategies on how to deal with the current situation and work towards future growth. These strategies run from redefining the market, sharing the risk, to contingency plans and more.
One significant difference between Israel and America is demonstrated by the way Israeli citizens deal psychologically with terrorism. In an interview with financial consultant Danny Halpern, Carrison asks how many people would rent office space in the World Trade Center in New York City, were it completely rebuilt and reopened tomorrow. Halpern doubts the World Trade Center would have the same occupancy level as before 9/11. But he notes that in Israel, office are repopulated after they are bombed, and customers frequent bombed cafes and restaurants as soon as they are repaired.
Another telling difference that Halpern observed is that in Israel is more concerned with the quality of security, whereas in the U.S., more is invested into the mechanics of security. In the U.S., because of the huge numbers involved, the investment in security by default is in the mechanics, and the system. With that, minimum wage workers are hired to carry out what are supposedly important security functions.
The hotel industry has been hit hard. Hotels operate with large staffs, and require high occupancy rates to break even (roughly 75 percent). Carrison interviewed a number of hotel managers who saw their occupancy rate average about 25 percent. By any account, those hotels should have closed its doors and declared bankruptcy. But what happened is that the hotels discovered many correctable inefficiencies. In fact, Raphy Weiner, General Manager of the five-star Daniel Hotel, noted that he learned how inefficient the hotel had been before the crisis and "we'll never go back to the old way. The intifada has been a school for us."
The lesson that American IT managers can take from Weiner are that even the most adverse situation can be a fulcrum for change. Those in danger of having their jobs outsourced -- a significant number of us -- can take those lessons to heart, and hope that their managers and CEOs do too.
Carrison found that every manager had been challenged in cataclysmic ways, but refused to be run out of business by terrorists. Their defiance to the terrorists led them to streamline operations, reduce staff and determine a method to ride out the economic storm. That cutting back leads to a cruel irony: the people most heavily hurt from an economic perspective are the many Palestinian workers who -- before the intifada started -- had good jobs in Israel. The severe cutbacks in many firms resulted in Palestinian workers losing their jobs as a direct result of terrorist activities by their compatriots.
While the cause of the Israeli programmer losing his job is not the same as that of the American programmer; the manner in which they both can rebuild can be the same. Nietzsche's observation that "what does not destroy me, makes me stronger" is the attitude in interview after interview in the book. There is a lot that American programmers and managers can learn from those under fire in Israel.
You can purchase Business Under Fire: How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding in the Face of Terror - and What We Can Learn from Them from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
I guess you can always rely on making money from writing books taking advantage of mass fears and the yearly bandwagon?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Why is it that the US is all gungho about a world economy and taking over every 3rd world country out there, but then when it starts to happen and our job market spreads out, they cry foul and pump up the patriotism?
Slashdot sucks
They are succeeding since the American taxpayers are footing lots of the bill for Israel's defenses. They'd have a much harder time succeeding if the Israelis had to pay for it all themselves.
Let's see if we can have this discussion without descending to racial stereotyping or xenophobia.
That said, it is interesting that some business institutions can survive under enormous stress.
London during the Blitz provided a few examples.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
I don't think the lessons here are about businesses surviving as much as people. Really, if Americans had to deal with the level of terrorism that Isrealis do on a daily basis, society would fall right apart.
"But he notes that in Israel, office are repopulated after they are bombed, and customers frequent bombed cafes and restaurants as soon as they are repaired."
Would you go back to your office after an attack? No. And then they'd raze the building and put up a monument.
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
This, my friends, is one of the reasons why violent actions should be used very very sparingly. Violence usually has a way of just polarizing a situation to the point where both sides are destroyed in the process. Just think how prosperous both sides would be if they kissed and made up and stopped this incessant fighting.
NOTE: I'm am not taking anyone's side. It's time for both sides to work it out regardless of the past.
What emerges from all of the stories is that every manager claims that the intifada not destroyed his company, but has actually made it a leaner and more efficient organization and one that will be ready to go into overdrive when normal economic times resume.
I wonder, just because in "crisis mode" more efficiency and productivity can be gained, does this necessarily transfer to normal times. The US rationed materials in WW2, they did not do so later. Also people go at a certain pace, faster in emergency mode. I don't know if it is sustainable in the long term.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Workers who once envisioned a bright future now only see grim possibilities.
/. community have grim prospects because of the offshore outsourcing?
Is that just a bit of an overstatement? My first 4 years in the industry I was fulltime. The longest layoff I had (I'm now fulltime again) in 9 years as a contract programmer after that was 4 months. That followed the Enron/Dynegy/El Paso fiasco in Houston.
What people out there in the
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
If he really wanted to do a book about doing business under adverse conditions he should have written about Palestinian companies.
I like the way the reviewer (and the book, apparently) say that Americans are pussies:
One significant difference between Israel and America is demonstrated by the way Israeli citizens deal psychologically with terrorism. In an interview with financial consultant Danny Halpern, Carrison asks how many people would rent office space in the World Trade Center in New York City, were it completely rebuilt and reopened tomorrow. Halpern doubts the World Trade Center would have the same occupancy level as before 9/11. But he notes that in Israel, office are repopulated after they are bombed, and customers frequent bombed cafes and restaurants as soon as they are repaired.
I tend to agree (and yes, I'm an American).
I don't respond to AC's.
It is probably a bit off-topic, but why doesn't Israel just give the fucking land back? Somebody has to stand up and make the first move toward peace. People are more important than dirt. It is not even that much land. If terrorism continues AFTER they give the land back, then play eye-for-eye: if a Pali terrorist kills 7 Israeli's, then launch a strike to kill 7 Pali's. Their standing in the world would greatly increase if they simply gave the post-66 land back. It would put the ball back in the Pali's court.
Table-ized A.I.
Outsourcing == Terrorism! Now THAT message might actually sell in Washington these days. Why didn't we think of it early? :)
I find it very amusing every time I read about Americans complaining about loosing their jobs to outsourcing.
What exactly did the people of America expect from the World Trade Organization, APEC and NAFTA?
Did Americans really expect that these free trade organizations and treaties would only work in favor of the US? That the US would be able to import goods even cheaper than normal, creating virtual slave states in places like Mexico and China?
Next time the WTO comes to town and you sit down at starbucks instead of heading out to the streets in protest, consider that free trade works both ways. It's specifically designed to make it easy for corporations to find the cheapest labor possible, which pushes expensive US jobs overseas to be done by equally qualified professionals in other places like India for a fraction of the cost.
And as long as corporations only want more profit, it will keep moving this way, so just get used to it. Stop buying SUV, 4 dollar coffees and 5,000 dollar LCD TVs, reduce your lifestyle to something more modest and take a salary cut or live with the fact that the American dream along with it's capitalist economy is going down the drain.
Personally I couldn't be happier this is happening, but it's irritating to see a country be so naive and ignorant about the mess it created all by itself.
-- Leo Utskot
I guarantee you that if we took some of the politicians responible for outsourcing, and tried them for treason in a court of law, and then executed the ones found guilty (as traitors should be executed, by precedent of law), 90% of that outsourcing would disappear toot-sweet....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I repsectfully disagree. Americans will never tolerate the terrorism that Isreal has. Private citizens are too well armed (legally) and too, for lack of a better term, righteous. If we were to have car bombs and suicide bombings start, you would see every rifle rack in a every pickup full.
Not just that, but you'd start seeing rifle racks appearing in places other than pickups - like SUV's and Honda Accords. And "Security Mom" would take on a whole new level of meaning.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yep, to about the tune of $2 Billion With A Capital B in "military aide", and +$700M in economic aide. $3B isn't enough- they want more for "border security" and whatnot.
Think I'm using some nazi group for my figures? Phbt. Try the Haaretz.
None of this counts the billions in defense spending; Israel makes a HUGE number of major and minor systems for virtually every US military vehicle.
Slighty sarcastic view- maybe if we saved that $3B+/yr, we'd solve two problems at once- the Israelis would get a lot more serious about the peace process, and we'd have money to pump into our own economy instead of theirs. Like, say, our crumbling roads/railway system, healthcare/retirement, inadequate community emergency services, etc.
Of course, that will never happen. Any politician who suggests cutting aide to Israel stands to be accused of anti-semetism...
Please help metamoderate.
Get rid of Social Security and Medicare
This common chant from ignorant morons and republicans is seriously flawed. what happens when someone goes to the hospital without health insurance and there is no Medicare. without Medicare the health industry would implode and collapse. what we need is a public system that can be afforded by all and then health costs would go down because hospitals dont have to take such a horrible hit when an uninsured person is admitted. (where did you get your brain a cracker jack box, you are such a fucking moron it)
"like those scumbags at the welfare office"
Another infantile moronic statement, the republicans and Republican companies are the biggest welfare whores in the US. the amount of money spent on welfare is minuscule when compared to the amount of money spent to subsidize the industries that are so dear to the republican party. and guess what you fucking ape brained dimwitted waste of human skin. that welfare mom that you hate so much contributes more to you economic security that the fat peace of shit subsidized company that you probably think is wonderful you fucking ignorant savage you should that the welfare lady because shes part of the reason that you have a job fucktard.
Please do the world a favor and kill your children your wife and yourself. because people like you are air pollution.
Yes, I'm sure it wouldn't, as they aren't...
But our military hasn't.If you want to look at it that way. Again, those countries don't face the same threat in the 21st century that they faced in the 20th century.
But our military planning hasn't changed. Our force deployment hasn't changed.
Having 10,000 tanks in Germany would have been a good idea in 1975. In 2005, it's just a waste of money.Meanwhile, the US government is running how large of a deficit?
The government has LIMITED income and must decide where to spend that money.
All governments are like that.No, we don't pay for their ``social safety net''. THEY pay for it.
All WE do is maintain troops and equipment and bases there. Are those needed to defend those countries in 2005?
It doesn't look like it.And how is Russia a threat to Germany today? Hmmmmm?
The threat TODAY is from terrorism. And Germany has been dealing with terrorist attacks in their country for years. We could learn from their approach.
Am I getting some facts wrong? Arafat walked away from the negotiating table at Camp David even when he was offered 95 % of the land from the 1967 war.
He did so because the intifada was a effective money earner. In 2002 or so, Arafat was worth some 1.5 Billion $. He did this because he cheated his own people.
You're asking the wrong people to get serious about the peace process. Do you know Jordan gets more than 1.5 Billion and Egypt gets 3 Billion odd in US funds every year?
Historically, the politicians haven't been exactly fast reacting when the storm clouds are showing up, either...
In the 1920's my country (Sweden) closed down almost all of the defence. When trying to buy weapons when needed, a decade later, the sellers had their order books filled...
Now Sweden has closed down everything. We can only hope that Putin is more democratic than he looks like. :-(
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
I think what the previous poster was alluding to is the idea that Israeli policy is more intransigent with billions in US economic and military aid to prop up their economy than it would be without. Whether this is strictly true, or if the Israelis would just suck it in and damn the torpedoes is beside the point: most Israelis and their neighbors assume it's true.
Luke, help me take this mask off
"The main problem with that idea is that it takes many years to build (outfit, train, etc) a military."
That may be true in cases where the state has no resources of its own. In the years between 1939 and 1945, Canada went from having 3 ships in its navy to possessing the 3rd largest navy in the world. In the first world war, it had over 1,000,000 men and women in uniform - that's 10% of the total population at the time. Every time it's felt the need, Canada has managed to go to a war footing in a remarkably short period of time.
... And that's why I'm skeptical when Americans proclaim that they're protecting us. In major conflicts[*], we've always done a fine job of protecting ourselves, with a fair amount left over to help our neighbours.
[*] It's more than a little ironic that the only foreign invasions Canada has ever faced have come from its southern border. 8^)
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Drill baby drill - on Mars
... and you cleverly neglected to mention that this land was divdied into hundreds of "bantustans" criss-crossed with Israeli roads and settlements, some of them completely isolated from each other, that this "sovereign" state was to be subject to israeli military "border" patrols and that some people would have to cross the border to go to school or a grocery store. Other then that, it was a steal of a deal and that nasty old Arafat was just a party pooper.
In turn, the Israeli government subsidizes a sizable fraction of the economy. As of 1999, about one-third of all gainfully employed Israelis worked directly for various branches of government. This does not include the military.
So in many cases, the decision to continue doing something in an area of high terrorism is a political and strategic one, not an investment decision. Even if something doesn't make economic sense, it may be subsidized anyway. In particular, the "settlements" movement is heavily subsidized.
This isn't necessarily bad, but any comparison with the US economy has to take that into account.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
As I mentioned in another recent Slashdot headline, Ed Yourdon is our modern day chicken little. He made a zillion dollars selling books and talking about how we were all going to die when Y2K hit. He was wrong on all counts. Now he's looking for his next paycheck. Don't buy into this quack.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Without getting into the politics of the middle-east conflict, nor taking sides, the book shows both technology and business managers how they can deal with the most adverse of situations. well you can start by writing a book how the Palestinians deal with occupation? Just using the word 'terrorism' is siding with the Isrealis
Okay. I have been to Israel. I am Jewish. I think that the Palestinians should be given their land back.
But clearly you do not understand the whole picture.
There are issues of The Right of Return for Palestinian exiles, say.
There is the issue of whether the region is a Two State solution or a One State, although Two State is almost definitely the case that will happen.
There is the issue of how to deal with some amazingly fanatical Right Wing Jewish Settlers who illegally occupy that land. This is but to touch on some of the issues.
But the BIGGEST issue that is ALWAYS discussed is that, with ALL these suicide bombings and murders, if the land is given back under these current conditions, it will APPEAR to validate terrorism and the demonisation of the Jewish state Israel, as a successful negotiating tactic. Because that, is what Israel and the World cannot afford to let happen. Then whenever someone had a Beef, this could be a resort, and not even the last one.
So your solution is quite simplistic and completely flawed. Never mind that I disagree about yor view of their ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
Would the US stand by and do nothing if Canada were invaded? How about England or Spain? I doubt that the only reason Canadian or European companies are successful is just because the US would defend their countries.
England, Spain and Canada do not need defending from invasion. The USA's army isnt a defensive force at all. It is an Imperialist Army. The last 100 years of American history has been one of warfare. The USA has been involved in wars of aggression, save the two WW of infighting in post-colonial europe. The world needs to fear invasion FROM the USA.
The U.S. spends about 5% of GDP on military (including pizza delivery in places like the Indian Ocean), while Canada and Europe spend far less (2%?).
Sure. Right. Good.
Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their companies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!
Why would we? So we can invade foreign nations? Most of the West has decided it no longer has the stomach for warfare. That fighting for territory is insane on such a small and interconnected planet. Who exactly is the "THEM" that you are afraid of? Further, for instance, if Americans include health-services as part of their tax bill (as an exercise) you will discover you are the most highly taxed. We pay higher taxes, but receive far more social welfare service as 'compensation'. Shhhhs, dont tell everyone.. but it sure is a neat little trick isnt it eh?
One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense.
DEFENSE FROM WHOM? This is pure jingo-warmonger fantasy. The USA dosnt create reality -- this is complete neocon nonsense. Our Socialist Democracies dont receive subsidy from US defense. IN FACT(!) the behaviour of the USA has caused nations (china, brazil, india) need to continue to spend as they do instead of writing treaties, organizing bodies and making a transition to a Army-Free future for the planet (a para-military police force controlled by the UN is the sole Army necessary (if we all agree to not build armies, you wont need to defend yourself from anyone.. get it?))
It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.
Our economies are not in imminent Peril. What are you dreaming about? Take a look at the state of the US economy. Low dollar. Growing unemployment. A collusive and corrupt plutocratic government who has an interest in undermining international labour, environmental, safety and health standards for their paymasters. Multi-Nationals are running wild over the planet and USING the USA as host. When they are finally reigned in, the USA's domestic population will be in for the largest shock. Inspite of mccarthy propaganda Economic Planning is necessary for a community to chart a course of long-term stability and prosperity. When the USA realizes that its "leaders" are taking them for a ride -- and when your economy collapses (think 1930's depression) -- will your citizens consider JUST FOR ONCE that youve been fed a bill of goods? What do you think causes the US dollar to slide 30% in 24 months? Household debt hightest on the planet? A stable and bright economic future? Think again.
So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military.
Utter nonsense.
Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continen
The author's comparison of Congressional inaction vis a vis the US dependence on oil to outsourcing jobs is an interesting one. It's quite clear that the reason for the US dependence on oil is so great is that the price of oil is so low. In fact, for most of the time since the Carter administration, it has been so low that it was too expensive to take it out of the ground in the US. The analogy, then should not be Congressional inaction, but rather what are the economics to the owners and what are US workers trying to sell? Not every decision that company executives make is based on price. Some are actually based on value. This is not to say that companies always operate in an ethical manner. For example, many companies accept TIF and other tax incentives to establish a local business. They really ought to be accountable for direct losses to the economy when they terminate the agreement before the local investment pays off. The owners should not escape with their shirts in these circumstances. Let's not forget. The reason the "state" provides limited liability to corporations is because there is a complex 3-way contract involved between consumer, employee and owner. Such a contract is too complex to be managed fully by common law. At the moment, laws and courts do seem to favor the owner. It will change again.
"If all the American people want is security, let them live in prisons." Eisenhower