Search CompleteMarkets

... , we should focus on cooperation, not competition. We can compete against those outside the team, but certainly not within it. Again, this doesn't mean that all team members have all the same responsibilities or the same compensation structures; it does mean that they should receive equal, and respectful, treatment. After all, they're teammates! 3. Be clear up front about your commitments. Assuming that everyone will follow team rules is guaranteed to produce failure and resentment. For example, if you've played team sports for your entire life, your perception of what constitutes team play will differ from that of someone who has never played on a sports team. Build mutual rules, commitments, values, or understandings through dialogue and consensus. In game theory, there's a classic story of the Prisoners' Dilemma. For example, assume that two men are arrested for robbing a bank. The police separate them immediately and offer each one a deal, saying, "we'll let you go or give you a lighter sentence if you rat out your partner." Because the prisoners failed to define their commitments under such circumstances up front, they now find themselves wondering what the other guy will do. Inevitably, one or both will crack, believing that they're more committed to the relationship than the other person is. If your team members are to trust each other, they must define and honor their commitments up front and in writing. 4. Treat every team member with equal respect. In Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink, graduate students were able to define with 90% accuracy the success ...

... for crooks because a high volume of cards passes through these locations. Recently, a 60-member credit fraud ring was broken up through the joint efforts of U.S. Postal inspectors and the Attorney General's Office. The five leaders were charged with organizing a credit fraud scheme by which postal employees in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Seattle, Houston, and other U.S. cities stole hundreds of credit cards from the mail. The five leaders first activated the credit cards by telephone, then manufactured counterfeit identification documents, which they gave to runners. The runners, in turn, obtained cash advances at banks throughout the United States. Most ring members pleaded guilty to charges that included conspiracy to possess stolen mail, wire fraud, and fraudulent use of credit cards. The five main organizers each faced a maximum possible prison sentence of five years and a fine of $2 ,500,000. Unfortunately, this case points out one of the problems inherent in the prosecution process: prison sentences that many feel are too light for the financial ramifications of the crime. The government estimated that the organization described defrauded financial institutions of more than $2.5 million over a three-year period. What message does a five-year maximum sentence send to the criminal community at large? To remedy this situation, meetings with the Department of Justice are now taking place in an effort to increase the sentencing guidelines for financial crimes. Another problem is with the thresholds for prosecution. It's tough to get a U.S. attorney to accept a case in which the amount of the theft isn't extreme. This varies by jurisdiction, but the answer ...

... . Offer employees sabbaticals for work on major community projects; Invite community organizations to speak to employees about their needs; Donate fundraising help, equipment, money to nonprofit groups; Get company retirees involved in community volunteering; Donate time to Boys & Girls clubs, Big Brothers and Little Sisters programs; Adopt a school; Hire high school or college interns; Contribute to a local area community foundation, United Way or non-profit group; Get involved with Junior Achievement; Plant trees, flowers and shrubs in public parks or other public areas; Sponsor a Little League or Bobbie Sox team; Volunteer at your local ASPCA or other animal help agency; Volunteer at a local children's hospital or AIDS hospice Donate time, materials or services to Habitat for Humanity; Help develop a business for inmates within the local prison system; Develop a hiring/training program for ex-inmates; Collect clothing and food on an on-going basis and deliver them to needy families in the community; Provide the elderly with telephone reassurance and check-ups' 1998 Phin Enterprises. Donald A. Phin, Esq., CPCM. No portion of these materials may be reproduced by any means without the express written permission of the author. Login or Register (for FREE) to gain access to thousands of other great articles. Need more reasons to join? Need insurance for you, your business or your family? Get quality appointments - Save yourself a whole lot of time & money when you use our directory of carriers, wholesalers and service providers. Negotiate lucrative contracts with carriers and wholesalers. Net result. More revenue for your agency! Clients ...

... , 14 of them were in financial trouble. After five years, 29 of them were in financial trouble, and only 14 of them were financially solvent. The reason: failure to react and respond to change." I believe these companies were less likely to react to change because of the Icarus Paradox. In Greek mythology, Icarus was the son of Daedalus, who had imprisoned by King Minos of Crete within the walls of his own invention, the Labyrinth. Refusing to be held captive, Daedalus made two pairs of wings by using wax to attach feathers to a wooden frame. Daedalus put on one pair and gave the other pair to his son Icarus, warning him not to fly too near the sun. The wings worked, and the father and son flew away from their prison. But Icarus, ecstatic about his ability to fly, forgot his father's warning. He lost his gift. The sun melted the wax, the feathers came loose, and Icarus plunged to his death into the sea. Putting this in the context of today's business environment, the more successful a company is, the more it's blinded to the urgent need for change. Many companies move into new marketplaces assuming that their past successes will continue. So they continue to repeat what has made them successful until the forces and opportunities of change have passed them by. It's human nature to rely on past successes and repeat what worked well in the past. Paradoxically, however, the seeds for failure lie in that very success. Consider Wang, U.S. Steel, Greyhound, New York Stock ...

... agencies have turned into their prisons. Yes, they might make a good living ...

...osure are health-care facilities, prisons, elderly care facilities, homeless s...

... , 14 of them were in financial trouble. After five years, 29 of them were in financial trouble, and only 14 of them were financially solvent. The reason: failure to react and respond to change." I believe these companies were less likely to react to change because of the Icarus Paradox. In Greek mythology, Icarus was the son of Daedalus, who had imprisoned by King Minos of Crete within the walls of his own invention, the Labyrinth. Refusing to be held captive, Daedalus made two pairs of wings by using wax to attach feathers to a wooden frame. Daedalus put on one pair and gave the other pair to his son Icarus, warning him not to fly too near the sun. The wings worked, and the father and son flew away from their prison. But Icarus, ecstatic about his ability to fly, forgot his father's warning. He lost his gift. The sun melted the wax, the feathers came loose, and Icarus plunged to his death into the sea. Putting this in the context of today's business environment, the more successful a company is, the more it's blinded to the urgent need for change. Many companies move into new marketplaces assuming that their past successes will continue. So they continue to repeat what has made them successful until the forces and opportunities of change have passed them by. It's human nature to rely on past successes and repeat what worked well in the past. Paradoxically, however, the seeds for failure lie in that very success. Consider Wang, U.S. Steel, Greyhound, New York Stock ...

... Act of 1996 (EEA) provides severe punishment –including imprisonment, fines, and criminal forfeiture of property – for major cases of theft of trade secrets. It protects all forms of business information, tangible or intangible, no matter whether or how stored if the agency has taken reasonable measures to keep this data secret and the information generates independent economic value through being not generally known or readily ascertainable to the public (a standard that's easy for agencies to meet) . The EEA defines theft of a trade secret as the intent to take it, knowing that such taking will injure the owner, taking, diverting or receiving it, knowing that it was misappropriated without authorization. The EEA provides that whoever is guilty of stealing trade secrets can: face up to 10 years in prison; If it's an organization, be fined up to $5 million; and/or forfeit the stolen trade secrets, or anything derived from them, as well as property "used, or intended  to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of such violation." Under other federal statutes that include similar language regarding criminal forfeiture of property, such as RICO (commonly referred to as the "racketeering act") courts have ordered forfeiture of an entire business, even though only its storage area was used in violation of this law. The courts have also determined that the criminal forfeiture provisions of RICO are mandatory. If the Justice Department chooses to enforce this federal law vigorously, staff, employees, other agencies and/or their ...

... provides consumer reports/MVRs to Commercial clients for employment purposes, most authorities agree that the agency is functioning as a Consumer Reporting Agency, and must follow all the steps required of a CRA. Thus, although it might be legal' for an insurance agency to provide MVRs to Commercial clients, the agency must be aware that it's acting as an employee screening service, not just underwriting insurance. Violations of the FCRA fall into two categories: (1 ) negligent noncompliance, and (2 ) willful noncompliance. The penalties for negligent noncompliance include actual damages, attorney's fees, and court costs. The penalties for willful noncompliance — the more serious violation — can include all of the above, as well as punitive damages, a fine from the Federal Trade Commission, and up to two years in prison. In addition to the myriad requirements of the FCRA, an agency must also beware of other restraints and concerns. First, most third-party providers of MVRs (such as ChoicePoint, etc.) expressly prohibit agents from furnishing MVRs to anyone other than the consumer. It's essential to note that although an agency may legally furnish MVRs to Commercial clients as long as it follows all FCRA guidelines, most third-party providers from whom the agency routinely obtains MVRs prohibit such practices. A second concern is that many insurers also prohibit disclosure of MVRs to anyone other than the subject of the MVR. A third concern is that agencies can be — and have been — sued by consumers for allegedly furnishing protected, personal information to others without their permission or knowledge. Although FCRA requires a consumer to give written ...

... Act of 1996 (EEA) provides severe punishment –including imprisonment, fines, and criminal forfeiture of property – for major cases of theft of trade secrets. It protects all forms of business information, tangible or intangible, no matter whether or how stored if the agency has taken reasonable measures to keep this data secret and the information generates independent economic value through being not generally known or readily ascertainable to the public (a standard that's easy for agencies to meet) . The EEA defines theft of a trade secret as the intent to take it, knowing that such taking will injure the owner, taking, diverting or receiving it, knowing that it was misappropriated without authorization. The EEA provides that whoever is guilty of stealing trade secrets can: face up to 10 years in prison; If it's an organization, be fined up to $5 million; and/or forfeit the stolen trade secrets, or anything derived from them, as well as property "used, or intended  to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of such violation." Under other federal statutes that include similar language regarding criminal forfeiture of property, such as RICO (commonly referred to as the "racketeering act") courts have ordered forfeiture of an entire business, even though only its storage area was used in violation of this law. The courts have also determined that the criminal forfeiture provisions of RICO are mandatory. If the Justice Department chooses to enforce this federal law vigorously, staff, employees, other agencies and/or their ...