Run your business like a symphony orchestra concert, except...

In a symphony orchestra concert, the players have individually prepared for the collective experience of accomplishing the musical goal of excellence. They desire to perform the required music to the best of their ability and to interpret the music to please the conductor who works to adhere to the composer's music. The performers are unswervingly committed to exceptional performance and come together for the purpose of accomplishing a musical goal. They are willing to follow the conductor's leadership and accept instruction and correction from the conductor. Although the conductor is governed, to an extent, by a board, he or she has absolute power over the players and the music. If the individual musicians produce high quality individually, then the music comes together collectively under the guidance of the conductor, resulting in a high quality performance. Economics aside, many people with specialized skills work collectively under the guidance of one person to produce a quality product that was initially designed by someone else. This is an excellent business model, except...it is not efficient.

Unlike a business whose goals are profitability, the symphony orchestra is concerned with emotional expression and artistic excellence. Are these goals incompatible with profitability? Yes, due to the personnel expense problem. Symphony orchestras are financially inefficient and cannot function on ticket sales without donors, grants, and sponsorships. Customers enjoy the product and are willing to pay for the experience, but the revenue from the ticket paying customers does not support the expenses to produce the event. No business can operate in this way. Revenue must outpace expenses and dependence on donations is not a workable solution, although in the non-profit sector it is a reality. Advertising revenue, however, is a strong business model but difficult in certain kinds of limited markets with narrow demographic customers.

Given that symphony orchestras serve a public good, they are generally non-profit enterprises relying on goodwill for their sustenance. But for-profit businesses can benefit from the principles that make symphony orchestras special and unique...the never-ending quest for artistic perfection combined with the power of emotional expression. Another way to look at this is to have a relentless goal of making the music appealing to the listeners, for those in attendance who are customers of the orchestra.

Regardless of whether the business makes hamburgers, tacos, computers, clothes, cars, toys, perfume, or virtually any item or service such as mowing the lawn, building a skyscraper, cleaning houses, pet grooming, or preparing taxes, it must have customers and those customers must be pleased with what they receive for their money. Returning customers and new customers encourage sponsorships and advertising. This makes excellence and quality the primary goal of a symphony orchestra and one that it hopes brings in the customers.

Aside from the problem of personnel expenses, a symphony orchestra embodies the ideal business goals by striving for an experience that is greater than the cost. If the orchestra can figure out how to provide the product without the personnel costs, it will have the solved the business goals for profitability as a result of excellence. What would happen if the players were paid a percentage of the ticket sales? Would they desire a voice in programming, in collective preparation, in management, advertising? Likely, yes. Would such an approach be healthy for the organization or would it augur against all that it represents?

Meals on Wheels and Dogfood

Once again helping my wife deliver meals on wheels, we arrived at the main location to pick up the meals for the clients. Quite a system organized by type of food, dietary restrictions and preferences, all designed to serve people unable to provide for themselves. There are different reasons for the need including but not limited to poverty, health problems, old age, general weaknesses, and, for some, most likely poor decisions. The meals are not free but they are substantially reduced. Most of the funding comes from state support through grants, gifts, donations, and local sponsorships. The program is remarkably successful, serious, and serves a public good by providing meals for those who are unable to provide for themselves. It is totally dependent on volunteers, people who give of their time and energy to deliver meals to the indigent.

Delivering meals provides a welcome relief from the stresses of work and, yes, life. It is an opportunity to do the right thing, to serve those less fortunate, to put aside one's disappointments and make sacrifices for others. Just when your self-reflection reaches the limits of emotional stability, then you reach out to others, put aside your selfishness and become benevolent, charitable, giving. We drive around the neighborhood of small houses most of which are slightly more than shacks, knocking on doors and handing people their lunch. Most are very appreciative and most seem eager for the balanced meal.

But today we had a different experience. We delivered dog food to one house. Not sure how to react to this. Tax dollars, donations, charitable contributions and volunteers came together to deliver dog food to a house. Not a lot, just one fairly large bag. A large plaque stands in the main hall where we pick up the food to deliver. And on this plaque are the names of the founders of Meals on Wheels and the many initial contributors. Someone or several people had a dream of providing meals for those in need in the community and that dream was fulfilled in a glorious charitable organization making a positive difference in the lives of those who cannot take care of themselves. Did the founders envision providing meals for dogs?

Dogs were domesticated over 30,000 years ago and continue to be ideal pets for millions of households. No one can resist a puppy and dogs are trained to help with emotional support, comfort, protection, prevention of crime, care for the elderly, security, and many other highly beneficial activities. For someone alone, a dog provides companionship and even purpose while giving someone needed emotional support. Of course dogs can eat people food and anyone is welcome to share food with a dog, but the preferred food is designed for a dog and helps with keeping teeth clean and a good digestion system.

Yet even as I write these words, I question our tax dollars supporting dogs who support the indigent. When we deliver meals, inevitably the door opens to loud barking and someone fighting to keep the dog inside. Many times the home has a terrible odor and a quick glance shows poor hygiene, clutter, and general messiness. This is not always true, of course, and sometimes the dog is mannerly, calm, and seems to be a part of the home. But it is not unusual to find two or three large dogs inside a small home wreaking havoc on the household. Owners frequently correct the behaviors with a "stop it Bucky" or "settle down, Ranger" or even something more conversational such as, "Ginger, it's okay, they are just delivering our food."

Risking great criticism from pet owners, I have to question the practice of providing food through a charitable organization for dogs, and I further question the practice of keeping pets in a household that cannot afford even the basic necessities. Does the pet inadvertently contribute to the perpetuation of poverty? Maybe. Yes, it is their choice and for many it is a good choice. For others, however, it is not a good decision to keep a pet and our providing dog food seems to be enabling what may not ultimately be beneficial.