The Businessperson by Christopher Lau The other day, someone told me "Chris, I can totally see you as a businessperson." I was flattered, but skeptical. See, in my mind, everyone can be a great businessperson, because conducting business is something we all do, everyday. But a businessperson, to others, is someone that is educated to increase sales and decrease costs of a process. If you think you know businesspeople, or you yourself want to be a businessperson, please allow me to explain what I define as a true businessperson, and why I believe that certain 'accepted' members of this community should not belong. To start the discussion, one of the underlying characteristics that makes businesspeople “businesspeople” is their direct involvement in trade – the exchange of goods. In an Adam Smith-style capitalist economy, trade theoretically results in a mutually beneficial outcome for both parties (aka increased overall utility). As I would define it, a businessperson actively seeks, engages and implements these opportunities. The end result should be something that is worth more to the buyer than to the seller so as to encourage an exchange. That’s important to remember. In fact, there are lots of opportunities for people to create this rift between the value of the seller and its value for customers. For example, through manufacturing a product, the customer trades in some form of currency for convenience, vanity, entertainment etc. Businesspeople actively seek and engage in these opportunities and then facilitate the trade so that a middle ground is found where both parties benefit. The fact that it’s a middle ground is important too. That way, both parties benefit. When both parties benefit, longer-term relationships can be formed. It also comes down to sharing a la kindergarden 101. The businessperson, in its purest form should be hailed as nobility in our society. “Businesspeople actively … facilitate the trade so that a middle ground is found where both parties benefit.” Unfortunately, businesspeople are not always saints because they can exploit situations to create trade where it intentionally benefits only one partner. “The middle ground can eat my stain-proof khakis!”. One such situation is through deception. They offer the customer a product or service where there is absolutely no intention that its value will be more that what they trade for it, but they deceive the customer’s expectations. You see these all the time – stupid gimmicks on t.v., get-rich-quick schemes, and dishonest used car dealers. They have absolutely no intention for the value of the trade to be more than what you paid for it. A second situation is through an abused monopoly of an ‘essential’ product - I use the term ‘essential’ loosely, as nothing is truly ‘essential’ except perhaps food and water. The telephone, computers, and oil have become an ‘essential’ product for functioning in our society, and in cases where private companies held monopolies on them, they intended to charge the customer as close to, as possible, the value to the customer (aka value-based pricing). Compared to the cost, the customer only benefits marginally, if at all. Many times, the customer loses. In the days before multiple long-distance carriers, you could hear people crying “!&%@#!! It cost me $20 to call for three minutes to Singapore?”. Bell had no intention of seeing the customer increase value through the trade. No middle ground there. Tsk tsk. A third situation where businesspeople exploit trade is forced trade. They find themselves in or create situations where they can arbitrarily exercise power on someone to force a trade. Mugging someone is one example, although no one would classify muggers as businesspeople. Consider though, drug dealers that get clients addicted to their product and then require them to purchase upgrades and maintenance of their new habit. Consider tobacco companies. Consider the extortion of money through threat of lawsuits. Consider Coca-Cola’s strategic product placement in elementary schools. Consider child labor (employment is certainly a form of trade). Consider the overpriced upgrades to software systems that are impractical to change once deployed. These businesspeople will argue that none of it is ‘forced’, although I’m willing to bet that their business strategies would otherwise reveal that a solid customer base with “required” maintenance and upgrades is the “bulls-eye”. That’s how smart drug dealers operate, so why don’t we just call them businesspeople too? This brand of businesspeople is a loose approximation to nobler members of a profession. I rarely meet people in my life that are incapable of creating value for a customer, and I’ve worked with handicap people at various levels of mental and physical capacity. Very few people have an excuse. And while I believe that businesspeople should negotiate the best price possible for a product or service- as should the customer- the minute they realize that the customer is not benefiting from the trade, their conscience should reprimand them like a good parent. "Remember to share, honey". But generally, instead of their consciences kicking in, executives drool over their pin-striped power suits. Remember, it is not enough to justify by saying "i'm not harming the customer". In fact, buyer-seller relationships generally requires mutual benefit. But situations arise where the power can shift so far towards the businessperson that that requirement is no longer there. "Businesspeople" exploit these and any functioning conscience or good parent would call this absolutely wrong. Don’t customers also try to pull the middle ground so far their way so that businesspeople don’t benefit? Sure, but they’re generally less successful and the results are less destructive. For example, when consumers boycott certain companies, there is certainly no middle ground there. See, when consumers band together, it’s called consumer activism. But when businesses band together, it’s called a cartel and there’s a good reason why one is encouraged and the other illegal. So that’s how I would define a businessperson, and why I would categorize certain people onto the fringes of this definition. That’s why it can be a noble profession, despite the despicable reputation that its members have gained over the millennia. So when you hear people define these borderline members as ‘businesspeople’, be swift to make the correction. In closing, if you strive to be a businessperson, try to let your conscience, not your greedy shareholders, make the final approval. Generally, only one of them stays with you after you’ve retired. “…try to let your conscience, not your greedy shareholders, make the final approval. Generally, only one of them stays with you after you’ve retired.”