Capital to Capital: The Solution is Context, Balance, and Being Open Minded
I’ve just returned from a 5 day business trip to Washington D.C. where I was attending the HIMMS Healthcare and IT conference and exhibition. This is a conference located in downtown D.C. that brings together the best and the brightest across the spectrum of the U.S. healthcare industry.
Day 1 included a technology awareness reception at the Canadian Embassy – this is where several Canadian HIT companies were present to showcase their technologies, and people from the U.S. swing through to see what we up north have to offer. Infonium set up talked shop with lots of interesting figures concerning our Accountability and Reporting software, and Patient Access package, quickly noting a distinct need for accountability as huge sums of money are being dumped into healthcare by the federal government.
The rest of the trip was consumed with the actual health IT conference where I was immersed in the business environment as driven by some serious U.S. contenders (think Lockheed Martin, Adobe, etc.). Even sitting in a presentation by these companies brought to light a differential between the way we’re working in Canada as compared to the way things work south of the border.
Litigiousness
It’s true, there is definitely more legal activity present in the US when it comes to mundane lawsuits. Although this is a grave generalization of things and a commonly accepted blanket statement, I’ll endorse this point of view albeit with an asterisk.
Here’s the asterisk – there was no mention of legalities and liability at the conference, at least in the way of lawsuits and the like. No, the reason I’m inclined to agree with the idea of American litigiousness is because everyone is so attentive to detail, thorough, and is excellent at sealing their own loopholes and exploiting others.
I have to say, to an extent I think this is good. Maybe we could use a few lawsuits. Yes some are rediculeous, yes the fear of ultimate and petty loss does it’s job to raise the bar. Start to finish, US business is to the point, the t’s are crossed and the i’s dotted, and I think there is much to be learned concerning open-hand, succinct business practices.
Concise Communication
Many parts of the world people are interested in what you have to offer – sales are often initiated with large, information saturated presentations and slide decks that cover a large range of topics. My experience in the States is much different from this system – a customer will have a specific need they want addressed, and will want to know if a vendor can address their needs. This is not to say the slide deck isn’t wanted, it just moves it from primary marketing material to backup material. Many critical business interactions can be completed in a blunt 15 minute conversation. While this may not be very Canadian – to shoot down a person, dig through their material and pointedly tell them that you’re only concerned with a specific 2% without even beginning to hear them out – it could be very beneficial to understand this way of thinking: Removing the layers of complexity, the overall marketing cloud if you will, allows for a level of direct communication not experienced much outside of the US. While this is not necessarily the best way of conducting business it is surely an effective method. Ambiguity is removed and brutal honesty provides a protective cocoon to all parties involved.
Data Driven Business (i.e. not feelings)
In Canada we pride ourselves on our compassionate national moral compass, and I would not change this for a second. It is a trait the to be emulated by the rest of the world and is one to be retained and cherished. It’s also a social quality that transitions into our business practice, which is not bad in of itself, however can sometimes taint business decisions.
Conversely the United States is often decried for being unfeeling and money grubbing however it is hard to contest the economic validity of a data driven business decision, however cold.
I’m not for one system or the other. Moral business practice can often pay out beyond its immediate number value based on positive public perception, however it can also fail as the high ground can also be the poor ground (for example if we were to spend enough money to make homelessness vanish – great moral concept, good public perception, impossible to fund). Likewise, data driven business can often be immoral to the point of public disgust at the expense of hidden negative value as people turn their backs on the evil practice (for example if an arms company were to fund a foreign contingent committing genocide).
Like the two previous points discussed, it comes down to moderation. We may love to jeer at our southern neighbors, and they likely laugh about us here in Canada, but the real truth is that neither system is perfect. In fact I don’t even think one system is better than the other – it’s ultimately context and balance and the willingness to learn more and adapt to new things.
Comments are closed.