How to catch wild pigs

[cbscreative]

You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.

When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side.

The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again.

You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.

Soon they go back to eating the free corn . They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

In what appears to be its original context, this story was told to a university professor by a foreign exchange student while discussing how the government in his country was under attack from a communist regime trying to take control. I thought the illustration has a valuable lesson for a large number of applications.

It could describe a political agenda. It could describe the Wal-Mart business model. It could describe the corporate culture that many members here have left to run their own business. It's probably only a matter of time before someone says it describes their marriage.

I found this illustration to be intriguing because it not only captures the obvious lesson in it, and because it can be applied to so many areas of life, but it also contains some more subtle lessons. If you strip away the diabolical intent of trying to trap the pigs, you actually would be left with a good business strategy.

If you spread corn on the ground, you will attract customers. If you resist the urge to build a fence, you can build a successful business. Human nature seems to want to build a fence.

Your thoughts?

[billbenson]

Could also define bait and switch :)

[Spider]

Of course, it is presupposing that being free and hungry and spending all your time grovelling for food and avoiding predators, is somehow better than being well-fed, protected, and with time on your hands for other pursuits.

[cbscreative]

Good point, Frederick, but I couldn't help thinking that anyone who would build a fence probably has other intentions for the pigs too.

[Spider]

Maybe, Steve. Just keep your head down and don't make eye-contact with anyone!

[Steve B]

I actually think it's a bad example for the point you're trying to make. You'll have to add an unhappy to the ending (the slaughter) to make it complete because Frederick is right - these pigs seem to have a much better situation than they did when they were wild.

[Spider]

Not quite the same thing but nearly....

http://www.funhousecomedy.co.uk/images/Funny%20stuff/fox_and_hounds.jpg

[cbscreative]

This makes for an interesting twist. If the fence is being built simply to protect the pigs, then the fence builder enjoys giving from the goodness of their heart and watching the pigs partake of the free food. In this case, we have a nature preserve or a zoo. The discussion of which way the pigs are better off could probably go on indefinitely, but one thing is for sure, the pigs are no longer free.

I was thinking more along the lines of either what the fence is, or how we can benefit in business from using the principle without the fence. Maybe it's my personality, but I have an aversion to fences. The reason most of us are probably in business for ourselves is because we felt fenced in working for someone else. Sure, there's danger and challenge outside the fence, but would you rather defeat those odds or hope they guy who built the fence doesn't sell you out?

Speaking from the perspective of "working for the man," what if the fence owner decides to reduce the amount of corn? What if he adds more pigs without increasing the supply of food? What if he makes you do tricks to get the food, and keeps increasing how many tricks you need to do for the same amount of food? Sound like a lot of companies these days?

What if a competitor of yours decides to spread free corn on the ground and takes away all your customers? Once you go out of business, that competitor monopolizes the market and jacks their prices higher than your's ever were. Are these customers better off? How can we use this lesson to defend against that strategy?

That still leaves a wide open area of discussion on how we could use the principle without a fence and get more business.

[KristineS]

I don't see how you could build a fence to keep customers from going to other vendors. You can provide great customer service and great product and great prices, but those are benefits that keep the customer with you because you can provide what they want and need. There is, however, no way to stop customers from going elsewhere if they want to do so. The only way to fence a customer in would be to be the only company in the entire world that had a product or service they desperately wanted or needed. Other than that, I don't see how it could be done.

[cbscreative]

I don't see how you could build a fence to keep customers from going to other vendors.

In the free enterprise system, you really can't. But I've seen people try. An example that comes to mind is in my industry. Although they can't prevent people from going to other vendors, they put up roadblocks such as not releasing files and shrewd terms that make walking away more difficult. There is a major hosting company that developed a nasty reputation for providing bad service and holding their customers hostage to it. In cases like this, the gate isn't really locked, but they have piled up bricks behind it so you have to push hard to escape.

I have to agree that excellent customer service is much better than a fence.

[billbenson]

Cellular providers are pretty good at building fences so you can't leave.

[Spider]

This makes for an interesting twist. If the fence is being built simply to protect the pigs, then the fence builder enjoys giving from the goodness of their heart and watching the pigs partake of the free food. In this case, we have a nature preserve or a zoo. The discussion of which way the pigs are better off could probably go on indefinitely, but one thing is for sure, the pigs are no longer free...What if these pigs (unusually smart pigs) build their own fence for their protection and well-being? And anyone could leave or stay, as they wished? Then they would be fenced AND free. (I make no account for the free food!)



...I was thinking more along the lines of either what the fence is, or how we can benefit in business from using the principle without the fence. Maybe it's my personality, but I have an aversion to fences. The reason most of us are probably in business for ourselves is because we felt fenced in working for someone else...I will speak as one who started my own business, not because I felt fenced in by being employed, but because a service I wanted for my employer was not available. I resigned in order to provide that service - to my previous employer and others in the industry. I think many people identify a problem in the marketplace as employees and see the opportunity of solving that problem as business owners. In this case, the fence acts as a delineator for the pigs, but not a trap. From within the confines of the fence, some of them can identify weaknesses in the system and, from within the safety of the fence, can develop a solution, then jump the fence to find the resources to come back and solve the problem. The fence serves to keep the drove of pigs from wandering away before the solution arrives and keep less enterprising pigs from also jumping the fence and becoming competitors.

See?

[KristineS]

Cellular providers are pretty good at building fences so you can't leave.

Yeah, this is true, and I suppose having to sign a contract could be considered one sort of fence.

[cbscreative]

Frederick, I strongly suspect you're an exception to the rule based on what I know about business owners. That's neither right or wrong, just different. You solve a problem for a different motivation, but that's still a good reason to solve a problem. Many of us just can't work for someone else, so we feel like we're trapped slaves while inside the fence. I'm sure many members here will agree with that analogy.

I have to admit, I did have some of those contracts like cell phone deals in the back of my mind when I brought up my example of shrewd terms. Although there may be good reasons to structure things this way, it does often serve as a fence.

[Spider]

As an aside, Steve, for would-be business owners, don't you think it would serve them well to try to identify a problem within their industry of employment (inside the fence) that they might try to solve, rather than leave a business they know but which makes them feel trapped (escape the fence) to start something they don't know about? I mean, it's all very well wishing to be free of an employer but it seems (1) a waste of useful knowledge to abandon something in which one has experience, and (2) an unneccesary risk to try to start something in which one has no, or little, experience.

Just an aside, of course.

[cbscreative]

Frederick, who said anything about abandoning your area of expertise? The idea is to get out from under the tyranny of being fenced in. Many if not most people consider their boss a tyrant, but they're content to gripe inside the fence rather than bust through the gate and take the risk to forage out in the wild.

As another aside, was America built on playing it safe or taking a risk? I'm all for letting people play it safe, they have every right to that. They also have the right to take a risk. Everyone has both a choice and a responsibility to accept either the rewards or consequences of their own actions. Isn't that what made the whole concept so great?

[Spider]

Frederick, who said anything about abandoning your area of expertise? The idea is to get out from under the tyranny of being fenced in. Many if not most people consider their boss a tyrant, but they're content to gripe inside the fence rather than bust through the gate and take the risk to forage out in the wild...Who said? I said! Probably the majority of people I have met who talk of starting or have just started a business of their own are doing so in a field in which they have no experience. I think that unwise. In the first place, there is usually something that attracted them to that field initially before they became disillusioned. And, secondly, the experience they have gained (and paid dearly for by working unhappy) can serve them well in their new venture. I always recommend they get a job in the industry in which they wish to open their own business, to learn the business before trying to open a business in it.


...As another aside, was America built on playing it safe or taking a risk? I'm all for letting people play it safe, they have every right to that. They also have the right to take a risk. Everyone has both a choice and a responsibility to accept either the rewards or consequences of their own actions. Isn't that what made the whole concept so great?Aside within an aside - this is going to get complicated!!!

Truthfully, America was built on playing it safe and not taking risks. Sure, the mountain-men and the pioneers get the headlines and have movies made about them, but it was the nameless settlers, who settled, who built the towns and cities. The Founding Fathers were all plantation owners, steady, stable, thoughtful men. They were men who, if you read your history books well, were reluctant to rebel and felt they were forced into breaking with the Crown. Since that time, America's prosperity has risen on the back of the hardworking laborers imported for the various tasks a few entrepreneurs had for them.

[cbscreative]

Hmm, it's interesting that you have so many people who want to go into unfamiliar territory. Maybe it's the greener grass myth. I've observed many business owners who use their experience to strike out on their own. I can't claim to have ever researched to know which is more common, but most people I meet seem to fall into the latter group.

On the history comment, are you serious? It looks like you're just playing devil's advocate. When those men signed the Declaration of Independence, their lives were literally on the line. Had they failed, every one of them who survived the war would have been executed. That was a huge risk! When settlers came to this country, many died because of disease and harsh conditions. They were safer staying in their native lands, but they sought freedom instead. When pioneers started moving west, there were dangers, and again, many never survived the journey. They could have stayed safe and comfortable in the east. Many did, of course, but had the risk takers not forged the way, the safe players would not have had opportunities later.

What you call being built on the backs of laborers could just as easily be called an opportunity those laborers would not have had without a risk taking entrepreneur. I'm not denying there was and is abuse of workforce, but I think it's an unfair characterization to label the entire system that way. Your comment about America being built on playing it safe baffles me, and I'm not getting the logic.

As for reading the history books, they're always being rewritten. There are powerful groups who strip out anything they don't like. The challenge now is, finding reliable sources of history. In case you're not aware of it, there are a growing number of people who believe the Holocaust never happened. If they get their way, it will be erased from the history books.

[Spider]

Okay - as this is the Water Cooler, I will pursue the history discussion.

I believe it has become part of the American psyche that "We are a land of pioneers! We are risk-takers! We are brave and independent!" But I don't think we need to go overboard, and not going overboard is not denying the American story.

You don't understand my logic? Then let me try to explain it. The lives of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were, indeed, on the line. You are quite right - it was a risk, but it was a risk they believed they had to take. It is my conviction that they believed they had no choice. The histories I have read indicate that they felt they would die if they did nothing, so perhaps it wasn't much of a choice. Remember, Britain and the American colonies had been at war for over a year before Independence was declared and many colonists of the day were against the rebellion and against independence. Even Thomas Jefferson, only months before he drafted the Declaration, is quoted as saying, "There is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do." For a while, it was touch and go as to whether the leaders would actually declare independence. And let us also remember that these leaders were few and pretty-well self-appointed, so the declaration was not the stated will of the majority of the people.

When I referred to "the settlers," I was referring to those who settled the land. The immigrants to America, largely came because they were pushed out or thrown out of their countries of origin, and most of them did not ever venture much beyond the East coast. They settled down and built those areas- by playing it safe. As for those who pioneered their way across America, they served no part in building America until they settled down and started playing it safe by building towns and cities.

You seem to have taken the term, "built on the backs of laborers," to mean exploitation, and that wasn't my intent at all. Certainly, there were entrepreneurs who took risks and employed people. I am not saying that no risk-taking took place. But I am saying that there were a whole lot more people playing it safe by taking those jobs than there were entrepreneurs who took risks. And the output from all those security-minded employees built America, to a greater extent than the output from the much fewer, risk-taking entrepreneurs.

[cbscreative]

I am not saying that no risk-taking took place. But I am saying that there were a whole lot more people playing it safe by taking those jobs than there were entrepreneurs who took risks. And the output from all those security-minded employees built America, to a greater extent than the output from the much fewer, risk-taking entrepreneurs.

Well at least now I think I have a better understanding of what you meant. You seem to be saying that since the workers who took the jobs outnumbered the risk takers who created the jobs, then the laborers did the actual building through their labor. I would say that without the entrepreneurs and innovators, the jobs would not have existed and we might still be an agricultural society. In this case, it looks like we're both right, it's just two different ways of thinking about it.

I'm still left wondering about this part of your logic though. If the risk comes first to create the opportunity, isn't it still built on the initial risk?


As for those who pioneered their way across America, they served no part in building America until they settled down and started playing it safe by building towns and cities.

This kind of emphasizes my question. Without taking the risk to make the journey, the settling down and building could not have happened. It seems to me that when you look at all the ways to play it safe, they were provided by someone taking a risk.

[Spider]

I agree. In conversations with my friends, there is a general attitude that "Americans" are entrepreneurial risk-takers, whereas my observation is that each of them that claims this has a steady job, working for 'the man.' One of them has a side business that his wife is running - quite successfuly, actually. He - while seriously claiming that Americans are entrepreneurial risk-takers - wouldn't dream of leaving his steady job to help his wife and grow the business! That is not to deny that many Americans are entrepreneurial, and all power to them, but they are few compared to the masses that claim to be entrepreneurial because they think it is part of their "American" psyche.

As to the idea that jobs wouldn't have been available without the entrepreneurs providing them, that is true - it is also true to say, without the "safety-first" worker crowd, entrepreneurs would not have been able to create the businesses that provided the jobs. And it's not really a "chicken-and-the egg" case - it is a case of partnership. Entrepreneurs are an essential part of any economy, not just America's, as are workers, just as much as customers to pay for the goods the workers make. I tend not to glorify entrepreneurs and consider them just one group in a multi-group system called "The Economy." That gives me a better appreciation for the other groups that are also essential in the system functioning.

Maybe it's the engineer in me, Steve. Not only am I interested in how things are erected, but I also want to know what stops them falling down.

[Business Attorney]

Truthfully, America was built on playing it safe and not taking risks.

Frederick, I think your views on American history are just wrong. I am an amateur genealogist and love to read early American history. I have studied literally hundreds of my American ancestors and their neighbors dating back to 1621 and have found very few before the twentieth century that I would say "played it safe."

First of all, most of the settlers in the Great Migration of the 17th century were leaving Europe (mostly England) for either religious freedom or to find a better life. But America was a dangerous, unsettled place. Even the settlers, who you say "played in safe" and settled in one place had to create their farms out of forest, something that had not been done for centuries in most of Europe. Those who lived in a colonial town had to start an inn, a blacksmith shop, a store, a newspaper, or other business from scratch, just like today's entrepreneurs.

As they moved west, it was no different. Even small towns did not spring up with full business districts but were built one business at a time by men and women ready to take a risk. The fertile sprawling farms in the Midwest today were eked out of the prairie one small farm at a time. Even that was possible only after an entrepreneur, John Deere, invented a steel plow that could break up the "unfarmable" vast prairies.

Later in the 19th century, as people moved from the East Coast to fast growing Midwest cities like Chicago, St. Louis and Kansas City, they were leaving the known for the unknown. That is not "playing it safe."

As for your assertion that "America's prosperity has risen on the back of the hardworking laborers imported for the various tasks a few entrepreneurs had for them," there is no doubt that America owes a large part of its growth and prosperity to "hardworking laborers." However, until the latter years of the 19th century by far most of the "hardworking laborers" in this country were farmers, not factory workers. Each of those farmers was essentially a small business person.

Even the laborers who built the American transportation network, first the canals in the first third of the 19th century and then the railroads, were taking a risk. Their risk was different from the capitalists who bought the stocks and bonds to fund the construction of the transportation system, but it was a risk nonetheless. For an Irishman to leave his family, whether in Ireland or in Boston, to help lay the transcontinental railroads across the untamed West was a huge risk.

Sure, you can find people in any place and at any point in history that were pretty well set and lived their lives without taking much risk other than the risks of daily life. However, to come to the conclusion that the non-risk takers contributed more to the building of America that the generations of individuals who risked everything to build better lives for themselves and their families is, in my opinion, based on a gross distortion of the facts to suit your own conclusion.

[Spider]

You make a good argument, David. I admit, I was not looking back to the very beginning of European settlement in America. When Steve said -
...was America built on playing it safe or taking a risk? - I was thinking of latter-day America rather than the European colonies. Back then, life itself was a risk, I imagine, although not necessarily entrepreneurial.