“New and Improved.” “Newly Renovated.” “New Leadership Team.” “New, Faster 4G.” “New, Better Tasting Formula.”

In today’s fast-paced frenetic world, the term “new” is losing its luster. Everything is “new.” Every “new” product is higher in Omega fatty acids, easier to use, more feature-rich, or is bigger than the previous model.

The humorous television advertisements that show a customer’s smartphone as obsolete the moment after she purchases it is not far from reality.

Of course “new” is not new in the world of business and marketing. For decades, businesses have been peddling their products and services as “new” in an effort to lure customers. And for decades, market research has supported this notion.

Yet, I may be bucking the trend here, but I’m willing to step out on a limb to say that “old” has never been better positioned to make a comeback.

Sure, when it comes to products, customers will likely want to shell out the most dinero for the newest versions. However, when it comes to business, there may be opportunities to embrace some of the “old” ways of doing things that could lead to greater sales, higher margins, and happier shareholders.

Take talent for example. Routinely, companies bring in new, fresh talent and work them hard over the first few years. This is the classic management consulting firm model. Newbies are cheaper, more apt to work longer hours, malleable, and come with less personal baggage like child care or parental care. What’s not to like?

There’s a time and place for new talent in any company. However, I would argue that the best deal and greatest value these days may be with the older and more mature cohort. Cheaper is not always better. And with personal baggage comes experience and valuable perspective. And malleable sycophants are definitely not the recipe in my book for improving your company’s productivity.

Companies should not simply look at employees as units of labor, but as a valuable resource that should be mined and nurtured. A team made up of at least several more mature team members is likely the team that will not repeat past mistakes.

And most importantly, a team member that is willing to speak up and challenge the status quo in a constructive way – based on years of experience – is better positioned to add value to the bottom line, not take from it.

So look around you and embrace the old. Not every time, but when it is wise to do so. This newfound wisdom may be just the ticket for your company to compete in the new global marketplace.

Companies today live by metrics and measurements. In order to improve performance, you must first know your current baseline so that you can measure progress.

Metrics are important in today’s highly competitive global business climate, but many senior managers can sometimes lose sight of the performance forest for the metrics trees. Corporate leaders can become too reliant over a particular set of metrics while never stopping to ask, “Are we using the right metrics?”

This month’s Harvard Business Review featured an article written by Office Depot’s President, Kevin Peters, who discovered first-hand that his company was not focusing on the right metrics to improve customer service and drive increased sales.

Based on his own incognito visits to 70 stores in 15 states over a several week period in 2010, Peters found out that Office Depot’s current customer metric scores were correct, but that their scoring system was not. “We were asking the wrong questions.”

Peters said that his company had been grading store managers and associates with questions such as: Are the floors clean? Are the bathrooms clean? Are the shelves fully stocked?

Based on his own field analysis and random interviews with customers, Peters felt the company should be focused more on whether a customer walks out of the store without a purchase. And if so, how could they improve the in-store experience to reduce the no-purchase rate?

As Peters describes the office products business, “This is not a browsing industry – people are shopping with a particular purpose in mind. If they don’t make a purchase, something has gone wrong.”

Customers told Peters that they care more about knowledgeable associates and smaller and easier-to-navigate stores. He also found that associates were not asking the right questions of customers. For example, instead of asking, “How are you today, and are you finding everything okay?” associates should be asking, “What can I help you find today?”

In response, Office Depot recently instituted a simplified sales process called “ARC” – Ask, Recommend, Close. They have also sought to shrink the size of their stores, coupled with a greater focus on the in-store experience.

The bottom line according to Peters is this, “If you think your company is doing well with customer service, ask yourself, ‘Am I really sure?’ Do I know what the customer experiences?”

Make it a point to challenge your own corporate metrics on a periodic basis to ensure you are asking the right questions. Otherwise, your company may find itself racking up some very nice scores, but taking the wrong test.

Things have gotten pretty hot in Washington, DC these days, and I’m not talking about the 100-degree heat index. The recent heated exchanges between the White House and the House Republicans have once again reminded us why the public approval ratings of our elected officials continue to hover around their all-time lows.

Yet there is something about the current debt ceiling debate that makes me think that there is much more at stake in this discussion than the usual Democratic and Republican skirmishes. The threshold question that confronts every American is whether our country should continue to ramp up historic and seemingly unsustainable debt, or should we take a meat axe to scores of federal programs that so many Americans have come to rely upon.

I’ll not use this blog to pontificate on my own personal political bias on this question, but I will say this: our country’s leaders need to find a way to talk to one another and work this out. I’m hoping for less hot rhetoric and finger-pointing and more substantive discussion and responsible leadership.

Whether it’s in a board room, a corporate conference room, a manager’s office, or in the Cabinet Room, heated and anger-toned debate serves no interests. I’ll put my money any day on the cool and level-headed executive or political leader than the hot-headed, barb-thrower.

Shareholders deserve this sort of cool-headed responsibility from corporate executives, and the American citizens deserve the same out of their elected or appointed government leaders.

On May 25, 1961 President John F. Kennedy spoke before a joint session of Congress and laid down a challenge to the country and the U.S. space program: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.”

With these words, the United States marshaled an unprecedented level of innovative and scientific forces to accomplish this seemingly unreachable goal. In doing so, new generations of Americans became interested in science and space. Educators, students, and the American society at large embraced this ambitious goal with a level of enthusiasm not seen before or since this period in history.

And eight years later on July 21, 1969 astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first person to step foot on the Moon.

Undoubtedly, this country’s excitement and focus on science and space in the 1960s helped plant many of the seeds that led to America’s leadership in technology over the next several decades, including the microcomputer, software, and the Internet.

With this week’s 135th and last launch of the U.S. Space Shuttle, I find myself longing for a new, seemingly unreachable goal that can spark this country’s ingenuity and innovative spirit once more. Else, I fear that we will continue to slip further behind other countries like China and India, which are turning out four times as many math, engineering, and science graduates as the United States.

Let’s hope our country’s next Moon shot comes sooner rather than later.

In the 1975 blockbuster, Jaws, a small town police chief (played by the late Roy Scheider) utters one of the most memorable movie lines of all time when he and his two fishing boat companions abruptly come face-to-face with the film’s ginormous shark. “We’re going to need a bigger boat.”

With this one short line, Scheider and the characters played by a young Richard Dreyfuss and the late Robert Shaw capture the moment perfectly. They realize that the challenge before them is much larger than the size of their original game plan.

Each year, many companies and their management teams, experience similar types of eye-opening events as they find themselves responding to a sudden man-made or natural disaster. Think BP, Toyota, AIG, GM or the many companies in Japan currently affected by the recent earthquake and tsunami. Less notable companies also experience this sort of wake-up call as they watch a major customer walk away or find themselves scrambling to recover in the wake of a company misstep or scandal.

It is in these moments that company executives and managers are tested. Some companies successfully brave these storms and, as a result, come out stronger and more focused. Others, however, capsize and reach for the aid of a bargain-basement buyer or a bankruptcy raft.

Admittedly, there is no fail-safe way to plan for these unexpected events. But there are ways in which you can appreciably better your chances for survival with the right sort of training and preparation.

Don’t wait until your near-death moment to find out if your company is prepared to look into the jaws of catastrophe and survive. Put in place the right-sized game plans that will effectively respond to both big and small events that could serve to push your boat off course or potentially take you down.

According to the National Park Service, yesterday marked the “Peak Bloom Date” for several thousand Yoshino Cherry trees, which line the Tidal Basin in Washington, DC.

The 2011 National Cherry Blossom Festival commemorates the 99th anniversary of the gift of cherry blossom trees from the country of Japan. Each year, over one million tourists flock to the nation’s capital during the last week of March and the first week of April to get a glimpse of the puffy pink blossoms of these spectacular trees.

In 1912, Mayor Yukio Ozaki of Tokyo gave 3,000 cherry trees to the city of Washington, DC. “The gift and annual celebration honor the lasting friendship between the United States and Japan and the continued close relationship between the two countries,” as noted on the Festival’s website.

The United States returned the favor in 1915 with a gift of dogwood trees to the people of Japan. In 1965, two decades after the end of World War II, Lady Bird Johnson accepted 3,800 more cherry trees from Japan. Then in 1981, the “cycle of giving came full circle” when the U.S. gave cuttings from its trees to Japan to replace trees that had been destroyed during a flood.

Given the recent devastation from the earthquake and tsunami in northern Japan, maybe more cherry tree cuttings from Washington will once again be sent to the Japanese people.

Ichiro Fujisaki, the Japanese Ambassador to the U.S., spoke emotionally about the dire conditions in his country during the March 22nd Points of Light Institute tribute at the Kennedy Center, which honored former President George H. W. Bush. “We are grateful…Japan must and will come back. It means so much to us that you are standing with us. . .We will never, never forget it. ”

Competition between two companies, like that between two countries, can sometimes be fierce. But it doesn’t mean that decency and civility should be set aside.

Look for opportunities to do the right thing when your competitors are least expecting it. You may find that the favor of offering a “cherry branch” may someday be returned when you’ll need it the most.