Just finished reading the last of my 565 pages of OB reading for the quarter (last class for the quarter is tomorrow!). The readings ended with one by Peter Drucker entitled Managing Oneself written for the Harvard Business review in 2005. Drucker's premise is that we all need to manage our own careers - the organization won't manage it for us. Not a stunning revelation, certainly. However, to do this Drucker recommends that we understand some things about ourselves and that the answers to these questions are part of our DNA. That it is a waste of energy to change these things about ourselves. We are far better served if we recognize them and then manage our career to put ourselves in the best possible position to take advantage of who we are.
As has happened to me several times in this class, I've found application of this concept beyond my career. I have children ages 16 and 14. I wish I had started a bit sooner with them but I am going to start a dialogue with them about the ideas presented by Drucker. If my teenage children start thinking about some of these things now, it might help them focus on areas of study and occupation and life pursuit that fits with what God made them to be. It certainly can help them eliminate what doesn't fit earlier than I did. For myself, I know that I suffered in my college and early career years from not having eliminated anything as a possible career path. So, rather than banging their heads against the wall of what they think society demands or what is "right", I'd want for my kids to start thinking about these things now. I'll let you know how this goes as they are teenagers and, right now at least, I'm not one of the smartest people in their estimation.
If you're interested in some of the details, here are the four elements of Drucker's analysis:
1. What are my strengths?: Drucker says that organizations, schools, parents, all of us waste a good deal of time trying to take our weaknesses and make them at least acceptable. Instead, we should focus this energy on improving our strengths such that we become experts in these areas. This, also, is not a new concept. Don Clifton, who later became the CEO of the Gallup organization, was probably the original proselyte of the idea almost 50 years ago. Clifton developed his StrengthsFinder organization and, with Marcus Buckingham, published a book and a program for helping people discover what they are good at. I remember listening to Clifton 20 years ago as he spoke to a small group of us at a company I was working for and I found his ideas - particularly about how we educate our kids - very refreshing at the time. Drucker basically repeats much of what Clifton and Buckingham institutionalized years ago.
2. How do I perform?: Most people do already know a piece of this: the "How do I learn?" element. Am I a reader or a listener? A writer or a talker? These are easy self-assessments and can be easily confirmed by asking a couple of friends or colleagues. However, we have to dig deeper and be tougher on ourselves to answer the questions: Do I work well with people or am I a loner? Am I suited to be the leader or the adviser to the leader? (hard to admit that you're best at NOT having to make the tough decisions). Do I perform well under stress? A big organization or a small firm? Even if we ask ourselves these questions and have the answers, we frequently do nothing about the knowledge. We continue in the safety of a large firm when we would take best advantage of who we are by moving to a smaller organization. We strive to be in charge when our abilities are best suited to being a great #2 person.
3. What are my values?: This isn't about ethics. It is about the value system of the organization with which you are working or considering a relationship. Does the company hire from within or seek new blood? Does the company focus on short-term results or long-term gains? These (and many more questions like this) state emphatically what the organization values. Items 1 & 2 on Drucker's list rarely conflict with each other - our strengths and the way we perform are complimentary. However, this values item frequently presents a conflict with our strengths and the way that we perform. It's up to each of us to recognize this conflict and, optimally, to place ourselves in organizations and groups that are consistent with our values.
4. What Should I Contribute?: As a society, we are no longer automatons that are simply told what to do by management. Most of us are knowledge workers and we have to answer this question for ourselves. To do this, Drucker says we need to ask ourselves three other questions: a) What does the situation require?; b) Given my strengths & my way of performing and my values, how can I make the greatest contribution to what needs to be done? and, c) What results have to be achieved to make a difference? I think most of us stop at question "a" and just do what needs to be done without much thought toward how I apply my own strengths to the situation and even less thought toward what has to be achieved to really make a difference.
One of the final points Drucker makes in his paper is that we need to realize that there are other people in our equation. We don't manage our careers or our lives in a vacuum. Understanding how the people around us work best; what their strengths and values are; and what and how they should best contribute is as important to our success as is understanding our own. It sounds like a lot of work, but the anecdotal evidence Drucker presents regarding those that do this well suggests that it is worth the effort.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
ECON HAS RUINED MY TRIPS TO THE GROCERY STORE!
At my age (and gender), grocery store strips are highly efficient. I know exactly what I want, where it is and I keep it under 15 items so I can get out quickly. However, since taking my micro-econ class, I've started paying attention to how companies are marketing their products and why they are positioned in a certain part of the store.
Take chips, for example. I just noticed that most stores no longer have a "chips aisle". Instead, the chips are strategically placed at the end caps of almost every aisle. On a typical trip to the store, I'm not looking for chips and don't notice where they are. But I've started walking through the grocery store looking for how the items are arranged and thinking about which items are high-margin items for the seller. It makes my trips to the store more time-consuming as I find myself staring at items that I have no intention purchasing just to figure out why they are placed where they are.
I walked in my grocery store yesterday and noticed pita chips and hummus placed in an attractive display at the store entry. Now, I like pita chips and hummus and I will eat them if they are put in front of me but I didn't go to the store with that in mind and I certainly wouldn't have searched for them. So, does the knowledge that your behavior is being manipulated change your behavior? It didn't change mine. I knew it was the store's attempt to get me to grab an item that I wouldn't normally buy; but I stuck it in my cart anyway. By the way, I was told not long ago that the milk is at the back of the store for a reason: they know you need it so your trek to pick up milk will inevitably lead you past a thousand other items and attractive displays in the hope that you'll impulsively pick up more than just the milk that you need. Maybe even pita chips ......
Take chips, for example. I just noticed that most stores no longer have a "chips aisle". Instead, the chips are strategically placed at the end caps of almost every aisle. On a typical trip to the store, I'm not looking for chips and don't notice where they are. But I've started walking through the grocery store looking for how the items are arranged and thinking about which items are high-margin items for the seller. It makes my trips to the store more time-consuming as I find myself staring at items that I have no intention purchasing just to figure out why they are placed where they are.
I walked in my grocery store yesterday and noticed pita chips and hummus placed in an attractive display at the store entry. Now, I like pita chips and hummus and I will eat them if they are put in front of me but I didn't go to the store with that in mind and I certainly wouldn't have searched for them. So, does the knowledge that your behavior is being manipulated change your behavior? It didn't change mine. I knew it was the store's attempt to get me to grab an item that I wouldn't normally buy; but I stuck it in my cart anyway. By the way, I was told not long ago that the milk is at the back of the store for a reason: they know you need it so your trek to pick up milk will inevitably lead you past a thousand other items and attractive displays in the hope that you'll impulsively pick up more than just the milk that you need. Maybe even pita chips ......
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
UCI BUSINESS SCHOOL DEAN - THE FUTURE OF UNIVERSITY FUNDING
About two weeks ago I attended a presentation by UCI's Paul Merage Business School Dean, Andy Policano. The focus of the presentation was the dire financial straits of the California public university system. Policano has co-authored a book (called Public No More) on the subject of tuition policy in public universities and he recently presented his points of view to UCI's B-school students. His economic analysis - and even his suggestions for radically changing the system - are compelling and it is difficult to find fault with his ideas. However, the "devil is in the details" of implementation and, after listening to the 1-hour pitch, it appears to me that he's about to grab several political "third rails" in proposing demolition of the current funding system. I asked him a question about that during the presentation and it sounds as if he is realistic about the political obstacles; but he is passionate about his subject and seemingly willing to take this on to its logical conclusion (even if that's in the wastebin of "good ideas killed by the System").
First, though, are the facts and they are interesting:
- In the 1950's, the State of California provided 50-60% of the funding for its public universities. Fifty years later, with the State budget consumed by increasing costs in its prison system, elementary education and welfare program, that amount is less than 20%.
- While Policano claims that the cost (inflation-adjusted) of a college education in the US has dropped, the percentage of that cost has shifted from the State to the student: student's share of cost has risen from 25% in 1984 to 37% in 2009.
- Notwithstanding the much-reduced financial stake, state legislators still want to lay claim to the idea that the state provides inexpensive higher education to its in-state students believing that to be advocating for "access" to public education for all. A highly political organization itself, the California Board of Regents (the entity that sets tuition policy) has artificially set tuition at a level that is below what the market would bear.
- From my micro-econ class, I know that the State's reduced subsidy should cause an increase in tuition and a decrease in the number of students at this higher price. However, the political mandate that tuition be kept low keeps demand high at the artificially-set low price. While we do hear about increases in tuition, they have nowhere near reached a market-rate level.
- This results in universities looking to fill the extra demand with out-of-state students who pay much higher fees. This creates the ironic situation whereby applying the artificial cost cap has the opposite effect of increasing access as colleges seek more out-of-state students making classroom seats less accessible for the in-state students they were purportedly built to serve. Further irony: if the in-state student wanted to pay the out-of-state tuition to make him/herself more attractive to the school, they would be told that they could not voluntarily pay the increased tuition. So, if students with identical high school records applied to Berkeley, one from CA and one from NV, the one from NV would be more likely to get in based on ability to pay higher fees.
Policano's solution? Equalize tuition for in-state and out-of-state residents. This would entail an increase in the yearly in-state tuition from today's average of about $11K to $22K/yr. He proposes this to burn in over a 5-yr period. He claims that this wouldn't reduce access for those in lower income brackets as households with family income less than $70K would go to school for free (this would be where the state's subsidy would be applied).
The Dean states that the UC President is trying, in vain, to get the State to agree to return to its subsidy levels of yore. Policano says that's a fool's errand (my words not his). The State isn't going to be able to find money to re-instate its subsidy even if it wanted to. UCI's business school this year received only 3% of its funding from the State and next year he expects that number to be 0%.
Other next steps advocated by Policano are that universities need to evaluate their programs like a business and prune those that are not high-quality programs and/or "net revenue positive". They also need to streamline their processes so that they can be more market-reactive.
Here's the rub: In order for Policano's system to work the older UC schools (e.g., Berkeley), that are currently the beneficiaries of an unbalanced UC financing system wherein they get a disproportionate share of the funding proceeds, would have to agree to a new system where everything is more "fair" but they get less funding. One thing I learned from my OB class this quarter is that people will go along with an unfair system as long as the result for them is beneficial. What is going to compel these old-guard schools to allow the system to change isn't clear.
I like the way Policano thinks - more accountability; schools thinking more like businesses - but I don't envy his chosen task of trying to tear down and re-construct the UC funding system. Good luck, Dean Policano. I'm rooting for you!
First, though, are the facts and they are interesting:
- In the 1950's, the State of California provided 50-60% of the funding for its public universities. Fifty years later, with the State budget consumed by increasing costs in its prison system, elementary education and welfare program, that amount is less than 20%.
- While Policano claims that the cost (inflation-adjusted) of a college education in the US has dropped, the percentage of that cost has shifted from the State to the student: student's share of cost has risen from 25% in 1984 to 37% in 2009.
- Notwithstanding the much-reduced financial stake, state legislators still want to lay claim to the idea that the state provides inexpensive higher education to its in-state students believing that to be advocating for "access" to public education for all. A highly political organization itself, the California Board of Regents (the entity that sets tuition policy) has artificially set tuition at a level that is below what the market would bear.
- From my micro-econ class, I know that the State's reduced subsidy should cause an increase in tuition and a decrease in the number of students at this higher price. However, the political mandate that tuition be kept low keeps demand high at the artificially-set low price. While we do hear about increases in tuition, they have nowhere near reached a market-rate level.
- This results in universities looking to fill the extra demand with out-of-state students who pay much higher fees. This creates the ironic situation whereby applying the artificial cost cap has the opposite effect of increasing access as colleges seek more out-of-state students making classroom seats less accessible for the in-state students they were purportedly built to serve. Further irony: if the in-state student wanted to pay the out-of-state tuition to make him/herself more attractive to the school, they would be told that they could not voluntarily pay the increased tuition. So, if students with identical high school records applied to Berkeley, one from CA and one from NV, the one from NV would be more likely to get in based on ability to pay higher fees.
Policano's solution? Equalize tuition for in-state and out-of-state residents. This would entail an increase in the yearly in-state tuition from today's average of about $11K to $22K/yr. He proposes this to burn in over a 5-yr period. He claims that this wouldn't reduce access for those in lower income brackets as households with family income less than $70K would go to school for free (this would be where the state's subsidy would be applied).
The Dean states that the UC President is trying, in vain, to get the State to agree to return to its subsidy levels of yore. Policano says that's a fool's errand (my words not his). The State isn't going to be able to find money to re-instate its subsidy even if it wanted to. UCI's business school this year received only 3% of its funding from the State and next year he expects that number to be 0%.
Other next steps advocated by Policano are that universities need to evaluate their programs like a business and prune those that are not high-quality programs and/or "net revenue positive". They also need to streamline their processes so that they can be more market-reactive.
Here's the rub: In order for Policano's system to work the older UC schools (e.g., Berkeley), that are currently the beneficiaries of an unbalanced UC financing system wherein they get a disproportionate share of the funding proceeds, would have to agree to a new system where everything is more "fair" but they get less funding. One thing I learned from my OB class this quarter is that people will go along with an unfair system as long as the result for them is beneficial. What is going to compel these old-guard schools to allow the system to change isn't clear.
I like the way Policano thinks - more accountability; schools thinking more like businesses - but I don't envy his chosen task of trying to tear down and re-construct the UC funding system. Good luck, Dean Policano. I'm rooting for you!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)