The Professor's Notes

A colleague of mine is a great friend. He would do anything for me, or for anyone for that matter. He honestly (and rightly) believes that we should do unto our neighbors as we would want them to do for us. My friend is a great man. I truly admire him and the heart he has for those around him.

He is also a self-professed liberal. This is not surprising. He believes that we need to look out for our neighbors, and his view of neighbor is expansive. So understandably (I hop) I found myself pondering if I am missing something. Is there something “great” about liberalism as we know it today? And if it is “great” does that mean conservatism somehow misses the boat?

After much reflection, I realized that we have two problems facing us. First, the liberal ideal of caring for those around you is not only a good one, it’s Biblical. We are called on by Christ to love our neighbors. And Christ didn’t draw any neighborhood boundaries, either. On the other hand, we are faced with an ever-enlarging government that, despite all the best intentions and heartfelt goodwill, never seems to deliver on the “big promises.”

My conclusion? Liberalism doesn’t scale–and it wasn’t ever intended to. For us to love our neighbor we must be in contact with our neighbors. We can care best for those we touch. I suspect this was designed into our nature.

There have been many articles and books written, speeches given, and studies done, identifying that we respond more positively, and give more freely, to concerns closer to home. So we are hard-wired to care for those around us. This “local giving” may not be motivated from a pure heart, but at least we know it happens. Superfreakonomics gives us a perspective on this altruism: ‘Most giving is, as economists call it, impure altruism or warm-glow altruism. You give not only because you want to help but because it makes you look good, or feel good, or perhaps feel less bad.”]

So we, for whatever reasons or motivations, generally want to help our neighbors. Surely that extends to those we cannot see, correct? Well, the authors of the book SuperFreakonomics would perhaps argue no. Not only do they essentially argue that liberalism doesn’t scale, they go a step further and discusses research that indicates that, when given an opportunity, people will not only fail to behave benevolently towards their neighbor, they will in fact, cheat them. But what is most interesting here, is that, in the research they discussed, the cheating occurred most often between people who were not neighbors. “In the data, List found an interesting split: the out-of-town dealers cheated more often than the locals.”

So here is where I believe liberalism, or altruism, fails. When we ask the government to step in and perform altruistic acts, we ask the government to do a few things on our behalf:
1. We want an non-person to demonstrate humanity. We ask that the government “care.”
2. We want the government to make the “right” choices about what and whom to care for. Of course, we find that often that means bringing the “bacon” (or “Pork”) back to our own districts, where we “see the need.”
3. We want the government to do all this, without actually requiring that we pay for it, and simultaneously wanting the government to make sure someone else pays for it (“raise the taxes on the wealthy.”)

So over time, we find that government is called on less to be altruistic on a grand scale, and becomes for nearly all a way to force others to give money to causes and people they otherwise might not support, while simultaneously bringing resources to bear on my own local problems. Government then takes on the roll of proxy for the same local concerns we used to care for ourselves!

This is, of course, simply a blog. I make no pretense of conducting large scale research myself on this topic. I am simply tying together my readings, and my observations of the world around me. It seems to me that most people want to help those close to them, and most when presented with true and compelling need or tragedy, will give. But when we rely on our government to function on our behalf we become disconnected. We no longer have those “feel good” moments that cause us to practice “warm glow altruism.” Government

And then, over time, we stop caring.

The New York Times has the story, Broadband Now! So Why Don’t Some Use It? where they ask the question “Why not?”

So for those that have been listening to our podcast Real Tech for Real People, we have talked quite a bit about the numbers of people that don’t have high speed (broadband) internet access.  We have been reporting the numbers we had previously read that had anywhere from 40-45% of the population does not have access.

Okay, I am confused. FCC says 96% of households have, or have access to, broadband.

“No less than 96 percent of households either subscribe to or have access to broadband service, according to an F.C.C. task force, which presented a status report to the commission last month.” (see commission report here)

The article reports that the task force goes on to report that:

• median speed is 3 megabit/second ¹
• 1/3 of households “choose” to not subscribe Read the rest of this entry »

I have had a day to digest the news, and speaking as a conservative, and a life-long Republican, my first reaction remains my reaction:

“I had to hold my nose, and vote for Specter.  Now I have to do neither.”

Why vote for him, you say? Well, years ago, when I was sitting on the knee of (well, on the floor, looking up at) my Grandfather, I asked him why we should support the Maryland US Senator Charles “Mac” Mathias, since he was about as liberal as the (then) junior Senator from Maryland, Paul Sarbanes.  He explained that “he may be a monster, but he’s our monster.”  A rather cynical view, but at the time (late 1970s, and the heart of the “Carter Economic Disaster” the likes of which we STILL haven’t seen since) it was clear that if Mathias lost the primary the democrat candidate would most likely win the seat, reducing the numbers of Republicans below the line allowing for a filibuster.  So keeping that number was important, if only for the greater good.

So, I learned the lesson well, and followed the logic.  When necessary, I have voted for a candidate I didn’t like “all that much” because of the greater good.

I most likely would have again.  But now, thanks to Senator Specter’s decision to return to the Democrat Party, I am free once again to vote conscience.

I am now only left with one question:  how will our good friend over at “Pressing the Flesh” respond?  Will he welcome this lost sheep into the Democrat fold after all these years, or will he actively campaign against that former Republican?  I await his post!

Last month, Jason Calacanis (entrepreneur, and most recently founder of Mahalo) wrote in his newsletter about how he was willing to pay twitter for exposure, and he then asked his readers three questions.  I chose then to reply to him and, after waiting a respectable amount of time, have chosen to repost segments of my response here.

Enjoy!

Jason

First thank you for all your newsletters and emails that you share with the world.  As a business professor at Penn State, I find it refreshing and useful to see a business person not only being successful and touting their success, but sharing the inner-workings of their decision processes.  Certainly this most recent email with the Twitter/$500K explanation is great to show students how to actually conduct an analysis for a business decision.

I did want to answer your three questions, and then as for what amounts to a “favor” from you (to someone you don’t know.)

First, the questions:

1. Am I crazy, or crazy like fox?

Crazy?  Well I would say not–but if the choice is simply either/or, then crazy like a fox.  I actually believe you are far from crazy.  You have conducted a detailed analysis of the situation, evaluated what history has shown, and made a deliberate and informed decision.  All decisions have risk, but it appears you have worked to limit the risk (or at least understand it.)

2. What’s the value of a Twitter follower?

This one, honestly, is a “it depends on the follower.”  Of course, you have accounted for the “it depends” piece by eliminating group after group, and working down to just how many out of a million followers with be “valuable.”  I have found that followers, AND following, are quite valuable for the ways I use Twitter–and I use Twitter in different ways for different groups.  I use Twitter to connect with at least 3 (sometimes overlapping) groups.  First, there are the “supply chain” professionals actively engaged in my profession and field of study.  Then there are the educators, specifically those that are using technology to reach students.  Finally, there is the geo-specific group of folks here in Central PA, that I reach out and touch to stay connected with my community.  ed: (Of course there always exists that 3rd group–actual friends and family!)

Each has value, but in different ways.  Can I monetize this? Perhaps–but that’s not quite what I am about in a direct sense.  Although I would like to think that, as we all improve our skill sets, learning from one another, we all enhance our earnings, potential and kinetic (to steal from Physics).

3. What’s the value of of being one of “The Suggested?”

This is an interesting one.  I think being one of “The Suggested” is great in your type of area, where you are offering services that are of value to nearly the full range of Twitter users.  I suspect if I were to show up on the list, I would end up with a large number of followers with whom I have little in common, and that “twitter-stream” would cloud the engagement with the communities I have worked to develop.
This discussion is actually what I like most about Twitter–it allows us to develop our own communities, meeting nearly an infinite set of needs and desires truly providing a platform for community.  The communities are no longer bound by time, or space, and can grow organically as people connect with what is of interest to them.

The “Requests”

//**requests deleted–for I hope obvious reasons**//

Thanks for perhaps reading this far down–I realize your time is far more valuable than mine.

Best wishes.

While I haven’t heard back from Mr Calacanis I wanted to at least share these thoughts with you, my reader.

S

On this auspicious day, when the Obama White House has decided to finally use their extensive community organizing expertise to dictate Board of Director decisions at a major US Corporation, I am reminded of a story often told (apparently) by President Reagan.

One of Reagan’s favorite stories concerned a man who goes to the Soviet bureau of transportation to order an automobile. He is informed that he will have to put down his money now, but there is a 10-year wait. The man fills out all the various forms, has them processed through the various agencies, and finally he gets to the last agency. He pays them his money and they say, ‘Come back in 10 years and get your car.’ He asks, ‘Morning or afternoon?’ The man in the agency says, ‘We’re talking about 10 years from now. What difference does it make?’ He replies, ‘The plumber is coming in the morning.’

Thanks, Historynet.com for making this available to us.

I have to wonder–are we heading down the road not only to socialism (which most people thought Barack would bring) but also towards the miserable life we saw in the Soviet Union?  As rumors are starting to circulate that the White House is forcing the CEO of GM to step down, and putting further direct guidance attached to the loans the government is providing. one cannot help but wonder who in the White House has the background, and the skills, necessary to make decisions–business decisions–to dictate how a major auto manufacturer should operate.

Don’t misunderstand me–I am in favor of accountability for those who spend government dollars.  I believe that when the government loans money there should be a viable plan in place to demonstrate that the money will be repaid.  I just am not convinced that government is best suited to manage business.  Certainly not “private” business.

I am left to wonder if the government has not only exceeeded their authority, but exceeded their ability.

I have been commenting (okay, really complaining) that the bail-outs of the banks really only helps the banks, and ultimately hurts everyone else.  Let me explain:

Banks are in trouble because they loaned out money to people that are having a hard time paying them back.  That’s mortgages, and credit cards, and car loans, and… well you get the point.

So the government gives money to the banks.  OUR money to the banks.  Money from the people that are having a hard time paying the bills.

As I see it, this results in taxpayers (you know, those of us giving the money to the Government to use “wisely” on our behalf) owing two debts instead of one.  I have the original debt that I have a hard time paying, and now I have this NEW debt that my government has assumed on my behalf.  Thanks, Government.  You’re a peach.

What would I have done?  Well, given that “let things work themselves out without government meddling ” isn’t a good idea (apparently) I would have said “hmm…. let’s give the money to the people that owe the money.  Let them pay the banks back, so the banks get the capital they need, and we don’t drown our populace in debt.”

Imagine that.  The government supporting the banks through helping the people the government is really here to help–THE PEOPLE!

Thankfully, we have people like Jon Stewart on our side.  Unfortunately, the government doesn’t listen.

But you should.  Get a cup of coffee and take a 10 minute break from work and watch.

I saw someone on Twitter last night call President Obama to task for ridiculing private business owners for flying on privately owned corporate jets while failing to call members of Congress out for traveling on “free” junkets funded either by coporate interests or the taxpayer.
Well, apparently that thought struck Scott Adams as well.

Occasionally you find a company that just makes you stop and think.  And ask yourself “why didn’t they stop and think?”  Storming Media is one of those companies, and this is one of those times.  (see next post for more)

Storming Media is fast becoming the place to go to PURCHASE public domain government documents.  Yup, that’s right.  They are selling documents to you that your tax dollars have already purchased.  How do they get away with this?  They do it by providing the added value of having already done the search, and if you want, printing and binding the document.  Well, here it is in their own words:

Storming Media is a private, independent reseller of Pentagon and other US federal government reports on many subjects. Whether you are interested in biochemistry or military strategy, weapons or noise pollution, or anything in between, Storming Media delivers the information you need with speedy and courteous service and with our money-back guarantee that you will be satisfied. You may order any of our government reports in printed and/or downloadable PDF formats.

They also sell copies of research conducted by students at government schoools, to include my former school, AFIT–the Air Force’s Graduate School.   You can imagine the conversations that took place with students when they found their work being sold by this company.  “But it’s mine, how can they make money off it?” Read the rest of this entry »

Apparently the Telegraph thinks so.  I saw this on Google, and was struck by the “halo effect” that seems to be following Obama:

It was interesting.  I went to the story that went with the photograph (you see it has the Telegraph below it.)  The story didn’t actually have that photograph.  But the photo was available on their site at this location, and is in larger for here:

For most of you art afficianados out there, you will (hopefully) draw parallels to religious iconography through the ages.  How often have we seen Jesus the Christ, and the Saints, and other “Holy People” portrayed with halos?

Accident?  Subtle message?
Either way, it was off the Google news page half way through writing this.

I was involved in a research effort where we explored industry “best practices” in achieving “Outcome Focused Performance.” In a nutshell, we were trying to discover how the best organizations subjugate what they do to the Outcome (with a capital O) that they hoped to achieve.

One of the first issues we had to grapple with, however, was our task. We were tasked initially to look at this with the title “Performance Driven Outcomes. (PDO)” I was convinced that the phrase was wrong. It wasn’t a simple disagreement of semantics. It was a fundamental way of viewing the problem. It seemed to me that the PDO approach focused on what you do, and that the outcomes derive from that. If we let our performance drive the outcomes we achieve, we will have high marks but may not ever be successful.

At the time, I wrote (in discussing the DoD):

…we see clearly why we have this disconnect. The politicians and the media are looking for outcomes, and we are actively measuring and providing outputs. Congress wants to read about enemy forces overtaken and a war won. We want to talk about sorties flown, numbers of bombs dropped, and parts avail-able on the shelf.

This is, of course, not a problem limited to DoD.  It’s a problem that faces every organization (and dare I say it, even our personal lives.)  The problem is that often we use surrogates for the outcomes (dollars spent, dollars earned, customers served, students enrolled) and we don’t focus on the Outcome.

Generally, the outcome tends to be amorphous, and thus harder to nail down. That doesn’t mean we SHOULDN’T nail it down–just that it is more work.  For instance, Nike is conducting an overall review/restructuring of their operations, and apparently they have the “outcome” in sight:

“In light of the current economic climate, it is more essential than ever to sharpen our focus on the consumer to maximize opportunities for product innovation and brand management in the marketplace,” he said. “The decision to reduce our workforce is a difficult one, but it will put our business in the strongest position possible to continue to deliver long-term profitability and growth.”

Of course, the devil is in the details–specifically how they operationally define “focus on the consumer.”  In fact, if you read carefully the quote, you will read that they are focused on the customer to “maximize opportunities for product innovation and brand management.” Do you think they will “get it right?”

I am actively seeking your thoughts on this.  specifically in three areas:

1.  What do you see as the difference between these two phrases (or do you even see a difference?)

2.  Does your organization focus on the “Outcome” or are they distracted by measuring outputs?

3.  Do you think in a time of economic crisis it is more, or less, important to focus on “Outcomes?”