Category Archives: Leadership News and Views

Leadership news and views culled from the world wide web.

Google Builds a Better Mousetrap and their Reward is an Antitrust Investigation?

Posted on by
Reply

“Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.”

While this is actually a misquote of Ralph Waldo Emerson from the nineteenth century, the phrase is an affirmation of the power of innovation and a confirmation that hard work and great ideas will be rewarded by the marketplace.

Fast forward about 130 years or so and the saying might well be:

“Build a better mousetrap and the Feds will beat down your door.”

It seems that Google, because of their better mousetrap, is now the target of an FTC investigation, according to a recent story in the Wall Street Journal. And while there has been no official announcement as to what the probe will entail, experts are speculating that the investigation will examine whether Google searches unfairly point consumers to Google’s own network of services at the expense of the competition.

Oh, Say it Ain’t So!

How dare Google exploit their own search results in an attempt to steer people toward Google services! Why that would be like McDonald’s not offering their customers a Whopper; or the Apple store not offering HP laptops! How dare they, I say! As Americans, we cannot stand by a let a company like Google be rewarded for their better mousetrap; we must stand united with the Federal Trade Commission and allow them to dismantle any company that would dare profit from their own innovations.

In all seriousness, the free markets have (by a 2:1 margin) determined that Google’s search results are superior to what came before or since. Why should anyone expect Google to not profit from this innovation? Why should we expect Google to highlight their competitors in their search results? (Um, which by the way, they do.) Why should we expect Google to not build out a better suite of mousetraps (like Google Places) that make the Google results even more relevant to consumers?

The truth is that if Google does not deliver what consumers want, consumers will try other search engines and Google would quickly lose its market dominance. Google became Google because their results are relevant. (I truly cannot recall the last time I looked past the first page of Google results for anything.) Google understands better than anyone that they cannot break the trust of consumers or Google’s market share will evaporate just as quickly as it grew.

Who’s Next Up for the FTC?

I most often shop at Safeway for groceries and I noticed that the Safeway brands are ALWAYS priced lower than the national brands. This seems like Safeway is trying to steer me toward their brands so that they can (wait for it…) … make money! Moreover, Safeway decides what to put on sale and what not put on sale. This seems like an unfair practice, because my favorite brand of mustard is almost never on sale there. (Sacrilege.)

Is Safeway next up for the FTC? Not likely, but how far are we from an FTC antitrust investigation into Facebook? Does Facebook compete unfairly because they only sell Facebook ads on their website? Shouldn’t they allow others like Yahoo! or ReachLocal to sell their own ads and place them on Facebook? How about services on the horizon for Facebook that will have the sole intention of keeping people from leaving Facebook to do anything else on the Web? (I don’t even like Facebook that much, but they have every right to build a better mousetrap and provide additional Facebook services that will engage their user base – even if that means that users no longer visit other websites.)

As a business owner, I have no right to a share of Google’s traffic – even if my website provided a superior or less expensive alternative to whatever Google ranks above me. It is up to the markets to decide my fate (and Google’s); and the Feds should stay out of it.

 

Not all User Generated Content (UGC) is Valuable – Exhibit A: Mixtent.com

Posted on by
1

If you have more than a few connections on LinkedIn, then you’ve surely been exposed to the most asinine website dedicated to UGC since CompanyNameSucks.com: mixtent.com. (You’ll have to learn why CompanyNameSucks.com is asinine all on your own, I’m going to use the rest of this blog to tell you why I think you should opt out of mixtent.com – and opt out quickly.)

I’m not the first to write it, but the Internet really is just one big bathroom wall. Often it’s just a place where anyone can express any opinion at any time with little or no recourse. The difference, as I see it, is the Internet is filled with small-minded billionaire wannabes who will gladly stomp on your privacy and dignity while they construct a new enormous bathroom wall and then encourage others to step up with their Sharpies and write whatever the hell they want without any regard to the veracity or value of their opinions.

This, my friend, is the essence of most sites 100% driven by user generated content. The rub for those of us who just want to live our lives in honest and ethical fashions is that without users generating content (any content) these sites will not be able to be flipped for the billions the founders expect. We, you see, get included in this content whether we deserve or even want to be included.

Enter mixtent.com

I doubt there has ever been a more ridiculous, misguided or pointless effort allegedly directed at professionals and cloaked in some misstated mission about helping sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to which person is better at what skillset. This site is nothing more than a HotOrNot.com for professionals, only this one ranks you without your permission.

The primary problems with mixtent, as I see them, are two-fold: 1) You are ranked as hot or not on a multitude of skillsets by those in your LinkedIn network – whether you want to be or not, and regardless of whether or not this particular contact has seen you demonstrate this particular skill; and 2) Like all ranking, rating and review sites, this one can be gamed. In fact, mixtent (in my opinion) seems to be actively participating in and encouraging the gaming by helping you send messages to everyone in your network that you’ve just ranked them… now will they please go and rank you.

Here is one such auto-generated message: “My Entrepreneurship percentile is 89%. Help me increase it and find out where you rank…” This is followed by a link to join mixtent so you can start ranking others.

The ranking process is really a joke because you are presented with two of your LinkedIn contacts (who may not have opted in to mixtent, but have certainly not opted out) and you are asked which of these two is better at __________. The tendency for most human beings is to give the nod to the person they like or know the best, not necessarily the person most deserving of the honor.

This means a well-liked dufus is likely to rank higher on most skills than a hard-charging doer. (My guess is that most hardened, yet accomplished women executives will be butchered on sites like this, as they generally had to step on one or two toes on their way through the glass ceiling.)

Okay, How Do I Opt Out of mixtent.com?

The greatest part about all of this nonsense is that you cannot opt out of mixtent.com without first granting them access to your LinkedIn profile. That’s right, you have to first let them suck all of the personal and other information from your LinkedIn profile before you can tell them you don’t want to play their shitty little game.

That, my friends, is ballsy. Of course, once you’ve opted in, you can (as of this writing) fairly easily opt out by clicking on the tiny “opt-out” link at the very bottom of the homepage.

Interested in mixtent.com’s About Us page?

I thought it would be fun to read between the lines of mixtent.com’s About Us page (the bold text in parentheses is mine):

About Us

Our goal is to help you connect with the most talented people. We want to help you hire, get hired and find talent to do amazing things. (We just don’t think you’ll be able to do that by using this website.)

Mixtent is building a professional reputation graph on top of the main social and professional networks. We believe we can become a driving force in making online recruitment and talent management materially more efficient. (Or, at the very least, we can help companies find unqualified people who have the most friends or don’t rock any boats… ever.)

Mixtent is built on the core notion that collective intelligence gathered through engaging experience can provide the right data to solve the hardest problems online. (That is, are they hot or not?)

Our mission is to reduce structural unemployment driving down asymmetries of information and increasing liquidity on the labor market. (What the fuck?)

We are looking for crazy talented engineers. Take a look at our jobs page (Why do they need to have anyone apply? Don’t they already know who the crazy talented engineers are by just looking at the ratings on their own website?)

We are located in Redwood City, CA. (Okay, finally something I can believe here.)

How about the geniuses behind this monstrosity?

Here are the links to the LinkedIn profiles of two guys listed as Founders at mixtent.com (in case you are a crazy talented engineer in Redwood City looking for work):

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6037432

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=23979582

Oh, and if they’re already in your network and haven’t opted out of mixtent just yet, be sure to rank them appropriately.

Abusing One’s Leadership Role is Never a Good Thing

Posted on by
Reply

Leadership Lessons from Cash for Clunkers

 

Without diving too deeply into a mini controversy from last week, let me just enlighten you with some quick facts:

  • Edmunds.com estimated that the recent Cash for Clunkers program cost US taxpayers about $24,000 per incremental vehicle sold;
  • The chief economist of the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) responded that the cost of each incremental vehicle sold was actually $4,587;
  • For both analyses, an incremental vehicle sold is a sale that would not otherwise have occurred without the government’s CARS program.

 

Whenever I am faced with two strikingly different opinions about something, I like to follow the money. In other words: Whose opinion enriches their goals more?

 

A few more quick facts:

  • Edmunds, a privately-owned company that has been providing mostly accurate analysis of the automotive industry for more than 43 years, reported their findings days before the NADA reported theirs;
  • The White House blasted Edmunds.com, because Edmunds.com disagreed with the official government assessment of the program and painted the program as costly;
  • NADA, the main lobbying arm for new car dealers in the US, agreed with the official government assessment and even went so far as to call Edmunds’ analysis “fundamentally flawed.”

 

Hmmm, lobbyists who call on the White House and other government officials to curry favor for their car dealer clients agree with the White House and blast an independent company who disagrees with them?

 

Follow the Money

 

More than just politics as usual, it’s actually quite disappointing that the NADA would, in our opinion, sell its integrity for the sake of a program that even the NADA’s dealer-members will admit (privately) did little to move incremental units over the long term.

 

In fact, dealers we’ve surveyed point out that their website traffic – which they tell us is a great indicator of consumer interest in new cars – dropped more than 30% in September and October versus the same period in 2008. (For a point-of-reference: Clunker sales ended in August.) To these dealers, this means that the CARS program “pulled ahead” units from September and beyond into July and August.

 

The NADA’s assessment of the program assumes no sales were pulled ahead. Not one. Zero. None. Nada (pun intended).

 

In their chief economist’s view, the NADA claims that auto sales for July and August would have been around 1,600,000 units without Clunkers. Actual sales for those two months totaled 2,253,963 units, leaving a difference of 653,963 units. (So far we agree with the NADA.) Divide the CARS’ $3 billion cost to taxpayers by 653,963 and you get $4,587 per car. Simple, right?

 

Stop Peeing on Me and Telling Me it’s Raining

 

There cannot be anyone with even basic macroeconomic training who buys into this simpleton analysis. As any good economist would tell you, programs like Cash for Clunkers do not operate in a vacuum. There are economic truths at work that dictate you cannot inject a significant variable (in this case the taxpayers’ $3,500 – $4,500 per car) that significantly drives up current demand for a capital good and not have some impact on future demand for that good.

 

Are we to believe that not one of the six hundred fifty-three thousand, nine hundred sixty-three incremental units sold in July and August would ever have been sold if not for the CARS program? Well, that’s exactly what the NADA is saying with their transparently disappointing attempt at influencing the White House, the congress and taxpayers who might be asked to support another Clunkers program in 2010.

 

While the Edmunds.com analysis may have overestimated the number of vehicles pulled ahead into July and August, at least they didn’t try to tell us that EVERY incremental vehicle sold over those two months was pulled ahead from a future month.

 

Abusing One’s Leadership Role is Never a Good Thing

 

This is why integrity in leadership is critical. How can we believe anything the NADA reports after this? Their objectivity, in our opinion, is nonexistent. They seem as comical as the NRA arguing for bazookas in every home or PETA rallying against fat people. They’ve quickly gone from being a respectable business organization to becoming just another special interest group. They are now a caricature of their former self.

 

They’ve forgotten that unlike true special interest groups, the NADA held a true leadership role in the automotive community. They served the best short- and long-term interests of their dealer-members. Now, they’ve broken the trust of anyone with a brain, causing us to question the veracity of all future pronouncements.

 

The leadership lesson here is simple: When given a position of leadership – whether you’re the President of the United States or the chief economist for a lobbying organization – you have a duty to lead with integrity. Abusing the trust granted to you on the basis of your position assures that you will not be trusted in the future. Your subordinates, constituents or members are not dumb, and when they know you’ve stretched the truth to fit your agenda in the past, they will begin to question the motives of your future actions, and they will no longer take you at your word.

Leadership Lessons from the US Government and the Cash for Clunkers Program

Posted on by
1

Cash for Clunkers: What we can learn about Leadership from Bureaucrats?

Whether you agree or disagree that the US Government should be in the business of incentivizing the populace to buy new cars, the fact is that the so-called “cash for clunkers” program simply demonstrates that our government, like all governments, does not employ an overabundance of thoughtful leaders.

If the goal of the program, also known as the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), was to encourage the sale of 200,000 new vehicles, then it has been a smashing success. In fact, the one billion dollar program that was scheduled to run for the next three months ran out of money in less than a week. Oops.

“It has succeeded well beyond our expectations and all expectations,” commented President Barack Obama.

Thoughtful Leaders “Do the Math”

Just who in our government was setting these expectations? We all knew the program, which pays dealers up to $4,500 per vehicle to junk old cars traded in for new fuel-efficient cars, only had enough money for about 200,000 such transactions.

  • There are roughly 20,000 new car dealers in the US.
  • That equates to 10 clunker deals per dealer.
  • The average dealer can sell 10 cars in about 3 hours.

We’re actually surprised the program lasted as long as it did given that the demand for new cars in the US has been depressed for more than a year. One could argue that the US auto industry, which is currently selling about 500,000 fewer new cars each month that it did just two years ago, has more pent up demand than the housing market. Prior to the Cash for Clunkers program, you were more likely to catch the Swine Flu than you were to get New Car Fever.


Now, for the Real Ugly Truth about CARS

It’s clear we didn’t plan well enough for the execution phase of this program. Not only did the government drastically underestimate the potential acceptance of CARS, but they’ve been failing (unsurprisingly) to keep up with the very basics of their own program.

Just a couple of quick examples:

TheManager signed up weeks ago at the Cars.gov website to be alerted when there were updates to the program. By our tally there have been dozens of such updates, though we’ve received none of the promised email communications. No biggie, and certainly not surprising.

Now we learn that the website created by the feds to handle dealers’ claim submissions has taken up to an hour to process each transaction. Additionally, there are reports of repeated rejections as dealers spend countless hours submitting and resubmitting data. A little more of biggie, but again, not surprising.

So, who are we Entrusting with CARS?

Let’s not forget that this is program between the government (think: no accountability) and car dealers (think: Rudy Russo in Used Cars). You wouldn’t trust either of these groups to babysit your kids let alone run a now multi-billion dollar program designed to make the world more fuel-efficient. (Congress added $2 billion to the program today.)

Seriously, there are great people who work for the US Government and there are certainly great people who manage and own new car dealerships in America… there just aren’t enough of them in either profession.

The CARS program requires that the clunker “be crushed or shredded so that it will not be resold for use in the United States or elsewhere as an automobile. The entity crushing or shredding the vehicles in this manner will be allowed to sell some parts of the vehicle prior to crushing or shredding it, but these parts cannot include the engine or the drive train.”

Who will inspect this crushing and shredding? Who will ensure that none of these vehicles is resold inside or outside of the US? Who will ensure that no unscrupulous dealers submit false claims? If we are relying on the goodness of mankind to ensure everyone, including the government and car dealers, does the right thing then we are being more than a little naïve.

Thoughtful leaders, of course, take pride in not being naïve. The government could certainly use a few more thoughtful leaders.

Leadership Lessons from Barack Obama

Posted on by
1

What Business Leaders Can Learn from Obama’s Bad Week

Wow, what a week for the Leader of the Free World. Just as his something-for-nothing-health-care-plan was starting to lose steam on Capitol Hill, one of his friends breaks into his own home, gets lippy with a cop and gets arrested.

In his typical “you never want to let a serious crisis go to waste” fashion, Barack Obama took a page from previous US Presidents and tried to deflect criticism of his health plan with some presidential sleight of hand. Claiming a decorated police officer acted stupidly in arresting his pal Henry Louis Gates, Obama just might have uttered the dumbest thing he’s said since taking office. Thankfully, he’s provided us with a couple of truly basic lessons for business leaders in the process.

Leaders Make Sure Their Feet Are Clear of Their Mouths Before Speaking

“I don’t know all the facts.” Barack Obama stated as he began to weigh-in on Gatesgate during his nationally televised health care press conference on Wednesday.




Leaders know that this is where they should stop commenting. Leaders understand that it’s important to get all the facts before speaking – especially on topics that could be inflammatory.

“… the Cambridge Police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home,” Obama continued later in his misinformed opinion “… there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”

Clearly, Obama has never seen an episode of Cops, where nearly everyone is arrested in their own homes. The most misguided takeaway of President Obama’s declaration on Gatesgate is that he equated this incident with the stereotypical racist white cop, and even tried to make what happened in Cambridge a microcosm of race relations in America.

You Move Too Quickly

If you’re wondering what that stuff is dripping off the President’s mug, it’s egg. It seems Obama not only spoke without knowing the facts – as the facts came out it became increasingly clear that we had a belligerent old man who was disrespectful of the very police who were called to his home to investigate a possible burglary – he basically called one of the most colorblind policemen in Massachusetts a racist. Boy, I bet he wishes he’d known that before he opened his mouth.

Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley, as you may already know, not only teaches academy plebes on how to avoid racial profiling, but he just happens to be the brave officer who performed mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on Reggie Lewis in 1993. Lewis, you see, was black; and Crowley didn’t care as he tried to save the young man’s life.

The President should be calling for other police departments to hire more men like Crowley instead of continuing to second-guess the officer’s actions. Leaders, at this point, would know enough to apologize and explain they spoke too quickly. Even as recently as today, Obama has continued to lay much of the blame at Crowley’s feet. The American People – just as your subordinates would if you were lying to them – aren’t buying it.

What’s The Rush?

The real leadership lesson we expected to learn this week centered on the Obama Health Care Reform Plan. We were looking for the reason that the White House and certain members of congress seemed so adamant about passing the measure before the August break. The plan is one of the most costly pieces of legislation ever to be proposed, and would (by all accounts) change the way most of us access doctors and hospitals forever.

So what’s the rush? Leaders know that getting it right is always, always, always better than getting it fast. That’s not to say that leaders believe in ready, aim, aim, aim…. On the contrary, leaders are all about quick action – they just don’t take this action without understanding the pros, cons and consequences.

One thousand, one hundred and eighteen. That’s the number of pages in the Health Care Reform Bill Obama wants passed this month. With all that’s happening in the economy – and with the trillions already pledged to stimulating it – asking congress to okay a bill that would commit trillions more without expecting them to both read and understand it is unconscionable – and not very leader-like.

Measure Twice, Cut Once

Obama and the congressional leadership should take a page from careful carpenters and make certain they understand the ramifications of all aspects of the bill before signing on. (It’s quite possible President Obama hasn’t even read the bill in its entirety.)

Obama, however, wants everyone in America (especially the congress) to look the other way and let his plan go into effect. Why, we ask? What’s the rush? If health care is so important to Barack Obama, shouldn’t we make sure we get it right the first time?

We’re not even talking about debating the merits of the plan the President has laid out – it could very well be perfect for America – we just want to know that if health care is so important to the President, why did it take him six months to name a Surgeon General? (And why does she seem so overweight and under-qualified?)

Therein lies the leadership lesson. Leaders’ actions speak louder than leaders’ words – and true leaders know this. That’s why true leaders would never try to shove something down their charges’ throats. Instead, true leaders provide the facts, gain consensus and mentor as their teams do the right things. We wish Obama would do the same.

Sarah Palin is a Quitter, and Quitters Never Win

Posted on by
Reply

Quitters Never Win and Winners Never Quit

Argh! I can hear my mother misquoting Vince Lombardi in my sleep: “Quitters never win, and winners never quit.” A simple saying that forced me to keep my word throughout my life – even when it cost me money.

Why is it these simple clichés can hold such importance as to guide our every decision? (This particular phrase was so particularly annoying that it’s guided my decisions both in and out of business for over thirty years.) There are certainly others, but this mother’s saying carries special weight; as much an integrity statement as an indictment of those who would give up without a fight.

‘Quitters never win and winners never quit’ could be the primary rule dictating everything from a second grader’s soccer game to a governor’s fulfillment of her term.

Palin is a Quitter

We’ve written good things about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in the past, including a post that chronicled why she was a better leader than Barack Obama. That was September 2008 and this is now.

In demonstrating the worst leadership trait possible, Palin has decided that she cannot operate as a lame duck governor. (She had previously announced that she would not seek reelection.) Palin has decided to step down on July 26, 2009. Her current term was scheduled to end next year.

“I Want to Spend More Time with My Family”

While this is not the soon-to-be-former governor’s stated reason for quitting, her actual reason might as well be as lame as all the on again/off again retirements of star athletes. All we got from Palin was a quick Tweet: “We’ll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election … this is in Alaska’s best interest, my family’s happy … it is good. Stay tuned.”

Well, as long as your family is happy…

Not so fast, Sarah. You are a quitter and we are disappointed. You were elected by the citizens of Alaska to serve them as their governor until 2010. Whether you were planning another term or not is irrelevant: they were counting on you to keep your word. When you chose to become the governor of Alaska, you agreed to serve the citizens of that frigid state and now you’re giving it up for personal reasons.

(Not to mention that you’ve passed on an extraordinary chance to shove through your agenda; an agenda you claimed was in opposition to the Washington elite. Who is going to carry your torch now? Who is going to keep your promises to the people of Alaska?)

Sarah Palin is not a Winner

News flash: True leaders don’t let personal reasons get in the way of their commitments to others. True leaders don’t let personal reasons get in the way of doing what is right. They keep their word and they never quit. True leaders are winners.

Palin is not, as we once thought, a true leader.

Much like Dan Quayle, Joe Biden and Admiral Stockdale, Palin lost more of her luster every time she opened her mouth. Her latest spat with David Letterman painted her as a died-in-the-wool Republican; someone willing to give up any sense of right for a chance to bash the Left. (Pun intended.) Every day since November 4, 2008 Palin has become more of a clown; a caricature of someone who once professed she was going to change the world of politics in Washington.

Sometime over the last eight months she stopped being a leader and became a punchline.


Good Riddance, Sarah P.

Likely, most Alaskans won’t care very much that you’re quitting. In fact, many will be relieved. Go away, Sarah Palin. Go back into the obscurity from where you were plucked and leave the future of the world to the leaders… we’ll try our best to hang on without you. (Note our tongues in our cheeks.)


Why We Don’t Have Leaders in the Public Sector

Posted on by
Reply

Leadership Lessons from the Public Sector

There are reasons some people are lifelong public servants and others work in the real world. Whether it’s the military, public education, a state legislature or a municipal government: a job void of profit responsibility is generally void of any true accountability. Without accountability, leadership can become unnecessary and the skill set (if it ever existed) will atrophy.

As we wrote in a recent post about school administrators, the people in these roles “are generally not great leaders… They’ve never had to live by a P&L or make real personnel decisions. They spend our tax dollars like Monopoly money, and they do all of this with no real accountability.”

Examples of this abound and we never have to look very far to reinforce this belief. Occasionally, some move by one of these leadership amateurs so shocks our conscience that we feel compelled to comment… much like a recent decision by management at an Atlanta-area county office that actually made us cringe.

Layoffs Happen

Last Friday in DeKalb County (GA), workers in the planning and development office were told there were significant layoffs coming and that they would have to wait until Monday to learn their fate.




Nothing strange here, right? Layoffs are happening all over America in the private sector, so it seems natural that these would eventually reach those working in a cash-strapped county office. The differences, however, between this layoff and those that are occurring in the real world are the communication skills and compassion shown by DeKalb County’s managers.

The 100+ employees in this office were told to return any county equipment and pack up their belongings and leave… without being notified if they were included in the layoff or not. You see, their managers wanted everyone out first, and then they would tell the lucky few (19 to be exact) to return with their things and resume their duties.

WTF?

(Excuse the texting in the middle of a post, but WTF? does not mean Wednesday, Thursday, Friday; and its use is appropriate in this case.)

While leaders in the private sector are often (rightfully) accused of being less compassionate than their public sector counterparts, employee relations as practiced by DeKalb County went the way of the three-martini lunch in the real world. Thankfully, the fear of lawsuits or bad public relations helps to keep this behavior out of the for-profit companies. When it happens in the public sector, we have little recourse but to strongly denounce it.

Okay, We Denounced It

We didn’t raise this example to simply call attention to the lousy leadership provided by government entities in the Atlanta area. Rather, we believed this instance was simply another glaring illustration of how the lack of a profit motive coupled with a promotional system based on tenure (instead of ability or merit) leads to poor leadership, morale and employee effectiveness. (If you’ve ever had to get your driver license renewed, you know exactly what we mean.)

Leaders need accountability, goals and responsibilities – complete with consequences – in order to grow and deliver value to their organizations. Where we fail to provide these to our middle managers, you can argue we end up operating like a government agency.

What About the 100 People Carrying Boxes Filled with Desk Chachki?

DeKalb County CEO Burrell Ellis stepped in and said he was dissatisfied with how the process was being managed and ordered a delay of the layoffs. (We’re not sure why a county needs a CEO, but we’re glad someone with authority in the county has a little common sense.) The delay, however, will be a short one. Plans are in the works to save more jobs, but DeKalb’s planning and development office will deservedly lose more than half its current workforce… they’ll just do it with a little more dignity.

Secretary Duncan Should Wear a Dunce Cap

Posted on by
2

 

Lessons on Leadership and Humanity from Arne Duncan

 

As we wrote last month in our post about local school administrators: “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, become administrators.” Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is the administrator of all administrators.

 

On Tuesday, Secretary Duncan was in Denver proclaiming that American children should attend school more hours each day, six or seven days each week and eleven or twelve months each year. For those of you who didn’t attend enough school to understand what that means, that’s roughly equal to at least 85% more classroom time for every child between the ages of five and eighteen. (Did Duncan bother to do the math before he made these statements? It’s hard to believe that the former head of the mediocre Chicago Public Schools really intended to propose that we increase the amount of classroom time by 85%.)

 

As the parent of three school-age children, I can tell you that more education does not equal better education. But that, my friends, is an argument for another day. (And let’s not even try to find out who is going to pay for 85% more schooling.)


 

China and India and Bears, Oh My!

 

“You’re competing for jobs with kids from India and China. I think schools should be open six, seven days a week; eleven, twelve months a year,” Duncan told a bored group of middle-schoolers in Denver.

 

His statement begs three questions: 1) What jobs? 2) Is more K-12 education the key to landing these mysterious jobs? And 3) Is this what life is all about?  

 

What Jobs?

 

Exactly what jobs are our children competing for with kids from India and China? Thirty-five cents per hour sweatshop jobs in China, or the $10,000 per year programming jobs in India? Perhaps Duncan was referring to the outflow of call center jobs to Indian companies that pay upwards of $5,000 per year. We can’t be sure, but we are fairly certain that you can’t even get an uneducated American to work for those wages.

 

Is More K-12 Education the Key to Landing These Mysterious Jobs?

 

Let’s give Arne Duncan the benefit of the doubt for a moment and say that there are indeed American jobs that can be saved. Is more education the key to landing these jobs? Can Duncan provide any guarantees that subjecting our children to 85% more schooling before they turn eighteen will have any effect on their ability to perform these jobs?

 

As someone with a public education (from elementary school through college) and a pretty good day job, I can tell you that I have interacted with hundreds of people (foreign and domestic) with more education than me who couldn’t perform my job with twice the training I’ve had. What I bring to my company (and what millions of others across the globe bring to theirs) cannot be taught with more hours of primary education – you either get it or you don’t. What counts in my job are business acumen, deductive reasoning and a high I.Q. – these are likely not going to be part of Duncan’s super-sized curriculum.

 

Is This What Life is All About?

 

Assuming Duncan is 100% right about everything; I have to know if this is what life is all about. Are we meant to be cogs fighting for national supremacy? Should we all start wearing our country’s colors and chant anti-globalization slogans? Do we want our kids to become over-educated automatons? Do we care at all about their personal, social and/or spiritual growth?

 

Duncan’s poorly planned proposal leaves no room for afterschool activities like the Mock Trial Club (which could help make some kid a great attorney), the Fashion Club (which could help make some kid a top designer), or the Operation Smile Club (which could help make some kid a terrific human being). (Yes, these clubs and millions like them exist in our schools today. We found these three at the Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School right around the corner from Duncan’s D.C. office.)

 

Duncan’s plan leaves no room for summer vacations to the Grand Canyon, Gettysburg or even Disney World. It leaves no room for summer camps or overseas trips. In other words, Duncan’s Folly leaves no room for discovery or wonder or life; it only leaves room for books.

 

I really don’t care if my kids land great jobs or if children in India and China get those gigs; I just want my kids to be satisfied with who they become and the choices they make. Of course, I’m especially hopeful they’ll make a difference in this world.

 

Taking away their childhood and everything that makes America a great place to live is not the answer, and shoving their nose in a book for eleven months a year will not help them do anything meaningful.