Professionalism

The tragedy in Arizona has attracted a lot of news, especially in a media-centric world we have today. I find especially interesting the case of the local sheriff who has become newsworthy because of his public statements about possible influence of political rhetoric on the assailant. In an interview just hours after the shooting he implicated conservative pundits and politicians for inciting hateful rhetoric.

It seems normal that people will make assumption and judgments based on their world view and it would seem Sheriff Dupnik was doing this as a human reaction to seeing friends seriously injured or killed by a senseless act. What is interesting, however, is how the sheriff has responded since that first day. Given the chance to walk back his comments, he actually made them ore strident--calling the state bigoted (related to the hot topic of immigration).

In fact, on Monday--two days after the incident and after information clearly showed that politics and ideology likely had no influence on the killer--he upped the rhetoric leaving a local newspaper to write, "Enough attacks, sheriff. Enough vitriol. It is well past time for the sheriff of Pima County to get a grip on his emotions and remember his duty."

So is this an ethical lapse by the sheriff? Probably, but it sticks out for us because of how most people in that position will largely hide their personal feelings so well. I suspect as a younger man, sheriff Dupnik would have been better at handling the separation of professional duty and personal conviction, but as a veteran well into his seventies he may be signaling he is tired of holding on to that professional "facade" anymore.

It is actually amazing how so many professionals are able to keep their composure and take on a perspective that belies personal affinity or preferences. Every day we go to work we have to sometimes suspend the personal--that is what defines a professional. Sheriff Dupnik is probably a decent sheriff but appears to no longer seek to honor professional decorum. Ability to act according the needs of the job over personal feeling is what defines a professional, not just that they make money for doing it. It will not be surprising the sheriff will be retiring in the near future.

Big Projects

What is the most impressive feat: publishing two great books over approximately 15-20 years or several very good (and bestselling) books over about the same period? Of course the distinction between great and very good is in the eyes of the beholder but it is still an interesting questions to m e as I finish reading the new book by Laura Hillenbrand, Unbroken, which is the story of Louis Zamperini.

The book is tremendous as Hillenbrand is one of the best storytellers of non-fiction I have read (don't take my word for it, here is a take from NPR). Yet, this accomplished writer has published just two books--the first one was Seabiscuit in 2001. She spent seven plus years writing the next book and reading the acknowledgements it is a wonder she could write this book at all. In addition to conducting over 75 interviews with the principal, Zamperini, she involved dozens of people in the project in order to get the story and authenticate it. The main part of the story takes place during WWII and over multiple continents. She had to learn about things like B-24 navigation and the technology of bomb dropping along with gaining a more nuanced understanding of Japanese culture.

The effort seems so enormous and much more than simply being able to write well. Research is a huge part -- in fact I wonder if she is not a researcher who happens to write very well. Even more impressive is how she is able to engage others in the project. Important things cannot be done alone and she gains the help of many, many people who probably got paid nothing for their help except to be part of something they believed important and worthwhile.

I am impressed with accomplishment by Hillenbrand of seeing a large project through to such a successful end. I have also been impressed by the output of prolific writers like Tom Clancy and James Michener who would put out a novel (historical fiction) every 18-24 months. While their work also took research to make the fiction authentic, Hillenbrand did not have the license they had and still wove a great tale. I vote for plodders over the profligate.

Electioneering Strategy

Looking at post-election commentenary I like to read about how surprising results happened. Usually it is not by luck alone (but always some of that, too). The race for Congress in NY-25 House district caught my interest as the challenger, Ann Marie Buerkle, appears to have narrowly won her race against a well-liked incumbent (the race is still too close to call). Certainly, part of her fortune was to run in a heavily-tilted GOP year as a republican. But according to this Syracuse article, the anti-democratic wave was not sufficient for her to win, but a network of novice campaigners provided the groundwork to get her over the top.

What is also very interesting is all the volunteer work that goes into campaigns (we already know about all the money). And the question begs: Is volunteer work by novice constituents more effective than campaign work done by paid professionals? Consider this NY-25 constituent that is featured in the article as helping spear-hear the volunteer network of support: "I listened to her talk and I was totally captivated with her," Maslona said of Buerkle. "It really motivated me to want to work for her."

And here is her assessment of her difference-making volunteer brigade: "It was just a lot of hard work," she said. "I don't know how else to describe it. The volunteers just kept me going. I couldn't have paid these volunteers to do this kind of work with so much passion and enthusiasm." In a campaign year when Meg Whitman lost the California governor's race by 10 points after spending $150 million, it is nice to hear that passion often trumps money when human capital is what is really needed.

Future Value

Today is election day and the political "experts" have made their predictions for the outcome. Which brings up the interesting dilemma of predicting the future -- in business and politics and sports people like to predict the future. The popularity of punditry is undeniable.

First, for today's election is pretty straightforward because of the science of polling. Predicting republicans will pick up seats in the U.S. Congress is simple because of the many polls taken over the last several months. Interestingly, however, when the polls show something that is unprecedented such as the what some say about the size of the possible changeover, then the pundits can create alternative interpretations as they try to fit the new facts to historical records.

Punditry and fascination for the future has few limits. Consider the Internet site intrade where you can bet on future events of all stripes. For example, do you know the odds that Sarah Palin will get the republican presidential nomination in 2012? Well at this moment those odds are nearly 17% according to those willing to bet their money via intrade. I am not sure, but I doubt Barack Obama was even rated for the nomination in 2006, two years before he got elected president (and those that took high odds on Hilary Clinton lost their bet). The future is fascinating, but impossible to predict.

Many tomorrow will get their predictions about this election mostly right (intrade has the probability of a republican takeover in the House at 96%, so don't be too impressed by anyone predicting such an outcome) but anyone who cared to predict this election 18 months ago or earlier . . . well they might as well go the racetrack (or predict who will win the world series in 2011) where educated guesses probably are going to still lose you money.

Corporate Athletes

A lot is made of both professional athlete salaries and executive salaries, particularly how ridiculously high they are. In the case of executives salaries of CEOs have come under scrutiny for the obscene payouts for those whose companies either tread water or fail. I am in Vancouver attending a conference and a performance expert from Human Performance Institute who trains what they call executive athletes made an interesting comparison between professional athletes and corporate executives:

Workday: Athlete 4-5 hours; Executive 8-12 hours

Career span: Athlete 5-7 years; Executive 40-50 years

Train/Perform ratio: Athlete 90%/10%; Exec 10%/90%

Accountability: Athlete Game or Race Day; Exec ALL the TIME

Off Season: Athlete Several months; Exec 3-4 weeks

Maybe both earn their pay. Or to put another way -- why would a normal person want either job? Professional Athletes put demands on their bodies that impair their bodies later and executives (at least high profile ones) don't seem to have much of a life outside of their job. Of course lots of people want either of those jobs for the simple reason that how can you ever get the highs associated with competing and winning that you get as professional athletes and executive athletes. And if they reach the top, they get paid VERY, VERY well.

Like Business

You can read a lot of political news these days with an election a month away. Today, I read about the prospects for the two main political organizations -- democrats and republicans. In this article from an Arizona website, I was intrigued by this quote: "In some ways, Democrats were bound to face this kind of pressure. The party's recent run of good political fortune is hard to sustain."

In fact, political parties are just like companies who "market" their services to consumers (voters). In politics, the parties seek some kind of sustainable edge -- often the concept used is political realignment where some kind of enduring coalition is built. In business it is called "sustainable competitive advantage." But the notion of sustainable advantage is becoming more fleeting all around as the quote above indicates. Perhaps, it is because consumers have so much better access to knowledge. In any case, political analysts may want to be careful asserting such a thing as political alignment just as business leaders should not assume they ever will reach that holy grail of sustained competitive advantage.

Rockhurst Centennial

I got to take in some of the festivities on Friday night for the Centennial celebration. First, the Helzberg School had an open house and honored Marian Nigro, who was the administrator for our Executive Fellows program for many years. Dozens of Fellows alumni have fond memories of Marian and she certainly left her stamp on the program. Memorabilia -- mostly collected and saved by her -- were laid out for the open house. The most memorable were the caricatures drawn for each class -- each alum would find their drawing in the class picture that was displayed. God bless Marian who passed away earlier this year.

Also walked the grounds with my youngest children and then took in the volleyball match. The volleyball was great entertainment and Rockhurst won 3 straight games for the match. As we walked to our car we took in a snippet of the soccer game taking place right in the middle of all the hub-bub of the evening -- a great venue. The team managed a tie and Coach Tocco was honored at a reception right afterwards.

Here is the interesting thing: Coach Tocco was back at school at 7:45 a.m. the next morning, to teach his Accounting class. This after a long game that went overtime and reception that went right up to midnight. And even though he probably wanted more sleep, he would say he loved to do both things. Besides having student-athletes at a smaller school like Rockhurst, we have coach-academics who do well in both areas. Not bad at all.