The Summer Phase

For students summer always means a change of pace -- time spent meeting short deadlines and "managing" a full set of courses along with other responsibilities is now free for other things. For professors, the change of pace is nearly as dramatic.  In this space, I will chronicle how we professors use our time, professionally, that is.

And I will try to avoid the mundane, except when it is relevant.  One week past graduation, I am now well past grading and closing of the spring semester.  While a big event of post semester is simply cleaning up my workspaces (and uncovering lost stuff), the best thing about it is now having time to really read.  Sometimes this leads to some real serendipitous finds.  As I was preparing my bag for a short 1-day vacation with my wife, I stuck in The Essential Drucker by the sage of management, Peter Drucker.  I didn't really think I would read it (as I had two other books in my bag), but always want to be prepared.  

Turns out I did look at the book and found a chapter relevant to a piece I was writing.  Every month I ghost write an article on management for this site. The chapter, as most of Drucker's stuff, was perfect for helping me finish the article (not posted yet).  The summer phase is great for faculty because it lets us explore topics in ways that are hard in the final half of a full teaching semester. 

Youth Sports

In the news is the claim that youth sports has a tremendous positive impact on those that participate.  Interesting stuff considering all the negative influences that lurk for young people today.  Yet, my initial reaction was that the conclusions drawn by these authors is a bit too far reaching in its praise.

The premise they build is that young people who play sports are much more likely to be successful (based on career earnings).  The rationale is that athletes come to appreciate competition and because of the work they exert they come to appreciate that hard work, not luck, determines their success.

Some questions I have. First, can't young people challenge themselves in endeavors other than sports (and I love sports and played them as a child).  If anything, I see this as an indictment on schools for making learning so trivial (by promoting values in popularity and social interaction among peers) that sports is a lone outlet to express themselves in a way that challenges them. No doubt, many a young person who has run afoul of basic social norms has found a safe haven in organized sports.  I would think (and I have seen it in my own kids) that at age 14, 15, and 16 people can get fully engaged in non-athletic activities that challenge them improve and measure themselves against others (e.g., writing books, starting businesses, drawing, sewing, experimenting, Eagle Scouts, etc. etc.).  The problem is that K-12, with a few exceptions, completely stifles this type of engagement, instead spending time getting kids ready for tests [which by the way is an unfortunate byproduct of the school culture where many a student challenges themselves to be a good student not for learning sake but for the competition of getting grades].

Secondly, not mentioned in the article are possible negatives to youth sports.  In general, I think they are quite positive; but like any good they can taken too seriously and too often.  Are families being controlled by youth activities (not just sports) so that young people have little time other than going from activity to activity.  Are all the people in youth soccer really using it as a platform to improve themselves and engage in useful competition or are some of them simply using it as one more thing to take up their time -- so they don't have to account for free time to do things like reading and helping out with the family chores?

Well anyway, on to other current events:  Our seniors and many graduate students officially graduate tomorrow . . . I look forward to seeing them get recognized for the commitment to finishing their degree.  Congrats to them.

Morale and CEO Pay

My last post cited the WSJ article (April 30) that claims CEO pay is out of control and affecting employee morale.  Does CEO pay really disrupt morale?  Maybe, but I can think of more important reasons.  

First, being part of a losing team will impact morale.  When layoffs start, people and the press may grumble about the salary of the CEO.  They are grumbling because of the results of the company -- if the company is doing well the salary is practically irrelevant (just like the Celtics morale is high even though Garnett makes so much money).

Second, when people are working they are not likely to be thinking about the CEO's  salary unless there are other problems that are distracting them from working.  There are lots of units inside big companies that operate very well regardless of the CEO, salary and all.  People will commit to business goals even if they dislike corporate staff or the CEO.  Poor morale is caused by poor management below the CEO that cannot establish clear goals that allow people to succeed and use their skills.

Inflated CEO salaries are the rightful concern of Boards of Directors (as the agents for the shareholders).  For those doing the work I doubt it has the impact many would assume.