Benedictine Monks

Just spent a most enjoyable day-and-a-half up at Conception Abbey with our Executive MBA class. Among other great things that happened during the stay, Father Curran addressed the class and gave an interesting contrast to the Benedictines that run the Abbey and the Jesuits who were formed about 1000 years later.

The monks are very much a community -- it is embedded in who they are. For them retirement is the grave as they are committed to staying true to the rigorous routines of the Abbey schedule (at least 4 prayer times, all done together and 6 a.m. vigils -- every day). The motto for the monks is prayer and work and they do plenty of both. All of them have a vocation that contributes to the operation of the monastery, which boasts a beautiful Basilica, circa 1891. For these folks plans involve centuries. The delightful Abbot Gregory, for example, has been at Conception for nearly 40 years. The genesis of the Benedictine order is 1500 years ago.

Jesuits, on the other hand, use the motto "Contemplation in Action," which fits them quite well and their mission of education. Reflection is a core value, starting with the spiritual exercises developed by Ignatius. The Jesuits spend much of prayer alone rather than in group. Importantly, they look to serve where the world is; nearly all of their 28 U.S. universities operate in urban areas. As Father Curran noted, however, despite this contrast [the strategy person in me sees the interesting positions these two order present that clearly differentiate them] they are linked because it was the Benedictines who took in an injured Ignatius for convalescence. And it was here that he developed the Spiritual Exercises and later the Jesuit order. Thus, Father Curran was able to make the connection of these somewhat related orders while clearly showing how they are distinct.

Converse All Stars

Back in the early to mid-1970s when I played high school basketball, the canvass high top sneaker was a popular shoe for serious ball players. But soon after that the canvass shoes were replaced by the much better built (support and traction) and designed (leather) next generation shoes -- by the mid 80s Nike had established the Air Jordan's, which fetched a healthy sum of money.

Anyway, the Converse All-Star canvass I figured had gone the way of the dinosaur, though I admit seeing them worn by young people who definitely were not ball players. A few weeks ago as I took my 13-year old daughter shoe shopping we were discussing options she and her friends look for in shoes and the Converse high tops came up -- THIS was now fully immersed in shoe fashion for teenage girls and boys (not to mention other demographics including toddlers). My daughter did not buy the shoes, but on a flight to San Francisco last month I sat next to a young girl wearing -- red Converse high tops. Of course, my impression is probably predictable: "How the heck does this shoe have any demand!"

You have to love American capitalism (or I should say global capitalism). A shoe brand started in 1917 with the original Converse All-Stars, rejuvenated mid-century by the celebrity of Chuck Taylor, and apparently completely washed up by the mid 70s with advent of leather sneakers is repackaged and marketed for a new purpose -- design footwear ("ugly" design footwear). And apparently fetching about $45 a pair -- for 2-ply canvass and rubber. Interestingly, a few years ago the company (now owned by Nike) changed the design to 1-ply canvass creating a different texture and look. Not surprisingly, customers rebelled. They weren't buying the shoes for their quality -- it was the look! Much like Coca Cola coming out with new coke because they thought it was about taste that people drank Coke.

With my new awareness, I will be taking a look on the Rockhurst campus this year looking for my old High School "sweat-heart" on the feet of 21st Century coeds that won't be looking for any kind of performance from them except their quirky retro style (the style was popularized apparently by punk bands and then more regular celebrities). Another example that markets are created not discovered.

Chevrolet Volt

I am reading about Chevrolet's new eco-friendly car the Volt. A couple of days ago it was officially panned by the New York Times as a first-class LEMON. The car costs a whopping $41K with all the features and convenience of a $15K economy car. This after millions of dollars invested through grants, not to mention the millions spent by the company to develop. Most predict that it will not be a more than a niche--even the company came up with that assessment even though the $1.5 Billion (yes, that is BILLION) is be lavished on consumers as an incentive for them to buy these . A couple of years we could laugh at such business folly, but of course as taxpayers we have majority ownership of GM.

It would be easy to jump to the conclusion that the Volt is the idea of a government bent on pushing an environmental agenda, but the Volt was conceived well before GM became Government Motors. No, the Volt was a strategic decision made by the management that got GM bankrupt in the first place. Bad management can happen without government intervention.

What interests me is what will happen if there truly is no market for this seeming misfit of a car. The problem with government ownership is that even a cash strapped government can foist lots of resources to an endeavor (think NASA in the 60s and any war effort). Two problems with that in the case of GM's Volt. First, having access to money too easily will not likely incent market innovation, something that is sorely needed in the battery or hybrid car markets (same with alternative energy: the cost of the alternative is just too high to be competitive). Companies that are lean and not flush with resources can often outmaneuver those behemoths where resources come too easily. Second, if the government can create incentives that impact the demand side of the business--i.e., offer rebates for making the purchase, it creates a conflict of interest with competing products. That is, the government is part of both sides of the transaction (seller and buyer) and will certainly create the appearance of being unfair if not actually being that way.

I do know that at $41K, the Volt is priced well beyond my means and I don't expect to see many in the Rockhurst parking lots.