College Presidents Laughing All The Way to the Bank

A recent report published by the Chronicle of Higher Education, and featured in this week's Wall Street Journal, says that more than 30 university presidents around the U.S. are making more than $1million a year.  And the article refers to compensation packages from 2008, the latest data they had access to, or were willing to release publicly.  2008!?  I suppose that means some 50+ presidents are now making more than a cool mill. to run many of our esteemed institutions of higher learning.  My issue is that these pay increases come at a time when these same colleges and universities consistently raise the price of tuition and fees for the students whom they preside over.  Furthermore, their reasoning for the continued hike in tuition and fees is due to the overused, and (in my opinion) under-scrutinized statement of, "increased administrative expenses."  Something doesn't quite add up.  Patrick Callan, quoted in the article and president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, sums up my sentiments perfectly, "I don't begrudge anybody a decent standard of living for doing this work, but the only thing that's gone up faster than (college) presidential salaries is tuition and that's dragging down public confidence in higher education."  Amen Mr. Callan.  I realize this is merely a handful of colleges and universities from across the country, but it sends a terrible message and creates a precedent that other institutions of higher learning will no doubt follow, and probably already have.  Across the board, college tuition costs and fees are increasing at much faster rates than average inflation, or the CPI (Consumer Price Index).  Another WSJ article, from Oct. 28, 2010, highlights tuition costs at 4-year public universities across the U.S. rose 7.9% over last year.  7.9%!!  Again, the annualized CPI over the last 5 years has averaged about 2.4%, according to Forbes.

How can tuition prices rise at such a meteoric pace, yet the executives at many of these institutions are making more money than ever before?  Whats your take?

(Internal) Cooperation trumps Competition in the Modern Day Workplace

Cooperation and competition have frequently been studied together to decide which methodology in the workplace environment is most productive.  Lately, cooperation has loosely been defined as collaboration with the manifestation of our Web 2.0 world whereby two or more people work together, acrosss multiple interfaces, for a common goal or mutual benefit.  But cooperation is still achieved in the more traditional mode where colleagues work on assignments and/or projects within the same office setting.  Collaboration exists as different members of different departments (sales and marketing for example) within the same organization, concert their efforts and resources to advance the organization's agenda.  The internally competitive climate within organizations, that have perennially dominated American corporate culture for most of the 20th century, until recently, appears to be going the way of newspapers, compact discs, and landline telephones-inevitable extinction.  Numerous studies reveal that with the advent of business-friendly technologies and social networks, coupled with the proliferation of workplace flexibility to meet the ever-changing demands of the work-life balance of employees, the cooperative (collaborative) climate, regardless of industry, proves to be the most productive.

George Soros supports "Proposition 19"

In today's edition of the Wall Street Journal, famed hedge fund manager and billionaire George Soros wrote an op-ed piece titled, "Why I Support Legal Marijuana."  He starts off by writing that, "Our marijuana laws are clearly doing more harm than good," and follows throughout the article with the many reasons why he believes the de-criminilization of it, as currently proposed on California's ballot (Proposition 19), will prove beneficial to taxpayers.  Soros believes, as I do, that California will once again lead the nation in this hot-topic debate.  He believes, as I do, that if California passes Prop 19 other states will, eventually, learn of the economic benefits that de-criminalizing weed offers and will follow suit.  I say once again because it was California that led the charge for the legalization of "medical marijuana" back in 1996 that ultimately saw 14 states to date enact similar laws, allowing for the legal use of medical marijuana. 

I am not a pot-head.  I just believe, as Soros points out, that so many billions of dollars are spent each year tying up the courts and jails on what I feel are wasteful efforts.  Not to mention the dollars and hours spent by law enforcement each year.  Their efforts, and funding, could be utilized for more pressing issues in my opinion.  I know this argument has been made many times before, but now that a real proposal is on the table for recreational and personal use (not for distribution) I want to publicly support it, as George Soros does.  Incidentally Mr. Soros had been a long-time idol of mine for his business acumen, self-made wealth, and his extensive philanthropic endeavors...the guy gives tens of millions of dollars to charities every year.  His position on Proposition 19, and his public decleration of it, only strengthens my respect for him.

Competition or cooperation

This is not my abstract.  Since last Wednesday, I have been researching for my paper, and have come across some studies I feel are worth writing about.  Essentially for my paper I will be asking the question,: "Does (internal) competition lead to greater motivation and increased productivity?"  Given the current economic landscape in the United States, and the prospect of organizations' emerging desire to do more with less, this is a question that desrves some consideration.  Like it or not, in my opinion, we are all competitive...even if our motivations-the drivers of competition-are completely different.  Some are driven by financial rewards, others are driven by status, or praise, or even acknowledgement from their bosses and/or co-workers.  Does a competitive climate within an organization (division/department/team, etc.) produce better results for the individual members of that organization?  Originally, I was going to focus my reserach in the Sales Industry.  However, after conducting my due diligence, I realized that across all industries competition can effect, adversely or not, members of its workforce.  In light of that, I will use examples from several different industries to explore my thesis.  The counter-argument of competition is cooperation-An environment whereby two or more people work together for a common goal, or mutual benefit.  The operative phrase being mutual benefit.  If you do well, I do well...and vice versa.  But does this approach raise legitimate concerns for the organization and its members?  The idea of "front-running" immediately comes to mind where one or more members gain equal credit for a project/assignment without contributing equal effort.

I do believe that cooperation is the ideal. But for a collaborative, team-oriented environment to manifest, all members must be trustworthy.  We all know that is difficult to achieve.  So again I ask, what paradigm maximizes equitable treatment of the members of an organization?  Is a competitive climate more conducive to success, or one of cooperation?  Or does it depend on the industry where one methodology has a clear advantage over the other?  Perhaps a hybrid methodology?  I am curious as to your thoughts; concerning myself, continued research will serve to strengthen my position.  For what it's worth, I do believe in the cooperative approach, but I also think that a competitive climate pushes individuals to their max potential, resulting in higher motivation and greater production. 

Note:   I tried like hell to put a link here Dr. Weyant.  Nothing was worthy of adding to the scope of my comments this week.  Only articles on EBSCO, which you can't hyperlink.  

Doing more with less?

What is the deal with the current U.S. job market?  According to the most recent jobs report, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment remains unchnaged from the prior month at 9.6%.  That report however paints a much rosier picture than a recent Gallup poll, that puts the underemployment rate at about 18.4%.  Underemployment is a more accurate assessment of the overall job market in my opinion, as it shows MBAs making, say, entry-level compensation.  Or seasoned supervisors and managers making much less than they deserve, and certainly much less than they once did.  Part of the problem based on different articles I've read, is that companies have learned to be more productive with less employees.  The recession that began in October 2007 (some say it began in mid-2008....fine, whatever the date is), forced companies to become more efficient.  And now that an economic recovery begins to slowly rear its head, companies are still ever-mindful of costs, and as such, they are reluctant to hire.  What they would rather do, according to this article from AP, is consolidate job-duties among workers that are already on the books.  The article points out for example, the manufacturing supervisor who must also learn to operate (and service) the automated machines he or she is operating!  A computer tech used to do that.  No longer.  This has established a paradigm in corporate America that is demanding their managers to "do more with less."  The broader responsibilities (of workers/managers) means its harder to fill many of the jobs that are open these days.
I guess we'll see how this thinking by corporate America will eventually play out.  Yes, on a short-term basis, consolidation of job duties yields cost-savings and therefore increased earnings.  But how will this affect the workforce over a long period of time?  Time will tell.

Outsourcing is a good thing

The United States has generated the wealthiest and most powerful economy in the world.  Most for-profit, and even increasingly non-profit firms, are focused on being bigger and having their "numbers" grow faster than anyone else.  You can notice the excitement, the publicity, the swell of pride every time the company's stock, or the S&P 500 hits a new high.  The corporate leaders driving this economy want to stay on top, and you can't blame them for that.  These guys are certainly not stupid. Their stock highs, and subsequent bonuses do create jobs for Americans, and ultimately lower costs for consumers. 
Yet I hear people all the time who have issues with these same American companies outsourcing menial jobs.  "Outsourcing is taking away jobs!"  "Why don't they hire Americans to do that work..don't they see our unemployment numbers?"  These are some of the comments that seem to summarize people's anger.  But do we really want these companies paying an American worker four times as much as it would cost a Chinese, Indian, or Mexican worker to do the same work?  It's not like we are outsourcing creative, highly-skilled jobs.  They are "labor-intensive" jobs that require little brainpower.  And ultimately, since these companies who do outsource these labor-intensive jobs, are saving money, they can continue to expand and grow and look attractive for potential investors.  These investors pump more money into these companies, and, because these companies keep their costs so low, their cost of capital (for expansion, and additional Research and Development) remains low enough where they decide to borrow; this leads to more jobs-for Americans.  Good paying jobs creating and manufacturing products that will in turn push their stock prices higher...and the cycle continues.  So please, can we see the big picture when it comes to outsourcing?

Concerts aren't what they used to be

I read an interesting article today which caused me to stop for a second, and briefly take notice of the  society we live in.  It is no doubt waaaay different than the society I grew up in.  I came to the conclusion that social media has entirely changed our lives, and our way of life.  The article I read was in the Wall Street Journal, in the "Weekend Journal" section, which often discusses pop culture, the latest tech gadgets, movie reviews, etc.  It's not the typical WSJ material.  It was titled, "Is Video Killing the Concert Vibe?"  Essentially it discusses how the music industry, and artists specifically, have reacted to the proliferation of cameras, cameraphones, min-recording devices, etc. at their concerts.  We have all seen what happens next.  The concert-goer then downloads the footage onto their Facebook page, Twitter feed, Youtube and any other social media apparatus.  In addition to what may be blatant pirating, the article suggests that the modern-day concert is quite a different experience than it was even ten years ago.  People...fans...many of them, don't watch the band perform.  Rather, they record the show with their lit-up devices, and the recording becomes their focus...not the actual performance.  And therein lies the crux of the article:  Is this simply the way things are now?  Bands and their management lose revenue from the actions of the many, while simulatneously relinquishing "creative control" of their product, which is music.  The bands lose revenue because they lose the ability to make DVD sales and the like, because in many cases, the market becomes "flooded" with the amateur videos that are posted on the Internet for free.  Also at play here, is the bands' willingness to accept this behavior or not.  Do they want to alienate fans by not appeasing the younger generation, who feels it is their right to record and then post material on the world-wide-web.

If nothing elese, I found it interesting to read about just one other palpable way that social media is genuinely affecting our way of life.  You music lovers (like myself)...Thoughts?