It used to be that attending college exposed young adults to new experiences, new people and new ways of thinking—but that was then and this is now.

Years ago, when writing about hiring, I said,

People want to spend their time with people like themselves, that is their comfort zone, and that is where they hire. Managers prefer to hire people

• from backgrounds they understand;
• working in areas in which the manager feels knowledgeable;
• with experiences and education to which the manager can relate; and
• with a resume that makes the manager’s decision look good even if the hire doesn’t work out.

Homophily has been increasing in most social settings, including the workplace, over the years and now young people have climbed on that bandwagon with a vengeance.

Instead of the adventurous attitudes that have always been the province of youth, they want to avoid discomfort; sidestep as many human vagaries as possible and spend as much of their time as possible with people like themselves.

This is especially true of college freshmen.

Helping them avoid discomfort is a market nitch occupied by the likes of Lifetopia and RoomBug, in collusion with their universities, as well as open sources such as URoomSurf and, of course, the ubiquitous Facebook.

But some worry that it robs young adults of an increasingly rare opportunity for growth: exposure to someone with different experiences and opinions.

“Very quickly, college students are able to form self-selected cliques where their views are reinforced,” noted Dalton Conley, an N.Y.U. sociology professor…

It is not a lack in the diversity of race, nationality or even gender that is worrisome; rather it is the lack of diversity of thought.

Homogenized thinking kills creativity, stunts innovation, increases intolerance and supports bigotry.

Homogenized thinking destroys leadership—today’s and tomorrows.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sweetone/3648783142/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

I received the following email yesterday (edited for length and anonymity).

Miki,

With 20+ years of experience managing I thought I had seen it all, but I have a situation that I am at a loss on how to handle.

Short version, 6 months ago I hired an entry level engineer, with just a year of experience, but lots of potential I thought. Potential he is not living up to. I do not see the energy, initiative and go-get-’em attitude he projected in the interview. His peers complain that he is not pulling his weight and he acts as if showing up and performing at minimal level is enough. He has received positive input when he does something well, but I have been candid regarding the problems, offered suggestions for improving, etc., and blunt talk that if both his work and his attitude didn’t change he couldn’t stay.

So when all this came up again in his 6 month review I was taken aback when he acted like it was the first time he had heard any of this. OK, I’ve run into denial before, nothing new there.

But what totally floored me and the main reason for writing is that the day after his review I received a phone call from his parents (they were both on the line) demanding to know who the hell I thought I was not to give their son a 6 month promotion.

I said I was in a meeting and would get back to them; any suggestions besides the obvious none of your damn business.

I called him and after a bit more discussion he agreed that it would be best to turn this mess over to the company HR department. Fortunately, they were already aware of the problem and he had plenty of documentation to back up both the performance problems and the ongoing conversations about them.

The parental call was the final nail and the young man will be terminated for cause.

We all read articles about helicopter parents, in fact, I just read one on how great a problem hovering is for colleges.

Some undergraduate officials see in parents’ separation anxieties evidence of the excesses of modern child-rearing. “A good deal of it has to do with the evolution of overinvolvement in our students’ lives,” said Mr. Dougharty of Grinnell. “These are the baby-on-board parents, highly invested in their students’ success. They do a lot of living vicariously, and this is one manifestation of that.”

What really angered me was the way the episode affected the manager. He found himself questioning his own skills, as if he could have done anything that would offset 23 years (and counting) of parental protection.

What chance do any of these coddled kids have at maturing into leaders, not only positional ones, but de facto leaders? Will their parents help articulate a vision and then chastise those who don’t follow?

What do you think?

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wilsonb/2897692632/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

What impact does a student’s graduation speech really have? 18 year old Justin Hudson’s had a giant impact on NYC Hunter College High School, Elena Kagan’s alma mater and the most prestigious high school in the country.

“More than anything else, I feel guilty,” Mr. Hudson, who is black and Hispanic, told his 183 fellow graduates. “I don’t deserve any of this. And neither do you.”

They had been labeled “gifted,” he told them, based on a test they passed “due to luck and circumstance.”

As a result, the third principal in five years resigned and shortly after a committee of Hunter High teachers publicly announced a no confidence notice to the president of Hunter College, who is the ultimate boss of the high school.

At issue is the entrance exam for the high school.

Mr. Collins [director of the Hunter College Campus Schools] acknowledged that the notoriously difficult test, which has math, English and essay sections and is given in the sixth grade, “isn’t a good indicator of giftedness, it is a good indicator of whether you will be successful at Hunter.”

Those who pass the test are typically from upper class families heavily focused on education and can afford extra tutoring as needed.

Luck and circumstance, as Justin Hudson pointed out.

But a lot of good things are happening across the educational board.

• Schools across the country are abolishing ‘D’ grades, leaving kids with the choice of earning a ‘C’ or flunking.
• New research from economists has proved the value of “great teachers and early childhood programs” on adult earning power.
• A new website lets kids bet on their future grades and pays off when they perform.
• Non-profit Teach Plus helps schools field teams of teachers willing to spend extra time mentoring and acting as leaders in school turn-arounds.

Of course, anytime Federal dollars are up for grabs the sharks circle and the money earmarked for education is no different— companies with no experience are touting their ability to change the course of education.

It would make a nice change if Washington wasn’t snookered by great presentations and white papers, but I’m not holding my breath.

Historically, Washington is  the place where rhetoric wins the game and smoke and mirrors gets you further than substance.

If you’ll excuse the pun, it’s par for the course.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/the-lees/134610871/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

I used to have a really cool purple neon frame for my rear license plate; then I moved and was stopped by a cop because they aren’t legal where I now live. I choked when he said the fine was $150 and explained that I had just moved and didn’t know it was illegal. He reminded me that ‘I didn’t know’ didn’t matter, but let me off with a warning (the frame came off that night).

Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for “ignorance of the law does not excuse” or “ignorance of the law excuses no one”) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

I was reminded of this when I read that those growing up in the digital age may not realize that appropriating words and skipping attribution is stealing.

“Now we have a whole generation of students who’ve grown up with information that just seems to be hanging out there in cyberspace and doesn’t seem to have an author,” said Teresa Fishman, director of the Center for Academic Integrity at Clemson University. “It’s possible to believe this information is just out there for anyone to take.”

And that reminded me of my days in an office and the guy who ate whatever was in the fridge that appealed to him—even when it had a name on it. When confronted, he said he would have asked, but didn’t know whose it was or didn’t notice the name.

He obviously knew it belonged to someone, unless he believed in a refrigerator fairy, but he was hungry and that trumped all.

The words in cyberspace, especially the ones worth copying, like the food in the fridge, didn’t get there on their own and there sure as hell isn’t an Internet fairy.

Anyone who copies or downloads from the Internet knows the material didn’t magically appear—that is if they bother thinking about it at all.

And it isn’t just those in school, I came across a white paper on a business site and was flabbergasted to see whole sections lifted from this blog and twisted to fit the authors premise.

Needless to say, I was not amused.

Jen T. Verbumessor said, “Imitation is the highest form of pissing me off.  Quit stealing my content and violating my copyright.”

We who write work hard; those who copy sans permission or attribution are thieves and ignorance doesn’t change that.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeblogs/3020966500/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

How important is leadership (in its generally accepted definition) with regards to student results and where does/should it come from?

The Science Codex writes about a new study funded by The Wallace Foundation gives interesting, but not surprising, insight.

“The rubber hits the road in the classroom; that’s where the learning happens,” said Kyla Wahlstrom. “Leadership is important because it sets the conditions and the expectations in the school that there will be excellent instruction and there will be a culture of ongoing learning for the educators and for the students in the school.” …

The study demonstrates a strong, positive link between educational leaders — particularly principals — and student learning outcomes.

I’s not surprising because we all know that in the workplace most people live up—or down—to their boss’ expectations and it’s been shown that kids do, too.

If you don’t feel like reading the whole study, the Codex lists the main findings, among them

Higher-performing schools generally ask for more input and engagement from a wider variety of stakeholders.

In districts where levels of student learning are high, district leaders are more likely to emphasize goals and initiatives that reach beyond minimum state expectations for student performance.

The stark lack of district support for principals’ professional development and a lack of regular contact between most principals and their district office.

Input from all stakeholders…engagement…goals…initiatives…striving for excellence…professional development. This is what works, what motivates most humans and leads to positive results.

Not surprising that it would be applicable in education, but not happening, either.

Flickr image credit: The Wallace Foundation

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Cheating was in the spotlight in a recent NY Times Room for Debate, which includes opinions from a professor, author, recent grad and high school teacher, along with reader comments on each.

The opinion that drew the most comments was from Mark Bauerlein, professor of English at Emory University and the author of The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future. He pinpoints two causes, 1) pressure to achieve has made cheating a “survival skill” and 2) they don’t know it’s cheating because concepts such as plagiarism and attribution are foreign to them as a result of Web 2.0 and social media’s interactive nature, mashups, file sharing, etc.

I didn’t read all the comments, but #2 from George Canada was especially interesting.

I doubt that anything has changed. At Berkeley in the academic year 1952-53 my teaching assistant in an American History course said “Mr C—-, if you don’t start bringing cheat notes to the exams, you’ll get a B in this course.” I looked as astonished as I was, I suppose, since he went on to say something like ” don’t you know that everyone else is bring in notes and cheat sheets?” I didn’t know and I didn’t act and I did get a B in that course. In a psychology course I apparently got the highest or very high mark: the professor said “you must have brought in the perfect cheat sheets.”

Perhaps what we are seeing today is the cumulative effect of cheaters raising cheaters, so that the act itself is becoming more pervasive, more blatant, more socially acceptable, technology-enabled and therefore much easier.

Perhaps it really is no big deal, as we keep being told by those who do it; perhaps it has always been pervasive, as George Canada’s experience leads us to believe.

Perhaps I’m behind the times and test scores are more important than learning; perhaps cheating is a necessary skill in today’s world.

What do you think?

Image credit: Hariadhi on Wikipedia Commons

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Monday I wrote how people’s short attention span and memory plus general apathy enable the Teflonizing of brands that screw up, so that nothing sticks.

This is just as true of all the personal brands jousting for space on the planet.

Coincidentally to my plan for today’s post, Phil Gerbyshak Had a guest post Wednesday by Sally Hogshead, author of Fascinate, called Powerdrunks: How They Got That Way, and Why You Might Become One.

Sally’s explanation on what drives a power trip makes additional comments superfluous, so read that post before continuing with this one.

Sally gives good advice on how to stop yourself from becoming powerdrunk, but what of all those who are not only powerdrunk, but Teflon-coated?

Think Bob Nardelli, John Thain, others on this list, the jerk in the next cubicle who was fired only to surface at the cool company down the street or any politician/any party.

How do they do it? How, no matter what, do they come up smelling like a rose in another position of power?

Like companies, they take advantage of spin, but rely mostly on charm, too many managers’ intense dislike of the interviewing process, including on senior levels where, it is assumed, the recruiter has done most of the work, and selective hearing when checking references.

Teflon goes on layer by layer each time there are no consequences for the actions; most people function on the what you see is what you get, so eventually invincibility sets in and the whole Teflon process becomes self-fulfilling prophesy.

But what can you do when the decisions aren’t yours?

You can actively remember; actively means reminding others even when they don’t want to hear it. You can learn to be honest and still legal when giving a reference. You can care about those around you and protect them from powerdrunks. And if they are politicians don’t vote for them and don’t allow them to hide behind their ideology—even when it’s yours, too.

In other words, change your MAP, since you can’t change theirs.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/portland_mike/4588219036/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

There are many ways to consider leadership’s future and I often focus on schools and education (not the same thing) and kids—who are the leaders, actual and positional, tomorrow.

But there is another view of leadership’s future worth considering and that is of leadership as an industry, as opposed to an action or description.

Make no mistake, leadership, directly and indirectly, is definitely an industry.

Consider the standard definition of ‘industry’: A category used to describe a company’s primary business activity, usually determined by the largest source of a company’s revenues.

From individual coaches to major consultants and every size in-between, thousands of people earn their daily bread and pay their mortgages with money made through their activities in the leadership industry. Even those who aren’t paid in money are earning something, whether it’s enhanced reputation, a way to spread their opinions/beliefs, an ego boost or something still more esoteric.

I’m not saying that this is a bad thing or a good thing, but it is a thing worth noting.

In a previous post I warned of the need to digest and tweak expert information as opposed to swallowing it whole and this is even more important when it comes to leadership, considering the vast volume of it and the media’s constant focus and insistence that it is leadership that separates the winners and losers.

Even if you subscribe to that idea you need to develop a definition that is relevant to your world and stands the test of time, not some offered up by the industry.

Leadership terms are casually thrown around, applied by some to any and every action that a person does, may do or should do and by others only to the actions/words of those in positional leadership roles.

Perhaps these two points are worth accepting, although I’m sure many will disagree with me,

1. Leadership is an industry in which people, directly or indirectly, earn their living.
2. Leadership information comes in a multiplicity of forms and the quality varies widely.

Accepting these two ideas results in one conclusion: like investing information, leadership information should be digested, internalized and tweaked for your individual needs at both that point in your life and in your future.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hikingartist/4582034468/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

When looking for a talented entry-level candidate, grades carry great weight with managers and HR.

This is especially true when hiring advanced degrees where starting salaries remain high and even more-so when the degrees are in the professions—doctors and lawyers.

Recruiters scour university campuses looking for what they judge to be the crème de la crème and you, the client, pay big bucks to access that talent.

Customers assume a certain level of integrity from educational institutions and equate grades with expertise.

So what happens to that integrity and those expectations when law schools lower the bar?

In the last two years, at least 10 law schools have deliberately changed their grading systems to make them more lenient. These include law schools like New York University and Georgetown, as well as Golden Gate University, Loyola Law School Los Angeles, and Tulane University, which just announced the change this month.

Granted, it’s being done in K-12 schools all over the country, but law school? And at some of the most prestigious US law schools, too.

These the same associates who do most of the real work when your company shells out $500 or more an hour to hire a name on the door.

Many will become judges, local, state and Federal—even to the Supreme Court.

Some will join Federal enforcement agencies—SEC, Justice, FBI.

And many will eventually enter politics, which is justified considering how far that bar has already been lowered.

What’s next? Well, we have a real shortage of doctors now that is getting worse as our population ages.

Doesn’t that give you a warm and fuzzy feeling in the pit of your stomach?

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johncohen/152850884/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Teams aren’t allowed to win by a large margin, everyone likes everyone, no one plays favorites; wouldn’t you love to live/work in a place where that was the norm?

Last Thursday I wrote about a school where teams lost the game if they scored too much and said, “Great lesson to teach our future leaders—don’t excel, don’t try too hard, don’t strive too much, don’t field a winning team and, whatever you do, don’t follow in the footsteps of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Magic Johnson, Dr. Jonas Salk or any of those who surpassed their peers by a wide margin.”

Now, in line with teachers and administrators varied efforts to “level the playing field” for kids in school, which is an oxymoron (accent on the moron) if I ever heard one, comes the push to eliminate “best friends.”

Indeed, much of the effort to encourage children to be friends with everyone is meant to head off bullying and other extreme consequences of social exclusion.

But the professionals see it differently.

If children’s friendships are choreographed and sanitized by adults, the argument goes, how is a child to prepare emotionally for both the affection and rejection likely to come later in life?

There was a time when the first 18-22 years of life was focused on growing up, not just getting older.

Kids made mistakes, fell on their butts, picked themselves up and kept going; they learned about cause and effect—if they did X, Y would happen; they learned about accountability and consequences—if they did not do X, Y blew up.

All this was considered normal.

What’s happening to your kids in their first 18-22 years? Are they wrapped in cotton wool; life’s kinks smoothed out; fights fought for them, their wants satisfied immediately; protected, encouraged—entitled?

Now here’s the 64 dollar question.

Which do you want to hire? Which do you want on your team?

Image credit: http://atom.smasher.org

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content