by: Mark Bauerlein
Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin
Reviewed by: Michael Majdalany
Based on exhaustive research poring over numerous reports from government agencies, foundations, survey firms, and scholarly institutions in addition to historical and social analysis, Mark Bauerlein draws an alarming portrait of the young American mind. The technology that was supposed to make young adults more astute, diversify their tastes, and improve their minds has had the opposite effect. The author decries that most young people in the US do NOT read literature, work reliably, nor visit cultural institutions of any sort. They cannot explain basic scientific methods nor recount fundamental facts of American history, and do not feel the need to. Instead, they spend unbelievable amounts of time exchanging electronically stories and pictures (mostly of themselves), tunes and texts, dwelling in a world of puerile banter and self-absorbed pursuits.
Well-written (the author is a professor of English at Emory University), the book is a quick read and in spite of some pontification, suggests how we might address these deficiencies.
by: Alexix de Tocqueville
(Translated by: George Lawrence)
Harper Perenial Modern Classics
Reviewed by: Michael LoBue
The book, in any translation, is required reading for any professional manager of a trade association or professional society in the United States!
de Tocqueville’s observations of the American culture are as relevant today as when he made them more than 160 years ago. His observations are important to understanding the nuances of what might appear to be conflicting characteristics. For example, he observed that Americans were very critical of their politicians, other citizens and perhaps even “American traits,” but they were utterly intolerant of criticism from non-Americans.
This is an especially important read for anyone familiar with associations in the United States wanting to “export” the American model abroad. Associations in America are a unique private response to a public issue/need. Rather than requiring the permission of government to form, our laws are crafted to make such private responses easy and inexpensive to undertake.
We Americans may have borrowed the European model for associations, but we put such a unique twist on that model, making it dangerous to assume that associations elsewhere are the same. It’s not necessarily better, but it is uniquely American.
For those interested in just a taste of what de Tocqueville observed about associations in a America, here is his chapter (it’s short) “On the Use Which The Americans Make of Associations in Civil Life.”
by: Bill Tancer
Reviewed by: Michael LoBue
Tancer exposes one of the important new tools for understanding what’s important to people – online search data!
While Tancer, and his colleagues, have access to data sets of search traffic that are not available to mere mortals, he was very candid in his descriptions of how he goes about answering questions about trends and consumer preferences. In his final couple of chapters he also reveals some characteristics about how products and services move from alpha/beta stages to fully embraced market phenomenons.
This book is very readable and drove me to rediscover Google analytical tools to run some search-data analysis of interest to me. This is an important read for anyone really interested in creating a “data-driven” organization.
Michael LoBue writes: As the study results comparing the impact of the start of the recession on standalone and AMC-managed organizations gains attention, there seems to be a general criticism of the study by executives of standalone organizations. The criticism is that the results are not valid because the study samples were not randomly selected. This post responds to that criticism, pointing out how the criticism itself is both short-sighted and (intentionally?) misleading.
Here’s the punch line —true the samples were not randomly drawn, but it’s just as likely the stellar results produced by the AMC-model vs. the standalone model would be even greater (as opposed to less — as implied by the critics) if the study is repeated on randomly drawn groups.
Select the following link to read the entire response to that criticism.
Michael LoBue writes: I returned today from the 2010 ASAE Annual Meeting in Los Angeles. Another good meeting and conference. It appears that there’s a growing interest among small staff organizations to abandon the main office (or any leased office space) and have employees work from their homes. This trends seems like an exercise in tossing a few chairs off the deck and rearranging a few other chairs on the deck. It also seems driven by the desire for cost savings and not a desire for improvements, although direct cost savings can be achieved and some productivity gains can be realized under the right circumstances.
Clearly, there are benefits if the situations and the personnel are right for such an arrangement. However, it just seems short-sighted. As I listened to a presentation some questions came to mind:
- What happens when you bring the first new staff person into the virtual office arrangement? It’s one thing to ask a group of staff members who comfortable with their jobs and who know one another after sharing an office, to work from home than it is to recruitment and orient new staff into a virtual office arrangement.
- While the organization is no longer writing rent and utility checks, the list of employer concerns (see Figure 1) remain. How do these concerns change and might there be new employer concerns resulting from the arrangement?
- How does working from home enhance the staff’s professional development in this isolated arrangement?
- Where is the organization or their membership in these issues raised in the presentation? (Not a single slide in this excellent presentation contained the word “member”, or discussed how this arrangement adds value to the members of an organization.
Based on yesterday’s presentation it’s clear that this notion about “going virtual” is aimed at saving costs. Clearly a worthwhile objective, but this new piecemeal approach cannot touch the benefits delivered by the AMC-model:
Michael LoBue writes: In the two recent comparing organizations based on their management models — AMC-managed vs. standalone — a number of uncomfortable truths emerged. The discomfort appears to be with some standalone organizations.
The second of these two studies completed last month, compared deficit operations over 2006, 2007 and 2008 was mentioned in the April 2010 issue of Association Trends magazine. The reference to the study was based on complaints from an unspecified number of standalone organizations because I sent letters to selected officers of those organizations sharing the results and suggesting that they might want to consider the AMC model.
Michael LoBue writes: I just completed writing a report on a research project examining how the current economic climate affected AMC-managed and standalone organizations. Based on analyzing two comparable groups of membership-based associations, AMC-managed organizations appeared to be avoid the harsh aspects of the economy, whereas standalone organizations were hit very hard.
Standalone organizations employ their own personnel, shoulder the full costs of occupancy (own or rent office space) and spend their scarce revenue on capital goods.
The study examined whether organizations ended their fiscal years in surpluses or deficits. The fiscal years examined were 2006, 2007 and 2008 — fiscal year ending December 31.