Ratification of agreement between the U.S. and Iraq

There has been a major controversy between the peace lobby and the administration over Iraq. Much of the controversy is over points that seem irrelevant, but obviously weren't to some interests. What it seems to me is that the West has a army in Iraq with the intent on stabilizing the country. Apparently a well educated populace has been wrestling with building the institution and values that will support a democratic republic. Although many have ridiculed this and openly predicted disaster at every opportunity, the opposite has occurred.

Iraq has a framework where different sects of Islam and a non-Arab population work in concert and solve important issues. The West provides the stability and energy to build an Iraqi police force and army. Both the civilian and the military infrastructure seem to be developing in concert. So, the integration that Saddam and the 'bullet' had sown together historically is now done with the 'ballot box.' All this has been done despite the consternation of Iran and Syria. Their own peoples will begin to wonder about the possibilities as Iraq matures.

During Thanksgiving week, 2008 another milestone happened. It didn't receive the attention it deserved because of the holiday and the action around the financial crisis. The U.S. and Iraq ratified a military and strategic cooperation agreement effective for years into the future. There were many issues for the Iraqis to deal with and the negotiators to deal with. Unlike the detractors depiction, these agreements don't happen unless there is trust involved. And the implications for stability well into the future are historic.

The U.N. patrolled the skies of Iraq for 10 years at the U.N.s behest. In 2002, an army was unleashed in the country to remove Saddam. This happened just 5 years ago. After easily conquering the country, the U.S. had to experiment with how to build a country. Realigning army leadership and building the appropriate skills for country-building took 2-3 years for the U.S. army. But learn they did and a complex strategy simplified to the name "the surge" stabilized the society and paved the way to this agreement. As we look back the 5-6 years takent to do this will be judged to be record time. President Bush took the brunt of the criticism from the world and the U.S. public. He persevered while pushing steadfastly to 'win' in Iraq.

Baghdad is the geopolitical center of the Middle East. All paths in the region go through Baghdad. To have a stable democratic state and have America as a friend and ally already has and will propel huge changes in the region. Iraq is still 'messy' and will still have issues into the future. But the potential for a stable Middle East that is a partner in dealing with world problems and a participant in world globalism is likely to be judged an epic achievement.

The success in Iraq not only assures oil for the next phase of globalism, but it clearly will start discussion within the Islamic religion and Arab society about how to deal with the West and its values. Liberty and humane values toward race and gender are a couple of this issues. This will perhaps start a reformation that diminishes the sharp differences between Islam and the West.

Iran has tried every tactic it knows to stop progress on the agreement. Its failure to stop the Iraqi success will have many ramifications in Iran and in other Middle Eastern countries as they and their citizens contemplate democratic action next door. Like Christianity several hundred years ago, Islam hasn't put aspects of the religion in a modern context and this will stimulate more discussion.

Globalism is still today a force that won't be stopped. The rest of the world has gotten a taste of wealth that capitalism and global connections make possible. The pacifists and leftists in the U.S. are so concerned about the morality of U.S, that they engage in subversion of that influence. The world order is changing naturally but there is no replacing American dynamism in the process both as a participant and protector. There is no replacing the sheer power of a GDP that is at least 10 times the next biggest single economy. It's just not on the smart scale to think otherwise.

The massive infrastructure involved in sustaining something as complex as globalism is overwhelming for man. Fighting a war to keep the Middle East and its oil in the globalism game and simultaneously taming Muslim aggession, is just one dimension of the globalism issue. Another crisis was the crumbling of the international financial network this Fall. There are many analyses of inadequacies that paved the way to this catastrophe (see accompanying blog). A more general angle, though, is that the legacy systems and processes that were used to build the now destroyed infrastructure were totally inadequate to meet the demands of many more 'players' that recently joined in the international world. The U.S. and a few more players were the drivers of globalism. New countries and wealth centers like India, China and Brazil added to the complexity.

So, the crisis was the 'breaking' of this system and the interregnum now is the 'timeout' required to gear up for the demands of the 21st Century. The old system was a gussied up time-warp 1960s system. This is like adding some electronics to a 1969 Cadillac and think you have a modern racer. Now is the time to challenge prior logic while building a new international framework from the process level up. The resulting framework should support the needs of nations in facing the dynamism and complexity of the 21st Century.

The challenge of 2008-9 can be pictured as the world rethinking of the framework while trying to address the immediate recession issues. This is like changing tires on a car while going 60 miles per hour.

Fire Back

Fire Back-- The perfect storm or a product of greed?

In response to the financial storm abrupting throughout the world, a colleague of mine wrote:

"I'm afraid the American dream has been destroyed by corporate and union greed. Looking over the economic war torn landscape there doesn't appear to be anyone that believes in doing whats good for the country. Congress is even worse than the worst of the corporations everything they touch turns to garbage and worse, they have rotted from the head. Looking back it all started with the socialist programs of F.D.R. Now, the chickens are coming home to roost."

This seems pretty harsh. I don't agree. As they say "when the going gets tough, the tough get going." Why wouldn't the U.S. respond to the issues of the day like they have many times over as this country went from 13 colonies a couple of hundred years ago to a continental and now a world leader and through domestic and world conflagrations.

Some people are very discouraged by what is going on. The traditional Big 3 auto makers are the latest to be on the edge of bankruptcy in this country. This is a result of a lack of credit based on the caution of financial institutions as they invoke survival policies. The U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve have input over a trillion dollars trying to restore confidence. Congress is about to stimulate the economy with another trillion or so. We already have replaced the moneys that could be lost in the financial collapse. An order can release the money but you can't 'order' people to have confidence and behave like nothing has happened.

As we untangle the dynamics that seemed to converge on this 'perfect storm,' it gets more and more mysterious and complex-- at least to many of us. The 'talking heads' and pundits have this boiled down to some simplistic situation -- the running joke is that it is all President Bush's fault.

The challenges today are exceedingly complex due essentially to our and now the world's success. We've had a run of 60 years of unparalleled prosperity and the world's participation and wealth has increased dramatically. This is terrific. Business cycles occur naturally and contractions wring excesses out of the economy after which another expansion naturally starts.

That is essentially the way it will happen this time. Time will have to pass before an expansion, as institutions and man try to figure out where they stand and how to get started again. However, there is something special this time. Too much risk was taken by normally smart managers as they developed esoteric financial markets and bet on what seemed to them reasonable risks. These risks in retrospect were outrageous and the markets suspect. The elaborate modeling for risk was permeated with limited perception and inadequate for the task. 'Progressive' congresses throughout the world built expensive infrastructure to take care of people's needs. Technology expanded supply chains and made information and finances fly around the world.

At base, the problem can be generalized to say the way we are organized now clearly isn't sufficient to manage the international dynamics of trade, financial system and diplomatic relations.

Management theory is racing to catch up with the dynamics of the local and world marketplaces. Government is far behind playing a constructive and appropriate role in supporting the market and constitutional liberties. The inertia of past practices, now-dated infrastructure and the norms of private and government institutions mounted up to confound the world progress. Archaic top down command and control governments and corporations resulted in the inability to fight a 21st Century 'battle' with a time-warp 1980s capability.

There is work going on in governments, corporations, think tanks and universities, as we speak, on how to organize for this complexity of the new age. The failures we are experiencing now are of the old systems and consequent thought patterns relevant to the industrial age and not to the demands of the new service or information age.

The age of the ideological union is past. They are living off the companies they organized in the 1930s. The Toyotas and Wal-Marts with huge unorganized workforces adopt modern management advances which replaces any value added by unions. Its passing, though, is likely to be messy and lingering. Unions survive because of the laws imposed by politicians. Laws will continue to sustain them for awhile until the political climate changes. There will be need for worker organizations in the future for one reason or another-- just not an ideologically based union.

Another of my colleagues comments was about 'greed.' I always had trouble with the notion of 'corporate greed.' It is a simple stereotype, I think. Too simple. You probably agree that greed is not greed is not greed. Inventing, building, producing and managing enterprises are efforts that society wants to reward. Having a win-lose attitude is as valuable in a company, an army, as nearly anywhere. Is 'win-lose' a necessary ingredient to greed? Are huge returns to a select group managers of successful enterprise mean they are greedy?

Is a 'corporation' greedy as has been said recently? The government made a judgement that the Andersen auditing firm was unethical and brought charges against it in 2001. This was a 'death sentence' to an audit firm. As a result 30,000 auditors world wide were out of a job and a firm with over 100 years history went out of existence. This is too simple. The Supreme Court later said the government was wrong. Too late.

The entire reason for business and the total focus of business school is satisfying customers and managing an ethical organization.... not testing the limits of the law but driving the company down the 'middle of the road.' All my success turning around businesses was based on building successful enterprises on ethical bases-- not an easy task to maintain this ethical base. P&G, MMM, Intel, Wal-Mart, Toyota and others are strongly ethical and very win-lose oriented. Some individuals and companies do very well in this environment. Are they greedy? Is a corporation that calculates to 'cut off the air" of a competitor greedy? Is this part of greed a 'bad' greed?

Some people organize to exploit others and don't add organizational or societal value. Are they greedy? Of course. I posit these situations don't last long. Sustaining success in the marketplace takes too much focus and discipline. Dishonest and greedy behaviors disrupts those behaviors. Eventually, these situations beget failed companies and nearly always drag down individuals. These situations, when they fail, are headline getters. Many of the mortgage businesses apparently engaged in these marginal behaviors, recently.

These dysfunctional situations are what people 'see.' Every media outlet highlights the negative and pounds you with 24x7 with preferably sordid stories and shallow analyses. You can get discouraged by letting this limited, but blatantly loud, view of greed color your view and make you miss the dominance of just plain old hard work that captures the life of most of the world's population. This is the essence of capitalism, its values and why wealth accumulates.

So... is the American dream dead? No. Is the world going through a transformation from the industrial to the information age? Is this transition tough and complex and messy? Yes.

Fire Back!!!

Bill Vroman

12_04 update 'To bail out GM or not bailout GM

The American Big 3 auto companies, part of the American auto industry, are in Congress asking for a bailout of $34 billion to help survive the financial crisis of 2008. Consumer credit was hard hit as banks stopped lending. Credit is a critical element of selling cars. Loan covenants and other factors make survival a factor for these three companies.

The Big 3 haven't had a return to capital that was greater than their cost of capital for decades. They are 'begging' the government for capital because they don't have the balance sheet or prospects to get private capital. They are heavily indebted. They've sold off assets for decades to fund their needs. Their market share in the U.S. has gone from near 60% in the 1970s to about 25% now.

The American auto industry is larger than the traditional Big 3. The Big 3 name harkens to the pre-1980s days before Toyota, Honda and Nissan built their U.S. plants. As an example, this month, Honda opened its 6th U.S. manufacturing plant. Toyota opened a major new plant in Mississippi last summer. The original American manufacturers are shuttering plants and downsizing.

What happened? To understand the predicament a little history is in order. Where it starts might be surprising to you.

During the post WWII years we were just fresh from the communist influence of the 1930s depression years. A lot of people thought, and continued to think, that communism was the best outcome given the failure of capitalism caused the depression. The unions were the major building block of the American socialist world because they fought for the workers. In the post WWII years, the communist influence frightened a lot of people and the hunt for communists started. House UnAmerican Affairs Committee, HUAC, and the McCarthy Army Hearings along with the Taft-Hartley were events and laws that blunted, but didn't wipe out the folks that considered the communist version of socialism the preferred way to organize the society. Central to this movement was how socialism would evolve in the U.S.

The fact that the U.S. had giant corporations and the rest of the world was just rebuilding caused people like Walter Reuther, the socialist head of the UAW, and others, to think the model in the U.S. was control of the workplaces of giant corporations to provide the basis for the worker's paradise visualized in the Communist Manifesto. The goals included full employment, maximum individual security and optimal rewards. These goals became ends in themselves and unions were arrayed against management to get their just rewards. Cooperation with management was anathema and management lost control of the shop floor. The union was 'driving the bus.' Essentially this 'froze' practices and the auto companies became an expensive 'sitting duck' for non-union competitors.

GM was pretty arrogant and wealthy in this post WWII world and simply wanted to produce to meet the world demand. The 'world' was just recovering and the U.S. had a corner on the world's production capacity. The Big 3 bargained with the UAW, but really, to a point they weren't concerned with cost. The key, which UAW and the distorted labor laws guaranteed, is that Ford and Chrysler would pay the same costs and the cost could be shifted to the consumer. The US was the world powerhouse through the 1970s.

So, in the contorted labor market caused by the 1930s Wagner Act, GM agreed to a 5 year pact (unheard of length) in 1950 for a monster pension package called the 'Treaty of Detroit'. That became the basis of negotiating new contracts for the duration- till now. Reuther thought it was fine to build huge benefits, good wages and a great pension in the socialist outpost of giant companies. So the unionized big corporation became the cornerstone of the socialist America, as seen by unions and other leftists.

The control of work rules is key to representing workers and supporting security and maximum employment union goals. The essence was it hamstrung management giving them little control on the shop floor. It didn't matter as much in the 1950s to 1970s as long as all the Big 3 had to agree to the same contract.

The big surprise was the emergence of the Japanese in autos. They produced trinkets and had insufficient capital to compete with the U.S in the immediate post WWII years. Lost in the U.S. view was McArthur's enlightened leadership and the arrival of Deming (quality guru) after WWII to focus an educated population on quality. This all fit together in the development of a Japanese business model based on Deming's principles. This superior model was refined 'below the radar' in the 1950s and 1960s and then the Japanese became devastating competitors throughtout the world in the 1970s and 1980s.

Chrylser's bankruptcy and the near loss of Ford and GM's first loss in the 1979-1982 period scared Congress and the others to develop the US version of the Japanese Deming quality award. They called it the Baldrige (1987). However, except for the surprise Baldrige win of by Cadillac in 1995, the automakers were hobbled by legacy union hand cuffs and were unable to genuinely replicate the flexibility, speed and power of the Japanese model. Toyota won the Deming quality award in Japan several times. They had to add another more competitive level for their award to accomodate the companies that were better than the already severe standards of the Deming.

One of Toyota, Honda and Nissan competitive advantages was its expertise in designing manufacturing processes that optimized the skill of workers (individuals and teams) to solve problems and continually improve efficiency and effectiveness of the manufacturing plant. To this day unions treat suggestions of work teams and any other management intervention on the shop floor as an incursion on their turf. So, the work rules outlined in the union contract severely limited quality and innovation in the Big 3.

There isn't a way for GM to compete with the Japanese firms where it counts- in the processes of designing, producing and delivering autos. They are hamstrung by union rules and regulations and legacy attitudes. The Japanese design new cars 50% faster and at lower cost than Detroit can. The wage rate at Japanese firms are generous but significantly below Detroit's legacy laden hourly wage costs.

The UAW is being brought to the table 'kicking and screaming.' They gave up some benefits and wage rates for new hires last year and will manage the legacy retirement benefits starting in 2010. These are good steps. But Big 3 business models are hamstrung by other major wage and benefit costs that haven't been broached as well as the suffocating work rules. The time warp 1960s union- structure and the historical distortion of norms is a cement jacket when competing in open water with the slick business model of the Japanese.

This is a severe crisis that has everyone's attention. You never want to waste a good crisis. It is likely that the Big 3 will get their $34 B, but if someone doesn't unravel the union cement jacket on the shop floor as part of the deal, the companies will soon be back asking for more capital with as dire a prophecy that they will go bankrupt.

As they say, the fat lady is warming up and ready to sing.

Fire Back

12/4/08

Advice for MBAs in getting a job.

Elsewhere on the blog there is a analysis of current Fall ’08 events and job prospects. This section is about getting a job in tough times. Practically, this presents some real challenges for job seekers. Keep in mind that it will be rough and take more time to get a job, but the same skills you’ve worked on thus far still apply. You’ll still have to fine-tune your skill-sets to gain power, just as you did before. As a candidate in the MBA market, you always had to be tough and competitive.

Self-Concept; confidence
The first step for you, though, is to work on your self-concept relating to the skills you acquired in your years of study. The intense study period of a wide range of organization situations gives you a view of organization that non-MBAs may or may not get in 7 to 10 years of job experience. You explored shop floor to executive level issues. Explored processes in every function. Read widely about business and its dynamics. The cases you studied gave you insights that most junior managers haven't approached.

The process of diagnosing , problem solving and decision-making you learned will transfer easily to real world situations. This is the reason that businesses want MBAs. They know business and can diagnose issues, solve problems and make decision.

So, every morning get in front of the bathroom mirror and say "I'm pretty damn good. I make decisions, solve problems, communicate powerful and plan comprehensively. I can work anywhere." Say it in a convincing way. You aren't effective until your roommate begins to yell back at you or the neighbor comes over to see what your problem is.

You are even competitive with MBAs graduating several years ago-- unless they see themselves as a student for life. This is a lesson for you. Plan on constantly putting yourself in situations where you can learn new things that keep your skills prime and your knowledgebase growing. The 1/2 life of a college education is about 5 years. You have to push yourself for the duration, as they say.

Quick-study- 'killing yourself'
Your competitive advantage- These skills you developed and the 'awe' of two years of discovery is a huge competitive advantage for you. They translate into what I call 'quick study' skills. You can't master everything you will be involved with. But you are used to getting cases and problems that take an immense amount of time and must be completed 'yesterday.'

Welcome to your new life as a manager in a fast paced company. You will be faced with challenges requiring special terminology, specifications and dynamics you didn't have in school. Never fear. Your quick study skills allow you to master the jargon hill of the project and master the basic dynamics pretty quickly. There's nothing like an intensive 20 hour reading and memorizing period to make you sound like you've been around the field a long time. You'll find that your career rests on your using intense quick study periods to get up-to-speed on some issues that are important to the organizaiton and your career. It is your ability to do this that draws notice and provides the stimulus for promotion and dollars. In your case, to get hired in the first place. So, you target some companies where you would like to be employed. You have to learn to 'kill yourself' in over preparing (20 hour quick study periods) for interviews, presentations or negotiations.

I was faced with this challenge constantly to get hired as a turn around specialist. My goal was to not miss a beat in appearing as a wizened industry veteran and leaving the executive thinking I knew a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of his company. My 'Mental Models' made it so I could position the company and describe its challenges nearly as well as the executive (send me an e-mail and I'll send a manual to you). The rest is just hard work. 'Killing yourself,' so you appear to be wizened old veteran. Keep this picture in mind. You will get opportunities others will wait a long time to get.

I read SEC reports, newspaper, stock analyst and PR reports and diagnosed balance sheets and income statements. I combed industry association sites and industry mags along with standard business magazines like Business Week and Fortune. Next, I got into the details of the core technology which in my clients included construction, banking, manufacturing, electronics, restaurants, hospitals, medical offices.... there is a lot of specialized jargon associated with each one along with distinct details of the core technology that are essential to be known if I was going to shape up the organization so it could grow and be successful.

I emphasize these details because you have to emulate this process to get a career job and when you get the job to set yourself up for more and more opportunities. You have the base of knowledge and the quick study skills to master the dynamics of many different situations. You have the imagination and empathy to vicariously learn and 'feel' to the degree that people think you've actually 'had' the job you are applying to get. This is called VICARIOUS LEARNING.

If you want a job, you have to convince someone you know what to do if it is offered to you. Vicarious learning is what puts you in the position of saying, I can add value. I haven't done the job, but I know it so well, I'll add value the first day on the job. Your first advantage is that you know how to diagnose, problem solve, communicate, decide and plan. These skills are the basis for ALL JOBS. You know how to do any job you care to in any function because you have these skills. To be convincing you learn all the special industry terminology and dig roots in the company and industry to seal the deal. Simple, eh?

Batting away the 'no experience' question
So, here is a test question. What would you say to the interviewer who makes this observation? "You don't have any experience. We prefer a person to have 5 years. Sorry."

If you feel like apologizing for bothering the person and feel bad because you know you'll never get a job, you missed the point. You have to 'bat' those objections away.

Young people in general and young job seekers always face the fact that the job nearly always has an experience requirement and you don't offer it. Just like all my clients wanted a consultant who had experience in their industry. Other experiences don't count if you let that happen. I batted those questions aside because a) I know organizations in general (so do you) and b) I talked like an industry veteran because I 'killed myself' quickstudying the industry/company/ challenges. I learned vicariously and translated that into experience in the client's mind.

So the objection 'no experience, sorry' is answered by the old 'reflect/acknowledge' response: "You saw my lack of on-the-job experience (reflect) and feel that I can't add value if you should hire me (acknowledge). But you missed the 2 years of diagnosing and solving problems and communicating with others about issues I'm likely to face on your job. For example, you are hiring for a product development team member. Your portfolio includes several mature products along with an array of growth and developmental projects. The product that seems to be in severe competitive pressure is ..... I looked at the product strategy as you outlined on your web site and in your 10K and went to the retail outlets to see the product and get a feel for the issues. It may have been just the outlet, but I was concerned about how drab the display appeared in contrast to the competitor....."

OK... I batted away the objection and made my best case that I could discuss issues intelligently. I knew the industry/company jargon and I could carry a conversation on the company's strengths and weaknesses. You could almost sound like you were a veteran of the company and industry and you will sound like a 'go getter.' After awhile you'll develop shortcuts to get you to the issues very quickly. These will be your talking points.

Where to get a job
Now, you have to make some adjustments in where you go for a job in a recession. You can't be picky. I want to work in banking and that's it, is short sighted and your short shrift your training. An MBA is a generic degree (no matter what your concentration or background). You can solve problems in profit or not-for-profit organizations. You can solve problems in any industry anywhere in the world.

All organizations have core technologies which you can master because of your quick study skills. They all have finance, marketing, research, buying, logistics, customer service, product development and production. You can do jobs in any one of them because you can diagnose, problem solve, decide, plan and communicate. All jobs require the same set of skills. You can quick study positions and master distinctive tools and skills. So... the trick of getting a job in a bad job market.

GO WHERE THE JOBS ARE. Investment banking is flat on its back, but traditional banking might be coming back by June. About a trillion dollars has been put into the industry to get it going. Before you know it, it will come steaming back. Health Care is still going strong. Not-for-profits have contracts that might allow them to bridge the recession. Some consulting is still growing. Construction/ engineering and government agencies will likely be growing with infrastructure projects. They need proposal writers, marketers, auditors (who need no more accounting than MBAs get) and field people. Don't be picky. All these experiences provide stories that can be used to leverage your career.

Resume- emphasize MBA experiences/projects
Emphasize your MBA and the activities you took part in on your resume. It is even more important now that you have one generic goal statement on your skills in project management, decision making, problem solving, planning etc and how that means you can add value (you'll have to personalize this logic). But, for most applications, you must customize your goal statement for the position and company you are applying so that the employer knows you were thinking about them and had the curiousity and energy to find out as much as you could about them and the job you are applying for.

On your resume and in your interviews use your MBA individual and team projects just as you would experience on a job, to show your abilities. Finally, scan employment web sites and google for companies that use their web site to attract MBAs. You should be sending out inquiries daily and sending reminder e-mails and working with your list daily. Keep your head into the search game and keep working on your head not to be disappointed.

It takes awhile to get attention from busy business people. Never give up. Weeks can go by and you are thinking they've dropped you from consideration. Not so. People get busy inside of organizations and all of a sudden 5 weeks went by. They still have the position and they have yours and several others' resumes and a position to fill. Some people get discouraged and quit the search. Don't. Keep after your contact politely. Unless they send you a letter that turns you off a firm, keep yourself in the ball game by returning an e-mail with this message. "thank you for interviewing me. I am impressed with xyz company and will maintain contact in case other opportunities become available.

You are the soloist on the job search. Prepare yourself in everyway. Make sure you have others critique how you dress and talk. You have dress 'business level' and talk business. Both take practice. Polite, conservative dress and talk, curent business issues conversations and confident discussion of your MBA successes are the topics to expand on.

Well, keep your chin up and dig into the job search. It'll take a lot of work to get your career going. Always keep in mind, when the going gets tough, the tough get going. Let me know if I can help.

DrV:

bill.vroman@verizon.net

Getting fired (edit 12/04/08)

If you read much business literature, the fired executive is old hat. The published firings are the tip of the iceberg of firings that go on in companies. We were just regaled by a Florida congressman firing his mistress on a call which she recorded. My firing from a little department way down in the hierarchy was announced in the Baltimore Sun (interestingly it had 36 comments). Sports franchises have owners that seem to relish the idea they can fire someone. I'm not thrilled that Morgan fires very few people. You have to be special to have that happen to you.

I have some strong views on the topic from my past experiences in consulting. Here are a couple.
In 1992 I wrote a column (one of 250) for the Baltimore Business Journal. The column was named “Action in Organizations” and focused on looking “underneath the covers” of current events that jumped to the public’s attention. Someone had just gotten fired that achieved headlines and it became the focus of the column. In the process of exploring the implications of firing people, I used an example I witnessed at PHH corporation 13 years prior. I was in the office of a VP for Marketing at McCormick and Company across the street when it happened. We noticed 50 cabs pulled up to the curb at the PHH building across the street. As we talked and watched, people started to come from the PHH building with boxes and getting in the cabs.

It turns out 52 executives were fired. They came to work in their company cars. Their keys were taken and they were escorted to their offices. The locks had already changed on their offices and their personal material put into boxes which were in the hallway. They were to pick these up and go home. Designed to solve a problem by management, the firing would end up being ‘blood on the wall’ that would never go away no matter how many times it was washed. No matter how many times the employees turned over.

Thirteen years after the event is when the column was published using the PHH illustration. The PHH CEO called the editor of the paper to threaten her. I was called by PHH PR and invited to see how sound the company was. A lawyer called to check my bona fides. Shockingly, 46 of the principals or the family members of the PHH executives that were fired, called or wrote me to tell me what happened to their families after the event. Keep in mind this is 13 years later. It still affected the company, obviously. It still bothered the families of the people. For all the company’s saber rattling on the publication of the column, nothing ever happened.

The stories of the fired executives, some of them very sad, were still being told thirteen years later. The management of the company rallied enormous resources in response to a column by an academic in a little 77,000 circulation newspaper. And you say firings don’t have any dysfunctional responses that last a long time?

I called this phenomenon around firing, ‘blood on the wall.’ My experience in picking up the pieces of many blunders in my turnaround clients is that these stories never go away. The company is faced with the story when they recruit and select replacements and others. All the current employees know what happened and will remind folks. It can make it into the mores of a community. It becomes part of the culture of the organizations. “Don’t do ‘whatever.’ You know what happened to ‘so and so’” Even more, the outside environment will never let you forget. Fired people just go away and talk… and talk… and talk. Today they have the Internet to talk to many more people. Customers, suppliers, bankers all know and it filters into their way of dealing with the organization in subtle ways that goes beyond the life of the principals in the original situation.

My 25 year consulting experiences was in organizations that had been experiencing all kinds of issues prior to my arrival- similar to Morgan. In some cases, I was told I had to ‘clean house’ or remove specific people who were trouble makers. I never did this. There is no way faster to stop an organization development than to fire someone. It nearly always is perceived as unfair. Perceptions rule and the blood is on the wall.

In general, nearly everyone wants to be part of a winner. So, building a consensus vision for the organization, building a ‘loud’ reward system, selecting very carefully for talent, training everyone and reengineering processes generated a momentum that attracted the energy of nearly all people pretty quickly.

We never let people go into ‘survival’ if we could help it. Going into ‘survival’ means a person feels threatened and fights back by getting a coalition and subverting what you are trying to do. This was the only exception to firing. And it was deemed ‘our fault’ because we missed the person’s signals that this was happening.

So, if they were disgruntled. we counseled people out so they could leave with some grace. We were careful not to create an aftermath that would be a drag on being a winner. Another group couldn’t keep up with the speed or quality demands of the change process were counseled out, often to their relief. We often found that it was the top managers that were the drag on progress. Not being willing to learn an appropriate leadership style was the reason for moving seasoned managers aside. Most of this was over the years the managers developed a 'closed system' mindset. Once you attract bright and energetic managers you bring the biggest open system variable of all-- their educated head. From the old-bureaucratic mindset this is a bad thing. From the modern standpoint, brightness and energy needs to be guided by vision and strategies and protected from outside interferences-- an open system mindset. The struggles of circa 1977 managers to adopt an enlightened view and progress to management from administration is legendary.

The progress of an organization goes on when the appraisal process is improved. Unlike the bureaucracy, the appraisal process isn't to punish sinners according to nebulous criteria. It is designed to make sure the organization rewards are heaped on performers and only performers. It points out performance issues. The focus is 'picking up the sticks,' not punishment. Once the contrast between performers and non-performers was clear, people, often of their own volition, left . They realized they didn’t have the talent and/or energy for the position. Never did we fire. We knew about the dreaded ‘blood on the wall.’ The perceived inequity, justified or not, could have stopped everything we were trying to do.

The other factor in firing is that a person walks away with information in their head. There are obvious and tangible elements of a job that are done day by day, that will be picked up by a replacement. However, how much of the work in an office isn’t documented? Knowledge of contacts and the work in establishing relationships that make the organization function smoothly is in the head of the office holder. When the 'head' goes out the door, so does the knowledge. Knowledge management as a field has flourished recently. It labels knowledge as ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’ knowledge. Implicit knowledge is the part of the iceberg under the water—ominously, it was the part that sank the Titanic.

Try removing a programmer from a project where he/she is central. Ever try to untangle someone else’s program? Much of the rationale is in the ex-programmer’s head. The tricks used to make a program faster is in the programmer's head. The bundle of intangibles has shaved his head and is on an airplane to San Francisco—so is your program. The latter actually happened to one of my clients- another story. Much of future development of the software program is being ‘cooked up’ in the recesses of the person’s brain where it might reside for months. Now it is being implemented in some loft in San Francisco for a competitor. This is intellectual capital and it goes out the door with the person.

In the turn around of one of my bank turnaround (a just merged, billion dollars in assets, small bank) there was a Consumer Loan VP who was a marvelous talented entrepreneur. It was a relatively small, but profitable component to a troubled bank. Two major categories of installment loans were autos and boats. He happened to have 3 side businesses including used cars, boats and real estate.

The bank audited his unit and had detectives follow him and found no illegal or unethical behaviors prior to my arrival. They were clearly side businesses. His style of management was very personal. The workers in his unit were all loyal. All the customers knew him because all deals went through him and the processes in the unit were oriented around his personality and talent. He had considerable talent.

From the bank's perspective, he was a bottleneck and exceedingly independent. As part of the turnaround, I had to organize the consumer loan department to be prepared for a growth that would more than double its size. The personalized managerial culture he had developed had maxed out in its possible size. Synergies with the rest of the bank and an enlargement of the portfolio of products and services meant a more complex department. The unit had to respond to the strategic momentum of the bank.

The end of the story is that he cooperated to make his unit more easily manageable by helping build solid processes. He left about a 1 or so later amicably with a large severance to run his other businesses. What it amounted to is that when the change was presented in the frame of the bank's vision (which he participated in building) and the key role a much expanded consumer load department would play, he gladly help dismantle his personal fiefdom and rebuild the new one. He knew the handwriting was on the wall and confided in me that this wasn't 'his cup of tea.' He had his side businesses that were good businesses, but would grow faster with his total attention.

If he'd been fired, the consumer loan department would have been in disarray with many disrupted deals going to competitors. Competitors would continue to capitalize for years and the event would lurk in corners ready to raise its ugly head at the darndest time.

People in significant positions at organizations, from front line employees through management have their 'fingerprints' all over the many interactions of a unit. Understanding that concept and how messy firings are should make a firm better recruiters, selectors, supervisors, trainers and appraisers. By themselves, the words are empty. It is only in the dynamic of well designed processes responding in a customer and service driven organization that the words gain meaning.

‘DotComs’ was a term that referred to the companies formed during the Internet phenomenon in the 1990s. Software geniuses dreamed up services and products for the rapidly developing Internet phenomenon. They developed a program put it on a server and launched version 1.0 of their business. Some dotcoms attracted lots of programmers, all of them with dreams of riches all with loads of ideas. They launched an IPO and became ‘dotcom’ millionaires when lots of investors got excited.

The challenge was how to value the stock. They didn’t have capital needs or assets like a manufacturing firm. They met few financial criteria signifying they were good investments. They had a few servers and some intellectual property value in the software that was relatively insignificant. The meaningful ‘assets’ they had were the 'heads' of the programmers. The real assets of the dotcoms went home at night. Those assets could easily go to other firms because other firms offered more money or a more enlightened culture. So these assets weren’t stable like a manufacturing firm that knew its machines wouldn’t leave at night. They didn't show up on the balance sheet at all. Yet their 'fingerprints' are all over everything that makes the company valuable. A real enigma for companies.

The programmers, faculty members, doctors, chefs and lawyers bring what is called Intellectual Capital to the organization. You can’t put it on the balance sheet, yet it is as important as the capital in the form of buildings and machines, that can be counted and put on the balance sheet. Currently there is a whole literature on how to manage intellectual capital. This translates to how to manage people where they are the principal cog in your company’s success. Most companies are clumsy at this task.

Warren Buffett is a famous executive and is enormously successful. He buys interests in big firms and buys a lot of medium-sized businesses entirely. He buys firms when existing managements stay in place. The reason that his method is successful is he buys the assets on the books and the necessary condition for success, the intellectual capital. The business has the fingerprints on every success the firm has had. The results are that management will totally focus on making the organization a success. He has found a way of creating a culture in which a lot of people have the pride and feel the 'ownership' to offer incredible energy to make the company a success. Another jargon-laden 31 word sentence that would take a semester to develop.

The pride and confidence that comes from building a winner is manifest in the little stories about problems solved, decisions made and contacts accumulated in the firm. Thse are all chucked in the head and support the momentum of the winner organization. Buffett knows that this culture will continue to pay dividends for the company for a long time. If the business model is viable and the marketplace alive the financial returns will come. Buffett supplies capital and trusts management (part of intellectual capital) to deal with the ups and downs of that marketplace.

In the 1970s and early 1980s I traveled the executive education circuit coast to coast. I, and a core group of trainers, would train executives of associations and organizations in executive centers from California to New York for about12 weeks a year.

One class, under the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. was full of people, from the Midwest,who all had been recently fired from their job. I was intrigued because they were all vital, all male, all in their late 20s, early 30s. And this was before the day that getting fired was a badge of honor. The feeling was they would have trouble getting a key job.

They were tested with 2 tests I used extensively in my consulting- Schutz’s FIRO-B and Miner’s Sentence Completion. Demographically: age 28-35, male, college educated and very energetic. Sitting on top of that energy for a few sessions was a real challenge. All were modest to low on the authority scale; short term competitiveness was high; long term competitiveness was moderate to high; assertiveness was moderate; standing out from group was moderately high and routine administration was moderate to moderately high. In my turnaround consulting, I tested candidates with this profile in mind for jobs. It was obvious why they were fired. They need more sensitivity to authority (higher on the authority scale) and less competitiveness (less likely to stand out or be accused of being a 'bulldozer') to get along in bureaucracies.

To a person, they said they claimed they didn’t see the firing coming. Interestingly, a friend of mine, Eugene Jennings, a now deceased faculty member at Michigan and a specialist on fired executives in the Detroit automotive industry, formed a series of well attended seminars. He conducted seminars called ‘America First’ which disguised its intent from outsiders- to counsel those who had been fired from their management jobs in the auto industry. His ‘lessons’ learned’ was similar to my little experience.

None of the execs ‘saw it coming,’ was the initial view of the auto execs. After a day or two talking about it, most execs say they really had been 'told' in direct or subtle ways over a long period of time, that they were going to get fired. The average, according to Jennings was about 8 times. But they were so much into accomplishing things that they didn’t ‘hear’ what was being said. They were full of their 'world' and the way the ‘warnings’ came didn’t register as being significant.

After the session, the execs walked away with a little context, as did my junior manager students. It turns out, none of them were fired for lack of performance. They were fired for violating political 'rules', challenging authority (whether they knew it or not- another interesting topic), and not being ‘team players.’ They didn’t get along in highly structured environments with restrictive norms. They didn’t see the ‘stop signs’ this kind of environment provides for people. “Hallway politics” governs those kinds of organizations. Practically it means you have to be in the hallway to protect yourself and pave the way for promotions. You aren’t at your desk or submerged in a project. You’ll get arrows in the back.

When I directed the ‘Women’s Program in Management’ at UB some time ago, I used a book “What Mother Never Taught You’ as the text in a class I taught. It essentially taught ‘hallway politics’ which boys learn when they played tough games as kids, and girls didn’t. This was the theory in the women’s movement at the time. Well, as you might guess, the games in the hallways 'get' a lot of people, including males. The class of fired managers I had in class all could have used a few lessons from "Games..". Frankly, I think their DNA drove them to accomplish and the lessons would not have taken. It takes a certain ‘type’ to form their career around their skill at ‘hallway politics.’

In summary, firing, if it needs to be done requires and delicate touch... a description way under the skill level of many managers. If you get to the point of threatening or firing, you are actually pointing at yourself, at your culture, at weaknesses in your organization. Organizations are a sight to behold when well constructed. The momentum causes success to create success... proaction dominates... winner employees flock to help you maintain the success. Let inequity creep in and your best efforts won't work. Fire the wrong person for the wrong (perceived) reason and you can deflate the momentum. Firing really has little to say for itself as a management technique.

What most managers don't realize is that a proactive organizations cleanses itself without management intervention. Winners want winners around.

CAREER OPPORTUNITIES

I started a Fireback about jobs before the ‘event’- its new name. I thought I would post it for you. Pass the word.

By the way, several students have taken me up on my offer to edit resumes and talk about jobs. Our conversations about this don’t have to stop. You are still my priority. Call or e-mail.. I’m always available to you for advice or references. 410/628-0380; bill.vroman@verizon.net.

I think the consensus is you’ll still have a job market over the next year for MBAs. Most businesses, unless stuck for credit, are still recruiting. Some industries are basket cases, though. To Harvard and Wharton’s chagrine, Wall Street is a wreck. Don’t give up on the rest of the financial sector, though. There will be plenty of opportunity for MBA type jobs over the next several months. Even though the wild west days are over for awhile, there is plenty of work and the Treasury and Fed actions will get things going soon.

The problem is liquidity, as you know, which makes this entirely different than any recession I’ve studied. The usual recession pattern is a lot different. Usually, demand increases relative to supply on goods causeing prices to rise- demand pull. Simultaneously, wages rise because the supply of labor falls relative to the high demand for labor. This causes prices of goods and services to rise beyond the capabilities of consumers budgets increasing inventories and slowing production. Businesses often get excited during expansions and build new factories and open new outlets raising supply against a slowing demand for products and services diminishing profits and increasing caution. Monetary tightening to dampen inflation cinches the transition to recession.

Not so this time. The economy is in relatively good shape. Unemployment, while up, is still historically low. The companies can't get ready access to capital because the financial system has gone into 'survival.' This means don't trust and keep your capital.

What caused the lack of trust. It is a combination of bad loans (from bad government policy), unregulated financial market- CDOs. A financial instrument -swaps- traded in an unregulated market that created far more risk than could be managed.

Add to this a disasterous application of the Accounting Rule 157 (from FASB) that forces companies to 'mark to market' their assets in a way that destroyed balance sheets. The 'mark to market' rule (imposed in 2007) made their balance sheets too risky for rating agencies and investors so they had to have a massive infusion of capital. The declining and suspicious market wouldn't offer the capital in a timely way.

Company stock lost its value as the short sellers were at work. One reason for their trashing stock was the SEC wasn't policing the 'naked short seller' phenomenon nor did it change the uptick rule that often limits the power of short sellers. Companies had no time to recover from the initial shock. . The Rule 157 was imposed in the Fall of '07. The harshness of the rule emanated from the infamous Enron debacle and extreme rules in the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation. They didn't want a repeat Enron story and they ended up contributing to an even worse financial industry debacle.

These regulatory issues set up by congressional ignorance, incompetence and corruption (kind of harsh), and enriched by the infamous Wall Street 'greed' resulted in a major financial collapse. Trust evaporated and lending stopped. Then the economy stops. Capital is part of the supply chain of every organization and keeps the system going. 'Survival' sentiments prevail. The government has $700B and a few other powers to break the grip of this atmosphere.

If the Treasury's input of $700B into the financial system works, then the economy could bounce back fairly quickly. It isn't in bad shape otherwise.

We will hit a recession in the next quarter, though. Although GDP is still growing, the slowing velocity of money will cause a recession. It shows hope of being shallow, however.

A lesson from this is how critical capital is. Some of the same politicians who showed their ignorance in past legislation (mostly lawyers) are going to lead this with their populist leanings. Capital is the grease for the wealth machine that provides for the roads, full supermarkets, vacations, all of our jobs and a lot more of what you see around you. Be very vocal in making sure that wise steps are made to support the capitalist system. It has created 232 years of opportunities for Americans to create an amazing society.

Keep this quote in mind as you go about your job search. Dr. Judy Shelton, an economist, wrote it: "...it was Mr. Sarkozy…, who offered the most profound assessment of our nation's gift to the world. "What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind," he said. "America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who -- with their hands, their intelligence and their heart -- built the greatest nation in the world: 'Come, and everything will be given to you.' She said: 'Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent.'"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385722252027327.html

Who are the Morgan MBAs?

A thread in the Sun comments made some comment about the quality of student at Morgan. Some facts are in order.

Morgan has a mixed reputation in the public regarding the background of students it accepts. I think some of the racial controversies in the university system and some missteps of management cloud the issue. Keep in mind, Morgan undergrad school is an HBCU and has a specialized mission to serve as a nurturing ground for minorities. This is a long and proud tradition in which Morgan does a good job.

The MBA is in competition with all other MBAs and is organized to produce students who compete at the highest levels in the MBA marketplace. No one came to the MBA specifically because this was an HBCU. They came because with 2 years of intensive study they could put their career on steroids. That's been the way we positioned the MBA at Morgan in the market place. That is the only reason we are beginning to be competitive with talented prospects regardless of color.

The program has about 12% non-black students including several whites. The average salary of Morgan full time students in 2007 was about $80,000 and many have signing bonuses. This year’s average hasn’t been tabulated. About 35 students got internships last summer. All are significant improvements from the languid results just a few years ago.

The MBA has an intercollegiate case team that competes with other universities. This tradition of one MBA challenging another has the same bragging rights as any athletic match. It is a big deal in MBA circles. The intensity of the program and the pride that drives the energy of the teams that compete is palpable. Our successes the last 3 years makes believers out of everyone.

This last year Morgan was third behind UM and Wake Forest and beat Syracuse, Penn State, RPI and Howard. We’ve competed before and matched Ohio State and beat Texas amongst others. It is the ‘mouse that roared’ in comparing the schools we compete against. The intercollegiate team is matched by a series of internal case competitions involving the entire MBA. The MBA has a flight of advertisements with the 'competition' theme. You might have seen them.

There are many unfinished agenda in building the infrastructure. A major initiative still has to be undertaken to integrate the courses into a strong curricula that meets MBA level goals. Performance in the classroom is a bit uneven and needs to improve to take the program to the next level. A good description is Morgan is a solid program, taught by full-time Ph.D.s. The students are competitive. Better than most.

The program has about 125 students currently. Since 2005, about 180 students have and are making their way through the program. We made a number of selection mistakes and they have left the program. About 65 have graduated since 2005 and will join the 3500 or so MBA alumni. Morgan started their program in the mid 1960s.

Of the current 125, about 45% are international from 35 different countries: Mongolia, China, Nepal, India, 4 countries in the Middle East, France and Germany in Europe, most of the English speaking and some French speaking countries in Africa and all the Caribbean islands along with Canada and the U.S. About half are full time students. The brand equity in the Morgan brand is surprising. What isn't taken into account is there are about 4000 alumni in the 43 or 44 years history of the program living around the world. Harness that power, as one of our initiatives anticipated, and Morgan will be on the map.

What is equally interesting is that in the U.S., the program attracted students from States from Texas through Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York and most of the Southern States. The marketing push in the Mid-Atlantic area is beginning to show remarkable success. The program is due to grow another 20% during the Spring semester.

For the last 3 years the program has gotten more competitive in the marketplace and won its share of good students in competition with other programs. The average undergraduate grade point of the students has risen to 3.56. It is a 3.28 overall from the beginning. The GMAT average was near 500 for the last class. The overall is lower. There are a significant number of GMATs in the 500s and 600s today.

What is lost in the numbers is that there are about 25 students with advanced degrees. Lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, Ph.D.s, Masters from Public Health, Biology, architecture, regional planning, education, engineering and more. The average age of the MBA at Morgan has risen from about 23 to about 29 in 3 years, adding a critical maturity to the classroom. Because of our intense career focus, we have had several people with special talent go out with six figure salaries. This is a very enriched and energetic student group.

As Morgan has gotten the word out about the talented faculty, particularly the enriched student life program, and the intense career focus, we find we are competitive with any school. For the first time, Morgan has a consistent and maturing marketing and advertising programs. Providing these processes are managed well going forward, the University will have a sustainable program. Although there are some strong staff, the legacy management style and values are in charge and that isn't promising.

The increased interest in Morgan's MBA has been amazing. Starting 3 years ago with few prospects, the number of people expressing interest in the program has increased to about 500. We marketed only a portion of this large group very well. There was a lot of intense work and long weeks by me and student groups to build out an infrastructure to deal with the larger numbers of people interested in Morgan and translate more of those into prospects and then enrolled students. If this keeps going, the new school of business building can't come fast enough.

The brightness and energy and ideas in the hallways at Morgan are exhilarating. Bright students attracted other bright students and helped sell other great prospects. The quality and preparation of students increases inexorably in this environment.

Building a Customer oriented MBA

The MBA plan that evolved at Morgan was designed to field a powerful, world class, MBA and to gain and sustain market share. It was based on a customer-focus and service orientation that is indelibly part of every winner organization.

An MBA faces a specialized marketplace ,where demand for MBA trained students is high and very particular. It dictates what the organization form of successful MBA programs will be. We are a supplier of practitioner talent that has to meet certain requirements. World organization determines the nature of the marketplace. We conform to that marketplace by putting a curriculum and adjusting the intensity of the teaching and student life programs. Within all of this we try to distinguish ourselves, best we can.

Morgan built a student centered MBA culture filled with rewards resulting in consequent growth of confident student leaders. They worked in teams and built world class MBA processes year around. We got an unprecedented number of people in internships and developed a potent career focus. We treated students as adults and responded to their needs as adults beginning on a long and successful career. This MBA was built from the bottom up. This truly is the MBA that students built.

The MBA is an program that competes at the highest level in the MBA marketplace. Classes, faculty and students have to be focused on producing excellent confident and skilled practitioners who can add value on the job right away—minimal learning curve. The students are adults, practitioners and motivated. This requires a fundamental change in the classroom culture and pedagogy from the undergraduate classroom.

The 2005-8 growth period was laced with constant struggle between the legacy School of Business culture and the entrepreneurial culture of the MBA.

The MBA team built, on the run, a student centered MBA focused on 'Leveraging Your Career.' During that period it went from the smallest to the largest Masters program at Morgan. The MBA did its own marketingmore. Prospects zoomed from no prospects in 2005 to well over 500 in 2008.

A large video project was kicked off in 2008 to expand the program's influence. A student project targeted Alumni and regional businesses setting up another base for growth. A sound information system and web site were developed and launched to support the increasingly sophisticated needs of a competitive MBA. A focus from the beginning, students have been responsible for referring about 35% of the next class. They were instrumental in convincing prospects to join.

In addition, the maturing marketing and powerful infrastructure was poised to double the size of the MBA again in the next year or two.

The MBA was an innovation ‘machine.’ The student life, called the Leadership Overlay, component was growing dramatically. Students were excited. Student leaders should take a bow. They were the drivers. It literally was the MBA that student's built.

The momentum was triggered in 2005 as we experienced success. In that kind of environment, leadership direction is dictated by the marketplace demands. Responding to the dictates of a highly competitive marketplace required higher levels of quality and performance throughout the program. We had the capital to do a world class job and rather rapidly achieved new milestones. Typical of any change effort, there was was steady resistance from the traditional culture. The pace of the increasing requirements to maintain the grow dysfunctionally alienated key elements of the leadership.

The irritation with the MBA emanated from four sources. Source one was the MBA requirments for more ‘room’ for a bourgeoning organization-- physical, classrooms, courses, student life activities.

Source two resulted from the MBA's needs for speed and accuracy in dealing with other units in the Morgan bureaucracy. Prospects zoomed from none to over 500. Folders in the graduate school zoomed from none in 2005 to about 100 in the Fall of 2008. The MBA was learning to manage a complex unit and got a lot of pushback from units as they adapted to increasing numbers.

Source three of the MBA's irritating behavior relates to a point of pride in the development of the MBA. It was there to serve the students. The program did what was necessary to support the student's drive for a career, to concentrate on class, to forge a supportive culture and to support the students' need for advice and mentoring. In this process we contrasted with the "Monte Bello" attitude evident in the rest of the University. We were assertive and pursued solutions, policy changes and exceptions.

The fourth source of irritating behavior was just the games rampant in bureaucracies. In 2006 the MBA budget went from nothing to $875,000. It is a support for Morgan from Governor Ehrlich in compensation for increasing competition through giving Towson a competing MBA program.

It was the only funded program. It was the only unit with decision autonomy on marketing, financial aid and other areas. It had extraordinary power in a unit with low structural authority. My behavior reflected the power in the unit and became a threat. Ultimately, in a time of budget deficiencies, this was a major target. The power was insufficient to counteract emboldened authority in the bureaucracy.

The final source of irritation was the basket of errors I made. If you assume that there must have been a pathway in which I could have had the good will and appreciation of the bureaucracy, then I was clumsy at best. I take some exception and explain part of the issue is the bureaucracy was surprised at what it took to turn around a failed program. Even if you accept my rationale, I'd be the first to admit that I made mistakes. I let opportunities to bridge mistakes slip by and rationalized I was busy. And, although I know how to build organizations as a professional, I got tired and defensive as a person at time. Most naively, I thought

Was I a leader or a bulldozer? What should the view of the school be when the program succeeded beyond anyone's dream in 2005? Was it the very culture that interceded Fall of 2008 that caused the failure leading up to the crisis in 2005? Should the very success of the MBA resulted in amnesty for all ills? OK... wishful thinking.

It will be a fascinating case. Bureaucracy, entreprenurship, personalities, race, innovation and change are all involved.

For my friends and students

Hello... As you know I was fired on Monday from my role as Director of the MBA program. Very unusual action when the performance was so high and students so motivated, that something like this would happen. We were in the midst of a very busy, year long agenda.

The only thing I was told by the Dean was he and I don't work well together and that 'we've discussed it.' I certainly knew that he and I were at odds on a lot of issues, but discussing it wasn't an option. I was expected to obey, like everyone else.

I'm going through my own withdrawal pains and I know many students have the same issues. We are extraordinarily close in the MBA and this action will affect nearly every every person in the program and dent or stop key developmental initiatives. All past and current students have a stake in what we built here. This is the MBA that students built. What I'm hoping is it can also be the MBA that students save. Most organizations have crises. Some 'skinny' through and others don't. Maybe Morgan will.

I'll have more to say later, but I do want students to go through this in a healthy way. Once you come to grips with what happened, turn your attention to be part of the solution instead of the problem within the MBA.

It would make me feel good if the current student leaders ended up filling the void that has been created. It would be a story you would tell for the rest of your life. It would be a gripping story for a recruiter.

I want to thank the students who contributed so selflessly from my taking over in 2005. Jennifer was the first leader with Avanelle and Prisca and were indispensable. The list of student leaders who help build infrastructure, recruit, and added leadership to the bourgeoning student life program from the beginning is long. I tried to make sure you knew this over the years. This truly is the MBA that students built.

And it shows in the personal growth that we saw in the 2 years most students stay in the program. We have intercollegiate competitive teams, internal competitions, speakers, clubs and other events that work because of student leadership. I've relished your feed back on the 100 Fire Back e-mails I sent you and prospects, our leadership seminars and frequent 'office' talks. I'll include many of these on the blogspot soon.

We have a major norm in the MBA in establishing careers. "Leverage Your Career" is our mantra.

So, turn your mind to increasing the intensity of your career search. I'm always available for advice by phone or e-mail. I can more quickly turn around an edit on a resume since I've been given back 60-70 hours of my week.

You are part of a proud history. We came from 22 students in 2005 to 125 in 2008. We have an unusual combination of international/ domestic and full/part-time students. There are major infrastructure issues for you to address.

Ms. Myrick and Annie will provide excellent leadership and support and love.

I'll post more in the next 24 hours.

DrV


Dr. Vroman
410/628-0380 (office at home- has answering machine)
443-831-4456 (cell- off a fair amount of time.)
bill.vroman@verizon.net.