Archive for March, 2009

‘What I wish every new employee knew’

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

I went to a great talk by Guy Kawasaki, the author of 9 books including Reality Check: The Irreverent Guide to Outsmarting, Outmanaging, and Outmarketing Your Competition.  He’s also a former Apple Fellow, software entrepreneur, and now – among other things – a columnist for Entrepreneur magazine and founding partner of both VC firm Garage Technology Ventures and “on-line magazine rack” Alltop (http://alltop.com/). You can read more about him at http://www.guykawasaki.com/about/index.shtml.

Though in his 50s, Guy looks and sounds like a 20-something – a really smart 20-something – with the kind of optimism, tongue-in-cheek humor and irreverence you generally associate with youth. His talk was kind of off-the-cuff, and I was frantically scrawling notes on a 4×6 notepad with a dull pencil, so this blog entry won’t do it justice… but I’ll try.

The audience was a bunch of MBA program deans and directors at the GMAC Leadership Conference. His topic: “What I wish every new employee knew.” Here’s his list:

  1. How to talk to your boss. Your boss is not a professor who has to worry about teaching evaluations and rankings. Your boss wants your solutions, not your problems. Come with answers, not questions.
  2. How to be a boss. Most people look at the softer skills and say, “I’m a natural at that.” They’re not. Guy thinks that bosses don’t need as much of the “hard skills,” but they really need OB and leadership. He put it this way: “the tech guys are hired guns.”
  3. How to survive a meeting that is poorly run.  Guy: “most are.”  His advice: “once you get what you need done, relax and turn off your brain.”
  4. How to run a good meeting.  Guy’s rules:
    a. Always start on time
    b. Invite as few people as possible
    c. Set an agenda
    d. End on time
    e. Send an email confirming what everyone will do
  5. How to figure out everything on your own. This is a corollary to #1, I think. “There are no TAs in the real world.”
  6. How to negotiate. It’s all about figuring out ways to find “win/wins.”
  7. How to have a conversation. Guy is a self-professed student of “schmoozing.”  His observation: useful conversation starts with the attitude, what can I do for you?  Guy: “more useful than ‘sucking up’ is ‘sucking down’ or ‘sucking across.’”  In other words, figure out what you can do to develop your own people and to help those who don’t have a reporting relationship to you.  That’s how you develop a useful network.
  8. How to explain what you need in 30 seconds or less. Work on your elevator pitch. Be able to explain your product in 3 words. Guy’s analogy: eHarmony has you fill out pages of information to register with their matching service. Venture Capital is more like the website “Hot or Not?” (http://www.hotornot.com/).
  9. How to write a 1-page report about anything. This was a requirement at Apple. Guy thinks this is a skill that is being taught inadvertently through text messaging and Twitter.
  10. How to write an email in less than 5 sentences. “All email should be haiku.”
  11. How to get along with peers. “People who look out for #1 are the losers.”
  12. How to leave a good voicemail. We’re seeing a theme here…
  13. PowerPoint. Specifically
    a. No more than 10 slides, and no more than 20 minutes
    b. Font size = age of oldest person in audience ÷ 2.
            Rule of thumb: 30 point.
    c. Be prepared for equipment failure.

That’s the list, but if you look at it closely, it all boils down to something more fundamental. Everything Guy hit on has to do with how you treat people… and most of it, to respecting their time and availability. Some good lessons for all of us!

Jim Olver

Jim.Olver@mason.wm.edu

Rankings don’t accurately measure Mason, but they matter

Friday, March 20th, 2009

We have not, historically, spent much time and effort on the rankings.  There are so many of them, and they each have their own criteria for consideration.  However, the rankings are not something we can ignore any longer.  They have too much to do with student recruiting, and even something to do with corporate interest in hiring our students.
 
This last year we were dropped from the Financial Times ranking because we did not have enough alumni in their third year out complete fully the required responses.  So, if an alum completed a survey on the school, but failed to include his/her current salary, their review would not be included. 

The Financial Times has a requirement that it receive a certain minimum number of responses.  It is the same number whether the class size is 65, (as it was at W&M three years ago) or 1,200 as it is at some of the larger schools.  Our proportion of required alumni responses, therefore, is much higher.  So this year, we were not only not ranked, we weren’t even considered because we did not meet minimum threshold responses for responding.
 
I think we would have risen in these rankings, but that is not something that prospective students would know.  They only know that you are there or not there, and with a certain ranking.  International students, especially, pay a great deal of attention to Financial Times ranking, so our absence is damaging to us.
 
Ranking affect the quality of students and faculty attracted to the school and the ability to raise private financial support for the programs.  They are not necessarily entirely sensible in what or how they measure, but they are necessarily important in any case.
 
Next year rankings will be job 1.  We need to start moving up the chain where we truly belong.

What do you think about the Financial Times and other bschool rankings?