Friday, July 22, 2011

Job prospects

With recruiting season coming up in a couple of months, the state of the job market is important to those of us who will be graduating in a year. And if you follow economic news at all, you know that the job market has been pretty shaky lately. I think LGOs are desirable job candidates, and I'm confident that all of us will end up with something good, but employment data as of late has been a little frightening.

What really stands out is the unbelievable dichotomy between corporate earnings and the "real" economy in the US. Unemployment is not declining despite the economic "recovery" that we've been in for the past 2 years, yet corporate earnings are very strong and companies are absolutely flush with cash. There's no clear explanation for why this is the case: economists on the left claim that the reluctance to invest and hire is due to the lack of customer demand, so the government should spend more; conservative economists blame economic uncertainty and anti-business government policies.

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but one of our partner company CEOs does. On the 2Q earnings call today, Caterpillar's CEO Doug Oberhelman was pretty clear as to why some businesses might be reluctant to invest in the US:

"Lack of clarity on a U.S. deficit reduction plan, trade policy, regulation, much needed tax reform and the absence of a long-term plan to improve the country's deteriorating infrastructure, do not create an environment that provides our customers with the confidence to invest."

It's frustrating to watch this play out - most large companies have a lot of money, and, with the right incentives, would want to invest in the US, and in particular in the types of jobs that would be great for LGOs and other manufacturing/operations people. I think that over time, the investment will happen, mainly because the US needs it to happen, and we will be in a good position to benefit when it does. But someone really needs to figure out what the right incentives are.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Education in Finland

I just came across this interview with Harvard professor Tony Wagner, who has studied the education system in Finland and narrates a new documentary - "The Finland Phenomenon: Inside the World's Most Surprising School System." I haven't seen the documentary yet but will hopefully get my hands on it soon.

Based on the interview, it seems like the transformation of the school system here in Finland has a lot to do with elevating the respect level of the teaching profession. According to Prof. Wagner, "...teaching has become the most highly esteemed profession. Not the highest paid, but the most highly esteemed."

Based on my exposure to the country and people so far, I can see how such a reform would succeed here, and also why improving the K-12 public education system seems so hopeless in the US. Americans have an aversion towards the European-style socialist system that is present in Finland - and for a lot of good reasons - but one benefit is the cohesiveness it creates among people. I can see that attitude when I meet people - the lack of competitiveness, the sense that "what's good for you is probably good for me too." I think this type of culture is almost necessary to bring about the kind of education reform that Finland has seen.

Unfortunately, it seems like that type of change is impossible in the US for many reasons, such as the diversity of the country and huge economic disparities that exist. But I think it's mainly a cultural thing about people being unable to think about what's best for the country long-term. The obsession with test scores in schools is, to some extent, a reflection of a culture of short-term results and competition. It's ironic that some of the characteristics that have made America what it is - this individualism and competitive drive - are probably some of the biggest obstacles to much-needed changes in the education system. People definitely realize that better K-12 education is an absolutely necessary part of any solution to America's long-term challenges, but whether people can move beyond short-term political games is unclear.

Anyway, I digress. I'm sure that this documentary is interesting and highlights an eye-opening case of how a successful education system came to be. Hopefully it offers some helpful guidance on what could happen if more value is placed on teachers. But I wonder if it's just an isolated example of a very unique situation given the characteristics of Finland or an example that other countries, like the US, can actually learn from.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Leading vs. executing

The 6-month internship is one of the most important factors when people are thinking about LGO versus other programs. It's a tough call: you miss an entire semester of business school and don't have complete control over where you may end up. On top of that, I think it's difficult to really understand the benefits of this type of experience until you go through it. A good friend of mine actually recently picked another program over LGO mainly because of the internship, and it was tough for me to come up with a strong argument in favor of the LGO internship structure. I figured that a longer internship would be a more valuable experience, but it's now becoming more clear why that is.

Although I've only been here for 3 weeks, I can already forsee that one of the biggest differences between this internship and my prior work experience is the degree to which I will lead versus execute. I can't really speak for everyone in my class since people are coming from very different industries and levels of seniority, but I'm sure this is true to some extent for most of my classmates as well.

The line between leading and executing (as I'm defining them) is definitely blurry. At my previous job, I did "lead" projects and various initiatives (at least according to my resume), but the end goal was always either very clear or at least easy to ascertain. There were certain leadership skills I needed to use - managing and motivating people, understanding and adapting to evolving project goals, etc. - but I'm now seeing that I was mostly just executing. Things are different when you have to lead a project, especially when the determining the end goal is part of the project itself.

I've always been good at executing because I tend to pick things up pretty quickly. But this experience has been humbling, as I'm starting to see that the types of skills involved in truly leading a project are different. You need to be able to connect with people, determine who key stakeholders are and what they really care about, and come up with creative solutions that may be outside the realm of what anyone has thought about before. It's about piecing together disparate pieces of information, getting the right people to buy in, and communcating ideas to those people effectively.

I think this is one of the big differences between the LGO internship and a traditional summer internship. In the 10 weeks or so of a traditional internship, it's difficult to do much beyond executing a certain set of tasks or a small project. I'm not saying that LGO internships always lead to lasting, impactful changes within an organization; there's obviously only a certain amount you can do even in 6 months. But I do see how leading a real project that's important to a company over an extended period will help me develop certain skills that I wouldn't otherwise work on but that I can see being really useful after I graduate.