Can a non-minority start-up get off the ground?

In my still brief construction and engineering career I've worked for two companies that qualify for Minority Business Enterprise which is defined as a company that is at least 51% owned by a minority. Minorities of course include African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, but somewhat interestingly minorities also include women.

Both companies were majority owned by women. The first firm was an engineering consulting company that was of course started by a husband and wife but placed in the name of the wife. This is a bit sneaky, but the owner was very well educated and experienced in this line of consulting and certainly qualified to run a company of this type. The work we put out was exceptional and I have no problem with them reaping the benefits of minority business requirements on public projects.

The second company however was also started by a husband and wife. However, in this case the wife did little more than sign the occasional check - the company was entirely run by the husband. While they did good work, this is a gross exploitation of a system that should arguably not be in place at all.

Regardless of your beliefs on women being included in minority owned businesses, let's be clear about one thing: women are not a minority. In fact, women could very well be in the majority in this country as far as population is concerned. However, we all know that the term minority in this situation should really be disadvantaged because it has nothing to do with percentages but has to do with overall advancement of a particular demographic. So let's be clear about something else: women are not disadvantaged.

Women will consistently have better test and academic scores than men, and while I've heard countless testimonies about how salaries of women are significantly lower than that of men, I know for a fact that this is not the case in the world of engineering and construction and could very well be exaggerated outside of the AEC industry. Even people publishing the statistics of salaries for men vs. women will acknowledge that engineering and construction does not have a disparity of income. But really, the reason I know this is because I've worked with and gone to school with several women and I know what they make. I wish I had a job, let alone the salary my female colleagues are raking in. And yes, they are all employed.

I think constantly about going out on my own and trying to start some kind of company, but something holds me back and I think the biggest issue is that I don't know what my advantage will be in the market. How can I compete when there is a large portion of public work for which I am not even eligible?

I would like to note, that I am very much in favor of mandated minority business requirement on public jobs. I think it encourages minorities that may have grown up on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum to go out and make a difference. But lets make sure that these folks are in fact disadvantaged.

Perhaps I'm overreacting (I think I've said that before in this blog), and if I went out my own I would be able to compete fairly for work, but it almost seems that in order to start a company or get your foot in the door, it requires some kind of competitive advantage and in the AEC industry, people at every firm are doing pretty much the same thing, so I wonder: what's my advantage? Will a quirky blog that gives moderately substantiated rhetoric on the industry push me to the top?

I better hope so.

Can a non-minority start-up get off the ground?

Good to Great is Good and Great

If you ever get the chance to read Good to Great by Jim Collins I highly recommend it. Not only because it is a well written and well described account of years of investigation into organizations and what makes them good vs. great, but also because Jim Collins has done something that I have never seen before and certainly has never been published in a such a mainstream way.

Collins looked at companies and measured their performance with the yardstick we all know and love: stock price. After a thorough analysis of hundred of companies he selected fifteen that significantly outperformed the general stock market by at least four times over a fifteen year period. So for example, if the stock market as a whole was four times what it was fifteen years earlier, then the lowest performing Good to Great company (Abbot from 1974-1989) would have increased in stock price 16 times and the highest performing Good to Great Company, (Circuit City from 1982-1997) increased its stock price 72 times. And these are not start-up companies. They are companies that that mulled along in mediocrity and then had a very distinct point of transition.

I thought it was funny that General Electric often considered a poster child of late twentieth century business practice with the fist pounding and head slashing of Jack Welsh, only beat the market by 2.8 times and didn't make the Good to Great List.

But an investigation of what companies have done well with respect to stock price is certainly nothing new or earth shattering. It's the investigation of the reasoning for this strong performance that makes Collins' work extraordinary. Collins didn't find that strong technological breakthroughs, masterful mergers or acquisitions, or fearful management styles fueled a transition from good to great, but rather it was a modest, humble group of leaders that focused on the people of the organization and their clear and concise goals.

The great irony is that the animus and personal ambition that often drive people to positions of power stand at odds with the humility required for Level 5 leadership. When you combine that irony with the fact that boards of directors frequently operate under the false belief that they need to hire a larger-than-life, egocentric leader to make an organization great, you can quickly see why Level 5 leaders rarely appear at the top of our institutions.

Relating leadership to stock price is like relating the mushy pre-Super Bowl coaches speech to wins. Collins' work is a display of soft skills vs. hard quantitative data, fist-pounders vs. hand shakers, and dare I say, liberal vs. conservative?

I suggest everybody read it. It's not a life changer but I think it could certainly alter the way you perceive the leadership of a successful organization.

Good to Great is Good and Great

Are we the dumbest generation?

I recently downloaded the USA today app for my iPhone which allows me to get an instant dose of mediocre and politically neutral news anywhere at any time. Technology is truly wonderful. Anyway, I was scrolling through this application during a spare nano-second and I ran across an article titled, "The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30)." Because I have some interest in this topic (see Talkin' bout my generation - How to deal with gen X and gen Y) the title certainly caught my attention and I immediately thought that this author better have some substantial reasoning behind a generalized statement like this. Guess what - he doesn't.

I know, I know, I didn't read the book, and frankly I don't care to, but the article gives a synopsis of what the author, Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein, is trying to say.

The cost, he says, outweighs the convenience. Kids are writing more than ever online or in text messages, but it's not the kind of narrative skill needed as adults, he says. "Those forms groove bad habits, so when it comes time to produce an academic paper … or when they enter the workplace, their capacity breaks down."

Mark goes on to say,

"If you go into a room of strangers, you don't know how to relate. You can't replicate your IM habits, it closes people off from a wider engagement with the world."

TISNF!


Uh Mark, this is totally not true. What writing were kids doing before email, text message, and IM? Because it certainly wasn't to their pen pals. It was nothing. And if we can't trust anyone under 30, who can we trust? The 65 year old Bernie Madoff perhaps? Bank executives? Enron board members?

If we're the dumbest generation then the smartest is certainly yet to come. I think Mark Bauerlein is quite possibly the dumbest faculty member at Emory and he's the only one I've ever heard of.

But maybe I'm wrong and his book goes into depth about how smart and full of potential younger people are. I'm not going to find out because I'm not going to buy it. And its a shame that a book with a title like this gets notoriety on USA Today and will probably sell a lot of copies.

In my experience younger people have a much more appropriate ethical boundary and while being very proficient with technology are also strong with communication and people skills. And my experience with old folk is that their ethical line has been pushed off the cliff by greedy higher-ups, their ability to communicate sucks, they have limited and crude technological knowledge, and they're really not that much fun to work with.

Ok, that's a little harsh. I actually know a handful of people I've worked with who are in their fifties who have a kick ass combination of experience, people skills, and technical knowledge. And for those, the Madoffs and Enrons are extremely bad publicity. So really, I'm just a little ticked that a book with a title like this gets publicity on USA Today.

I guess there is plenty to be ticked about nowadays, so perhaps this isn't one of them.

Are we the dumbest generation?

Time Lapse of wind turbines in the UK

Time Lapse of wind turbines in the UK

Engineers are evidently tough to find

I was sent an article the other day from the Yahoo Finance website that was syndicated from Forbes.com. The article was titled, "The Hardest Jobs to Fill in America" and of course included a Top Ten List of the most desired positions. I think David Letterman has had a profound affect on the world of journalism because I can't read an article any more that doesn't give the top seven of this or ten reasons for that. Do people not read anything that doesn't hammer bullet points into their head?

Anyway, engineers topped the list of the hardest jobs to fill in America shortly followed by nurse and technician. It made me feel a bit unwanted since I'm an engineer and I'm more likely to get a callback from an audition for Dancing with the Stars than a company to whom I've sent my resume. However, after I thought about it a bit, my low self esteem was gloriously lifted.

I think its funny how magazines like Forbes can make these generalized statements about engineers and for god's sake technicians! I can think of a million different things a technician could do (an engineer as well for that matter). I had a friend who had a summer job during college and he declared himself an automotive hydraulic technician. He worked at a car wash.

Anyway, let's take a look at the term engineer and determine exactly what it could mean. Are they talking about Civil Engineers? Mechanical Engineers? Electrical? Industrial? Environmental? Chemical? The guy on the train? All of them? They reference the Obama stimulus construction package, the majority of which will be delivered in 2010. Do they mean engineers will be the most in demand now or in 2010? Because honestly, I'm pretty darn sure that it isn't right now. Civil Engineering resumes are flying around like tumbleweeds through the vacant offices of design and construction firms and there is no sign of it improving.

There are a couple of problems here. First of all, engineer is far too broad of a term to associate it with one profession. But to the majority of people who read Forbes magazine (business people I presume) an engineer is an engineer is an engineer. This problem exists in organizations as well, the folks hiring engineers are often not engineers themselves. I've been approached for mechanical engineering jobs and others that I am certain I would not be qualified because my background is in civil engineering and construction management. However, if I didn't say this, I could get hired for these positions just because the hiring manager is told from someone above that they need to hire an engineer.

Even within civil engineering the breath of experience can be overwhelming. For example a structural engineer has a completely different skill set than an environmental engineer but they are both labeled as a civil engineers and both would be very uncomfortable in the position of the other.

The article also stated they engineers can start at a six figure salary with only a four year degree which makes the profession nearly as lucrative as a doctor or lawyer without the heavy schooling requirements. This is simply not true. Any type of engineer will have difficulty starting at more than $60k and for civil engineers it's probably in the forties or fifty at the most. Its a career that pays decently but certainly not as much as a doctor or lawyer. And this is fine, but let's just make sure to provide the information accurately.

So I guess my point is that we not only need to be straight about how much engineers make but we also need to look further into the background of engineers when hiring. The people doing the hiring should be engineers themselves to have a more thorough knowledge of the profession. Perhaps I'm dreaming (aka blogging), but trust me, if we make non-engineers a bit more aware of the profession we'll all be better off.

Engineers are evidently tough to find

Construction cartoon - ha ha ha

Construction cartoon - ha ha ha

How to barely pass the LEED AP exam

Every once in a while Mars will align with Jupiter during a lunar eclipse and a drive by of Haley's comet. Well, I think last Monday morning was one of those rare moments in the continuum of space and time because I was somehow able to muster enough information out of my swelling brain to pass the LEED AP exam with a less that spectacular score of 174 out of 200 (you need a 170 to pass). And now I will share my secret with all of cyberspace: You need to study.

I will in fact go into some more tips on passing it or a least tell you what I did and should have done to make my life a little easier, but before I do so (because you wouldn't listen to be bitch if I told you now) I need to vent a bit about how angry I would have been if I failed this thing. Not only was the test $400 plus about $300 I spent on reference material and study classes, but since the criteria for LEED project certification has already changed, I would have had to learn the new system before I took the test again. I will have to learn the new system eventually, but at least I don't have to go through the misery of cramming every percentage, associating it with a LEED credit and then spitting it back at a testing center.

So the first thing you need to do is read the reference manual cover to cover. Just do it. Of course, I felt like I was above this and I used the pick and choose method of what I studied from the book. But I've realized that the people who make this exam want you to read the whole thing and they'll ask you questions that you won't know if you only look at the major criteria for each credit.

I took a six week study class put on by the Delaware Valley Green Building Council and this was actually pretty good. There is probably something similar in your local green building chapter. It was only $75 and they gave practice questions and insight on the LEED system and how to pass the test. We concluded the class with a spirited game of LEED Jeopardy by splitting into groups and competing against each other. My group finished dead last.

I took three practice tests and scored exactly the same on all three - roughly 50% correct. With two days left before the exam, I felt like John McCain two days before the presidential election. After aimlessly leafing through the credit criteria I decided to structure my cramming with a spreadsheet that came with my Ebay purchase of the reference guide. The sheet has every credit and prerequisite in the left column and and then a column for intent, requirements, submittals, reference standards, and construction vs. design submittal. I went through each credit and covered up the pertaining information and tried to recall what should go in. After about three or four times through the document I think I tripled my knowledge of LEED credits. I think this method was the primary reason for me taking my 50% average to about 69% which is evidently enough to squeeze by.

I will say that the moment before I hit end on this test was one of the most nervous moments of my life. Perhaps its because I'm jobless and the money I had invested and the struggle I would have to go through to study for the test again, but it was certainly an experience that I will not soon forget. I clicked the end button, and after about ten excruciating seconds of computer churning a screen popped up with the word pass next to the word result. Damn.

Enjoy, and be sure to let me know how it goes.

John Poole, LEED AP

How to barely pass the LEED AP exam