You Say Po-Ta-Toe, I Say Po-Tah-Toe

The Big Picture is one of my favorite sites for economic commentary but this post reflects the po-tay-toe po-tah-toe problem. Barry Ritholtz is an accomplished economist but he has a consistently dour perspective on the markets. I was talking to my financial advisor sister a few days ago and I remarked on a phenomenon I noticed years ago; something that I'm seeing huge quantities of during this recession. One bearish commentator will say how weak our recovery will be and this is a horrible thing. A bullish commentator will say the recovery will be weak and this is a wonderful thing and a great time to get in the market. They look at the same information, come to the same conclusion as to the meaning of the data, and then paint it in the colors of their pre-existing prejudices.

The data is the data. The recovery will be weak. Who doesn't believe that?

No Wonder I Didn't Get a Bargain

I recently bought a home in Kansas City, Missouri. Several friends from other places in the country asked me if I got it cheap. I said no, as far as I could tell prices were at least stable around here. In fact, I had two houses sold out from under me (I was ready to make an offer when they were sold to someone else).

The chart on the linked title shows why. The real estate collapse is not national; it's regional.

How Am I Doing - Parte Cuatro

"The markets will slowly improve over the next few weeks, into late April or early May. Then there will be a major pull back that will last until mid-summer. Then in late July or early August, the real market recovery will begin." That was my bold prediction in the third week of March.It is now early May and the market has had a wonderful run for the last few weeks. Some analysts say a bull market has started. Others say it is a suckers bear market rally. Personally, I think the economic recovery has begun but the market is going to pull back in the next few weeks as some traders take some well earned profits. The real bull may start snorting in June instead of July but there should be a pull back here. (Of course, this is a prediction where I'll gladly be wrong.)

Posting Will Be Light

I'm busy at work this week and I'm closing on a house, so there's a lot going on. I'll be back next week. (Of course, if I were Instapundit, I could have guest bloggers ... but ... )

The Great Paul Strassman

Paul Strassman is one of the seminal thinkers on the topic of the economics of IT. The headline link is to his own web site. If you have an interest in this area then you should become acquainted with Mr. Strassman.

The Problem of Personality

I have been working in IT for almost 30 years now and years ago I noticed something that I still can't wrap my puny brain around: Why do most executives display similar personality behaviors?

Let me start by saying that most executives I have worked with have been very able businessmen. (And let me also say that I have worked with many female managers but only male executives. I didn't cause it, it's just the way it has been. If you know of a lady executive (VP or higher) in an industrial company, feel free to add a comment on whether or not my observation holds for women as well.)

Let's call my prototypical executive the Proto-E. In my years I've seen every personality type the human race has to offer at all levels of the business; introverts, extroverts, shy, gregarious, smart, not-so-smart, easy-going, stubborn, you name it. When I get to Proto-Es though the behaviors tend to coalesce around a certain type.

Proto-Es usually have calm personalities. They speak deliberately. They do not often make jokes. They do not often respond to jokes made in their presence. They are almost always pleasant. (In fact, I have seen them behave very pleasantly even when delivering scathing criticisms.)

And they are almost always forceful and direct.

I can only remember one Proto-E I would call indecisive but that was only when he was out of his comfort zone. By training and experience he was an engineer and when speaking of engineering, he was knowledgeable and decisive. When pulled into Accounting or IT or general operations he was much less so. In general, though, he was a good executive because he had a good staff in the areas in which he was weak and this was probably by design.

Another behavior I've noticed is that Proto-Es rarely talk about themselves. Most of us will talk about ourselves until we've bored our companions to tears. The sound of our own voices is sweet, sweet, music to our ears. Proto-Es though; well, it's not so. If I ask a Proto-E how his wife and kids are doing then I'll get a polite response, "fine, thanks". And that's about it.

Now here's my question. Where is the cause-and-effect here? From time-to-time I've had illusions that I could aspire to executive-hood. I believe I still can but only if I owned my own business. I do not believe that I can as long as I'm employed by someone else in a corporate environment. No board of directors is going to accept my quirks, my dry sense of humor. And I'm in no mood to change them. I like my quirks.

But do Proto-Es become executives because they have Proto-E personalities or do they adapt and adopt Proto-E personalities as they move up the corporate ladder? The only way I could personally know is to know a Proto-E who moved up the food chain from the time he or she was only a gleam in the board of directors eyes. I've never known one that long.

So, having rambled too long on this for the moment, I'll come back to the question later. Why do Proto-Es dominate the executive suite?

The Slow, Painful Demise of Strategic IT - Numero Dos

This posting on CIO is well worth a quick follow-up posting. Christopher Koch makes a substantive argument that CIOs should always report to CEOs and that when they don't, it is a dysfunctional relationship that damages the organization. I've worked both ways and I'm not convinced either way but Koch makes a powerful argument. Read the whole thing.