The legislative session is winding down, and it looks like the Legislature is going to provide significant new support for public and higher education this year. As the session winds down, there will inevitably be news coverage pronouncing “higher education was a winner” in this year’s budget. This strikes me as a very peculiar notion. Can an institution like higher education, public education, or social services be a winner? I think not.

Higher education, and the business education component that is my little corner of the University, exists to serve the greater social good by preparing the next generation of leaders for Utah and the world. An educated and skilled work force supports the high technology companies that are Utah’s promise for the future, individuals with college degrees will generate more than a million dollars in greater lifetime earnings than a high school graduate, which means they pay considerably more taxes, and college graduates participate in their communities more extensively than those without college degrees, partly because they are making more money and can afford to spend some of their free time on community affairs and participating in government. College graduates also serve in leadership roles in many arenas, including the arts, social services, non-profits leadership, education, government, and in business. Support for higher education opens the opportunity of higher education to a broader segment of our society, and clearly these individuals win and society wins.

You may be thinking “good in theory,” but more money is more money. Yes. I have budget responsibilities for an organization of about 150 employees, and everyone is glad there will be raises. But state support for higher education also means a lower tuition increase than might otherwise have occurred, which means the students who are attending the state’s higher education institutions will pay less for their education and probably a few students who might otherwise have been unable to afford an education will be able to attend a college or university. So, a few citizens of Utah, who are hard working and have remained hard working through a long series of disappointing pay years from 2002 to 2006, will finally get a little bit of an inflation catch up and a large group of students, who are the sons and daughters, grandchildren, and neighbors of everyone in Utah will get a break that will help them realize their full potential to contribute back.

The “winners” when the State invests in education at every level are the citizens of the State. The money goes to directly benefit the children and young adults who are the future of this state, and these young people are our children. The institutions are not the winners, it is the people who benefit from the commitment and qualifications of the teachers and staff who are the winners. To borrow a paraphrase: “We have met the winners, and they are us.”

Let’s have a party! And let’s remember when it comes time to make hard choices that those who are the winners from investment are also the losers when we fail to support the children and young adults who are our future through the tough times.

Later.

As you may or may not know, there are 10 candidates for mayor in Salt Lake City this year. The mayor’s office has a significant impact on small businesses in the city, with areas ranging from Redevelopment Agencies to city purchasing.

I work with a local organization called the Vest Pocket Business Coalition. Together with Local First Utah, we are sending out a survey this week to all the mayoral candidates in Salt Lake City to ask them about small business issues. The press release is on our website - slcmayor.com. Check it out and let me know your thoguhts.

The results of the survey will be available March 15th.

Update: Local First Utah has decided they will not participate in the survey with us, so it is just Vest Pocket administering the survey. 

My current philosophy on horizontal networking for entrepreneurs.

During a three way conversation with my friend Robin Peng, he introduced Fight Club to someone we were talking to as my ‘philosophy’ of networking. Surprise. I have a philosophy of social networking.Well, I guess maybe I do.

Networking

Networking for it’s own sake is usually a waste of time in a business sense. Too often I’ve found myself with a paper plate and a few edible tidbits, standing around in a group and evaluating the scene to see if there’s someone I might be interested in talking too. In general there are lots of people that I don’t think I’m interested in talking to because the evaluations I’m making are based on such scant information that I instantly assign them a category or level of interest. It’s a perfectly logical way of attempting to segment those who I think I want to talk to from those I think I don’t want to talk to. I have no way of knowing if I’m making a good judgement or not. I might just as easily pass up an opportunity to meet a new friend or business partner.

I’m totally aware that this is always happening to me since I’m usually dressed in jeans and I may potentially have a days worth of beard growth. It’s not often (read never) that I wear a suit anymore unless someone died.

So, there I am, plate in hand, attempting to decide who is worth overcoming my inherent reticence and actually introducing myself to. All the while I’m muttering under my breath that I hate these things more than the waxing scene in 40 Year Old Virgin.
So, what can you do? What should you do? And… how do you do it?

The Problem: You’re not part of the networks that you want to be part of.

Groups consolidate into Horizontal Networks.

A horizontal network is made up of members who see themselves as equals in some way. It doesn’t mean that they come from the same income bracket or social background, it means that they aggregate around a common perception that they all belong to the same group, even if that perception is fleeting. Humans search for a common bond that identifys them as part of a group. (It’s interesting to not that anti-social groups are built around group identities.)
Our kids ride at the same riding academy. We graduated from the same school. We speak French. We hate the French. We’re related… Whatever . Humans have an innate sense of group that is inherently harsh. If you’re in a group, you’re one of us. If you’re not, you’re of no interest at best and we might actually want to invade your country and make you sing our national anthem. (As the saying goes: “Give a German a gun and he’ll head for Paris.”)
Verticals never network… except in ‘Maid in Manhattan’.

Groups that try to network what are perceived as two different ’stratum’ never work. The social bonds humans look for exclude accepting this.

Just try to have a vertical networking event where VC’s and angels get together with entrepreneurs and students. The single Angel who shows will be mobbed and that, as they say, with be the end of that. It’s typical that those in the lesser stratum think that they have much more to gain from those in the upper. For the most part, humans don’t like to feel that they’re offering more than their receiving and it creates ‘they want something from me’ tensions that people avoid, even when it’s in their best interest to know and network with a different group.

Dunbar’s Number: Humans have the ability to form around 150 total relationships and no more according to Dunbar’s Number. Interesting, military organizations have always been built around these numbers. While there are some people with linked in networks of 500+, it’s not really possible to have or maintain that many real relationships.

Life with Alacrity’s post on Dunbars Number: The group size predicted for modern humans by equation (1) would require as much as 42% of the total time budget to be devoted to social grooming.

Good to know that your aunt Millie is taking up one of your relationship slots.

You can read the rest of this prattling post on horizontal networking and why I started Fight Club if you’re interested. I just thought I’d share the info on Dunbars Number here.

Utah Business, which is generally a pretty poopsky magazine with very trite articles, has a nice little read on the key benefits of blogging. They dub keeping tabs on what's going on in your space by reading blogs as the first benefit of blogs and the marketing power via publishing a blog. Here's a nice blogging for dummies description from the article: “A corporate blog can enhance a company’s brand, build thought leadership, deepen customer relationships by promoting conversations and put forth a human face to a large organization. A blog also provides fresh web content, which gives you more online visibility, attracts search engines and drives more traffic.”

My only beef; if you decide to publish a company blog, don't call it a "corporate blog." Just call it a blog. Personable. Authentic. Sans spin. No direct selling. Blogging: taking the corporate out of companies since 1999. I should trademark that.

In doing some Wikipedia research last week on Bill O'Reilly, I found this little snippet of vandalism right under the "Politics" sub-section after four, well-constructed paragraphs: "Bill O'Reilly is also a douche who should never express his right winged opinion ever again."

I couldn't help but laugh at the little activist fellow who snuck that one in. The change in cadence was hilarious. And while I love Wikipedia, I do admit it that it takes an intelligent reader to spot entry vandalism on controversial subjects. Hence, you have to be a pretty savvy individual to spot the good from the bad. Furthermore, reports indicate that the reading level for the site is on a 10th grader level, much higher than the 6-8th grader level of most national publications. But more often than not, however, Wikipedia works like a balanced and well-written charm. It's the closest "no spin zone" I've found on the internet.

See also:

• Wikipedia 8/10 in Top News Websites
• Wikipedia May Go To Print
• Wikipedia your iPod