Creative Class

The Detroit News’ Laura Berman writes:

“He is an eminent scholar of Victorian
literature, recruited in a national search and selected as one of three
finalists for an elite academic position — dean of arts and sciences
– at Oakland University. Then he withdrew his name. One
factor, university officials say, was the state’s grim economic
outlook. But a harsh social climate didn’t help, especially a recent
state appeals court decision ruling that state universities could no
longer offer domestic partner benefits to gay and lesbian staff members. …Voters who in 2004 defined marriage and its
social benefits specifically to include only those formally and legally
joined in heterosexual unions, are getting what they perhaps wished
for: a specialized kink in the brain drain that is affecting ability to
keep and retain faculty members.”

“Michigan’s effectively becoming
a laboratory for legal ways to drive out some of its smartest citizens
– and to keep out others….Jo Reger, an
associate professor of sociology at Oakland University, said that after
Michigan voters passed measures defining marriage, and another banning
affirmative action, “Michigan just doesn’t seem like a welcoming place
anymore”.“

The full story is here.

I’m not saying that lack of openness is the root-cause of Michigan’s problems, and neither is Laura Berman. The state is suffering the consequences of decades of absolutely mind-boggling mis-management by the Big Three. But the two are related. The state’s economic decline generates the fear and anxiety that produces this kind of backlash. That intolerance then chases away the top talent at the state’s fantastic higher-education institutions which are the key to its revival, while chillng the market for new talent. As Henry Baskin, a Oakland University trustee originally appointed by Michigan’s former Republican Governor,  John Engler told the paper: “Anytime you eliminate parts of society, you hurt yourself.“

According to Reuters:

“The nation’s first low-cost housing
development aimed specifically at gay, lesbian and transgender
retirees opened its doors in Hollywood on Thursday with a
promise to provide a dignified haven for elderly homosexuals to
live out their days. Calling it a historic day for the gay and lesbian community
in both Los Angeles and the United States, officials opened the
104-unit affordable housing complex, built around a pool and
open courtyard and complete with an activity center and
disabled facilities. Yet even in Los Angeles, gay, bisexual, lesbian and
transgender adults face daunting challenges in what can often
be a lonely and isolated old age, the nonprofit Gay and Lesbian
Elder Housing group said. Same-sex partners cannot share a room in most elderly care
facilities and gays often face prejudice and lack the family
support systems enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts. Some are forced to hide their sexual orientation when they
enter assisted living facilities after years of living openly
as gays.”

Click here for the full story (hat tip: Dean Alexander).

When I first visited the University of Michigan in 1990, my father and I spent hours wandering through a huge, well organized bookstore that felt unlike anything we had ever experienced. It was Borders Books. At the time, the Ann Arbor store was the only store the company owned, though it began its expansion while I was an undergrad. The company is now a behemoth, but has fallen into trouble as it has struggled to keep in sync with creative class consumers.

A piece by Jeffery A. Trachtenberg in the Wall Street Journal outlines the company’s new strategic moves as it attempts to raise profit margins, market share, and better exploit new markets in digital entertainment and commerce. While this sounds pretty straightforward, will this be enough to pull in more creative class consumers? From the article,

‘For six years, Borders Group
Inc. has pursued a distinctly unfashionable strategy: betting big on
bricks and mortar while paying little attention to the online world.
But with online sales capturing an ever-increasing share of the book
business, the No. 2 book retailer is reversing course.

(more…)

What in the world will David Brooks say when he finds out those fashionable moms are taking over Manhattan as well as Brooklyn. According to this story in the New York Times:

Manhattan, which once epitomized the
glamorous and largely childless locale for “Sex and the City,” has
begun to look more like the set for a decidedly upscale and even more
vanilla version of 1960s suburbia in “The Wonder Years.” Since 2000, according to census figures released last year, the
number of children under age 5 living in Manhattan mushroomed by more
than 32 percent. And though their ranks have been growing for several
years, a new analysis for The New York Times makes clear for the first
time who has been driving that growth: wealthy white families. …

The analysis shows that Manhattan’s 35,000 or so white non-Hispanic
toddlers are being raised by parents whose median income was $284,208 a
year in 2005, which means they are growing up in wealthier households
than similar youngsters in any other large county in the country. Among white families with toddlers, San Francisco ranked second,
with a median income of $150,763, followed by Somerset, N.J.
($136,807); San Jose, Calif. ($134,668); Fairfield, Conn. ($132,427);
and Westchester ($122,240). In comparison, the median income of other Manhattan households with
toddlers was $66,213 for Asians, $31,171 for blacks and $25,467 for
Hispanic families.

David Bernard, 42, and Joanna Bers, 38, run a management and
marketing consulting business and live with their 17-month-old twin
sons on Fifth Avenue. Both grew up in suburbia. “I like the idea of raising them in the city because they’re
prepared for pretty much anything,” Mr. Bernard said. “The city
challenges you; it prepares you for life.” Manhattan is probably more diverse than most suburbs, he said, because “the five boroughs are brought together in Manhattan.” “We were just at the Children’s Museum, and I didn’t see a lack of
diversity there at all,” Ms. Bers said. “New York is a melting pot. We
have every intention of sending our kids to P.S. 6. New York is a
wonderful place to raise children, especially if there are more of them
and more resources devoted to them.”

Over at Organizations and Markets, Peter Klein has something very interesting to say about  “under-management.”   ” Sure, we can worry along with Bob Sutton [author of The No-Asshole Rule] about abusive bosses. But what about bosses who exercise too little authority?” He quotes Anne Zelenka, who writes that: ” Starfish organizations, so the claim goes, work mainly via flat and
collaborative peer networks, not by the practice of top-down leadership
or management. This might make you think that management isn’t
necessary in the new world of work and business enabled by the web. Yet
even so-called starfish organizations like Wikipedia and Craigslist
rely on some sort of governance structure and effective leadership to
succeed.”

I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I found exactly exact same thing in my studies of the software industry, and I wrote about the need for “soft-management” in Rise.  Open-source software development has a governance structure of peer review which one commentator called a “brutal meritocracy.”  My essay with SAS Institute founder Jim Goodnight in Harvard Business Review tried to detail how that company manages.  I recall asking Jim what SAS does with slackers. He said simply: “We throw them out.”

The creative age requires management. But not top-down industrial style, always looking over your shoulder kind of management. Peter’s post got me thinking about what I’ve learned after many years of studying large companies like Toyota, high-tech Silicon Valley startups, research environments, and creative people.

So here are my five  keys to management in the creative corporation.

• Use  intrinsic rewards to motivate people. Figure out what people crave. Whether it’s challenge, excitement, working with great people on great projects, make sure they get it in their jobs and work.
• Treat everyone as an individual on their own terms. Make sure their job and tasks fit their interest and strengths. Junk the whole policy non-sense. Recognize that everyone is different, works differently and needs different things to succeed.
• Create great infrastructure and environment which helps people and takes care of their basic needs and doesn’t get in the way.  Get rid of red tape.  Make sure people don’t have to spend their time doing non-creative, non-productive things. Make sure their mind and full talents are on the job.
• Use performance-based system with clear metrics to hold people accountable.  Identify people who make other people more successful and effective. Reward high-performers and stars, not seniority.  Coach and mentor average and low performers to make them better.  Work on better job fit.
• Show squelchers, “assholes, ” and slackers the door.

I’d love to know what others have experienced, what folks like and what they can’t stand, and any examples of companies that get it, or don’t?

We can all remember our parents, high school guidance counselors, and mentors telling us “Go to college; you’ll make more money.”   Well, perhaps, they were right on target.  According to a U.S. Census press release last week,

“Adults with a bachelor’s degree earned an average of $54,689 in 2005, while those with a high school diploma earned $29,448.  Adults with advanced degrees earn four times ($79,946)  more than those with less than a high school diploma.”

Download  "By The Numbers: Diplomas Equal Cash"

posted by Steven

Sure, Joel Kotkin is a vocal critic of the creative class. I’ve enjoyed the back-and-forth.  I’ve long said I always learn the most from my critics. But according to Michael Lewyn, it’s not my work that’s the real target.  As he sees it,  Kotkin’s writing is aimed at a much a broader agenda, reflecting “an almost obsessive focus on declaring cities dead or irrelevant.” In a detailed essay, Lewyn provides a fact-filled point-by-point critique of Kotkin’s anti-urban diatribes, concluding that  “Kotkin’s most venomous work is simply chock-full of errors.”

Read the whole thing here (hat tip: Christian Peralta at Planetizen).

Last week Richard posted a working paper the he and Charlotta Mellander have put together. There Goes the Neighborhood (the paper’s title) investigates the role of artists, bohemians, and gays in regional real estate values. One of the theories put forward in the paper is that the aforementioned groups improve supply via an ‘aesthetic-amenity premium’ and a ‘tolerance or open culture premium.’

A really interesting piece put out by AP takes a peak at the Castro neighborhood in San Francisco and the change occurring there as more hetero couples move in (presumably to take advantage of the ‘aesthetic-amenity premium’ and the ‘tolerance/open culture premium’). From the piece,

"SAN FRANCISCO – In just about any other place, the sight of a man and
a woman pushing a stroller would be welcomed as a sign of stability and
safety. In San Francisco’s heavily gay Castro District, some people
can’t help but think: There goes the neighborhood.

Gay leaders in the Castro and other gay neighborhoods around the
country fear their enclaves are losing their distinct identities.

These areas are slowly being altered by an influx of heterosexual
couples, the forces of gentrification, and growing confidence among
gays that they can live pretty much wherever they want now and do not
need the security of being in a "gay ghetto."’

Any thoughts on this transition? Is this article just eye-grabbing or is this a real trend that is occurring throughout gay enclaves in America and Europe?

posted by David

Over at Burghdiaspora, Jim Russell comments on my post on the Stuck and the Mobile:

“I suggest  helping The Stuck become The Mobile. …Thus,
I have a paradox: If a region encourages mobility, how might it benefit
from its investment? What I observe is that places such as “Detroit,
Buffalo, or Pittsburgh” suffer from poor demographic churn. Relative to
other regions, few people are actually leaving. The deep attachment to
place discourages out-migration. The resulting landscape is
increasingly parochial, building a barrier to in-migration. When
this happens, the best thing you could do for your citizens is to
encourage them to move to improve. Concurrently, the region in question
should foster links for these nomads back to home. I figure that these
Parochial Argonauts retain an abnormal connection to the place where
they grew up.”

From where I sit, he’s absolutely right. Your thoughts?

Business Week uses Zillow’s heat maps to come up with a list of ten up and coming neighborhoods across the United States.

1. Boston – Dorchester
2. Chicago – East Garfield Park
3. Denver – Civic Center
4. LA – Pico Union
5. Miami – Little River
6.  NY – Kingsbridge Heights, Bronx
7. Phoenix – Cashion
8. San Francisco – Mission Bay
9. Seattle – University Ditrict
10. St. Louis – Tiffany

The story is here. A slide show of these 1o neighborhoods is here. Click here to see how use Zillow’s heat maps to locate hot neighborhoods in your community and elsewhere.

What’s the hot neighborhood region in your area?  See if you can use
Zillow’s heat maps to find it?  Let us know what you come up with.