Cresting the Summit of the Mount for a Second Time – Still a Thrill

 

This afternoon I received news that literally got me leaping out of my chair in happiness; we did it again!  You ask, what did we do again?  Achieve Gold, LEED for Communities Gold for the New York Olympic region.  If you have not read it, you may want to go back and read the post I made on 15 September 2019:  https://backusec.blogspot.com/2019/09/going-for-gold-and-making-it-my-our-new.html.  Once you have, you will get a large part of the background on what this meant then, and even more so now as we accomplished a full recertification of the same community using the most up to date version of the LEED for Communities rating system, achieving the same certification level even as it required us to meet even higher standards and having an even more robust submission.  As I wrote in this email to many today, this is a significant and summit type moment:

 

“Mayor Devlin, Supervisor Preston, Former Supervisor Doty, LPCSD Superintendent Seymour, ORDA CEO Walden, & Clarkson President Larson,

 

I am proud to relay to you the news below regarding the New York Olympic Region being re-ecertified at the GOLD Level of the LEED for Communities rating system.  This is a significant accomplishment for your community and represents your leadership as a sustainable and resilient community among the top across the globe.  It also is an acknowledgement of much more than just a certification effort, but a journey that your community has been on for decades.

 

As you know many community members have been a part of this effort, inclusive of a steering committee representing the town, village, school district, and ORDA (esp. Dean Dietrich, Marc Galvin, Haley Breen, Jackie Kelly, & Tammy Morgan).  Supported by ORDA's funding, and relying on undergraduate students to do the heavy lifting, we embarked on the recertification journey as part of Clarkson's Adirondack Semester in the Fall of 2023.  While it has taken longer than we expected, we achieved the goals we started out with in this effort to "Go for Gold" again; following up on our initial Gold level certification in 2019.  What has been great is how this has paralleled the Town & Village comprehensive planning efforts, ORDA's program development, community sustainability efforts through the school and elsewhere, and so much more while we have pushed forward on this global third party validation of your efforts.

 

I wish to give a special thanks to Ms. Maria Suffredini (EnvS&S, '25) and Ms. Rochelle Daniels (EnvE '26) who were the primary members of the student certification team pulling together our final submission and staying through to the end of this process.  I believe this is the first ever recertification of a community to LEED recertification standards by undergraduate students anywhere in the world.  I also want to thank the multi-institutional Sustainable Holistic Planning Systems (SHPS) research team who have been under-girding these efforts since 2018 with scholarship and support of students at both Clarkson and Syracuse University as well as now at the Universidad de Granada in Spain.  Finally, I want to thank the team at USGBC, especially Dr. Vatsal Bhatt and Ms. Hilari Varnadore, for their support on these efforts throughout.

 

We will await more details from GBCI as to next steps.  That said, I am sure you will be beaming as much as I was in hearing this good news.  Congratulations to all!!

 

Yours,

 

Erik C. Backus, Ph.D., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, ENV SP, FMP

Professor of Practice & Howard E. Lechler ’48, MS ’53, HD ’78 Endowed Director

Construction Engineering Management Program

Clarkson University”

 

As I indicated in 2019, and now say here, boy does it look great from the summit of the Olympic mountain.  I often have wondered what it is like to be a multiple gold medal winner, and now I can honestly say, the rush is almost identically the same.  And much of this has to do less with me, and much more, just like then, with the accomplishments of the students, the community, and all the other people that made this possible.  Like Herb Brooks might say, “now is our time”!  And Al Michales, to answer your question from 1980, yes, I do believe in miracles, especially those that strike more than once.

 

Akin to the original certification, this represents several firsts, namely this is the first recertification of a LEED Community that is:

1.      multi-jurisdictional, representing 4 different and collaborating municipalities and authorities

2.      an Olympic host site community

3.      a community with a tourist centric economy community

4.      entirely within a world renowned State Park, including parts of the Adirondack reserve

5.      executed by collegiate level students guided by faculty immersed in a non-urban community

 

I don’t know yet when the formal presentation will be, but you can be assured it will be all smiles.  And I very much look forward to being able to share this story for many years to come.  Not only did we help this amazing magical place achieve initial certification, we proved that because of those efforts and all they have and continue to do to make their community the best that it can be, they were recertified as a demonstration of all they have and will accomplish, together for the betterment of all.  I couldn’t be prouder of all involved and thankful for the partnership that has allowed it to happen.  This Gold has a very powerful glow to it, and I am so glad to have been in service to something much bigger than all of us could have imagined.  We did it, again!  So cool.  And as I ended the last post, now we are upward and onward to the next, amazing and sustainable goal.

 

 

Rage Triggered by Incompetence

I originally wrote this piece in May 2024, but did not post or otherwise disclose this writing at the request of the person who was most directly impacted.  What is not captured here is that in July 2024 the Board of Trustees assured that the insitution's President reigned for personal reasons and stepped headlong into the chasm that had been created, to the point that one of their own, Mr. David Heacock, became acting President and indeed pulled us back from the brink.  For that reason I am now posting this reflection of the circumstances of that time as it ought to be an object lesson that, as I saw in my second tour in Iraq, leadership matters and we can, indeed, turn from rage to stalwart resolve and actions for the better.

 

20 May 2024

Today something I have dreaded, happened.  I had rage, serious rage, return.  One could call this post-dramatic stress, and that might be right, but is something that really has hit me strongly.  The reason for being “triggered” is acute, but the circumstances are absolutely not unique.  That said, this is rivaling one of the worst experiences with leadership that I have had in my entire life.

 

To begin, then, let’s first give the backstory.  For those that know me, know that I am a 20 plus year US Army veteran.  Thanks to serving in combat for two tours, I often wear my Operation Iraqi Freedom hat as I come and go.  But let me tell you, my two tours in combat, when it came to leadership, couldn’t be more starkly different.  Someday, when I write my recollections of my service, the working title will be “A Tale of Two Tours:  An Engineer Officer in Combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom” and I have more or less decided on the opening, borrowing from Charles Dickens (and the book from which my working title is drawn), “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times …”[1]  Rather than try to put into text the tale of my first tour in Iraq, I will share with you a message (sermon) I gave about it, that was recorded on video because we were in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic lock-downs during the summer of 2020:  https://youtu.be/5R2f7z8Ejjk?si=uBxMwY8X_i8_9WxV&t=623.  Starting at the 6:23 mark and going until 17:33, I recall a vivid memory that I will never be able to fully get out of my head.  I did not “change the names to protect the innocent”, if you are wondering.[2]  And to be succinct, this is the PG version of events, as I don’t get into the graphic details, and as a part of a sermon on the issues of passing judgement, well, it made no sense to get into those details.  I will just say that was the early bottom.  And it was just one of many reasons to have long lasting anger about the tour, especially the leadership above me, and their utter failures, misjudgments, and incompetence, in the face of very real needs for strong leadership, people of strong moral character, and a willingness to have a vision for more than their own benefits and their own careers or legacies.  Rage is simply the best word that I have about what happened to me and to those that stood with me in the midst of unspeakable challenges, brutally harsh conditions, and a nearly impossible mission because of the failures of these supposed leaders.

 

It is to this past that I am triggered.  To a past that literally nearly killed people because of the failures of leadership that I witnessed, in my then fairly early career as a military officer.  Lessons that I learned and cannot unlearn about leadership.  Its lessons like how one can ascertain the leadership capabilities of someone else, one need only look at those that said someone else surrounds themselves with.  Are they surrounded with those that are going to challenge the leader and each other such that the leader can distil, from vigorous yet honest debate, the best path forward?  Or are they wanting a coterie of those that simply are “yes” people and/or sycophants that stoke the ego of the person in charge, being uncritical and unwilling to stop failures moral, ethical, legal, or otherwise, either among themselves or by the supposed leader?  Or are they surrounded by a brutish bunch that are out for self-interest, caught up in pet theories, doctrinaire to a fault, and unwilling to acknowledge, never mind apologize for, mistakes made?  Or are they wanting to be seen as the “smartest person in the room” by ensuring those around them can never challenge them or that they are ignorant of the failures and incompetence of those around them because they so clearly have no interest in getting the ground truth?  Yes, you can see very clearly who is a leader and is not, if you ask these questions and more.  And the rage I feel is based on many more lessons I have learned in and out of combat, some of the worst examples came from this first tour in Iraq.

 

So, what has me enraged?  Simply put, I am a part of an institution that is at a precipice.  While no one is being asked to put their life on the line for this organization, it is an organization that has, for me (and many others) deep and abiding roots.  It is an organization that should it fail, will have devastating effects on the livelihoods of those it employs, devastating effects on the very economic foundation of the community it resides within, and devastating effects on those that found their very selves while traversing a very influential part of their lives on its campus(es).  As an institution, it should not be in the conversation about these lackluster possibilities, given its focus on engineering, business, the sciences, and other national needs.  It is a haven for those that take seriously their future and it has, at its bones, the results, amazing results, which prove it can stand the test of time.  It is here, when as an industry many are in much worst starting positions, worse inherent fundamentals, and seeing many failures result in utter shuttering of their enterprises, that this otherwise “ahead of the game” institution is experiencing some of the worst leadership failures and tolerance of utter incompetence, negating all of its advantages.  As I relayed to a Vice President as little as 8 months ago, the institution had about 2 years of runway, financially, culturally, and humanly, to get on the right track.  But it’s hard to see how the choices that have been made in interim have done anything more than to squander even that limited set of benefits.

 

And today’s exceptionally poor choice took the cake; well fecal pie in actuality.  One of the saving graces of the institution in question has been its ability to capitalize on professional graduate education.  It has been able to leverage its position as a well-respected and, in several areas, foremost institution for engineering, science and business, to attract and educate those seeking a degree beyond the bachelor’s degree.  And while undergraduate enrollment has been slipping, and this year in free fall, since 2016, the professional graduate enrollment numbers have been steady, if not climbing, through the same period.  At the helm of this stable, “going well despite other headwinds,” result has been two good stewards for this effort, with the most recent being a woman of unassuming but fantastic abilities (leadership, academic, research, business, and more).  Repeating, in other words, basically saving the bacon of the institution has been a remarkable person, unparalleled in emotional, never mind raw, intelligence, wise well beyond her years, capable of doing twice as much with half the resources, and putting her loyalty in the institution as an alum, and as a member of the institution’s very DNA, above her own self-interests.  Full disclosure, the person directly involved, whom I just lavished significant praise, is a personal friend whom I have known since we were undergrads at the same institution we now serve.  That said, regardless of personal feeling, the facts are incontrovertible.  To this person, the President, after having snubbed her once and putting in a completely unqualified person in a position above her, was again highly insulted by telling her, and I quote:  “As a part of your role as Dean of the Graduate Studies,[3] you have done a commendable job in overseeing graduate recruiting.[4]  It is in Clarkson’s best interest moving forward[5] to centralize admissions under one Vice President.[6]  The decision has been made to do that under the VP of Strategic Enrollment Management.[7]”  So, to shorten, you’re doing an amazing job, let’s give it to a guy[8] who is failing at what he is supposed to be doing, because I don’t give a crap about actual results.

 

My response, once reading the memo that was perfunctorily sent to her, was “Bullshit!”  I went on to say, “So it’s working (well), so I need to fuck it up.  Well done [President’s first name].”  Long and short this is the kind of ineptitude, failure of leadership, and doubling down on incompetence that I loathe, and in other situations has resulted in the near death of those in combat.  There is no good reason to do this, NONE!  This is pure unadulterated failure to see the forest for the trees.  It’s doubling down on failure.  It’s the sickest, darkest, and most profound mockery of any semblance of leadership I have seen since those dark days I experienced in Iraq in 2003-2004.  But unlike then, I no longer have the rose tinted glasses, nor, given the situation, the obligation to sit quietly by within the restrictions of the chain of command.  I am many years wiser and many leadership experiences older, to know what pseudo-leadership is and what true leadership looks like.  This is no Lee Iacocca that has come to this institution to pull us out of our doldrums, this is another Bernie Madoff that is playing it for all he and those that go along with him can get.  It’s horrible, and it’s wrong.  It needs to end.

 

And this is even more why I am enraged.  I am not fully sure how to cut through the bullshit.  As a part of a group of loyalists trying to right the ship, we seem to be in an endless cycle of plugging yet another hole created by the administration, using the deck gun to shoot another self-inflicted hole through the hull.  The ship need not leak this bad, but they are incapable of doing anything more than doing harm.  One would hope that the trustees, who are supposed to be asking the hard questions, looking out for the long term future of the institution, supposed to be making sure that it remains there in perpetuity, and not taking anything for granted, cut through the façade.  I/we need to figure that out, I/we really do.  Because, as much as it can be the hardest thing in the world, doing the harder right over the easier wrong, in the end, does win the day.  That is the lesson of the second of two combat tours has taught me.  Leadership matters, and despite the problems, true leaders can and will come to the fore.  So as much as I am angry, ready to lash out, it is that discipline that I have honed for too many years, which will serve us well.  The path (gate) may be narrow, but it exists.  It seems now to be a light, yet dimly seen, in the distance.  I just pray it becomes brighter, clearer, and stronger, soon.

 

---

[1] Charles Dickens, Tale of Two Cities, full quote:  “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

[2] And candidly, do not apologize.  The leadership failures were so utter, that I would be glad to stand in any court to relay the same tale, eternal or otherwise.

[3] Note:  the position is actually the “Dean of the Graduate School” (cf. University Organization Chart).  The President can’t even cite the proper name of the organization she is in charge of operating, which he is supposedly overseeing.

[4] Acknowledgement here that she is achieving success, well beyond what ought to be expected.

[5] “best interest moving forward”:  to be succinct there is nearly no evidence that the person making this decision actually knows what the best interests of the institution in question are.  Since his hiring, he has not secured one major donation nor has he done anything other than create an environment of distrust and austerity, often self-fulfilling.

[6] What basis is there for this?  None is given, and there is no evidence that there will be better results otherwise.  Basically, this is just not true.  Other examples of centralization over the last several years have proven disastrous.

[7] Who has been responsible for the lowest incoming class enrollment since the late 1980s or early 1990s.

[8] And it is a guy, not a gal.

Legacy of Leadership

So, the Saturday of Clarkson’s Celebration & Recognition of Excellence Weekend (CREW) took a turn that was unexpected and elating.  I am still processing the reality of this and remain humbled, surprised, and deeply grateful.  As I relayed to a colleague, whom I am sure was in on the scheme, I ought to be angry that I was so easily hoodwinked, but of course I cannot be, not even in the least.

First some prologue.  In 1996, at the annual Clarkson University spring University Recognition Day (URD) ceremony, I was inducted into Phalanx, Clarkson’s highest honor society.  It was a shock, an exceptionally emotional and joyous shock, that I was selected, as a Junior, to be a member of the most prestigious organization at the academic institution of my choosing.  Being inducted is an extremely high honor, and being so inducted as a Junior is an exceptionally high honor.  This is because you are chosen for what you’ve done to serve and lead within the Clarkson Community, not as a departure acknowledgement, but because you rose to such a level that you were selected over Seniors that likely had accomplished amazing things in their own right, and were given the daunting task of then leading the effort to select the next inductees the next year.  This is a weighty responsibility, especially as Clarkson was among the top Engineering, Science, and Business focused institutions in the United States (the MIT of New York State as a faculty at Syracuse University in 1992 once said).

Fast forward to 2015, having been only back to Clarkson for mere months, I found myself sitting in an interview, thanks to having been nominated by a peer or student for consideration of a university service or leadership award.  Easily being “found out” by virtue of my wearing my Phalanx pin on my sport coat lapel, I was of course ineligible for these awards.  You see, the long standing tradition holds that once you’ve been inducted into Phalanx, you are thereafter ineligible for the awards that Phalanx is privileged to make free selections for.  It led, however, to an even greater honor, serving as the faculty advisor of this esteemed organization.  Having gone through the process of choosing and arbitrating the inductees for 1997, I knew well that this role was not insignificant, but critical for Phalanx, and the university as a whole, having weighty ceremonial duties.  

URD, as I had known, but knew even better coming back as a faculty member, was one of the four most significant and public events at Clarkson; only to be rivaled by Commencement/Recognition events at the end of the Spring and Fall semesters and the annual opening Convocation that launched the academic year.  Unlike those others, this event, URD, is a ceremony for all students, all staff, all faculty members, and all community members.  This means it is the one time the spotlight is on the best, brightest, most accomplished among all, not just graduating students and incoming students.  The day has a long history, going back to 1929 when “Moving-up Day” events began (moving up as the students would advanced from one academic level to the next, e.g. Sophomores to Juniors, etc.).  It is the highest point in the academic year, with the penultimate significance to Spring Commencement.  So, as the advisor, making sure the ceremony, the process to get there, and the needed support to make it all possible, requires the ability and leadership needed to make it the event it needs to be, for everyone.

An added challenge is that Phalanx, as an organization, is the one to run this event, within the larger weekend of events.  CREW, as it’s now known, is a rather recent occurrence, pulling in many academic tear ending efforts including the annual STEMQuest competition, recognition for faculty research awards, the annual Research and Projects Showcase (RAPS), and the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Access (DEIA) Dinner celebration.  Phalanx having been the catalyst that got this to coalesce around the annual URD ceremony (and now ceremonies).  This means that not only are you coordinating the event itself, but also working with numerous other groups to pull of a string of events that need to form a complete tableau.  This takes deftness and care, and is peer leadership on steroids.

The biggest challenge, however, is that the active members of Phalanx, as I indicated above, are the undergraduate students that were inducted the year before, with no appreciation of all the steps it takes to get all that is URD (and the wider CREW) accomplished.  It’s an annual exercise of setting fire to the phoenix, to see it get reborn, grow, and blaze again the next year.  So as advisor, given the gravity and significance of URD, it is not a “hands off” or “let the students run with it” exercise.  No, Phalanx reports to the University President, and no one else.  As advisor, it is your role to make sure the students succeed without dictating terms, but guiding, coaching, being present, and empowering the students to make the organization and the entire university shine with a glow that is emblematic of its promise.  It’s a high honor to do this, but I’ll also tell you it’s an enormous amount of work.  By the way, you don’t get paid more to do this, you don’t get relief from other responsibilities.  Yes, you get a bit more access to the President’s office than other standard faculty, for good and for the challenges that brings. Getting to be with some of the most amazing young adults, the ultimate over-achievers at an institution of over-achievers, is something really cool, no doubt.  These young people are going places.  And as you look at the profile of many of the alumni that have been “tapped” into Phalanx, you can tell this is the reality (the symbolic method used to induct members is to have them tapped in the shoulders using the University’s mace).  So just rubbing elbows can be its own reward. But it’s fundamentally a labor of love.  And, as my spouse will tell you, I do love it, even as it takes a pile of time.

So what did happen to me at the ceremony this year?  Well, the prologue isn’t quite done yet.  You see, in 2022, as a part of the URD events, officially hosted by the University President, two new awards were created by Phalanx in honor of the longest serving first couple of the institution who were retiring that June:  Karen and Anthony “Tony” Collins (this being the last time they would be said hosts).  The Karen Collins Legacy of Service and Tony Collins Legacy of Leadership awards were born to recognize them for their long-standing roles in the Clarkson community as well as those who had similar long lasting legacies of service and leadership at the institution.  In their creation, these awards were distinctly created to be given irregularly, but would be awards that can be given to inducted Phalanx members (and any others) whom Phalanx may determine worthy of such an honor.

I will admit the genesis of the idea was of my own making, mainly as we had to come up with a way to recognize Karen and Tony who were already inducted members.  But my motivation, and the students at the time, was also to spur the Phalanx Alumni Affinity Group and the university administration to begin a thoughtful process to begin recognizing long standing leaders and servers (members of Phalanx or those that weren’t) that deserved particular attention and further recognition as part of pantheon, if you will, of Golden Knights. If you will, a group of people that could be looked to as exemplars of the best parts of the Clarkson tradition and accomplishments in its amazing human talent over the decades.  Sadly, the intervening two years from the inception of the awards to this academic year, were ones that were bereft of the kind of institutional leadership at the top rungs that could actualize, with the Phalanx members and alumni, that needed exercise.  And with the significant, but exceptionally positive, upending that was the start of this academic year, I had no illusions that it was time to pick this up again for a push to create an inaugural Karen Collins Legacy of Service and Tony Collins Legacy of Leadership awards classes.  Embarrassingly, however, the Phalanx Students had other ideas.

You see, yup, they did it, they, out of the blue, under my nose, with a few helps from some friends, made me the first awardee of the Tony Collins Legacy of Leadership awardee besides its namesake.  As I opened, I was shocked, stunned, blown away, humbled, and yea, there was a moist set of eyes.  Juan-Pablo Sola-Thomas as President, with Kimberly Gomez, Abigail Vincent, Ella Weldy, Ryan Teplitzky, Grace Trowler, and Cayden Fernandez, all pulled it off and gave me an award.  It’s not something I sought.  As a matter of fact I thought that it was critical that I not be the advisor and well retired if I was ever even considered for these awards (stress on if ever).  No the likes of Steve “Newker” Newkofsky, or Robert “Soupy” Campbell, or Spencer “Spence” Thew, or Egon Matijevic, or H. George Davis, or Brad Broughton, or a ton of others ought to be well ahead of me in the great host of witnesses of Clarkson’s storied greatness.  But there I was, with no way to stop it, none.  Dumbfounded.  Given, as I’ve said, an unspeakable honor.  I cannot be more thankful to all of them, to Phalanx as an organization, and to my alma mater, Clarkson, for this honor.  While others have said to me I clearly am worthy, I’ll hold that with a very bold and well qualified asterisks.

So that’s what happened on April 12th, 2025, that caused me to pen this post.  A short social media thanks and announcement was clearly insufficient.  The need to place this in its context and its place in my heart needed a longer explanation.  It also comes as I am going to have to realign several of my roles at Clarkson in light of the mission I am willingly taking on to meet our greatest challenge the institution has ever been lucky enough to receive, representative of the Ken and Grace Solinsky Challenge.  It is one that I have some skills to bring to bear, but also one that will enable me to grow in new and distinct ways as I do my best to serve the institution well into the future.  More details will come out later, but it will require me to step out of the solo role as Phalanx Advisor going forward.  It is not something that I decided easily, but it is a bat-ton that I need to start passing.  And that too is a part of the legacy of leadership, which I’m, thankfully, learning quickly.  Thanks again for the honor, even as I question my worthiness.  I pray to live up to the expectations that it’s receipt implies.

Good leaders have a strong professional critic

 “Lieutenant, get in my f—-ing office, now!”  I can hear that voice as if it happened this morning, the day that Captain Chris Dessaso laid into me in one of the most memorable ass chewings of my lifetime.  It was my first unit assignments and I had really made a mistake.  Charlie 1-10 Infantry was a basic training company at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, that was arguably the best in the Battalion and certainly in the top tier of the Brigade.  And a big part of that was Chris’ drive for excellence and willingness to lay down the law as the commander to achieve it.  As a young, wet behind the ears, and eager second lieutenant, I was all about doing my best and driving hard in what equated to a 5 to 9 job, 7 days a week.  My mistake, however, was to open my mouth to his spouse about some inner murmurings that not everything was going as well as the commander thought they were, and that he needed to think about that some.  It was a classic case of “going around the boss” that proved to be a colossal failure.  But I learned more than that the next morning as I was in the front leaning rest before his desk as he raged for what seemed to be an interminable length of time.  It wasn’t just a lesson on why not going direct to your boss with concerns was a bad idea or don’t mistake cordiality of relationships with your boss’ spouse as a way to relay messages.  No, I learned a key lesson that I think every leader absolutely needs to learn:  you need to have a harsh, respected, professional, critic that can stab you in the eye when you need it.

One of my weaknesses as a leader is that I get what I call “sagely”.  It’s a mixture of both being a “know it all” and having way too much pride/confidence for my own good.  I am a type “A” personality.  Or as my wife puts it, I’m an over achiever.  Lots of folks around give me feedback that can absolutely stroke my ego and go to my head.  And sometimes it does just that.  But that is precisely when I need to be crushed back down to planet earth.  Jackie, in my personal life, is very adept at putting me in my place, and I deeply love her for that (even as sometimes I’d not like to admit it or appreciate it in the moment).  But in my professional life it’s been critical as well to have someone be my sounding board and to set me in my place periodically, less I travel down a road that hurts the mission and objectives of the work I’m trying to do, never mind myself and my career.  In my mind, as a result, I am beyond convinced, every good leader needs to have a mentor, peer, or other designated person in your professional life who’s job it is to knock you off your proverbial high horse, regularly.  And those who rise to high heights that don’t have this, not only fail as leaders, fail personally, but fail to actually be leaders in reality.

There are several historical examples of this reality, both in colossal failures and phenomenal success.  Napoleon is a classic example of where he did not have this critic, and it led him to exceptionally destructive behaviors, including the devastating March to Moscow.  But we can and should look at examples where the opposite occurred.  A pair of great examples were arguably our two best Presidents ever, Washington and Lincoln.   Both of these two leaders had such critics that served them well.  In Washington’s case he relied on Hamilton for this to a degree as well as ensuring he had a cast of rivals around him as advisors including Jefferson as well as Madison.  In Lincoln’s case, he had Seward and a similar team of rivals (to use a title of a famous biography of him) that he used to check himself.  Both of these leaders could not have risen to the heights they did without the required professional critic that they depended on to seek out and find the flaws in their leadership styles and approaches to issues.  While they were brilliant into themselves and had hearty egos to go with it, they knew that they had to dispatch with sycophants, surround themselves with capable persons who challenged them, and keep hubris in abeyance.

In my life, I have been a part of organizations where I’ve seen where the appointed or selected leader, both failed to have this kind of critic that was taken seriously and respected, and ones where they had one or two and thus the entire enterprise benefitted.  It was among the reasons for the clear differences between my two combat tours in Iraq.  Tour #1 went through two O-5 Battalion Commanders who didn’t remain grounded, despite the Battalion’s motto being “Down to Earth”.  The second had a full bird Colonel who had a Command Sergeant Major (CSM) who was unabashed in laying out his often forceful criticisms.  While not always going with the advice he got from his CSM, DeLuca listened and ensured he ameliorated the risks because of the criticisms he received.  Similarly, at two academic institutions, I have now witnessed the consequences of when the President has a person in his cabinet that holds significant sway and his respect that was a part of the loyal opposition, and one that has not.  The former thrived and the other is at a proverbial crossroads.

To me then, the sign of a great leader, is whom he or she or they surround themselves with. Do they have a distinct person or cadre thereof, professionally, that challenge them and tell them the harsh truth about themselves, such that the leader changes and grows and avoids their worst impulses?  Or are they unwilling to own that the failure in most organizations starts with them?  Leaders have to hold both those around them accountable as well as themselves.  The only way to do that is have someone that can confront them, who they respect and listen to, which will help them be the change they need to be in order for themselves and those they lead to be as successful as they can be.

“Erik you really have changed,” said Derrick Edmond, a peer during my second deployment to Iraq.  Going into what is probably one of my most successful military assignments, I was a very headstrong and direct leader within our small Facilities Engineer Detachment of 15 people.  Derrick, along with another officer whom I respected, along with the OIC, early on, pulled me aside and pointed out my flaw in my character.  I was not respecting some members of the team because I was so “high speed” and had expressed unrealistic expectations of the others to think, act, and function as I did.  Hearing this, I changed my approach and made choices to engage with the team.  It took conscious effort, I had to check some of my instincts, but in the end it made me and the whole team much more successful.  And this hasn’t been the only time.  Having someone that I check in with regularly that can give me honest feedback about my flaws and where I need to improve is among my most important colleagues and friends I can have.  If you too are a leader, make sure you have this professional guide in your midst; for your sake and that of those around you.

Avoiding Lobotomy - Again

As a junior officer in the US Army, and commonly spoken in the undercurrent among both Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and junior officers alike, is the “Field Officer lobotomy”(https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/v5taom/majors_whats_wrong_with_you/).  This is the thing that happens, somewhere in the development of an officer, typically when they are a Major, when they seemingly forget the basics of how the Army runs, and get lost into some rabbit hole while stuck in the long period between company command and battalion command.  It’s as if we just loose sense of what is “common sense” as well as being grounded in (and with) the very challenging realities of troops at the company level and below.  It’s as if all the staff and broadening “special assignments” time you spend puts you into some esoteric death spiral.  Sure you’re smart or capable, etc, but you’ve become this amorphous blob of uncertainty, indecision, and constant incapability because you’ve lost that command touch.  The vast majority of officers succumb at some point, as if they become “company men” or “women”, and accept the utter stupidity and core failings in the systems instead of seeking to work to challenge them and make for better systems or simply level with folks about the absurdity of it all.

In my military career, I worked really hard, I mean really hard, to not get/have said lobotomy.  Part of this was done by not taking the “normal path”, by eschewing just going with the flow from above as a way to get ahead.  Sure I didn’t run away from the core traditional command assignments (company and battalion command), but I found a way to do things that were impactful and as pragmatic as possible, in between.  That said, when it came to late 2016 and what I was going to do as I reached 20 years of service, I decided that micromanaging whether Johnny Joe or Jane soldier went to their dental appointment as a the way I was being measured as a commander in the Army Reserve, was ludicrous.  While it wasn’t the only reason to opt to decline a full command assignment (medical, career, and family reasons were more prominent), avoiding becoming lobotomized was also on the list.  Soldiers who served with me can tell you how successful or not I was at that task.  By summer 2017, however, I was heading to retirement, lest I succumbed.

So I am now on the cusp of yet another one of those “lobotomy” points.  In 2014 I went to the “dark side” in my career in the AEC (Architecture/Engineering/Construction) world:  I became a full time professor.  This said, I did so in a fashion that was atypical; I did not possess a doctorate.  In academia, these days, holding a PhD is normally the minimum prerequisite for such a role.  But instead I was hired to be a full time instructor and Director of the much more pragmatic Construction Engineering Management program at my alma mater, Clarkson.  If we look back at the history of engineering education, it was not until the 1970s that it became common that those serving as professors held doctorates.  Rather, it was more critical, nay the minimum prerequisite, that you had experience and knowledge that came from practice, demonstrated through licensure and robust professional credentials otherwise, rather than a having a background primarily as a researcher.  At Clarkson in particular, who’s motto is “a workman who needn’t not to be ashamed”, it was very common/valued that most faculty were consultants on the side and had a large portfolio of practical experience before and during their appointments.  Academia, for a variety of reasons, has turned to become research first, practical knowledge second, as the resume required in most settings.  And akin to the above undercurrent in the Army, it’s pretty much the unwritten rule that PhD means you have “pilled high and deep” a wall of theoretical knowledge that makes you lose the ability to have common sense or be grounded in the practical aspects of life.  And that stereotype is way too often more true than false, including a number of my colleagues in my department and beyond.

As I said, I am on the cusp of crossing that PhD line.  Not counting my chickens before they’re hatched, I still have to figure out how to get this last course done and finish the edits to my dissertation by the end of April, but the light outside that tunnel is very bright at this point.  So, if that happens, it’ll be Dr. Backus, fitting in with the crowd that is academia.  Now, strictly speaking, I did not have to pursue this.  I am a Professor of Practice at this point, something academia is finally realizing is needed; not, therefore, requiring a doctorate.  That said, there’s still a barrier to those without one to academic leadership (as was put by one person, “Erik doesn’t have a PhD so he can’t become chair, and shouldn’t remain as XO of the department”).  As I’ve seen time and time again, I’m more or less convinced that the fetish academia has with research, and the normal track for preparation and promotion for professors, is neither good nor healthy long term for the greater academy.  Running a lab, doing fundamental research, and publishing papers, does not prepare you well for become a leader of a department, school, college, etc.  And the things that are needed (eg organizational management & training, practical knowledge, leadership skills, etc.), are seen as almost anathema to gaining tenure and promotion (distractions, as one colleague put it).

So here am I, at that crossroads, about to become “one of them”, a “true academic”, with a doctorate and all to prove it.  I have no intent nor do I desire to work to gain tenure, expecting to remain a Professor of Practice through to retirement (although, I’d be very welcome, many years hence, to be considered for professor emeritus status, should that come about).  I made this pursuit, however, because it will open the doors to more senior leadership academically, given the current way things work, and it will alleviate my rather constant requirements to correct students from referring to me as “Doctor Backus” when I don’t have one.  I have always been a deep and big thinker.  I love learning, I remain ever curious and interested in expanding knowledge.  So I am not allergic to research (there’s parts of it I really like) and have been doing research even as far back as my Masters and in other roles in the military and when I was a practitioner in facilities organizations.  But I really think studying the ability to generate electrical power from lobsters (https://improbable.com/2013/02/06/renewable-power-source-search-lobsters/ ), while novel and cool, is utterly impractical and I am really not that interested in it.  I’m not saying that there isn’t a need for researching such things if they can lead to some real breakthrough, but it’s not my bag.  And to that, I hope it never becomes “my bag” as I stay rooted in the much more pragmatic, like making sure my students actually know how a toilet works, have had the experience of actually hammering a nail, as well as being able to do structural analysis, understand how to do concrete batch designs, size heating and cooling equipment, and build safer, better, and more resilient/sustainable infrastructure & buildings. I just do not want to be lobotomized away from what my experience and continuing practice allow me to do to bring value to my students, in the immediate sense, and through them, for the broader AEC community as a result.

I am going to say, hitting this milestone is something I remain sheepish and humble about.  The resume, so long as things finish as they should, will now list getting a PhD in 2023 (long removed from my Masters in 2004, so a late return to getting a terminal degree).  I will remain a bit of a unicorn, not fitting in exactly and pushing back against the consensus on what the broader academy needs to look like to remain relevant.  I do not believe one can be “over educated” as some seem to think happens here, when you’ve done a pursuit for a doctorate.  But I do get that we cannot and should not stare down our noses or exhibit the too often seen elitism that comes being in an academic ivory tower (evidenced just this week as senior academics poo-pooed the idea that a long-term decades-experienced, successful senior manager in the AEC world was not capable of teaching a masters level course in the “business of construction”, because he lacked an advance degree in business).  And I think engineering education, in particular, needs to return more to the practical, hands on, even trade skill training and education, that keeps us rooted.  I just don’t want to fit the moniker, I don’t want to be unable to relate to, empathize with, and understand the plumber, carpenter, iron worker in the field.  To me, being at the top of what I do means I help tomorrow’s construction (and, more broadly, AEC) leaders, grow in ways that brings better solutions than we come to today, working together and respectfully across backgrounds and experiences.  I just can’t succumb to a PhD lobotomy, in other words.  To that end, I hope those around me keep me grounded accordingly.

Cancelling Should be the Last Resort – Make it So!

I’ll be succinct, the word “cancel” grates on me.[i]  I have heard it over and over again in the last several weeks.  This event is “cancelled”, that graduation is “cancelled”, and on and on.  In the face of the current pandemic, this is somewhat inevitable that some things will have to be “cancelled”.  But without question, “cancelling” should be the last resort right now.

This is because “cancel” means a lot of things and none of them are hopeful.  “Cancel” means that there isn’t an alternative, it is just not going to happen.  “Cancel” means that we quit, we give up, we just can’t envision another way to go.  “Cancel” means we are so afraid and frozen that we give up.  “Cancel” is final, there is no turning back, there will be no more planning or effort made to resuscitate the activity or action or anything else.  It’s done, it’s over, start your mourning process now: “cancelled”.

Such was the way I felt when I received this message via email on 13 March from the USGBC.

While many of us were in the midst of many decisions about the response to the then impending crisis we are now in, the USGBC wiped the entire calendar clean.[ii]  As I articulated in an email to the USGBC leadership, “this seems too far reaching, too early.”  This message basically said, “we surrender”, before the battle was even being fought.  I wasn’t and am not happy about this, but also about a large number of other “cancelations” that have occurred in recent weeks.  It just seems that they all just took too quick a turn, an unwarranted run and hide approach, without candid deliberation and any sense of resilience, resolve, or thought about the psychological and sociological impacts of “cancelling” life as we knew and know it.

Now in writing this, please know that I am NOT saying we ought to be putting our heads in the sand and acting like there isn’t a global, national, and local pandemic happening.  Quite the opposite.  As I wrote some three days after this email,[iii] we needed to curtail any non-essential in-person contact in the near term.  So what I am advocating here isn’t a flippant, ignorant, “go about the business” message.  No, what I am trying to say is that there are numerous things that can be done besides “cancel”, and every one of them should be considered well ahead of “cancel”.

So what are those alternatives?  Well, let us list the ways. You could:

• Modify the event such that any of those that do need to physically be present are protected but allow for the event to continue;
• Reschedule the event to a later date some weeks or months hence, especially if there is particular reasons that it should be in person regardless;
• Move the event, if it makes sense and is respectful of all those involved, to an online format;[iv]
• Consider smaller, distributed or otherwise reduced events or activities that may include all of the above or other approaches;
• Seek out a partnership with an event later in the year to enhance and improve through what your event was trying to do;
• Suspend decision/delay on the action or event until more clarity can be found with the intent of returning to it or otherwise addressing it once more clarity is present;
• And many more.

Any of the above are better than “cancel”.  Will there come a time to “cancel” things?  Absolutely.  As I said, however, that needs to be THE LAST RESORT.

Look, in times of crisis, we have many things happening at once, some good and some bad.  As articulated well by our Bishop James Hazelwood, our reaction to those crises has a large impact on the outcome of said events.[v]  He states to the Pastors of the New England Synod of the ELCA:

“In the midst of any challenging situation, there is a mathematical equation to which I always refer:

Event	=	Outcome
Response

The “Event” can be anything, for example, from a budget shortfall.... to a family dynamic.... to a virus.  These are real events.  The “Response” refers to the response of the person, organization, or organism.  If you recall your 8th grade math class, the bottom factor, the denominator, has significant influence on the outcome. We may not be able to change the event, but we can have an impact through our response.  All this is to say, that you as leaders have an important role in this or any destabilizing event:  If you are calm, wise and thoughtful, that will impact how an event plays out in your congregation.  Therefore, in this time of the coronavirus, I encourage you to balance the need for thoughtful decisions around worship practices and congregational gatherings, with the need for calm and less reactive responses.”[vi]

While directed to religious leaders, this sentiment and formulation applies to all of us.  What I would add to this is that in times of crisis, what is really important to consider, is the hope vs. fear dynamic.  “Cancelling” is demonstrative of either prudence or fear.  Putting forth an alternative is demonstrative of prudence AND hope.  Yes, there is the inevitable less than perfect nature of an online worship service or a classroom through Zoom, but it isn’t quitting.  When the world is anything but normal, doing what you can to keep things as safely-normal as possible brings hope.

Among the many things I do, is I help to schedule, along with a colleague of mine at SUNY Potsdam, the North Country Green Drinks events.[vii]  We held our last session on 12 March, where we indicated that people should take precautions but to join as they were able.  For the upcoming sessions, however (the next one is scheduled for 9 April), I sent out a revised invitation moving/transforming it into a virtual happy hour via a link that I sent to all of the normal participants.  Karen Bage, whom I have worked with professionally on several projects related to complete streets and active transportation, nearly immediately replied by email with the following:  “THANK YOU!!  For keeping this alive during this challenging time” (emphasis hers).  This is a perfect example of what I am getting at here.  Yes, we are stressed, we are struggling to deal with changes big and small, and we feel overwhelmed.  “Cancelling” these social events would have been the easy answer.  But, I, for one, need to have space to gather with those that are also going through similar struggles and I need some things in my life not to be “cancelled”.  We all need hope, we need purpose, and we all need each other.  So I’ll grab a mug and pop a brewsky and log-into the session on Thursday with some sense of joy that we can still gather, even if it will be an unruly, surreal, virtual affair.

Similarly, I have to applaud Clarkson University’s hesitance to hit the “cancel” button as we have proceeded through these last few weeks.  Yes, it has drug out decisions over weeks as we carefully consider and weigh the approaches, but we did not immediately announce that we will be having a “virtual commencement” or that commencement was “cancelled”.  Rather we have taken a rather pragmatic and carefully cautious approach.  As of Wednesday night a survey had been sent to all of the various groups effected in order to poll them to see which way we should go, now that it appears that having an in person commencement on 16 May 20 is less likely.  As of this writing, I am uncertain of the poll results, but among the choices were several options and none of them were to “cancel” commencement.  Given the nature of this momentous event in a young person’s life, I was so glad to see that we are being judicious and wise in avoiding the easy impulse to “cancel” in the face of uncertainty, fear, and challenge.  Simply put it is the harder right over the easier wrong.

So to conclude, let’s not cancel everything.  Yes, be prudent and safe.  Be frank and honest about the real consequences and the real devastation that is happening and will happen.  But, also demonstrate resolve, be courageous enough to not quit.  Avoid “cancel” at all costs.  Find a way, a safe, appropriate way to carry on; “stay calm and carry on” the saying goes.  And if you do have to go to “cancel” do it only when you have to and do it in a way that really is caring, concerning and instilling hope no matter what.  I have hope.  There will be a world after this pandemic, this is not the end or even the worst, even as it is deadly serious.  We can do this and we can win the battle, we just have to be willing to not give into the fear, and not “cancel” without our best fight first.

---

[i] As does the idea of “cancel culture”, but that is for another time.

[ii] And further forbade planning for anything at the community level for the balance of the year.

[iii] See my previous blog entry:  http://backusec.blogspot.com/2020/03/resilience-in-age-of-covid-19.html

[iv] And by the way, Zoom isn’t the only online platform or even the best; you may want to consider several others.

[v] https://www.jameshazelwood.net/blog/2020/3/9/coronavirus-letter

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] More on Green Drinks here:  http://www.greendrinks.org/