Introduction
In 1992, an ad hoc committee of the Houston Geological Society (HGS) developed a Long Range Advisory Report directed towards a critical review of key organization functions and their long-term relevance to the future of the Society. In late 1998, the present members of the HGS Advisory Committee elected to review the original report and briefly update those aspects that may have change significantly since 1992. Unfortunately, the original report is no longer available in its entirety so, by necessity, the Committee truncated the coverage of its companion review. Those missing sections of the original report were replaced with recent trend information pertaining to the geological profession, HGS membership, and suggestions about key elements driving HGS programs in the future. As background, the Committee drew upon information contained in the report of the AAPG 21st Century Review Committee. HGS membership, and its implication for the future of the Society, became the central focus of the Advisory Committee's review. The Committee also touched upon career management and continuing education.
Membership Trends 1992—1999
HGS membership has remained more or less stable since 1992, despite fluctuating employment conditions within the profession. The original report sought to assess membership as a function of employment. The report concluded that, while membership is affected by employment levels, HGS membership fluctuations tended to be dampened by an influx of new members, many of whom arrived in Houston as a result of the closure of regional petroleum company offices in provinces outside of the Upper Gulf Coast. An additional factor supporting membership levels is the belief that the benefits of belonging to the HGS tended to offset uncertain employment conditions. The HGS provides a very low cost venue whereby geologists can maintain contact within the profession, can enhance training through continuing education, and can stay alert to cutting-edge topics covering energy, the environment, and technology. The following graphs illustrate HGS membership trends from 1992—1999.
The Committee considered two questions stemming from the membership review.
Student membership in the HGS is, and apparently has traditionally been, relatively low, about five people out of roughly 4500 members. Student membership in the AAPG has risen from about 400 in 1992, to about 1750 in 1998; however, this higher level is nearly 1000 less than the high of 1984. The Committee has no clear understanding as to the meaning of these changes. No strong positives are indicated for the HGS.
A second factor that could impact membership or, perhaps more accurately, membership participation in HGS activities, is the age distribution of members within the Society and the profession as a whole. The following graph shows the age distribution of HGS members.
The age distribution indicates that nearly 70% of members are 40 or older, with the largest subgroup, 36% of HGS members, being 40 to 50 years of age (the Baby-Boomers, b. 1946-64).
The next largest subgroup is those members in their 30s, comprising about 20% of members (Generation X, b. 1961-1972). Members in their 20's comprise only about 5% of the HGS (Millennialists). What do these age distributions portend for the immediate and longer-term future of the HGS?
The most obvious projection is that membership is headed for a decline as the older members give way to fewer and fewer younger members. This will not have an immediate impact, though without a steep reversal in the declining number of entrants into the profession and the HGS, the reality of a smaller organization seems inevitable. The Committee pegs the first significant membership drop concurrent with the first Boomers reaching their early 60s, about 2010. By 2020, two-thirds of the Boomer members will be 65–75. The current membership of this age group is only about 6% of total membership. If the Boomers that today comprise 36% of current membership ultimately comprise only 6% of membership in 2020, total membership will have declined by about 1350 people. Attrition in other groups may exacerbate the decline.
Such a simple conclusion belies other influencing factors, such as members maintaining their membership beyond their working years or a significant business cycle change that results in new entrants into the profession. Numbers alone do not tell the whole story. There are other implications in these demographics — moods, attitudes, and undercurrents that are not easily illustrated on a clean graph. These factors can, and will, influence the future of the HGS.
HGS Members by Generation — Boomers
Ripped by the 1960s, Boomers are a bridge generation rooted in part to the ethos of the 1950s. They are generally aware of, though not strict adherents to, earlier values such as loyalty given - loyalty received, the traditional family, and the relationships of corporate life. The latter traditionally were based upon fraternities of colleagues forged from real socialization-slow and always building from years of close work with a stable group of peers. Organizational pull and support were based upon a shared sense of ideals and mutual obligations. Forward progress moved generally at a rate concurrent with life stage and somewhat predictable.
For 30 years, this stability has been under assault, and the intensity of the attack is accelerating. The culprit is time compression and an ever-increasing rate of change in the physical world and the world of work. Speed, efficiency, innovation, technology, and cost-cutting are the order of the day—doubly so in the commodity world of the energy business. Loyalty is out and experience is discounted—who needs them in a world changing so fast that "what was" is almost instantly "no longer"? The traits that are most commonly desired today are flexibility, adaptability to change, and independent problem solving with a fast and highly profitable result.
Boomers are under heavy pressures to share children-rearing responsibilities with a working spouse, to maintain hefty mortgages, and to prepare for looming college expenses as their children grow up. At the very moment that traditionally they would be secure and well positioned in their careers to face these responsibilities, they are under siege to spend less time with family. The mantra is to work more—a lot more—work quicker, and work smarter. In spite of rising to the tough challenge, in a 1998 survey reported in Fortune magazine, 773 CEOs seemed to question the suitability of Boomers in today's business world. They stated that they felt peoples' productivity peaked at an average age of 43. That's typically a long way off from the downside of life's hump.
How the HGS meets the needs of this group is important to all stakeholders. This group is the current backbone of the organization. The HGS provides a familiar venue that is very good for peer contact and social interaction. During rough employment conditions, the HGS serves as something of a stabilizing anchor whereby professionals can maintain a minimal degree of connectivity with each other. It does this indirectly by providing opportunities for members to meet and interact—dinner meetings, field trips, and social functions. For some, the monthly dinner table may substitute for the conference table. For all members, it's a good place to scan the professional landscape.
Training is another resource available through the HGS. It tends to focus on skill development and knowledge building (e.g., workstations, analytical techniques, newer topics in the earth sciences, and field trips). This is good information and can be an integral part of professional growth. Training is provided to members at close-to-cost and thereby is affordable to almost everyone.
The Committee considered what other training might be of value to this group of members who must compete in what is called the "new economy." What emerged was a focus on processing work faster and better. The challenge here is to frequently provide this non-traditional training frequently and at very low cost.
A third area that could serve this member base is intensive training in information technologies. Like it or not, that is the way the business world is moving and, in general, the circumspect view of business leaders is that the Gen Xers are more technically savvy than most Boomers. Playing catch-up is tough. In a fast-moving market and cutthroat business sector, HGS members need to do what they can to maintain their premium. Information technology is part of the mix. To the degree that the HGS can make such training available, it would provide a valuable service to all members. Mere exposure to the technology will be of limited value. Hands-on practice that leads to speed and competence is what can make the difference in the marketplace.
HGS Members — Generation X (Gen X)
If the Boomers are the backbone of the HGS, the Gen Xers are its central nervous system. This group of HGS members makes up 20% of current membership, the second largest group. Generally in their late 20's and 30's, demographers sometimes characterize them as the "victimhood generation," risk averse and insecure. It is this generation that returns home after college and has to be shoved out of the house by their parents. It is the generation that keeps its head down in the workplace because the corporate axe is swinging widely. It's the generation that tends to shift blame when things go wrong—it's the fault of television, bad water, food additives, lyrics, the ozone layer, childhood abuse—name it and whine. Stereotypes contain a seed of truth sprinkled with exaggeration.
No generation in recent history has had to adapt to change so quickly, or have had their personal agenda so time-compressed. The stress level is up and intensifying in the face of on-rushing change and the need to adjust to it. Superimpose upon this profile a deeply cyclical energy business and the adjustment becomes exponentially more difficult. The good news is that they are in demand.
This group is technically savvy, energetic, flexible and good at learning new skills quickly—the traits businesses tend to value in a fast-paced environment—and they work for less money than their older counterparts. At least for a few years, employers can get them to work 60–70 hours a week, can train them the way they want them, and can exert enough control to extract exactly what is wanted—or else. Companies are putting Gen Xers on the fast-track and they are running entire departments that used to be run by those in their 50s. In the last hiring cycle, Gen Xers were prime targets.
Given the workload and the pull of a young family in which both spouses work, the workday tends to be a sprint from the "office-to school-to day care-to soccer-to burgers-to home." Where does the HGS fit in? Is a dinner meeting a rare luxury? How can these members best be reached and served? The Committee thinks these technologically smart members can be reached and well served in cyberspace.
HGS Members — Millennialists
The long-term future of the HGS will fall to the generation directly in line behind the Gen Xers, sometimes referred to as the Millennialists or Generation Y (Gen Y). Their single overriding value will be connectivity—access to everything. Unlimited access tends to feed a sense of unlimited possibility. With a globally connected world emerging at their fingertips, a forward-looking view should drive the near future. Access drives exploration of what were formerly the remote, the extreme, and the exotic—places, people, and ideas. Given that connectivity will spur ever greater and more rapid changes in the home and workplace, the Millennialists will have to operate in chaotic change and manage for some sense of control in the connecting world.
Millennialists comprise only 5% of current HGS membership (roughly 250 people). The prolonged energy industry slump, from 1985 to 1998, put a severe crimp in the number of new entrants into the geological profession. This valley will be front and center by 2020, and without a significant boost in new entrants into the profession and the HGS, a much smaller and very different organization will emerge.
The Committee sees the HGS working in three ways to boost membership among this group. At its distal edge, some members of this group are still in school. The best and the brightest of these potential members, specifically those who are enrolled in any of seven regional universities, are eligible to receive scholarships from two HGS entities: The HGS Undergraduate Scholarship Foundation, and the Warren L. Calvert Memorial Scholarship Fund. Each year, 12 scholarships are awarded to students in the earth sciences, some of whom will become HGS members later in their careers. The second way the HGS adds value to this group is through its continuing education program. The program drives knowledge-building for the inexperienced geologist—concepts, ideas, and practical techniques that can assist in the transition from textbooks and simple exercises to the real-world application of geology to complex situations with economic ramifications. Thirdly, the HGS provides a venue that enables the younger geologist to establish contact with others in the profession. Given these benefits to the younger member, why is membership from this group so low?
Clearly, an employment situation that discourages entry into the profession is a key factor. Since the HGS cannot create jobs, what can it do differently to attract the younger geologist? The Committee believes that the delivery of benefits to this group can be improved by on-line delivery. A student page on the HGS website would bring the Society into the university and the dormitory–a direct line to the future. If the computer is familiar and comfortable to the Gen Xers, it is part of the Millennialists' genetic code. Like the Gen Xers, this group will face rapid change in communications and the way work gets done. To the extent that the HGS can anticipate this new work world and adapt to it, the rewards will be a sustained membership in some form. It may be a very different kind of HGS in 2020, perhaps one with a smaller, but more diverse and distant membership, perhaps a global membership connected on-line and communicating in the international language of business—English.
The Committee believes that to capture the future now will require an active exploration of what the future may be like 20 years hence. Since no one can predict the future, to ascertain the HGS in 2020 will require the creation of a number of possible future scenarios and identification of key drivers leading to those futures. These drivers can be monitored in the years ahead and used to better predict which scenario may emerge as the most likely one. This may be a project for the Committee beyond this report.
Particals
Read a profile of the Boomer, the Gen Xer, or the Millennialist, and you're left with a portrait of a world in rapid and ever-increasing transition. In each case, traditional social organization is altered and fragmented. Nationally, for example, traditional families are being replaced by "families" defined much differently than those of the 40s and 50s. Loyalty, if not dead, is today at least a highly suspect value for many people in the workplace. Self-interest drives voting. The shared values common to the ideal of America seem to have divided into disparate values of groups. Where a general sense of unity as a nation once tended to pull Americans together, today it is diversity that is celebrated and heralded. Demographers and others have coined a new term for this division — "particalization."
This particalization of social organization is not the same as the disappearance of organization itself. The innate drive to belong, to be a member, is as deeply rooted and powerful today as it was at history's dawn. It will be just as strong into the clouded future. It is fundamental to human survival. What has changed is the way people direct their desire to belong and the affinities they develop for memberships.
This is already apparent in the HGS. A review of HGS history published in the 75th anniversary issue of the Bulletin, tells us that for 60 years the HGS grew steadily, if not slowly. During this time it operated pretty much as it always had, punctuated only with occasional administrative changes. Then in 1982, the HGS made a deliberate effort to reach a subset of all Houston geologists—those who worked in the international realm. The general fraternity of Houston geologists was now ever so slightly differentiated. Then in 1984 the Environmental & Engineering Committee (group) emerged. In 1990, it was the North American Explorationists Group, followed in 1994 by the Emerging Technology Committee (group). Do the members of these groups view the HGS as the all-important organization germane to their desire for membership, or do they view their subgroup as most important?
The answer is not as critical as the fact that particalization has begun and will probably continue in various ways. Is the formation of other groups likely? What will they be? Will geologists see or define themselves differently in the years ahead? Will their ability to connect with others that share their niche displace or contribute to umbrella organizations founded upon "shared values"? How will these changes affect the way the HGS delivers benefits to its existing members, and how will they change the way the HGS attracts and keeps new members? Will the HGS of the future deliver general benefits to a large fraternity of geologists or special benefits to individuals who define themselves so specifically that only an individually focused appeal targeting their view of themselves will motivate them to belong?
In the workplace, where "long-term" isn't what it used to be, people are no longer organized paternally and directed toward a common corporate goal. Instead they converge to implement the project of the moment and, when that's complete, they disperse to converge with different people to complete the next project. Convergence and dispersion centers on the immediate situation or deal, not the long view.
Mimicking the workplace, convergence and dispersion is increasing among organizations of professionals as well. The Committee compiled an impressive list of joint meetings that have taken place between diverse organizations with a common point of interest. Such convergence will increase in the future as a means of bringing shared interests together and as a way to boost event attendance and improve event economics. The HGS may want to consider convergence when it makes sense to do so.
The Committee views these joint meetings as potentially beneficial in that they foster contact between different, though connected, specialists. They enable contact for mutual benefit and without the constraints of more permanent unions. They provide a means of assessing the degree to which the converging groups "fit," and whether a more formal union or merger is warranted at some future date.
Benefit Delivery—Future Style
Marketing to the individual is different from the traditional way services or products are offered to an audience or consumer— mass marketing. In mass marketing, the service provider attempts to develop a good product aimed at the greatest number of potential customers. The target is the middle of the distribution, not the discrete parts that compose it. This worked well in the past because the target group was generally very large, there were many fewer alternatives for an individual consumer, and there was no effective means of profiling each potential customer to better identify direct marketing opportunities. Mass marketing is not what it used to be.
The new trend in marketing is customizing the product for the individual. A perfect example of this is the PC market where, until recently, a consumer would go to a retail outlet and select from a number of models with various bundled capabilities. Manufacturers are aware of the outlet shortcomings and are supplementing this marketing and sales venue with one directed straight at the consumer. It is now possible for a consumer to telephone or Web-connect to a PC manufacturer and specify exactly the attributes desired in his or her purchase. The manufacturer then builds a custom machine for the customer, ships it directly to him, and bills through a credit card. This is fast, clean and effective. Electronic commerce is the fastest growing marketing sector in the U.S. today.
A second element of the custom marketing approach is to better know the customer, which, in the case of the HGS, means its members. With mass marketing, potential customers were fitted into broad groups that tended to have some shared values that influenced their purchasing habits. One example: General Motors sold cars to groups based upon their place in life. Inexpensive Chevrolets and station wagons to young families, later upgraded to a Pontiac or Buick as the purchasers aged and moved up economically, finally reaching that crowning plateau of success—the Cadillac. This worked so well during the stable 1950s that GM was blinded to the sweeping changes emerging in the 60s and beyond. GM's myopia cost them dearly, so much that they have never regained the market share or profitability they once held. They never asked the customer what he wanted, or if they did they failed to listen because what they heard ran counter to what GM believed would continue to make them successful. To GM, customers were just part of giant economic groups, not individuals with specific needs and desires. Besides, where was the consumer to go for a car besides the Big Three—to Japan? It is difficult to change what has always worked so well in the past.
Today's technology can help prevent myopia. As Web connectivity grows and electronic commerce emerges and evolves, connecting directly to the potential customer is becoming an important factor in the marketing equation. Web commerce provides "free" access to useful sites, but often the visitor must first "register," which means revealing certain personal information. For example, the magazine The Economist gives the potential reader a free month of Web readership in exchange for some personal information. This information is put into a database for analysis. The Economist or an associated marketer can then draw upon the database to identify the personal traits or qualities of potential customers, and thereby customize a product and marketing campaign for specific people. It's direct marketing to the individual, not mass marketing. The AAPG is beginning to view its member needs this way. Its 1999 membership renewal materials included a detailed questionnaire that sought to glean member information about their area of specialization, geographic oversight, and employment status. Decisions about the kind and quantity of services to provide its members should be easier to define with this information in hand. Instead ' of servicing "geologists," they can direct attention and resources to specific classes of geologists within the association. It's an attempt to shift to the individual.
The Committee believes that the HGS must bolster its appeal to individual members, and that to do this the Society will need much more specific member information than it currently collects. For this reason, the HGS Membership Committee may want to begin collecting member-specific information beginning with the next renewal cycle. The Committee has developed a draft questionnaire for this purpose. This questionnaire is an excellent starting point and can be expanded to request additional information that may prove helpful to the HGS in the future. The collection of information need not be restricted to the annual questionnaire. The HGS Web site could be used for this purpose as well. Further, some areas on the HGS Web site could be restricted to members, or made available to nonmembers on a trial basis provided they "register" first. The employment section is a good candidate for exclusivity. The collection of personal information carries with it the burden of protecting the privacy of the giver. This means not releasing the information without explicit permission from the provider.
The Technological Landscape
If connectivity is one key to reaching future generations of members, is the PC the means by which this will happen, and should the HGS look to the PC as the preferred means of so doing? A year or two ago, a clear "Yes," would have been the answer. Today the answer is not so clear. Business Week (March '99) reported that technology is changing so rapidly that the PC is headed for a very different future. As Web access mushrooms from 32% of U.S. homes today, to 56% in 2002, the possibilities are also expanding beyond the PC to a range of information appliances tied to the Internet. Although Web access is presently 94% PC based, by 2002, that number is expected to drop to 64%. Information appliances will take up where the PC now reigns. Today, 48% of U.S. homes are PC-equipped, and that number is expected to rise to 60% before leveling off. In place of the PC, Web access will continue to grow through the use of TV set-top boxes, hand-held devices, replay networks, CD and video players, and cable and satellite access. The Internet is driving an explosion of innovation.
Over 13.9 million homes will soon have high-speed Internet connections, vs. 1 million today. This translates into more people spending more time on the Web—from an average of 40 hours per month today, to 200 hours in the years ahead. TV will play a big part in the change because it is already in 98% of U.S. homes. Americans spend 3.6 billion hours a month in front of the TV, vs. 300 million for the PC. To what extent will this connectivity become the preferred means of gleaning information? How does the HGS fit into the scheme?
The Committee believes the HGS must aggressively pursue the use of these new technologies in an attempt to carry the Society to a time-pressed but increasing technologically comfortable membership. This is not to say that radical, expensive, and immediate action should be undertaken. It is to say that serious thought and consideration of the possibilities should become part of the planning process. Close monitoring of emerging technological trends will provide insight into the possibilities for connecting with members beyond the Bulletin and meetings. The Committee considered a number of ideas:
Request that meeting speakers also present their papers in full multimedia electronic form for inclusion on the HGS Web page. In the future, consider transmission into the home via set-box TV or wireless access via handheld devices. Members benefit from the flexibility of accessing the information when it is convenient to them.
Begin to produce electronic versions of HGS publications. Field studies on CD-ROM or downloaded from the Web have the added practicality of merge or pasting capability directly into a geologist's current computer-based work. Reproduction and scaling flexibility improve for paper-based projects. File and shelf space is freed for other purposes.
Develop multimedia short courses that can be accessed on CD-ROM, the Web, or video. All universities are moving quickly towards a mix of site-based and distance education. With time-compressed schedules and personal demands, distance access is the fast-growing segment in the education sector.
Reach geology students electronically. Link selected geology departments or club Web pages to the HGS Web page. Student access would be easy and immediate. Perhaps each month, a student or department page could be highlighted on the HGS site. Perhaps the HGS site could provide a venue for student research papers or research progress reports. A reviewing procedure would assure minimum quality standards and lend a degree of exclusivity to achieving recognition. The HGS site could publish student employment information, industry salaries, industry environmental initiatives, and present a good image of petroleum geology— one that politely counters the anti-industry sentiments common in parts of academia and beginning to permeate geology departments.
These suggestions are relatively new and considerably different from the traditional way the HGS has reached and served its membership. The Committee believes they offer the Society an exciting challenge to move towards the cutting edge of communications and to better connect with a segment of the profession not fully reached under current practices. The Committee ' also firmly believes that much of the current membership is served well by traditional operating practices, and that these practices should continue. The next 10 years will require a mix of the traditional and the new, with the new requiring an ever greater emphasis.
Learning from the Future
To anticipate the future is a goal of every leader and forward thinking organization. Those in the energy sector have often been caught unprepared for calamitous changes in markets, in employment, in government actions. Because the future is not predictable, one's view of the future and how that view is derived becomes of paramount importance.
The Committee briefly reviewed various techniques that can prepare and enable individuals, companies, and organizations like the HGS to better imagine and manage the future as it emerges. Leading companies are now using these techniques to think smarter about the future and jump-start their grasp of it. Preparing for the future is part of every director's job because all business strategy is rooted in a future view. In theory, the better view should produce the better strategy. The Committee believes that any HGS board could benefit by learning how to develop good future views, specifically, the use of foresight scenario development or planning.
Such an undertaking by the Board would not necessarily be overly time-consuming (about 3 days spread over a month or two), though to be effective and bear fruit, it must master at least eight tasks:
Houston and the HGS are blessed with a leading resource for assistance in this endeavor—the University of Houston at Clear Lake and its graduate-level Department of Studies of the Future. This group has worked extensively with NASA, industry, and nonprofit organizations as facilitators in the development of foresight scenarios.
If scenario development is successfully implemented, the HGS could learn much more about itself, increase its acceptance and understanding of uncertainty, and work through the inevitable differences of opinion about the future that exist in any organization. It is a powerful agent of change. To this end, the Committee's closing recommendation is that the Society look beyond the present and see its future.
Report 2000—one year later
by David Fontaine
Posted November 29, 1999
I am delighted that the Bulletin has published the essence of the Advisory Committee's
work for 1998-1999, its
Report 2000 . The Committee attempted a far-forward look at
the HGS and its membership. This was tempered with a mix of immediate issues,
such as joint meetings among diverse groups in the earth sciences, and a hot topic like
"mid-career management." The technique used to weave these subjects together is known
as "STEEP," an acronym for Social, Technology, Economics, Environment, and Politics.
One scans the horizon for emerging trends in these areas and then attempts to develop a
future view from the findings.
The subject of mid-career management has been building steam since the report was developed in late 1998. The AAPG is going to subsidize mid-career training for geologists with money raised by a registration premium attached to the upcoming conference commonly known as "Pratt II." The Gulf Coast Chapter of the Society of Petroleum Engineers has begun a series of mid-career management courses. This training tracks some of the courses recommended in our Report 2000. Other organizations are beginning to inject mid-career training into their education programs. What exactly is "mid-career management"?
I am not sure if a universal definition exists. The HGS Continuing Education Committee recently ran two courses that may qualify as mid-career training. One covered tax and accounting issues pertaining to the oil and gas business, the other covered buying and selling production. Why might these be considered mid-career training? Presumably, to be of immediate practical value, one would need a degree of sophistication in the energy business. An experience level more likely found in a mid-career geologist rather than in the newly hired or someone purely technical in their focus.
A second view might be that mid-career management is the acquisition of special nontechnical skills and abilities that may compliment a geologist's work. These are subjects that enable a geologist to more effectively project their technical talents and that add value to the geologist in the workplace. Some of the possibilities mentioned in Report 2000 and elsewhere include sharpening presentation skills, project management, administering a budget, time management, and negotiating. Being knowledgeable in these subjects and competently using them in daily work should add value to a geologist. Of course, in this business there are no absolute assurances that these skills will protect your job during 'a layoff or guarantee a position in a hiring cycle. The question is, "Do you stand a better chance with these skills than without them?"
I am reminded of a football analogy. When your team is down and about to lose, would you like to throw a Hail Mary for the winning touchdown and get carried off the field as a hero? Of course you would, but how many games are won with a Hail Mary? Most are won in a grinding struggle for the last few inches on the field. I think mid-career management is about "inches."
Are you up to grind? Here is a quiz. Where do you drop out?
Your boss says to you that the company wants you to attend some non-technical training, and will fully pay for it. Go / No go? You tell your boss you'd like to take this training, and the boss tells you that it is not in the budget, but if you pay for it the company will give you time off with pay. Go / No go? You know the negative environment and decide that the only way to get this training is to quietly pay for it out of your pocket and do it on weekends or vacation time, borrowing the money if necessary. You also realize that there may not be an immediate reward for your efforts and financial risk, and that to get well rounded will take a few years. Your spouse thinks you're nuts for spending money under such uncertainty and thereby threatening the annual family outing to your in-laws. The scrutiny is intense. Go / No go?
There is no correct answer. These decisions are always a complex mix of pressures involving time, money, and hard personal choices. I bring this up because as I scan the landscape, I have made some unsettling observations.
Mid-career management and training have been available for many years. It is not new. I've noticed that good training programs are packed to capacity with people looking for the edge—but few geologists are among them. People laid off from energy companies after many years are now signing up for technical and computer courses. Shouldn't we know these subjects already? We've had years to learn them. It appears that our mindset is that if one acquires training with the right buzzword attached to it, better times will follow. That is wishful thinking rooted in the pleasures of technical work. It is not mid-career management, it's a Hail Mary.
Where does all this leave us? I'm still looking for a solid trend. Please e-mail me with your thoughts at david.fontaine@engelhard.com . Observations to date tend to indicate that mid-career management is not a front burner issue to geologists. Whether efforts by the AAPG and local societies can shift thinking about this issue is yet to be seen. Personally, I think there is value in mid-career management. Borrowing again from football, specifically Buddy Ryan, "If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes."