There Must Be a Better Way, Part IV

We begin the week with two huge wins. Let's celebrate!

Yes! For the first time since April 22, and after 86 days and an estimated 185,000,000 gallons of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico, the broken well has been capped. Finally. The image at right, taken last week, shows no oil leaking from the newly-installed cap. Let's hope the damn thing holds.

Yes! Argentina has become the first Latin America country to legalize same-sex marriage, granting the rights of marriage, child adoption, property inheritance, and other rights/protections to gay and lesbian couples. Argentina joins Canada, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden and South Africa in extending the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. And let's not forget Mexico City as well.

Think anyone from our government is paying attention?

Like every fight for equality we've faced in this country -- and this, without doubt, is a fight for equality -- it's only a matter of time before justice will prevail. Which means, of course, that it will happen here. Hopefully soon. Because the longer the debate goes on, the more foolish we look.

Way to go, Argentina!


Working in the 21st century organization

Let's return to our discussion of the 21st century organization. Last week we defined eight requirements for the new organization, all based on basic human needs and each proven to illicit engagement, commitment, high motivation and, most importantly, outstanding performance. Now, let's look at this organization from the inside -- as people who work in such an enlightened enterprise.

Imagine:

• Hearing about a company whose vision, clearly stated on their website, actually excites you

• Applying for a position with this company and, during the process, being treated throughout the process with warmth, grace and respect -- as if you were a customer

• Accepting an offer and immediately receiving a welcome phone call from a co-worker, a welcome package filled with company collateral (e.g., clothing, other branded stuff), and, later, a call from your 'mentor'
  

• Following an initial orientation delivered by your co-workers and company leadership (in which many hours are NOT spent on the company-provided benefits!), starting work as a temporary intern on a largely self-governed team

• Noticing that the company has no one with the title of 'manager' but, instead, many with the title of 'leader'
  

• Assuming your performance is to the standards of the team and assuming you demonstrate the organization's values, being offered permanent membership on the team

• In cooperation with your teammates, setting your own on-site work hours

• Learning that 20% of your job is to serve on teams seeking to improve company performance via the development of new products, services, greater efficiency and/or the training of others

• Being actively encouraged as part of your job to pursue your personal passions by, say, learning a second language, volunteering in the community, writing, making music, etc.

• Receiving regular feedback from your colleagues and your mentor on your performance -- with the primary intent being to help you increase your ability to contribute to the performance of your team

• Having easy access to company leadership and, remarkably, being encouraged to interact with them
  

• Receiving data on a regular basis on your team's performance against its goals and data on the performance of all other teams in the company
  

• Having the responsibility of improving the performance of your team and the company -- regardless of your tenure
  

• Being charged with being an 'ambassador' of the company -- regardless of your job -- and receiving training to do it well
  

• Working in an organization that looks and feels more like a honeycomb -- with strong inter-connectivity, mutual dependence and fluid communication -- than a traditional top-down, hierarchical, silo-driven company

• Having access to data considered 'sensitive' or 'restricted' in other companies (e.g., enterprise performance data, compensation data) to demonstrate that secrets are few and that we are, indeed, in this together

• Executive compensation being no more than 20 times that of the lowest paid member of the team (vs. the 400 times found in many Fortune 500 companies)
  

• Everyone being eligible for stock options -- and those stock options being directly linked to your team's performance
  

• Having your annual performance review (yes, there will still be annual reviews) being conducted by your mentor and the review being less about your performance -- since this will be discussed regularly during the year -- and far more about your career

• Being responsible, with all others on your team, for the hiring and firing of team members and the setting of raises, bonuses and stock options
  

• Having easy access to the descriptions and, importantly, the requirements for all jobs in the company -- making it easier to develop a personal plan to achieve your career goals, and

• Only team members widely considered to be outstanding contributors, great ambassadors, and exceptional role-models of the organization's values receiving opportunities to assume broader responsibility for the longer-term success of the enterprise.

I know, I know: This is a ton to imagine. Even so, can you visualize such a place? See how such an organization could produce outstanding results, likely trounce its more rigidly- and hierarchically-structured competition? Lastly, would you like to work in such an organization?

I imagine your answers to those questions are: "Yes!", "Yes!", and "Yes!"

And when they build this organization -- and they will, some with our help -- the best will come. And stay for years.

Enjoy the week and keep those cards and letters coming.

There Must Be a Better Way, Part III

Welcome back! You get 1 point for showing up, 1 point for reading to the end of this blog (we're on the honor system here, so be honest), and 3 bonus points if you visited a Whole Foods store during the last week. (Deduct 1 point if you don't know of what I speak.) You also get 5 bonus points if you picked the Netherlands to win it all at the beginning of the World Cup. There are probably 15 people outside of that country who qualify for these bonus points and I'm not one of them. (I was rooting first for Chile and then for Costa Rica, which didn't even qualify for the tournament.) No points for picking Spain, a pre-tournament favorite. It's my game; I make the rules.

Scoring is as follows:

6 - 10 points: You are amazing and are loved and respected by a few (I mean really, who picks the Netherlands?)

3 - 5 points: You are amazing and are loved and respected by many

1 - 2 points: You are amazing and are loved and respected by me

Here, just showing up is cool.

Speaking of another great sporting event, have you noticed how slim and fast the riders in the Tour de France look in their shorts and jerseys? I have got to get me a set like theirs. It's not the body or the athletic ability; it's the clothing.

This week, as promised, let's consider what a 21st century organization might look like. To do so, we'll first need to answer a key question:

What would an organization look like if it were designed expressly for people to excel?

Asked another way:

What would be the defining characteristics of an organization built around the needs of its workforce?

What? Are we really proposing to build an organization around people and their emotional/psychological needs?

Yes, as a matter of fact, we are. Radical to some, I know. But, hey, I grew up in Berkeley. It's expected of me.

So, let's consider the key features of an organization designed specifically to allow people to excel. An organization that will ignite passion, foster enthusiasm, promote creativity and innovation and, in the process, forge a highly-committed, dedicated, top-performing workforce capable of out-performing, out-competing, out-smarting even the most formidable marketplace competition year in and year out. It might even be a great place to work.

Maybe like what they do at Whole Foods. Or even better.

We humbly submit, then, that the successful, highly-profitable 21st century organization will be one characterized by:

• An exciting vision. It's got to be something exciting, something that gets the blood flowing, that motivates us to do the amazing. No one is interested in shooting for being 'average'. Most of us want to believe that the work we do is meaningful, that it will actually help others. The vision must communicate that. A great vision gets people jazzed. Keep in mind that most of us can see right through 'corporate-speak'. Avoid it like the plague. Shoot for the stars with honesty and compassion. If it's from the heart, people will respond.
  

• A "we're-truly-in-this-together" mentality -- and way of doing business. Humans are social animals. We're not good in cubicles. We are, though, good together in communities and especially good when we have to work together to make something amazing happen. Forming an organization around the concept of being linked by a common vision and being in this together plays well for the vast majority of us. But -- and it's an important 'but' -- the organization must demonstrate consistently that we are, indeed, truly in this together. Most say it, few do it. Remember, we know when the wool is being pulled over our eyes and we don't like it. More on this next week.
  

• The key operating unit: The team. Humans want to belong and a team is a great thing to be a part of. Teams imply unity and, importantly, competition. Teams are also dynamic and, dare we say it?, fun. 'Departments' and 'functions' are far less appealing and, truth be told, are boring. Organize teams and give each the authority to govern themselves as they see fit. This will have an important effect of allowing far more people to have a significant role in the quest for the vision. Which is good, because we all want to have a meaningful role at work.
  

• Winning is what counts. Humans enjoy competition and, especially, winning. Free each team to operate as it sees fit. Process is not nearly as important as product. (Yes, HR, it's true.) Performance -- exceeding goals -- is what counts. Let each team decide who they want on their team and how they want to work. Provide data regularly so each team knows how it's performing against its goals and against all other teams. And do not get in their way if they're successful.

• Transparency is essential. Treat people with dignity and respect -- a rather important need of all of us -- by providing key data to all employees. That includes company and team performance data. It also includes compensation data. (Hey, there are no secrets anyway.) If we're truly in this thing together, prove it by being transparent, by trusting people with important information.
  

• Technology must be the best. Most humans in the work place seek tools to make their jobs easier and to make winning more accessible. Therefore, provide the best electronic tools possible. If you want top talent, you must provide top technology, especially in the 21st century. This is not negotiable. And allow people to exploit it. If this results in a 3-day on-site 2-day off-site work week, cool. Two days on site and 3 days elsewhere might even be better. It's coming quickly, so try not to stop it. Instead, encourage it.
  

• If there's any authority beyond the team, it must be local. Hierarchies are so last century. They won't exist in this century in the same way. And, admit it, few of us like to be told what to do and when to do it. We simply don't like authority. Leadership's job in the 21st century will be to inspire, not to direct. Everyone else will be tasked with making things happen. Authority for decisions must be put in the hands of those responsible. The more local the better. Which, suggests, that many workers will have significantly more power. It also suggests that there will be far fewer people with the title 'manager' and 'supervisor'.

• A sincere interest in each of us. We humans need care and nurturing. This need is regardless of age or gender. We want and need to be shown 'the love' regularly. At work this equates to having someone genuinely interested in our well-being and in our future. In the 21st century, the care and nurturing of talent will be the single most important task of HR, as hiring, performance management and firing will be within the purview of the team. The great organizations will develop effective ways to ensure that everyone has a career path and a plan to achieve it. The great organizations will also use mentors -- whether they be peers or others -- to help each team member strive for greatness.

Have we missed anything? I hope not. I also hope you can begin to see how an organization built to harness our enthusiasm, our creativity and our passion might be an amazing place to work -- and how it could very likely be an organization capable of trouncing its competition. Year after year after year.

Next week: What such an organization might look like from the inside out.

(Give yourself a point if you've gotten this far.)

There Must Be a Better Way, Part II

So, you've come back for more, eh? Cool.

Last week we outlined how the vast majority of organizations on the planet systematically suck enthusiasm, creativity, commitment and passion out of far too many people at work. While likely unintentional, the lingering effects of the Henry Ford-influenced management model have been profound. Think we've come a long way from the days when assembly lines were all the rage? If so, why do most companies still:

1. Assign everyone to a 'caste'
2. Place everyone in a specific, highly-structured 'box'
3. Limit independence and creativity by overly-defining the job
4. Teach what's permissible and especially what's not
5. Promote 'sameness' -- where nearly everyone is treated the same regardless of performance
6. Redefine 'personal growth' and 'advancement', and
7. Distribute rewards without sufficient transparency or connection to contribution?

The answer? I think it's two-fold:

1. Most find it easier to control than to trust. Indeed, why are there so many managers and supervisors? Do we really need to be watched as much as we are? In the old days -- the days when assembly lines were comprised of people new to cities and new to the 'modern' workforce -- sure. Someone had to teach these people how to work in the machine age. Someone had to teach them how to do their job exactly the same way each and every time. Keep in mind that it was our Henry Ford who asked, "Why is it that whenever I ask for a pair of hands, a brain comes attached?"

Creativity and individual expression were simply not part of the deal.

But now? Now, I believe it's a need to control. The need to ensure order and predictability. The need to contain. The need for compliance. Which translates quickly into a lack of trust. Because, indeed, we watch carefully those we don't trust. And, apparently, most companies place little trust in their people. For, truth be known, even managers are supervised.

And they wonder why we don't show greater commitment, a stronger sense of ownership to the organization and its mission.

Want to manage something? Great. Manage a budget. Manage a project. Manage a facility. But don't manage people. Because here's the truth: Humans do not like to be managed or controlled. We don't perform well when we're closely managed. Turns out we've got this thing for freedom, for independence. A rather strong thing, as a matter of fact, as evidenced by the holiday we celebrated this week in the States.

Until we break this need to control, most of us are doomed to a workplace where trust is weak or, worse, non-existent. And, in turn, most organizations are doomed to under-performance.

2. Sadly, we don't know any better. Another reason why most organizations are clear descendants of the Henry Ford model of management is that we simply don't have viable alternatives. Sad, but true. It's been 100 years or so since Henry created his assembly line-style of management. In that time, what other management models have been developed? Sure, Toyota's approach to innovation and product quality is one. Google's is another. But aside from a small handful of innovators, we're left with the out-dated, hierarchical, top-down, control-oriented management system that brought us to the dance.

There must be a better way.

I think there is.

Whole Foods is a great place to start. A company that might offer insights into what's possible. A company different on the outside and, importantly, on the inside.

How about this for different (radically different when compared to other food retailers): At Whole Foods, it's all about the team. Each of Whole Foods' 270+ stores in North America and the U.K. is organized around eight or so teams, responsible for everything from produce to check out. Teams are responsible for product selection, pricing, in-store promotion, ordering and staffing. Not someone in corporate headquarters or the store manager, but each team. Teams are also responsible for profitability. In short, each team runs a business.

Wait, there's more. New associates are assigned to a team, but only temporarily. After a four-week probation period, team members vote on the individual. A two-thirds vote of approval is required to earn a full-time role on the team. Teams can also vote members off the team for poor performance. The same process is also in place at Whole Foods' corporate headquarters in Austin, Texas.

And how about this: Each team is also highly accountable for results. Every four weeks, the company provides data on profit per labor hour for every team in every store. Teams exceeding a set threshold earn a bonus delivered in the next paycheck. And the data for every team in every store is available to everyone. Nothing like competition to keep the juices flowing, so to speak.

And this: Trust is so important at Whole Foods that it shares key data openly with all 56,000+ associates. For example, compensation information is available to everyone in the company, as is most data typically kept close to the vest, like: team sales, product costs, daily store performance and profitability, just to name a few.

Let that sink in for a moment. Compensation data and key company performance metrics are available to everyone in Whole Foods. Clearly, Whole Foods gets it: You can't keep secrets and expect people to trust you.

Sound like where you work?

As Whole Foods co-founder and CEO John Mackey puts it:

We don't have lots of rules that are handed down from headquarters in Austin. We have lots of self-examination going on. Peer pressure substitutes for bureaucracy. Peer pressure enlists loyalty in ways that bureaucracy doesn't.

And that's only part of what makes the Whole Foods approach to management so different and the company so very successful. Indeed, Whole Foods is this country's fastest growing and most profitable food retailer when profit per square foot is considered (a standard in the industry). The company has also been good to its investors: Since its IPO in 1992, the company's stock has risen by nearly 3,000% which, to say the least, is far above their competitors' stock performance.

A team-driven approach, with each team truly leading a business. Peers hiring and firing peers. Aggressive use of performance data to drive internal competition and profitability. A strong results orientation, with bonuses linked to performance and paid immediately following that performance. An 'open book' to even the most sensitive information. Oh, and did I mention that executive pay at Whole Foods is capped at 19 times the company average (in most Fortune 500 companies that multiplier is an astounding 400) and that, at last count, 93% of the company's stock options were granted to non-executives?

The fastest growing, most profitable food retailer in the country. A different approach to managing a company. Think those two things are related? Of course you do. Visit a Whole Foods store. You'll see the difference.

Next week: What a 21st century organization might look like.

Happy birthday, America.

There Must Be a Better Way, Part I

I had an influential chemistry teacher in high school who was steadfast in his belief that if you truly understood something you could make it, break it, and put it back together again. It's a wise and valid concept. Even so, it's somewhat limiting given that you end up with exactly what you started with. You may have demonstrated that you understood it, but what about the ability to improve it?

For that reason, with all due respect Mr. Nelson, let's take the concept a step further. If you truly understand something and can apply experience, intelligence, and creativity you should be able to make it, break it, and put it back together again better than before.

I mean really, who wants the same old mouse trap when we can make one that works better? Similarly, who wants the same old, traditional, hierarchical, inefficient, incentive-killing, commitment-sapping, and passion-crushing work place when we can make one that inspires and produces significantly better performance than the ones currently littering the business landscape?

But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

Let's consider the work place and begin with a look at how it's currently configured in the vast majority of organizations on the planet. (For purposes of brevity, we'll limit this discussion to organizations only on Earth.) Specifically, let's consider how the typical organization often transforms independent, enthusiastic, energized, passionate people into clock-watching, order-taking, overly-cautious, rule-bound, excessively-obedient, survival-oriented employees. (Think that too harsh? Just ask the 85% -- 85 percent! -- of those who said they were less than 'fully engaged' in their work in a 2005 study of 86,000 workers worldwide by Towers Perrin, a consulting firm and my alma mater.) If we truly understand how organizations do this so effectively, we should be able to design an organization that attracts top performers, energizes its people, breeds creativity, and fosters passion with one unifying purpose in mind: To blow away the competition.

So, what how do most organizations undermine and, often, extinguish the enthusiasm and change-the-world energy many first bring to work -- and, in the process, limit bottom-line performance? Let us count the ways.

Step 1: Assign you to a 'caste'. The first part of the transformation, immediately following being hired, involves the assignment of a job title, which has likely been created and benchmarked extensively by the human resources function. The job title defines who you are and where you fit in the organization. In doing so, the job title specifies the class or caste within which you will operate, the extent of your freedom to innovate, the advancement opportunities available to you, and your earning potential. If you're lucky, you even get a business card with the job title on it -- to remind you and everyone in the organization of your level. And since the job has been benchmarked in other like-companies, your caste level is known throughout the vast business community. For as we all know, Customer Service Representative I is completely different and far superior to Customer Service Representative II, regardless of company, right? Or is it the other way around?

Step 2: Place you in a specific 'box' within a fixed organization structure. The next element of the transformation process involves putting you in a 'box' -- where your job is located -- within the larger organization structure. The box defines to whom you report, who may report to you, who your peers may be, and the unit within the larger organization in which you will operate. The 'level' of the box in the organization's hierarchy also reinforces what you already know: Your caste. As you'll soon learn, the box in which you're in is communicated to everyone in the company. For this reason, everyone else knows your caste, too, and will likely treat you accordingly. (Curious how boxes define jobs on an org chart. Maybe it's something about surrounding each job and each person with walls.)

Step 3: Limit independence, creativity by thoroughly defining your job. The next step in the transformation is one of education. Here, you are given instruction on precisely how to do your job. (The lower the caste level, the greater attention to detailed instruction.) Never mind that you are intelligent, may have experience elsewhere, or have done a similar job before. Instead, you are taught how this job is done in this company. While there are undoubtedly benefits in careful instruction, part of the teaching typically emphasizes how we do this job here. With the message being quite clear: That deviation is not appropriate. Thus limiting creativity, innovation and personal style. And to make it that much more clear that the company is serious about this, you will have a 'manager' who will oversee your work and help you perform your job the way it's to be done here.

(Are you with me so far? Good.)

Step 4: Teach you what's permissible and especially what's not. A critical step in the transformation comes during the first few weeks of work and is typically delivered informally. Your manager, coworkers, and/or a 'buddy' will explain the unwritten rules of the organization. Importantly, these 'rules' are typically behaviors to be avoided. Like, for example, 'Pushing back on ideas here is frowned upon.'. (Translation: Don't disagree.) Or, 'Here, we play nice.'. (Translation: Don't disagree.) Or, 'We keep our emotions in check.' (Translation: Don't disagree with any enthusiasm.) Interestingly, these rules are often communicated in a commiserating tone, as if the person is saying, 'I don't make the rules here, but they are what they are.'. Soon you too will be asked to teach these rules to others entering the organization.

Step 5: Promote 'sameness'. An essential part of the transformation process requires you to learn that most people in the organization are treated essentially the same, regardless of performance or potential. This is especially true of your entire caste. Try to overlook the poorer performers in your midst. We all know who they are, don't we? Despite the demotivating aspects of their continued employment, as well as the revelation that the company doesn't really mean that performance and contribution are important or that winning in the market is something the company is serious about, treating people similarly is common to most organizations.

Step 6: Redefine 'personal growth', 'advancement'. Toward the end of your first year of work, you may be fortunate enough to sit with your manager to discuss your career. Here you'll begin to learn that your idea of career growth and your manager's view of career growth are largely dissimilar. This is likely due to the fact that you equate promotion to 'getting a higher level job with more authority and more money'. Your manager, in contrast, explains that 'advancement' means taking a series of 'lateral' jobs. (Translation: Jobs of equal stature and pay in other parts of the organization.) And while learning more about the organization may make you more valuable over time, somehow the basic concept of 'moving up in the organization' has gotten lost. There's a specific reason for this: In most hierarchical companies, there simply isn't any room to move up. So, out of necessity and rather than stating the obvious, companies have instead changed the definition of 'promotion'. Clever, no? Learning that real promotion is unlikely is a vital step in the passion-draining transformation process.

Step 7: Distribute rewards without sufficient transparency. Lastly, you will learn that rewards -- opportunities to work on 'cool' projects, promotions, pay increases, bonuses -- are given out with insufficient explanation and often no visibility to the rationale. Disconnecting the distribution of rewards from performance and contribution produces the essential question asked by a vast majority of employees worldwide: 'What's the point of working hard, of trying to produce outstanding results, of helping my company excel?' Once you pose that question, the transformation is complete.

That's the way it's done. Seven steps requiring about a year. And while not intentional, the undermining or fully stripping of all that drives many of us to produce outstanding results at work is definitely the outcome. Just ask those around you. Our bet is that 85% will agree.

By the way, thank Henry Ford. Hierarchy, closely-managed workers assigned to specific, carefully-structured jobs was something he championed. Given his success, others quickly copied Ford's approach to organizations. The problem is that those days are gone. Long gone. A new model is needed if organizations are to thrive -- hey, if they're to survive -- in our technology-driven, fiercely-competitive, ever-changing world.

The question now is how to build a better organization, one capable of attracting highly talented, creative, passionate people and mobilizing them to blow away the competition.

Come back next week. We'll talk.

Expressions of Love

You want something to cry about? I'll give you something to cry about.

When I call, you come running.

Do that again and I'll give you a shoe.

There are a lot of grades here. All A's and a B+. So, what happened in English?

Funny the things we remember about our fathers from childhood. And despite how these sayings of his may sound -- and how I likely felt when he said those things -- the memories of my father from those days so long ago are fond. Quite fond, actually. Because, and I knew this then, this is how my father expressed love.

My dad's not much of a talker, at least not to children. In many ways he seemed uncomfortable around younger people. (To this day, I remember how uncomfortable it was as a kid to drive even 30 minutes alone with him -- unless you liked silence.) But where he thrived, where he truly excelled, was in the arena -- that vast and fertile coliseum -- of discipline. My oh my, was my father The Stern Disciplinarian! Look it up on Wikipedia and you'll see a photo of my dad.

It's as if the only job description he ever saw for 'Father' read something like this:

1. Produce offspring
2. Provide for them
3. Define the rules they should live by, with Rule #1 being: Respect Thy Father
   
4. Enforce those rules with unwavering conviction (but, when spanking, use a shoe to protect your hand)
5. Create new rules as needed to keep your offspring in line
   

Probably got that job description from his father, a very serious man who left eastern Europe one small step ahead of the Nazis.

But if that was the description he had, my dad performed the job with enthusiasm and relish. He was, without a doubt, brilliant at it. There were four of us who knew the deal, did our best to avoid 'the shoe' (a soft-soled slipper, the thought of which was much worse than its reality), and shuddered when my mother spoke what to us were The Words Designed to Invoke Great Terror: Wait until your father gets home.

And great terror those words did invoke.

One of the rules my father invented as he went along -- or, more accurately, as we grew up -- was that there were to be no long-distance phone calls. (This was years before the days of cell phones and unlimited long-distance calling.) For my father, paying the phone company a dime more than necessary was a crime of the highest order. Unfortunately, my sister and I had friends beyond our local area code, friends who lived all the way across the bay in San Francisco. Yes, a toll call away. Which, of course, made us criminals once a month, every month.

We'd know when the phone bill arrived because my father would come to the dinner table -- eating together as a family every night was sacrosanct -- with the phone bill sticking well out of his shirt pocket for everyone to see. To build the suspense -- the fear! -- he'd say nothing about the bill during the entire dinner. We'd have a typical, laugh-filled dinner and all would seem right with the world.

Why we'd forgotten that we were in the presence of The Master of the Household, The Maker and Enforcer of the Rules was anyone's guess.

For just when my sister and I began to think about asking to be excused from the table, my father would slowly reach for the bill, languidly open it, peruse its detail painstakingly, and utter a few, quiet statements to himself to make the fear truly palatable ('That was a long call...', 'Who's going to pay for this I wonder...', 'Three calls to the same number in one day, in one day?...', 'Three dollars and fifteen cents in long-distance calls...'). He'd then look up, give my sister and me The Eye and ask, "I thought we agreed not to make long distance calls." In that quiet, measured tone of his that preceded The Wrath of Dad.

Let death come now, I thought. If there's a God, please let death come now.

But that was it. I bit of scolding for making, gasp!, $3.15 worth of toll calls. ('It's not the money', he'd say. 'It's the principle.') Admonishment for using the phone in such a wanton, reckless fashion. Threats of punishment if such irresponsibility continued. And then a curt dismissal from the dinner table.

Dear God, no need to kill me now. I seem to have survived this month's phone bill. Stand by 4 weeks from now. I may need your services then.

That's my dad. A man of principle and a short set of rules. A man who thought paying for chrome fenders on a car was a waste of money because you can't see them while driving. A man who had no use for authority, even though he inflicted it on his children. A man who insisted we come running when he called. A man who only wanted and continues to want the best for his kids. Even if he can't quite form the words to tell us he loves us.

Happy Father's Day, Dad.

Let's Talk

Well, that was the week that was. (Anyone old enough to remember TW3? One of the first political humor programs on television. It made my parents laugh and groan, so it must have been good.)

Let's review the curious week that was.

Petrol Sea (once known as the Gulf of Mexico). Not only is oil still pouring into the Gulf, it now appears that BP's original estimates of the amount of oil befouling the water, the wetlands, the beaches and all life in the massive area was a tad low. To say the least. The actual rate is double what was originally thought.

Let's translate: Oil is flowing into the Gulf at a rate equal to the total amount of oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez every 8 - 10 days. As unfathomable as that may be, let it sink in. The Valdez dumped 10.8 million gallons into Alaska's Prince William Sound. An unparalleled disaster, to be sure. Until now. This is far, far beyond that. An estimated 11 million gallons of oil every 8 - 10 days. The Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20. Monday, June 14 is the 56th day. That's at least 5 Exxon Valdez disasters. And counting.

Two questions:

1. Will the Gulf ever recover?

2. Will we ever learn that deep-water oil drilling has HUGE risks, risks that outweigh the potential economic gains? (And don't be confused. It's not about oil independence. It's about profit.)

Let's also not forget that Halliburton is involved and may be, along with BP, directly responsible for the disaster. They helped cement the well. Curious how that company finds its way dubiously into the news. A topic for another time.

University of Superior Compensation (aka, USC). The NCAA finally acted on what many knew to be the truth: USC paid at least one of its football players. Shocking but true! Reggie Bush and family were long-rumored to have been living in a home 'donated' by a USC backer. Rumors of cash trading hands (up to $300,000) were also prevalent. Both have been substantiated. Finally, years later, the NCAA came down on 'SC in a big way. Many games won during the Reggie Bush years will be forfeited, scholarships will be lost, and post-season play will be prohibited for the next two years.

While some congratulate the NCAA on taking action against a powerhouse -- an 800-pound gorilla of college football, to be sure -- others, including TJOW, think otherwise. Why, you ask? Because those who broke the rules will not be punished. Instead, only the innocent will pay for the crimes: Players who weren't even at 'SC at the time will now be kept from post-season play and many will lose scholarships. Pete Carroll, the head coach at the time and now the head coach of the Seattle Seahawks says he knew nothing. USC's athletic director also claims ignorance. Both likely received substantial bonuses following the football team's successes during the Reggie Bush years. And both are untouched by the NCAA's actions.

Way to go, NCAA! It took you too long and you got it wrong. You're 0-2. What a great example you're setting for all of us.

By the way, 'We knew nothing' sounds suspiciously like Bud Selig and those who run Major League Baseball when asked about steroids. Think they and the owners of ball clubs profited handsomely during the years Sammy, Mark and Barry were breaking home run records annually? Of course they did. Handsomely. And of course they 'knew nothing'. How very convenient.

Manning up, beautifully. From error can come humility, even humanity. You've heard the story: Armando Galarraga, of the Detroit Tiger baseball team, was one out away from a perfect game (a game in which no players from the opposing team reach base safely). But it was not to be, as the 1st base umpire, Jim Joyce, ruled wrongly that the 27th and last batter of the perfecto was safe on an infield grounder. A clear mistake, one more significant given that a perfect game is one of the most difficult accomplishments in baseball as evidenced by the fact that only 20 have occurred in the 100+ years of professional baseball.

In many ways, that's when the story begins. And a good story it is. Immediately following the game, Joyce reviewed videotape of the play and realized his mistake. In an act hopefully to be remembered for years, he admitted that he had blown the call. He sought out Galarraga, hugged him, said 'Lo siento' (I'm sorry) and started to cry.

The next day, Galarraga and Joyce met at home plate prior to the game during the exchange of line-up cards. Joyce, with tears in his eyes, shook his hand and patted him on the shoulder.

Imagine that. An error was made, accountability was accepted, a heart-felt apology was issued. In public.

Joyce manned up. Beautifully.

In the midst of this, Galarraga comported himself with grace. He never argued about the call and accepted Joyce's apology. A mensch, to be sure.

Keep this in mind: Mistakes do not define you. What you do immediately afterward does. Credit Oscar Peterson, the brilliant jazz pianist, for this observation.

The Pac-16 or 'So Long, Rose Bowl'. While we're talking sports, the Pac-10 will soon be the Pac-16. Colorado has already committed, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State will likely join the fast-expanding conference. (I know that's only 15 teams, but, never fear, they'll find another. Texas A&M? Hey, Notre Dame?)

Why is this happening? For the same reason anything happens in sports: Money. Yes, even in college sports. In this case, big money from TV.

And the outcome? No way do the California Golden Bears ever get to the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day. They couldn't win the conference when there were only 7 other teams (the Pac-8), they couldn't win it when there were only 9 other teams (the current Pac-10), so why believe they'll ever win it when there are 15 other teams -- and one is USC, another is Texas and another is Oklahoma? Clearly, it will take a miracle of astounding proportions.

For this reason, I rekindle my call for the University of California to disband its football program. If you can't be #1 or #2 in the market, get out. It's time, Cal. Do the right thing. Now.

[Note: Since TJOW went to 'press', both Texas and Oklahoma schools declined invitations to join the Pac-10 (or -11, with Colorado). Not to worry. Cal still won't go to the Rose Bowl.]

Happy Birthday, TJOW! This weeks marks the one-year anniversary of The Job of Work. Thanks to all of you who have frequented the site, those who actually read the blog, those who commented, and those who appreciated the humor, the rants, the observations about the workplace and the events of the day. Your enthusiasm is contagious and continues to fuel the writing.

So, yes, in many ways it's all your fault.

Enjoy the week and, maybe, drive a little less, okay? It's the least we can do.

Man-up

Can't seem to find the strength to return that phone call? Fingers aren't able to type a reply to the e-mail that's been in your inbox for weeks? Promised to get back to someone, but just couldn't muster the will? Having a hard time telling someone the truth?

If so, you're not alone. Bad manners -- or, at the very least, a gross lack of common decency -- seem to be going around these days. Maybe it's the economy.

Or maybe being rude is the new black. You, know, hip.

Call me old fashioned -- you won't be alone! -- but I say enough! Not returning phone calls, ignoring e-mails -- in general, not responding -- truly is bad form. Enough! These times, during which little is going well for many, require all of us to rise up, reach out and overcome our frailties. It's time to take a huge step toward humanity, toward decency and honor, toward a world where people treat each other with dignity and respect as a way of life.

In short, it's time to man-up. And, yes, this includes women, too.

I'm not sure of the origin of this newly-emerging expression, but 'man-up', a verb, appears to refer to the act of taking responsibility for one's actions -- especially when an emotional backbone and internal fortitude (read: guts) are required. Hence, 'Randy manned-up when he told his boss that he had likely caused the damage to the machinery.'

To be sure you have a firm grasp of the concept, please use 'man-up' in a sentence about a woman who missed a deadline, causing the customer to cancel the account. I'll wait.

Okay. Nicely done. See how the expression works for both genders? It may sound gender-specific, but it has broad applicability.

(A quick side-bar. That it's man-up certainly suggests that men, more than woman, have a greater propensity to lack the strength and courage to own up to their own actions. It's not woman-up, after all. Regardless, we'll leave that to another time.)

Back to the topic at hand. I say again: It's time for all of us to man-up. We can't control the economy at home or abroad, the gushing oil in the gulf, international tensions, or the number of obnoxious TV and radio spots for candidates we find repugnant. Actually, come to think of it, there's not much we can control beyond our behavior. So, let's start there. Join me in agreeing to a small set of behaviors -- common decencies, actually -- that will help all of us during these very challenging times. Let's all agree to:

• Return phone calls within 48 hours
• Answer e-mails within 24 hours
• Respond to requests within 48 hours

-- even if the response is "No, sorry.", "I don't know yet, but will know something by [insert specific time here].", or "I wish I could help, but can't."

The operating assumption here is that people would rather be treated respectfully than be ignored. (I know. A wild assumption that.)

Who's with me? Who has the courage to treat others with dignity and respect by doing something so basic as responding to their calls, e-mails and requests promptly? Who will stand with me? Who will man-up?

I'll start. I state, for all to see in cyberspace, that I vow to treat everyone with dignity and respect by answering all calls, e-mails and requests promptly. I will man-up.

Starting sometime next week, sooner if I have the backbone.