Sports

One of the things that has long perplexed my allegedly rational mind was the way sports fans looked upon team loyalties. Most people root for their home team, or the team representing their local college. If there are multiple teams in one area, however, things can get interesting! When a sports fan moves to another city, their loyalties go with them - even thousands of miles away. To use a hometown example, a Nebraska football supporter will still cheer for the Huskers even after moving to Texas, California or North Carolina. But a strange thing happens when die-hard fans encounter people who have moved from elsewhere into their city: the outsiders are expected to jettison their out-of-town fandom and become cheerleaders for the local team. No one seems to notice this inconsistency.

Another item on my "sports fans mystify me" list is the fact that it is socially unacceptable to not be a fan. I encountered this the other day. A man whom I had never met asked me if I "was going to watch the game". Besides growing up in another state and not having absorbed the local football fever and fervor, I'm just, in general, not a sports fan any more. There are several reasons for this, none of them particularly earth-shaking, but I just don't care about sports any more. Well, I replied to this stranger with "No, I'm not a fan". You would've thought that I had impugned his mother's reputation or shot his dog. Some years back I turned off a game at work because people weren't working, and ended up getting an ugly phone call from a customer threatening to shop somewhere else if the game wasn't on the radio at the store because I "was in Nebraska now".

Now I do understand the attraction and the fun of rooting for your team. I get that tailgating on game day and attending the game itself are fun experiences (I've done both). There's no harm in memorizing team statistics or expressing your opinion about the coach or players. (Yes, even college players - if they can accept the adulation and hero-worship when things are going well, they can accept the criticism when things are going badly - and no, the fact that you yourself cannot perform at that level of athleticism should not prevent you from venting about shitty football). What I don't understand is when fandom (and I'm not just pointing fingers at Nebraska football fans, I'm sure that in Texas, fanaticism begins at the high school level, or younger) becomes the most important thing in a person's life. I've worked with people who, without a second thought, would have quit their jobs if forced to work on a "Football Saturday".

Being from somewhere else does not preclude me from understanding why people are sports fans; guess what? We had sports fans where I came from too. Whether your team is Husker Football, or Creighton Basketball or the Chicago Cubs, you're not unique! There are sports fans everywhere and they're all similarly crazed in their support of their team. There are also plenty of us who just don't give a shit.

Managers Part XX - Delegation & Assignments

One of the core concepts of getting control of your time as a manager is learning to delegate. Before you can do that, you have to understand what delegation is and how it's different from assignment. One way to look at assignment, or assigning tasks, is that it's the manager telling people what to do. They complete one task, then are given another, or are given a list of tasks to be completed in a set time frame. Delegation, on the other hand, occurs when a manager communicates her expectations, draws the big picture, and gives her subordinates the freedom to make it happen in their own way. There is a continuum of assignment/delegation, with a new employee figuratively having their hand held as they go through their day, being told what every step is. This progresses to asking for assignments and then to knowing what to do, but checking with the boss. Eventually, the subordinate is able to self-assign without checking with his manager.

Delegation is not to be confused with abdication of responsibility. I have seen plenty of hands-off managers who are loved by their employees because they "let them do their jobs", when closer inspection would reveal that they aren't doing their jobs, they're doing something but the manager is too conflict-averse to actually manage them. These employees might benefit from some direction from their manager, but in its absence they set their own standards. These standards might be convenient for them, but also might be out of sync with the standards and goals of the company. In situations like this neither delegation nor assignment is taking place. The employees who realize that they have the freedom to do spend their work days however they like will become resentful when some manager higher up the chain of command tries to correct things, or a new manager, who knows how to manage comes on board. The employees who expect to be assigned tasks will, in the absence of any direction, badger the manager for instruction, ironically tying up his day micromanaging. Thus the management pyramid is turned upside down.

This morning I entered a local grocery store and immediately became aware of two things that were out of place. One was sign on the front of the building announcing that a fundraiser was taking place. The problem was that this fundraiser was yesterday. The second was overflowing trash cans in the lobby of the store. Of course trash cans get full and people forget to do things like take down signs, but I frequently interpret little things like that in light of management or in some cases, customer service.

Why was that sign still up? Perhaps whoever was supposed to remove it simply forgot. But my management brain looked at it differently. Most likely no one had been assigned the task of removing that sign when the event was completed. It wasn't on anyone's to-do list, so it didn't get done. The store director, or department manager, whoever had set up this event, did not think to add this to "the list". Which brings us to delegation. There were likely several managers, including the store director, the evening supervisor, perhaps the front end manager, who were overall responsible for the store being fully staffed, fully stocked and clean. All of these people should have been trained as to what state the store should be in and had been delegated the responsibility of making sure that those standards were met. Surely this included walking outside periodically. By the time I arrived several manager shifts had come on duty and walked in the front door since that sign became outdated. Same with the overflowing trash cans. My guess is that whoever is specifically assigned to empty trash had clocked out between 6:00 and 9:00pm and the next person so assigned had not arrived yet. In between, no one thought it was their job and the manager in charge hadn't followed up.

These may seem like small things, and they are, but they are indicative of a larger trend.

Management isn't about doing things, it's about getting things done. If you don't train and delegate, you'll be doing it all yourself, and if you don't follow up, things might get done, but they'll be the wrong things.

Lack of Consequences

Why do people do horrible things to each other? Why do people treat other people as things? Most people have moments that they're not proud of, but what about people who are continuously and barely consciously dismissive and contemptuous of their fellow human beings? There are undoubtedly many reasons, but one stands out to me: lack of consequences.

One of the prevailing headlines this week is the accusations of attempted rape against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, events that are alleged to have happened when he was in high school and later in college. Let's establish that I believe his accuser Dr. Ford, as well as the subsequent accusers that have come forward. You may disagree with me, and I may be proven wrong, but why are these accusations so credible to many of us? Granted, some do not find them credible, basing their incredulity on their perception that Kavanaugh is a "good man" and "would never had done those things". But back to why I find them believable.

Why would someone wait 35+ years to level an an assault accusation, an accusation of attempted rape, on someone? The attacks upon the accuser, here in post "#MeToo" 2018, and the united disbelief and personal attacks from men in power, should shed some light upon the reasons why some women don't report sexual assaults. The risk that they won't be believed, that their own lives will be put under a microscope, that their attackers will be portrayed as the victims and that in the end the rapist will escape consequences.

And many of these predators know that they will evade consequences.

Boys from well-connected families, with access to effective lawyers and enough money to buy silence are brought up knowing that they have a highly functional safety net that will catch them and protect them if they get into trouble. Of course this doesn't mean that every rich kid is a rapist or that every wealthy family's lawyer's time is mainly spent keeping the kids out of jail. But it does mean that those who do choose to become abusers know that they will be protected and likely escape serious consequences.

Pair the perception of invulnerability of the rich with the systemic bias against rape victims, and actions such as those which Kavanaugh is accused of become all too believable.

So what if Kavanaugh is known or believed to be a good family man, sober and serious? That's now. It's not beyond the pale of possibility that someone who acted the way Kavanaugh is alleged to have acted when in high school and college could become more circumspect as he got older and considered the repercussions to his judicial career if he continued to be a drunken rapist.

It remains to be seen what the consequences of his actions will be. There appears to be only one or two Republicans who are wavering on his appointment and Kavanaugh could very well escape any consequences and become a Supreme Court Justice. 

September 11th - Why Are We Really Observing This Day?

It's September 11th again. What was, for the first few anniversaries, a solemn remembrance, has become an opportunity for political posturing and chest thumping pseudo-patriotism. That, and an opening for all the crackpot conspiracy theorists to trot out their idiotic slants on 9-11 that the rest of us have mercifully forgotten. I have grown weary of all the reminders of how tough New Yorkers are, how brilliant Giuliani was, how the Saudis betrayed us, and most of all, how invoking that horrible day becomes an excuse to push whatever agenda the politician du jour is braying about.

Then, of course, there's our embarrassment of a president.

An exclamation point? It's like he's announcing a celebration. Then the video of him double fist-pumping as he arrived at Shanksville, like it's a campaign rally or a victory party.

Every year we say "Never Forget", but have we actually learned anything in the last 17 years? We've been mired in a series of conflicts in the Middle East ever since. In Afghanistan we were supposed to drive out the Taliban and foster a democratic government. We toppled the Taliban government, but have managed to install a series of corrupt national leaders and encouraged the resurgence regional warlords, who run much of the country, the parts of it's not run by Taliban commanders anyway. We have lost a significant number of soldiers to attacks by Afghan soldiers and police; our alleged allies. In Iraq we intervened based on a purposeful misreading of the intelligence, and got sectarian fighting and ISIS for our trouble. We intervened in Libya with the result being no central government and a dead ambassador. We talked tough and supported rebels in Syria, and bombed a few airfields, but the Russians and Iranians have propped up Assad.

We've increased our military involvement around the world and curtailed civil liberties at home, but we have done nothing to address the root causes of the attacks in 2001.

We say "Never Forget", but we have.

Managers Part XIX - Good Leaders CAN be Bad Managers

Reading a novel the other day I came across this quote "People often confuse leadership and management, you may be an effective leader, but terrible at minutia". It was in reference to a pilot who was promoted to a position where she no longer flew, but planned the missions of her subordinates.

So often we hear the traits of leadership praised while those of management looked down upon as inferior, as if a manager is someone who somehow failed to be a leader. I have always taught that leadership is just one trait of a good manager. But this quote made me want to take it further. A leader is someone who can inspire others to follow, and I've always thought that someone who had leadership qualities in a management role was by definition a good manager, but I am rethinking that position. Effective management is, in part, a function of effective leadership. Inspiring one's followers to the point where they can have responsibility delegated to them is a mark of a good manager. But that part of the quote about minutia is the key. A person can be an inspiring and charismatic leader, but lacks the skill at analyzing, organizing and planning that are essential ingredients that go into the makeup of a successful manager. Visualize a manager who is well liked, whose subordinates will follow any orders, but cannot put together a schedule, or properly budget, or order the right amount of product; who cannot articulate the needs of his business unit to corporate headquarters. He wouldn't last too long, despite his popularity with "the troops".

In this series on managers, I have concentrated mostly on the people management aspect of being an effective manager. What has been the unspoken assumption all along has been that, in order to manage the people, you first need to be proficient at the other management skills - the minutia.

But The Dark Comes back

One candle they say
Causes the darkness to flee
But the dark comes back

The candle burns out
The Sun sets every night
Flames turn to ashes

And the dark comes back

And casts its shadow

You can't avoid dark
What if the dark's not evil?
What if it just IS?

Not Everything is About "The Troops"

Support the troops! Don't disrespect the troops! Love the troops! I am so sick of (in certain contexts) hearing about THE TROOPS!

Before you get your lederhosen in a bunch, I want to clarify that I'm not sick of the troops. I'm grateful to them for stepping up, and that some of them put their lives on the line, and many of them lose their lives, carrying out the policies of our government. I think that whatever their motivation, they deserve a heavy dose of respect for the jobs that they do.

What I do object to is how certain politicians make every single issue about "the troops". And it's not just politicians. What got me going on this subject was a Facebook meme that I saw yesterday. It had four pictures, one of a grieving widow bent over a flag-draped coffin, a second of a paraplegic veteran in a wheelchair with the caption "This is why we stand for the anthem", the third was a military cemetary, possibly a Civil War era one, with the caption "This why we don't erase history" and fourth was an American flag with a caption stating that we are not white, black etc, we are Americans, start acting like it". What got my attention first was the "erase history" picture. This was obviously a reference to the enthusiasm for tearing down memorials to Confederate soldiers and politicians, with those opposed to it hiding their racism behind a so-called concern for preserving our history. This gave me a good idea of the mindset behind this post. But the first two pictures, with their suggestion that the "kneel for the anthem" protests were disrespectful to "the troops" was the main point.

Growing up I never associated the National Anthem with the military, despite its martial language. To me it was just a patriotic song. But those who were opposed to mostly black athletes who were attempting to bring attention to the rash of police killings of black men, many of them unarmed, made it about disrespecting "the troops". Why? Because we have come to a point in our society where members of the military are not only respected, but revered.  We can't criticize the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan because that derides the troops. We can't question the military budget because that means we don't care about the troops. A Congressman can't express doubt in the fitness of a Veterans Administration because that will deprive the troops of an advocate. Sarah Sanders claims that it inappropriate to question a retired four-star general, John Kelly. Kelly himself suggested that lawmakers "shut up and support the men and women on the front lines". He later said he felt sorry for those who haven't served and refused to take questions from anyone who didn't have a connection to a Gold Star family.

Kelly is just the highest ranking representative of the changing military culture in our country where military men and women are a warrior caste, superior to the rest of us. And think about the term "warrior". We hear it all the time in reference to soldiers. It makes me cringe. Technically it's accurate; a warrior is someone engaged or experienced in war, according to Merriam-Webster. But when I hear "warrior" I think of someone whose main purpose isn't defending the country or its interests, but a conqueror, someone whose whole life revolves around war and death, not someone who does a job and then comes home to civilian life. Our military is supposed to answerable to civilian authority. That's why the President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, it's why we don't have a separate position as head of the military. And most of the time the head of the Department of Defense is a civilian, not a recently retired general like we have now, in addition to having another recently retired general as chief of staff of the White House. While military people may have a point that we civilians don't understand them, it's an equally valid point to suggest that a career "warrior" doesn't really understand what civilian life is about either.

But there is one group that can criticize the military, and that those on the right wing of American politics. You may be thinking of President Trump, and you'd be right, but it predates him. Former Secretary of State John Kerry served in Vietnam as a swift boat commander. Unlike most Naval postings in Vietnam, a swift boat wasn't anchored miles off the coast, lobbing bombs, or launching planes. A swift boat patrolled the internal rivers; rivers that were fenced in by jungle on both sides, jungle that could likely conceal the enemy. In my opinion, this had to have been the most dangerous job in the Navy, notwithstanding the many Naval pilots who were shot down and captured. Yet Kerry had his military record muddied and was called a coward by the opposition, who happened to be George W Bush, who was safe in the National Guard while Kerry was putting his life on the line.

I guess my whole point is, unless you're specifically addressing a military issue, keep the military, and respect for the troops, out of the discussion. It's nothing but an attempted guilt trip.