On Leadership: Abusing the Perks

This is the second of my "On Leadership" posts.

I had the great misfortune to work for a bad supervisor at one point in my career. This person, who I will call Lisa, was one of those supervisors who loved the perks of leadership but never embraced its responsibilities.

Are You Here?

Lisa had strict rules for how her team should operate. Each quarter, she asked us to give her a work schedule. For example, someone might say they needed to leave early on Wednesdays for a class. In their schedule, that person might account for leaving early by coming in early on Wednesdays or working extra time on Tuesdays and Thursdays. While Lisa would initially approve that request, she invariably complained when the person left each Wednesday for that class. She always asked if they had actually completed their work, complained about her generosity being abused and asked if they really actually needed the class.

Lisa also regularly had the IT department run reports on her staff’s computer activity. This was to verify that each person actually logged onto the system each morning when they said they would start work. She also used the reports to verify that no one clocked out too early. Lisa needed these reports because she was never in the office before 10:00 am. And, she frequently left the office for the day between 2:00 and 4:00, long before anyone else on the team. Lisa’s lunch breaks were typically two or more hours in length, often spent at a nearby bar where she drank her lunch and chatted up our division’s vice president, who was also her immediate supervisor.

Rest and Relaxation

In addition to her scheduling requirements, Lisa also had strict policies about when people could take vacation and how they must prepare before leaving the office. Her staff had to give lengthy lead times for vacation requests and Lisa reserved the right to cancel those requests, even if she had initially approved them, if the person didn’t have their desk clear before leaving. People worked many long hours in the week before their vacations, billing projects that were due to finish while they were away or shipping equipment on projects that wouldn’t actually begin until after their returns, just to be sure Lisa didn’t cancel their vacation requests at the last minute. Each person also had to pick a backup from the team and brief that individual on all the projects in progress, in case the backup needed to answer a call about the job.

However, the vacation rules that her team had to follow never applied to Lisa. She spent the week before her trip using her work computer to book excursions, dinner reservations and spa treatments. She would order new outfits for the trip, having the packages shipped to the office. She also spent a lot of time on the phone talking with her traveling companions and verifying that their plans were in place.

The night before her trip, she stayed late in the office, identifying jobs that would complete while she was gone or projects that she should have started before leaving. All these projects would be dumped on someone’s desk, often without warning. Lisa usually left the hapless person a voicemail or an email, telling her or him that Lisa was having all calls forwarded to that person in her absence. She asked them to start those late projects and bill out the ones that were to complete. Then, she merrily headed off on vacation, leaving at least one member of her team swamped with ill-managed projects.

Monkey See, Monkey Do

Lisa was, by any definition, a poor leader. Like so many supervisors and employers, she had one set of standards that she followed while her staff had to obey a different, stricter policy. Unfortunately, in that particular company, Lisa’s behavior was far too common. Lisa’s immediate supervisor, the division vice president, behaved in an identical manner. Since Lisa’s supervisor modeled a version of leadership that emphasized the leader’s perks, Lisa learned that supervisors didn’t have to follow the rules they enforced.

Attempts to complain to Lisa’s supervisor about her poor leadership fell on deaf ears. Since the vice president behaved in an identical manner, the reaction was, “We’re bosses and we get to do things you can’t. Deal with it.” Sadly, the company’s HR department was powerless to do anything about the supervisors and their double standards. When the HR director was approached about the problem, her reaction was, “Yes, I know they do that. And yes, it’s a terrible way to behave, causing resentment and damaging team morale. But, they have connections and we can’t do anything about it.”

Lots of Sand in the Machine

The company that allowed this behavior went through a number of ownership changes in a seven-year period. The firm was bought by a larger company, then spun back off into a small, independent company. It merged with a top competitor and eventually merged with an even larger competitor. Throughout all these changes, the company culture stayed the same. The supervisors were allowed to do whatever they pleased while their staffs had to comply with increasingly strict rules. The supervisors were given more pay and new perks while their staffs lost benefits, saw salaries reduced and watched key colleagues laid off. The staffs worked longer hours for less while the supervisors worked fewer hours for more. And yet, none of the top executives ever questioned how these practices factored into company morale, their declining profits and their clientele losses.

Tradition and History

I was searching for a topic for today’s blog post. I thought about the next post in my series on leadership but I’d like to reserve that for Wednesdays, if possible. I think writing on that topic too frequently may become too dull for my readers. In my search for a subject, I looked over my list of topics and general areas of interest. I decided to write about genealogy today. Specifically, I thought I’d explore why I’m the family historian.

Admittedly, I’m a rather odd choice for the role of family historian. First, I’m a lesbian, which probably has my very religious ancestors spinning in their graves. Then, I don’t have children to teach about the family’s history. Most of the people who are doing family research have children and grandchildren, and they want to leave their descendants a sense of who they are in connection to the past. Since I don’t have children, I have no immediate descendants with whom to share my knowledge. And, I don’t have an obvious successor who may pick up this work and move forward with it, as is often the case for other genealogists.

Then too, my age is a bit of an oddity in the field. As I mentioned above, most genealogists are older with children and grandchildren. I know some historical and genealogical societies are disbanding because they cannot attract newer, younger members. These groups are watching their founding members die and no one is stepping in to carry on the work. Rather than battle the inevitable, those groups are simply giving in and closing their doors. I shudder to think of the knowledge being lost because of the lack of interest.

None of that, however, explains why I’m the family researcher. I could psychoanalyze myself and say it’s because I was raised mostly as an only child and want to feel a connection to my larger family. Or, I could link my interest in family history to being a writer. My interest in historical fiction suggests that family history research may be a fruitful place to find inspiration for characters and stories to tell.

I could also chalk up the genealogy interest as a search for other “queer” relatives as a way to explain my own present. And, by “queer” I mean the current usage of “gay or lesbian” as well as the traditional meaning of “odd, unusual and different.” For most of my life, I’ve been an oddball in a family of eccentrics. And, as the only lesbian in my generation in the family, I’m interested in finding other people in the family tree who might explain the source of my genetics. I suppose I could be an anomaly in our family history, the lone member of a minority. But, I sincerely doubt that is the case. I’m certain others shared my attraction for the same-sex but they probably conformed to societal standards, married and had children. So, locating them may be a challenge.

None of those possibilities fully explains why I’m doing research on my family. I think my quest for knowledge is influenced by all of those factors. But, those reasons don’t fully explain why I’m doing the research. And, while I would like to articulate a reason for my interest, I can’t exactly explain why family history draws me. All I know is researching my family’s roots is as compelling to me as writing is. That is, I may get frustrated with the research, just as I do with my writing. I may storm around and swear I won’t research anymore, just as I often insist I’ll stop writing. But, something always drives me to pick up a pen and write. And, something always drives me to dig back into the archives in an attempt to understand my origins. I can’t explain either compulsion. All I can do is hope that both will eventually reward my efforts.

On Leadership: The Cheap Shot

For the next few weeks, my Wednesday posts will look at the topic of leadership. Some recent events caught my attention and prompted me to think about what leadership is and what a good leader does. As I discuss my thoughts on leadership, I’ll give my readers three examples of poor leadership and two examples of exemplary leadership. The final post will consider the future of leadership as I see it.

The event that prompted me to take up this discussion of leadership occurred during a football game between the Miami Dolphins and the New York Jets. For those who were watching the game on Sunday, December 12, 2010, you know I’m referring to a member of the Jets coaching staff tripping a Miami Dolphin player who was running down the sideline. The Dolphins had just punted the ball to the Jets and CB Nolan Carroll was running to cover the play. As he passed the Jets bench, Sal Alosi, the Jets strength and conditioning coach, stuck his left knee out and made contact with Carroll’s right thigh, sending the player to the ground.

Role Model or Not?

Much of the commentary about this event has focused on the coach’s actions as a form of cheating. While I agree his actions were an attempt to cheat, I’m more interested in what this event says about leadership, or the lack of it, in the NFL. Mr. Alosi is a member of the Jets coaching staff and therefore, by definition, a team leader. Some may disagree with me, saying he’s only the strength and conditioning coach, which limits his influence on the team. Others might say that professional athletes don’t look at coaches as leaders and role models, in the way that college and high school players do.

Whether or not NFL players look at their coaches as leaders and role models is beside the point. Mr. Alosi is paid to advise the Jets players on ways to build strength and stay in better playing condition. That role makes him a team leader, someone who makes decisions about the team’s activities and influences the players’ behaviors. By extension, his actions in tripping an opposing player suggest the Jets, as an organization, are willing to violate the game’s ethics and the governing rules of sportsmanship to gain an edge over their opponents. His action in tripping an opposing player is cheating. But, it also indicates a fundamental flaw in the moral and ethical practices of the Jets as an organization.

Following the game, Mr. Alosi admitted to tripping Mr. Carroll and said he had apologized to the player and the opposing head coach. He also said his actions “does not reflect what this organization stands for.” Mr. Alosi also says he accepted full responsibility for his actions and any punishment as a result of those actions. I commend him for making this statement. But, I’m skeptical that he actually means what he says. Like politicians and celebrities, this coach has clearly learned the punishment will be reduced if he acts contrite.

Who's in Charge Here?

Watching replays of the tripping incident, both during the game and while writing this post, showed me that Mr. Carroll’s momentum took him well past Mr. Alosi. He eventually landed and lay on the field near the core members of the Jets coaching staff. That is, I believe he was lying, injured, near where Jets head coach Rex Ryan was standing. I presume the play was replayed on the large screens in the stadium, which suggests Coach Ryan may have had a chance to see the replay. If I’m right about that, then I don’t understand why Coach Ryan didn’t immediately have Mr. Alosi removed from the sidelines. A good head coach, as the team’s on-the-field leader, would take immediate action and demonstrate to his players, the opposing team, the fans and the league that he does not condone that kind of behavior and will not stand by while people under his supervision violate the game’s protocols. If he saw a replay, he should have sent that coach off the field.

If he didn’t see a replay while on the field, that might explain why Mr. Alosi was allowed to remain on the field. However, Coach Ryan still has not spoken about the event or taken action to discipline Mr. Alosi. If he were a true leader, Coach Ryan would have already made his decision. He has had plenty of time since the game ended to fire Mr. Alosi and make a statement about the incident. But, Coach Ryan is clearly not a leader. Leadership means taking responsibility when someone under your supervision makes an error. True leaders would have already done something about this incident, something that befits its severity.

According to published reports the day after the incident, the Jets were looking into punishing Mr. Alosi and the NFL is also investigating the incident (since this post was drafted, the Jets suspended Alosi without pay for the duration of the 2010 season and fined him $25,000). Since Coach Ryan lacks leadership skills, I’m certain he is hiding behind the GM, waiting for the Jets and NFL to decide a course of action. Once that happens, he may find the courage to make a statement about the event. Or, he may simply write it off as “the Jets front office and the league have taken action and nothing more needs to be said about that incident.”

But, more does need to be said. Clearly, the Jets lack leadership, at all levels of the organization. From the lowest levels of the coaching staff to the front office, the team is playing hot potato with this incident. No one is taking immediate action. Instead, they’re “reviewing the incident and deciding on appropriate action.” They are “playing politics” with this, trying to find a way to spin the tripping incident that doesn’t lose Mr. Alosi his job but punishes him enough that the NFL doesn’t add additional penalties. They aren’t willing to take the bold stand that this is a failure of leadership and the person should be terminated. Instead, they’re trying to avoid making any major changes. This “duck and cover” response is expected from the team that punished a player’s DUI arrest by not letting him start a game. But, it shows a lack of leadership ability and an enormous dearth of ethics.

The Best Holiday Movies

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer the classic holiday films to more recent additions. When watching holiday movies, I want films that are heartwarming. I don’t mind some humor but I have no patience with holiday films that are snide or include “Frat Pack” humor. For example, I won’t watch something like “Elf” or “Fred Claus.” I prefer “White Christmas” or “A Christmas Story.”

Here, then, are my top holiday movies. The list is in alphabetical order because I can’t possibly rank one over another.

1. The Bishop’s Wife – Cary Grant, David Niven and Loretta Young

2. A Charlie Brown Christmas

3. A Christmas Carol – George C. Scott, Roger Rees, David Warner

4. A Christmas Story – Peter Billingsley

5. How the Grinch Stole Christmas – Boris Karloff narrating

6. Miracle on 34^th Street – Maureen O’Hara, Edmund Gwinn, Natalie Wood

7. Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer – Rankin & Bass classic

8. White Christmas – Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye, Rosemary Clooney

9. The Year Without a Santa Claus – Rankin & Bass classic

I’ll also give a nod to the following films, which include Christmas or New Year’s celebrations.

1. Bell, Book and Candle – Kim Novak, James Stewart, Jack Lemmon, Ernie Kovacs

2. Die Hard – Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman

3. When Harry Met Sally – Billy Crystal, Meg Ryan, Carrie Fisher

“It’s Morning Again” On My Blog, Part II

This week, I’ll briefly touch on musical theatre and discuss my “obsession,” as one person termed it, with the Broadway musical “Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson.” The show, written and directed by Alex Timbers with music and lyrics by Michael Friedman, takes a comedic and anachronistic look at our seventh president. Benjamin Walker, an up-and-coming young star, bravely slips into the tightest pants on Broadway to portray “Old Hickory.”

Off-Broadway and the Broadway Reaction

The show originally appeared Off-Broadway at The Public Theatre and was critically acclaimed. Most of the cast stayed with the show when it moved to Broadway and the Off-B’way cast recording is available from Sh-K-Boom & Ghostlight Records. I strongly recommend checking out the cast list and making a note of the actors' names. The cast is filled with young talent and I believe many (if not all) of them will be big stars in the coming years.

Sadly, the B’way audiences haven’t embraced BBAJ the way it deserves and the show will be closing on January 2, 2011. So, why am I writing about it? I firmly believe this show is one of the best musicals I’ve ever seen. Timbers and Friedman have crafted a show reminiscent of Warner Brothers “Looney Tunes,” with multiple levels of comedy but also some serious, thought-provoking questions, dialogue and song lyrics.

Changing My Mind

I’ll admit to not loving the show when I first saw it. Our first encounter with BBAJ was at The Public during its Off-B’way run. I was somewhat taken aback by the language, the anachronistic touches and the irreverent humor. I enjoyed some material but was offended and confused by other parts of the show. And, I'm quite certain that is the reaction the creators were seeking when they wrote the show.

When the show moved to B’way, Jen said she’d like to see it again, since we hadn’t seen a show move to B’way before. I agreed, thinking a comparison of the two performances could be interesting. Plus, the Off-B’way audience clearly loved the show and many, including the people sitting behind us, had seen the show multiple times. At least, that’s what we concluded since they were singing throughout the Off-B’way performance.

Seeing the show a second time was truly the right decision. It allowed us to catch some of the humor and social commentary we missed the first time. And, I learned just how important the audience is when seeing live theatre. The B’way audience, at a preview, matinee performance, had no energy. They didn’t laugh, rarely applauded and genuinely seemed confused by the show. The cast, who runs around the stage singing and dancing with no intermission for 90 minutes, poured their hearts and souls into their roles. Yet, the audience gave them no reward. But, despite the pathetic audience, Jen and I fell in love with the show. So, we determined to see it again, with a better audience.

The Best Performance Yet

We succeeded, beyond expectations, for her birthday in late October. The cast that night gave a great performance and the audience rewarded it with laughter and applause. We even had a chance to chat, briefly, with one of the cast members as he collected funds for a Broadway charity. Her birthday celebration was given top-notch treatment, thanks to the incredible cast and audience that evening.

Again, why am I going into all this? First, I want this post to stand as a testament to the brilliance of the cast and creators of BBAJ. Once upon a time, a group of talented young actors created an amazing show but, because their show demanded that people think, it closed far too early. Truly, it is an amazing show, filled with humor. But it is also one that also demands the audience do some thinking about often unpleasant topics like war, politics and America’s treatment of Native Americans.

Why Live Theatre?

And, I want to underscore the power of live theatre. I’ve been thinking about that difference quite a lot recently. I’m thoroughly disgusted that a show like BBAJ is closing after only a few months while other shows, based on Hollywood-style blockbusters, get all the press and box office sales. Live theatre is not the same as seeing a movie. When I attend a summer blockbuster, I’m looking for lots of thrills, action and great special effects. But, I have different expectations for the theatre. There, I want to see characters come to life despite the limitations of the stage. I don’t have much patience with the recent Broadway trend of bringing movies to life on the stage, currently crowned by the show “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark.”

Perhaps I’m too conservative in my tastes. Or, maybe I’m a snob, as some have stated. But, I think audiences no longer understand the difference between film and theatre. And, their lack of understanding has prompted producers to fund shows that shouldn’t be on the stage. And, it has killed those works that naturally fit in a theatre.

What is Acting?

The theatre is not the same medium of delivery as film. Actors who succeed in the one may not in the other. And, audiences need some sophistication so they understand the limitations and purpose of each. I’m not saying that theatre is better than film because that isn’t necessarily true. Theatre is better suited to telling certain types of stories than film is. Conversely, film is a better medium for other material. I love watching movies. And, I love attending theatre. I just wish producers in each medium had a better grasp of what their medium does well and would stop pandering to the least sophisticated members of the American public.

"It's Morning Again" On My Blog, Part I

After a (months-long) break, I'm back. And, I’ve repurposed this blog a bit. Gads, isn’t that a horrible turn-of-phrase? “Repurposed.” It doesn’t even look like a real word. Sadly, it resembles one of those words that not-too-bright politicians and “celebrities” invent on a too-frequent basis.

Setting aside my semantics rant for the moment, I’ll get back to my original point. I’ve decided to start posting to this blog again. I’ve revised my original intent a bit and will write on a variety of topics that interest me, not just on literature. Discussions of theatre, politics, cultural trends and even posts that occasionally lapse into the meanings behind words will make their appearance in this space. I will, of course, also discuss literature and writing here. But, I won't limit myself just to those topics when so many others beckon.

Perhaps most importantly, I’ve decided that I will post links to this blog on Facebook so friends and family can check in, if they’d like. I will post here at least twice a week and perhaps more often, if the mood strikes. New posts will appear on Sundays and Wednesdays.