Getting Away, Southwest Style
July 16, 2013
By now most of us are pretty bored with stories pointing out bad customer service on airlines. But sometimes they can lead to a valuable management lesson. At least I hope so, and if not I’m sure I’ll feel better anyway.
Recently, I was traveling from Boise, Idaho to Oakland, California on Southwest. Plane was scheduled to leave at 6:50 p.m. and was, of course, the last flight out to the Bay Area that day.
Unexpectedly I arrived early, only to find that the flight was ‘delayed slightly’ according to the agent at the ticket counter. So, 6:50 departure, became 7:05, then 7:30 and then 7:55 and then 8:30. By now it was 6:00 and the gate area was filled with folks waiting for a gate agent to see if their connections would be O.K. One traveler even unsuccessfully called the airport paging service to ask that an agent come down to the gate area.
Around the time we should have been boarding, an agent finally shows up and promptly walks away to use the rest room. O.k, so nature calls, it happens. Of course, when she returns she is inundated with passengers wanting to know what to do about their connections.
Her first act is to get on the PA system and say, “Look, I really don’t know what’s going on, and until I do, I don’t have any answers. These things happen all the time, but the more you people stand up here asking me questions the longer it will take me to sort this out, so please do not come to the desk area.”
Two hundred shocked passengers retreated in fear.
But, here’s my point. Southwest knew the flight was delayed when they sent her to the gate, don’t you think she should have known what was coming and possibly checked out the situation before she got to the desk?
Flight delays may happen to her all the time, but to most of the ticket holders in the waiting area, it was just a bit more stress they didn’t need.
Eventually, it all got sorted out and people were rerouted and booked on flights the next day…and we made it back to the Bay Area 2.5 hours late. But it sure seems like a manager might have suggested she show up prepared, so that she wouldn’t be treating her paying customers like third graders waiting for recess.
Certainly made me an ex-Southwest customer.
So, Why Does the World Exist?
May 10, 2013
I admit that I started reading Jim Holt’s “Why Does the World Exist?” as penance. Many years ago, Douglas Sturm, my political theory seminar leader at Bucknell University, tried to introduce me to Plato.
Seems I never had time for the deep thinking required and I almost flunked.
So when I saw Mr. Holt’s book on several 10-best lists last year, I decided to get it another try, for Professor Sturm.
I guess it took 43 years before my brain could wrap itself around the concepts but I’m glad Mr. Holt succeeded.
I would recommend this book for anyone who wants to spend some time contemplating our world’s oldest question, but particularly journalists who get caught up in the daily routine of facts, figures and political hyperbole.
Holt’s writing is erudite, easy to read and understand but filled with concepts that most of us never consider, or try to avoid.
At the same time, like any good journalist, he examines the question posed in his title from every conceivable angle. No just as a personal essay, but by interviewing leaders in the field and then explaining what they seem to be saying.
Others have called his book a “detective story” but, like his readers, who want concrete answers, he accepts or rejects various arguments along the way. He reaches his own conclusions, which we are free to accept, or not, and manages to humanize the whole effort with references to his own life and his experience with death.
The journey is interesting, entertaining and, if Professor Sturm is reading this, enlightening. I’m finally starting to understand some of what Plato was telling us. Thanks for whetting my appetite.
Manhunt Management Decisions
April 19, 2013
You wouldn’t think the on-going manhunt in Boston would lead to bad management decisions, but it does. Many of the firms in the Boston suburbs have employees who live in the affected areas. This leads to a decision about whether or not to open.
One Lexington company put out the following statement:
“In light of the current public safety issue arising from the search for the second suspect, please your discretion as to whether you come into work or work from home. There are no warnings about Lexington specifically, but several neighboring communities have been urged to stay indoors and close their businesses. … will remain open today but please do what you feel comfortable with.”
This is a cop-out of the highest order. (excuse the pun) Employees should not even have to make the decision. The company, if it’s really worried about the safety of employees, should just close up for the day.
Why force your employees to make a tough decision and worry about whether they will be docked for a day’s pay. Why create an artificial division between those who ‘made it in’ and those who felt better staying home – whether they were in the affected area or not.
This is just bad management from a firm which seems more concerned with it’s own liability than its employees.
Boston You’re My Home
April 16, 2013
I’ve lived in the Bay Area for 18 years, but Boston will always be my home town. I was in San Francisco during 9/11 and while I had visited New York often, I had only been to the World Trade Center once. I grieved for the loss of life but it was still an event that happened to strangers.
But I’ve walked down Boylston Street in the rain, the snow, and on a crisp Spring day like yesterday. I’ve watched the beginning of the Boston Marathon in Hopkinton and the end, just yards away from yesterday’s explosion.
I know who Bill Rodgers is, why John Kelley-the elder – is a Boston legend, and who first suspected Rosie Ruiz was a fraud. I’ve waited in the lobby of the Lenox Hotel -before it was remodeled and became respectable.
Rosie Ruiz, almost a winner
I know that the area is called Back Bay, because it used to be a bay until our colonial forefathers decided they needed more land for their cows to graze. And yes, until recently, I loved that dirty water, because Boston was my home.
I’ve been to the Patriots Day game at Fenway Park and walked down to the see the finish of the race, and then walked back to Fenway for the second half of what used to be a day-night doubleheader.
I can tell you the name of every store, bar, restaurant, gallery or hair salon that you pass walking from Boston Public Garden to Mass Ave. I can remember my mother teaching me the names of the cross streets to help me learn the alphabet-Arlington, Berkeley, Clarendon, Dartmouth, Exeter, Fairfield, Gloucester and Hereford.
I know where Dorchester is and the neighborhood where 8-year-old Martin Richard lived and I’ve been to Revere where police searched an apartment for clues.
I’m happy when the A’s , Giants, or 49ers , or Warriors do well, but I FOLLOW the Bruins, Celtics, Patriots and Red Sox. I’m sorry, but it’s part of me.
I guess that’s why yesterday’s events have a much greater impact. The Marathon will no longer be the great fun-loving, 26-mile event that it once was. Security will be tighter, everyone will be on edge. Parents won’t let their kids take the T into town to watch the end of the race and Sox fans will think twice about walking to Copley Square to see friends cross the finish line.
I know the city will recover. New York has recovered – mostly. But, when I visit Boston later this year and walk down Boylston Street once more it won’t be the same, and that’s what really pisses me off.
A Real Love Story
February 14, 2013
I’ve been reading all the “most romantic” movie lists. Some are good, many leave me wondering how some folks even define love.
Mom and Dad 1946
My most romantic ‘movie?’
Easy. My Mom and Dad, married 62 years, in love every day from the first time they saw each other. He survived three wounds in WWII while she unknowingly waited for him back home.
Never saw them argue, because Dad knew the two most important words were always, “Yes Dear.” Only disagreement they ever had, they claim, was early in the marriage, when they did argue and dad stormed into the bedroom to pack: Only to emerge 10 minutes later asking if mom would help him fold his shirts.
If that’s not romance, I don’t know what is.
A Good Book Undone
December 24, 2012
Politics has undermined a look of good things in this country recently, but I never thought I’d accuse it of ruining a perfectly good book.
I guess it’s not the politics, but rather author David Brooks, who I should blame for my disappointment in his exploration of what he calls our ‘revolution in consciousness.’
Brooks attempts to meld fiction and science by explaining advances in neuroscience, genetics, psychology, sociology and economics through the real lives of two fictional characters. He follows them from conception to death explaining to us what’s really going on both consciously and sub-consciously.
Anyone who has read the current literature on neuro-psychology, behavioral economics or social theory will be familiar with the concepts, but Brooks does a nice job of translating the theories into real life.
Brooks, who is a New York Times columnist, write in a clear and linear style like may journalists, and his work is both believable and entertaining.
His biggest problem is his detour into politics. While Brooks is known for his conservative views, they are not the problem. My issue is with the method. The female character Brooks creates overcomes a poor childhood to excel in school and career. There is no inkling that she has slightest interest in politics but then suddenly at the height of her corporate career, she is named the head of a national presidential campaign, which lands her a job in the White House. Her husband takes a job in a Washington ‘think tank’ and becomes the mouthpiece for Brook’s views about governing, politics and the American political system.
Just in case you weren’t sure what he was doing, the charcater emphasizes that the only person who agrees with him is an ‘unnamed’ New York Times columnist.
The whole chapter seems contrived and out of place and detracts from the excellent work Brooks does to bring both his characters and scientific theory to life.
Despite this flaw Brooks work is very readable and is an easily understandable look at the science. Especially outstanding is his look at death and dying on the final pages.
So, you can skip chapters 19 and 20 if you don’t want to let politics ruin a good read, but certainly the other 20 chapters are well worth your time.
The Week in Review
December 9, 2012
Jim Levy, AKA Jimmy The Kid, writes a weekly summary of the news based on his radio show in Sonoma, CA.
The column includes links to listen to his show, as well as a great recap (with commentary) of what’s going on in the world.
I’m a semi-regular on the show so I thought I’d start posting his newsletter on my blog so everyone could benefit from his wisdom. If you want to get the newsletter on a regular basis drop him a note at Thisweekinsonoma@aol.com .
Click here to download the newsletter as a PDF file;
Dr. Weil Loses His Way
November 20, 2012
Dr. Andrew Weil’s latest book tour stopped in San Francisco last week. He’s on the road to promote his latest literary effort, a cookbook – True Food – based on recipes he cooks at home and are served in his emerging restaurant chain.
Dr. Weil and a fan at his recent lecture and book signing event in San Francisco.
As part of his Weil Lifestyle campaign the book purports to establish a new healthy lifestyle and healthier recipes while rebutting the myth that ‘health food’ has to be bland or worse.
Dr. Weil was interviewed at Herbst Theater by fellow cookbook author Molly Katzen who spent an hour fawning of the integrative health guru while leaving it to the audience to ask controversial questions. Dr. Weil’s book offers recipes based on his own food pyramid which, while different from the hated FDA guide, leaves out very few foods that have led to the United States obesity epidemic.
In fact , Dr. Weil probably is a pretty good representative of the US population since he clearly doesn’t skimp on any meals. A doctor approaching obesity levels may not be the best spokesman for a healthy lifestyle.
Dr. Weil said he was also scouting sites for a new restaurant – one featuring good healthfood similar to the locations in Los Angeles, San Diego and Phoenix. The fact that the Bay Area has been a leader in the trend Dr. Weil promotes doesn’t seem to rate a mention even though places such as Cafe Gratitude, Planet Organic or Gather are way ahead of the good doctor.
Dr. Weil was asked about supplements and admitted that, aside from a daily multi-vitamin, most folks can get all the nutrition they need from a healthy diet. This does seem to question the range of supplements marketed and sold by Dr. Weil on his own website.
Dr. Weil also took a minute to chastise the assembled group for the failure of Proposition 37 the GMO labeling question of the November ballot. “How you could let that fail?” has asked.
No one rose to answer, but I would note there were several folks in the room who had worked very hard to get the proposal on the ballot and promote it’s passage. No doubt a few of them were a bit insulted that someone from Arizona, who did nothing to oppose the $50 million ad campaign put on by the Monsanto and Dow, would criticize their efforts.
Dr. Weil clearly does not oppose GMO food, preferring to wait for more evidence before branding it unhealthy. Of course, some folks would rather that it get proven healthy before allowing it in the food chain.
I’m afraid Dr. Weil has lost his way by promoting a food pyramid that would do little to improve the health of most Americans, selling suplements that he admits are mostly unnecessary and declining to oppose foods that have been shown to be unhealthy.
I’m sure it will do little to hurt his image or his income.
We Are All Dishonest
October 30, 2012
I just finished Dan Ariely’s book on honesty – “The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty,” – and while I admit that it could make you feel a bit uncomfortable about trusting anyone, it may be an exercise in proving the obvious.
Ariely is among a group of behavioral economists who try to prove, or disprove, theories based on scientific experimentation. The combination does not always produce the kind of clear conclusions you might like, but his writing is entertaining, comprehensible and always interesting.
Basically he concludes that everyone is corruptable given the right circumstances. The trick is to keep the circumstances to a minimum and take precautions. But then, anyone who has ever filled out a tax return, probably knows that.
My favorite section includes his admonition on the slippery slope that even small rationalizations can create. His insights involving politicians, or CEO’s who claim that they are not influenced by small ‘inconsequential’ lapses in moral standards, is particularly revealing. His observation is best summed up by Queen Gertrude in Hamlet, “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.” A free lunch from a lobbyist may be minor, but it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg.
I do have a couple of reservations about Ariely’s methodology. First, it is largely based on experiments with college students and even he tacitly admits this group may not be representative of the general population.
Second, you have to accept some of his underlying assumptions about what drives human behavior, to trust his conclusions. For example, in discussing medical treatment and evaluating whether true need or profitability is the true driver, he cites dentists who recommend more expensive enamel fillings when less-expensive mercury will do. That enamel is the more expensive option proves the dentist are motivated by greed, Areily claims, since they recommend that option more frequently than mercury.
He may be right, but I think he uses a bad example, because there is more to the enamel vs. mercury debate than just appearance. There is also a safety issue.
But, all in all, it certainly is worth taking a look at Ariely’s work, so you will understand why you, and everyone else, can’t help being dishonest.
NFL PR Machine
August 30, 2012
I’m sure John York, Co-chairman of the San Francisco 49ers did not see his
John York, 49ers CEO
presentation last night at the Commonwealth Club, as part of an NFL public relations roadshow, but that’s what it was.
Dr. York, who appeared with former NFL star Dan Fouts and San Diego trauma surgeon A. Brent Eastman, M.D. , was on hand to address traumatic injuries in the NFL. As head of the league’s Health and Safety Advisory Committee, his job was apparently to convince the crowd on hand that for the last 30 years the league has only had the best interests of its players in mind.
While this flies in the face of reality, particularly since over 2,000 former players are currently suing the league to seek compensation for their injuries, Dr. York insisted that the well being of the players has always been the highest priority.
Fouts was on hand to lend support with his litany of injuries, from pulled muscles
Dan Fouts, NFL quarterback
to a broken foot, back, shoulder and hand, many of which were blamed on late hits, which would not have been tolerated in today’s game. The real question might be, why were they tolerated then – when Fouts led the SanDiego Chargers in the 1980’s.
The Hall of Fame quarterback described his injuries in great detail, naming ‘assailants’ in most cases, but expressed clear disdain for the new rules implying that what current 49er quarterback Alex Smith plays is not really football anymore. Presumably because he has only missed two seasons to injuries and is still able to walk.
Fouts, along with his friend and surgeon, Dr. Eastman seemed to contradict himself, when he supported Dr. York’s contention that the game was better off with the new rules.
York denied there was any pressure on team doctors to get players back into the game quickly, saying he knew that was the policy on the 49ers, although he could not vouch for the rest of the league. Fouts told stories of being pushed back into action despite injury, which York claimed would never happen today.
It’s not a question of a team owner calling the team doctor to apply pressure, the doctor does it on his own, beacause he knows who signs his paycheck.
This is particularly true with head injuries and concussions. These injuries have only been addressed in the last few years when the NFL finally stopped relying on a discredited medical expert who claimed that head injuries and long term brain damage were not related. Dr. York says the issue is now being researched – most likely to buttress the League’s court defense .
The panelists may have convinced themselves but I remain skeptical, particularly since the NFL has been forced to make changes by lawsuits and owners who saw major hits to their bottom line when marquee players were out with season-ending injuries.