Big Business BAAAAD!

Another assumption that people almost always make is that big businesses are out to screw the "common man" and will find every opportunity to take advantage of poor, defenseless consumers. It doesn't matter what they do, it can always be rationalized as an attempt to exploit innocent people who toil away under the crushing thumb of big businesses.

Do big businesses do bad things? Absobloominutely. Of course there are businesses and CEOs and executives who are unethical and exploitive. But is that sufficient evidence against big businesses? Suppose I tell you that John earns $160 in tips every night at the Mojican Grill. Will you consider John to be a superstar? Will you jump to the conclusion that John must be doing something extraordinarily well to be able to earn such excessive tips? Not if you find out that the average waiter at this fancy restaurant makes $450 in tips.

Anyone who has taken a class in logic will realize the flaw in highlighting criminal CEOs who have been caught cheating as evidence that all CEOs are crooks. WHile this may be true, you'd have to show that CEOs of large companies are more likely to do crooked things than the average person or even the average small business owner. My problem is that without looking for such evidence, the media do their part in highlighting stories of CEOs gone bad that reinforce the stereotype. This can be very powerful when you're trying to appeal to an audience that wants to believe the stereotype. It makes you feel so much better that you're so good and honorable while those slime ball CEOs rip people off and earn millions.

What brought this thought on was reading a recent USA Today story on how a Coca-Cola secretary was sentenced to 8 years in prison for trying to sell Coke trade secrets to rival Pepsi. She stole some secret new-product samples and confidential documents and tried to sell them to Pepsi. Terrible, huh?

One sentence in the article reveals an interesting sidebar to the story. How did this woman get caught? Well, when Pepsi was approached with these secret formulas and confidential documents, they contacted Coke and warned them that they had been offered trade secrets. Get that? Instead of buying the documents or even ignoring it, they called their intensely competitive rival and told them that someone was trying to steal their stuff. Why wasn't this aspect of the story highlighted? Why wasn't more made about the incredibly ethical response on the part of Pepsi? Why wasn't this given as much press as some sleazy CEO being led out of his billion dollar estate in handcuffs? Because that's not what you want to hear. It wouldn't give you the comfort of knowing how superior you are to those "big business" executives who all ought to be locked up!

I've Changed My Mind (again)

I get a sense that "changing your mind" about something is seen today as a negative trait to have. Perhaps it started with the mocking of John Kerry as a "flip flopper" or perhaps the belief that someone who changes his or her mind frequently cannot be trusted has roots going back much further.

Frankly, I find that view quite puzzling - especially in today's information-rich world. Psychology teaches us that we're constantly forming judgments based on the information we have access to. As more information comes in, we are forced to change those judgments (of course, there is enough evidence that these judgments are resistant to change and the marginal impact of new information on judgments is smaller than if it was the first piece presented, but that is unnecessarily complicating for the point I'm trying to make). Since we are bombarded with so much information, and since that information is presented in condensed "sound-bite" form, I assume that most people form ealry judgments with the expectation that it could change as more information becomes available. But, I'm getting the feeling that "sticking to your guns" and staying with principles is instead seen as a more appropriate response.

Contrary to what you may believe, this has nothing to do with our current political situation. A friend recently warned me (again) that posting opinions on a blog is dangerous and will come back to bite me if I express a "non-politically-correct" opinion here. This warning hit me on several levels. First, it scares me that there really are people who think that freely expressing opinions in this country can get them in deep trouble. Second, he rejected my response that "these are just opinions based on the information I had at the time." He insisted that people are held to always believe things that they may have expressed at any point in their lives. While I must consider the fact that he may be right, I still struggle to understand this.

Perhaps it is my mental make up that focuses on evidence-based reasoning that I am always expecting to change my opinions when more convincing evidence presents itself. That is also probably why I get along well with people generally. I never hold anything against people in the long run. If you're nasty to me one moment and then do something nice the next time we interact, I am much more willing to shift my judgments of people to the favorable side than others. I find it difficult to hold grudges over the long run.

On the other hand, it could be that this expression of a willingness to change opinions is just a normal defense mechanism to prevent from ever being held accountable for what i say and write. But then again, maybe not!

No Matter What You Do, You Support Slavery!

I hate grand-standing, opportunistic politicans who cloak themselves in patriotism or morality and proclaim how "offended" they are by someone else's behavior purely for the sake of basking in the projected honor and glory.

What brought on this unusual reaction (for me) is an article in our local newspaper on the continuing saga of St. Louis (Minnesota) County Commissioner Keith Nelson who got caught on camera (with the active support of YouTube distribution) making an off-the-cuff response to a silly question at a County Board meeting. Basically, there was a debate on a smoking ban in our county and this guy was opposed to the smoking ban because a majority of his constituents, who he's supposed to be representing, opposed the ban (I mean, isn't that his job in a representative democracy?) In a clever use of argumentation and rhetoric, another commissioner, Bill Kron, asked him if he would have voted "for slavery" if a majority of his constituents did. Stuck in the situation with the need to respond to a rather silly and irrelevant question while reinforcing his point about being a representative for his constituents, he said "Yes." And that started a firestorm of controversy. Now, this whole exchange was repositioned as an elected official advocating in favor of slavery!!!!

Today, the paper reported that he apologized to the Human Rights Commission and agreed to try and take some diversity training. As one of my favorite journalists, John Stossel, likes to say, Give Me A Break! I wish Keith Nelson had instead responded to the question during the meeting by saying "Sir, if a majority of your constituents were against slavery, but you personally believed that slavery was good, would you have voted for it?" That would have put the other commissioner in his place and made everyone realize how stupid and irrelevant that question was. While I don't know Keith Neilson or the other Commissioner, I can identify political correctness run amuck. From what I saw, this man was not advocating or supporting slavery in any way, but was responding to an odd and ridiculous question. To any intelligent person (who is not looking to take advantage of such situations), there was no intent to glorify slavery or support it in any way.

Instead, this man found himself constantly apologizing to everyone from pious Ministers to, recently, the Human Rights Commission. According to today's paper, "I was offended by your statement," Commission Member Linda Esala told Nelson. If this is all it takes to offend Ms. Esala, she should consider herself the beneficiary of the great civil rights leaders who have come before her. I find it offensive that this commission is obviously taking advantage of this slip in the middle of a debate on a smoking ban. Why wasn't commissioner Bill Kron taken to task for asking such a ridiculously irrelevant question? Why wasn't he criticized for equating a smoking ban with slavery? He gets off scot free and Mr. Nelson, who just happened to be on the wrong end of the question gets to spend the rest of his career living this down.

You can watch the video of the response on YouTube below.



Read the latest article (from the Minneapolis Star Tribune) here.

Air Rage? Taking Out Frustrations on Airline Staff

Okay, so let me use today's post to finish my thoughts about my nightmare trip to Boston. now that I'm a little removed form it, perhaps I can be a little more brief than I otherwise would have been.

So, when Northwest handed me the hotel and dinner vouchers, I specifically asked the lady at the counter whether I had to call for a shuttle from the airport or whether they would come automatically. She assured me that the shuttles run on a regular schedule and that I did not need to call (WRONG - what did people do in the age before cell phones?). I also asked her if I needed to use the dinner voucher at the airport or whether I could use it at the hotel's restaurant. She promised me that I could use it at the hotel's restaurant (Well, I guess maybe you could, if the hotel even had a restaurant. The good news is that they're getting one next year!).

Another interesting experience was watching some really irate passengers interact with the gate agents. One old man and his wife seemed in a state of panic and the man was very curt and rude to the agent. The wife kept jumping in with her comments. At one point she said, "But we're diabetics and we're out of medicine." The gate agent started to respond, but the man turned to his wife and said, in a loudd voice, "Honey, they don't care about that. They don't really give a damn about us." I could see the gate agent flush red. He then started to ask how he could help get ... when he was cut off by the man who said "Just help us by doing your job and getting us out of here." Later, after he had gone out of his way to ask them where they could get their prescription refilled and how he could help, he said "Sir, I think you're wrong. We really do care. I was simply trying to get more information from you to help you."

I guess I've done enough traveling to know that there is just no benefit to losing your temper with the airline staff. When bad weather disrupts so many flights, they're as frazzled and frustrated as the passengers are. They are as anxious to get you out of their airport as you are to leave. They're being blamed for something that had nothing to do with their performance. I guess it does make the yellers feel a little better to get it out of their system. But, I think yelling at them doesn't give them any incentive to go out of their way to help you.

Fascinating situation for people-watching, though.

I've Been A Bad Boy ...

I finally faltered. As a few (hopefully not many) may have noticed, I finally missed some postings in my new blog. I was out of town a lot over the last two weeks. I managed to find time to post from St. Louis. But last week I drove to and from Rochester and left the next day for Boston. Each night, I managed only four hours sleep before I had to hop on a plane (I started this story on Wednesday in my last post and will finish it tomorrow). So, I never got a chance to post. I was busy and away from my computer morning to night. When I did get back, I was desperately trying to catch up and never got around to doing all the posting I planned.

I promise I'll try to get "back in the groove" this week. It's not that I don't have anything to say ...

Stuck In A Nightmare

It was supposed to be a simple one-day trip to Boston. I left Duluth last evening and was supposed to back in Duluth tonight. Instead, I've seen the best of people, the worst of people and the best and worst of Northwest Airlines.

Because of thunderstorms, I missed my connecting flight from Minneapolis to Boston. The first problem was the aircraft left the gate at Duluth and sat on the tarmac for over two hours. If they had stayed at the gate, I would have simply opted out of this trip. Once in Minneapolis, since there was no flight that night to Boston, I asked to return to Duluth by a late night flight. Then, I told NW that (a) if they could reschedule me for this morning, returning to Duluth tomorrow morning, and (b) pay for a hotel for the night, I was willing to continue on my trip and reschedule my meeting. They agreed (on the phone) and re-scheduled my flights. The first problem was the gate agent refused to honor that and nicely apologized and said I would need to pay for the hotel. I was directed to the ticketing counters. At the ticketing counters, I was asked to stand in two incorrect lines before finding myself to the correct counter. I boiled down the story to (a) pay for a hotel for the night, or (b) put me on the late night flight back to Duluth and refund the ticket. They agreed to pay for the hotel.

That's not even the most interesting part of the story ... Ooops, I better get to the airport. I'll fill in later.

Managing Children

Today's "One Big Happy" comic in the newspaper triggered my memory of an incident I encountered this weekend. We were at Blockbuster and there was this little kid (I would guess about 2 years old) who was absolutely flipping out. She was wailing and screaming about wanting some movie. She was running around with tears streaming down her face and screaming loudly about a movie she wanted. The parents of this little girl continued their conversation and occasionally turned to her and said something like "Yes, honey. We'll get the movie some other time." My wife and I looked at each other as this scene continued for a few minutes. It just amazes me to see how some people deal with their kids.

As usual, I am not going to claim I have some magical parenting skills or that I am better than any others, so with that disclaimer, let me finish this story with my opinion on how this should have been handled. When we were all back in the car, I turned to my seven (almost eight) year-old daughter and asked her how she would have handled the screaming child if she'd been the parent. She said, without hesitation, "I would have taken the kid outside and taken her home and said No movie for you because you were misbehaving in the store!"

I told her that I would have handled it differently. To me, the key objective of a parent in this position is to bring the situation under their control in the short run while making steps towards managing such situations in the long run. For the short run, I completely agree with my daughter. The first thing I would do is to take the child out of the public area. No movie picking is that important that it cannot be delayed or canceled for an evening. But, once the out-of-control kid is out of the store, I would sit her (or him) down and ask if she wants to go back into the store so we can continue with the movie picking. If the answer is no (or if there is no reasoned response), I would simply put the child in the car seat and go home (and wait for a later time to talk to the child about how her reaction resulted in the outcome). On the other hand, I would guess that nine times out of ten, the child will want to return to the situation maximizing the likelihood of reward (go back into the store to pick out a movie). The moment I get the kid to agree that she wants to return to the store, I have gained a huge measure of control. I would then agree that we can go back to the store on the condition that ...

The moment the child agrees that she wants to go back into the store to pick out a movie, the parent now gains the power to set the ground rules. The rules then become very clear and any violation of those rules results in the movie being returned to the shelf and immediate departure from the store. However, this rarely happens. By this time, the child knows that his or her only choice (in order to achieve her goal) is to cooperate and the behavior comes under control.

It may be purely luck, but with three kids (now ranging in age from thirteen to six), I can swear that I have never had a screaming child in a store. There has never been a situation where one of my kids was so out of control that I could not immediately defuse the situation and bring things back in control. You'll notice that my only modification to my seven-year-old daughter's naive parenting response is that I would not escalate the situation by simply taking the child home. I think that results in bitterness (the child feels she was unfairly treated and deprived of some reward because of an unfair parent) and extended bouts of pouting. That is why, I would take the child to the car and then give the child the option of cooperating or going home. That way, if the kid doesn't get a grip of herself (or himself) the attribution for the punishment (going home without a movie) clearly rests with the child. (S)he clearly sees the immediate and explicit link between the outcome and his (or her) own behavior. The situation is defused, the child understands how his or her own behavior can influence a positive (or negative) outcome and you've taught the child to take responsibility for his or her behavior.

This is very verbose and probably makes a simple point. I am sure a better writer could make this point more elegantly, but since this is my blog and I don't have a ghostwriter yeat, this will have to do.

P.S.: Sorry for missing yesterday's post.