Jack’s Blog

A friend of mine is in a leadership position in her company.  A couple of her subordinates took the proper avenue and approached her about a serious concern they had.  After investigating the claim, she agreed and, also using proper company policy, went directly to her supervisor, not only to report the problem, but as any good employee should do, also to propose a solution.  Her answer involved a minimal amount of change (her particular  company is somewhat steeped in tradition), yet her supervisor was hesitant to “pull the trigger” for whatever reason - style of management, fear of risk (although there wasn’t any), other issues on his plate, etc.  

Unfortunately, she knew the axiom that the further the problem gets from the person who first expressed it, the less meaning it has - all the way up the actual decision-maker who has the authority to correct it. However, by the time it gets to that person’s desk, it gets lost in the avalanche of “other items” the leader has to do and, in a tradition oriented company, it usually gets rejected. 

Herein lies the problem.  Due to the fact that this company is plagued by the old leadership style (vertical as opposed to the horizontal version used by the more modern, progressive-minded and successful organizations - see the first blog on 8/23), others within that company would have leapfrogged the supervisor all the way to the top if necessary in order to get done what needed to get done.

My friend has considerable clout within this company (her “numbers” are always up, meaning greater profit - the bottom line in any business) and easily could have gone directly to the boss, bypassing (and undoubtedly, upsetting) others along the way.  Yet, she didn’t - ever the diplomat.

When she related the story to me, I told her the line she could have used with her supervisor (her tenure with the company makes his pale in comparison). In an effort to get him to act immediately, she only needed to tell him what USC’s former head coach, George Raveling used to tell the players:

“I can’t make you do anything…but I can sure make you wish you had.” 

The old joke goes when you get old, two things invariably happen to you.  One is your memory gets worse and the second is…hmmm, I can’t seem to remember the second one.

A year or so ago (or maybe it was a few years), I saw a sitcom (or it may have been an article I read) about a guy who wanted to be more popular - so he read up on the latest trends, fashions, watched celebrity television shows - all in an effort to be more “interesting” at social gatherings.  It sounds like something George Costanza would do and since I’ve seen every episode of Seinfeld many times over, let’s give George credit for that brilliant bit of people skill development.

I have never been accused of not being able to hold up my end of a conversation.  Even if I know nothing about the subject being discussed, I can do five minutes on how ridiculous it is for someone like me to be totally unaware of what everyone’s talking about - and not be at all shy about chiming in and bringing the converstaion to an immediate halt (and thus violating the quote from the second blog on 8/23).

However, ever since I read Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, I have tried to put to use Habit #5 - Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood.  Note: I read the book when it first came out so I guess I have to admit to being a slow study on this one.  Listening is a very underrated skill and, due to my love of the spoken words (mine), I’m still in the infant stages of “ears before mouth,” although I am totally committed to improving.

Two things that happen when you focus on listening to someone else: 1) you learn a great deal about them (much of it from what they don’t say) and 2) they tend to appreciate and trust your opinion more (see the quote from the blog on 9/29).  That’s why the saying for today’s world ought to be (and probably should have been for yesterday’s):

“You are much better served to be interested in somebody than to try to be interesting to them.”

Another weekend (and Monday) has come and gone - with all the chores I meant to do, had planned to do, and told myself I finally had to do - not done.

Going into last weekend, I promised myself, not that I would do all of the following, but at least one of them.  Count them: clean the garage, organize the paperwork (that’s over five years old), power clean the back patio, get the leaves off of the roof (that one doubtful since it would mean getting on the roof) and finish reading the latest book I started over a month ago.

Instead I lamented, as I have most weekends - and other days of the week - “Someday, I’ll get that done,” “Someday, I’ll clean the garage,” Someday, I’ll get that paperwork properly filed, “Someday, I’ll clean up that back patio,”…

When all is said and done, usually more is said than done.  That’s why I think that, not only for me, but for others I’ve talked to, read and heard about;

“America’s favorite vacation destination is Someday Isle.” Â

During my two year basketball graduate assistantship at Washington State University (1973-75), our football coach was Jim Sweeney.  Jim was unbelievably energetic and a true football innovator.  At that time, WSU belonged to the Pac-8 (the Arizona schools were still in the old WAC) and colleges were allowed to offer an unlimited number of scholarships (see the blog from a couple days ago) .  Pullman was not exactly the destination of choice for 18 year-old football phenoms, especially when the alternatives were Southern California, the Bay Area, Seattle or even Eugene.

But Jim was a dynamic recruiter and also was somebody who, if you ever had any dealings with him, a person whom you’d always remember and have as a friend for life.  Relationships are the key to success in any business (unless you happen to be a master sculptor or recluse) and, in the world of recruiting, something that’s absolutely vital. 

Since it’s been over 30 years, my memory’s a bit hazy on a few details, but the gist of the story went like this.  There was a very highly rated football recruit whose name was Chamberlain.  He lived in the Pacific Northwest.  His father and grandfather each went to WSU and his two older brothers were Cougars as well.  I think both played football (one or the other may have played baseball - or even both) and each had stellar careers.  Hence, the youngest was a “lock” for Washington State.

Except the youngest (and last) of the Chamberlain breed played both quarterback and linebacker and starred at both.  Like most kids in that situation (and there were - are - many), he wanted to play quarterback, even though his size, skills and future were as a linebacker.  Jim had such a great relationship with the entire family, he was straight-up honest with the youngster.  I don’t remember if he told him he’d be a starter as a freshman (which he obviously would havebeen), but he said something to the effect that he had a long career ahead of him as a big-time linebacker.

The only other school in the league with location issues was Oregon State.  If a poll were taken as to which is the more metropolitan area, Pullman or Corvallis, it wouldn’t surprise me if they tied - for last.    Young Mr. Chamberlain was also being recruited by the Beavers, who, with all the legacy cards stacked against them, pulled the only ace they had.  They promised him he’d be their QB.  Recruiting can get a little nasty (possibly the most understated line ever) and, although the guys at WSU refused to lie to the high school senior (lying and relationships don’t go hand-in-hand), they emphatically let him know there was no way, with the skills he possessed at each position, he could succeed as a Pac-8 quarterback, nor could he fail to dominate as a Pac-8 linebacker.

So, as most kids that age do, he went with his heart and made the decision to buck the family trend and signed with OSU.  He started all four years and had a marvelous career.

As a linebacker.

If you’re asking how someone could do something like that to an impressionable, naive, innocent teenager, allow me to share the wisdom of Larry David, creator of the classic show, Seinfeld.  In one episode, Jerry is dating a female police officer and is going to try to beat a lie detector test.  His buddy, George, one of the great, all-time liars, gives him this bit of advice:

“It’s not a lie if you believe it.” 

Or can get an 18 year-old to believe it.

Everywhere serious college football is played, the supporters of that school (and many of the coaches after big wins) claim that their fans are the “greatest fans in the country.”

I’ve worked at a lot of colleges and have witnessed football games at many stadiums, but a story told to me by a “loyal to a fault” supporter of one university stands out above all others I’ve heard - and I was reminded of it as my wife and I watched the South Carolina-Tennessee (her alma mater) football game earlier today.  The announced attendance for the game was nearly 106,000 which is almost 4,000 over capacity.

The commentators spoke of the “heat” on UT Coach Phillip Fulmer (who happens to be Tennessee graduate as well) in light of, among other reasons, last week’s embarrassing shellacking at Alabama.  Phillip and I arrived in Big Orange Country in 1980 on almost the exact same day (I can remember going through orientation with him).  He had moved from an assistant coaching stint at rival Vanderbilt to become the Vols’ offensive line coach while I had just left an assistant coaching position at Western Carolina University to join the UT basketball staff.  Phillip has remained in Knoxville, succeeding Johnny Majors as head coach and is currently the nation’s winningest coach (percentage-wise) for coaches who’ve been doing so for a minimum of ten years.  In addition, he led to Vols to a National Championship.  But that, to the Tennessee faithful, was a (too) long time ago.  The fact UT beat South Carolina in overtime only gives Fulmer a “brief pardon.”

I worked at UT from 1980-87 and when I first got there, they had just enclosed Neyland Stadium (it had been a horseshoe with bleachers in the north end zone).  The expansion brought the capacity of the facility to 92,000 (it was expanded again a few years later).

Obviously, football games were prime weekends for our recruits to visit, so in my seven years at UT, I missed a game only if we were playing in a season-opening tournament out of town.  One game in particular stands out in my memory.  The Volunteers were having a really bad season and, if memory serves me correctly, their record at the time was 3-7.  The opponent that day was Kentucky who was worse, I believe, 2-8.  We had recruits in and took them to the game, although to call a UT football game in Knoxville a game is a disservice.  It’s more like a social event and religious experience wrapped in one. 

That day the weather was miserable - not a rain or snow storm, but a sleet storm.  It was so nasty the recruits asked if we could all go back to the office (much to the coaches’ relief) and watch the rest of the game on television (home games were never blacked out since it was considered the “in” thing to actually be in attendance).  The crowd that day was 87,000 - the smallest football crowd in my seven years working for the Big Orange.

That year, fans were booing the team, criticizing Coach Majors unmercifully and, in one game, a fan threw a stadium seat at quarterback Alan Cockrell (who later became a major league baseball player).  When someone mentioned to me at a party that the UT fans were “the greatest in the country,” I brought up that season and those incidents. 

One of my two closest friends in Knoxville at the time was a guy named Mark Dyer (currently the Director of Merchandising for NASCAR and president of Dyer Ventures, Inc.).  There aren’t too many people I’d put in Mark’s category when it comes to business saavy (there’s a truly funny story in my book, Life’s A Joke, about me employing his business expertise on a time share appointment I had) and when I said UT fans couldn’t be put in the “greatest” category, Mark (born and raised in Nashville to be a UT worshipper) said:

“The reason they’re the greatest is no matter how bad the team is, how upset they get, or even how rotten the weather - they keep coming back.”

I had to admit that when it came to purchasing tickets (as well as apparel) and showing up early (some people would get to town on Thursday) and staying until the end (no leaving early to beat the traffic - part of the experience was the honor of being stuck in traffic with your fellow exuberant or wounded comrades), their loyalty was an absolutely indisputable point.  Unlike some places where the school’s marketing line is:

“We’d like to thank the thousands of fans who stood by our team during the bad times - just as we’d like to thank the tens of thousands of fans who stood by us in the good times.” ¼/p>

During the past decade or so, intercollegiate sports has had more than its share of “Cinderellas.”  This is not due to chance.  Rules have been passed in an attempt to “level the playing field.”  Such rules include reducing the number of scholarships (by far the most significant rule change), disallowing athletic dorms and banning excesses, e.g. number of visits coaches can make to prospective student-athletes and number of paid visits prospects can make, number of phone calls coaches can make to prospects (expanding the rule to include the most modern excess, the text message), multi-colored posters and nearly everything that involves spending obscene money to entice a young adult (in many instances, using that term quite loosely).

What are the reasons behind this reform?  For 17 years (if memory serves me correctly, right around the last 17 years of the past century), I served as assistant chairman of the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) Recruiting Committee.  Our charge was to discuss possible recruiting rules changes, poll our members and come up with new or amended rules the (sometimes overwhelming) majority of coaches agreed upon and pass those recommendations on to the NCAA Recruiting Committee.

The scholarship limitations started prior to my tenure on the committee and, in reality, were directed initially at football who at one time, believe it or not, had an unlimited number of grants to offer (as did men’s basketball).  Naturally, the more scholarships were reduced, the greater number of athletes moved down the list from the power schools (where they never got the chance to play) to those at the next level.  The trickle down effect then took place to the point that this finite number of players were now being shared by a greater variety of universities.  Most of this started in the early ’70s as a result of Title IX being passed - although a great many schools were not really taking the new legislation seriously (talk about hindsight being 20/20!).

The other rule changes sprung out of budgetary concerns.  After all, how many schools does an 18-year-old need to visit before he decides which is his “true love” - especially since many stars (which most of them were, in their own right) knew where they wanted to go before they visited anywhere!  Coaches going to see prospects over and over became more of an investment in “protecting their asset” from “poachers” than it did in evaluating athletic or academic ability.  In other words, a waste of money for all the schools involved.  Hence (and this is one our committee did pass), limiting the coaches’ evaluations (assessing talent with no face-to-face encounter) and contacts (actual meetings with the prospect and his parents) to a number I believe is now at a combination of five and limiting the number of paid visits (where the school pays for room and board, transportation and entertainment of the prospect only) for a period of no longer than 48 hours to a number of four (which may have been further reduced to three).

The phone call rule came about when the NCAA formed a Student-Advisory group of athletes throughout the country and asked them what they liked most and least about the recruiting process.  Easily, the number one dislike was the “pressure,” e.g. getting phone calls from 6:oo am to midnight, seven days/week.  From what’s been reported in the media, this is obviously the most violated rule in the nation (although, believe me, the general public has absolutely no idea how widespread these violations are).

Why then, worry about posters?  I remember when I was an assistant at the University of Tennessee I’d go on an occasional recruiting trip to Alabama.  In order to get to most high school basketball coaches’ offices, you have to walk through the locker room.  Back in the early ’80s, it was common (heck, Alabama high schools felt honored) to put up football posters from Alabama and Auburn.  One week I’d see a Crimson Tide poster (usually a game shot of a monster hit or great catch) and the next trip, there would be a bigger poster from Auburn.  Not to be outdone, Alabama would have a new poster with more and brighter colors.  Keep in mind, in those parts, most people would say football ain’t war, it’s much more important.  It literally got to the point of absurdity - locker rooms were plastered with posters from the schools sent on a weekly basis.  The NCAA’s answer?  Eliminate all posters.

Leveling the playing field is another way of saying “legislating equality” which, in reality, can’t be done.  In the world of college basketball, the NCAA can pass all the rules it desires, Kentucky and Eastern Kentucky are never going to be equal.  But with items that can be counted, it does have a major effect.

With the prizes (money) getting bigger and bigger, the problem the NCAA will never, ever conquer is; 

“While you can attempt to legislate equality; you can’t legislate morality.”

Working in the fields of education and athletics for nearly 38 years, I’ve come in contact with the parents of hundreds (thousands?) of young people.  A conversation I had yesterday made me reflect on other such exchanges I’ve enjoyed (endured) over the course of my  career(s).

The parent I was conversing with mentioned she was having trouble with her son and felt it was her fault because she “had to admit” nearly every crucial decision she made when it came to her children revolved around her attempting to assure their happiness.  For some reason, I thought back to a similar conversation I was privy to which took place many years ago.  It involved a major college basketball player who had failed a drug test.

The mom told our head coach that there was no way her boy would be involved in drugs, that she “would swear on my grandmother’s grave” that he never touched drugs.  She challenged the drug test, admonished the administrator and everyone associated with the drug program at our university and made the comment she raised her son to know better.  Then came the line that’s stuck in my mind over these many years. 

“I know he wouldn’t do drugs because drugs are for unhappy kids and everything I’ve ever done for my child was to ensure his happiness.“  Obviously, that was the line that made me realize, not only that I’d heard other parents make the same claim, but that we had finally discovered the root of the problem.

High school and college parents have embraced that paradigm, but it can be traced as far back as youth sports .  “If you’re not happy sweetie, maybe it’s best you don’t play” or “I know he acts up out on the field, but he’s just a competitive kid and he’s happiest when he’s competing so I don’t want to discourage that behavior right now.” 

Parents making choices on the classes their kids should be in - or moved from - to where their children attend school - at every level - up through college.  One parent confided in me he made a mistake not allowing his son to go to a college away from home (which had recruited him and offered a scholarship).  Although I imagine some reverse separation anxiety was taking place, he did mention, “The bottom line was I thought he’d be happier close to home.”

Nowhere in any of these or other similar stories like them is the mention of accountability and if ever a line was perfect for this blog, it’s race car driver Bobby Unser’s, who said:

“Making people happy doesn’t work; holding them accountable does.”

As has been documented and mentioned ad nauseum, I’ve had multiple (eight) surgeries on my back, including four laminectomies (two cervical, one each lumbar and thoracic)  with the last one of these (T 10/11) the one that, while it kept me out of a wheel chair for the rest of my life, caused considerable pain to every muscle and joint from my lower back to my toes.

Looking for a cure, I’ve tried nearly everything - physical therapy, pain meds, deep tissue massage, acupuncture, acupressure, pool & spa therapy, rakey, rolfing (the last two are pretty much opposites of each other; the former a sort of holistic energy type thing, the latter, pure unadulterated pain) with moderate to little success.  What I’m trying now (with some good early results) is sort of a “muscle activation technique,” combining ultra deep massage designed to lengthen the muscles by breaking up and properly aligning all the scar tissue I have, with core work - abs, gleuts, lower back muscles - through cardio and strengthening exercises.  (Note: My apologies if my description is way off base, but it’s as good as my understanding of it is.)

After a few visits where the doc introduced his thumb to the deeeeep recesses of my back, hips, abs and quads, I started today with walking on a treadmill - forward, backward and sideways (try it sometime, it ain’t as easy as you might think).  Then it was onto the mat, legs perched on one of those big balls, for crunches - straight, right shoulder to left knee and vica versa.  I got through it okay until the trainer said, “Alright, now we’re doing two more sets of each.”

Whoa!  This was a little bit more than I had bargained for but, as I stated earlier, nothing else has worked so I figured, let’s play it out & see what happens.  I’m to the point where I feel as though whatever I do can’t make me feel any worse - and this might be what turns the corner on the pain market.

None of it, save the forward walk on the treadmill was particularly easy, but the entire time I was working the trainer kept exhorting me with, “Good job!” and “You’re doing great.”  Now, I’ve coached before and recognize positive reinforcement is usually the right approach, but from a personal perspective, I came to the realization that the worse you are at something, the more of this is necessary.  Or as I read a couple weeks ago,

“A word of encouragement during a failure is worth more than a whole book of praise after a success.”

After watching the devastation of the fires in Southern California for the past three days (it resulted in the largest evacuation in American history), I can only sit in amazement at what the effect such massive destruction has done to an area and its residents.  It’s not only the fires that sweep across regions in an uncontrollable rage, but the inexplicable things like a house being totally leveled while the house directly across the street being untouched.  Obviously, you don’t want to lose any of your possessions, but how difficult is it to not lose any of yours, but have your neighbors lose all of theirs?

As with any such story, the media is on the spot to get reactions of the “lucky people” as well as those whose lives have been turned upside down.  One couple interviewed were newlyweds who lost everything but each other.  The husband mentioned that the night before he had taken off his wedding ring and put it on the bedside table.  In the hectic events that followed, he had forgotten to put it back on and that seemed to be his gravest concern.  It was kind of like if he could only get that back, everything would be all right because he and his bride had planned on starting a life together and now it was truly going to be from scratch.  She smiled and agreed, so either they were both in shock or had the untimate positive attitude.

Another husband and wife were out of town on vacation and his mother managed to get their two dogs out, to which they were so grateful.  Then they realized that two years prior, they had purchased a fire proof safe and had all their important papers in it.  When they returned to the rubble that was once their home, sure enough, there it was - exactly where they thought it would be - even though they had completely forgotten about it until they started thinking about such things as birth certificates, marriage license & passport.

Other people, not surprisingly, weren’t as optimistic or upbeat.  An elderly couple, when asked if they were going to rebuild their house, wondered if they’d even be around if they did.  Another couple and their five children, when asked the same question, admitted they had been renting and didn’t even have insurance, that what they were being interviewed in was what they owned.

A government official at Qualcom Stadium, where everyone went after being evacuated, was asked to compare this tragedy with the Katrina incident and the Superdome, said there was no comparison.  There was somewhat of a festive atmosphere in San Diego, with people socializing, playing games and even listening the to DJ who was brought in to entertain.  Some people were even sleeping outside the stadium.

There are obvious reasons for this difference.  One is that, although fires of this nature are usually overwhelming, they can be fought.  It’s impossible to fight a hurricane (nor would you consider sleeping outside).  Another is there was no danger to Qualcom whereas the Superdome was under as much of an attack as the surrounding area and was being destroyed along with everything else.  Also, you’d hope the country learned from what happened in New Orleans and responded more quickly to the catastrophe.

As difficult as it is to say, how people deal with this situation is as I’ve often heard:

“It’s not what happens to you in life that matters, it’s how you respond to what happens.” Â

Recently, I was reminded of a speech I heard given on the topic of risk.  The speaker mentioned trying to avoid risk and “playing it safe” was like driving from Fresno to Bakersfield - but not leaving until all the lights were green.  “OK, now!  No, wait, I just saw a light in Kingsburg turn red.” 

As ridiculous as it sounds, the speaker made his point.  Conditons are never going to be perfect when you’re heading into unchartered waters - or simply trying to accomplish something you think is worth accomplishing.

It’s reminiscent of the guy who claims, “I never smoked, drank or chased women and tomorrow I celebrate my 80th birthday,” to which his friend countered, “Yeah, how?”

I’ve worked alongside some of the greatest risk avoiders of all time (”I’m not sure it would be the prudent thing to do at this time”), as well as side by side with some of the greatest risk takers ever (Hell, who cares what everybody thinks, let’s do it!”).  Mistakes were made by both.  Procrastinating and missing opportunities plagued  the former and foolish blunders made in haste the latter.  Naturally, each side had their share of successes, too. 

However, the people “going for it” experienced the greater “rush” and, truth be told, actually got more accomplished than the “play-it-safers” did.  So, if I had to lean one way or the other, my opinion is risking failure beats waiting for success or as Samuel Johnson put it:

“Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.” Â