Early on I scored several major coups by enlisting the aid of various Raiderettes to the cause of Raider Nation. This drove the competition bonkers as they were driven insane by the very real speed by which Raider Nation was becoming the acknowledged leader for Raider fans on the Internet, and beyond. First they lost the coveted Raider Locker Room outlet by which the image and name of Raider Nation could be advertised daily through a brick and mortar outlet. Then they lost the battle for the very hearts of Raider fans when the Raider Nation moniker started to appear on the backs of cheerleaders – WTF, this is adding insult to injury. It was a brilliant execution of strategy aimed at making the Raider Nation brand well known and adopted as a symbol of Raider fans worldwide.
OK, there may be several teasers to the real lesson of building brand identity. What is undeniable is that a product or service can fail or succeed based upon the image that consumers have in their minds.
In 1996 the internet was secondary to the traditional marketing channels that existed at the time – meet and greets with the cheerleaders!! What was becoming clear, however, is that the internet could spread news and photos on current events much faster and across a much more diverse geographical base. Instead of only fans in the San Francisco Bay Area being able to see the latest news in the local rags there was now the ability to spread this info across the globe. No one appreciated the impact of the internet in this area more than I did when it came to formulating a strategy which would propel Raider Nation to the pinnacle of success.
The photos shown here were all published on the Raider Nation website exclusively and I, in effect, became the official photographer for events that were taking place at John Vella’s Raider Locker Room. The Raider Locker Room and Raider Nation became strategic partners in spreading the Raider Nation brand. Traditional brick and mortar retail was still the predominant method of sales in 1996 but to sell to a global fan base the internet was becoming the preferred marketing and sales channel. The symbiotic relationship between most retail outlets and the internet is taken for granted now, in 1996 Raider Nation was on the cutting edge.
What drives me to drinking…….
Those who can influence the success or failure of a business but have never run a business on their own. Generally, these folks make decisions based upon book learning where everything fits into nice little boxes. They have no clue what the true business drivers are behind the financial ratios they learned. They pontificate about debt to equity and cash flow but can’t relate that to real life outside what they have been told is acceptable. Mas Tequila.
You would be surprised that some of the worst offenders of this are in the banking or surety industry where decisions are critical to the ongoing success of a business. Too many times I have seen knee jerk decisions made based upon sterile financial analysis with no consideration given to the surrounding circumstances. According to one bank and one surety my current company should not be in business. What they failed to take into account is the environment in which the company operates. All they know is that debt to equity over 3.0 is bad and having a balance in the line of credit is equally bad. Why, you ask? They would not have a clue as to why this is bad except that someone told them it was. Mas Tequila.
Same for the auditor in Lafayette who was so convinced that management needed a wake up call regarding the accounting function of the company even though he had no clue about what really drives a business. According to him the company was on the verge of bankruptcy and he was hell bent on spreading the message. At the end of the day I fired him and we are still here better than ever. Mas Tequila.
Ask yourself why we as a country are where we are. I would put forth that one reason is that we have allowed those with limited intelligence to exert undue influence on who succeeds and who fails. In my experience there are simply too many people in positions of great power who have no clue about what they are charged with managing. It is easier to say you are the problem and deflect responsibility for their own shortcomings. To the extent everyone believes them they continue to cause businesses to fail that might have otherwise succeeded. They would have gotten the the line of credit they needed, the bonding for the big project, or the credibility needed from an intelligent audit. Mas Tequila.
Lesson learned: stand up against those of limited intelligence and expose them for what they are – those who have truly risen to their highest level of incompetence. Unfortunately, some have gotten into positions that influence the lives of others.
The partner of an accounting firm we utilized for the annual audit turned out to personify all that is bad in the public accounting world. He had his head up his ass and turned out to be a member of the whack pack. The bank that referred him to us turned out to be official members of the whack pack as well. This audit partner barely knew what work in process was all about but he pontificated as if he originated the term – can you say bullshitter.
I can only assume that the audit partner and the banker involved did not realize that accounting and finance required an affinity for understanding, not only numbers, but what drives the numbers. Neither could find their way out of a paper bag if it involved understanding what financial ratios were about or what they meant to a business in reality. To them the numbers were just numbers and the underlying processes were lost on them. Trying to work with them was a losing proposition. So, we showed them the door.
I was told by the auditor who we hired to replace the whack packer that it was the first time he had heard of an auditor being fired prior to finishing the audit engagement. In retrospect I should have seen it coming since the audit team was staffed with what appeared to be foreign nationals where english was a second language, along with contract auditors who were brought in to supplement this firms thinly experienced staff. In the interest of keeping peace I allowed the incompetence to go on for way too long. By the time I pulled the plug this whack packer had already done all his damage, or so I thought.
Enter the whack pack banker who chose to contact the newly fired auditor. Of course, if you fire an auditor there must be something wrong with the company versus something wrong with how the auditor is performing, right? Ignore the fact that we, as the banks client, had provided copious amounts of data to the bank and kept them in the loop throughout the entire relationship. Another example of supposed professionals not understanding the parameters they are charged with monitoring. The extent of their understanding was that debt to equity should not exceed 3.0. Ask them what might drive debt to equity and their eyes would glaze over and the response was ,”..we only know it should not exceed 3.0, don’t question our requirements”. Head up ass syndrome.Completely clueless.
According to the auditor and the banker we were on the edge of failure, had no future, and the doors would be closing. Funny, three years down the road and the business is thriving. What gives? What gives is that nothing these whack packers predicted through their great expertise came to pass because they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Wow, what a surprise – auditors and bankers who are clueless. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident – incompetence in critical positions which influence the future of businesses is far too common.
I still remember the whack pack auditor and our last meeting where he declared that, “.. your charts and tracking are bullshit” when it came to identifying financial trends. Well, Einstein he was not as the benchmarks we utilize have proved to be invaluable despite this whack packers pronouncements. He was so convinced that all the accounting processes we had in place were deficient – funny, seems like his skills were the only thing deficient as the auditors we brought in to replace this numb nut found no deficiencies. Say what!! Of course this is the same numb nut who refused to work on the account because we had not paid his firm as per the terms. I pointed out that he should review the executed contract and, guess what, we were in compliance. This was typical of his incompetence. Adios, dipshit.
Similarly, the bankers thought we were too deficient to be granted lines of credit. We were schmucks that would be destitute in very short order. WTF, we not only got a larger line of credit but better loan covenants as well when we kicked them to the curb. Tell me it ain’t so Joe DiMaggio. How can this be?? It can be because incompetence appears to know no bounds, it pervades organizations at every level and can be devastating to a business. Luckily the “I don’t give a rat’s ass attitude” allowed us to persevere and rise above the whack packers.
Note: a good audit firm works with you to get the job done, not against you. They understand the inherent limits in working in the real world that prevent following accounting rules to the “T”. The same goes for a good banker, they work with you and understand that the world businesses operate in is not perfect – not everything happens as scheduled.
Lesson learned: don’t let the whack packers get you down. Make changes as necessary until you find the relationship that works for all parties involved. Jettison those who lack the intelligence to understand the realities of the environment your business operates in.
Looking back this phrase was a turning point in my career. The architectural firm I was working for had fallen so far into anarchy that the staff dictated what was acceptable direction for management. After evaluating processes I made a decision to change the vendor the firm was utilizing to process payroll.
This international firm was utilizing bush league vendors that were ill prepared to meet the needs of the firm. However, the payroll manager felt she knew better than I what was best for the firm and opposed any change. Of course this was the same payroll manager who committed to keying payroll data into several systems, not once but three times. Think about it – actually keying in daily information for a firm approaching 1,000 plus employees three times. Her claim to being state of the art was the color coding of the spreadsheet to highlight anomalies! Can you say – REDUNDANT, or to be less politically correct – dumb ass.
So, a meeting is arranged to meet with the payroll vendor in order to inform them of the decision moving forward. Things had gotten so bass ackwards at this firm, however, that immediately upon telling the sales rep that we had decided to make a change he replied, “Well, from discussions with your payroll manager we have decided that moving from us would be the wrong thing to do..”. After the shock of the sheer audacity of this vendor to think he could overrule a decision, I made the now infamous statement – “I don’t give a rat’s ass about what you think is the right decision for this firm. This meeting is over and you can pick your things up and get out!”.
The payroll manager in attendance went pale from shock and the vendor stammered his surprise at what he obviously took to be an inappropriate response. The staff at this firm had grown so accustomed to having their way on every issue due to weak and ineffective management that this turn of events indicated an unwelcome shift in the power structure. So much so that the payroll manager went straight to the human resource manager reporting my disgusting use of language and that she could not work with “that man”, meaning me. Remember this is San Francisco where liberalism rules and trampling upon the rights of vendors and not allowing for socialism in the decision making process is akin to being the second coming of Rush Limbaugh.
The immediate impacts were not evident but over time it became apparent that the human resource manager, as well as my payroll manager, saw me as the antichrist. Let me say that human resource managers are a valuable and indispensable resource in any firm unless…… the human resource manager is the source of dysfunctionality. In that case they become an impediment to needed change as they enforce the status quo and can essentially blackball anyone in the organization that they find fault with – that was clearly the case here. Not only was the human resource manager dysfunctional but it could be argued that she should have been on a heavy dose of antidepressants – pass her the bottle of zoloft, please!!!! Ditto the payroll manager in question.
It was OK for her to question my judgement in an open meeting attended by staff. When I responded in kind, however, she would reprimand me for not being a “team player” and lecture me on the inappropriatness of raising issues in a public forum. What was good for the goose was not good for the gander – can you say double standard? Of course, as the human resource manager she carried so much more credibility for understanding the inner working of the human psyche and what motivated people. In reality she understood nothing about human nature except on how to deflect criticism from her own shortcomings by painting others as deficient. Truly an unbelievable display of the ability of someone being mediocre at what they do running amok in an organization.
This is the same person who at one meeting asked me to step outside to settle a dispute – not to discuss the differences mind you, but to fight it out. I would have done so except I was in a no win situation – if I step outside to settle the dispute she would claim I initiated the transgression whether it was verbal or physical. If it became physical, which I am sure she would claim, I for sure would lose as she would have kicked my ass being the little spark plug she was. Actually, I think I could have fought her to a draw but it would be a close decision.
The payroll manager had written her ticket out of the organization and I replaced her shortly after this incident. The human resource manager lingered on for my tenure at the firm continuing to cause innumerable bad decisions to be made and was quite instrumental in several large scale disasters – a failed ERP implementation being one that cost the firm $5.0 million. Can you say OOPS…………..my bad.
As you may have surmised by now, many of the most dysfunctional situations I have experienced occurred at this large prestigious architecture firm. Contrary to what most may think, I look back on these as good experiences as they not only tested my professional skills in ways that no other organization could, but also the personal fortitude needed to survive the experiences and come out stronger. They laid the groundwork for future successes. As I have always said, if you can survive in the worst most unpleasurable business environment then anything less than that is a cake walk.
Lesson learned: I don’t give a rat’s ass about what anyone thinks about a situation they have no business being involved in and/or for which they lack the credentials to offer valuable insight or knowledge. Many business decisions must be made which will not please everybody, it is the nature of the beast.
Entitlements, that is what MTV, and various other bad girl/boy shows, message to everyone is. You are entitled to sit on your ass all day and party all night in a luxurious house with all amenities paid for. Feel free to go out and get drunk, act bad, and come home to have sex freely and with whomever you want, no consequences since it is always party time.
Is it any wonder that when the “real” real world collides with the MTV Real World that people find out that life is a little more complicated? That in the real world you must take responsibility for your actions and only you can change the course of your life. That no one owes you a job, a house on the beach of your choice, or that going to Clubs 24/7 is a god given right.
It is sad that we have made what people see on the worst of these reality TV shows as something to aspire to. Audition to be on the Real World, Big Brother, The Batchelor, Bad Girls Club, Pregnant at 16, or any number of “reality” shows to demonstrate just how really more dysfunctional you can be. This is what we have come to – let’s all compete to show how desperate and ill-mannered we can be!!! Hey, count me in on this lifestyle – where do I sign up?
What is even worse is the effect it has on the business world. I am not so sure, however, which came first – our knee jerk reaction to preserve individual rights or the reality shows. Terminating an employee nowadays is a major undertaking which many times puts managers in the same place as someone who has been raped.
The insinuation is almost always that the manager doing the firing either 1.) did something wrong during the termination process or 2.)was incorrect in their assessment of the employee being terminated. The manager is put into a position of having to defend their actions no matter how well the process is handled. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Much like the person being raped being put on trial versus the rapist.
Why is this the case? One reason is because entitlement makes it OK for an employee to underperform. Why should they be any different from the miscreants they see on TV who are able to get by on minimal effort and still vacation in Cabo San Lucas for what appears to be 365 days a year. It is a sad reflection on current societal trends that work is seen as an entitlement, something which you have a right to even though you don’t perform.
I can count on less than two hands the number of employees I have had to terminate for cause. Without exception every one of those employees deserved to be terminated and for every one of them the spotlight was on me as the terminating manager. Every step and decision was analyzed and critiqued to the point of questioning the final decision. These were slam dunk cases – sleeping on the job, inability to perform job requirements, near assault and battery on another employee, and dishonesty in the hiring process. Yet, the entire process was not one of supporting the decision to terminate but one of questioning the grounds for termination. How many times do you need to find an employee asleep at their desk before it is safe to fire them??
The safeguards we have in place to protect employees has swung so far the other way that to say a job is an entitlement is not an overstatement. Every employee I have terminated truly believed they were entitled to the job and, therefore, saw no reason to change their behavior. They all had a history of being terminated from other positions, which points up another effect of this entitlement attitude. That being, if you don’t recognize you have a problem you are unlikely to change how you behave. Guess what – that means you get terminated over and over again.
We send ambiguous signals to employees being terminated much like breaking up a relationship – hey, it is not you it is me that is the problem. They move on and repeat the same mistakes because they never acknowledge they are the problem. Are we really doing them a favor by muting the responsiblity they bear for their actions?? I don’t think so.
Lesson learned: “Reality Show” is a poor definition for what airs on television these days. “Alternate Reality for a Short Period of Time Show” would be more apropos.
Jim, it is not your message we don’t like but it is in the delivery. Usually this is said after the umpteenth time I have tried to deliver the message in the most politically correct way possible. This usually is followed by, “You just don’t understand the circumstances”. As if I had not delivered the same message, about the same situation, a million times before. No, maybe it is not me, but you, that needs to wake up and smell the roses, or usually manure by the time we get to this point.
Here is how it typically goes:
First time: Hey everybody, we better watch out for the cliff coming up – don’t you think? No one listens, over the cliff we go.
Second time: Hey everybody, remember last time we went over the cliff, wasn’t much fun was it? Let’s watch out for that cliff, OK? No one listens, over the cliff we go.
Third time: Hey everybody, I am really tired of warning about the cliff, think we can listen up this time and avoid going over? No one listens, over the cliff we go.
Fourth time: OK, YOU FUCKING MORONS I HAVE WARNED YOU ABOUT THE FUCKING CLIFF SEVERAL TIMES, NOW STOP FUCKING AROUND AND STOP!! Response: Geez Jim, no need to get upset about this and we really don’t appreciate how you delivered the message. Plus, you don’t seem to understand the circumstances that precipitated us going over the cliff previously. We would appreciate it if you would not speak to us that way.
No, I think I understand what the circumstances are – a complete lackadaisical attitude of management to address known problems in a proactive and assertive way. Therefore, the problem continues to cause havoc amongst the staff until someone has the wherewithal to question why we don’t change things. Of course, then you get the “you just don’t understand and we don’t like your delivery” speech. It is always flipped over on to the person raising the obvious as if they should just shut up and go along for the ride over the cliff – over and over and over.
I was asked once by a senior manager why I had to address a situation in such harsh terms. My response, because when I have raised the issue in subtle, but less direct, terms you don’t get it. These are the same people, however, who have adopted the attitude that the person raising the obvious is the problem versus the fact that nothing is done to address the real problem.
A classic moment was at the architecture firm that was trying to implement the new ERP system but did not have a clue they were headed towards the cliff. After several months trying to get upper management to see the impending cliff they hired a new IT manager who was charged with getting the mess organized. He delivered the “your delivery is a problem” speech which set me off on my usual response. It did not matter how the message was delivered – nice, slow, articulate, spelled out, in English, in French, with sugar on top, or laced with invective. Of course, the new guy coming in sees the delivery as the problem when the real problem was the inability of management to listen to the input they were receiving in an intelligent manner. Plus, they had succumbed to groupthink which immediately belittled opposing viewpoints.
Isn’t it funny that the delivery of the message is a sufficient enough excuse for people to ignore the obvious problem multiple times? It becomes the standard excuse for why managers continue to make bad decisions. Well, had he delivered the message to me better I would not have made the same mistakes over and over again – does that really make sense to anyone? Mediocre management relies upon this excuse as a crutch to justify their poor practices.
Lesson Learned: question management that uses delivery of the message as a sufficient excuse for bad practice, it never is. It is the ultimate straw man argument.