Making it work

Here here on the thoughts on marriage.  Nothing new from me, just a couple of my own thoughts.

I'm very thankful that early in our marriage Jennifer and I attended a couple of those extremely cheesy (for the most part) marriage enrichment seminars, because it taught us how to communicate.  I think communication is one of the things that can cause a lot of damage in a marriage if you don't follow some guidelines.

Some of these basic principles have really helped us in being able to talk through issues by actually sticking to the issue and not escalating.  That's not to say that we're perfect and things never get a little heated, but for the most part we can "argue" without the yelling and screaming.

DID YOU HEAR A WORD I JUST SAID? - Active listening is key to communicating in a relationship.  It's a little weird at first, but if you're not good at active listening, the "repeat back" method is a good one to ensure that you are actually hearing the other person.  In those cheesy seminars, we learned how to listen to the other person and then reply by saying, "What I'm hearing you say is that..."  At that point you repeat back what you just heard.  When you have to repeat back, it really forces to you listen to what the other person is saying.  It also gives the other person the opportunity to clarify if the message wasn't communicated correctly.  Amazingly, in and of itself, that will mitigate a lot of relational problems.  Often people just want to be heard. 

ONE AT A TIME - Another method that works in communication (especially when its heated) is having something that serves as the "talking stick".  If you're not holding the stick (or whatever you choose to use), you're not allowed to talk.  It ensures that only one person at a time is talking and you're not just talking over eachother. 

DON'T USE ABSOLUTES - Sentences that begin with the words, "You never..." or "You always..." are rarely, if EVER, true statements.  In the marriage context, those words will cause defenses to go up immediately so they're not helpful.  Again, we're not perfect, but Jennifer and I try very hard not to use those phrases.  When used, "always" is always inaccurate, and "never" is never accurate.  You see what I did there?  That is called wit my brothers.  Damn I'm good!

THINGS AS THEY RELATE TO ME - Another communication tool we learned is to talk about the other person's behavior in the context of how it makes YOU feel.  As an example, rather than saying, "I hate when you don't take off your shoes in the house," a better way would be to say, "When you don't take your shoes off in the house, it makes me feel like you don't care about the time that I spend cleaning the house every week."  It changes things from hating a behavior to a relational concern. 

WHY YOU BRINGIN' UP OLD SHIT?  -  Stick to the issue at hand, and don't dredge up old arguments in the process.  Usually when people bring up old issues rather than sticking to the one at hand it is because they are trying to change the argument into a personal attack.  When you attack the person about things that don't have anything to do with the topic, you're no longer communicating and it's probably going to escalate.  Stick to the issue!

WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL ME?  -  Name calling is an absolute no go.  It serves no purpose.  It only escalates the argument and attacks and belittles the other person.  Don't do it.

Those six communcation tools have been pretty effective for us.  However, I do agree with both of you in that every relationship is different and couples need to figure out what works for them.  That will take some work, but as Brad said, that's what you need to do: work at it. 

Two more things:  First, compromise.  In my opinion, its unlikely that a couple will be able to come to agreement on everything in life.  Someone has to give, and preferably both are going to give a little.  It's not personal weakness to compromise, it's personal strength to be willing to do so.  Second, getting out is not an option.  I know that sounds like lip service to a lot of people, but I've always believed that if you know you're stuck with that person (as bad as that sounds) good or bad, you will be willing to put in the time to make it good rather than bad.  So many marriages fail, I think, because if there is already a "better" option waiting on the other side (in other words, they already are in a relationship with someone else) then there's no incentive to work on the current relationship.  It makes it too easy to walk away.  When things get ugly in marriage, if there is an "emergency exit" door, people are going to take it.  Please don't take my words to the extreme... I'm not applying this principle to abusive relationships, etc.  Just making a general principle.

I'm very thankful that we've not had to deal with divorce in our immediate family.  Here's hoping that we never will!

Did someone say doping?

You guys are cranking out blogs so fast that it’s making my head spin.  What has gotten into you two??

Disjointed thoughts on doping… and… begin.  

I feel a little bit like a broken record when we have long debates on the telephone, but I’ll try to summarize.

Jen, after listening to my heated debate on the phone, reminded me of a principle that we try to follow in making our marriage work, but it’s a pretty good principle to follow in general debate too.  That principle is to NOT make absolute declarations.  I failed at that on the phone.  So I’m going to back off a bit and say that it would not surprise me if a large majority of professional athletes are taking some kind of performance enhancing stuff.  I use the term “stuff” because the word “drug” has a lot of negative connotation.  Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) = Doping (another bad word), but performance enhancing stuff (i.e. amino acids, equipment, coaches) = Getting stronger, faster, better, etc.  What I’m trying to say is that almost anyone who wants to excel at something is always looking for ways to get just a little better.  That might translate to a lighter bike, a better golf club, a corked bat, a new coach, or… dope.  

And so, the discussion of doping gets convoluted in my mind because what I think the REAL issue is for athletes is whether or not they are doing something to improve their performance that is illegal as defined by the regulating body in the sport.  In going around and around, one of the things I tried to convey to you, Ed, is that I believe that there is an entire industry dedicated to creating performance enhancing drugs that those regulating agencies don’t know about yet, and therefore they haven’t been declared illegal.  I’m a human, so I can see how easy a sell it could be to an athlete, and it would go something like this:  “Look, this is going to improve your performance by insert-percentage-here, and it is NOT illegal in insert-your-sport-here.  It’s not a banned substance.  There’s no down side to this.  It will only make you better.  Why would you pass up on a chance to be better??”

Of course, none of that directly answers your primary question, “But what is cycling doing about the doping issue?”  Well, for one thing, as per my previous paragraph, you can only test for what you know is out there.  On another side of the issue, I will fully admit that I cannot speak intelligently on actual testing methods.  Asking the question, “Why did Armstrong never test positive all those years?” is a valid question.  I suspect that there was some type of collusion on the part of the International Cycling Union (UCI).  In fact, according to the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), Armstrong himself led them to believe that was the case.

I don’t want to make it sound like the UCI shouldn’t care about doping in cycling, but I still don’t quite understand what exactly that you think they should do in order to demonstrate that they do care about it.  Maybe they should have a big press conference and say the words, “We have a problem with doping in cycling,” and then walk off the podium.  Would that do it?  Do you walk around with a video camera on the riders for 24 hours a day so that the world can see what they are doing every second of every day?  Perhaps the UCI should get into the business of urinalysis and blood testing and spend $200 billion to open up their own testing laboratories and hire their own lab specialists.  I don’t know.  I just don’t agree that cycling is burying its head in the sand on the issue when both race organizers and riders openly talk about doping every single day.  I would have to watch video to verify, but I would be willing to bet that Lance Armstrong never addressed doping from the top of the podium in the yellow jersey in Paris.  The fact that Chris Froome DID says a lot about acknowledging the doping issues in cycling.  

Money is the root of all evil, so they say.  Could that be the case with doping?  I don’t know if it’s the root, but it’s a major contributing factor.  A minor league baseball player makes $1100 per month, plus $25 a day for meals, and spends hours each week travelling around on a bus.  The minimum salary for a professional baseball player is just shy of $500K, and the league average is about $3.2 million.  A college basketball player can’t even sell a signed basketball for $100 without getting a suspension, but the NBA league minimum salary is about the same $500K, while the league average is over $5 million.  I’m no mathematical genius, but that’s a whole lot of economic pressure to try to find a little bit of an edge.  What do you have to lose if you dope?  Maybe a 4-game suspension?  A measly fine?  The cost of getting caught is negligible of you can't make the cut WITHOUT doping.  From what I can find online, a professional tour cyclist, if he’s REALLY good, can make a little less than $200K per year.  Keep in mind that none of the figures above include endorsement money, but I would venture a guess to say that you have to be in the top tier to tap into that big money.  Froome won around $650K for finishing in the yellow jersey at Le Tour.  I can’t substantiate this, but if the BEST tour riders in the world make $200K per year cycling (there are roughly 18 professional teams of 8 riders), you really have to be one of the best to be able to make a living doing it.  Alright, I know you’re tired of the numbers, but you get the point.  If you make it to the top tier you have the opportunity to make a lot of money.  If you don’t, you aren’t going to make ANY money.  That’s a lot of incentive to dope if you don't have the natural ability to get there.  There's not a lot of downside.  

And I’ll throw in one more economics angle, and it has to do with the regulating agencies of any sport.  Do they really care about doping?  I hate to bring it up, but professional sports exist because they are businesses, and for the most part professional sports are very profitable businesses.  When you talk about what gets the attention of the regulating body, or the commissioner, or whatever that person or organization looks like, the answer is the bottom line: money.  Does Bud Selig give a crap about doping in baseball?  Eh, maybe.  But in reality, is the doping in baseball affecting the bottom line?  Probably not.  People are still going to games.  Tickets are still expensive.  About every third person that I see in this town is wearing some sort of Padres gear, and they SUCK (last place in NL West, 45-57).  I watched most of the Tour de France and the streets were packed with fans.  Paris was a mad house, and in the post race interviews all of the riders talked about riding in the high noise level.  I don’t think doping has affected cycling’s bottom line.  If I was really cynical, I would say that doping is improving cycling’s bottom line since they are trying to recover all of that prize money from Lance Armstrong!  But anyway, the only reason that head injuries in the NFL are getting lip service from the NFL is because they ARE starting to affect the bottom line.  There is a line of former players with lawsuits lined up out the door and down the street.  I think that former players filing lawsuites, in and of itself, is ridiculous, but that's another blog for another day.  But until the NFL actually starts losing those cases and having to pay out multi-million dollar settlements, they will continue to give lip service and the appearance of action, such as 75 cent fines for a helmet to helmet hit.  The leadership and regulating agencies have one major purpose, and that is to keep the business profitable.  Player safety?  Give me a break.  So, Ed, I don’t think a lip service press conference from the UCI is worth the money it would cost to send out invitations to the press.  The UCI can't fix doping in the Tour de France. 

So how do you stop doping?  I don’t think the regulating agencies or anti-doping agencies can do anything but react.  They can’t prevent it.  I would make the argument that the reason that the culture is changing (in my opinion) in cycling is due to the only thing that works: peer pressure.  Once the Armstrong affair started to get some wind in the sails, riders started ratting on each other.  The riders who don’t want to dope now have the acceptance of the general public in ratting on other riders who are doping.  THAT is what will put a dent in that kind of activity.  Nobody in baseball is squealing on teammates yet.  If a player came forward and accused a teammate of doping, the ATH, PTI, and Rome is Burning panels would tear the whistleblower to pieces.  It would only result in that whistleblower getting persona non grata status in most clubhouses.  It just doesn’t happen.  No active player is willing to talk about other players who are doping.  That means it’s still a problem.  Floyd Landis and the throngs of people that Lance Armstrong went after during his reign of doping don’t seem like such bad people any more.  There are current riders on the tour that have come out and testified against other riders who they were a witness to or even complicit in their doping.  Nobody is running them out of town.  I know you don’t agree Ed, but I really think, or rather I really hope, that the new generation of cycling stars doesn’t want to be associated with the era of doping.  They are riding clean and they want the world to know it.  I don’t know all the science to it, but just as an example, Team Sky (TDF winner Chris Froome’s team) shared rider “power” data with the press daily.  The commentators were talking about it one day and the average rider output during the doping era was 7.2 whatever-the-measurement-was, but this year the average rider output was 6.5.  It was lower, which they seemed to take as an indication that if power output levels are actually down, then it’s probably because the doping has gone away.  It’s not that the TDF got any easier; the Alp de Huez stage this year included not one, but TWO trips up the Alp de Huez on the same day!  

That's how I see it, at least until doping comes up again in about three months on our blog!

And finally…

- I wouldn’t watch the Food Network, The Bachelor, or the MLB All-Star game.  I’d shut off the TV first.

- I’ve already come clean.  I dope nearly every time I ride with 600 or even 800mg of ibuprofen!

- I WOULD play a round of golf with Dennis Rodman.  That would be some interesting conversation.

- I’m more interested in Tony the Tiger than Tiger Woods.

- WHO declared, and under what authority, that baseball is “America’s past time”??  I’m not buying it.  Baseball is "past its time", not a past time.

- All-Star games are kind of like going to watch the Harlem Globetrotters or the WCW.  It might be entertaining, but you know that there is no actual competition going on.  

- Yes, I blame Ray Lewis.  

- I’m out of spades.

My confessional on sports

The time spent in my life goes something like this: sleeping, going to school, playing baseball. It pains me to dislike baseball as it defined so much of my upbringing. But I will be a baseball hater until Bud Selig does something other than continue to degrade and make a mockery of our national pastime.

Watching priority: Food network, just about anything else, All Star game, Bachelor. Bachelor?!?
I will be holding the megaphone at the Oelwein Sprint Tri.
My foursome is Dad, Dennis Rodman, & Colin Kaepernick. We are all playing shirtless.
I do not own any Lance Armstrong gear. I haven't avoided it, but I don't have any.
My mirror words: I am not Sammy say it ain't Sosa. Doper.

The real moral and takeaway as it relates to the doping issues in baseball and cycling is this: DON'T LIE! Lance Armstrong and now Ryan Braun have caused incredibly more damage to themselves, their families, and their sport by trying to cover up, lie, and attack others who accused them. If you did it, then say you did it. Our society has a tremendous capacity to forgive and provide second chances to our athletes. Both of these guys could have received that treatment, but they chose to lie about it and they will be disgraced forever as a result.

This is an excerpt of the speech Ryan Braun gave when he won his appeal on a technicality in 2012:

If I had done this intentionally or unintentionally I'd be the first one to step up and say, 'I did it.' By no means am I perfect, but if I've ever made any mistakes in my life I've taken responsibility for my actions. I truly believe in my heart, and I would bet my life that this substance never entered by body at any point. I will continue to take the high road because that's who I am and that's the way I have lived my life. We won because the truth is on my side. The truth is always relevant and at the end of the day the truth prevailed.

This is an incredibly similar stance Lance took for so many years. And they were right, the truth did prevail, and they will be disgraced for life because of it.

Setting the Record Straight - Ed on Cycling, Baseball, Ray Lewis and Lance Armstrong

I want to set the record straight ...
I like cycling. 
I also like competition. 
I don't like doping. 
I believe Cycling has the worst history of doping of any professional sport (I realize this could be debated, but this is my opinion). 
I would like the International Cycling governing bodies (I don't even know them by name) to attempt to address the epidemic that is doping in professional cycling.
I like baseball.
I acknowledge that doping occurs in baseball too, but not nearly as much.
I also acknowledge that Bud Selig is bad for baseball.
I don't like baseball haters.
I cycle and yet haven't joined a baseball/softball league in the last 10 years because one serves as exercise, the other not so much.
I don't really watch All-Star games, unless my alternatives are the Food Network or The Bachelor.
I don't really like Ray Lewis or Dennis Rodman.
I still really like Lance Armstrong.
And Tiger Woods.

C'mon boys, it's time for confessions all around.  I suspect you both:

• would rather watch the Food Network or The Bachelor than the MLB All-Star Game.
• would dope just to win a free t-shirt at the inaugural Oelwein Sprint Triathlon.
• would secretly would love to round out a golf foursome of Tiger Woods, Ray Lewis and Dennis Rodman
• have to admit that you each own at least one piece of LiveStrong apparel or gear.
• and finally, would rather go shopping for body wash at Bed Bath and Beyond than admit on this blog that you have looked into a mirror recently and uttered those infamous words ... I am Tiger Woods.

I'm out!

Brad on strong marriages

Ed, I appreciated the thoughts on strong marriage. I appreciate the luxury of a spousal relationship that works for us in our own unique way. I think it is awesome that all of us, Mom and Dad included, have found one that works that has resulted in over 100 years of marriage (45+, 25ish, 20ish, 15ish respectively). That is a pretty darn good track record.

The uniqueness of Sheila and my marriage is of course only as unique as any special relationship that works. It is personal to each of us and while it wouldn’t work for others and many don’t even understand it, we make it successful for us.

The biggest lesson I’ve learned during my marriage tenure: work at it. Like most relationships, the most fruitful are the ones where both parties actively work on the relationship. “Working at it” sometimes looks like arguing, sometimes is disguised as abandoning our parental duties for selfish investments in our marriage, sometimes it is compromising personal interests or social activities. It is always work, and I think mine works because my wife and I work at it.

Brad on state of pro cycling…uh, er baseball?...uh, er societal problems

Yes you heard me right Bud Selig, you are about to get thrown under my bus...

I'm putting two of Ed’s posts together into one irrefutable fact: cycling is way better than baseball. On the first angle of doping.

Cycling’s position on doping, to me and nearly everyone, is unknown because it is a fringe sport and the only reason ESPN picks up stories about it is if it includes Lance Armstrong. Yet, the 100th running of the TdF has been a resounding success, and one that features a winner who embraced the questions about doping and stands for the new cleanliness of the sport having never been accused of or tested for doping. See coverage HERE. People want to continue to point to the Lance Armstrong era as what is wrong with cycling. This time period is absolutely no different than the McGwire/Canseco/Sosa era. But fortunately for us cycling fans the sport has moved on, and baseball is still stuck in the quagmire.

The commissioner of baseball recently stated in conjunction with all star festivities (hold on, that’s coming) that the sport has cleaner than it has ever been. Really? Have you heard of Biogenesis? Ryan Braun, the equivalent of the TdF champion, got off on a technicality last year for doping and is part of as many as 25 players that will be suspended for doping at some point this year! Among the names: Alex Rodriguez who has already admitted to doping once. Word on the street Miguel Cabrera is on that list too, the first triple crown winner since the Yaz in the 70s. The great historians and flag bearers of baseball have come out and said they will not vote anyone from this era into the Hall of Fame. Selig calls steroids a "societal problem", not a baseball problem. Who is sticking their head in the sand?

Now on to the All Star game angle. We agree that the spectacle of an all star game is only acceptable if there is no gimmick (home field advantage in the world series for example) that makes it appear to be a relevant game. The idea of an all star game isn’t really applicable to cycling, although the last day of the TdF does feature casual riding and the ceremonial champagne for the winner-to-be. But then you get into Paris and all hell breaks loose. It confused Sheila as we watched the finale last night. She asked if that guy already had the champagne and is going to win, why is everyone racing so hard? You see, until the last second of the race it is meaningful to someone. And if it is meaningful to one rider on each team it is meaningful for every rider on every team. In addition to the yellow jersey, there are a variety of other winners including stage winners. So the TdF ends with 3 guys going 50 MPH on the cobblestones of Paris separates by less than the diameter of a bike wheel. Awesome, right down to the last inch of a 2,053 mile bike race. A celebration of the sport, yet competitive for every single second.

To sum it up succinctly and to demonstrate the clear superiority of cycling as a sport, when was the last time any of us picked up a glove and participated in our national sport? When was the last time we got on a bicycle and participated in France’s national sport? We have all been inspired to participate in RAGBRAI, but have any of us played in a recreational baseball or softball league in the last decade?

The French may be assholes (thank you Jim Carrey), but they got this one right!

All Star Games

Wow, those warm nuts and brewsky are settling down in my tummy, as are my emotions.  Deep breath Ed …

Brad and I had a discussion a day or two ago regarding the MLB All-Star Game.  This post won’t be nearly as entertaining because generally Brad and I agreed.  But it wasn’t without some divergent views that ultimately led to a general agreement. 

But since I have a few more hours of flying time left I might as well document it and hopefully spark some banter.  Yes, I’m inviting the inputs of my brothers again. 

The premise of the discussion is why are their All-Star games and why are they cast as games that matter when really they aren’t.  They are simply a parade of the most popular players (not the best, mind you) who act like they care who wins.  And Brad’s question was why does MLB actually try to make the game meaningful by providing the winning league’s World Series participant a huge home field advantage?  He thinks that’s ludicrous.  At his peak he said that all All-Star games in all professional sports should be stopped.  That’s where our opinions diverged, but only momentarily. 

We were able to agree that if All-Star games did continue they should be cast for what they are … spectacles for fans who want to come see their favorites – not really a game.  Instead provide the gimmicks (dunk contest, home run derby, etc.) and quit acting or suggesting the game matters.

You see, for some reason I tend to get defensive whenever someone negatively references our national sport.  Yes, it’s still our national sport.  Fading yes, but still America’s sport.  Baseball, hot dogs and apple pie baby!  A few weeks ago I caught a documentary of sorts about baseball while the Royals game was being delayed by rain.  Some of the historians of the game (players, sportscasters, coaches, etc.) were talking about how you can’t separate the history of America with baseball.  One of many powerful examples they gave of this was “Before America successfully broke the color barrier, Baseball did”.  I’m sorry but the Amstel Light (second one) in keeping me from remembering any other of the profound examples from the program.  But in essence the peaks and valleys of America’s rich history has followed baseball, and vice versa.  I think that’s cool … don’t you?  

Ed's Rant on the State of Professional Cycling

Warm nuts, idle time and yes, yet another blog post from 30k feet.  Ah, the simple pleasures eh?

This post was spurred from an intense discussion with Marc last night about the Tour de France, and more specifically the doping and dopes running the international cycling association.  Now normally I would prompt my brothers for their views on my blog posts, but this one is different.  Marc and I are light years apart on this issue and I’m not really interested in hearing any more of his views on the topic.  I’m not sure where Brad stands on this issue, but one thing is for sure – I’m right and any other opinion contrary to mine is … wrong.  It’s that simple!

Ok, to give you a sample of how animated and worked up Marc got during the conversation, at one point in the conversation he referenced the most deplorable athlete on the planet in his eyes.  Yes, Ray Lewis.  For Dad it’s Dennis Rodman, for Marc its Ray Lewis.  According to Marc most of society’s ills, and all of professional sports ills are the direct result of something Ray Lewis did or didn’t do.  How do I feel about Ray?  He would be part of my golf foursome wish list!  I’m laughing just writing this.  More warm nuts please.

Ok, so back to the subject – professional cycling and the doping issue that plagues the sport. 

Since Marc was rambling and ranting so much about this topic I can’t begin to logically articulate his argument, I won’t.  He can attempt that. 

My opinion, and most certainly the most credible one, is this:

·       Professional cycling has a PR issue (the rampant doping) that needs to be addressed by the governing bodies of the international cycling world.  Sticking your figurative head in the sand just doesn’t do it for me, and pisses me off.  Do something … announce changes to the testing procedures, or just drop the façade of acting like you can catch those who are doping because it’s obvious you can’t.  I don’t really care, just don’t act like it isn’t going on. 

·       The powers that be (I’m not really sure who) has successfully taken down the greatest athletes of the sport over the past 10-15 years, proving that they were doping during the peaks of their careers and while winning every award and accolade that can be achieved in the sport.  Confessions and athletes ratting out others actually was the way most got caught, not the testing procedures.  Congratu-frickin-lations.

·       The confessions of these athletes came well after their achievements, and it appears that the “rigorous testing” to keep these athletes clean was, well, BS.  After all, it didn’t catch anyone during the actual Tour, did it?  At least not the highest profile ones, most notably Armstrong.

So what now, you ask?  Marc did, emphatically.  What do you want them to do Ed!?!  Call a spade a spade and quit with the façade of acting like the sport has miraculously transformed itself into anything other than a drug race.  A race of who has the best chemists, and the most lucrative access to drugs that can’t be detected by any of the tests employed by governing bodies of the sport. 

Now I can hear the argument (and Marc made it too) that you could pump 99.9% of the population with all these drugs and we still couldn’t hang with the peloton through even one stage, and that’s true.  But among the top 0.1% of the riders if you aren’t doping you aren’t going to be able to compete.  That’s what the best in the sport are saying.  I believe it to be true. 

So whether the governing bodies of the sport level the playing field by allowing doping, or whether they choose to make an honest attempt at winning in the drug race by altering the detection/testing procedures, I don’t care.  Just don’t do nothing.  That’s a decision that I can’t stomach.

I hope the winner of this year’s TDF gets accused of doping, denies it, and gets proven wrong and stripped of his victory just like most of those winners of the past 15 years.  Would that actually prompt a more serious attempt at addressing the issue?  Who knows.  So who is more to blame for the state of the sport – the athletes or the governing bodies?  Oh that’s right it’s neither … it’s Ray Lewis! 

Maybe they ought to put Lance Armstrong in as the Chairman of the International Cycling Federation, let him attract his star cycling friends, and attempt to turn the table on the sport.  Marc referenced during our discussion that the only way to catch bad guys is to think like bad guys.  That would be worthy of me watching.

Until then I could give a shit who wins the Tour de France or any cycling event other than to put them at the end of a long list of fallen heroes who cheated to get to the top … literally!

Me, I’ll be golfing with Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong and Ray Lewis.  Dennis Rodman is my alternate.   Fore!

My New Employer and Job

Many have asked recently how my new job is going.  I've been at it for a little more than 60 days now and thought I would just share a few things about my new job and Arcadis that I absolutely love:

1.       The company is financially successful and is well positioned to continue that growth and profitability.  I've counseled many others in the past that "that’s the closest thing to job security anyone can ask for".

2.       The culture of the company is more progressive than almost all of my prior employers.  While doing my own thing with HRO Partners I was fortunate to work with some great companies whose cultures were “cool”.  MediRevv (Brad’s employer) was one of them.  Cool is not only good for companies, it’s fun too.  Arcadis has some swagger.

3.       I’m leading a team of HR professionals with so much potential to contribute value to the organization.  I’m not just saying this because I’m the boss (and there is no risk of any of them reading this either) but I really am engaged by the potential that sits in my team today – in expertise, passion and desire to do great things in HR for the benefit of the business we support.  It needs to be organized differently to be most effective but all the ingredients of a great team are there.

4.       It represents a great mix of known and unknown.  It’s a fresh start.  I’m excited about living in a new place and building a new cadre of colleagues and friends.  But the engineering industry is familiar to me so the environment isn’t all new.  It’s familiar and unfamiliar – all at the same time.

5.     I believe strongly that Denver will be a great place for my family and kids and that they’ll love living here.  And at the crucial development ages of my kids, that’s really important to me, and to Holly.

6.  And finally, they are invested in me.  I've been given the latitude to make changes and develop the function.  Arcadis recognizes the difference great HR can have on the success of the business and I don't have to sell that idea to the leadership of the company.

Bottom line, I'm really happy!  So thrilled to be working for Arcadis - it's a great company! 

P.S.  The logo is Sally the salamander, not a dinosaur.  Perhaps that's a future blog but she is loved and endeared by all Arcadians.

Secrets to a Strong Marriage

How about the secrets of a good marriage?  The reason this has come to mind is because the Aunt and Uncle I’m staying with (actually on Holly’s side of the family) is celebrating their 51^st wedding anniversary today.  Wow, isn’t that awesome?!  Yes, it is. 

And what is a typical question asked of couples that seem to have figured out the formula for life long marriage?  Of course, what is the secret?!

I’ve had this question asked of me and here have been some of my “off the cuff” responses:

·       Better to be lucky than good

·       Holly and I didn’t really know what we were getting into, but we were clueless together and just figured it out along the way

·       Neither Holly or I viewed it as an option to get a divorce when we vowed “for better or worse, until death do part”

·       I can’t believe it myself … that I found a woman who has put up with me all those years

·       Holly and I are both passionate about our marriage, and while that has been caustic at times there is no ambivalence in our relationship.  I think that’s key

A slightly more thoughtful answer has been “every couple’s formula is different” and that couldn’t be truer than looking at the three brothers and our lovely wives who contribute to this blog. 

Marc, Brad and I have had discussions about this.  And yes, we joke with each other about how none of us could survive more than a few weeks in each other’s marriages.  I’m certain our wives feel the same!  None of us could imagine a “marriage swap”.  We’ve all carved out successful marriages based on very different terms.

So I’m not really sure how Holly and I have been able to remain happily married for nearly 24 years.  But I do know that I’m blessed, lucky and extremely thankful for having her as my soul mate.  I can’t imagine my life without her in it.

Blog Appeal

Recently I’ve been trying desperately to come up with something blog worthy and I’ve been about as successful as the Kansas City Royals.  They’ve gone 1-9 over the past couple of weeks and my ability to generate blog appeal has been equally dismal.

But surely I have to have some opinion or view that will stir the minds of my brothers, and possibly the three other readers of our blog right?  And something that doesn’t reek of HR tips, tricks and fodder.

Well, let’s see …

The Great HR Measuring Sticks

Another HR related post ... and worse yet ...

This is another journal entry from 30,000 feet so you have been forewarned.  I’m building a bit of a reputation for thin air, deep thought journaling – Jack Handy style – so if you’re not up for that then stop reading right here. 

Is there a true business partnership between your HR team and the operating business it supports?  And how can you be assured as a leader that you are delivering real value to supporting business growth, vitality and profitability?  Two possible means by which many try to answer this question – survey junkies or metrics gurus.  Which does your company use, or does it use both? 

As a leader of an HR team myself, are these really our only choices for examining the real value and impact our teams are having?  Have we been diminished to an employee engagement score, balanced scorecard, or net revenue per FTE?  Please …

I’m going to offer a different alternative, one that challenges conventional business wisdom.  Perhaps we can’t measure value as a number or via a formula.  Maybe we embrace the uniquely human side of our function and not cram it into the traditional metrics of inanimate objects such as inventory, money, widgets, assets and the like.  

Maybe we answer the question of “is HR different?” with a resounding YES!

I’m thinking about the many ways we can derive value as a supporting function to our business peers and believe more strongly than I ever have that no one number or group of numbers (like balanced scorecard) can adequately capture the intangible value that a great HR team and function can deliver.  Now I’m certain that this premise will be challenged by the two aforementioned groups I referenced above – metrics gurus and survey junkies.  But let’s face it, they are simply defending their trade and understandably will continue to schlep their “solutions” as all encompassing.  Sorry, I’m not buying.

Here’s a small sampling of value deriving HR activities that metrics and surveys just don’t capture:

·       A disenchanted and misplaced employee who leaves the organization because HR challenged the supervisor about the disconnect and then carefully scripted a candid discussion between supervisor and employee that averted an employee claim and freed the employee to seek a greener pasture that would better recognize and appreciate the employee’s talents.

·       Identifying a high potential and working closely with leadership to ensure this employee received stretch assignments that keeps them engaged and validates their status as a high potential in the organization.

·       Not hiring an applicant that has killer skills and qualifications, because their style and approach would be counter to organizational culture and/or would leave a path of dead bodies in the wake of their success.

·       Recognizing the signs of a disengaged employee, and then supporting them through a challenging time in their personal life, keeping the employee on track and providing them resources for effectively dealing with their personal issue in a private, confidential and professional manner thereby creating “an employee for life”.

·       Helping the executive team get a full generational perspective on health care reform and the new wellness initiatives so the executive reputation is one of being attuned to the needs of the full organization and not just the executive suite.

So what’s my point?  Good question.  Metrics can be good, surveys can too.  But don’t try to quantify something that is inherently unquantifiable.  Why don’t we come up with a metric for a mother’s love of their children?  Or what’s the metric or number for quantifying the fun of riding a roller coaster?  Or the beauty of a particularly scenic vista? 

These things are not for measure.  They are recognized, appreciated, valued and sought out.  They are not for powerpoints, bar graphs or excel spreadsheets.  They are best experienced.

Some famous person (it might have been Jack Welch) said “I’m not sure you can define leadership, but I sure know it when I see it.”  Well, great HR is much like that.  You may not be able to define it in terms of your employee engagement survey, your balanced scorecard or your financial statements, but you and your executive team will sure know it when you see it!

Inspiration and Engagement, HR Style

This post has a heavy HR bent to it so if you're not interested, move to the next one. 

 

All good leaders understand how critical it is to inspire, motivate and engage their employees.  There is all kinds of research out there that proves that engaged employees are better team players, deliver higher levels of performance and are an integral component of becoming a great company.  But most leaders don’t know how to develop a higher percentage of engaged people within your employee ranks than your competitor, and that’s the trick. 

So here’s a few tips that might prove useful if you are in a leadership role and traveling on this path. 

First, be flexible in your approach to employee engagement.  What’s the one thing I can do that will provide higher levels of employee engagement for my employees?  Nothing.  See, each of your employees will be most motivated and inspired by something different so the best you can do is be as flexible to their unique formula for inspiration and engagement.

Second, make a point of being personal.  Don’t try to get your employees personally engaged through an “arms length” leadership approach.  They want to know their leader(s) are human beings and showing that you are just as human as them will give you the opportunity for them to trust you.  Trust is a key ingredient to engagement. 

And finally, want the ‘quick and dirty’ way to quickly assess someone’s inspiration and the path to being an engaged employee?  Check out their screen saver and build your employee value proposition around that.  Screen savers and office or cube personal effects are chocked full of clues to why employees really work at your company.  Kid pictures and family? Then offer HR programs and policies that maximize time with those loved ones.  And take a look at where the pictures are taken.  Seldom are they school pictures.  Typically the picture is taken at the pool, skiing in the mountains or taken immediately following a piano recital.  Lots of hints in that picture as to how to dial into that employees passions. 

Maybe their screen saver is a picture of themselves in Thailand.  Ah, they like to travel.  Good to know.  Or maybe the screen saver is the company logo … hmmmm, probably a workaholic who is very committed to the company.  Good news!  If you are running an engineering company and their screen saver is of a favorite project the company executed it probably means the same thing.   

The point here is to really dial in on what is most personal and meaningful in their life, and try to figure out a way for the company to align with those passions.  Offering a volunteer day is a great idea for those employees who have altruistic motives.  Take a pet to work day works for those whose animals are prominently displayed on their screen savers.  Be creative and be flexible. 

Trust me when I say that whatever cost is associated with dialing in on these passions will be returned tenfold in the retention performance and engagement benefits reaped. 

It’s a great model, your employees will love it, and so will your C-suite. 

Happy engaging!