The First and the Last: The Top and the Bottom

Recently I was given the opportunity to start the process of taking on more responsibility at work. Part of this increased responsibility will require a higher level of leadership than was required of me before.

As I move forward with the process I find myself often thinking about what kind of a manager/leader I want to be.

Years ago I was introduced to the concept of the upside-down pyramid as an organizational model.

I believe that I may have first seen the illustration and read about the concept in a book called Rich Dad, Poor Dad that was written by Robert Kiyosaki and Sharon Lechter.

Now, I will stop and say that a great deal of what I found in this book was, even to my untrained eye, dangerous financial practice. However, I did latch onto the concept of the upward pyramid.

Over the years I have heard others use the concept of the upside-down pyramid. I don't know whether they picked this up directly from the book or through a third party, but one thing I have found is that I seemed to have picked up a different meaning in the concept than most other people.

When I think of a pyramid there are certain word pictures that come to mind.

I think about the ancient pyramids; I think of massive, expensive objects that were built on the backs of many (literally) to glorify one man. The men to whom these pyramids were dedicated considered themselves to be gods and often treated those that helped build the massive structures as tools to be simply used up and replaced.

I also think about the traditional corporate, top down, structure.

I think of massive companies that grew on the effort and talent of many to make a select few (sometimes one man) very wealthy. The men who stood at the top of these modern day pyramids often lived in opulence while giving little thought to the people that made the business work; treating them instead like tools to be simply used up and replaced.

Then I think about what an upside-down pyramid, and anti-pyramid if you will, would look like. I think of an organization that takes the opposite view of the people that make the thing work.

Where a pyramid system is cold, demanding, and demeaning the anti-pyramid system is caring, empowering, and enriching.

I think one of the biggest differences for me comes when I remember something my grandfather always taught me: Manure always runs down hill.

LET THAT SINK IN FOR A MINUTE!

In the traditional pyramid, whenever there is a mistake the blame is passed down hill from the one at the top all the way down to the many at the bottom.

If there is a problem with production, layoffs sweep through the bottom level of the pyramid. If there is a problem with morale, the one at the top blames those at the bottom.

In an anti-pyramid, when there is a mistake the blame is owned by the one at the top.

If there is a problem with production the cuts come for the few at the "bottom" first rather than the many at the "top." If there is a problem with morale the one at the "bottom" takes responsibility for the problems.

The more I learn about leadership the more I realize that nearly every problem in any organization can be traced DIRECTLY back to the leadership.

I guess for me, what the anti-pyramid has always meant to me goes beyond mere actions. It has to permeate the thoughts and behaviors of the leadership.

Think about it this way.

If one guy in the mail room makes a mistake there are rarely company wide effects; but when the CEO makes a mistake EVERYONE feels it.

Because of this, I see that as I move into positions of higher responsibility and authority the thing I must always remember is all those who depend on me to be and give my best. As I move toward being first I must strive to be the last; as I move to the top I must remember I am the bottom.

So, what kind of leader do I want to be?

I want to be a "The Buck Stops Here" kinda guy. I want to be the guy that you go to when it hits the fan because you know I am committed to your success. I want to be the guy that believes in you even when you don't. And when the hard work starts I want to be the guy right there in the trenches with you.

It won't be easy.

I will be fighting the conventional wisdom that says I should look out for myself. I will be fighting that voice that will tell me, "Kick back and relax. You earned this. Let everyone else do the hard stuff now." But I believe it will happen.

Why?

I have seen the pyramids... I want to build something better!

Restaurant Economics

What is my "fair share?"

Is it my moral and civic obligation to take from my pocket to supplement the lack in another's?

These, and other similar questions, are floating around. Recently, a wealthy man named Warren Buffett even wrote an op/ed giving his opinion that the federal government should stop "coddling the mega-rich."

When you don't have a much it is great to think about how the "rich" might be forced to give up part of what they have to give you more, but few people think about what redistribution means in real life. So, in an effort to inject a little reality into the issue I have decided to write a post about how "fair share" might look if it was imposed where I work as a waiter.

Let us pretend that tomorrow the management came to all the servers and informed us that it had come to their attention that there was often a large discrepancy between the highest and lowest earning server each night and that that a new "fair" system was going to be put in place to correct this.

This new system would require all the servers to pool their tips at the end of the night so that the could be redistributed more evenly.

But what is the best way to divide the tips?

If they are divided based on production (total sales) it is unlikely that the outcome will be much different than letting each server keep their original tips.

Should the tips be divided based on need?

If so, do I get more than a single person simply because I have a wife and two children? Would someone get more because they chose to live in a more expensive apartment/house? How do we keep everyone from artificially inflating their need in order to get a bigger piece of the tip money? Would we all have to divulge our personal finances in order to assure the tips are distributed appropriately? Would the group of servers have a say in my personal money matters since they are paying for my financial choices?

And then there is the question of honesty and integrity. What if people start finding loopholes to reduce the amount they pay into the tip pool or increase the disbursement they receive?

As you can see, the new system quickly adds a great deal of complication that would require massive oversight. So we may have to take a portion of the tips to pay someone to be responsible for managing the new system; since it would be unfair to ask someone to take on such a task without compensation.

But now the distributions to each person are even smaller because of the money paid to the manager. And as the pay-outs got smaller more servers would likely find ways to cheat the system, requiring more managers at a further expense to the tip pool.

What if the tips were distributed simply based on hours worked?

How then would we ensure that members of the team gave their full effort to serve the guests and generate tips for the pool?

How does the group address a server that is under-performing because they know it will not effect their pay?

Does the group reward a server that is working hard to increase the tips they add to the pool?

I can tell you right now what the response would be if the servers were told tomorrow that they had to pool their tips. Let's just say it would make the recent riots in the U.K. looks like a bunch of Boy Scouts sitting around a campfire singing "Kumbaya."

But isn't this "pooling" essentially what is happening on a larger scale with our current tax system?

The bottom 47% of wage earning Americans pay no federal income tax yet receive the most from the government in the form of aid. The aid is disbursed based on need, so some have found ways to increase their need without increasing their contribution to the system.

Those that produce on a high level are expected to subsidize those who produce on a lower level, or even those who don't produce at all.

According to the National Taxpayer's Union, in 2008 the top 1% of tax payers in America accounted for 38.02% of federal income tax revenue. The top 5% of tax payers in America accounted for 58.62% of federal income tax revenue.

Now explain to me how it is fair that we ask the top 5% of the nation to pay nearly 60% the taxes.

Could we see UK-style riots in the US?

I will be totally honest in saying that I have not been able to follow news of the riots in the United Kingdom as closely as I would like. Part of that is due to time constraints and part is due to the fact that most of the news I see is merely that the riots are happening with little elaboration beyond that fact.

Despite all of that, what little I do know of the riots has lead me to question whether we could see this type of mayhem spark in the US.

A brief look at history tells me that chances are good that the US could face the same troubles from the UK and several other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, if the unrest of the 1960's is any indicator, I would say it is surprising that we have not seen more widespread problems.

But what is the cause of the riots in the UK? Interestingly enough, candid interviews with the rioters themselves does not reveal a clear motive.

Some talk about anger over the recent cuts in government funds for youth programs and tuition assistance. Some talk about class inequality and how the riots are a way to balance the economic playing field. Some say that the riots are a result of pent up frustration and teenage angst spilling over. However, I think that one answer is the most telling.

When pressed for a deeper explanation for their violent actions, many of the youth rioters default to answering that it is simply something to do. Which brings me to my own opinion on what is happening in the UK.

In my opinion the main issue at hand is the socialization of children.

What I mean by this is the change from the historical role of the parent raising and disciplining the child to a system where the "state" is responsible for raising and correcting children.

In 1986, a program that became known as ChildLine. While this program started out with the best of intentions, as a 24/7 confidential call line for abused children, it gradually became a means for children to report exaggerated or non-existent claims of abuse against their parents or guardians as retribution for being punished. This allowed the children to exercise control over their parents rather than the other way around.

In my opinion, this program was not the cause but rather the symptom of an "enlightened" view of child rearing. Another symptom of this new progressive style of raising children was the "Hug the Hoodie" program that the now Prime Minster of Great Britain started.

The idea that was dubbed the "Hug the Hoodie" campaign was all about a soft approach to juvenile law breakers and trouble makers. Problem youth were given a slap on the wrist, given an Anti-Social Behavior Order (which became a sort of badge of honor among the young criminals), or placed in detention centers that offered amenities like Play Station consoles.

The problem is that young people need boundaries.

They NEED someone to tell them "No!"

They need someone to who will set consequences for certain actions and carry through when the line is crossed.

They don't need their parents to be their friend.

I am sure most of these kids have friends, and we see that has done them absolutely no good at all.

The really scary thing is that from what I see, not only could we see UK style riots in the US, I think they have already started.

In case you missed it, last week there were mobs of young people attacking innocent fair-goers at the Wisconsin State Fair.