Jim Seybert's Fool's Box has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 10 seconds. If not, visit
http://jimseybert.com/blog-foolsbox
and update your bookmarks.

Everything that was here has been posted on the new site. Use the Search Feature to locate the post you're after.

6/17/2008

I prefer "Mr President"

We've been watching DVDs of The West Wing, starting with the first season and rolling through. 


I've been a huge fan for a couple of reasons:

1) It's just darn good TV - especially the first few seasons.
2) The story represents an ideal I know will never be reality, but one I nonetheless long for.
3) The show's liberal politics are right up my alley.

None of that has anything to do with something I learned during one of our recent weekend marathons.

The role of President Josh Bartlett is played by Martin Sheen, who does an excellent job adding dimension to the character. As you watch the interactivity of Bartlett with his staff you are struck by an odd mix of familiarity and formality.

The staff and the president talk personally and joke about many things, but no one EVER refers to the boss as anything other than Mr President. Not even his closest friends when they are in the President's private quarters.

At some point during the first season, the writers offer an explanation for this:

Sheen's character is met in the Oval Office by an old friend. It's obvious President Bartlett and this person go way back and that they're good friends.

During the conversation the friend turns to Bartlett and asks, "So, what do I call you here in this office?"

To which the president replies, "I prefer, Mr President. Not because I want the recognition but because I need the constant reminder that [all] this is not about me but about the office."

Question - Could we perhaps be too informal in our communication with colleagues and superiors in business?

Resting on one's title or position is a sure recipe for failure, but do we sometimes disrespect the office by being too informal? Hierarchy and org charts serve a purpose by letting people know where the buck stops and starts. 

On The West Wing, having no doubt who's in charge gives everyone a sense of security and confidence they wouldn't have otherwise.
 

6/14/2008

I can't wait 'til Monday

I am going to the Post Office on Monday to ask them to explain a piece of mail I received today. 


The package was a cardboard mailing envelope, that had been sent to me by a company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I have no idea what was in the package when it was mailed from Grand Rapids, because when it arrived in my mailbox - it was affixed with a label which read:

RECEIVED IN DAMAGED CONDITION (without contents)

The envelope looks like it had been run over by something. Three of the four sides were torn completely apart - and there was nothing inside.

I have no idea who sent me the package, nor have I a clue as to what may have been inside. But I am nearly 100% certain the person mailing it took it to the Post Office in much better condition than what was delivered to me.

The sticker from the USPS sounds like they have no idea what happened to the package - but if it was given to them in one piece, shouldn't they be responsible for the damage? And for the lost content? 

You'd think they would at the very least send the mailer a check for the postage. The sender paid the USPS to deliver the contents of the package to me. The PO failed in this and the sender shouldn't have to pay for services not rendered.