Saturday, May 26, 2012
____ or Get Off The Pot
“You don't make spending decisions, investment decisions, hiring decisions, or whether-you're-going-to-look-for-a-job decisions when you don't know what's going to happen.”
Michael Bloomberg
The good news is that we are working a lot of searches these days. The bad news is that a lot of these searches seem to go on forever. I’ve been in the headhunting business for over 10 years and spent 25 years in the transportation industry. I can honestly say that I’ve never seen it take longer for people to make a decision when it comes to extending or accepting a job offer. It’s crazy.
I met with the owner of a company a few weeks ago. Most of his management team was in the meeting. The owner was excited about filling this key position and was raring to go. He asked me how quickly we could move on it. I told him that we would have a least two highly qualified candidates within a week. Based on the job specs, I knew that I had at least three or four candidates (probably more) who were ready to make a move and would be interested in this opportunity.
I also looked the owner in the eye and then glanced around at his management team and said, “As long as you folks respond to our candidate submissions, interview them or tell me why you won’t, we can complete this search in a matter of weeks, not months. But what we’re seeing is that most organizations are taking 2 or 3 weeks just to schedule the first phone interviews and if there are multiple candidates involved, we burn 4 to 6 weeks just getting to the point where there is an in-person interview.”
Well, you can guess the rest of the story…although we submitted two dead-on point candidates within 48 hours; we will be three weeks along before the first telephone interviews occur. The owner has handed the process off to a couple of his key people and I’m sure that he will call me in a week or two wanting to know what’s going on, why haven’t we found someone yet. This call will be after his people have thrown me under the bus. I’ll end up sending the owner date-stamped copies of our candidate submissions, his people will get pissed at me and then go about picking the candidates apart in such away that the owner will ultimately conclude that they need to find another search firm. (We know that’s how it works, because sometimes we are “the other search firm”. Anytime a company comes to us bitching about another firm and we know that firm to be competent and capable, big red flags go up. The problem is nearly always the client, not the search firm.)
And we are seeing almost as many delays and stop-starts on the candidate side. It’s not unusual to submit candidates who say they are motivated to make a job change, only to have them bail out before the first interview. And certainly, we are seeing candidates turn down offers or even worse accept offers then later change their minds.
While I agree with Mayor Bloomberg, quoted above, that uncertainty has a lot to do with the struggle to make decisions, I think there are other more fundamental issues here. Some are specific to the transportation and logistics market while others are in play regardless of the industry segment. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be writing about the delays and difficulties we are seeing with clients and candidates, how they impact the search process and ultimately what it means to their relationship with the search firm.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Study This
The headline reads: “This Is Not a Joke. Government Issues a Study of a Study About Studies.”
It gets worse. This does not involve the EPA or Education or Welfare or even the Treasury. It’s the freakin’ Pentagon and the story goes like this:
“The Pentagon was inundated with so many studies in 2010 that it commissioned a study to determine how much it cost to produce all those studies.
Now the Government Accountability Office has reviewed the Pentagon’s study and concluded in a report this week that it’s a flop.
The study of a study of studies began in 2010 when Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained that his department was “awash in taskings for reports and studies.” He wanted to know how much they cost.
Two years later, the Pentagon review is still continuing, which prompted Congress to ask the GAO to look over the Pentagon’s shoulder. What they found lacked military precision.
The GAO found only nine studies that had been scrutinized by the Pentagon review, but the military was unable to “readily retrieve documentation” for six of the reports.
The Department of Defense’s “approach is not fully consistent with relevant cost estimating best practices and cost accounting standards,” the GAO concluded. In fact, they often did not include items like manpower, the report found.
The Pentagon “partially concurs” with the GAO’s report.
The cost of the study of the study of the studies was not available from the GAO.”
This is crazy. But it has to be true, because you just can’t make up stuff like this. I have concluded that our entire government and all of its agencies are in effect run by consultants who think they have an unlimited budget. In this case, Defense Secretary Gates knew there were a lot of reports and studies being done by his department. But instead of addressing the problem, he wanted to study it. And the first step in studying it was to find out how much it was costing. Either Gates wanted to make a case for reducing the volume of reports and studies or he wanted to justify increasing his budget to cover the cost of reports and studies. Or maybe Gates was just fed up and wanted to make a point before handing the keys over to Leon Panetta and leaving the building. Given that he was a Republican and a holdover from the Bush administration, my guess is that the Obama administration really did have him buried in requests for more and more information. That’s not a slam on Obama, it’s just the way politics work and it’s what happens when a new party takes over. There’s no telling how much money is spent on the information gathering process when there is a change in the White House.
When it was all said and done, the study of the study of the studies was inconclusive. We got very little out of it other than the DOD doesn’t know how to study a study of studies. We also got another example of what’s wrong with too much government having too much money AND being overly politicized. The barrage of information requests that hit Secretary Gates was all about a new administration wanting to not just cover all the bases, but to also cover their ass (CYA) and, if in the process, something turns up that might embarrass the prior administration and the other party, all the better.
In business, we also see the CYA project in operation when a new leadership team takes over an organization. I hear it all the time from newly placed executives. “You would not believe what these guys were doing”. “I don’t know how they stayed in business.” “It’s going to take a lot longer to fix this mess than I expected.” … and on it goes.
But where business differs from politics, is that the CYA/Blame The Other guy effort is just a sideshow, not the main event. When it’s all said and done, business leaders know that they must produce even after resetting expectations and making sure everyone knows what a screwed up mess they inherited. When business leaders continue to put all their energy into playing CYA/Blame The Other Guy, they soon become “the other guy”. They don’t stick around long. Ultimately, shareholders demand results, not excuses.
Citizens also demand results from their government. The problem is that we can’t agree on what those results should look like. In business, there may be some disagreement about strategy and financial objectives, but there is usually agreement about the general concepts of profitability and return on investment. The same cannot be said of our fellow Americans’ expectations of their government. To make matters worse, we essentially have only two flavors of government to choose from which further polarizes the nation.
And those “two flavors” are for the most part bought and paid for by special interests groups. Is this a great country or what?
So we end up in three camps (D’s, R’s and I’s) with two choices (D or R). Every two years we stir the full pot in the House and parts of the pot in the Senate. Every four years we stir the big Presidential pot along with all of the other pots. The politicians continue to play the CYA/Blame The Other Guy game and prepare for the next election. As long as we cannot agree on what we want from government, this is the game that will define the winners and losers in politics. There is no “hope” for “change” unless we change the game.
It gets worse. This does not involve the EPA or Education or Welfare or even the Treasury. It’s the freakin’ Pentagon and the story goes like this:
“The Pentagon was inundated with so many studies in 2010 that it commissioned a study to determine how much it cost to produce all those studies.
Now the Government Accountability Office has reviewed the Pentagon’s study and concluded in a report this week that it’s a flop.
The study of a study of studies began in 2010 when Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained that his department was “awash in taskings for reports and studies.” He wanted to know how much they cost.
Two years later, the Pentagon review is still continuing, which prompted Congress to ask the GAO to look over the Pentagon’s shoulder. What they found lacked military precision.
The GAO found only nine studies that had been scrutinized by the Pentagon review, but the military was unable to “readily retrieve documentation” for six of the reports.
The Department of Defense’s “approach is not fully consistent with relevant cost estimating best practices and cost accounting standards,” the GAO concluded. In fact, they often did not include items like manpower, the report found.
The Pentagon “partially concurs” with the GAO’s report.
The cost of the study of the study of the studies was not available from the GAO.”
This is crazy. But it has to be true, because you just can’t make up stuff like this. I have concluded that our entire government and all of its agencies are in effect run by consultants who think they have an unlimited budget. In this case, Defense Secretary Gates knew there were a lot of reports and studies being done by his department. But instead of addressing the problem, he wanted to study it. And the first step in studying it was to find out how much it was costing. Either Gates wanted to make a case for reducing the volume of reports and studies or he wanted to justify increasing his budget to cover the cost of reports and studies. Or maybe Gates was just fed up and wanted to make a point before handing the keys over to Leon Panetta and leaving the building. Given that he was a Republican and a holdover from the Bush administration, my guess is that the Obama administration really did have him buried in requests for more and more information. That’s not a slam on Obama, it’s just the way politics work and it’s what happens when a new party takes over. There’s no telling how much money is spent on the information gathering process when there is a change in the White House.
When it was all said and done, the study of the study of the studies was inconclusive. We got very little out of it other than the DOD doesn’t know how to study a study of studies. We also got another example of what’s wrong with too much government having too much money AND being overly politicized. The barrage of information requests that hit Secretary Gates was all about a new administration wanting to not just cover all the bases, but to also cover their ass (CYA) and, if in the process, something turns up that might embarrass the prior administration and the other party, all the better.
In business, we also see the CYA project in operation when a new leadership team takes over an organization. I hear it all the time from newly placed executives. “You would not believe what these guys were doing”. “I don’t know how they stayed in business.” “It’s going to take a lot longer to fix this mess than I expected.” … and on it goes.
But where business differs from politics, is that the CYA/Blame The Other guy effort is just a sideshow, not the main event. When it’s all said and done, business leaders know that they must produce even after resetting expectations and making sure everyone knows what a screwed up mess they inherited. When business leaders continue to put all their energy into playing CYA/Blame The Other Guy, they soon become “the other guy”. They don’t stick around long. Ultimately, shareholders demand results, not excuses.
Citizens also demand results from their government. The problem is that we can’t agree on what those results should look like. In business, there may be some disagreement about strategy and financial objectives, but there is usually agreement about the general concepts of profitability and return on investment. The same cannot be said of our fellow Americans’ expectations of their government. To make matters worse, we essentially have only two flavors of government to choose from which further polarizes the nation.
And those “two flavors” are for the most part bought and paid for by special interests groups. Is this a great country or what?
So we end up in three camps (D’s, R’s and I’s) with two choices (D or R). Every two years we stir the full pot in the House and parts of the pot in the Senate. Every four years we stir the big Presidential pot along with all of the other pots. The politicians continue to play the CYA/Blame The Other Guy game and prepare for the next election. As long as we cannot agree on what we want from government, this is the game that will define the winners and losers in politics. There is no “hope” for “change” unless we change the game.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
To Read The Resume or Not To Read The Resume
Recently this little nugget found its way to my inbox:
Job recruitment website The Ladders conducted a formal survey of job recruiters using eye-tracking technology to figure out what matters most on your resume. Over the course of ten weeks, actual job recruiters' eye movements were measured as they looked through resumes and online profiles, creating visual heat maps. This allowed researchers to determine how long recruiters spent studying which aspects of resumes, and just as importantly, what content was largely ignored.
A key finding of the study: Recruiters spend nearly 80% of their time focusing on six different areas of a resume. These most-important aspects are:
• your name
• current title/company
• previous title/company
• current position start and end dates
• previous position start and end dates
• education
On average, recruiters spent six seconds sizing up these aspects to make the initial decision on whether to trash your resume or consider you for the position. The study also found that visual features such as pictures, graphs, and ads (on employment-related sites like LinkedIn) are distracting, eating up precious time and reducing the recruiter's decision-making ability.
Assuming I’ve had an adequate amount of caffeine, I can read six items such as these in six seconds. (Or maybe they meant six seconds per item, I can definitely do that…even without caffeine). However, I choose not to read resumes in this fashion. As a headhunter, which is sort of like a “job recruiter” only better, I have a real quick draw when it comes to shooting resumes. I don’t need to look at these six items or any six items to tell if I’m interested. I specialize in recruiting experienced management and executive level talent for transportation, logistics and supply chain management organizations. If you aren’t an experienced manager or executive in transportation, logistics or supply chain management, I don’t need to know your name, where you went to school or anything else. That may seem rude and insensitive, but that’s just the way it is. I look at your current title/company. 99% of the time, that tells me whether or not I want to read more. If it does not, then I look at your previous title and company. If the light does not come on for me at that point, then we’re done.
Thankfully, most of the resumes I receive are from experienced managers and executives who work in transportation, logistics or supply chain management. And after my quick glance to confirm that fact, I tend to spend a lot more than a few seconds reading a resume. The first thing I focus on is work history and the frequency of job changes. If there have been a lot of job changes, I want to know why. We frequently ask candidates to fill out a questionnaire that addresses issues which are generally not covered on the resume. Job changes and the reasons for those changes are a key part of that questionnaire.
The second thing I look at is “career progression”. Whether within the same organization or as the candidate has changed companies, the key question is: Are they moving up, moving down or just moving sideways? And progression is not just job titles. A VP in a small operation may be the equivalent of an Operations Manager in a much larger operation. Experienced headhunters who specialize in particular industries recognize and appreciate the differences between companies and how those differences translate into job titles.
The third thing I look for are responsibilities and accomplishments. I want to know the size and scope of your responsibilities and the more these are expressed in measurables the better. How much revenue, how many direct reports, what size budget, how many locations, etc etc ? Then more importantly, what did you accomplish, what were the results? Grew revenue, lowered costs, improved service, reduced accidents and increased profitability. Positive results will motivate me to interview you. But, be prepared…I will ask HOW you did it. Don’t make up stuff just to load your resume. Headhunters and hiring authorities will want to get “behind” the numbers. They better be real and they better be yours.
So work history, career progression and responsibilities/accomplishments are the big three for me in determining if I should invest time interviewing a candidate. If someone appears to be a dead-on match for an existing job opening, I will likely talk to them even if their resume is “weak” in one or more of these key areas. But regardless of matches with existing openings, if I get a candidate who has a stable work history, a solid record of career progression, has held positions with significant management and/or executive responsibilities and has achieved meaningful business results in those positions, we are going to have a conversation.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Living On The Edge...Part II
Last June I wrote about Congressman Anthony Weiner’s crash and burn. (http://www.headhunterpov.net/2011/06/living-on-edge.html). Now we have the sad tale of Coach Bobby Petrino. I went back and read “Living On The Edge” and thought about Petrino. Some things never change. Last year I wrote these words:
“The Edge” is where you hear the Sirens’ songs, you think all things are possible and you feel invincible. “The Edge” is where lies become truth, it's always someone else's fault, you deserve to be happy and there are no absolutes. “The Edge” is where you ultimately get permission to launch and the final invitation to fall.”
I think that pretty much sums it up for Petrino. When you’re hot, you’re hot. And Petrino was certainly a “hot” coach. The big man in Arkansas who had resurrected the Razorback football program. Win football games at Arkansas and you get the keys to the state. You may even earn some “get-of-jail-free” cards. It just depends on the crime.
So what was Petrino thinking? Some would say that he wasn’t thinking or he was thinking with the wrong head. (If I have to explain that to you, just stop reading now.) I believe that it just boils down to a 51 year old guy enjoying a relationship with a young (young enough to be his daughter) woman. It made him happy and he deserves to be happy. A happy coach is a better coach and a better coach wins more games. And when you win enough, you can have your cake and eat it too. People will understand and even if they don’t understand they will forgive you. What choice do they have? He’s Bobby Petrino. He’s special.
And then there is Petrino’s family. Oh yeah, those people. I don’t know what his marriage was like or how things were with his kids. Not my business. But, clearly he was willing to risk it all because this other relationship made him happy. And like we all know…he’s a winner….he deserves to be happy. People will understand. People will forgive. For that matter, they may never even know. He might be invisible as well as bulletproof. “All things are possible” out there on “The Edge”.
But just like Congressman Weiner discovered. A funny thing happens when you get caught with your pants down (literally or otherwise). A congressman or a winning football coach caught with his pants down is not just another guy caught with his pants down. Power and privilege are dangerous escorts. They not only take you farther out on “The Edge”, they take you farther up. And when you fall, the fall is indeed great. And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put you back together again.
“The Edge” is where you hear the Sirens’ songs, you think all things are possible and you feel invincible. “The Edge” is where lies become truth, it's always someone else's fault, you deserve to be happy and there are no absolutes. “The Edge” is where you ultimately get permission to launch and the final invitation to fall.”
I think that pretty much sums it up for Petrino. When you’re hot, you’re hot. And Petrino was certainly a “hot” coach. The big man in Arkansas who had resurrected the Razorback football program. Win football games at Arkansas and you get the keys to the state. You may even earn some “get-of-jail-free” cards. It just depends on the crime.
So what was Petrino thinking? Some would say that he wasn’t thinking or he was thinking with the wrong head. (If I have to explain that to you, just stop reading now.) I believe that it just boils down to a 51 year old guy enjoying a relationship with a young (young enough to be his daughter) woman. It made him happy and he deserves to be happy. A happy coach is a better coach and a better coach wins more games. And when you win enough, you can have your cake and eat it too. People will understand and even if they don’t understand they will forgive you. What choice do they have? He’s Bobby Petrino. He’s special.
And then there is Petrino’s family. Oh yeah, those people. I don’t know what his marriage was like or how things were with his kids. Not my business. But, clearly he was willing to risk it all because this other relationship made him happy. And like we all know…he’s a winner….he deserves to be happy. People will understand. People will forgive. For that matter, they may never even know. He might be invisible as well as bulletproof. “All things are possible” out there on “The Edge”.
But just like Congressman Weiner discovered. A funny thing happens when you get caught with your pants down (literally or otherwise). A congressman or a winning football coach caught with his pants down is not just another guy caught with his pants down. Power and privilege are dangerous escorts. They not only take you farther out on “The Edge”, they take you farther up. And when you fall, the fall is indeed great. And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put you back together again.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Good News
It has been brought to my attention that most of my recent blog postings have tended toward negativity and sarcasm with a heavy dose of dark humor. That’s just my style. I tend to go through life with low expectations and skepticism that any good thing will not last very long. Of course, I have heard that all things work together for the good of those who love the Lord. I can only surmise that my love for Him must somehow be lacking. Thus, I am at once both a believer and a doubter, much like the old Danish philosopher/theologian Soren Kierkegaard who wrote, “If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I DO NOT believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I MUST believe.”
He also asked this question: “What if everything in the world were a misunderstanding, what if laughter were really tears?”
So I have learned not to hope long for too much, nor to enjoy a victory beyond tomorrow. That new wears off quicker than old and that “yes” is just as likely to mean “no” or “maybe” once you have read the fine print. Things are never as bad as you think they are…they are usually worse. And at the end of this movie, all of the actors are dead. But the most important thing I’ve learned is that God is God and I am not. I still don’t understand why bad things happen to innocent people and I can’t explain why the world is so screwed up other than it probably has something to do with gravity and a lot to do with human selfishness and plain old-fashioned sin.
But I do know why this is such a special time of the year. It is when we remember that over two thousand years ago God became one of us, was crucified by us, died for us and on the third day arose and is with us. This is Good News and the one great Truth that even doubters and skeptics can believe in.
He also asked this question: “What if everything in the world were a misunderstanding, what if laughter were really tears?”
So I have learned not to hope long for too much, nor to enjoy a victory beyond tomorrow. That new wears off quicker than old and that “yes” is just as likely to mean “no” or “maybe” once you have read the fine print. Things are never as bad as you think they are…they are usually worse. And at the end of this movie, all of the actors are dead. But the most important thing I’ve learned is that God is God and I am not. I still don’t understand why bad things happen to innocent people and I can’t explain why the world is so screwed up other than it probably has something to do with gravity and a lot to do with human selfishness and plain old-fashioned sin.
But I do know why this is such a special time of the year. It is when we remember that over two thousand years ago God became one of us, was crucified by us, died for us and on the third day arose and is with us. This is Good News and the one great Truth that even doubters and skeptics can believe in.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Another Shot In The Dark
Anybody hear about a 17 year old kid being shot and killed in Sanford, Florida?
Did anybody NOT hear about it? I’ve really heard about enough and I think it’s ridiculous that the left-leaning media and all the “ain’t we got it awful” whiners are using Trayvon Martin’s death to push their gun control and social justice agendas.
However, I may fool some of you with my position on this specific event. Based on what I’ve heard thus far (and I’m sure it’s not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but I’ll bet it’s pretty close), George Zimmerman was at fault. And, I don’t necessarily think it was a racist deal. My gut tells me that Zimmerman would have pursued the kid regardless of color. And, if a guy in plain clothes jumps out of an unmarked vehicle and starts chasing me, I might have reacted the same way Trayvon Martin reacted. There’s just no way to make Trayvon Martin look like the bad guy here. Zimmerman was told by the police, not to pursue, and he ignored the order. Sounds to me like an over-zealous, wanna-be cop just figuring that this tall person in a hoodie needed to be checked out. When Trayvon didn’t stop and raise his hands (and I don’t blame him for not stopping and raising his hands), it turned into a chase, a fight and a deadly shooting. All senseless and all on George Zimmerman. To all my fellow rednecks out there, I’m sorry but that’s how I see it. And, yes, Zimmerman should have been arrested.
Now for the collateral damage report. Once again the progressives will go after gun owners, their rights to carry guns, various “stand your ground” laws and the inherent racism that infects all us “gun people”. As usual, they will take a situation that could be used as a real, albeit tragic, teaching moment and turn into a political fuse. It’s so sad.
What we should be talking about is educating citizens (that would include appointed neighborhood watchers as well as the rest of us) about what we should and should not do when we see suspicious activity. Don’t try to get in my head and guilt me about what I may consider suspicious activity. Just make sure I respond appropriately when I think I see it. For most of us, it’s not about race. It’s about experience and observation. (For example, I am very much inclined to be suspicious of a tatted up white guy with meth mouth.) I don’t know if I would have been suspicious of Trayvon Martin or any tall guy in a hoodie, regardless of their race. It would depend on the situation. I doubt that I would have called the police even if I had been suspicious. Again, it would depend on the situation. I definitely know that I would not have chased him down and put us both in danger.
The progressives will argue that if Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun, he probably would not have pursued Martin and he sure as heck would not have shot him. But their argument is hollow. There are simply way too many instances where a citizen with a gun has saved himself or someone else from death or serious injury. And no one knows the degree to which the threat of an armed homeowner, keeps the bad guys from kicking down the door. But because we are missing the real point of the Trayvon Martin tragedy; over-zealous wanna-be cops and well-intentioned, sometimes well-armed citizens will continue to step over the line and do something really stupid and often deadly.
Did anybody NOT hear about it? I’ve really heard about enough and I think it’s ridiculous that the left-leaning media and all the “ain’t we got it awful” whiners are using Trayvon Martin’s death to push their gun control and social justice agendas.
However, I may fool some of you with my position on this specific event. Based on what I’ve heard thus far (and I’m sure it’s not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but I’ll bet it’s pretty close), George Zimmerman was at fault. And, I don’t necessarily think it was a racist deal. My gut tells me that Zimmerman would have pursued the kid regardless of color. And, if a guy in plain clothes jumps out of an unmarked vehicle and starts chasing me, I might have reacted the same way Trayvon Martin reacted. There’s just no way to make Trayvon Martin look like the bad guy here. Zimmerman was told by the police, not to pursue, and he ignored the order. Sounds to me like an over-zealous, wanna-be cop just figuring that this tall person in a hoodie needed to be checked out. When Trayvon didn’t stop and raise his hands (and I don’t blame him for not stopping and raising his hands), it turned into a chase, a fight and a deadly shooting. All senseless and all on George Zimmerman. To all my fellow rednecks out there, I’m sorry but that’s how I see it. And, yes, Zimmerman should have been arrested.
Now for the collateral damage report. Once again the progressives will go after gun owners, their rights to carry guns, various “stand your ground” laws and the inherent racism that infects all us “gun people”. As usual, they will take a situation that could be used as a real, albeit tragic, teaching moment and turn into a political fuse. It’s so sad.
What we should be talking about is educating citizens (that would include appointed neighborhood watchers as well as the rest of us) about what we should and should not do when we see suspicious activity. Don’t try to get in my head and guilt me about what I may consider suspicious activity. Just make sure I respond appropriately when I think I see it. For most of us, it’s not about race. It’s about experience and observation. (For example, I am very much inclined to be suspicious of a tatted up white guy with meth mouth.) I don’t know if I would have been suspicious of Trayvon Martin or any tall guy in a hoodie, regardless of their race. It would depend on the situation. I doubt that I would have called the police even if I had been suspicious. Again, it would depend on the situation. I definitely know that I would not have chased him down and put us both in danger.
The progressives will argue that if Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun, he probably would not have pursued Martin and he sure as heck would not have shot him. But their argument is hollow. There are simply way too many instances where a citizen with a gun has saved himself or someone else from death or serious injury. And no one knows the degree to which the threat of an armed homeowner, keeps the bad guys from kicking down the door. But because we are missing the real point of the Trayvon Martin tragedy; over-zealous wanna-be cops and well-intentioned, sometimes well-armed citizens will continue to step over the line and do something really stupid and often deadly.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
That Is Just So Fargo
“There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it.”.- Marge Gunderson, from the movie Fargo.
Fargo, the award-winning movie by the Coen brothers, is one of my all-time favorites. Of course the characters and their accents are exaggerated, but if you’ve spent much time in that part of the world, you can recognize and appreciate the exaggerations. The movies and television do the same thing with Texans and Southerners and people from “Noo Joisee”. It’s all part of story telling plus it saves a lot of time and wasted dialogue.
Recently, a NLOL (nice little old lady) from Grand Forks, North Dakota (just go north out of Fargo on I-29, can’t miss it) made headlines. Her name is Marilyn Hagerty. Marilyn writes the Eatbeat column for the Grand Forks Herald. She is about the same age as the other, more famous Marilyn would have been if she were still alive. Marilyn Hagerty is 85, could pass for 70 and my guess is that she too was a hot little number back in the day.
Ms. Hagerty recently did a review of the new Olive Garden restaurant in Grand Forks. It was a very positive review and I can only imagine that the waiting time for a table there has increased considerably. Grand Forks has a population of just over 50,000 and the Greater Grand Forks area population is around 100,000. Most of the nation only hears about Grand Forks when the Red River floods. (That would be the “other Red River”, not the one I live near which is more famous and flows in the right direction.) Grand Forks is actually quite nice. The economy is diverse and the unemployment rate is low (less than 3% based on the latest BLS report). Life is good in Grand Forks and an Olive Garden restaurant was long overdue.
However, as so often happens in this age of instant information, Ms. Hagerty’s review of the new Olive Garden went viral. It seems that people in the big cities, especially those on the east and west coasts (aka blue states) got a real hoot out of Ms. Hagerty’s review.
It was just so…well, it was just so Fargo. Couldn’t you just see Marge Gunderson, “with child” and in uniform sitting there chowing down with her duck-carving chubby hubby Norm? And when the review mentions “two, long warm breadsticks” what sharp wit among us could let that pass by with a phallic reference? And who could possibly hold back laughter when Ms. Hagerty wrote “All in all, it is the largest and most beautiful restaurant now operating in Grand Forks. It attracts visitors from out of town as well as people who live here.” How embarrassing. Clearly, the Grand Forks Chamber of Commerce needs to shut this lady down.
Interestingly, her review got so much attention on the internet that Ms. Hagerty ended up on national television. She was initially interviewed on a couple of the early morning news/talk shows and later got on during primetime and late night. She is a delightful lady and didn’t seem to be upset that so many people were making fun of her Olive Garden review. She admitted that when she was told that she had “gone viral”, at first she had no clue what that meant. Watching and listening to the interviewers speak with Ms. Hagerty, I could sense that they were a bit uncomfortable. Instinctively, they seem to know there is something fundamentally out of whack with our culture when a nice, little article, by a NLOL, about a new restaurant opening in and nice, little city in the nation’s heartland becomes a joke.
My guess is that early on, as the “virus” was spreading, it wasn’t widely known that the article had been written by this sweet little 85 year old lady. Then we meet this sweet little 85 year old lady and suddenly everyone is trying to figure out how to “make nice” and put a “heart-warming” human interest spin on the whole thing without sounding as down-home and corny as the article they were making fun of in the first place.
So what’s my point? Just this: when you get away from the 5-star, $$$$ restaurants where for a lot of money someone will tell you what you are eating (because otherwise you would have no clue) and how it was prepared (so you will be convinced you could never cook such a meal) and somehow you still go home hungry because smaller portions make better “presentations”; you end up eating with real people in real places like Grand Forks, North Dakota, U.S.A
Fargo, the award-winning movie by the Coen brothers, is one of my all-time favorites. Of course the characters and their accents are exaggerated, but if you’ve spent much time in that part of the world, you can recognize and appreciate the exaggerations. The movies and television do the same thing with Texans and Southerners and people from “Noo Joisee”. It’s all part of story telling plus it saves a lot of time and wasted dialogue.
Recently, a NLOL (nice little old lady) from Grand Forks, North Dakota (just go north out of Fargo on I-29, can’t miss it) made headlines. Her name is Marilyn Hagerty. Marilyn writes the Eatbeat column for the Grand Forks Herald. She is about the same age as the other, more famous Marilyn would have been if she were still alive. Marilyn Hagerty is 85, could pass for 70 and my guess is that she too was a hot little number back in the day.
Ms. Hagerty recently did a review of the new Olive Garden restaurant in Grand Forks. It was a very positive review and I can only imagine that the waiting time for a table there has increased considerably. Grand Forks has a population of just over 50,000 and the Greater Grand Forks area population is around 100,000. Most of the nation only hears about Grand Forks when the Red River floods. (That would be the “other Red River”, not the one I live near which is more famous and flows in the right direction.) Grand Forks is actually quite nice. The economy is diverse and the unemployment rate is low (less than 3% based on the latest BLS report). Life is good in Grand Forks and an Olive Garden restaurant was long overdue.
However, as so often happens in this age of instant information, Ms. Hagerty’s review of the new Olive Garden went viral. It seems that people in the big cities, especially those on the east and west coasts (aka blue states) got a real hoot out of Ms. Hagerty’s review.
It was just so…well, it was just so Fargo. Couldn’t you just see Marge Gunderson, “with child” and in uniform sitting there chowing down with her duck-carving chubby hubby Norm? And when the review mentions “two, long warm breadsticks” what sharp wit among us could let that pass by with a phallic reference? And who could possibly hold back laughter when Ms. Hagerty wrote “All in all, it is the largest and most beautiful restaurant now operating in Grand Forks. It attracts visitors from out of town as well as people who live here.” How embarrassing. Clearly, the Grand Forks Chamber of Commerce needs to shut this lady down.
Interestingly, her review got so much attention on the internet that Ms. Hagerty ended up on national television. She was initially interviewed on a couple of the early morning news/talk shows and later got on during primetime and late night. She is a delightful lady and didn’t seem to be upset that so many people were making fun of her Olive Garden review. She admitted that when she was told that she had “gone viral”, at first she had no clue what that meant. Watching and listening to the interviewers speak with Ms. Hagerty, I could sense that they were a bit uncomfortable. Instinctively, they seem to know there is something fundamentally out of whack with our culture when a nice, little article, by a NLOL, about a new restaurant opening in and nice, little city in the nation’s heartland becomes a joke.
My guess is that early on, as the “virus” was spreading, it wasn’t widely known that the article had been written by this sweet little 85 year old lady. Then we meet this sweet little 85 year old lady and suddenly everyone is trying to figure out how to “make nice” and put a “heart-warming” human interest spin on the whole thing without sounding as down-home and corny as the article they were making fun of in the first place.
So what’s my point? Just this: when you get away from the 5-star, $$$$ restaurants where for a lot of money someone will tell you what you are eating (because otherwise you would have no clue) and how it was prepared (so you will be convinced you could never cook such a meal) and somehow you still go home hungry because smaller portions make better “presentations”; you end up eating with real people in real places like Grand Forks, North Dakota, U.S.A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)