Chinos and the Man

Winter is officially here. The cold weather means I have to reluctantly give up my penchant for wearing shorts. I can deal with the high forties to mid fifties weather going from office to car to home isn’t too bracing in shorts. Any colder than that and some full coverage is a must. The breezy arctic chill is too much for bare legs. I feel a bit like a hippie for saying it but I just don’t like pants.

If I had to list the problems of pants I would start with the weight. Too heavy and they hang off your butt, too light and they won’t keep the cold out. I’m perpetually hiking them up, both to keep the cuffs from dragging on the floor and to keep them waist level. Nothing is worse than walking into a public bathroom with a semi-wet floor and worrying about how much the cuffed bottoms are soaking up. Also my wallet and phone add extra weight to already hefty trousers. I can only tighten my belt so far before the stomach starts to pinch in the belt buckle. Want to witness an embarrassing spectacle? Just wait for me to hoist that belt one extra hole down the strap and yelp when the stomach flesh rolls up in the metal clasp.

Jeans are a bit of problem too. Because they’re denim they’re rigid and unrelenting. Jeans have a position of their own. No two are alike. They don’t flow and swoop the way polyester golf pants do. They’re more stiff than a corpse and they bind on the thighs, never wielding. Jeans hate us. Oh sure they last a long time. Wash after wash they hold their position. They mock our attempts to control them with fabric softeners and hang dry efforts, useless. The slim cut variety are even worse. Seriously, who needs a tighter fit?

Cargo pants are bulky and massive but necessarily so. They aren’t stylish and they don’t care. Utility is their game. The extra space in the pockets is perfect for tools and snacks, just in case you’re working outdoors and need row of chocolate mini donuts. Pockets on cargo pants are like seagulls at the beach; they’re interesting and even fun at first but quickly become annoying. Most of us don’t need that much space. It just increases the chance of losing more stuff in the washing machine, from gum and coins to cash and toothpickers. For everyday use cargo pants are probably the worst option unless you work construction.

   

Dress slacks are dignified and sharp but I don’t have enough excuses to wear them. If you don’t normally wear slacks to work, try it someday and see what people say. “You going to funeral or something?” or “What’s with the dress up, you coming from church?” The chances to wear them are so seldom you’ll realize when you finally do, they’ve shrunk. Pants are always shrinking. One of life’s mysteries I guess. Also, dress pants fit great while standing but sitting is a nightmarish surprise. They suck up tight and expose your white/sock black/shoe combo if you aren’t careful. Standing quickly back up doesn’t help either. You’ll have to massage the legs portions back down into standing position because they won’t fall gracefully back into place. You can use the kick method, where you kick your feet out to get the legs to slide back down but it will look silly. Movement is a bit restricted while wearing them because if the cloth is old it might rip along the butt seam. This is definitely worse than having everyone know you wore white socks to a formal event.

Sweatpants are a wonderful respite from a tough day. The fleece moves around effortlessly never bunching or tearing. Plus if you spill your drink on them the cotton fibers will soak it up better than a paper towel or whole stack of napkins. Even floor spills are a cinch. Just get off your recliner, put down your beer and sit directly on the puddle. The fleece will suck up the liquid like a shop vac. Don’t put them on too early in the day though. You might have to go out and get some milk or lottery tickets. Very few sweats are good enough to wear at Target. Not that Target is high class, but you don’t want to be accused of someone begging for loose change and have the employees throw you out. Especially with the stains and wet spots on your pants.  Wearing them out to go shopping is like reminding people that you don’t care. Sweatpants say “Don’t mind me I am just having a rough day” and “Could you spare a couple of bucks for gas?”  

Golf pants certainly go in the most improved garment of menswear. The ones I used to buy were cotton and bunched up with even the slightest bit of movement. Now they’re light and wrinkle free. Most even have a layer that prevents wrinkling.  You can wad them up in corner before tucking into bed and in the morning wear them again without worrying about ironing out a mess. Also the textile geniuses have figured out how to make them loose around the legs which is a huge improvement for me. They aren’t too formal either, you wear them with your Pearl Jam t-shirt and you’ll never regret being both ‘adultish’ and ‘hip’.

Until warmer weather I’ll just have to make do cycling through my small wardrobe of khaki and black golf pants. I really do prefer shorts. 

Humility and Leadership

 I glanced over this latest research from a couple academics who studied personality types. More precisely they compared arrogant thinkers to humble ones and came to the conclusion that ‘humble’ leaders are more powerful and effective. I read the Washington Post’s quick summary of the findings, short and neat. I don’t read full academic papers unless I have to. For my purposes a summary by a respected newspaper is enough. The people studied were considered 'intellectually' arrogant or 'intellectually' humble. 

I clicked on the link because it was headline-grabby and seemed to remind everyone what we instinctively know to be true.  Readers can draw what they like from the results. The findings don’t seem surprising for anyone who has experienced poor leadership. Those with the misfortune of serving under a boss with an outsized ego know the pitfalls of pride. Thinking well of oneself doesn’t always mean arrogant however, and being soft spoken doesn’t mean humble. 

First, the study had participants (both arrogant and humble) read from a list of statements and asked how familiar they were with the topics. The topics covered science, history, sociology and a mixed bag of knowledge. Second, they read from a slightly longer list and had to recall which statements were covered on both readings.

 A few fake news items were slipped in.

The arrogant ones mostly skimmed the passages while the humble read with closer detail. Arrogant participants got more items wrong and were susceptible to the fake items as well. Humble participants did better on identifying the correct statements and the false, but also were more open to changing their mind if the true statements conflicted their previous positions. The arrogant rarely changed their mind. Most people who have held any job for any amount of time has encountered bosses who blame others for their failures and refuse to take advice. They also hate giving anyone credit if they can take it for themselves.

 Mostly, humility gets a bad rap, as in “Oh my God I was so humiliated!” As a character trait it describes a person willing to understand their own shortcomings and learn from them. Humble people have a reasonable view of their strengths and weaknesses. If the image of a soft spoken indecisive person emerges, throw out that image. Humility sometimes gets interpreted as milquetoast men afraid of making choices.

Humility is just honest, self-reflection.

When leaders have it you know it. They aren’t afraid of others getting credit but they take decisive moves and improve along the way. They don’t apologize and agonize about wrong choices or bad information, they improve. 

From the study: 

As Owens and Hekman wrote in Academy of Management Journal, “Our findings suggest that humility appears to embolden individuals to aspire to their highest potential and enables them to make the incremental improvements necessary to progress toward that potential.”

The findings show that humble authority figures make everyone better by inspiring performance. The opposite is also true of reckless pride.

There is a great illustration of this from the excellent mini-series Band of Brothers. The film follows E company through much of the war in Germany as they parachute across France in June 1944 to VE day in the summer of 1945. In one harrowing scene the battalion is crossing a hail of gunfire in the Ardennes Forest to occupy a town held by the Germans. The company commander (Dyke) freezes up under the mortar fire and refuses to move from a covered position. The charging men look to their leader shouting "What we do?, We have to move, we're surrounded!" His only reply "I don't know! I don't know!"

 Soldiers are being killed all around until another lieutenant (Speirs) storms in and starts directing men. He takes over swiftly and urges the men to move and fire. Staying in one place and getting shelled is what is hurting them. He takes over command from Dyke who seems more concerned with his own safety. The battalion takes the town with heavy losses but if not for quick thinking leadership E company might have lost every soldier.

Lieutenant Speirs’ humility is seen in other scenes as he praises individuals and delegates responsibility. He is humble where it counts. He shows bravery and gives orders under pressure but he also has shortcomings in administrative functions. His character is quiet for much of the movie, only popping up with advice when needed. Dyke is arrogant because he doesn’t bother with the details of leadership (preparing for battle, making decisions) and is only around when necessary. It’s a tough scene to watch knowing that battles often play out exactly like that, when lives are at stake and decisiveness makes a crucial difference. A big theme in the series is leadership. Few events prove it out like war.

It might be a little fuzzier in the business world but the essential character of a humble leader will play out the same. Bosses have different personality types but one who can honestly assess a situation and improve the result is effectively humble. 

Research that supports my intuition is always welcome. I usually ignore findings that don’t. Some might call that arrogant though.

Death, Taxes and Angry College Football Fans

Benjamin Franklin once said “…nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.” If he were alive today he would probably include fan anger over college football rankings. The limited number of slots in the playoffs practically guarantee an surge of 'righteous' anger from a neglected team. There are 5 power conferences that contain the best teams. The SEC, the ACC, the Big Ten, the Pac 10 and the Big 12. Additionally, the few games played each season means that analysts have to determine the best teams from a small sample. The number of variables considered when establishing a teams’ credentials can be technical. Strength of schedule, margin of victory, road wins against top opponents, and something called the ‘eye test’ are just some of the variables the selection group considers when assigning slots.

The eye test is exactly what it sounds like. How does this team actually look on the field? Do they execute plays and hold up under pressure? Do they beat themselves with dumb penalties and turnovers? Do their skill position players have speed? Does the defense shut down high caliber opponents? The eye test gets criticized by stat wonks who love to spreadsheets showing how Middle Tennessee State gets great production, but who cares. The big conferences matter. Stats are one measure of progress but football fans know a good team when they see one. A good team has NFL talent and performs every week. Not that they never lose but they keep loses to a minimum and win on the road. Teams like Alabama and Georgia are great, Illinois and Purdue are not (sadly).

Good stats in football filter out ‘garbage time’ numbers. Those extra 65 yards your team’s running back got on a night when they were played North Eastern Delaware A&M, that’s garbage time. Numbers and measurables can explain a lot but they don’t help with the eye test. I’ll always take the eye test over almost any other measure of tracked skill. Football talent gravitates toward certain schools and we already know which ones they are. They’re called the power 5 for a reason. A quarterback who averages 300 yards passing per game at Ohio State gets more attention than one at Montana Tech. This isn’t news.

I watched Ohio State beat Wisconsin last night and one thing was clear from the start, Ohio had much better athletes. The fact that Wisconsin only lost by 7 was an indication that crowd noise and intensity of the moment play an outsized factor in the college game. These are kids after all, average age is probably 21 or so. They get nervous and make mistakes but the really talented teams like OSU can make a few and usually finish with a win. In an outdoor stadium with less noise Ohio should have run Wisconsin off the field. I did hope the Badgers could pull off a miracle come back but their offense looked slow footed and not used to having to throw to get out of trouble. Badgers run first, always. 

The Big Ten conference game last night was a default play in for Wisconsin and a little more complicated for the Ohio State. They had a chance with a win but it wasn’t enough. The committee decided against them. Buckeyes have 2 loses for the season after all. That’s 1 more than any playoff team should have.

The controversy was over who gets the open slot for the playoffs, only 4 are allowed after all. The teams announced just a few hours ago, Oklahoma, Georgia, Clemson, Alabama. Bama was the wild card since they didn’t play for a conference championship but still managed a 1 loss season. The loss was to Auburn who was a top ranked team at the time. I don’t like to criticize the committee, they have a lot to consider. But putting two teams from the same conference in the playoffs is a sketchy move. I imagine they included the Tide because of their quality wins and 1 loss season. The alternative would have been Ohio State with two losses and a conference championship. If they put the Buckeyes in it opens the door for questions about why they didn’t include the USC Trojans, who basically had the same season. 

Buckeye fans will complain for sure. Every year some team gets left out that probably deserved to be included. With the limited spots it is unavoidable. Most fans will want to expand the field to include 8 teams. For now though there isn’t enough time or games in the season without seriously affecting academics (don’t laugh). That’s the official reason at least from the NCAA for keeping the 4 team playoff. I imagine it will get to that point in the near future. The playoffs should be fun though.