Monthly Archives: April 2010
WHAT WE DRIVE IS HOW WE DRIVE
I have always found the relationship between humans and their automobiles interesting. I contend what we drive greatly impacts how we drive. To illustrate, I believe there are basically three distinctively different classes of people who drive: those who just want a basic form of transportation, those who use it as a status symbol, and those who have a love affair with their vehicle, a sort of connoisseur. Each group sees the automobile differently and, as such, treats it differently.
BASIC TRANSPORTATION
Those who just want a basic form of transportation are more impressed by the functionality of the vehicle as opposed to aesthetics. Price, reliability, gas mileage, maintenance, and safety are more important than contoured lines, paint, and leather bucket seats. To them, the automobile is a necessary evil; it is nothing more than a tool to move them from point A to point B. As such, it is essentially no different than the role the horse played in the 1800′s. You feed it, you give it basic grooming, and you ride the heck out of it.
I find these types of people do not establish any emotional ties to their vehicles yet tend to hold on to them a lot longer than most as they wish to get their money’s worth out of it. If the car is to be used for nothing more than transportation, they typically buy small to mid-sized cars. However, they are more inclined to buy something bigger if they have to transport samples and paper work, such as what salesmen do, or children. Construction workers are more inclined to buy trucks.
The “basic” people represent the lion’s share of drivers on the road. As such, you must remember they are only interested in reaching their destination. Some will be overly conservative, particularly our seniors, some will go with the flow, some will be hell-bent on reaching their objective, and others will be preoccupied on the phone, shaving, reading, applying makeup or fixing their hair as they consider driving a horrendous waste of time. It is this last group that is the most dangerous as they are more interested in their distraction than driving the car.
STATUS SYMBOLS
Those who see their vehicle as a status symbol are trying to make a statement of some kind; either they are “sporty”, filthy rich, or use it as a means of attracting the opposite sex thereby acting as a phallic symbol. Unlike the “basic” people, looks are of paramount importance. Consequently, they either buy the fastest gas guzzlers, the most opulent luxury vehicles, or something in-between. Electronic trinkets are important here as the vehicle is considered more as a toy than anything else.
The status people have emotional ties to their vehicles only until the next model comes out whereby they trade-up at every opportunity. In other words, owning a car for one year is considered an eternity.
On the road, the “status” people have two different driving personalities: they are either fast and reckless, thereby giving the impression they are eccentric and have plenty of money to burn, or they drive rather conservatively, conscious of their investment.
CONNOISSEURS
Those who truly love cars possess an in-depth understanding of automobiles and a deep seeded appreciation for the design and engineering of the vehicle. Guys like Jay Leno come to mind, as well as people who participate in the many classic car shows across the country. They buy rare cars for several reasons; to remind them of a bygone era, the sheer love of automotive engineering, and as an investment. They drive their car not because they have to, but because they want to as they truly appreciate the automobile as a remarkable engineering achievement.
The “connoisseurs” are passionate about their vehicles and develop strong attachments to them. However, most will reluctantly part with them if the price is right, and will buy something else to work on. They spend their idle time scouring eBay looking for spare parts, visiting auto auctions, and carefully inspecting different vehicles at car shows. To them, it is a serious hobby, requiring them to possess an in-depth knowledge regarding their subject and a close attention to detail.
Those that fall into this category are perhaps the best drivers on the road. They are acutely aware of the capabilities and limitations of their vehicles and drive defensively in order to protect them. They are typically the safest drivers on the road.
DIFFERENCES
The basic difference between the three schools of thought is how the human being perceives the automobile, either as nothing more than a tool or commodity, an expression of one’s personality, or as a prized investment. These perspectives ultimately dictate our driving habits and how we treat the vehicle. We either see it as nothing more than a mule or workhorse, a stallion out to stud, or a fine quarter horse suitable for racing.
These distinctively different perspectives present an interesting dilemma for automotive manufacturers in terms of what types of cars they should be building. Do they develop something for the masses whereby what they lack in profit-margin can be made up for in volume? Or do they develop a line of luxury cars which will feature a much higher price tag? Or do they try to design a “classic” which will stand the test or time? I guess it ultimately depends on who you want to sell to: basic people, the status seekers, or the investors. Each has a different perspective and each wants something different.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm
Copyright © 2010 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
THE WAR ON TERROR
In the wake of the 9-11 disaster, I remember driving around with my son who was, at the time, still in middle school. I wanted to engage him in conversation to get him to think about what had just happened and what it meant to the United States. It was clear to me a new era of warfare had been born as a result of the tragedy, a type of warfare Americans still have trouble comprehending. As a nation, our perception of warfare is still of land, sea and air engagements a la the 20th century; e.g., the two world wars, Korea and Viet Nam. We have become rather proficient in traditional military maneuvers as demonstrated by how we brushed aside the Iraqi army, not just once, but twice.
The War on Terror though is unlike any other war we have fought. It has little to do with soldier versus soldier in the traditional sense. Our enemies know they would easily be annihilated in such a confrontation and, instead, have chosen to form a shadow army to fight behind the scenes by not only sniping at Americans but also trying to undermine their very existence. Some would say their actions are those of a coward. Maybe so, then again what alternative do they have as they are without the means to achieve a military victory.
More than anything, the War on Terror is an intelligence war. Whereas our enemies can easily find out what they need to know through the general media and Internet, our intelligence people need to dig deeper and harder to learn what our opposition is doing. This means the CIA is really our front-line, an often maligned agency of our government who a lot of people would like to see dismantled. Nothing could be more foolish. Prior to World War II, the United States had no organized intelligence body. It wasn’t until after we were bombed at Pearl Harbor and found ourselves embroiled in a world war that we finally determined the need for such an agency, hence the birth of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in 1942, the forerunner of the CIA. Perhaps if we had an effective intelligence agency before then we could have averted the catastrophe that befell us on December 7th, 1941, but such is hindsight.
Our enemies in the War on Terror are funded by such things as drugs, oil, and religious zealots. Simple economics can be just as powerful a weapon as anything we have in our military arsenal. By curbing drug traffic, you are fighting the War on Terror. By curbing our dependence on foreign oil and developing our internal energy resources, you are fighting the War on Terror. By disseminating positive information about the United States overseas, be it factual or propaganda, you are fighting the War on Terror. And the development of intelligence resources is, of course, a prerequisite for fighting the War on Terror.
Such a war doesn’t necessarily produce battle victories or body counts, which is how we have traditionally measured military success. These are tangible elements. Instead, the War on Terror deals primarily in intangibles. As such, it cannot be fought based on public opinion polls as the American public is not aware of how the war is being waged. This also means the public shouldn’t expect any formal surrender ceremonies on battleships. The War on Terror is an ongoing conflict we will be embroiled in throughout our lifetimes. It’s not that it is a no-win contest, it is simply a recognition that terrorism is the only form of warfare our enemies can engage in.
The next question should be rather obvious; how can each citizen help? Actually, we are already a part of it, whether we like it or not, as we are pawns in developing the mindshare of America. We need to fight drugs, thereby eliminating the cash flow to our enemies; we need to make our communities safe from crime, thereby causing funds to be channeled where they are really needed; we need to develop our moral character, thereby setting an example for the world to emulate, and; we need to make sure our government is working properly and operating under the right set of priorities. In other words, we need to practice basic citizenship again. We should not be so foolish as to believe our actions have no consequence, they do; we are all foot soldiers in the War on Terror whether we realize it or not. During World War II, Americans were all expected to pitch in and do their part. Now it is our turn, our time.
Remember this, one of the main reasons why the British lost in our Revolutionary War is not because they didn’t have a superior army (they did), but because they couldn’t adapt to a different form of warfare. Since we are all in this War of Terror together, we must all adapt or perish.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm
Copyright © 2010 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
BASEBALL: THE LOVE OF THE GAME
I have always had a fondness for the game of baseball. As a kid, I played Little League but also carried my glove and bat with me just about everywhere for a quick pickup game whether it was before or after school, or during recess. Growing up in Connecticut, I followed the early 1960′s Yankees and vividly remember when the Mets were introduced. As we moved around the country I became a fan of the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Chicago Cubs, and finally watched the emergence of the Big Red Machine in Cincinnati. Frankly, I do not believe we will ever see another team as good as the 1976 Reds. They were very special.
I played in coed softball leagues as I got older. When I became a parent, I coached boys baseball, girls softball, served on the local Little League board of directors, and umpired to boot. My signature as a coach was to line my kids up on the infield foul line before a game and pledged allegiance to the flag. After all, it is America’s game. Curiously, there were some coaches who adamantly opposed me doing this, but I see citizenship as an inherent part of the game.
I suffered under no illusion my kids were going to be superstars and, as such, I concentrated on teaching the basics (hitting, fielding, and pitching), teamwork, and hopefully, the love of the game. There is something magical about the game of baseball; the smell of the grass, the heat of the sun on your back, the taste of the leather string on your cowhide mitt, the crack of the bat, and the excitement of the play. You relish the camaraderie of your teammates, the precision of a perfect bunt, the tenacity of a runner stealing a base, and the grace of an infielder flawlessly throwing out a runner or executing a double play.
Baseball is a game of nuances and you really cannot appreciate it if you have never played it. As you approach home plate to bat, you see how the fielders are setting up to play you, either deep, in close, or to a particular field. You take your sign from the third base coach, check the eyes of the pitcher, hear the cheering of the parents, and all along your mind is constantly calculating all of the variables involved. Your hands grip the bat as you position yourself in the batter’s box. Your body language tells the other team whether or not you can be intimidated. Finally, just before the pitcher makes his wind-up, you spit. Translation, “Bring it on!”
There is also a lot of communications in a baseball game, both vocal and silent. The vocal is rather obvious, the silent communications is a lot more interesting. We’re all aware of the third base coach making strange gyrations with his hands in order to call the play, but there are also a lot of subliminal signs not so apparent, such as a manager turning up his collar or crossing his legs. The communications between pitcher and catcher is also well known. The great Willie Mays was notorious for his ability to study and steal the signs of the opposing team. It just takes a little concentration and attention to detail.
When I coached Little League, and my kids were batting with one or more runners on base, I would suddenly yell from the dugout, “Red-22, Red-22.” Actually, it was nothing more than a smoke screen as it meant absolutely nothing, but it put the other team on edge as they thought some trick play was about to be executed. My kids thought it was a riot.
As a Little League coach, you realize you are having an impact on your young players when they start asking you more questions about the game, such as the meaning of the infield fly rule, how to keep a scorecard, how a batting average is calculated or ERA, the number of ways a runner can advance to first base (eight) or the number of ways to make an out (14), etc. It’s no small wonder baseball is a great game for trivia buffs as there are so many facets to it. Casual spectators do not truly appreciate baseball as much as students of the game.
You know you have a love of the game when you collect baseball cards, not as a commodity, but simply to have them; that you keep a prized baseball signed by your teammates many years ago; that you cannot bring yourself to throw away an old baseball bat or glove years after you have stopped using them, or; you completely understood what Pete Rose meant when he said, “I’d walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball.”
It is a great game.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm
Copyright © 2010 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
A TALE OF TWO PROJECTS
The following is a true story; a vintage “Dilbertism.” Because of this, the names have been changed to protect the innocent (as well as the guilty). Interestingly, I do not believe this story to be unique and similar stories can be found in countless IT shops around the world.
Our story begins just a couple of years ago in a large manufacturing company in the American Midwest. At the time, the company was interested in replacing two aging, yet important, systems; an Accounts Payable System (“AP”) and an Accounts Receivable System (“AR”). The IT Director selected two of his most seasoned veterans to manage the projects, we’ll call them “Steve” and “Bob.” Both project managers were charged with their responsibilities on the same day: Steve to build the AP system, and Bob to build the AR system. Both were given approximately the same amount of human and machine resources to accomplish the work.
Steve was a very organized and disciplined manager. He found it essential to organize and train his staff upfront so everyone understood the development process, the deliverables to be produced, and their assigned responsibilities. Recognizing the large scope of his project, Steve felt it important to methodically attack his system and meticulously worked out a plan and schedule to implement it. In Phase 1 he spent what appeared to be an inordinate amount of time studying the business problem, specifying information requirements, and developing a rough design of the system solution. Steve’s people actively participated in this early phase and thought the problem through carefully before proceeding with the project. Following the Phase 1, Steve’s team finalized details of the overall AP system architecture, and divided his group into teams to tackle the various sub-systems in parallel. To complement this effort, his data base people oversaw the logical data base design to accommodate the needs of the whole system, not just any one portion of it.
Steve also recruited the support of the AP Department and had key personnel from this area participate in the development of the system. The input from these users was vital not only in Phase 1, but also in succeeding phases where the business processes were designed.
By concentrating on the overall system architecture and then by gradually refining the design over succeeding phases, the Software Engineers were given detailed specifications which were easy to follow and implement. Consequently, the programming phases went smoothly, including testing.
The core sub-systems satisfying the operational needs of AP were on schedule and being installed with great support from the user community.
While Steve’s project was coming along smoothly, Bob was facing chaos with the AR system. Instead of studying the problem upfront, Bob’s group began by building a core data base. Shortly thereafter he set his programmers to work building some basic input screens and some rather simple outputs. In no time, Bob had something to demonstrate to the user community (and his boss) to prove progress was indeed being made.
But Bob’s group had not done their homework. The AR community was not consulted and requirements were not defined. As a result, programmers were left second-guessing what the users really needed which started a long round of “cut-and-fitting” the code. Further, the integrity of the data base came into question. False assumptions were made about calculated data elements which cascaded throughout the program code. In addition, data validation rules were not established. This forced the programmers to invent their own rules and formulas for calculations in each of their programs which led to data redundancy issues and even bigger headaches for the development staff. As users were given glimpses of the programs by Bob, data integrity issues became an issue and the users didn’t trust the information being produced by the system (e.g., calculations were computed differently by the various programs). Bob’s group touted the AR system as “state-of-the-art,” but the users were not convinced it was reliable or intuitive to use.
All of this lead to a redesign of the data base and programs, not just once but several times. Consequently, the project schedule started to slip and costs exceeded budget. To overcome this problem, Bob and his staff worked overtime to play catch-up with the schedule (which he never realized). Regardless, the IT Director began to take notice of the long hours Bob and his team were putting into the project and complimented them on their dedication.
Bob finally delivered a portion of the project to the AR department, but in testing it the users found it fraught with errors. To overcome this problem, Bob’s group was ever ready to jump in and modify the code as required. Even though the users found the programs buggy, they commended Bob for how quickly his group would be able to fix them.
The difference between Steve and Bob’s groups were like night and day. While Bob operated under a “helter-skelter” mode of operation, Steve’s group operated quietly and began to deliver the system on time and within budget, much to the user department’s satisfaction.
Steve understood the enormity of the system and its importance to the company, and, as such, took the time to organize and train his group accordingly. Bob also understood the importance of his application but took the tact of producing something management and the user community could “touch and feel” thereby demonstrating something was happening in his department, right or wrong. Further, his SWAT team approach to putting out fires made him a favorite with corporate management. As a result, Bob enjoyed a high profile in the company while Steve was a relative unknown.
Unfortunately, Bob’s project ran amok, unbearably so. Recognizing he had to do something radical in order to get Bob’s project back on track, the IT Director made an unusual move; he swapped Steve and Bob as project managers. Steve was charged with cleaning up Bob’s mess, and Bob was charged with finishing Steve’s project. Offhand it sounded like a shrewd move. Steve had proven to the IT Director he could get things done, regardless of the application size. And the IT Director figured Bob could simply close-out the AP project. The IT Director figured wrong. While Steve started the arduous task of bringing organization and discipline to the AR system, Bob quickly dismantled Steve’s organization and brought chaos to the AP system. This did not sit well with a lot of people, particularly Steve’s former project team who felt they had grasped defeat from the jaws of victory. Steve was also growing disenchanted as he had almost completed one system and was now charged with cleaning up his predecessor’s mess. To add insult to injury, because of Bob’s high profile status, he was given an increase in pay and job promotion, and Steve didn’t receive likewise.
Steve got the AR system back on track and finally implemented it much to the satisfaction of all concerned. Bob lost control of the AP system almost immediately and it spun out of control until Steve was finally called back in to finish it. Not knowing what to do with high-profile Bob, the IT Director made the classic move of promoting Bob and transferring him to another area where he could do no harm.
LESSONS LEARNED
Is there a happy ending to this true story? Not for Steve. Although he cleaned up the mess and ultimately managed both projects to a successful conclusion, he became disenchanted with how he had been treated by the company. Subsequently, he left and started his own consulting firm who was ultimately hired by his old company to develop new systems (at substantially higher rates). As for Bob, he enjoyed the perks and pay resulting from his new position for quite some time. Eventually, he got the hint and moved on to another company where he made a similar name for himself.
Although Bob was a fine example of the “Peter Principle” (rising above your level of competence) he recognized results were not necessary on the road to success but rather, image was everything. He learned early on that “the squeaky wheel gets the oil.”
As I mentioned at the outset, this is not a random incident, but one that could probably be told by a multitude of corporations who have “promoted the guilty, and prosecuted the innocent.”
Have you got a similar story? Please do not hesitate to send them to me.
“Beware of your firefighters; they are probably your chief arsonists.”
- Bryce’s Law
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm
Copyright © 2010 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
DRIVING CIRCLES AROUND DISNEY
I recently attended a meeting at the Disney World complex near Orlando. Actually, it was held at a Hilton Hotel, a non-Disney property operating in the complex. Although I’ve been to Orlando many times, I haven’t been to Disney since the kids were little. I don’t have a GPS in my car, so, to make sure I knew where I was going, I printed a map from the Internet which I assumed was accurate and the directions looked familiar to me. Normally, it takes me about an hour and a half to drive from Tampa to Disney, but on this particular evening it took over three hours. No, there weren’t any accidents, no heavy traffic, no construction, no obnoxious drivers to follow; just Disney.
According to the map, I was to turn off I-4 west at the main Disney interchange (World Center Drive which becomes Epcot Center Drive) which leads you to Epcot and the Hilton which I was led to believe was close to Epcot. Okay, fine, got it, no problem, let’s go. As I made the proper turnoff from I-4, I began my trek down Epcot Center Drive, which is a well sculpted boulevard featuring all kinds of Disney eye-candy. Traffic control appears to be a big concern with the Disney people and they had numerous signs guiding motorists to the various Disney properties. I was hoping I might see a billboard or some sign to direct me to the Hilton, but alas, nothing but Disney signs which started to become irritating.
Before I knew it, I found myself approaching the Epcot resort which allegedly was near my hotel, so I felt a glimmer of hope. I thought I would stop and ask someone at the parking gates for directions. Unfortunately, I discovered that after 7:00pm, the gates are wide open and there wasn’t an attendant to be found. Okay, I’m near Epcot, the map says I’m not far away, but for some reason I couldn’t find any of the roads on the map. My male stubbornness began to surface as I told myself to keep pushing on, there has got to be someone around here who can help me. As I was to discover, there wasn’t. By now, I was starting to get a great behind-the-scenes tour of Disney as I found myself traversing the many access roads around the park (Epcot Center Road was well behind me by this time). In addition to the big parks and main resorts, I drove by the Tower of Terror, the monorail maintenance depot, several emergency areas, a secluded golf course, a dog kennel, and tons of parking. Actually, I saw more of Disney that evening than I did with my kids years ago. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a single human being to talk to. There was nothing but bus and tram operators dropping off guests to pick up their cars in the parking lots, everything else was automated. The whole place was on autopilot and I got the unsettling feeling that the only human being controlling all of this was in Teaneck, New Jersey. Heck, I would have even settled for Goofy to give me directions, but I think he had already turned in for the night (probably at the Hilton).
Around and around I went with nothing but Disney signs directing me to their next resort. Somehow I broke out of the vicious circle and found myself in a daze heading towards Tampa on I-4. Okay, I told myself not to panic but to turn around at the next exit which, unfortunately, was something called the Osceola Parkway, a toll road which did nothing to improve my personality. Nonetheless, I persevered and pressed on. Now desperate, I pulled the car off to the side of the road and called the hotel who was finally able to talk me down like an airplane landing at a fog covered runway. Interestingly, my Internet map had gotten it completely wrong. More disturbing to me though, was the absence of any sign to a non-Disney property, and the lack of human-beings to help point me in the right direction. I would have even welcomed a private radio network like you see at airports which offer driving instructions. No, the Disney folks were content to have me circle the complex over and over again like I was in the Daytona 500.
I found this experience nightmarish and it certainly didn’t endear me to Disney. Not surprising, I discovered several other motorists caught in the same trap I was in and are probably still circling around the complex.
If you talk to a Disney employee, he or she will proudly proclaim they work for “The Mouse.” This may be so, but someone needs to tell the Disney people that there is a rat in the traffic department.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm
Copyright © 2010 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Something just about all of us consider at some point in our lives is our legacy, be it on a small scale such as a job or project, or our life’s work. Nagging questions linger, “How will I be remembered?”, “Did I do a good job?” or “Was my life well spent?” Some people believe we are judged by physical objects such as a building we constructed, the development of some object, or perhaps an invention. Others consider our impact on productivity and prosperity through such things as leadership, organization, and systems. The fallacy here is that buildings and products inevitably deteriorate, processes and inventions evolve and are replaced, so notoriety for such things is fleeting. To compound the problem, we have no real sense of history and quickly forget who did what years ago.
When I go shopping, I’m one of those guys who doesn’t like to dicker over price. I want to go in, buy what I want and move along. To me, shopping over the Internet was a godsend as I can browse at my leisure, compare prices, and order what I want without the hassle of talking to a sales clerk. I don’t like to barter, but I know a lot of people who do. My father was a past master of the trade, particularly when it came to cars. When negotiating with a salesman, he treated it like a game as to who could outdo each other. I knew a lot of guys from his generation who liked to shop for cars the way he did. Plain and simply, it was the love of the joust they relished. Although my father would get the price down, I couldn’t help but believe in the end, the salesman had the last laugh. As for me, such shenanigans are a waste of time.
By occupation I am a management consultant specializing in the area of information systems. This has afforded me the rare opportunity to see quite a bit of the world and meet with all kinds of people in just about every field of endeavor imaginable. I do not get paid to tell people what they want to hear but rather, I make my living telling people the truth which, in this day and age of political correctness and spin, doesn’t always ingratiate me to my audience. In a way, I often feel like the child in the Hans Christian Andersen tale who points out the peculiarities of the Emperor’s new clothes. Although he naively spoke the truth, the observation made people nervous and squirm, particularly those in power. One of the things I learned early on is that the obvious is not always obvious, or politically correct, but we would make little progress if we didn’t look at ourselves in the mirror once and awhile, warts and all.
I have always been of the opinion that you shouldn’t trust anyone who doesn’t have at least one known vice, be it swearing, drinking, smoking, or whatever. If they appear to be overly virtuous, then they are probably hiding something much more malicious. I remember one fellow from Toledo who went to great lengths to project a Lilly-white image. He regularly attended church, could quote chapter and verse from the Bible, and condemned anyone for any form of indiscretion. You would have believed such a person would be trustworthy, honest and forthright. Frankly, I found him to be one of the most ruthless and unscrupulous businessmen I ever had the displeasure to meet, not to mention an extreme bore. I have challenged this rule about vice over the years and found it to hold true time and again.




