Date post: | 07-Mar-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | colin-mustful |
View: | 226 times |
Download: | 3 times |
Unabashed Hypocrisy
A Dichotomy of Values
A Manifesto
By Colin Mustful
Dedicated to the hard working employees of
Papa John’s Pizza - past and present.
In Memoriam:
Champlin Papa John’s
I write to express my concern over the hypocritical
business practices of the Papa John’s International Pizza
Corporation. This is not a sycophantic appeal. It is merely
a means of personal formulation; to take from the good and
reconsider the bad; to acknowledge what I have witnessed
and utilize from which I can gain. It does not originate
from malice or spite, but from misunderstanding and
curiosity. I do not understand how a company can be
successful through the business practices I have witnessed.
It confounds me how the foundation of any such company
can be agreed upon and fostered by such immoveable and
uncompromising means. Essentially, as I see it, the written
and expressed values of Papa John’s Pizza appear to bear
little or no significance toward the actual operations of the
company. Throughout the following, I wish to present the
hypocritical business practices of Papa John’s Pizza. This
is not an attempt to reveal those practices, but rather a
means to publicize the intentions of Papa John’s Pizza
regardless of the necessity to do so. This is a manifesto,
not of personal intent, but of personal experience; to
express what is done, but which is never said.
Before I begin, I will like to establish some
credibility. I will not chronicle my entire life with Papa
John’s. I could not possibly recall all of it and neither
could it be recreated. My story begins in December of
1998 when I was sixteen years old. A Papa John’s Pizza
was being built in the new mall in my town. At the time,
Papa John’s was a young and growing company in the state
of Minnesota. I knew little about the company and had
enjoyed their product only one time before. But, I needed a
job, and along with my twin brother, I applied at Papa
John’s. I was hired quickly and my first day was on
December 22, 1998 at Papa John’s in Champlin,
Minnesota. I was an “In-store,” which means I was
responsible for making pizzas, answering phones, slapping
dough, and taking direction from the managers on duty.
2
Generally I worked short shifts during periods of high
business volume. It was the typical job for any high school
student.
Immediately upon turning eighteen on June 18,
2000, I became a Shift-Leader. My training was limited,
but because I had already worked there for one and a half
years, I knew my way around. In December of the same
year I did undergo Unit 1 Manger Training in order to
receive official training for my position. I continued to
work as a Shift-Leader at the store in Champlin for my
final year of high school and my first year of college.
Through my first year of college I returned home every
weekend to run shifts. Looking back that was probably a
naive decision. For the three years following, my
attendance at Papa John’s was much more sporadic. I no
longer came home on weekends and I attended school in
West Virginia throughout my junior and senior years of
college. During this time I only worked at Papa John’s for
holiday periods and the summer. I was moved around to
many different stores and asked to fill in wherever help was
needed.
In August 2005 I moved to Mankato, Minnesota, to
attend graduate school. In November of that year I
obtained employment at the small franchise location in
Mankato. The franchise consisted of just two stores. Here
I worked as a Shift-Leader from November 2005 until July
2007. I enjoyed my time at this Papa John’s more than any
other.
I returned to the Twin Cities in July 2007 and I
immediately regained employment as a Shift-Leader for
Papa John’s in Champlin, Minnesota. In May 2008, I was
transferred to the store in Columbia Heights, Minnesota,
where I continued as a Shift-Leader. I remained at
Columbia Heights until April 2009, when I was temporarily
demoted and then transferred to the Papa John’s in White
Bear Lake, Minnesota. From April 2009 to July 2009 I
3
worked as a Shift-Leader at White Bear Lake and as a
Driver at Columbia Heights. In August of 2009 I was
transferred back to Columbia Heights and allowed to
resume my position as a Shift-Leader. This remained the
same until May 2010 when I voluntarily terminated my
position as a Shift-Leader and became a Delivery Driver. I
remained at Columbia Heights.
I continued to work as a Delivery Driver until
March 2011, when I terminated my employment for Papa
John’s, presumably forever. However, in September 2011 I
returned to Papa John’s. At this time I worked as a
Delivery Driver in Columbia Heights and as a Shift-Leader
in Champlin. This lasted only a few months and in January
2012 I moved to Washington, DC.
Immediately upon moving to Washington I obtained
employment as an In-Store at the nearest Papa John’s
location. I worked at this store until June 2012 when I
terminated my employment in order to travel. It is
currently undetermined whether or not I may work for Papa
John’s again. I will say that I have always enjoyed my
work for Papa John’s no matter where the store or what my
position.
What I have described so far should bare sufficient
witness to my experience with Papa John’s Pizza. I have
worked at numerous locations, under numerous managers,
supervisors, and district operators, under countless
circumstances, with an amalgamation of varying
personalities, I have held numerous positions, and have
worked within the corporate, small franchise, and large
franchise structures.
What follows are my observations. I do not wish to
overtly determine right or wrong, but I do wish to suggest
that there is a right and wrong, both of which I have seen
throughout my experience with this company. It is my
hope through these observations to arrive at a clearer
4
picture of what is right and to discover a better, more
appropriate way of doing business.
The acronym by which Papa John’s operates is
known as FASPAC. This stands for: Focus,
Accountability, Superiority, People Are Priority Always
(PAPA), Attitude, and Constant improvement. This
acronym represents the said values of the company at a
general, all-encompassing, and macro-level. It is
unspecific. It is, at the farthest reaching level, a method of
quality control created to instill within all of its team
members the company’s core values. I do not seek to
debunk FASPAC. I admire the values laid out in the
acronym. Furthermore, I believe that Papa John’s, at every
level, seeks and succeeds to achieve these values.
However, to a larger degree, I believe that Papa John’s
alienates itself from these values far too often. Essentially,
what I have witnessed through thirteen years of experience
is an unabashed hypocrisy to Papa John’s’ core values. I
am confused by this hypocrisy because I admire the work,
the people, the system, and the success of Papa John’s
Pizza. But it is this dichotomy between what the company
says and what the company does, that leads to the
following essay. Perhaps this dichotomy cannot be
reconciled, but it must at least be articulated and then
thoughtfully considered.
5
Focus
We begin with Focus. Focus is a vague term that is
hard to define. It cannot exactly be quantified or made
tangible, therefore it is a challenge to argue whether or not
Papa John’s adheres to this principle. I would say here that
there exists a certain degree of confusion between “focus”
and “getting things done.” Certainly Papa John’s promotes
focus in every step of the pizza service process. From start
to finish focus is required to do the job and to do it right.
However, intertwined with the principle of focus is
pressure. There is constant pressure to do things quickly,
effectively, and at least cost. Of course, this is necessary
and in theory, good. But somehow the hierarchical system
of management combined with the statistical system of
number monitoring creates a level of pressure great enough
to supersede focus. Therefore, focus, where applicable, is
jettisoned in favor of getting things done.
This becomes most apparent in the common
practice of clicking pizzas off the screen early. While
pizzas are being prepared, there is a computer monitor that
lists each pizza in the order in which it was received. In
addition to showing the type of pizza that is to be made, the
computer screen also shows the amount of time that has
elapsed since the order was originally placed. As a general
rule, each pizza is to be made in five minutes or less. Once
each pizza is placed in the oven, it is clicked off the screen
and the time it took to prepare is recorded in the system as
the make-time. Over the course of a day, week, and
period, the computer system tracks the average make-time.
Management then uses the make-time to draw certain
conclusions and to forecast future food and labor needs and
goals. In theory, the system works. However, there is
pressure from the top to reduce the make-time number to
the lowest possible number in order to reflect fast and/or
6
quality service. This is where the hypocrisy exists. On the
one hand, upper management stresses that a pizza cannot be
clicked off early in an attempt to cheat the system. This
standard should be obvious because to cheat the system is
to inaccurately reflect labor needs and business trends
which then leads to various kinds of errors and
miscalculations in the system forecasting models. But,
somewhere along the line, whether it is top-to-bottom or
side-to-side, this rule becomes overlooked in favor of
cheating the system. In other words, pressure trumps focus.
Though it is perhaps never spoken, it is understood by most
team members that they ought to click the pizza off the
screen early. The position which feels the most pressure to
act in this manner is the Shift-Leader who is directly
responsible for meeting number criteria. The goal then is
that the numbers, such as make-time, reflect speed rather
than the original value of focus. This pressure for speed
and improved numbers has become so inherent that lower-
level team members constantly engage in the practice of
clicking pizzas off early without the slightest idea why or
what the consequences might be. They only know that it
must be done.
This is just one example stated in as concise a
manner as possible. There exists innumerable other
methods of cheating the system in order to arrive at the
ideal numbers. It all stems from pressure that becomes
great enough that it is more important than focus. Instead,
focus becomes permeated through the hierarchical strain
and eventually lost.
7
Accountability
Accountability has become an under-recognized
value. So much that often times those who hold others
accountable are the ones who become perceived as the
wrong-doer. I admire accountability and I believe it carries
the greatest importance among the core values of Papa
John’s. However, accountability should bring with it
communication, understanding, patience, and a certain
degree of tact.
I would like to exhibit accountability in the Papa
John’s system through a personal anecdote. By this
anecdote I do not desire to evoke any judgments of
character or personal conduct. Nor do I wish to incorporate
my entire evaluation of accountability through this one
example. This is meant to exhibit the system of
accountability as it appears to be reflected throughout the
entire company. Let it be noted that I do not accuse Papa
John’s of disregarding accountability. It is the manner in
which Papa John’s holds its team members accountable that
I find problematic.
In February 2009, the Papa John’s location in
Columbia Heights, at which I worked, was assigned a new
District Manager. One afternoon that February during my
shift, the new District Manager, along with several other
Managers, visited the store in order to perform a Missions
Critical Evaluation. This is done approximately once every
period to rate each store on its performance and to define
areas which need improvement. During the evaluation it
was observed that I had not placed thermometers in the
dough as directed to do so by the Papa John’s Operations
Manual. The new District Manager, whom I had never met
and who, at the time, I did not know, brought this to my
attention. I acknowledged the fact that I did not use
thermometers in the dough. The District Manager
8
proceeded to ask if I would use thermometers in the dough,
“from now on.” I thought for a moment and answered
honestly and openly, “Probably not.” I then tried to explain
that I did not wish to be insubordinate but that it was a task
that was often overlooked and that it may be overlooked
again because of the nature of the task and its relevance
among many other tasks. Little, if anything, was said in
response. In hindsight, I was lucky not to be fired on the
spot. Regardless, there was no further discussion. The
District Manager did not introduce himself, thereby
revealing who he was, nor did he make any future efforts to
discuss the issue or to determine a solution, a compromise,
or even a command.
During the next two months it became evident to
me that I was being watched for any false steps so that I
could be punished for my prior delinquency. Eventually,
my punishment came. This happened on Easter Sunday.
Traditionally, Easter is a very slow day in the pizza
business. Since I was opening the store that day, I used the
opportunity to bring a DVD that I could watch during the
slowest periods of the day. I did not wish to neglect my
responsibilities nor, in my opinion, did I. At some point
during the afternoon I had the DVD playing in the office
while I was cleaning the store. The District Manager
arrived at that time. He needed me to sign some papers.
The visit took not more than five minutes and the District
Manager said almost nothing to me other than asking me to
sign the papers. The next day I received a phone call from
my General Manager telling me that I had been revoked of
my position as Shift-Leader. She said that I was no longer
allowed to work as a Shift-Leader for any of the stores
managed by this particular District Manager. I was quite
shocked, hurt, and taken aback. I did not feel that I
deserved to be demoted and, even if I had, I received no
verbal or written warnings in order to allow me to improve
my conduct and keep my position. Shortly following this
9
incident I inquired for a Shift-Leader at another location,
outside of this District Manager’s area. I was immediately
given a Shift-Leader position at the first store I inquired.
However, days before my first shift, the General Manager
called me said that I had been prohibited from working as a
Shift-Leader at her location as well. At this point I sought
out the District Manager who had revoked my position.
After several attempts it became clear to the District
Manager that I wished to keep my job and he held a
meeting with me. In this meeting he finally brought up the
earlier incident in February. He went on to conclude that I
was a hard-working, responsible, and diligent employee but
that I lacked the essential ability as a manager to hold
others accountable. He then agreed to transfer me to
another location and to allow me to continue working as a
Shift-Leader. He also said he would teach me how to hold
team members accountable, to which, as far as I could tell,
he never did.
I have included here a letter I wrote to my General
Manager immediately following my demotion. The letter
was written in the moment and adequately captures how I
felt:
3/26/2009
Dear Jennie,
It is not you to whom I should now
write. But if these words are intended
otherwise, I incur risk. If they are intended
for you, I secure my spirit no matter the
worldly outcomes. I write not wholly to
defend myself, but to unveil myself in a way
perhaps actions have been unable. Or, if not
10
to unveil, to remind, and to edify that which
I have already shown myself to be.
After many years of truly genuine
effort for a large and seemingly
unappreciative company, I was deeply
offended the other day by your boss’s
initiative. I am honored and grateful that
you respected me enough to advocate my
work and maintain my job. You are indeed
a wonderful boss for whom much credit is
due.
But, I want you to hear my opinion
so that my endeavors, great or small, will
not become misconstrued. I have been
employed by this company, in one form or
another for many years. I am thankful for
the opportunity it has always afforded me to
labor and to earn a living. I am glad for the
trust the company bestows each time I put
on a Papa John’s uniform. However, I have
become constantly concerned with the
company’s policies, outlook, and austere
methods.
I understand the nature of the
corporation and its ultimate goal to profit.
In order to profit, to succeed in the
competitive market, the company is required
to monitor and highly regulate its workforce.
In essence, they must develop a firm and
immovable foundation. One that cannot be
altered or transfigured, but rather easily and
completely adhered to by each of its
employees. Although I understand its
11
methods, I do not and cannot invariably
agree. There is more to Papa John’s than an
assembly line in which workers can be
moved in and moved out like cogs in a
machine. Behind each store, behind each
closing shift, behind each phone call, behind
each pizza, is a person…not a piece in a
puzzle. Though policy may need to be
written with the narrow expectation that
each employee is only a cog, in reality we
know this is not true. This is where healthy
and appropriate judgment can and ought to
be displayed. As an experienced,
respectable, responsible manager, I ought to
be able, allowed, and expected to do just
what my title presumes…to manage. I know
the expectations, I have learned the rules, I
have experienced the predictable and the
unpredictable. I have encountered foreseen
and unforeseen situations. I have been
trained and I have learned and I have not
learned and I have made mistakes. But
through all that there needs to be an
understanding of human competence,
capacity, expertise, and savvy. I am not a
cog, not a machine, not a piece in a puzzle to
aimlessly and thoughtlessly follow every
rudimentary command. If I determine that a
radio be appropriate at a given moment, then
it is appropriate. Not because I am a
narrow, self-centered, disrespectful
employee, but because I have earned the
trust and the right to manage the store…to
decide what and when something has
become appropriate based not just on policy,
which I know, but on circumstance,
12
experience, necessity, and human
understanding. Therefore, if I have
determined that an employee be allowed to
rest, it is not out of laziness, aloofness, or
some personal vendetta against the
company, it is out of a more, but not
completely, dutiful alertness for my position
as manager. I should not then be
immediately scrutinized, but observed and
ultimately judged as valuable or invaluable
to the company.
Jennie, nothing I have now stated is
aimed against you or anyone. It is a sort of
statement of faith. I love my work and I
love the people I work with. I will continue
with a genuine heart. What I do and how I
proceed to do it will not be a measure of
company assertiveness. It is, was, and
always will be a measure of spirit, hard
work, dedication, and love. I speak now
with words, but I speak always through
action. I will continue to be a valuable
member of the Papa John’s Pizza
Corporation, but I will do it the best way I
know how. And, if that should ever be
overlooked, if that should ever be
misconceived, if that should ever be
considered a detriment to this company, I
apologize with all my heart.
I am most sincerely yours, now and always,
Colin M. Mustful
13
What I have expressed through this incident appears
to be, in general, the manner in which Papa John’s holds its
team members accountable. In this case, me. It involves
no communication, no discussion, no warnings, no
education, and no defined expectations – simply
punishment through no means of confrontation. I was
never confronted. Likewise, it has been my observation
that team members are not confronted. Rather, they are
blamed and they are punished. Also, they are bullied. If a
team member’s conduct does not meet the expectations of
the Manager, the team member is targeted and then
neglected or else forced into unfavorable circumstances.
This leads to grievances by the team member and results in
discord between the team member and the Manager. This
then often leads to resignation or termination. Rarely is the
team member appropriately confronted and communicated
with throughout this process.
In addition, Papa John’s has created a system of
innumerable, and often dubious, tasks and unrealistic goals.
Management is able to utilize these meaningless tasks and
unrealistic goals to establish fault or short-coming on the
part of any team member they so choose. If at any time and
for any reason, personal or otherwise, management
becomes dissatisfied with any employee, they can point
toward any meaningless task not accomplished or any
unrealistic goal not reached in order to justify punishment
or termination.
Accountability, therefore, is not used as a means of
improvement and team success through common
expectations and common goals. Instead it is used as a
system of blame and punishment. Accountability has
become the method by which Papa John’s and its
management determines, at any point in time and for any
reason, who is acceptable and who is not. Who is in and
who is out.
14
Superiority
Superiority is another vague term that could qualify
for just about anything. It is a noble and worthwhile
endeavor to seek superiority in all categories of service
especially in such a competitive market. In this case I will
not question the superiority of the product. I will even go
so far as to assume that the product is superior. Moreover,
I do not question the ability of the team members.
Although their ability is relevant, superiority it is not
primarily, or at least initially, determined from the overall
ability of the employees. What I question in regards to
superiority, is the system by which Papa John’s determines
the value of its employees. In other words, the way they
choose whom to hire, whom to fire, whom to promote, and
so forth. Before I continue, allow me to preface my
statements by noting that there are a great many diligent,
hard-working, responsible, wonderful, and worthy people
working for Papa John’s at all levels. I know this first-
hand. But, I also believe that Papa John’s prefers, in
general, employees who are less capable, less reliable, less
intelligent, less ambitious, and who are expendable. That
sounds harsh, and quite possibly misguided. But from what
I can tell, Papa John’s’ upper management undervalues,
devalues, and fails to recognize noteworthy qualities in its
employees. It does this for a very specific reason – control.
Papa John’s seeks to employ people they can
control. They want people with little or no experience.
They want people who have rarely or never been employed.
They want people who will not view minimum wage as a
form of under-employment. Again, this sounds harsh and I
admit that this is challenging to articulate. Nevertheless,
the fact remains that Papa John’s seeks people they can
control. And once an employee has stepped outside their
limits of control they are no longer viewed as valuable no
15
matter what their personal qualities. So, regardless of how
hard-working, responsible, and diligent an employee is, if
that employee is no longer constrained by the systems of
control, that employee is no longer valuable. And because
that employee is no longer valuable, they are no longer
worthy of reward or even of fair treatment. Instead they
become expendable, ignored, mistreated, and exploited
until that employee decides that continued employment
with Papa John’s is no longer a worthwhile endeavor.
Once this happens, Papa John’s seamlessly fills their
position with someone they can control and the process is
continued.
It is this system of control that diminishes the
superiority of Papa John’s Pizza. Because its team
members are valued by this system of control, rather than
by merit, they are thereby disvalued as to their actual
worth. Because Papa John’s hires people who are—we will
say under-worthy—and fails to respect and acknowledge
those who are indeed worthy, the superiority of the entire
company suffers. It has become clear to me that they
system of control by which Papa John’s values its
employees results directly, whether by quality or by
service, in an evident lack of superiority.
16
People Are Priority Always (PAPA)
People Are Priority Always (PAPA) is an essential
and albeit required value for any customer service
orientated industry. Papa John’s is no exception.
Outwardly, Papa John’s adheres to PAPA and promotes
great customer service. For instance, they teach their
drivers that they are “servers on wheels.” They stress
hospitality at the door such as using the customer’s name,
repeating the order, and always saying thank you. When
handling customer complaints or problems they teach their
team members to use LAST which stands for Listen,
Apologize, Solve, and Thank. Through every step of the
ordering process Papa John’s does indeed promote quality
customer service or PAPA. However, as I mentioned, this
is only outwardly. Inwardly, there is a much more
analytical approach toward customer service. I am
speaking of course about profit. Surely any company must
turn a profit in order to survive and hopefully to thrive, but
Papa John’s, I believe, does this at the expense of its
customers. As discussed earlier, Papa John’s relies on a
system of numbers to determine its cost/benefit analysis
and as a result, its customer service.
I will consider for a moment the number known as
CSC or Customer Service Compliance. CSC is a
percentage which theoretically represents the percent of
customers who received quality service during any given
period of time. This is determined by the computer system
based on the estimated amount of time it takes for a pizza
to arrive at a customer’s door from the moment the order
was placed. As far as I am concerned the CSC number is
arbitrary because it does not consider the infinite number of
intangible and unquantifiable factors included in the service
process. Also, the system does not truly know how long it
takes for a pizza to arrive at the customer’s door. Lastly,
17
very often managers cheat the system in order to improve
the CSC number. They do this by routing drivers to orders
before the drivers arrive at the store, thereby deceiving the
system. This then has a ripple effect that invalidates the
entire system of projection making it impossible to properly
forecast labor needs and to accurately analyze customer
service.
I have digressed. What I wish to point out here is
that Papa John’s does and will risk quality customer service
in favor of its cost/benefit analysis. This perhaps is a
standard practice among for-profit company’s but it does
not justify the fact that it is both wrong and opposite to the
standards set out in its core values. For instance, Papa
John’s does not seek a 100% Customer Service Compliance
as one might expect. Rather, it seeks a CSC of 90%. The
company has determined that if it achieves a CSC of 100%
then either sales volume was too low or labor costs were
too high or both. If CSC falls below 90% Papa John’s has
determined, through some type of number crunching, that
service has failed to a large enough extent that it may eat
into future profits and thereby risk the company’s
sustainability. Therefore, Papa John’s believes that a CSC
of 90% is just right to maintain sales volume (to keep
enough customers coming back) without overspending, and
in my opinion properly spending, on labor. In total, this
system will maintain the desired profit margin, but it is
clearly to the detriment of 10% of its customers. Included
among all of this is the way in which employees are
utilized and exploited. Papa John’s may overschedule
during expected periods of high business volume, but it will
always underschedule during expected periods of low
business volume. Far too often, it seems, managers are
understaffed and employees are overworked. In the
company it is known as being “set up for failure.” Many
times throughout the course of a week, managers are “set
up for failure,” or, if not set up for failure, they are left at
18
risk for failure. This is done intentionally because as long
as service is achieved during expected periods of high
business volume, the company can afford (and it is
apparently more profitable) to incur service failures during
expected periods of low business volume. For instance, if
the store achieves 100% CSC between 5pm and 8pm, it can
then incur a CSC of 50% between 11pm and 2am and still
achieve a CSC of 90% for the day because of the higher
number of orders placed between 5pm and 8pm. This
results in overworked, overstressed employees, pressure to
cheat the system, and poor customer service.
Because Papa John’s operates on a system of
numbers and seeks the highest possible profit margin based
on its analysis, the company fails to achieve quality
customer service on a regular basis. This makes “People
Are Priority Always” an invalid statement.
19
Attitude
I cannot speak on attitude. As defined by Papa
John’s “whether you think you can or you can’t – you’re
right!” I agree that a positive mental attitude can make all
the difference and I laud Papa John’s for including it
among their core values. But I cannot speak toward
attitude because it is a rather personal endeavor. An
attitude is a reflection of an individual and not of an entity.
Papa John’s should and ought to seek out those with a
positive attitude, but it is not something achieved through
company intent.
Instead I will consider accuracy. Accuracy is
constantly reflected in the daily operation of the business
and appears to be an important characteristic of Papa
John’s Pizza. It is obvious that if a customer does not
receive what he or she ordered there is an immediate and
glaring service failure. Accuracy becomes paramount in
the pizza industry where restaurants turn out hundreds of
pizzas a day, all of which require accuracy. This does not
include other details such as customer information, special
requests, and food management. Certainly Papa John’s
stresses accuracy throughout the ordering process and
beyond. The concern I have is that Papa John’s
overstresses accuracy through their system of
micromanagement. Everything that is done throughout the
day is predetermined, beginning before the door is
unlocked in the morning with a security check of the
parking lot to the final turn of the key at night. I do not
entirely argue that this is unnecessary. I understand the
requirements of uniformity for such a vast, international
organization. But Papa John’s brings it to an eccentric
level. Each store has a checklist with over one hundred
fifty tasks. Each store uses a Manager’s Daily Operating
Guide (MDOG) which is a computer generated forecasting
20
system that tells the manager exactly how much dough will
be needed on an hour-to-hour basis. The MDOG
determines how much of each food product should be
prepared, it says exactly how many drivers and in-stores
will be needed at every hour, and so-forth. Also,
everything in the store is scripted. Team members are told
what to say, when to say it, and how to say it. Even drivers
are given explicit instructions on how a pizza should be
taken from the store, to the customer’s door, at the
customer’s door, and then how they should return. Again, I
understand the need for uniformity and I can see how
micromanagement works to enhance service, eliminate
mistakes, and assist team members; specifically managers.
But these prompts are not just overly detailed, they are
overly dictated. What I mean by this, is that none of the
systems of micromanagement are used to guide employees,
which I believe would be ideal, but are they are used to
limit all variables no matter what the cost or consequences.
In this way Papa John’s has determined that it is a greater
benefit to the company to stifle employees through a
compulsory, overly detailed system of micromanagement
than to casually guide them in a way that allows for
individuality, creativity, knowledge, experience, intuition,
and unforeseen circumstances. Papa John’s seeks to
eliminate chance in as many ways as it is capable thereby
eliminating the possibility for greater success or greater
failure. This may uphold the status quo, but it alienates its
team members, smothers innovation, limits growth, and
fails to account for the talents, character, experience,
ambition, and value of its employees. Accuracy then is
replaced by a system of micromanagement which is really a
system of least-risk or complacency.
21
Constant Improvement
The final core value is Constant Improvement. I
struggle to find any source of evidence declaring this
particular value through the operation of Papa John’s Pizza.
With each value preceding Constant Improvement there is
an evident dichotomy between in the way Papa John’s
follows its values and how it does not. In the case of
Constant Improvement I fail to recognize any measurable
means by which Papa John’s seeks to fulfill this value.
Rather, they seem content in seeking constant change.
Constant and indefinite change abounds in their product,
their methods, and their structure. To catalogue all of the
means by which Papa John’s is constantly changing would
be impossible. But it is undeniable that within any period
of time, change is intentionally used as a tool in achieving
the company’s unsaid goals.
Personnel are one of the most frequent and easily
identifiable changes. This is done at all levels of
management but is most apparent when done with the
General Manager. Once a store has reached a certain level
of comfort or familiarity, change in personnel is invariably
the outcome. I am unclear exactly why this is done. I can
only suggest that it is a means by which Papa John’s can
reassert its control, reemphasize its policies, and reestablish
predictability in the operation of their restaurants. By
changing personnel, especially through the GM position, its
team members are reminded of all directives and its
General Managers are reminded of the transient nature of
their position lest they accomplish the goals, or numbers,
set out for them.
I would like to also briefly note the impermanent
nature of many of the changes that are implemented.
Nothing is given its own space, nothing its own category,
nothing its own permanent identity. It is truly as if every
22
change is meant to be temporary and fleeting. Things are
implemented only as a quick-fix. Papa John’s appears to
recognize that change only results in improvement, or
profits, for a brief period of time, then change once again
becomes necessary. For this reason change is made with
the intention of leaving room for change once again in the
near future. It is not constant improvement, then, that Papa
John’s is after, but improvement only as necessary.
Improvement becomes mixed with and overtaken by
change in order to ensure its already-established chunk of
the market.
Before I conclude my argument on Constant
Improvement I would like to include a letter I wrote to my
District Manager in September of 2010. At the time the
District Manager had suggested to implement a system of
feedback. He wished to know what suggestions his team
members had regarding the operation of the restaurant. I
took advantage of that offer with the following letter:
Mr. Jon Peres
I am writing in response to your fax from
9/10/10.
I would like to briefly offer my opinions and
suggestions on management and leadership
methods in order to help Papa John’s
become more efficient and profitable. Since
I have no business training I would like to
refer largely to the text, “Reforming
Organizations: Artistry, Choice and
Leadership” by Lee G. Bolman and
Terrence E. Deal.
I believe that the management has become
too rigid and all-encompassing. From what
23
I can tell, it is run by a system of control at a
micro level that does not encourage or foster
independent growth, thought, or innovation.
It thrives only on routine and control. It is
my opinion that control is an illusion and
routine a fallacy. Rather, the life of a
manager “is a hectic life, shifting rapidly
from one situation to another.” Decisions,
therefore, are fluid and emerge from a
variety of frames or circumstances both
known and unknown. As put by Bolman
and Deal, “the image of firm control and
crisp precision often attributed to managers
has little relevance to the messy world of
complexity, conflict, and uncertainty they
inhabit. They need multiple frames to
survive. They need to understand that any
event of process can serve several purposes
and that participants are often operating
from different views of reality.” Current
leadership and management methods
utilized by Papa John’s and its franchise
partners seemingly choke out and dismiss
this theory of understanding.
Papa John’s, instead, seems rooted in
inadequate and somewhat antiquated ideas.
It redundantly pushes (often through
coercion) the same theories and methods but
never considers real, thoughtful, and
purposeful adjustments based on its
strengths, its weaknesses, and its people.
Rather, Papa John’s maintains a strict and
ineffective routine which ultimately drives
out innovation. We are stuck in the belief
that if results are marginally satisfactory, the
24
incentive to maintain routine outweighs the
incentive to innovate. We cannot continue
to rely on straightforward facts, numbers,
and routines. Nothing about this business is
straight forward. It is more accurately
described as complex, surprising, deceptive,
and ambiguous. This, I contend, ought to be
accepted and harnessed. Managers at every
level should rely on their experience and be
allowed and encouraged to adapt, change,
and read situations in order to decide what
needs to be done and then make it happen.
I further argue that Papa John’s and its
management do not thoughtfully consider its
individuals needs and skills. I understand
the tasks and chores that must be adequately
accomplished, but to ask the same of each
individual without concern for that
individual’s abilities and experience is
irrational. In addition, suitable incentives
are rarely appropriated to well-deserving
employees. By asking the same of each
individual while offering few incentives,
“individuals may feel neglected and
oppressed, and organizations sputter because
individuals withdraw their efforts or even
work against organizational purposes.” If,
however, Papa John’s can learn to value and
more properly respect its employees and
consider what each can give and what each
cannot give, individuals are more likely to
find their work meaningful and satisfying.
In this way Papa John’s will more
effectively reap the talents and energies of
its employees which ultimately leads to the
25
company’s growth and success. Also, I
contend that Papa John’s suffers from
specifically blaming individuals which
thereby alienates its employees. All too
often problems are cast as a result from bad
attitudes, abrasive personalities, neurotic
tendencies, stupidity, and incompetence. As
noted by Bolman and Deal, “targeting
individuals while ignoring larger system
failures oversimplifies the problem and does
little to prevent its recurrence.”
I would like to summarize my concerns by
citing Bolman and Deal as stated in the
following:
“Because organizations are complex,
surprising, deceptive, and ambiguous, they
are formidably difficult to comprehend and
manage. Our preconceived theories and
images determine what we see, what we do,
and how we judge what we accomplish.
Narrow, oversimplified perspectives become
fallacies that cloud rather than illuminate
managerial action. The world of most
managers and administrators is a world of
messes: complexity, ambiguity, value
dilemmas, political pressures, and multiple
constituencies. For managers whose images
blind them to important parts of this chaotic
reality, it is a world of frustration and
failure. For those with better theories and
the intuitive capacity to use them with skill
and grace, it is a world of excitement and
possibility. A mess can be defined as both a
troublesome situation and a group of people
who eat together. The core challenge of
26
leadership is to move an organization from
the former to something more like the latter.
“
I do not claim to know the answers. These
are just simple suggestions to be considered
for appropriate and effective change. I have
worked with the company for over eleven
years and it is my opinion that the company
has not properly adapted to a changing
world. Furthermore, through methods of
control and micromanagement, Papa John’s
fails to take advantage of the immense value
of many employees while alienating many
others. If Papa John’s considers the values
and abilities of each individual and then
adjusts its expectations with consideration to
each employee’s abilities, then the company
will much further benefit from the fruits of
their labor.
Take these words as you wish. It is my hope
that I can offer valuable and advantageous
recommendations that may be considered
and utilized to lead to more profitable and
successful business methods.
Greatest Regards,
Colin Mustful
This was quite a strong and deliberate message I made.
However, despite the District Manager’s appeal to accept
and consider feedback, I received no response to this letter,
nor did I receive any acknowledgement of its receipt.
27
Certainly, if Papa John’s openly sought constant
improvement, it would at least open a line of
communication with me regarding this letter.
28
Manifesto
Papa John’s Pizza intentionally diverts its business
practices away from its written core values. Its core values,
though important, are only used as a duplicitous guile; a
tool to squeeze as much utility and profit from every single
employee, from every single customer, and from every
single pizza. What it says is a lie and how it operates is
hypocrisy. Ultimately, hypocrisy undermines the
confidence of its customers and the integrity of its
employees. This is what Papa John’s does.