2008.12.11 01:06:18

John McDaniel

When teaching a class of undergrads this topic I start off with detailed operational definitions of “sick days,” “personal days,” and “vacation days.”  I do this because in the courses that follow mine their professors will expect that I provided this level of detail on the subject.  Then I tell them this story of a personal learning experience (read: a goof up).

I had just completed four or five consulting jobs and was feeling rather confident.  I was contacted by the laboratory division of an international pharmaceutical company to revamp the division’s sick day and vacation day policy.  I took the job and crafted a policy that illustrated a true understanding of the distinctions between sick days and vacations days.  I even introduced a new type of day called the personal day.  The result was bedizen with details and semantics.  The basic plan was this:

• Vacation days were defined as days off, with pay, that had to be scheduled at least one month in advance
• Sick days were defined as days where the employee had to call in by his/her start time to inform their supervisor that due to an illness they could not come into work that day.  Some days were paid, some were not depending upon a variety of factors.
• Personal days were defined as days were similar to vacation days except that only 3 working days advance notice was required. 

There were a lot more details but these are the important components for the purpose of this discussion.  The client was impressed.  It seemed that I really did know everything there was to know about this stuff.  I conducted a few trainings, collected my final payment and waited for my six month review time to arrive.  Six months later I called the client to see how the Einstein-esque plan was working.  The response was, well, less than enthusiastic.  In fact, my contact said “the thing is, the employees know the details better than we do.  The managers have to look up the details as each situation arises so the policy isn’t being used correctly.”  He told me they were about to scrap the plan in its entirety.  I sought the counsel of my graduate advisor and mentor.  He laughed at me and taught me a lesson that I have never forgotten: complex is just complicated but simple is actually usable.  Lesson learned and I returned to my client to correct my mistake.

Here’s the point: the textbook distinctions between these things aren’t actually all that important.  In fact, I’ve done a complete about face on this since those early days.  I don’t even distinguish between sick days and personal days anymore.  What is the use of making the distinction?  If you think about it, you are encouraging employees to lie to you regarding the reason(s) they are not coming to work.  My new grouping is called “personal plus days.”  Take them if you are sick, frustrated, bored, whatever.  Just don’t lie to me about them.  More notice is appreciated and considered in the performance review but the only notice required is that you call in before you supposed to be in the office.  Today when I create a “sick policy” I create a plan that says you have “x” number of days; let’s say the number of days is 15 (3 weeks).  Then I say 10 of those days have to be scheduled at least 4 weeks in advance (similar to vacation days).  The remaining 5 days must be taken with notice by the time you expected to start with consideration given for more advanced notice during the performance review.  The simplicity fosters a more honest and simple relationship between the employee and management.

The next issue is to pay or not to pay for these days.  This is an easy question.  Well, it is kind of, sort of easy.  It is easy if you know why you would pay for these days.  There are only three reasons you should ever pay an employee for anything: to attract, motivate, or retain said employee.  If you are having issues with any of these then you should consider paying for some of these days.  If you are not having any issues with them most assuredly you should not pay.  If you do decide to pay for some of the days be sure to pay for the days with respect to the amount of notice that has to be given to get the day off.  In other words, days off that require 2 weeks notice should be paid before days that require notification the day of.

Finally, be very careful when deciding to pay for any days off.  Paid days off are like super glue in that once applied they don’t go away easily; at least not without significant pain and swearing.  This is true with most things related to staff compensation: pay rates, benefits, paid time off, other perks, etc.  Scientists have studied the speed at which a “nice” benefit transforms into an entitlement.  This occurs at approximately the speed of light.  And if you don’t believe me watch the movie “Christmas Vacation” and you will see that I am right.  Besides, who doesn’t believe a Chevy Chase?

Le Meas,

John G. McDaniel, OD, MLHR
President/Founder
Waugoo Consulting Group, LLC
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

employee benefits | personal days | sick pay | vacation pay | paid time off

2008.12.04 23:02:23

John McDaniel

#9…..Awesome!  Another dry eye and ocular allergy CE lecture!

I see the value in continuing education, I really do.  I also see the need for the wide variety of topics covered.  In fact, I’ve even been fortunate enough to be the presenter of practice management education and always have a blast doing it.  That said, please, for the love of God, no more dry eye and ocular allergy lectures.

Since I started attending CE lectures in 2004 I’ve sat through no fewer than 1873 dry eye and/or ocular allergy lectures.  If you are an OD required to have continuing education you realize that I am only exaggerating a tiny bit.  I think I know why there are so many of these lectures available.  First, every optometrist encounters these conditions almost daily.  Second, most optometrists, regardless of their comfort level with diagnosing and managing most other disease states, are comfortable and capable of dealing with these problems.  Third, drug company execs pay their yacht bills with the sales of artificial tears and ocular allergy drugs.  I think the third one explains it the best.  Have you ever been to a dry eye or allergy lecture that wasn’t sponsored?  Actually, I am not sure I’ve ever been to any lecture that wasn’t sponsored (I will stop the digression right in its tracks).

Dry eye and allergy lectures remind me of the movie Groundhogs Day.  Each one feels mostly like the one before it.  I truly don’t believe it is the presenters fault for this.  I have seen some very good lectures give very good dry eye and allergy lectures.  It is entirely the fault of the material.  Hey, even I am not all that funny when my material is dry (pun intended).

A colleague suggested that my incredulous boredom with the topic stems from the fact that in my short career there have been very few major changes in a clinical area that has a lot of viable options.  I think she is right; would we see nearly this many lectures if there were some number less than the 7 billion artificial tear options on the market?

I am reminded of what I heard an optometrist at a party say about how he treats dry eyes and allergic eyes.  I’ll paraphrase here, but the sentiment was “if they are dry I tell them to get someone to lick their eye a few times a day.  If they itch I tell them to scratch them.  It ain’t that hard.”  Ah, good times.

Le meas,

John G. McDaniel, OD, MLHR
President/Founder
Waugoo Consulting Group, LLC
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

waugoo | john mcdaniel | top ten | optometry | practice | humor

2008.12.03 00:49:19

John McDaniel

I love top 10 lists; mostly because all of them fail to capture the essence of the facts, contexts, and temporal realities.  In other words, top 10 lists fail to match my opinions on most things.  So I proceed here knowing full well that you will disagree with me.  That’s OK.  Life would be boring if everyone agreed with me all the time.  Just ask my wife who finds life very exciting all of the time.

I love being an optometrist.  Not a week goes by that I don’t gain more appreciation for the privilege of being able to practice such a great profession.  That is not to say that practicing optometry is a panacea-like job.  It is with an eye to the occasional hurdles in the practice of optometry that I write the next 10 blog installments.  Each successive blog will progress a countdown of the top ten things that make me shake my head about practicing optometry.

My grandfather, who taught me more about the realities of life than anyone, used to compare his job as a carpenter to that of breaking rocks.  In fact, he used to compare everyone’s job or current task to breaking rocks.  I guess everything looks better when you compare it to the job of breaking rocks.  Grandpa would always say “its not like I’m breaking rocks for a living.”  True enough for me as well.  I wouldn’t change what I am doing for almost anything.  Especially for breaking rocks.

Now, in the best sense of fun and funny let’s dive into the dark abyss also known as “what is going through McDaniel’s mind.”  Without further adieu…

#10…..So many patients are completely devoid of any and all cover paddle skills and etiquette
Is there a simpler tool in the ophthalmic examination arsenal?  I can not think of one.  And there are so many ways to misuse the cover paddle…a few of my favorites are below:

• After being given the cover paddle and instructed to cover an eye, the patient proceeds to cover the eye with their free hand.  What are you doing here?  Waiting for the “now pretend you are conducting a band with the paddle while keeping the left eye covered” Instruction?
• Trying to jam the cover paddle between the glasses and the eye.  I can’t explain this one as there is no logic for it.
• Not being able to actually cover an eye or keep it covered after I move the paddle into place for you.
• Using the small handle end to cover the eye and the big paddle part as the hand grip.  Let me guess, you have never been an engineer, right?  Could you conceive of a more inefficient method for occluding one eye? 
• Putting the cover paddle in your mouth while listening to what I am saying to you.  Notice the look of disgust and horror on my face yet?
• Assuming the cover paddle is actually some sort of new age drumstick and that my $10,000 biomicroscope is your private drum kit.  I don’t think so there Buddy Rich.
• Using the paddle as a back/leg/thigh/arm pit/or worse scratcher.  Just for that I am going to tell you where the previous patient put the cover paddle before I gave it to you.
• Assuming ownership, part I – interpreting the phrase “take this” that accompanies me handing you the paddle literally.  Don’t steal my cover paddle or else my exam fee doubles. 
• Pretending it is a spoon and acting like you are eating chili in the exam chair.  Nice comedy routine; keep the day job.  By the way, why do you smell as if you have just been eating chili not 20 seconds before the exam started?
• Debating for over 10 seconds what is the proper way to place it over the eye: concavity toward eye or away from eye?  Don’t worry, it is just the most important test in my examination of you and the outcome will most assuredly determine if you get the “good” glasses or the “bad” glasses.
• Blaming the paddle for scratching your 1978 plastic lenses that you were too cheap to buy scratch protection on.  Let me guess, you’ll want me to warranty those too, right?
• Having to switch hands with the cover paddle to switch the eye you are covering.  I’ll admit that is nit picky until you consider that this usually takes over 2 minutes to accomplish the vaunted switch.
• Assuming ownership, part II – assuming that every test that involves the precious cover paddle requires you to hold it, even after I’ve told you two times “I’ll hold it this time, just watch the letter on the chart.”  Just imagine if they produced cover paddles that were shiny objects; nobody would ever listen to me.
• Asking me if I cleaned the paddle after the exam before yours.  Of course I did.  As a matter of fact I use a dead bears rear end as an autoclave-like device just for cover paddles and tonometer probes.  Thanks for asking.

And last but not least….

• Seeing that the cover paddle has some flexibility, you feel the need to see at what point the “bendy” paddle will snap in two.  Hey, at least you said sorry as you handed me the pieces.

Le meas,

John G. McDaniel, OD, MLHR
President/Founder
Waugoo Consulting Group, LLC
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

top ten | optometry | practice | humor

2008.11.26 21:48:43

John McDaniel

I have a long list of resources I have to keep up with on a monthly basis.  On that list is Money magazine.  In the September 2008 issue Steven Gandel conducted an interview of Loyola Law Professor Lauren Willis.  The topic was the effect of teaching the American public basic financial literacy so that they can adequately evaluate common and basic financial products, such as a home mortgage.  Ms. Willis suggests that financial education is a waste of time and money.  Her stated reason was that “it doesn’t work.  Sellers of financial products spend billions drowning out well meaning messages to consumers from nonprofits or government agencies.”  Also mentioned was the fact that financial products are always changing making it “hard for educators to keep up.”  She additionally states that “studies show that sending people to either high school personal finance classes or adult retirement seminars does not result in better financial behavior.”

What solution does the high minded Ms. Willis propose?  Before I tell you let’s see if you can guess.  One bit of added data might help out.  Her legal specialty is “financial products legislation.”  Have you a guess yet?  You probably got this one: more governmental regulation.  Shocked?  Me too; I could not see that one coming.  What type of regulation does she propose?  She prefers regulation that only allows financial products that “will benefit consumers.”  Ms. Willis actually suggests that sellers of financial products should be “required to offer you a default product that is safe.  Whenever you applied for a mortgage, for example, you would have to be offered a 30-year fixed amortizing loan.”  That sounds wonderful Ms. Willis.  Will the seller also have to provide donuts and crumb cake for my snacking pleasure during the sale?

Now for my opinion on the role of financial education in our society and Ms. Willis’ proposed course of action. 

Are you kidding me?  This may be the most self-serving, arrogant, condescending, short sighted view I have ever seen.  Ms. “Ivory Towers” (it is just a coincidence that my moniker sounds like a strippers name, I promise) is apparently exponentially more cognitively gifted than the rest of us.  So us mere mortals should allow her and her cohorts to make our financial decisions for us?  Not a chance in hell counselor. 

Reading between the lines (as well as reading some of the actual lines) shows that this lawyer wants the government to create all the possible financial packages we dullard consumers can choose from.  She’d also love it if the sales pitch were scripted by her and those of her ilk (aka the chosen few).  I’d laugh at you Ms. Willis if you weren’t so dangerous.  I can just hear the people out there saying “yeah, I only want to be able to pick financial products that are good for me.”  That would be great for the borrower, right?  Maybe not.  What if what is best for you isn’t what is best for me?  Who decides what is “best” for whom?  Ms. Willis?  I sure as heck hope not.  And finally, can you guess what happens when an industry is regulated to the point where differentiation is nearly impossible?  It becomes a government agency such as the Division of Motor Vehicles.  Next time you need a loan have fun at the DMV waiting in line for the greatest customer service on earth.  Or not.

Le meas,

John G. McDaniel, OD, MLHR
President/Founder
Waugoo Consulting Group, LLC
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

financial literacy | education | regulation | money magazine | stephen gandel | lauren willis

2008.11.25 23:26:44

John McDaniel

Having done a bit of writing for the professional optometric press I’ve learned a few things about myself.  First and foremost, I have learned that writing is not a core strength of mine.  Writing takes a lot of time and effort on my part.  Conversations, lectures, and presentations are easier for me.  For years I have wished there was a medium where the ease of conversation could blend with the permanence of publication.  I think I have found such a medium – blogging. 

Commensurate with the launching of Waugoo Consulting Group’s new website (www. Waugoo.com) I have decided to start an official blog (official blog?  I think that is an oxymoron, but I digress).  Here is what I hope to accomplish with this blog:

1. I want to have fun doing it – if I don’t find this interesting it will not be interesting for anyone else
2. Share bits of the Waugoo knowledge base that can be used by most readers on their own
3. Entertain you, the reader, enough that you come back for more
4. Consolidate my opinions on the most commonly asked questions
5. Promote Waugoo Consulting Group’s services by demonstrating our philosophy and approach in bite size samples
   

I, ultimately, will be the one responsible for selecting the topics covered in this format.  If I don’t find a topic interesting, anything I might have to say about it will likewise be less than interesting.  That said, I am always searching for intriguing issues to address in blogs, articles, and presentations.  I am hoping that you, the reader, will become an active participant by sharing what topics you’d like to see discussed.  I am asking, for the first of what will likely be many times, for your ideas, questions, comments, and consternation's. 

Finally, I’d like to add a note about the level of decorum and formality of the blog.  There will be little of either.  I fully expect to commit errors in spelling, grammar, and most definitely in over generalization.  The spelling and grammatical errors will be due to the aforementioned weakness in writing.  The over generalization error comes from inevitability of medium and purpose.  Every management suggestion you’ve heard has one significant caveat: it may not apply to your idiosyncratic situation.  The same holds true for anything I might say on this blog.  What may apply to most situations may not apply to your situation.  I should also add that my naturally sarcastic and irreverent style can’t be changed; it is what it is.  Sometimes this style doesn’t come across very well in written form.  This is probably another testament to my lack of writing skill.  If unsure of my intent or meaning please at least assume the words are intended sarcasm or irreverence or even better ask me.  We all appreciate a second chance to explain our thoughts from time to time.

Le meas,

John McDaniel, OD, MLHR
President/Founder
Waugoo Consulting Group, LLC
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

waugoo | intro | blog | style | official | john | mcdaniel