The Uncomfortable Truth About Human Stupidity: Why Mom Was Right All Along

A few weeks ago, a former colleague reached out to thank me for serving as a reference for his new position. After the pleasantries, he gently mentioned that he'd noticed I haven't posted anything on my blog in a few months. "Everything okay?" he wrote. "Just busy, or have you run out of things to complain about?"

He had a point. It's been a while. But if I'm being honest, I haven't run out of material—far from it. Life has a way of continuously validating certain uncomfortable truths, and lately I've been thinking a lot about one particular truth that my mother tried to teach me years ago.

Mom used to tell my siblings and me, something to the effect of: If you remember that people are dumb, you will never be disappointed...

That Mom-proverb coupled with one of her other favorites: If common-sense were common, it wouldn't be so valuable...

These Mom-proverbs have always stuck with me. I know she told us those things because she was trying to convey that she believed we were each smart and "above average." While I realize, in some respects, these sentiments are rooted in the Lake Wobegon effect, I've never really forgotten her wisdom. Whether that was dealing with Little League parents who treated six-year-old tee ball like Game 7 of the World Series, bosses who make arbitrary "design" requests, or colleagues who believe that "office transparency" means they have to know everything about everything, Mom's observations have proven remarkably prescient.

What I didn't realize until recently is that my mother had essentially distilled the essence of what Italian economist Carlo M. Cipolla would later formalize in his book "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity." While presented with academic rigor, Cipolla's work arrives at conclusions that would make my Mom nod knowingly.

Why Experience Keeps Proving Mom Right

Cipolla identified five laws that explain why stupidity is both more prevalent and more dangerous than we assume. His insights perfectly capture what I've witnessed throughout many of my career and volunteer experiences.

Early experiments in transportation
Far Side - ©1984 Gary Larson

Cipolla's first law states that we always underestimate the number of stupid people out there. Every time I think I've seen it all, someone proves me wrong. Like the parents who sent me long emails, accusations of favoritism, and ultimatums about pulling their kids from Little League when I was president. Why? Because their 10-year-old only played three innings instead of four in a recreational game. These weren't isolated incidents; these parents were convinced their child's future athletic scholarship was on the line…in Little League. Meanwhile, their kids just wanted to have fun playing baseball, but the parents had transformed what should have been a developmental experience into high-stakes drama that served no one. Mom would have just nodded and said, "What did you expect?"

The second law reveals that stupidity strikes randomly. Intelligence, education, or position don't provide immunity. Consider the university colleague whom I've shown six times in one month how to sum a column of numbers in Excel. Six times, using the same basic function. This isn't about learning curves or complex software; it is about someone who uses spreadsheets daily but refuses to retain the most fundamental operation. Credentials don't protect anyone from poor judgment of lack of effort.

Cipolla's third law cuts to the heart of why stupidity is so destructive: stupid people cause harm to others while gaining nothing themselves, often even hurting themselves in the process. In 2024, this played out perfectly with rural farmers. America's most farming-dependent counties overwhelmingly backed Donald Trump in last year's election; his support averaged 77.7% in America's breadbasket. American farmers were convinced that Trump's policies would protect their economic interests. (Felder, 2024), (Atkinson, 2024) Yet when the new administration began implementing mass deportation policies in early 2025, these same agricultural communities found themselves in crisis. "We are dangerously close to a breaking point," and "Farmers and other employers say they worry their workers will be deported" became common refrains as the very workforce these farmers depended on faced removal. The agricultural sector, which voted overwhelmingly for Trump, now pleads for exemptions from the policies that they helped elect him to implement. Simultaneously harming immigrant communities, damaging their own economic prospects, and undermining the agricultural system that feeds our nation—all while achieving none of their stated goals of economic prosperity. (Chishti & Bush-Joseph, 2025), (Rahman, 2025)

The fourth law warns that reasonable people consistently underestimate the damage that foolish people can cause. We assume rationality will eventually prevail, that obvious problems will self-correct, and that someone will step in before things get too bad. Instead, systems are designed by committee, and processes are implemented that prioritize appearance over function, like fixing font preferences. At the same time, actual problems go unaddressed, and organizations create processes for the 20 percent of exceptional cases rather than optimizing for the 80 percent that matter most. Looking back on my volunteer Little League experience, parents spent countless hours debating rules for edge cases, uniform policies, practice schedules, and "rules loophole" scenarios—while the 80 percent that mattered, like ensuring kids actually learned baseball and had fun, became a theater of adult insecurity, robbing their children of joy and development.

Cipolla's fifth law delivers the stark conclusion: stupid people are the most dangerous because their actions are both harmful and unpredictable. You can understand and work around people who act out of greed or malice; their motivations make sense, even if you disagree with them. However, the truly dangerous person is the one whose decisions follow no logical pattern you can anticipate or counter. They're not trying to gain an advantage; they're just creating chaos while everyone else tries to make sense of senseless behavior. Like the executive who insisted I drop everything to change fonts on thirty reports because "that's the font he prefers reading internal reports in." Not because the data was wrong, not because the formatting was unclear, just because he had a font preference. Meanwhile, I'm trying to find and fix actual data errors, but font aesthetics have become the urgent priority. There's no rational framework for predicting when someone will prioritize arbitrary preferences over actual problems — you just have to build systems robust enough to survive the inevitable disruption.

The Digital Amplification Effect

What makes these laws particularly relevant today is how our interconnected world amplifies stupidity's reach. Social media platforms reward engagement over accuracy, creating perfect conditions for Cipolla's predictions to manifest at scale. Misinformation spreads faster than corrections, conspiracy theories find fertile ground in confirmation bias, and complex problems get reduced to soundbites that satisfy our need for simple answers to complicated questions.

The rapid spread of obviously false information during major news events demonstrates how we consistently underestimate both the number of people who will believe nonsense and their ability to influence others. Mom's wisdom about disappointment becomes prophetic. If you expect rational responses to obvious facts, you'll be let down every single time.

Living with the Reality

I don't mean to be cynical or misanthropic. Acknowledging the prevalence of stupidity isn't about looking down on others, and indeed, I have fallen into this very trap on occasion. Instead, understanding the phenomena is about managing expectations and preparing for reality. When I remember Mom's advice, I'm less likely to be blindsided by poor decisions in group settings, more likely to build redundancy into my plans, and better equipped to respond constructively when things go sideways.

My goal isn't to make you jaded, but to have you become realistic. By accepting that stupidity is not just common but predictable, we can all design systems that account for it, we can communicate in ways that minimize its impact, and maintain our own sanity when confronted with its inevitable manifestations.

Mom helped prepare me, my brother, and my sisters for a world where critical thinking is rare, good intentions don't guarantee good outcomes, and the phrase "I can't believe they did that" loses its power to shock. She wanted us to be ready to be wise, not bitter, not cynical.

Turns out she was teaching us Cipolla's laws decades before I'd ever heard of them. Sometimes the most profound truths come wrapped in the simplest packages, delivered by the people who love us most and want us to be prepared for the world as it actually is, not as we wish it were.

Common sense really isn't all that common. And if you remember that people act dumb, you really will never be disappointed.

You'll just be prepared. Thanks, Mom!

---

References:

• Atkinson, M. (2024, November 7). Rural America sent Trump back to the White House. Flip in Clarendon County helps explain why. Post and Courier. Link
• Chishti, M. & Bush-Joseph, K. (2025, April 25). In First 100 Days, Trump 2.0 Has Dramatically Reshaped the U.S. Immigration System, but Is Not Meeting Mass Deportation Aims. Migration Information Source. Link
• Felder, B. (2024, November 13). GRAPHIC: Trump support grew in America’s top farming counties despite first-term trade war. Investigate Midwest. Link
• Rahman, B. (2025, April 29). Trump’s mass deportations are pushing US farms to breaking point. Newsweek. Link

Why rules matter...

(And Why Arguing About Them Usually Doesn't)

Sometimes the best way to change someone's mind isn't to change it at all.

I've been thinking a lot over the last few months about rules, not the bureaucratic, soul-crushing, DMV-ish kind that make you want to set your employee handbook on fire, but the deeper question of why we need them in the first place. And more importantly, what happens when we try to convince people to follow them by doing exactly the wrong thing?

It started with a conversation I had with a former colleague at Boise State who was frustrated about vaccine hesitancy in our community. Sound familiar? She'd been getting into fights with her family and friends about politics. Big fights. Showing up with printouts from news sites and research studies, she believed that if she could just walk them through the facts, they'd finally get it. Her efforts never worked and actually made everything worse. The harder she tried to convince them, the more they shut down.

"I don't understand it," she confided in me. "The science is clear. Why won't they just listen to reason?"

I thought about the experience Adam Grant wrote about in his 2021 New York Times opinion piece The Science of Reasoning With Unreasonable People, where his stubborn friend, the one who refused to vaccinate his children, no matter how many myths Grant debunked. Grant, an organizational psychologist, eventually realized something profound. When we try to change someone's mind by preaching about why we're right and prosecuting them for being wrong, we often end up strengthening the very beliefs we're trying to change.

The Logic Bully Problem

Here's the thing about being right: it can make you insufferable.

I've been guilty of this myself more times than I care to admit. I do this all the time. Someone says something I think is completely wrong - about COVID, or politics, or even just which way to drive somewhere - and I jump in with all my evidence. I start pulling up articles on my phone, explaining why they're mistaken, basically trying to beat them over the head with facts until they give up.

Turns out that doesn't work. At all. At least not the way we think they do.

When we attack someone's position head-on, we trigger what psychologists call the "psychological immune system." Just like a vaccine inoculates the body against a virus, the act of resistance fortifies the mind against future attempts at influence. We make people more certain of their opinions, not less.

The Motivational Interviewing Alternative

There's a better way, and it comes from an unlikely source: addiction counseling.

Decades ago, psychologists working with substance abuse developed a technique called motivational interviewing. Instead of trying to force people to change, they learned to help people find their own intrinsic motivation to change. The approach is deceptively simple: ask open-ended questions, listen carefully, and hold up a mirror so people can see their own thoughts more clearly.

It's not manipulation, it's genuine curiosity about how someone thinks and what matters to them.

Grant eventually tried this approach with his vaccine-hesitant friend. Instead of asking why he opposed COVID vaccines, Grant asked how he would stop the pandemic. Instead of debating the merits of immunization, he listened for moments when his friend expressed any ambivalence, any "change talk," and gently explored it.

The breakthrough wasn't that his friend suddenly signed up for a shot. It was that he admitted his views could change, that this wasn't a "black-and-white issue." That's not nothing. That's everything.

Why Rules Actually Matter

This connects to something more profound about why we have rules in the first place. Rules aren't just arbitrary constraints imposed by killjoys who hate fun. At their best, they're collective agreements that make cooperation possible.

Think about it: every time you drive through a green light without slowing down, you're trusting that everyone else has agreed to follow the same set of rules. Every time you put money in a bank, use a credit card, or sign a contract, you're relying on systems of regulations that make complex societies function.

But here's the paradox: the more we need people to follow rules, the less effective it becomes to simply tell them to follow rules.

I recently re-learned this the hard way when I tried to convince colleagues at my new employer that a workplace policy they had implemented was overly complicated, burdensome, and failed to follow Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) standards. There was one colleague in particular, let's call him Dave, who seemed to take personal offense every time I brought up FASB. At first, I approached it like a prosecutor: "Dave, this is the standard. Here's the logic behind it. We did it this way at my previous employer. End of discussion."

The more I cited FASB and invoked my previous employer's institutional processes, the more creative Dave became in his resistance and explanations. "Well, our auditors approved this approach." "The previous CFO set this up for a reason." "We've been doing it this way for years without problems." "Your old company might have different circumstances." Each response felt like he was building a fortress around the status quo, brick by defensive brick.

I was ready to write Dave off as just another change management "anchor," a DMV-ish cog in the University bureaucracy threatened by the "new guy's" ideas, when a colleague suggested I actually talk with him instead of at him. So I asked Dave for a meeting (in his office, naturally) and instead of lecturing him about past history and compliance, I asked him how the university developed this procedure.

It turned out Dave wasn't anti-FASB or resistant to proper accounting standards at all. The procedure I was critiquing had been his brainchild during a particularly chaotic period when the previous CFO had left suddenly and the auditors were breathing down their necks. He'd cobbled together a solution that worked in the crisis. While he knew it wasn't perfect, it had kept the university compliant during a vulnerable time. When I kept invoking "best practices" from my previous employer, he felt like I was dismissing not just the procedure, but the context that created it and the effort he'd put into keeping things afloat.

Once I understood the history and his actual concerns about changing mid-stream, we could work together on a transition plan. Dave became one of my strongest allies in implementing the new procedures, not because I'd convinced him with FASB citations, but because he felt like his institutional knowledge and past efforts were valued in creating the solution.

The Stag Hunt Principle

Game theorists have a concept called the "Stag Hunt" that explains this beautifully. Imagine a group of hunters who can work together to catch a stag (which feeds everyone) or split off individually to catch rabbits (which will only feed themselves). If everyone cooperates, everyone benefits. But if too many people defect to chase rabbits, the whole system breaks down.

The tragedy isn't that some people are selfish; it's that when trust erodes, even well-meaning people start making choices that undermine the collective good.

Rules work when people buy into them. And people buy into them when they feel heard, understood, and respected, not lectured, shamed, or bulldozed.

This reminds me of something I know intimately as a lifelong Cubs fan: the difference between loyalty born from argument and loyalty born from love.

For decades, people have tried to convince Cubs fans to abandon their team using perfectly logical arguments. "Look at their record!" "They haven't won anything!" "You're wasting your time and money!" The more people told us the Cubs sucked, the more we'd defend them. 'This is our year!' we'd say, every single year, despite all evidence to the contrary.

But nobody becomes a Cubs fan because someone showed them a spreadsheet. You stick with the Cubs because your dad did, or because you love Wrigley, or because misery loves company. It's not a logical decision. It's about tradition, hope, community, and something ineffable that connects us to Wrigley Field, to our fathers and grandfathers, to the beautiful futility of believing that this might be the year.

You can't logic someone into, or out of, being a Cubs fan, and you can't logic someone into following a rule they don't believe in. Both require something deeper than facts; they need trust, connection, and the sense that your perspective matters.

Most diehard Cubs fans don't come from sabermetricians proving (or disproving) the talent of the team. They come from tradition, and more recently, they come from the team finally honoring what we've always believed was possible. Sometimes the best way to change someone's mind is to show them you understand why they think the way they do.

What This Looks Like in Practice

So what does this mean for those of us who care about rules, standards, and collective responsibility?

First, get curious instead of certain. Instead of asking "How can I convince them they're wrong?" try asking "What would have to be true for their position to make sense to them?"

Second, listen for ambivalence. Most people who seem completely rigid actually have some uncertainty lurking beneath the surface. Your job isn't to create that uncertainty; it's to notice it when it emerges and make space for them to explore it.

Third, focus on shared values. Most people want the same stuff you do; they just disagree on how to get there. That parent who won't vaccinate their kid? They're not trying to hurt anyone. They're scared and trying to protect their child, same as you would. The guy who won't wear a mask at work isn't necessarily being selfish - maybe he's worried about looking weak, or maybe he thinks the whole thing is overblown. Start with what you both care about, not where you disagree.

Fourth, resist the prosecutor's impulse. When someone says something you disagree with, your first instinct might be to pounce. Don't. Get curious. Ask them to say more. You might be surprised by what you learn.

The Bigger Picture

None of this means we should abandon our convictions or stop advocating for what we believe is right. It means we should get better at it.

Rules matter; they make civilization possible. But rules without buy-in become DMV-ish bureaucracy at best and authoritarianism at worst. If we want to live in a society where people choose to cooperate rather than being forced to comply, we need to get better at the delicate art of persuasion.

That starts with remembering that the person across from us is a human being with their own fears, hopes, and reasons for believing what they believe. Even when those reasons seem entirely wrong for us.

Especially then.

---

The next time you find yourself wanting to logic-bully someone into agreement, try this instead: take a breath, get curious, and ask them a question you genuinely want to hear the answer to. You might not change their mind. But you might change the conversation. And sometimes, that's precisely where change begins.

When Quiet Leadership Wins: A Management Parable from the Pandemic

There's a certain irony in discovering that your greatest leadership strength emerges during a global crisis that sends everyone else into isolation. But that's exactly what happened to me during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when my natural introversion, disguised for years behind the extroverted demands of advancement work, finally became a professional asset rather than something to overcome.

When Caltech announced that most staff would work from home indefinitely in March 2020, I found myself in an unusual position: I was one of the few people who genuinely wanted to keep coming to the office. Not because I was eager to risk exposure, but because someone needed to be there. The Development office couldn't just go dark. Gifts still needed processing, deposits had to be made, and our suddenly remote workforce needed technical support to function from their kitchen tables and makeshift home offices.

As a manager, I faced a choice that would define not just my leadership style, but my understanding of what authentic leadership actually looks like.

The Anti-Hero's Journey

Most leadership stories follow a predictable arc: the reluctant hero discovers hidden courage, rallies the troops, and emerges transformed. My pandemic story is different. It's about an introvert who spent years performing extroversion, finally finding a crisis that rewarded authenticity over performance.

You see, advancement work, fundraising, donor relations, and event management are built for extroverts. Or at least, those disciplines reward people who can convincingly play one. For years, I'd forced myself into that mold, powering through donor dinners, schmoozing at cocktail receptions, and maintaining the kind of constant "on" energy that successful fundraising demands. I was good at it, but it was exhausting. I'd joke that I was "socially distant" long before the pandemic made it fashionable, but the truth was deeper: I did my best thinking, my most creative problem-solving, and my most genuine relationship-building in quieter, more intimate settings.

When the pandemic hit, suddenly everyone was discovering what introverts had always known: that meaningful work could happen in smaller groups, that technology could facilitate connection without requiring constant physical presence, and that sometimes the most productive thing you can do is give people space to think.

But someone still needed to be present for the work that couldn't go remote.

The Reluctant Office Guardian

The decision to keep coming in wasn't dramatic or heroic. It was practical, and it was right. Our gift processing couldn't stop; donors were still making contributions, and in fact, some were increasing their giving in response to the crisis. The university's financial stability depended on maintaining those relationships and processing those gifts promptly. Beyond that, our suddenly remote team needed technical support, equipment, and someone who could coordinate between the physical office and the digital workspace everyone was scrambling to create.

I could have asked one of my staff to take on this responsibility. After all, as a manager, delegating is part of the job. But something about that felt fundamentally wrong. How could I ask someone else to take on the risk and isolation of being one of the few people on a nearly empty campus while I worked safely from home? If the work was essential, and it was, then I needed to be there to do it.

This wasn't heroism. It was basic management ethics: don't ask your team to do something you're not willing to do yourself.

Enter the Four-Legged Co-Worker

The decision to bring Ace, my Schnauzer/Scottish Terrier mix, wasn't entirely planned. California's shelter-in-place orders meant that suddenly everyone was home with their pets, while I was spending long days in an eerily quiet office building. Ace had always been my companion during work-from-home days, so it seemed natural to extend that arrangement to the office.

What I didn't anticipate was how much his presence would matter not just to me, but to the few colleagues who were also coming in and, eventually, to the team members who started venturing back to campus as restrictions began to lift.

Ace became the office therapy dog without any formal training or certification. Colleagues who were starting to feel stir-crazy at home would email to ask if they could come in and take him for a walk around Pasadena. These weren't just casual strolls; they were genuine mental health breaks for people who had been isolated in their homes for weeks or months, desperately craving not just physical activity but the simple comfort of interacting with a friendly, uncomplicated creature who was just happy to see them.

For an extroverted-introvert like me, Ace was the perfect icebreaker. People would stop by my office to pet him, and in those moments, real conversations would happen, not the forced networking chatter of pre-pandemic office life, but genuine check-ins about how people were coping, what they needed, and how we could support each other through an unprecedented situation.

The Introvert's Advantage

Here's what I learned during those long, quiet months in the office: sometimes the best leadership happens in the spaces between the big moments. While everyone else was adapting to Zoom fatigue and trying to recreate their extroverted work styles in a digital format, I was discovering that my natural preference for one-on-one conversations, my comfort with silence, and my ability to focus for long periods without constant stimulation were exactly what the moment required.

The few of us who were regularly on campus developed a different kind of team dynamic. Without the usual office buzz and constant interruptions, our interactions became more intentional, more focused. When someone stopped by to walk Ace, we'd end up having the kind of substantive conversation about work challenges, family stress, and pandemic anxieties that rarely happens in the rush of normal office life.

I realized that I'd been trying to lead like an extrovert for years, rallying teams through high-energy meetings, maintaining constant communication, and always being "on" for my staff. But the pandemic created space for a different kind of leadership: steady presence, thoughtful response, and the kind of quiet reliability that introverts often excel at but rarely get credit for.

The Management Parable

Every good parable has a lesson that transcends its specific circumstances, and the lesson of my pandemic experience isn't really about working through COVID-19. It's about authenticity in leadership and the dangerous assumption that there's only one way to lead effectively.

For too many years, I'd operated under the belief that good managers needed to be perpetually energetic, constantly communicating, and always "available" in ways that felt natural to extroverts but exhausting to introverts. The pandemic forced me to question that assumption, and what I discovered was that my team didn't need me to be someone I wasn't. They needed me to be genuinely present, reliably supportive, and authentically myself.

When colleagues came to walk Ace, they weren't looking for a pep talk or a motivational speech. They were looking for connection, for someone who could listen without judgment, and for a brief escape from the intensity of everything happening in the world. My willingness to simply be there, physically present in the office, emotionally available for whatever they needed, and comfortable with the kind of unstructured interaction that often makes extroverts uncomfortable, turned out to be exactly what people needed.

The Ripple Effect of Authentic Leadership

The most surprising outcome of my pandemic leadership style wasn't how it affected my team's productivity (though that remained strong) or even their morale (which, considering the circumstances, was remarkably good). It was how it changed my understanding of what management could look like when it aligned with rather than fought against my natural temperament.

I stopped trying to manufacture energy I didn't feel. Instead, I offered the kind of steady, reliable presence that came naturally to me. I stopped forcing constant communication and instead made myself available for the kind of deeper, less frequent conversations that actually moved projects forward. I stopped treating my introversion as a professional liability and started recognizing it as a leadership asset, especially in times of crisis when people need stability more than enthusiasm.

The result was a kind of leadership that felt sustainable in a way my previous approach never had. More importantly, it was leadership that my team could trust because it was genuinely me, not a performance of what I thought a manager should be.

Lessons for the Post-Pandemic World

As organizations continue to grapple with hybrid work models and the lasting changes COVID-19 brought to workplace culture, my pandemic experience offers a few lessons that extend beyond crisis management:

Authentic leadership is more effective than performed leadership. Your team doesn't need you to be someone you're not. They need you to be reliably, genuinely yourself, especially when everything else feels uncertain.

Different situations call for different leadership styles. The high-energy, constantly communicating approach that works in some contexts can be exhausting and counterproductive in others. Sometimes the most powerful thing a leader can do is create space for others to think, process, and respond at their own pace.

Small gestures can have big impacts. Ace's walks around Pasadena weren't solving the pandemic, but they were providing real mental health support for people who desperately needed it. Never underestimate the power of simple presence and availability.

Crisis reveals authentic character. The pandemic stripped away a lot of the usual performance aspects of professional life and forced everyone to figure out what really mattered. For leaders, it was an opportunity to discover whether their management style was genuinely effective or just well-rehearsed.

The Quiet Revolution

My pandemic experience taught me that some of the most effective leadership happens quietly, in the spaces between dramatic moments, through consistent presence rather than grand gestures. It taught me that authenticity isn't just a nice-to-have in leadership; it's essential, especially when people are scared, stressed, or struggling to adapt to unprecedented circumstances.

Most importantly, it taught me that being an introvert in a field designed for extroverts doesn't mean I need to become someone else to be effective. It means I need to understand how my natural strengths can serve my team and my organization, especially when the usual playbook doesn't apply.

The pandemic was a crisis that revealed what really mattered: not the ability to work a room or deliver inspiring speeches, but the willingness to show up consistently, to listen more than you talk, and to create the kind of environment where people feel supported enough to do their best work even when everything else feels uncertain.

And sometimes, apparently, it helps to have a friendly dog around to remind everyone that not all problems require complex solutions; sometimes they just require a walk around the block and someone who's genuinely happy to see you.

The quiet leaders, the ones who lead through presence rather than performance, through consistency rather than charisma, often find their moment during crises when authenticity matters more than energy. The pandemic was my moment, and Ace was my inadvertent co-teacher in the lesson that sometimes the most powerful leadership tool is simply being genuinely, reliably yourself.

The Sweet Tradition: Five Years of Donuts and the Unexpected Power of Showing Up

Sometimes the smallest gestures create the most lasting traditions.

---

It started with a box of donuts and a team that needed to remember they weren't alone.

A "standard" Friday box.

June 6th, 2014, was National Donut Day, and our CRM conversion team was drowning. These were the "back of the shop" folks, the ones who kept our systems running while the rest of us went about our daily work, blissfully unaware of the digital architecture holding everything together. They'd been pulling long hours on what felt like an impossible project, dealing with frustrated internal clients, and facing technical challenges that seemed to multiply faster than they could solve them.

The mood in those basement offices was heavy. You could feel it when you walked by the weight of stress, the quiet frustration, the sense that they were fighting a losing battle. I'd worked with some of these people for years. I knew how good they were, how much they cared about getting things right. But here they were, toiling away on critical infrastructure that everyone depended on, yet somehow invisible to the broader organization. The irony wasn't lost on me: the people keeping our entire operation running were the ones feeling most forgotten.

That morning, I made a decision that would unknowingly become part of our office DNA for the next five years. I stopped by Foster's Family Donuts in La Crescenta, a small neighborhood shop that had become a regular stop along my commute to work. These weren't mass-produced donuts from a chain; they were the kind of fresh, made-that-morning pastries that only a true family bakery can produce. I brought in a few dozen for the team.

It wasn't a grand gesture or a calculated management strategy; it was simply a recognition that these people deserved to know their work mattered, that someone saw the long hours and appreciated the sacrifice. And if I were going to make that gesture, it should be with donuts that were as thoughtful as the intention behind them.

The History Behind the Gesture

National Donut Day has roots that run deeper than most realize. Created in 1938 by the Chicago Salvation Army, the holiday honored the "Donut Lassies," brave women who served donuts and coffee to soldiers during World War I. These volunteers worked close to the front lines, often in dangerous conditions, bringing comfort food to troops who were far from home and facing unimaginable challenges.

The parallel wasn't lost on me. Here was our own team, working in their own kind of trenches, dealing with the pressure of a massive system overhaul while everyone else depended on them to keep things running. Those Salvation Army volunteers understood something fundamental about leadership that transcends military conflict: sometimes the most powerful support comes not in grand gestures, but in simple acts of recognition. A warm donut. A moment of connection. The acknowledgment that someone sees your struggle and values your contribution enough to show up for you.

This wasn't about the food itself; it was about visibility. About making the invisible work visible, even if just for a moment.

What Happened Next

The response surprised me. What I'd intended as a simple morale boost became something more, a moment of genuine recognition in the middle of chaos. People lingered in the break room longer than usual. Conversations started flowing between team members who'd been heads-down at their keyboards for weeks. Someone cracked a joke. Someone else shared a breakthrough they'd had the night before.

For the first time in months, the team felt seen. And feeling seen, they began to feel like a team again.

The database conversion was still challenging. The technical hurdles remained formidable. The internal clients were still impatient. But something fundamental had shifted. There was a sense of camaraderie that hadn't been there before and, more importantly, a recognition that their work mattered not just to the project, but to the people around them. They weren't just fixing systems; they were the guardians of our institutional memory, the architects of our future efficiency.

When One Day Became Every Friday

Foster's on Foothill Boulevard
in La Crescenta, CA

The following Friday, I found myself back at Foster's. Not because it was a holiday this time, but because I'd seen what a small gesture could do. The team's response was immediate and enthusiastic, and they specifically commented on how good these donuts were compared to the usual office fare. Word began to spread beyond our database group to other departments. People started asking if I'd be going to Foster's again for "donut Friday," it had become "a thing."

What began as a one-time act of support for a struggling team evolved into a weekly tradition that started defining our Development and Institute Relations (DIR) office culture. Foster's Family Donuts became our unofficial bakery partner, though they never knew it. Fridays became something people looked forward to. New employees learned about "donut Friday" during their first week and quickly developed preferences for Foster's glazed old-fashioned or their surprisingly perfect raised chocolate donuts. The tradition grew beyond the original database team; now staff from multiple floors and different departments within DIR make their way to our break room for their Friday morning "fix."

I kept bringing the donuts, week after week, because I could see what it meant. Not just the sugar and caffeine, though those helped, but the ritual of gathering, the informal conversations that happened over glazed and chocolate-frosted, the way it created space for connection in the middle of busy workdays. And yes, the quality mattered. Foster's donuts had that fresh, made-with-care taste that reminded everyone this wasn't just about convenience, it was about doing something thoughtfully.

The Ripple Effect

Over the years, I've watched this simple tradition create ripples far beyond what I ever expected. Team members from different departments began mixing during Friday morning donut breaks, leading to cross-functional collaborations that might never have happened otherwise. New hires found their footing faster, welcomed into conversations and inside jokes over coffee and pastries.

The tradition has morphed in wonderful ways. We've expanded beyond just donuts to include bagels some weeks, accommodating different tastes and dietary preferences. People have gotten comfortable making special requests; someone might mention they're craving an apple fritter, or ask if I could pick up those cinnamon sugar ones that Foster's makes so well. These little requests have become my informal barometer for reading the team's mood and stress levels. When someone specifically asks for comfort food, I know they're dealing with something challenging. When the requests get more adventurous, "Could you get some of those maple bacon ones Foster's had last week?" I can sense the team is feeling confident and playful.

Foster's became such a fixture in our office culture that when well-meaning colleagues would occasionally bring donuts from Winchell's or Krispy Kreme, people would politely partake but inevitably comment on how much they missed "the Foster's quality." It became a running joke and a testament to how even small details matter when you're trying to show people they're valued.

The tradition has become so embedded in our DIR culture that when I'm out of the office vacation, travel, whatever, someone else automatically steps up to make the donut run. It's not assigned or mandated; it just happens. People understand instinctively that Friday morning isn't quite right without that gathering, that moment of sweetness and connection to start the weekend. The tradition has become bigger than any one person because the principle behind it, recognizing and valuing each other's contributions, has become part of who we are.

The CRM conversion project? We completed it successfully, though not without its struggles. Those team members who had been drowning found their rhythm, supported not just by technical expertise but by a sense of belonging and appreciation. Many of those team members are still with Caltech today, and they often reference those difficult months not just as a professional challenge overcome, but as the time when our department culture really took shape around the idea that everyone's work matters, especially the work that often goes unnoticed.

More Than Sugar and Caffeine

Looking back, National Donut Day 2014 taught me something important about leadership and recognition. Sometimes the most powerful gestures are the simplest ones, not because they're easy, but because they cut straight to what people need most: to know that their contributions are seen and valued.

In any organization, there are people doing essential work that rarely gets acknowledged. The folks who keep the lights on, who maintain the systems, who solve the problems that others don't even know exist. They're often the most competent and least recognized members of any team. The lesson of that struggling CRM conversion team wasn't about donuts or morale boosting; it was about learning to see the invisible work and finding ways to make those contributions visible.

The Salvation Army's Donut Lassies understood this during World War I. They knew that acknowledgment and comfort could provide hope in the darkest times. In our own small way, our Friday tradition carried forward that same spirit using food as a vehicle for recognition, connection, and community.

I think about those World War I volunteers often when I'm standing in line at Foster's on Friday mornings. Their work was obviously more dangerous, more consequential than mine. But the impulse was the same: the recognition that people doing hard work need to know they're not alone, that their efforts are seen and valued, and that someone is willing to show up for them, consistently, with the best you can offer, not just the most convenient.

A Sweet Legacy

As I write this on National Donut Day 2019, the tradition continues. Five years and hundreds of Fridays later, those weekly donut runs have become part of who we are as a department. New team members quickly learn that around here, we believe in marking small victories, supporting each other through challenges, and never underestimating the power of showing up with something sweet to share.

What strikes me most is how the tradition has become self-sustaining. It's no longer dependent on my initiative alone; it's become part of our collective identity. When I return from time away, people eagerly fill me in on who covered the donut run, what varieties they chose, and which new person got initiated into our Friday morning ritual.

The database conversion team that started it all has long since moved on to new projects and new challenges. But the culture they helped create, one donut at a time, remains. It serves as a reminder that building strong teams isn't always about formal programs or grand initiatives. Sometimes it's as simple as showing up with a box of donuts and saying, "I see the hard work you're doing, and I appreciate it."

Every National Donut Day, I'm reminded of how a single moment of thoughtfulness can grow into something lasting. And every Friday, as I watch colleagues from across DIR gather in our break room, sharing stories and sugar in equal measure, I'm grateful for that struggling database team from 2014 who taught me that sometimes the smallest gestures create the biggest impact.

The tradition started with a team that needed to know they weren't forgotten. It continues because we've learned that recognition, real recognition, isn't something you save for annual reviews or formal ceremonies. It's something you practice weekly, with intention and consistency, especially for the people whose work makes everyone else's possible.

---

What started as support for an overlooked team became a cornerstone of our company culture. Sometimes the best leadership lessons come not from business books, but from the simple recognition that everyone deserves to feel valued—especially those whose contributions often go unnoticed.

The Eisenhower Matrix: How I Break Down My Professional (and Personal) World

There's a moment every Monday morning when I sit down with a Coke Zero, open my laptop, and stare at the tsunami of emails, calendar invites, and sticky note reminders that have accumulated over the weekend. It's the same feeling I used to get looking at a pile of green bar paper reports back in my Atlantic Richfield days, overwhelming, urgent, and somehow both crystal clear and completely incomprehensible at the same time.

That's when I reach for my mental Swiss Army knife: the Eisenhower Decision Matrix.

My path to discovering this framework was about as circuitous as my college career. When I was eighteen, fresh out of high school and convinced I was smarter than everyone else (as eighteen-year-olds tend to be), I marched into college dead set on engineering and mathematics. My mom, in her infinite wisdom, gently suggested that maybe I didn't have the personality to be an engineer. Being eighteen and knowing everything, I naturally ignored her advice completely.

It took me too long to figure out that she was right. Again. (Mothers have this annoying habit of being correct about their children, even when we're too stubborn to see it.) I thought that Aerospace Engineers were "airplane architects," which would demand both creative and systemic thinking. The rigid, systematic thinking that engineering demanded felt like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I was good at math, sure, but I craved the messy complexity of human behavior and decision-making that engineering courses conspicuously avoided.

So I pivoted hard into Economics and Political Science. And suddenly, everything clicked. Economics gave me frameworks for understanding how people make decisions under constraints and competing priorities. Political Science taught me how those same people navigate power structures, build coalitions, and manage conflicts. The juxtaposition of these disciplines, one quantitative, one qualitative, both fundamentally about human behavior, created a lens through which I started seeing patterns everywhere.

That's where the Eisenhower Matrix first made sense to me. It wasn't just a productivity tool; it was a decision-making framework that bridged the analytical thinking I'd learned in economics with the strategic thinking I'd absorbed in political science. A way to quantify the qualitative, to systematize the human elements of priority-setting in a world where everything feels urgent and someone is always convinced their particular request is the most important thing in the universe.

You know the one that deceptively simple 2x2 grid that supposedly helps you sort your life into four neat quadrants. Urgent/Important. Urgent/Not Important. Not Urgent/Important. Not Urgent/Not Important. It sounds like MBA buzzword bingo, but stick with me here. Because after years of wrestling with competing priorities in advancement work, I've found that Ike's framework isn't just useful, it's become my professional (and personal) salvation.

The Upper Left: Where Heroes Are Made (And Stress Lives)

Let's start with Quadrant II: Urgent and Important. This is where the real work happens, but also where most of us live far too much of our professional lives. It's the donor who needs a proposal by EOD for tomorrow's board meeting. It's the database that crashes during the year-end giving season. It's the emergency meeting to discuss why our gift processing is behind schedule.

During Caltech's CRM conversion project, my team was drowning in Quadrant II work. Everything was urgent because the old system was literally dying, and everything was important because without functional technology, our entire advancement operation would grind to a halt. Those were the weeks when I found myself bringing donuts to the office, not just for National Donut Day, but because I could see the stress eating away at people's souls one TPS report at a time.

The thing about Quadrant II is that it's seductive. It makes you feel heroic, indispensable, always fighting fires and saving the day. But living there too long is like being the office's "go to tech guy," a trap I fell into early in my career. You become so good at crisis management that people start manufacturing crises just to feel your expertise.

The goal isn't to eliminate Quadrant II work; some fires are real, and some heroes are needed. The goal is to not let it consume everything else.

The Bottom Left: The Delegation Sweet Spot

Quadrant III is where I've learned to park other people's emergencies that somehow became mine. Urgent but not important, the kind of work that feels pressing but doesn't actually move the needle on what matters most.

Take font changes. I still laugh about the time I was instructed to change fonts on thirty reports because "that's the font our executive prefers for internal documents." The request was urgent (he was reviewing them that afternoon), but decidedly not important to the actual content or function of those reports. It was a classic Quadrant III moment, something that could have been handled by literally anyone with access to the Format menu.

This is where delegation becomes an art form, and where I've had to get comfortable saying, "Let me connect you with someone who can help with that." Not because I can't change a font, trust me, I've shown the same person how to sum a column in Excel six times, but because my time is better spent on work that actually requires my particular combination of experience and expertise.

The volunteer work I did in Faith's computer lab taught me a lot about this quadrant. Parents would sometimes ask me to fix their home printer or troubleshoot their Wi-Fi during school events. Urgent for them, sure, but not really what I was there for. Learning to redirect those requests politely while still being helpful was like a master class in professional boundary-setting.

The Top Right: The Strategic Zone (Where I Should Live)

Quadrant I, not urgent but important, is where the magic happens. This is strategic planning, relationship building, long-term thinking, and the kind of work that prevents Quadrant I crises from happening in the first place.

When I started PRSPCT-L back in my UCI days, it lived entirely in Quadrant I. There was no urgent deadline, no emergency that forced the creation of a listserv for advancement professionals. But it was important that the field needed better ways to share knowledge and support each other. The fact that it became a cornerstone of our professional community happened because I was willing to invest time in something that wasn't screaming for immediate attention.

The same goes for the weekly donut runs that became part of our office culture at Caltech. Nobody was demanding pastries, and Foster's Family Donuts wasn't exactly mission-critical to our advancement goals. But recognizing and supporting team morale? Building the kind of workplace culture where people feel valued? That's Quadrant I work that pays dividends for years.

Here's what I learned the hard way: if you don't deliberately protect time for Quadrant I work, you end up living permanently in crisis mode. During that CRM conversion project, we were so buried in urgent tasks that we nearly missed the strategic planning needed to prevent future system failures. It was only when I forced myself to block out time for non-urgent but critical work that we started getting ahead of problems instead of constantly reacting to them.

The Lower Right: The Time Sink (Where Good Intentions Go to Die)

And then there's Quadrant 4, neither urgent nor important. The email rabbit holes, the meetings that could have been emails, the busy work that makes you feel productive without actually accomplishing anything meaningful.

I'm not immune to this trap. I've spent more time than I care to admit perfecting Excel formulas that saved thirty seconds of work, or following interesting but irrelevant research tangents because they were intellectually satisfying. There's something oddly comforting about Quadrant 4 work; it's controllable, measurable, and low-stakes. But it's also where good intentions go to die.

During busy December gift processing periods, I'd often pitch in to help my team enter donations into our database. What should have been straightforward data entry would inevitably turn into elaborate prospect research sessions. I'd spot an interesting company name on a check, notice an unusual address, or see a gift note that sparked my curiosity. Before I knew it, I'd be deep in Google searches, updating donor records with employment history, board affiliations, and family connections I'd discovered along the way.

It felt productive after all, I was enriching our database with valuable information. But while I was adding fascinating biographical details to one donor record, dozens of other gifts sat unprocessed in the queue. My team would politely ask if I needed help with "my" pile, not realizing I'd fallen down a research rabbit hole that had nothing to do with the urgent task at hand.

The key is recognizing when you're there and having the discipline to climb out. Sometimes that means closing the browser tabs and returning to real work. Sometimes it means admitting that the "research" you're doing is really just intellectual curiosity disguised as productivity.

When the Matrix Makes Life-Changing Decisions

Sometimes the Eisenhower Box forces decisions that go beyond daily task management it becomes a framework for life-changing choices. I learned this firsthand in 2014, when I found myself in one of the most professionally awkward situations of my career.

Cal Poly's CLA Building

I had just left Caltech after nearly a decade to become Executive Director of Advancement Services at Cal Poly Pomona. On paper, it was a great opportunity for more responsibility, a chance to lead a database conversion project from the ground up, and the perfect solution to a family logistics challenge. Faith had been accepted to a performing arts high school in Pomona, and taking the job would eliminate a daily commute for both of us.

But life, as it tends to do, threw a curveball. Faith decided to stay in La Crescenta for high school instead. Suddenly, I found myself driving past Caltech every morning and evening, a daily reminder of the professional relationships and institutional culture I'd left behind. Those twice-daily drives became an unexpected opportunity for reflection, a forced meditation on what mattered most.

Caltech's Millikan Library

Then Caltech called. They needed help. The database conversion project I'd initiated before leaving had hit complications, and they realized they needed someone who understood both the technical challenges and the institutional context to see it through. It wasn't just about technical expertise it was about institutional memory, relationships, and the kind of deep understanding that only comes from years of working within a particular culture.

Here's where the Eisenhower framework proved invaluable for something far beyond email prioritization. Was returning to Caltech urgent? Not in the traditional sense, Cal Poly Pomona was a good job with good people, and I was learning a lot. But was it important? That was the harder question.

I applied the matrix to my life: Staying at Cal Poly was neither urgent nor particularly important beyond professional courtesy and short-term comfort. But returning to Caltech? That felt both important (helping an institution I cared about complete critical work) and, given the timing of their needs, increasingly urgent.

The decision to return to Caltech after only nine months at Cal Poly wasn't just about career strategy it was about values clarification. It was about recognizing that sometimes the most important thing you can do is acknowledge when you've made a mistake and course-correct, even when it's professionally embarrassing.

Where the Personal Creeps In

That experience taught me that the Eisenhower Box isn't just a workplace tool; it's a life tool. The same framework that helps me manage donor relations and database conversions also helps me navigate Little League politics, school volunteer commitments, and the endless logistical juggling act of single parenting.

When Faith needed help with her science fair project, was that urgent and important? Important, certainly, but the urgency was mostly manufactured by our tendency to procrastinate until the last possible moment. When the Little League board needed someone to run for president, was that urgent? Not really. Important? Absolutely, if I wanted my kids to have a quality youth sports experience.

The personal stuff gets tricky because the lines between quadrants aren't as clear. Your kids' request for help with homework feels urgent to them and important to you, but maybe not both simultaneously. The school fundraiser volunteer signup feels important to the community, but is rarely urgent until the deadline approaches.

I've learned to apply the same discipline to personal commitments that I do to professional ones. Not every volunteer opportunity requires my specific involvement. Not every school activity needs my attendance. And sometimes, the most important thing I can do is model healthy boundary-setting for my children by being thoughtful about what I commit to and why.

The Generational Divide

One thing I've noticed in my years of managing teams is that different generations tend to live in different quadrants by default. My younger colleagues often treat everything as Quadrant II urgent and important because they haven't yet developed the pattern recognition to distinguish between real crises and manufactured ones. Everything feels career-defining when you're early in your professional life.

Meanwhile, some of my more experienced colleagues have become so comfortable living in Quadrant I that they sometimes miss legitimate Quadrant II situations. They've seen enough manufactured urgency to become skeptical of all urgency, which can be just as problematic.

The sweet spot is developing the judgment to tell the difference, and that only comes with experience, mentorship, and probably a few mistakes along the way. Part of my job as a manager has been helping people calibrate their urgency meter, teaching them to pause and ask: Is this really urgent, or does it just feel that way? Is this truly important, or are we confusing activity with progress?

Beyond the Matrix: Values in Disguise

Here's the dirty secret about the Eisenhower Box: it's not really about time management or productivity hacks. It's about values clarification. When you force yourself to honestly evaluate what's truly important versus what just feels urgent, you're essentially defining what matters most to you, your team, and your organization.

Those Friday morning donut runs? They lived in Quadrant I because I valued team morale and workplace culture more than I valued an extra hour of email processing. My decision to keep coming to the office during the holidays? Quadrant II, because someone needed to be there, and I valued leading by example over personal convenience.

The volunteer work at Valley View Elementary? Pure Quadrant I: building community, supporting my daughter's education, and investing in relationships that would pay dividends for years. The decision to return to Caltech? A values-driven choice that prioritized institutional loyalty and meaningful work over career advancement and comfort.

The Ongoing Practice

Like most useful frameworks, the Eisenhower Box isn't a one-time sorting exercise; it's an ongoing practice. I find myself mentally revisiting it multiple times throughout the week, especially when I feel overwhelmed or when competing priorities start pulling me in different directions.

Sometimes I even share the framework with my team, particularly when we're facing competing deadlines or when someone seems to be drowning in everything-is-urgent work. It's a way of stepping back and asking: What really needs to happen today? What can wait? What should we be doing proactively to prevent future crises?

And yes, I've been known to sketch it out on a whiteboard during particularly chaotic meetings, much to the amusement of colleagues who've learned to recognize my "Eisenhower moment" expressions. These visual conversations often reveal how differently people prioritize the same tasks and help teams find common ground on what truly matters.

The Simple Truth

The truth is, most of us already know intuitively what's important and what's urgent. The value of the matrix isn't in the sorting, it's in the permission it gives us to act on that knowledge. To say no to Quadrant IV busy work. To delegate Quadrant III requests. To protect time for Quadrant I strategic thinking. And yes, sometimes to embrace the chaos of Quadrant II when the situation truly calls for it.

Because at the end of the day, whether we're processing gifts, coaching Little League, or just trying to get through another Monday morning email avalanche, we all need a way to separate what feels urgent from what actually matters. And sometimes, that way comes courtesy of a former president who knew a thing or two about competing priorities and an eighteen-year-old who finally learned to listen to his mother's advice, even if it took a few decades and a career change to get there.

The matrix may be simple, but the wisdom is profound: not all urgent things are important, and not all important things are urgent. Everything else is just commentary.