Kinzel says he and Cedar Fair headquarters will stay in Sandusky

Jeff said:

The measurement is not the time, it's what you produce from your work. Most white collar jobs are not factory production gigs; Nothing is gained by being physically in a space during designated hours. In every job in my line of work, for example, you can bet I'm at least thinking about the work a good portion of the time I'm not there.

I have to disagree. Work, even white collar work, does not happen in a vacuum. Generally there are teams involved and others depend on you to not only produce, but to be available to them when you are needed. Allowing people to work whenever they are most "on" can pose a problem for others who are relying on their efforts.

I have a job that also requires a great deal of focus, critical thinking, and creativity. Sure there are days when I am better at those things than others. But even when I'm not producing at my best, I'm generally still contributing to the collective effort in other ways.

We have someone in our office who is working part-time from home at the moment and it's a bit problematic. This person is determining their own hours and is not only unavailable at times when they are needed, but also leaves the group wondering when the next time will be when they will be available. That just doesn't work in a team environment.

I have worked with software developers who have worked their own schedules. It was a pain in the rear for those of us who needed to work with them on the always evolving business needs for which they were doing their development.

I also tend to believe that while it's natural for people to be distracted from time to time and not as productive as would be preferred, the more talented and/or skilled one is, the easier it is to "turn on" that focus and creativity when it's needed. That's been my experience anyway.

Lord Gonchar said:
Are you telling me no one can write code for a predetermined number of hours per day?

No one is an absolute, but I can say with a high degree of certainty that, yes, that's the case for most "software development engineers." (I like to use the title because it makes me giggle.)

Carrie M. said:
Generally there are teams involved and others depend on you to not only produce, but to be available to them when you are needed. Allowing people to work whenever they are most "on" can pose a problem for others who are relying on their efforts.

Perhaps. But I see it work constantly.

I think both of you are trying too hard to make this an absolute thing, and I never suggested it was. You're also trying to reframe my argument into one about just doing whatever you want, employer be damned. I'm not suggesting that either. My point, about professionals working at Cedar Fair, is that Dick Kinzel requiring people to be in the office 9 to 5 does not add value in any way.

That's funny to me, because I would say it is you who are trying to make it an absolute by extending your point to software developers, most white collar executives, and Microsoft. It was that point that I was referencing in my response.

Of course working at CF from 9 to 5 adds at least some value. The question is whether or not value is lost by allowing some other option. I guess it would depend on what option you had in mind.

For God's sake, really? I'm making some generalizations about several areas I'm qualified to do so.

I guess we'll have to disagree. I will maintain that if Johnny (or Jane) PR Representative has met his or her obligations and he or she wants to go home and play with his kids, then dad shouldn't be looking over his or her shoulder to see if he or she is still there at 5. That's an awful work environment.

But suppose something happens at 3:30 for which Johnny PR is needed, but has gone home for the day?

Jeff said:

For God's sake, really?

What are you so worked up about?

I'm making some generalizations about several areas I'm qualified to do so.

That's exactly what I am doing as well. So?

I guess we'll have to disagree. I will maintain that if Johnny (or Jane) PR Representative has met his or her obligations and he or she wants to go home and play with his kids, then dad shouldn't be looking over his or her shoulder to see if he or she is still there at 5. That's an awful work environment.

An environment where the boss is looking over his/her employee's shoulders is generally awful. I agree with that.

But that is something different than wanting an environment where employees should have the freedom to cut out 2 hours early just because the tasks they are aware of having are completed. PR in particular is an area where anything can come up at any time, especially during business hours. That's an area where I would imagine being absent can cost a company.

Yeah, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

a_hoffman50 said:
But suppose something happens at 3:30 for which Johnny PR is needed, but has gone home for the day?

I suppose that could be handled just as it would be if something happened at 7:30, or on Johnny's appointed day off.

I'm not "worked up," I'm annoyed because you guys are trying to work up a specific set of rules and introduce every possible fringe case into the mix. Just because I used a PR example doesn't mean that Johnny doesn't have someone else available. Do I have to qualify in excruciating detail every possible scenario to make a point?

If people working for me were finished with what had to get done at 3 o'clock, then by all means, I'd trust them to decide that for themselves. There's no point in them sitting at their desk surfing Facebook and playing solitaire. There's an ebb and flow with any gig's work.

Jeff said:
I'm annoyed because you guys are trying to work up a specific set of rules and introduce every possible fringe case into the mix.

I still think yours are the fringe cases. Definitely the exception, not the rule.

There's no point in them sitting at their desk surfing Facebook and playing solitaire.

No there isn't. And that's exactly what's wrong with the average employee.

I get stuck on the idea that work is "done."

If Johnny PR has met his obligations, then what's he do when he comes in the next day?

And why can't he do that today?

And if there are some sort of daily obligations that don't take all day, then there's nothing else Johnny could do to contribute with the rest of that time?

And if there's really not, then why isn't Johnny a part-time employee? Or at least given more responsibility?

What kind of employee does just what he has to, nothing more, and then bails? And what kind of employer encourages that?

That sounds like the antithesis of a good work environment. Sounds like a place where no one cares about the co-workers or their employer and everyone rushes to finish their daily duties so they can leave.

Jeff said:
I'm not "worked up," I'm annoyed because you guys are trying to work up a specific set of rules and introduce every possible fringe case into the mix.

And that's exactly what it seems you are doing. You imagine a different kind of workplace, with different rules, and want your examples to fit.

But beyond that, I don't know what cause you have to be annoyed about this discussion. It's just a discussion. I'm challenging your premise and that's what we do around here.

Just because I used a PR example doesn't mean that Johnny doesn't have someone else available.

Ok, but why should someone else have to do Johnny's unexpected work just because he wanted to cut out a couple of hours early?

Do I have to qualify in excruciating detail every possible scenario to make a point?

No. Again, not sure what the dramatic effect is all about.

If people working for me were finished with what had to get done at 3 o'clock, then by all means, I'd trust them to decide that for themselves. There's no point in them sitting at their desk surfing Facebook and playing solitaire. There's an ebb and flow with any gig's work.

Gonch's response covered this better than I could. But again, that last sentence suggests you are declaring an absolute that I don't think exists.

We had a different way of handling that under Paramount. Critical people had Blackberry's or cell phones. So if something came up when they were offsite, they could get there in a hurry.

Although we had other electrical engineers, I was the only engineer that was "corporate" (in quotes because they hid me at the park level to keep the corporate overhead down).

I did work mostly Monday through Friday, 7:30 to 4:30, 5, 6 whatever. But I was basically on call whenever the parks were open. I always took my laptop on vacations. I spent several hours on several vacations on the phone dealing with ride situations.

When I was dealing with a problem at one of the parks away from my home park, I was automatically working remote. So it didn't matter if I was in the office, home or in a hotel in Charleston SC. We also had an excellent VPN, so working remotely wasn't much different from being on site (except for possibly speed). I could also see what the attendance at all of the parks was from my Blackberry.

If there was something going on and I was needed, I was there on the weekend, or the middle of the night or whatever. But if I wasn't needed I got to go home. I also had extensive records on each ride, including it's current program stored on the network where I could get to it through the VPN.

CF came in and declared the Blackberry's toys. They didn't get the point of the VPN. They got rid of probably 2/3 of the IT staff. They put their inadequate IT people in charge. Their corporate engineer, who probably can't even spell VPN became my boss. CF's attitude was that you had to be there. So if the problem is on a ride at KI, why do I need to be at Carowinds?

During the summer I probably put in the 60 hours a week that CF requires of their people, but the difference is, the first 40-50 was on a normal work schedule, and the other hours were as required by circumstance, not just because some guy in Sandusky declares it must be so.

6 day weeks of 10-12 hours a day for no good reason is not good business. Some of your talent is going to go elsewhere.

I can make this real simple: Cedar Fair is all about "show" and manages with very little "substance."

Perfect example: A GM I know was pitching in to help out in the park one day when there were staffing issues, just as anyone would think setting the example for a team should be. This GM was politely reminded that is "not their job" to be doing front-line work, their job is to be "seen" walking around, delegating and whatever it is they all do walking around endlessly in the parks. When every other company on the face of Earth would have been saying great job for pitching in, Cedar Fair smacks their hand and says "no, no, no...bad GM."

Dick acts like this is 1976 still and his management style is completely irrelevent in today's world. You can "force" your full-time employees to be in the park 6 days, 60 hours a week but are you really getting 60 hours worth of work out of them? You can force your employees to run around in silly ties, with freshly shaved faces and not an earing or tatoo to be seen, but does that mean they are the absolute best at guest service over someone who may have a tiny tatoo or heaven forbid wear a goatee?!?! You can take away employee benefits and pay full-time wages that a single person can barely survive on but do you really think you are going to have the "best of the best" working for you?

Having worked full-time for Paramount I do give them a lot of credit for "substance," just as Power & Control pointed out. Things weren't perfect under their leadership either BUT they treated people with the respect, dignity and the maturity of PROFESSIONALS. Dick & Co. have a lot to learn about respect, dignity and maturity....and technology too.

Dick & Co. have a lot to learn about respect, dignity and maturity.

I wish that it would be acceptable here to copy and paste that over and over in my post. That point needs to be repeated so that maybe they will realize that's how some people feel.

I would give some personal examples, but it would just sound like I was (GASP) whining. :)

I have to agree - the thing with CF is putting on a show by having the full time people work full time and a half. During the transition, they made me go to the mother ship, and while their people were there the 60 hours our whatever, they definitely were not productive for the full 60 hours. I am not sure they were actually productive for 40 hours out of that 60.

I also got a real "us versus them" vibe from the guys in the shop. You always have a little of that between the hourly people and the salary workers, but this was the worst I had ever seen. Again, that comes down to management style.

When I figured out that my future was being jerked to a dying town, to work in a somewhat poisonous environment, I knew it was time to pull the pin. Almost a year to the day, they told what corporate people were left in Charlotte, their job was going to Sandusky, did they want to go with it?

I called it drinking the kool-aid. They don't necessarily want talented professionals, they want people who drink the kool-aid.

Lord Gonchar said:
That sounds like the antithesis of a good work environment. Sounds like a place where no one cares about the co-workers or their employer and everyone rushes to finish their daily duties so they can leave.

You would think so, right? But that's not at all how it pans out. I think P&C's description of his experience goes a long way toward illustrating it too. At no time have I suggested that having the discretion about when to be there means no one ever goes above and beyond. The truth is that treating people like grown ups and giving them that discretion has exactly the opposite effect: They're more invested and productive. Furthermore, having that discretion means accepting the responsibility of the effect you have on co-workers and your company. I'm not sure why you keep painting this as people looking for an out, to blow off work. That's not what it is. And to bring it home, that's not what the solid people at Cedar Fair would do either.

Subscribe to this blog for awhile, or read their book Getting Real. They're kind of nutty zealots a lot of the time, but a lot of businesses (not all) could learn a lot from the way they roll. I like this recent post.

Jeff is correct in my case. Under Paramount, they treated me like the professional that my degree and PE license say I am. They did expect more of me than a job on the outside, but they gave me some control over my time. I loved my job, and spent a lot of extra time on it.

Cedar Fair wants to treat all of their employees like they treat the teenagers. There also was a big micromanaging side. Al Weber listened to his maintenance people, Dick and Jack did not seem to do so. I hated the environment, and couldn't get out fast enough.

Those managers who "grew up" in the original Cedar Fair parks don't know any other way of management. It isn't that they are "drinking the kool aid"...it is more like they don't know any other type of drink exists.

I only worked at Disney less than a year but when I was hired at Cedar Point and explained how some of the things were done at WDW you would have thought I was explaining the physics of space travel. And, in some of the areas where I could tell immediately that things needed to be changed, those were the areas that they most resisted change; none moreso than in Customer Service. (An area, ironically or not, that Cedar Fair is still criticized for.)

And, I'm not trying to bad mouth the folks that I worked for. They were working on short strings and there was no sense of empowerment or autonomy to make decisions. Let me give an example:

I was a "hotel manager" (who really didn't do a lot of managing of the hotel). This is the way a guest complaint would play out: Guest walks up to desk clerk to explain some legitimate complaint. Desk clerk would say there was nothing he/she could do about it and would go get the front office manager (another seasonal employee). That manager would listen to the guest repeat their problem a second time. The front office manager would politely explain there was nothing he/she could do and would go get the hotel manager (me). Now the guest is explaining the situation to me (for the third time) and the guest is pretty upset about wasting all this time.

I realize the guest has a legitimate beef but I'm not really empowered to do anything either. So, I excuse myself and get in touch with the Director of the department and tell the whole story for a fourth time. Now, once in a while the Director might tell me to go ahead and offer some type of compensation for the trouble (discount the room/give a couple of Starlight park tickets, etc) but more often than not I was instructed to hold the line. So, of course, the guest walks away even angrier than when they first showed up.

Now, here is the kicker. The guest would write a letter to Kinzel detailing in great pain everything I just told you and it would come down from high that I should contact the guest and offer them a discount on their next visit to the park...or he might send them free tickets for a return visit.

Now, in MOST cases an apology for whatever transpired and some good faith move like offering an upgrade or Soak City tickets or SOMETHING would have gone a long way to satisfy the guest (and not really cost us anything). But, nobody from the initial clerk on up to the Director of the department was really empowered to note the problem and address it immediately. That is a culture borne specifically from Mr. Kinzel.

It is one specific instance at Cedar Point...but now take a macro look at it and isn't that what Jeff and others talk about regularly with regard to the way the sister parks all defer/demur to Kinzel and the mother park?

If you have a good experience at a business, do you tell people about it? Most people won't. But, if you have a bad experience at a business you are likely to tell lots of people about it. I often believe that goes right over Mr. Kinzel's head.

In my desk, as I type this, I am pulling out a source of inspiration for me over the past 10+ years. It is a copy of a comment card that was written by a hotel guest and sent directly to Mr. Kinzel. One of the situations like I described above occurred and I was hamstrung to do anything about it.

The comment card reads, "Mr. _____ is a poor excuse for a hotel manager. You should send him to Disney training school."

Well, I had been hired in large part because I had worked at Disney...but I really had no room to put what I learned there to use. I keep that card to remind me that I do know what I'm doing...even when I might be working for people who do not; or, at the very least, have lost touch with the guest perspective.

Great post, Wahoo. I worked at both CP and Universal Studios IOA, and "empowerment" was night and day between the two companies.

Cedar Point would have me tell guests who are complaining to go to Guest Services to complain again. Universal told me to help them out myself, including taking them to a gift shop and buying them something or letting them reride or whatever it took.

At universal I had to move a lot of those monster strollers out of the way of the entrance to my ride. It just so happened to rain, and one family's stroller got wet. The guest complained to me, and I took them to the gift shop and gave them some ponchos to put on the stroller, between the children and the seat, to keep them dry. The park called that "empowerment" (maybe Disney does too), and the results that come from it are very positive. I liked that system a lot because tit allowed me to get creative with helping the guest solve whatever problem that they had, and as quickly as possible, so that they can get on with their vacation.

I suspect 'empowerment' is somehow not on Kinzel's list of favorite words.

Cedar Point's system of operations 101 is not broke, it works damn good more than a century later. However, that doesn't say there are not avenues open to explore for improvement. There are many roads.

Our company's managers have spent much time in Orlando lately ( I am tardy in my TR's), and all those parks collectively do things on a different level. There is a reason they get $79 a day. They can, simple as that. I have a friend who is a 40+ year Disneyland veteran who summed it up with customer service. Disney never stops training. You are always being coached.

Legacy parks like Cedar Point have to train the best they can for a seasonal operation, which will see a very small percentage of returning employees. Its tough with their reputation in the industry...they have lines, lines, and more lines. FB needs an overhaul, like 10 years ago, and those hotels, well, are aways full, so they will drag you along, they have your money. Building new properties have helped them, but they still have issues and complaints.

Disney hotels, which were once the best kept secret, and rarely sold out, now have been visited by many new guests, and they are operated with enthusiasm and warmth. Disney never wanted to be in the hotel business, but its something they do extremely well. I can't imagine not visiting WDW and not being on property anymore. I can't be so sure for CP guests.