Career Sanity

What are some of the “issues” about various kinds of work?

mcl — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:03:26 -0600

The first thing that comes to mind is the inescapable fact that when you go to work for an organization and start accepting a paycheck from them, their priorities and values become yours. Obviously this may not actually happen in every case but the pressure is there: this is what they are paying you to do, to take on their values, priorities, and goals and help to accomplish them.

Douglas McGregor in The Human Side of Enterprise pointed out that people tend to want to do a good job (“Theory Y”) when their values are consistent with those of the organization employing them. I think it would be helpful if more people took this aspect of employment more seriously when considering various kinds of work and various job offers.

Some of my values-related conflicts at work first surfaced early in my working life when I was involved with the health care industry. (See I Won't Do this any More) But I also heard one of the funnier (to me, anyway) and most dramatic stories of someone adopting their employer’s values during this era.

I knew some people who worked for one of the big consumer products companies selling a variety of over-the-counter medications and products. One of these guys told me about his sales manager’s way of getting himself “psyched up” each morning before getting out to sell the product.

The product in question was a mouthwash product that, while apparently a perfectly fine product in its own right, had always been overshadowed in the marketplace by the more well-known brands. This man’s job, then, was to somehow build up the numbers in his territory and get the company’s mouthwash to start flying off the shelves.

Salesmen are told they must believe in the product if they are to sell it. Well, this fellow had this under control. His daily ritual consisted of opening the trunk of his car (where his samples lurked), opening a bottle of his company’s mouthwash, and using it exactly as intended. After swirling it around (savoring the bouquet, perhaps?) he would spit it onto the ground behind his car and loudly exclaim “That’s the best damned mouthwash in the world!”

Maybe a dork, maybe not ...

When I heard of this guy, my first reaction was “What a dork!” This was also pretty much the attitude of the people who worked for him as far as I could tell. But this was quite a few years ago and I’m re-thinking some of my earlier conclusions. He might have been a dork, true. But it’s also possible that he was really trying to do as good a job as he could for the company he worked for, and he realized that getting himself into a super positive frame of mind about the product would probably help. For that I would have to say I respect the guy, even if he did seem a bit odd.

But wait, maybe there’s even more. If he genuinely believed his company was doing good things for people’s health and he was glad to be part of that, more power to him. Chances are he had a long and enjoyable career with them. I think it’s equally possible, though, that this was “just a job” and he had figured out that his antics might mark him for promotion or otherwise catch the attention of upper management a bit sooner.

One thing I remember quite clearly about many sales meetings I attended (I worked in sales for several companies at different times in my career) was the sense that very few people in the room really gave a damn about what the company was doing or the products it was selling. They of course were glad when times were good and bonuses, higher commissions, etc. were paid, but for most of them I don’t think it mattered much what the company was doing. I thought then and I think now that it’s a heck of a shame to devote most of your waking hours to something that you really aren’t that concerned about one way or another.

Ruby in Houston

mcl — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:32:46 -0600

Old as my grandmother, but some of the teenagers could barely keep up with her ...

As a young man, fresh out of school, I had the amazingly good fortune to work with a delightful lady named Ruby Shane. Ruby was about 3 times my age when I met her yet had more energy and all around enthusiasm than many of her co-workers, most of whom were even younger than her new manager. Ruby has been gone from this world for quite a few years now. This is for you, Ruby, wherever you are. And thank you again for being there for the new guy.

Right after getting my Marketing degree from NIU (Northern Illinois University) I went to work for my stepfather. By this time he had established a chain of cafeteria-type operations in shopping malls throughout the country; he offered me a job managing one in Houston, Texas.

This was a big deal for me: I’d been slogging through the snow in Illinois for quite a few years now. Here I was, off to a whole new life in a whole new city. And as a “boss” no less. I had worked in food service during my undergraduate years, including some limited management experience, but this would be the real thing.

There were actually two operations at the location I was to take over, with something like 30 or 40 employees in all. Not an enormous operation but considerably larger than what I was used to – and now I would be in charge. Plus, of course, I had moved to a new part of the country where I didn’t know a soul. I was excited about the opportunity but at the same time pretty apprehensive – was I going to be in over my head?

I never found out exactly what happened to the former manager but there were rumors about alcohol and related issues; it seemed that he had pretty much been out of the picture for quite some time, at least a few months. The operation had deteriorated but it was holding together – Ruby was acting as an unofficial (and unpaid) manager to keep the place going.

Ruby was somewhere in her 60s when I first met her; one of those seemingly ageless Southern women that can pretty much do whatever needs to be done. Even better: she had the most delightful attitude and overall approach to things – people liked her, trusted her, and respected her. She was no pushover – if one of the staff (most of whom were part-time, local high school or college students) slacked off Ruby let them know about it in no uncertain terms. But she was fair.

So here I come, young wiseguy from the North, fresh out of school – and the owner’s kid (well, stepkid) no less, to take over. I found out later that many of the employees, including Ruby, were somewhat apprehensive about my arrival. Not knowing what to expect I think they were ready for just about anything.

Frequently, when a new manager takes over an operation, he or she will rather quickly begin making changes and more or less throwing his weight around. The stated purpose of this is usually to let everyone know who’s in charge. This has always struck me as kind of stupid, as well as disingenuous – employees are generally well aware of management changes.

I not only did not feel any need to make any big production about the fact of my newly-minted authority – I was grateful, extremely so, to have Ruby there while I figured out which end was up. I realized right away that Ruby had the respect of the employees. If I could make an ally of her it could very well help me enormously in my quest to learn the operation and eventually improve things.

This might sound somewhat manipulative but it wasn’t. I genuinely liked Ruby from the start, and I could tell immediately that she was doing a terrific job under far from ideal circumstances. My approach? It was simple: I was completely honest with Ruby about my plans and how much I needed her help, and what a great job I thought she was doing.

I also got her a raise and title so she was officially an Assistant Manager. I asked her outright if she resented the fact that they hadn’t made her the manager. She laughed and assured me that she wouldn’t have taken it if they had offered it. I am pretty sure she meant it.

We decided that Ruby would continue opening the place in the morning and staying until midafternoon or so; I would come in around lunch time and work until closing. Of course, as “the boss” I could have simply taken the somewhat preferable day shift and let it go at that, but there were some good reasons for the approach I took instead.

For one thing, much of the deterioration of the business had occurred during the evening hours. Ruby was great but she was only one person; she usually left in the midafternoon after working a full shift. From then on the place was pretty much on automatic pilot. And it showed.

By working the evening shift I would be able to get an idea of what the problems were and take steps to correct them. Not rocket science, it seemed like an obvious approach.

But a larger benefit was that this made it clear to Ruby (and everybody else) that I was serious about valuing Ruby’s help and being willing to do what it took to improve the operation. Ruby had family at home, and she was getting on in years; she was pretty adamant about not wanting the evening shift. If I had insisted I would have either lost her entirely or at least lost much of her good attitude and cooperation.

I could have just worked the day shift myself along with Ruby – which I did, from time to time, but these were the exceptions. This would have left the evening problems pretty much in place, and would likely have given me the reputation of a talker rather than a doer. Not good.

The great thing I learned early in my career about dealing with people was this: if you are fortunate enough to be in a situation where both parties are genuinely doing the best they can, with a reasonable amount of goodwill and consideration for the other person, the situation can just keep working more or less indefinitely. This was how it worked with Ruby.

Always Have an “Or Else”

mcl — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:49:46 -0600

In an ideal world, maybe we would all agree on everything – there would never be a time when your boss really wanted you to do something that you really didn’t want to do. If you do a good job of being a rational, conscientious worker and finding the same kind of people to work with, this may not become an issue even in this non-ideal world. But chances are you will face a dilemma like this sooner or later in your career.

The solution is to always have an “or else,” an action that you are willing to take if the circumstances of your work become intolerable to you. Much of the time this will mean the willingness to leave the position. If this sounds drastic, bear in mind that the alternative, by definition, is to stay in a situation that you have decided is unacceptable to you. (If this isn’t stress I don’t know what is.)

“We don’t like ultimatums!”

Management will frequently adopt a “no ultimatums” policy in an attempt to neutralize or at least reduce the use of this approach by employees. Beyond the obvious irony – what is “No ultimatums!” if not an ultimatum itself? – it is a pretty transparent attempt at maintaining control. After all, if you have a non-negotiable requirement – and the willingness to follow through if necessary – you are able to force an issue: either management meets your requirements or they have to find someone else to do your job.

It is frequently much simpler, from their perspective, to simply tell you “we will look into it and let you know” or something similar, then go on with business as usual.

Questions are weak: “Can I have a raise?” Statements are strong: “I need a 10% increase in my salary effective immediately or I will have to resign.”

The hypocrisy of the “no ultimatums” policy is somewhat galling when you think about it. The underlying premise in most work environments, especially when management issues things like wage freezes is pretty much “our way or the highway.” A more accurate policy would be “no ultimatums for you (or else!)”

It might sound like I’m advocating a contentious relationship with management. In fact it’s the exact opposite. As long as you are realistic about what you are asking for, the confidence that comes from your willingness to follow through with alternatives if necessary will frequently tip the scales in your favor. For an example of how this can work see Contrasts: two skilled people, different experiences, especially the second half.

Twitter

mcl — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:49:46 -0700

Are we retarded?

A Working Arrangement

mcl — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:16:18 -0600

A consultant I once knew used to talk about a very common scenario among entrepreneurial types: person A has a great idea, starts some kind of enterprise. At some point he needs help so he contacts person B to help grow the business.

Person B does a great job and all is well for awhile; but at some point person B gets restless and wants something to change. But if person B has done a great job, by now person A is probably pretty dependent on him (her), therefore likely to resist change. Tension!

In all too many cases, at some point things go badly from here: person B leaves, frequently to start some kind of similar enterprise based on his experience with person A. This can lead to bad feelings or worse: all kinds of legal complications, lawsuits, on and on. Non-compete clauses get invoked, and once again the main winners are the lawyers.

I don't remember exactly what this gentleman said could be done to help this kind of situation, but I have my own ideas. As is the case so much of the time, I think a good start toward improving this kind of thing consists of a lot of good honest communication -- from the very beginning.

I would go so far as to say agreeing on possible progressions of the business, how things might evolve -- based on what the people involved want -- could be part of the original setup, possibly even viewed as part of the compensation.

Here's a hypothetical: let's say you become an assistant to a successful seminar promoter. If you want to eventually do your own seminars, rather than be assistant to the person you're working with now indefinitely, why not discuss that early on? Part of your compensation could consist of his agreeing, probably after a reasonable time period for focusing on the original business, to support you in your endeavors to move into your own seminar productions. More than likely you would come up with some kind of offshoot, subcategory etc that you'd be especially good at and wouldn't compete directly with him anyway.

Now here is the key (IMHO) to making something like this work: you could ALSO agree early on that you would begin finding and training (grooming?) YOUR replacement, so that when the time came for you to go off on your own, he would have someone else ready to pick up where you left off.

Of course, by leaving on really good terms like this he would have ongoing access to your fine brain and all the things that you'd figured out for him; you'd have access to him and his networks, etc etc to help as you get your version of it going.

Win-win, as opposed to lose-lose. How cool is that?!?

I won't do this any more

mcl — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:53:58 -0600

If I needed the money so badly that I would in effect take it away from little old ladies, somebody might as well shoot me.

It's not that often that I can point to one specific event in my life that wound up triggering other events, but in the case of my job in pharmaceuticals, I can. I can remember exactly when I decided that I would not work for this company any more.

I was in one of the pharmacies, I believe in Hollywood, making small talk with the pharmacist since we both knew there really wasn't a whole lot work related to talk about that we hadn't both heard a thousand times before. So we were just basically shooting the breeze. He had to interrupt our conversation to deal with a customer who had just come into the store: a somewhat typical little old lady with a prescription from her doctor. She seemed concerned with how much her medication was going to cost so the pharmacist looked it up and gave her the price.

The price he gave her was apparently quite a bit higher than she was expecting, and from her response and her overall appearance it looked like the amount of money involved was going to have a severe impact on her budget. She seemed really concerned about having to spend this much money on her medication.

In an attempt to get the price down to something more affordable, she asked the pharmacist if he could substitute a generic version of the drug. The pharmacist took another look at the prescription and as it turned out, the doctor had checked the little box on the prescription slip that said "no generics". The pharmacist then had to explain to his customer that he could not do that because the doctor had checked the box forbidding it.

The woman wound up having to fork over the price of the brand name product, and she left the store clearly upset. We could only speculate on exactly what this meant to her, but it is probably not too much of a stretch of the imagination to see where it could have meant she would have cat food for dinner rather than people food.

The problem for me was the fact that as I stood there in my nice suit, having just recently gotten out of my nice new air-conditioned company car, all paid for by the company, I realized that one of the things the company expected me to do was to convince the doctors to check that little box on the prescription slip with every prescription they write. This particular patient had not been purchasing something from my company, but that really didn't matter. I was one of the people supposedly working hard to create the situation that was going to make it more difficult for this woman and others like her to live a decent life.

(Yes, I realize the question of quality of generics compared to the "name brands." For a particular product, maybe there is a difference in the two -- just as the store brand of a consumer product may not be exactly the same as its brand name counterpart. Like any other financial decision adults make just about every day of their lives, whether or not to spend the extra money for a name brand drug is nobody's business but the person spending the money.)

That was it for me. I decided right then and there to give my notice, which as I recall I did that day or within a matter of days, probably as soon as I could get hold of the guy I worked for. I was Goddamned if I was going to be a part of something as lousy as this. I remember thinking that if I needed the money so badly that I would in effect take it away from little old ladies, somebody might as well shoot me.

Kids?

mcl — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:53:09 -0600

One enormous, life-changing decision that almost always affects our flexibility where work, income, and career are concerned is the decision to start a family. If there was ever a time to give serious thought to a decision – to the point of playing “devil’s advocate” with yourself (and partner) – this is it. Not only is it one of the biggest in terms of overall impact on everyone involved, it is also one of life's very few completely irreversible decisions.

If you’re not real sure of your career path, it’s usually a good idea to hold off on having children until you are. In prior generations this was pretty much taken for granted – “getting established, then starting a family” was a standard phrase. But like so many other things, the idea of having everything we want right now has spread to the family planning arena as well.

Taking a good honest look at your motivations may be helpful. What are some of the reasons why you might want to start a family right away, possibly sooner than is really practical given your career uncertainty?

Want to be young for the kids, more energy for all the challenges (and fun times too)
Possible health concerns (esp. for women) associated with waiting too long
Impatient to have a family based on your values rather than those you grew up with
Social pressure: parents, friends, partner – various others in your life wanting to influence your decision. Your partner obviously has the most at stake but ultimately this should be your decision
Status: some societies have tied legal adulthood to parenthood. Having your own children was the ultimate "proof" of your own adulthood.
Just like anything else someone wants – you really want to be a parent, so the sooner the better

And what about the other side? Here are some possible reasons to postpone having children:

More time to experiment and find a career that is most satisfying and secure
Time to develop some financial stability
Improved relationship: studies show relationships last longer when children are not brought into the picture too soon
For the kids’ sake: if you take the time to develop yourself and your career to the extent that you enjoy your work and your life, you can give your children a phenomenal gift: the opportunity to see this done. We learn best by example.

Why be in such a rush to have kids? Don’t get bullied into this. There are many interesting things you can do with your life. Reproducing is for many the only thing of any significance they ever do. This doesn’t have to be you.

You can sell your car, quit your job, move to a different city... but you can't un-have children if you come to realize you've taken this step too soon. Make contact with that part of you that knows what is the right thing to do here and listen to it.

Treat Me Wrong, Treat Me Right: Who Decides?

mcl — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:32:39 -0600

In my "corporate" days I spent some time as a sales engineer. I worked with two very intelligent men with comparable backgrounds and comparable positions who appeared to be treated very differently by the company. This puzzled me so I paid attention in an attempt to understand why. This is my recollection.

A good guy who let himself be treated badly

Forrest was an engineer, as far as I could tell a very intelligent and highly skilled man, probably in his mid-50s or so when I knew him. Forrest worked as the liaison between the sales and marketing arm of Paul-Munroe and the technical, manufacturing/engineering division that actually put the systems together. Forrest's main job as I recall was to make sure that the salespeople didn't put something together that would either simply not work, or, worse, blow up and create all kinds of horrendous liability for the company. He had an extremely important job and from all that I could see he did it extremely well.

The only problem was that, at least to hear him tell it, the company consistently treated Forrest like a dog.

I had no way of knowing the literal facts about the way the company did in fact treat Forrest; the fact that he complained rather bitterly on a regular basis does indicate to me that for whatever reason he was not happy with the company. I was still fairly naive at the time so I rather easily got drawn into a classic game of "Why don't you / Yes, but..." Whenever I would see Forrest, at least most of the time he would launch into some version of how awful things were for him and how badly mistreated he was. I would play my part by suggesting in one way or another that he do something about it. He, of course, would then tell me all the reasons why he couldn't possibly do that.

I was naive but I guess at some point it did dawn on me that for whatever reason at least part of the picture here was that Forrest really liked to complain. I do believe, however, that there probably were some things about the company's dealing with him that could have been improved. I guess for me, at least for my purposes here, the issue is basically: what, if anything, could Forrest have done to truly improve his situation and give him less to complain about?

My dealings with Forrest helped me to come up with what I refer to as the "M.A.S.H. Theory." The popular movie, M.A.S.H., came out somewhere in that era or perhaps a few years before I worked for Paul-Munroe; I believe I thought of the movie when I began to hear Forrest complain about his situation. The parallel I drew was simply that, like the surgeons in the movie, Forrest appeared to be very good at his job and I suspected not someone who could be easily replaced. It appeared to me that Forrest had a lot more bargaining power due to his own relative uniqueness than he realized -- or than he used.

To put it simply, it appeared to me that Forest could have gone to management and told them what kinds of changes he needed to have made if they wanted him to continue working there. As I have said before, without an "or else" requests can all too frequently fall on deaf ears. And, the supply/demand factor needs to be taken into account, simply because some people can be replaced so readily that they have virtually no bargaining power (other than possibly whatever legislation might have provided, a separate issue entirely).

But it sure seemed to me that Forrest had a lot more clout than he ever used. It probably came down, once again, to the individual, Forrest in this case, simply being unwilling to take any chances or to "rock the boat" in any way. I guess I have always believed that if something appears to really be broken that you really should make every attempt to fix it -- and our personal lives, definitely including our careers, should not in any way be an exception to this rule.

Forrest, among others I have known, apparently did not feel nearly as strongly about this as I do. And, as I mentioned earlier, he may have gotten a lot more perverse pleasure out of complaining than I realized at the time.

Same company, different guy, different attitude, different results

Jack, much like Forrest, was a very intelligent and competent engineer. Jack had specialized for many years in mobile engineering; he had spent quite a few years working for one of the major companies that manufactures cement mixers. The name escapes me right at the moment* but it was definitely one of the major names in that field. Jack had such a reputation of being a highly skilled professional that I recall management at Paul-Munroe feeling that they had really scored an accomplishment by hiring him. I would have to say, based on my experience with him, that they were probably correct. He was a truly skilled person.

Staying sane: teaching others how to deal with us

More specific to my point here, though, is my recollection of how Jack interacted with management at Paul-Munroe. A fairly constant theme I heard during my years in therapy was a statement to the effect that we pretty much have to show people how to treat us. Jack was a fine example of how this could be done in the real world.

Jack was probably comparable to Forrest in terms of personal intelligence and professional qualifications. It is probably also fair to say that they were more or less equal in terms of their importance to the company, although I suspect Jack may have been a bit more visible to those outside the company due to his reputation in the industry. Just the same, I think they were fairly comparable in this area as well.

What was so fascinating to me when I worked with both of these men, however, was the enormous difference in how they appeared to be dealt with by management. I don't know if Forrest was literally mistreated as much as he seemed to think, since some of this could have been his interpretation; but I do recall a sense throughout the company that management pretty much took Forrest for granted. The feeling was that management could pretty much do what they wanted with Forrest and, though he would certainly complain to any who would listen, he would go along with it.

Not so with Jack.

Jack in action: "No man shall serve two masters!"

During my tenure as "rotary drive manager" I became involved in some of the management meetings, at least those that affected my area of the company. I have some very clear memories of meetings in which Jack was present; on at least a couple of occasions I remember two of the Vice Presidents taking different viewpoints on a given topic -- and both of them somehow requesting help from Jack based on their particular approach to whatever was being discussed.

This, of course, is a classic setup for anyone working for an organization-whichever way Jack would go, he could be guaranteed of at least irritating one of the vice presidents, if not in fact creating a powerful enemy. Clearly a no-win situation for Jack.

The part that I liked most of all in this little drama was Jack's response. He would stand up in the middle of the meeting, and proclaim rather loudly something like this: "Gentlemen, it says right in the Bible that no man shall serve two masters. When you guys decide which of you is going to make this decision, please let me know and I will do my best to get the job done at that point."

With that, Jack would usually leave the meeting, having decided that nothing constructive was going to happen until some more fundamental decisions were made. I don't think I realized at the time, but it was probably very good strategy on Jack's part to leave at this point as well. Whereas his continued presence could have implied some sort of approval on his part, his absence from the meeting clearly underscored his absolute refusal to involve himself any further in whatever project it was until the ground rules had been firmly established.

Someone once told me that questions are weak, statements are strong. Jack did not ask if they would clarify this situation before involving him; he did not request that management avoid creating this kind of problem for him; he simply told them what he needed from them in order to give them what they wanted from him. A question would have put the power to determine a crucial part of Jack's working environment in the hands of others. The statement kept it right where it belonged: with Jack.

In one way of looking at it, this was certainly nervy of Jack, after all, he was an engineer reporting to vice presidents of the company. It would have been a fairly simple matter for one of the VPs to demand Jack's resignation (although I wonder if the company president would have gone along with this). Somehow, this did not seem to bother Jack in the least, as there was no hesitation whatsoever that I could see on his part when it came time for him to take a stand.
Good at what you do, and knowing it = less b.s. (M.A.S.H.)

I wasn't very close to Jack personally so I can only speculate as to his motivations for his behavior; however, I have a couple of fairly good ideas. First of all, he appeared to be fiercely opposed to being put in any kind of a no-win situation, and he clearly recognized that the kinds of things I am describing here would have been just that. I'm sure he also realized that a man of his talent and reputation would have had very little trouble getting another job somewhere else if one of the vice presidents had in fact fired him; but I have a hunch that beyond this, he knew that he was doing such a fantastic job for the company (he was) that they would probably not have fired him in a million years.

He was right.

What's the difference?

The moral of the two stories is simple: being good at what you do and providing plenty of value for the organization you work for, while a darned good start, is not enough to guarantee that you'll get treated fairly.

You have to insist on it. Not just with words, but with your behavior. If your entire demeanor consistently communicates, as Jack's did, "I will do the best I can for you -- provided you keep your end of the bargain," others will be much more likely to treat you right.

Of course, this is not foolproof so keeping yourself in a position to make changes if a situation becomes intolerable is your ultimate means of maintaining your standards. And your Career Sanity.

* I remembered it -- Challenge-Cook Brothers.

The Carpenter and The Columns by John Leeke

mcl — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:22:07 -0700

I am always on the lookout for people who have a real connection with the work they do -- those who have either been smart, stubborn, or fortunate enough to realize how what they do with their life affects others. But I don't remember ever reading something that captures this idea so completely as the brief essay, "The Carpenter and the Columns," that home preservationist John C. Leeke has on his website. John has graciously allowed me to post it here.

I would love to live in a world where the majority of people, if not indeed everybody, felt this way about their work.

The Carpenter and The Columns

I erected two Tuscan Columns today.

I help my neighbor with her porch and connect with my community.

I work with the masons and the tile setters and connect with my fellow tradesmen.

I level the plinth squaring it with the sill and I connect with the carpenter who built this house a century ago.

I hang the plumb bob and connect with my father who handed it to me and showed me how to use it.

I align the axis of the column with the center of the earth and I connect with the universe beyond.

I lift the column and connect with its weight against the world.

I run my hand up along the curve of entasis and connect with the Greek artisans who devised this shape three millennia in the past.

I trim a bare sixteenth off the end of the shaft with my back saw and I connect with the student who needs to know.

I erect the shaft from base to capital and connect with its intent to take the load.

I catch the value of my labor and connect with my family whom I support.

I share this story with you and we connect to do the real work of this world.

I rest at day’s end, well connected.

--John Leeke, American Preservationeer
Portland, Maine, USA, June, 2005

Feel free to e-mail your comments on this story, or tell one of your own. Stop in any time you see us out here on the porch, and catch another story.

Copyright © 2010 John C. Leeke
Used with permission

Source: http://www.historichomeworks.com/hhw/frontporch/front.htm