Does anyone out there have a story to tell?

Please comment here if you do!

Thanks,
Michelle Conlin

I'm not a working parent myself, so I may get flamed for this comment. But the implication of that survey result is that there are some people who would ask non-parents to work late over a working parent. That sentiment bothers me. As a non-parent, I'd hate to get loaded up with extra work. And because working late sometimes means getting on challenging, deadline-intensive projects that could have career payoff, I'd hate to not be offered them just because I'm a working mom (again, if I was one). I might have ready access to a babysitter, or a spouse who could cover for me. I might be able to do it later that night from home, after the kids were put to bed. And of course, I might not.

We're all adults here. In an ideal environment, working parents would feel free to say no when they're asked to work late if they can't, without repercussions. But the implication that some people avoid asking working mothers to do things--and therefore, causing them to lose out on some opportunities--isn't a good thing, either.

(To celebrate Mother's Day, I've linked to a bunch of Working Moms/Parents blogs I found through a quick Google search. How these folks have time to blog, work, and care for kids is impressive!)

If that all sounds too familiar, you might enjoy this piece in Workforce Management provides scary look at the corporate power ballad. According to the story, there are actually half a dozen consulting outfits, such as this one that help employees come up with and produce corporate songs. Terrifying.

As the story describes, Bank of America isn't the only company that's turned a pop hit into a corporate ditty. Someone at Shell apparently turned "We are the World" into a corporate anthem. Starbucks apparently made "We Built this City" into "We Built this Starbucks." (If anyone out there knows whether this is a joke and I'm the last person on the Internets to get it, let me know.)

I was once a glutton for Starbucks. The company's iced quad espressos had me flying all day. The stuff was crack. I was hooked. We were in love.

Of late, though, I have come to the conclusion that at the center of Starbucks mounting woes lies the simple fact: the coffee tastes bad. Burnt. Acidic. Bad- body-feelings-inducing. Nor does it inject that glorious kind of high that fuels office sloggers everywhere. The recent Pike Place Roast is no winner (blech) and has nothing on Dunkin' Donuts.

On a recent swing through London, I had the good fortune to partake of caffeine injections from Cafe Nero. The crush was instant! Delicious.

Starbucks, please please please. I want to love you again but you are losing me. Sample City Bakery's brew. Putter over to Cafe Lladro in your very own Seattle and dig up their secrets. Visit Grey Dog's Coffee in New York City and go all P. I. on the place.

This can't be that hard, can it? At Heathrow, I was delighted to sip some Illy Cafe. There are also a grand sweeiping international chain. There was a Starbucks across the way but I didn't want to be disappointed. My Illy double espresso was everything I had hoped for. So I had another. They won.

Is it just me? What does everyone else think?

What's not in the top 20: a woman. Wendy Bounds blogs on this today but doesn't come to any conclusions. Are we all too busy pondering what to put in school lunches to take a break to pontificate about business? I don't think so. There are plenty of female consultants, authors and (to a lesser extent) business leaders out there.

But I notice something about women when they step into guru roles. They tend to direct their brain power to taking a back-room role with their clients or research a problem without pretending they've found a quote-worthy way to fix it.

Am I stereotyping? Sure. Then again, just look down the roster of any gathering-of-the-giants business event and note the dearth of women on it. Those who are there are often plucked from the handful of female CEOs (who, like most sane company leaders, have smart but rarely fiery things to say), or they are consultants with helpful (but rarely provocative) advice.

So who are the female gurus and why aren't there more of them?

Then I remembered the brouhaha over Berkshire holding, PacifiCorp., which does operate the long-standing dams in question. While some might wonder about the political heft of women donning placards outside a cocktail party in Omaha, blogger Ted Nace points out that Buffett has proven himself to be open to persuasion on matters of the environment. Or at least Buffett is aware of where the world is heading in terms of regulation and demand. He cancelled six proposed coal plants last year, without fanfare.

Smart move, as Lester R. Brown and Jonathan G. Dorn of the Earth Policy Institute have just predicted "the beginning of the end for coal." Groups like Coal Moratorium Now have chronicled similar developments.

It worked for coal. Buffett turned away from tobacco (what's not to love?) for similar societal reasons. Maybe sushi lovers of the world will unite behind the women of the Klamath River Basin to lobby hard for salmon, too.

But I'll tell you what has impressed me about Wrigley in recent years. First is the level of innovation coming out of the company. Every time I turn around there's yet another flavor or new form of packaging for its products. Even my kids (who, of course, only chew sugar-free stuff like Extra and Orbit) notice it.

Second is the international reach of the Wrigley brands. Whenever I travel, I'm struck by how often Wrigley products are on offer at even the smallest roadside stands. Like Coca-Cola, being the dominant player in its category gives Wrigley an advantage in expanding into new markets. Gum, like soft drinks, is a category where brand recognition is a huge factor in purchasing. As people in emerging economies become more affluent, they typically become more interested in buying little treats for themselves and their children. That's a hedge against whatever forces may dampen consumption at home.

Wrigley has a daunting competitor in Cadbury (which has been nibbling away at market share with innovations of its own in products like Trident). But the product war has served to make the whole gum category more appealing, in my view.

Yes, Wrigley makes more than just gum (just as Mars, its new parent, makes more than chocolate bars). But Wrigley has wisely made a strong push in recent years to pay more attention to the product that made it famous. The result is a company with a stronger focus, better product line and invigorated sales -- the kind of thing Buffett likes to see.

I'm not entirely sold that the concept has legs--far too many corporate managers would have difficulty with the voting concept, at least--Fenton publishes a list each year on companies that each pay money to apply. That surprised me, but according to Fenton, that's the case with the Great Places to Work list published by Fortune each year, too. For what it's worth, here's a link to this year's list, which includes companies ranging from Second Life creator to carting service 1-800-GOT-JUNK?

--On innovating under constraints: "I think frugality drives innovation, just like other constraints do. One of the only ways to get out of a tight box is to invent your way out."

--On customer needs: "Companies get skills-focused, instead of customer-needs focused. When [companies] think about extending their business into some new area, the first question is 'why should we do that—we don't have any skills in that area.' That approach puts a finite lifetime on a company, because the world changes, and what used to be cutting-edge skills have turned into something your customers may not need anymore. A much more stable strategy is to start with 'what do my customers need?' Then do an inventory of the gaps in your skills."

--On failure: "Also, people who want to pioneer and find new ways of doing things know there are going to be ups and downs, that there will be profound moments of success and failure. And that's O.K. It's not an experiment if you know it's going to work."

Along with building what New York magazine calls Absolutely, Positively the Worst Team in the History of Professional Sports, Thomas has apparently cost Madison Square Garden and CEO James Dolan $187 million during his four-year tenure. And never mind the stench that still lingers in the minds of those who don't even care about basketball after his embarrassing testimony in a sexual harassment trial that resulted in the franchise paying out $11.5 million to a former employee.

And what does Thomas get for all this? A chance to remain with the team as a personal adviser to the man who replaced him as president, Donnie Walsh, not to mention his millions in the bank. Harsh punishment, indeed.

Four years in, Katzenbach is starting to talk about the findings of their study, and a few of the members of the China 2024 group are now featured as part of filmmaker Sue Williams' documentary. You can check out previews here; watch for the entire film when it airs on PBS in June.

The cover--a guy in a tie, suspenders and pointy wizard's hat circles a glowing magic wand around him--looks like it must be a satire. Or at least intended to be funny, especially with a title like "Lore of Wizards: Consultants Talk about Consulting." But in fact, the "book" (I can't tell that it's actually been published anywhere but online) is an earnest guide to getting into consulting and what kind of skills are needed.

That's the topic of chapter 2, which details how consultants need to be "great appropriators," have "the ability to tune in," and a "competitive drive to excel and succeed." What they don't include as needed skills (or at least I didn't see it) is the ability to talk for two hours about something that could be covered in 10 minutes. Or the skill to charge insanely high fees for advice everyone already knows.

In the lemons-to-lemonade department, ceo Lee Scott recently spoke to Stanford B School students about how he listened to the company's critics to take cues for innovation.

Turns out there is something to be learned from the venom on the web.

Here's the link: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/walmart_scott.html

Shareholders managed to win big on three fronts. One of two shareholder proposals on the proxy ballot, a separation of the Chairman and CEO posts currently both held by Kerry Killinger, won 51% of the vote, a rare majority win for shareholders. Earlier today, director and finance committee chair Mary Pugh, who was responsible for monitoring the bank's risk management, resigned under pressure. Several shareholder groups and proxy watchers, including Proxy Governance, ISS and Change to Win (CtW) had all called for shareholders to withhold votes for her reelection.

And perhaps most notable: WaMu reversed a much-criticized decision to leave out the company's mortgage-related losses when calculating profits that determine executive bonuses for the year ahead. The move effectively shielded executives from further fallout in the housing crisis, and was widely scoffed at by pay consultants. Shareholders were incensed. “It doesn’t make any sense to exclude some of the most significant lines of business they’re in,” says Richard Clayton, research director at CtW. As recently as a few weeks ago, the company was defending the move. "WaMu's executive compensation program is designed to align compensation with the company's current and long-term business strategy and goals," wrote one spokesperson in an email on March 25. "As a result, management is held accountable for total company performance."

Is today's WaMu meeting a tipping point for shareholder success? It's too early to tell, and WaMu's case is extreme. But the bank's succumbing to executive pay criticism, the departure of Mary Pugh, and the high vote on the CEO-Chairman role is one more indication of a new era of shareholders' weight in the often arcane world of corporate governance. Just don't expect them to rest on these wins. CtW is already calling on the company to release full election results and believes preliminary results may point to other directors failing to win a majority. "It’s disappointing that it took the concerted action of shareholders to correct the failure of the compensation committee," said CtW executive director William Patterson in a statement. "To avoid a repeat failure by the compensation committee, we have called on Washington Mutual’s board to immediately request the resignation of [compensation] Committee Chairman James Stever."