Unabashed Hypocrisy

A Dichotomy of Values

A Manifesto

By Colin Mustful

Dedicated to the hard working employees of

Papa John’s Pizza - past and present.

In Memoriam:

Champlin Papa John’s

I write to express my concern over the hypocritical

business practices of the Papa John’s International Pizza

Corporation. This is not a sycophantic appeal. It is merely

a means of personal formulation; to take from the good and

reconsider the bad; to acknowledge what I have witnessed

and utilize from which I can gain. It does not originate

from malice or spite, but from misunderstanding and

curiosity. I do not understand how a company can be

successful through the business practices I have witnessed.

It confounds me how the foundation of any such company

can be agreed upon and fostered by such immoveable and

uncompromising means. Essentially, as I see it, the written

and expressed values of Papa John’s Pizza appear to bear

little or no significance toward the actual operations of the

company. Throughout the following, I wish to present the

hypocritical business practices of Papa John’s Pizza. This

is not an attempt to reveal those practices, but rather a

means to publicize the intentions of Papa John’s Pizza

regardless of the necessity to do so. This is a manifesto,

not of personal intent, but of personal experience; to

express what is done, but which is never said.

Before I begin, I will like to establish some

credibility. I will not chronicle my entire life with Papa

John’s. I could not possibly recall all of it and neither

could it be recreated. My story begins in December of

1998 when I was sixteen years old. A Papa John’s Pizza

was being built in the new mall in my town. At the time,

Papa John’s was a young and growing company in the state

of Minnesota. I knew little about the company and had

enjoyed their product only one time before. But, I needed a

job, and along with my twin brother, I applied at Papa

John’s. I was hired quickly and my first day was on

December 22, 1998 at Papa John’s in Champlin,

Minnesota. I was an “In-store,” which means I was

responsible for making pizzas, answering phones, slapping

dough, and taking direction from the managers on duty.

2

Generally I worked short shifts during periods of high

business volume. It was the typical job for any high school

student.

Immediately upon turning eighteen on June 18,

2000, I became a Shift-Leader. My training was limited,

but because I had already worked there for one and a half

years, I knew my way around. In December of the same

year I did undergo Unit 1 Manger Training in order to

receive official training for my position. I continued to

work as a Shift-Leader at the store in Champlin for my

final year of high school and my first year of college.

Through my first year of college I returned home every

weekend to run shifts. Looking back that was probably a

naive decision. For the three years following, my

attendance at Papa John’s was much more sporadic. I no

longer came home on weekends and I attended school in

West Virginia throughout my junior and senior years of

college. During this time I only worked at Papa John’s for

holiday periods and the summer. I was moved around to

many different stores and asked to fill in wherever help was

needed.

In August 2005 I moved to Mankato, Minnesota, to

attend graduate school. In November of that year I

obtained employment at the small franchise location in

Mankato. The franchise consisted of just two stores. Here

I worked as a Shift-Leader from November 2005 until July

2007. I enjoyed my time at this Papa John’s more than any

other.

I returned to the Twin Cities in July 2007 and I

immediately regained employment as a Shift-Leader for

Papa John’s in Champlin, Minnesota. In May 2008, I was

transferred to the store in Columbia Heights, Minnesota,

where I continued as a Shift-Leader. I remained at

Columbia Heights until April 2009, when I was temporarily

demoted and then transferred to the Papa John’s in White

Bear Lake, Minnesota. From April 2009 to July 2009 I

3

worked as a Shift-Leader at White Bear Lake and as a

Driver at Columbia Heights. In August of 2009 I was

transferred back to Columbia Heights and allowed to

resume my position as a Shift-Leader. This remained the

same until May 2010 when I voluntarily terminated my

position as a Shift-Leader and became a Delivery Driver. I

remained at Columbia Heights.

I continued to work as a Delivery Driver until

March 2011, when I terminated my employment for Papa

John’s, presumably forever. However, in September 2011 I

returned to Papa John’s. At this time I worked as a

Delivery Driver in Columbia Heights and as a Shift-Leader

in Champlin. This lasted only a few months and in January

2012 I moved to Washington, DC.

Immediately upon moving to Washington I obtained

employment as an In-Store at the nearest Papa John’s

location. I worked at this store until June 2012 when I

terminated my employment in order to travel. It is

currently undetermined whether or not I may work for Papa

John’s again. I will say that I have always enjoyed my

work for Papa John’s no matter where the store or what my

position.

What I have described so far should bare sufficient

witness to my experience with Papa John’s Pizza. I have

worked at numerous locations, under numerous managers,

supervisors, and district operators, under countless

circumstances, with an amalgamation of varying

personalities, I have held numerous positions, and have

worked within the corporate, small franchise, and large

franchise structures.

What follows are my observations. I do not wish to

overtly determine right or wrong, but I do wish to suggest

that there is a right and wrong, both of which I have seen

throughout my experience with this company. It is my

hope through these observations to arrive at a clearer

4

picture of what is right and to discover a better, more

appropriate way of doing business.

The acronym by which Papa John’s operates is

known as FASPAC. This stands for: Focus,

Accountability, Superiority, People Are Priority Always

(PAPA), Attitude, and Constant improvement. This

acronym represents the said values of the company at a

general, all-encompassing, and macro-level. It is

unspecific. It is, at the farthest reaching level, a method of

quality control created to instill within all of its team

members the company’s core values. I do not seek to

debunk FASPAC. I admire the values laid out in the

acronym. Furthermore, I believe that Papa John’s, at every

level, seeks and succeeds to achieve these values.

However, to a larger degree, I believe that Papa John’s

alienates itself from these values far too often. Essentially,

what I have witnessed through thirteen years of experience

is an unabashed hypocrisy to Papa John’s’ core values. I

am confused by this hypocrisy because I admire the work,

the people, the system, and the success of Papa John’s

Pizza. But it is this dichotomy between what the company

says and what the company does, that leads to the

following essay. Perhaps this dichotomy cannot be

reconciled, but it must at least be articulated and then

thoughtfully considered.

5

Focus

We begin with Focus. Focus is a vague term that is

hard to define. It cannot exactly be quantified or made

tangible, therefore it is a challenge to argue whether or not

Papa John’s adheres to this principle. I would say here that

there exists a certain degree of confusion between “focus”

and “getting things done.” Certainly Papa John’s promotes

focus in every step of the pizza service process. From start

to finish focus is required to do the job and to do it right.

However, intertwined with the principle of focus is

pressure. There is constant pressure to do things quickly,

effectively, and at least cost. Of course, this is necessary

and in theory, good. But somehow the hierarchical system

of management combined with the statistical system of

number monitoring creates a level of pressure great enough

to supersede focus. Therefore, focus, where applicable, is

jettisoned in favor of getting things done.

This becomes most apparent in the common

practice of clicking pizzas off the screen early. While

pizzas are being prepared, there is a computer monitor that

lists each pizza in the order in which it was received. In

addition to showing the type of pizza that is to be made, the

computer screen also shows the amount of time that has

elapsed since the order was originally placed. As a general

rule, each pizza is to be made in five minutes or less. Once

each pizza is placed in the oven, it is clicked off the screen

and the time it took to prepare is recorded in the system as

the make-time. Over the course of a day, week, and

period, the computer system tracks the average make-time.

Management then uses the make-time to draw certain

conclusions and to forecast future food and labor needs and

goals. In theory, the system works. However, there is

pressure from the top to reduce the make-time number to

the lowest possible number in order to reflect fast and/or

6

quality service. This is where the hypocrisy exists. On the

one hand, upper management stresses that a pizza cannot be

clicked off early in an attempt to cheat the system. This

standard should be obvious because to cheat the system is

to inaccurately reflect labor needs and business trends

which then leads to various kinds of errors and

miscalculations in the system forecasting models. But,

somewhere along the line, whether it is top-to-bottom or

side-to-side, this rule becomes overlooked in favor of

cheating the system. In other words, pressure trumps focus.

Though it is perhaps never spoken, it is understood by most

team members that they ought to click the pizza off the

screen early. The position which feels the most pressure to

act in this manner is the Shift-Leader who is directly

responsible for meeting number criteria. The goal then is

that the numbers, such as make-time, reflect speed rather

than the original value of focus. This pressure for speed

and improved numbers has become so inherent that lower-

level team members constantly engage in the practice of

clicking pizzas off early without the slightest idea why or

what the consequences might be. They only know that it

must be done.

This is just one example stated in as concise a

manner as possible. There exists innumerable other

methods of cheating the system in order to arrive at the

ideal numbers. It all stems from pressure that becomes

great enough that it is more important than focus. Instead,

focus becomes permeated through the hierarchical strain

and eventually lost.

7

Accountability

Accountability has become an under-recognized

value. So much that often times those who hold others

accountable are the ones who become perceived as the

wrong-doer. I admire accountability and I believe it carries

the greatest importance among the core values of Papa

John’s. However, accountability should bring with it

communication, understanding, patience, and a certain

degree of tact.

I would like to exhibit accountability in the Papa

John’s system through a personal anecdote. By this

anecdote I do not desire to evoke any judgments of

character or personal conduct. Nor do I wish to incorporate

my entire evaluation of accountability through this one

example. This is meant to exhibit the system of

accountability as it appears to be reflected throughout the

entire company. Let it be noted that I do not accuse Papa

John’s of disregarding accountability. It is the manner in

which Papa John’s holds its team members accountable that

I find problematic.

In February 2009, the Papa John’s location in

Columbia Heights, at which I worked, was assigned a new

District Manager. One afternoon that February during my

shift, the new District Manager, along with several other

Managers, visited the store in order to perform a Missions

Critical Evaluation. This is done approximately once every

period to rate each store on its performance and to define

areas which need improvement. During the evaluation it

was observed that I had not placed thermometers in the

dough as directed to do so by the Papa John’s Operations

Manual. The new District Manager, whom I had never met

and who, at the time, I did not know, brought this to my

attention. I acknowledged the fact that I did not use

thermometers in the dough. The District Manager

8

proceeded to ask if I would use thermometers in the dough,

“from now on.” I thought for a moment and answered

honestly and openly, “Probably not.” I then tried to explain

that I did not wish to be insubordinate but that it was a task

that was often overlooked and that it may be overlooked

again because of the nature of the task and its relevance

among many other tasks. Little, if anything, was said in

response. In hindsight, I was lucky not to be fired on the

spot. Regardless, there was no further discussion. The

District Manager did not introduce himself, thereby

revealing who he was, nor did he make any future efforts to

discuss the issue or to determine a solution, a compromise,

or even a command.

During the next two months it became evident to

me that I was being watched for any false steps so that I

could be punished for my prior delinquency. Eventually,

my punishment came. This happened on Easter Sunday.

Traditionally, Easter is a very slow day in the pizza

business. Since I was opening the store that day, I used the

opportunity to bring a DVD that I could watch during the

slowest periods of the day. I did not wish to neglect my

responsibilities nor, in my opinion, did I. At some point

during the afternoon I had the DVD playing in the office

while I was cleaning the store. The District Manager

arrived at that time. He needed me to sign some papers.

The visit took not more than five minutes and the District

Manager said almost nothing to me other than asking me to

sign the papers. The next day I received a phone call from

my General Manager telling me that I had been revoked of

my position as Shift-Leader. She said that I was no longer

allowed to work as a Shift-Leader for any of the stores

managed by this particular District Manager. I was quite

shocked, hurt, and taken aback. I did not feel that I

deserved to be demoted and, even if I had, I received no

verbal or written warnings in order to allow me to improve

my conduct and keep my position. Shortly following this

9

incident I inquired for a Shift-Leader at another location,

outside of this District Manager’s area. I was immediately

given a Shift-Leader position at the first store I inquired.

However, days before my first shift, the General Manager

called me said that I had been prohibited from working as a

Shift-Leader at her location as well. At this point I sought

out the District Manager who had revoked my position.

After several attempts it became clear to the District

Manager that I wished to keep my job and he held a

meeting with me. In this meeting he finally brought up the

earlier incident in February. He went on to conclude that I

was a hard-working, responsible, and diligent employee but

that I lacked the essential ability as a manager to hold

others accountable. He then agreed to transfer me to

another location and to allow me to continue working as a

Shift-Leader. He also said he would teach me how to hold

team members accountable, to which, as far as I could tell,

he never did.

I have included here a letter I wrote to my General

Manager immediately following my demotion. The letter

was written in the moment and adequately captures how I

felt:

3/26/2009

Dear Jennie,

It is not you to whom I should now

write. But if these words are intended

otherwise, I incur risk. If they are intended

for you, I secure my spirit no matter the

worldly outcomes. I write not wholly to

defend myself, but to unveil myself in a way

perhaps actions have been unable. Or, if not

10

to unveil, to remind, and to edify that which

I have already shown myself to be.

After many years of truly genuine

effort for a large and seemingly

unappreciative company, I was deeply

offended the other day by your boss’s

initiative. I am honored and grateful that

you respected me enough to advocate my

work and maintain my job. You are indeed

a wonderful boss for whom much credit is

due.

But, I want you to hear my opinion

so that my endeavors, great or small, will

not become misconstrued. I have been

employed by this company, in one form or

another for many years. I am thankful for

the opportunity it has always afforded me to

labor and to earn a living. I am glad for the

trust the company bestows each time I put

on a Papa John’s uniform. However, I have

become constantly concerned with the

company’s policies, outlook, and austere

methods.

I understand the nature of the

corporation and its ultimate goal to profit.

In order to profit, to succeed in the

competitive market, the company is required

to monitor and highly regulate its workforce.

In essence, they must develop a firm and

immovable foundation. One that cannot be

altered or transfigured, but rather easily and

completely adhered to by each of its

employees. Although I understand its

11

methods, I do not and cannot invariably

agree. There is more to Papa John’s than an

assembly line in which workers can be

moved in and moved out like cogs in a

machine. Behind each store, behind each

closing shift, behind each phone call, behind

each pizza, is a person…not a piece in a

puzzle. Though policy may need to be

written with the narrow expectation that

each employee is only a cog, in reality we

know this is not true. This is where healthy

and appropriate judgment can and ought to

be displayed. As an experienced,

respectable, responsible manager, I ought to

be able, allowed, and expected to do just

what my title presumes…to manage. I know

the expectations, I have learned the rules, I

have experienced the predictable and the

unpredictable. I have encountered foreseen

and unforeseen situations. I have been

trained and I have learned and I have not

learned and I have made mistakes. But

through all that there needs to be an

understanding of human competence,

capacity, expertise, and savvy. I am not a

cog, not a machine, not a piece in a puzzle to

aimlessly and thoughtlessly follow every

rudimentary command. If I determine that a

radio be appropriate at a given moment, then

it is appropriate. Not because I am a

narrow, self-centered, disrespectful

employee, but because I have earned the

trust and the right to manage the store…to

decide what and when something has

become appropriate based not just on policy,

which I know, but on circumstance,

12

experience, necessity, and human

understanding. Therefore, if I have

determined that an employee be allowed to

rest, it is not out of laziness, aloofness, or

some personal vendetta against the

company, it is out of a more, but not

completely, dutiful alertness for my position

as manager. I should not then be

immediately scrutinized, but observed and

ultimately judged as valuable or invaluable

to the company.

Jennie, nothing I have now stated is

aimed against you or anyone. It is a sort of

statement of faith. I love my work and I

love the people I work with. I will continue

with a genuine heart. What I do and how I

proceed to do it will not be a measure of

company assertiveness. It is, was, and

always will be a measure of spirit, hard

work, dedication, and love. I speak now

with words, but I speak always through

action. I will continue to be a valuable

member of the Papa John’s Pizza

Corporation, but I will do it the best way I

know how. And, if that should ever be

overlooked, if that should ever be

misconceived, if that should ever be

considered a detriment to this company, I

apologize with all my heart.

I am most sincerely yours, now and always,

Colin M. Mustful

13

What I have expressed through this incident appears

to be, in general, the manner in which Papa John’s holds its

team members accountable. In this case, me. It involves

no communication, no discussion, no warnings, no

education, and no defined expectations – simply

punishment through no means of confrontation. I was

never confronted. Likewise, it has been my observation

that team members are not confronted. Rather, they are

blamed and they are punished. Also, they are bullied. If a

team member’s conduct does not meet the expectations of

the Manager, the team member is targeted and then

neglected or else forced into unfavorable circumstances.

This leads to grievances by the team member and results in

discord between the team member and the Manager. This

then often leads to resignation or termination. Rarely is the

team member appropriately confronted and communicated

with throughout this process.

In addition, Papa John’s has created a system of

innumerable, and often dubious, tasks and unrealistic goals.

Management is able to utilize these meaningless tasks and

unrealistic goals to establish fault or short-coming on the

part of any team member they so choose. If at any time and

for any reason, personal or otherwise, management

becomes dissatisfied with any employee, they can point

toward any meaningless task not accomplished or any

unrealistic goal not reached in order to justify punishment

or termination.

Accountability, therefore, is not used as a means of

improvement and team success through common

expectations and common goals. Instead it is used as a

system of blame and punishment. Accountability has

become the method by which Papa John’s and its

management determines, at any point in time and for any

reason, who is acceptable and who is not. Who is in and

who is out.

14

Superiority

Superiority is another vague term that could qualify

for just about anything. It is a noble and worthwhile

endeavor to seek superiority in all categories of service

especially in such a competitive market. In this case I will

not question the superiority of the product. I will even go

so far as to assume that the product is superior. Moreover,

I do not question the ability of the team members.

Although their ability is relevant, superiority it is not

primarily, or at least initially, determined from the overall

ability of the employees. What I question in regards to

superiority, is the system by which Papa John’s determines

the value of its employees. In other words, the way they

choose whom to hire, whom to fire, whom to promote, and

so forth. Before I continue, allow me to preface my

statements by noting that there are a great many diligent,

hard-working, responsible, wonderful, and worthy people

working for Papa John’s at all levels. I know this first-

hand. But, I also believe that Papa John’s prefers, in

general, employees who are less capable, less reliable, less

intelligent, less ambitious, and who are expendable. That

sounds harsh, and quite possibly misguided. But from what

I can tell, Papa John’s’ upper management undervalues,

devalues, and fails to recognize noteworthy qualities in its

employees. It does this for a very specific reason – control.

Papa John’s seeks to employ people they can

control. They want people with little or no experience.

They want people who have rarely or never been employed.

They want people who will not view minimum wage as a

form of under-employment. Again, this sounds harsh and I

admit that this is challenging to articulate. Nevertheless,

the fact remains that Papa John’s seeks people they can

control. And once an employee has stepped outside their

limits of control they are no longer viewed as valuable no

15

matter what their personal qualities. So, regardless of how

hard-working, responsible, and diligent an employee is, if

that employee is no longer constrained by the systems of

control, that employee is no longer valuable. And because

that employee is no longer valuable, they are no longer

worthy of reward or even of fair treatment. Instead they

become expendable, ignored, mistreated, and exploited

until that employee decides that continued employment

with Papa John’s is no longer a worthwhile endeavor.

Once this happens, Papa John’s seamlessly fills their

position with someone they can control and the process is

continued.

It is this system of control that diminishes the

superiority of Papa John’s Pizza. Because its team

members are valued by this system of control, rather than

by merit, they are thereby disvalued as to their actual

worth. Because Papa John’s hires people who are—we will

say under-worthy—and fails to respect and acknowledge

those who are indeed worthy, the superiority of the entire

company suffers. It has become clear to me that they

system of control by which Papa John’s values its

employees results directly, whether by quality or by

service, in an evident lack of superiority.

16

People Are Priority Always (PAPA)

People Are Priority Always (PAPA) is an essential

and albeit required value for any customer service

orientated industry. Papa John’s is no exception.

Outwardly, Papa John’s adheres to PAPA and promotes

great customer service. For instance, they teach their

drivers that they are “servers on wheels.” They stress

hospitality at the door such as using the customer’s name,

repeating the order, and always saying thank you. When

handling customer complaints or problems they teach their

team members to use LAST which stands for Listen,

Apologize, Solve, and Thank. Through every step of the

ordering process Papa John’s does indeed promote quality

customer service or PAPA. However, as I mentioned, this

is only outwardly. Inwardly, there is a much more

analytical approach toward customer service. I am

speaking of course about profit. Surely any company must

turn a profit in order to survive and hopefully to thrive, but

Papa John’s, I believe, does this at the expense of its

customers. As discussed earlier, Papa John’s relies on a

system of numbers to determine its cost/benefit analysis

and as a result, its customer service.

I will consider for a moment the number known as

CSC or Customer Service Compliance. CSC is a

percentage which theoretically represents the percent of

customers who received quality service during any given

period of time. This is determined by the computer system

based on the estimated amount of time it takes for a pizza

to arrive at a customer’s door from the moment the order

was placed. As far as I am concerned the CSC number is

arbitrary because it does not consider the infinite number of

intangible and unquantifiable factors included in the service

process. Also, the system does not truly know how long it

takes for a pizza to arrive at the customer’s door. Lastly,

17

very often managers cheat the system in order to improve

the CSC number. They do this by routing drivers to orders

before the drivers arrive at the store, thereby deceiving the

system. This then has a ripple effect that invalidates the

entire system of projection making it impossible to properly

forecast labor needs and to accurately analyze customer

service.

I have digressed. What I wish to point out here is

that Papa John’s does and will risk quality customer service

in favor of its cost/benefit analysis. This perhaps is a

standard practice among for-profit company’s but it does

not justify the fact that it is both wrong and opposite to the

standards set out in its core values. For instance, Papa

John’s does not seek a 100% Customer Service Compliance

as one might expect. Rather, it seeks a CSC of 90%. The

company has determined that if it achieves a CSC of 100%

then either sales volume was too low or labor costs were

too high or both. If CSC falls below 90% Papa John’s has

determined, through some type of number crunching, that

service has failed to a large enough extent that it may eat

into future profits and thereby risk the company’s

sustainability. Therefore, Papa John’s believes that a CSC

of 90% is just right to maintain sales volume (to keep

enough customers coming back) without overspending, and

in my opinion properly spending, on labor. In total, this

system will maintain the desired profit margin, but it is

clearly to the detriment of 10% of its customers. Included

among all of this is the way in which employees are

utilized and exploited. Papa John’s may overschedule

during expected periods of high business volume, but it will

always underschedule during expected periods of low

business volume. Far too often, it seems, managers are

understaffed and employees are overworked. In the

company it is known as being “set up for failure.” Many

times throughout the course of a week, managers are “set

up for failure,” or, if not set up for failure, they are left at

18

risk for failure. This is done intentionally because as long

as service is achieved during expected periods of high

business volume, the company can afford (and it is

apparently more profitable) to incur service failures during

expected periods of low business volume. For instance, if

the store achieves 100% CSC between 5pm and 8pm, it can

then incur a CSC of 50% between 11pm and 2am and still

achieve a CSC of 90% for the day because of the higher

number of orders placed between 5pm and 8pm. This

results in overworked, overstressed employees, pressure to

cheat the system, and poor customer service.

Because Papa John’s operates on a system of

numbers and seeks the highest possible profit margin based

on its analysis, the company fails to achieve quality

customer service on a regular basis. This makes “People

Are Priority Always” an invalid statement.

19

Attitude

I cannot speak on attitude. As defined by Papa

John’s “whether you think you can or you can’t – you’re

right!” I agree that a positive mental attitude can make all

the difference and I laud Papa John’s for including it

among their core values. But I cannot speak toward

attitude because it is a rather personal endeavor. An

attitude is a reflection of an individual and not of an entity.

Papa John’s should and ought to seek out those with a

positive attitude, but it is not something achieved through

company intent.

Instead I will consider accuracy. Accuracy is

constantly reflected in the daily operation of the business

and appears to be an important characteristic of Papa

John’s Pizza. It is obvious that if a customer does not

receive what he or she ordered there is an immediate and

glaring service failure. Accuracy becomes paramount in

the pizza industry where restaurants turn out hundreds of

pizzas a day, all of which require accuracy. This does not

include other details such as customer information, special

requests, and food management. Certainly Papa John’s

stresses accuracy throughout the ordering process and

beyond. The concern I have is that Papa John’s

overstresses accuracy through their system of

micromanagement. Everything that is done throughout the

day is predetermined, beginning before the door is

unlocked in the morning with a security check of the

parking lot to the final turn of the key at night. I do not

entirely argue that this is unnecessary. I understand the

requirements of uniformity for such a vast, international

organization. But Papa John’s brings it to an eccentric

level. Each store has a checklist with over one hundred

fifty tasks. Each store uses a Manager’s Daily Operating

Guide (MDOG) which is a computer generated forecasting

20

system that tells the manager exactly how much dough will

be needed on an hour-to-hour basis. The MDOG

determines how much of each food product should be

prepared, it says exactly how many drivers and in-stores

will be needed at every hour, and so-forth. Also,

everything in the store is scripted. Team members are told

what to say, when to say it, and how to say it. Even drivers

are given explicit instructions on how a pizza should be

taken from the store, to the customer’s door, at the

customer’s door, and then how they should return. Again, I

understand the need for uniformity and I can see how

micromanagement works to enhance service, eliminate

mistakes, and assist team members; specifically managers.

But these prompts are not just overly detailed, they are

overly dictated. What I mean by this, is that none of the

systems of micromanagement are used to guide employees,

which I believe would be ideal, but are they are used to

limit all variables no matter what the cost or consequences.

In this way Papa John’s has determined that it is a greater

benefit to the company to stifle employees through a

compulsory, overly detailed system of micromanagement

than to casually guide them in a way that allows for

individuality, creativity, knowledge, experience, intuition,

and unforeseen circumstances. Papa John’s seeks to

eliminate chance in as many ways as it is capable thereby

eliminating the possibility for greater success or greater

failure. This may uphold the status quo, but it alienates its

team members, smothers innovation, limits growth, and

fails to account for the talents, character, experience,

ambition, and value of its employees. Accuracy then is

replaced by a system of micromanagement which is really a

system of least-risk or complacency.

21

Constant Improvement

The final core value is Constant Improvement. I

struggle to find any source of evidence declaring this

particular value through the operation of Papa John’s Pizza.

With each value preceding Constant Improvement there is

an evident dichotomy between in the way Papa John’s

follows its values and how it does not. In the case of

Constant Improvement I fail to recognize any measurable

means by which Papa John’s seeks to fulfill this value.

Rather, they seem content in seeking constant change.

Constant and indefinite change abounds in their product,

their methods, and their structure. To catalogue all of the

means by which Papa John’s is constantly changing would

be impossible. But it is undeniable that within any period

of time, change is intentionally used as a tool in achieving

the company’s unsaid goals.

Personnel are one of the most frequent and easily

identifiable changes. This is done at all levels of

management but is most apparent when done with the

General Manager. Once a store has reached a certain level

of comfort or familiarity, change in personnel is invariably

the outcome. I am unclear exactly why this is done. I can

only suggest that it is a means by which Papa John’s can

reassert its control, reemphasize its policies, and reestablish

predictability in the operation of their restaurants. By

changing personnel, especially through the GM position, its

team members are reminded of all directives and its

General Managers are reminded of the transient nature of

their position lest they accomplish the goals, or numbers,

set out for them.

I would like to also briefly note the impermanent

nature of many of the changes that are implemented.

Nothing is given its own space, nothing its own category,

nothing its own permanent identity. It is truly as if every

22

change is meant to be temporary and fleeting. Things are

implemented only as a quick-fix. Papa John’s appears to

recognize that change only results in improvement, or

profits, for a brief period of time, then change once again

becomes necessary. For this reason change is made with

the intention of leaving room for change once again in the

near future. It is not constant improvement, then, that Papa

John’s is after, but improvement only as necessary.

Improvement becomes mixed with and overtaken by

change in order to ensure its already-established chunk of

the market.

Before I conclude my argument on Constant

Improvement I would like to include a letter I wrote to my

District Manager in September of 2010. At the time the

District Manager had suggested to implement a system of

feedback. He wished to know what suggestions his team

members had regarding the operation of the restaurant. I

took advantage of that offer with the following letter:

Mr. Jon Peres

I am writing in response to your fax from

9/10/10.

I would like to briefly offer my opinions and

suggestions on management and leadership

methods in order to help Papa John’s

become more efficient and profitable. Since

I have no business training I would like to

refer largely to the text, “Reforming

Organizations: Artistry, Choice and

Leadership” by Lee G. Bolman and

Terrence E. Deal.

I believe that the management has become

too rigid and all-encompassing. From what

23

I can tell, it is run by a system of control at a

micro level that does not encourage or foster

independent growth, thought, or innovation.

It thrives only on routine and control. It is

my opinion that control is an illusion and

routine a fallacy. Rather, the life of a

manager “is a hectic life, shifting rapidly

from one situation to another.” Decisions,

therefore, are fluid and emerge from a

variety of frames or circumstances both

known and unknown. As put by Bolman

and Deal, “the image of firm control and

crisp precision often attributed to managers

has little relevance to the messy world of

complexity, conflict, and uncertainty they

inhabit. They need multiple frames to

survive. They need to understand that any

event of process can serve several purposes

and that participants are often operating

from different views of reality.” Current

leadership and management methods

utilized by Papa John’s and its franchise

partners seemingly choke out and dismiss

this theory of understanding.

Papa John’s, instead, seems rooted in

inadequate and somewhat antiquated ideas.

It redundantly pushes (often through

coercion) the same theories and methods but

never considers real, thoughtful, and

purposeful adjustments based on its

strengths, its weaknesses, and its people.

Rather, Papa John’s maintains a strict and

ineffective routine which ultimately drives

out innovation. We are stuck in the belief

that if results are marginally satisfactory, the

24

incentive to maintain routine outweighs the

incentive to innovate. We cannot continue

to rely on straightforward facts, numbers,

and routines. Nothing about this business is

straight forward. It is more accurately

described as complex, surprising, deceptive,

and ambiguous. This, I contend, ought to be

accepted and harnessed. Managers at every

level should rely on their experience and be

allowed and encouraged to adapt, change,

and read situations in order to decide what

needs to be done and then make it happen.

I further argue that Papa John’s and its

management do not thoughtfully consider its

individuals needs and skills. I understand

the tasks and chores that must be adequately

accomplished, but to ask the same of each

individual without concern for that

individual’s abilities and experience is

irrational. In addition, suitable incentives

are rarely appropriated to well-deserving

employees. By asking the same of each

individual while offering few incentives,

“individuals may feel neglected and

oppressed, and organizations sputter because

individuals withdraw their efforts or even

work against organizational purposes.” If,

however, Papa John’s can learn to value and

more properly respect its employees and

consider what each can give and what each

cannot give, individuals are more likely to

find their work meaningful and satisfying.

In this way Papa John’s will more

effectively reap the talents and energies of

its employees which ultimately leads to the

25

company’s growth and success. Also, I

contend that Papa John’s suffers from

specifically blaming individuals which

thereby alienates its employees. All too

often problems are cast as a result from bad

attitudes, abrasive personalities, neurotic

tendencies, stupidity, and incompetence. As

noted by Bolman and Deal, “targeting

individuals while ignoring larger system

failures oversimplifies the problem and does

little to prevent its recurrence.”

I would like to summarize my concerns by

citing Bolman and Deal as stated in the

following:

“Because organizations are complex,

surprising, deceptive, and ambiguous, they

are formidably difficult to comprehend and

manage. Our preconceived theories and

images determine what we see, what we do,

and how we judge what we accomplish.

Narrow, oversimplified perspectives become

fallacies that cloud rather than illuminate

managerial action. The world of most

managers and administrators is a world of

messes: complexity, ambiguity, value

dilemmas, political pressures, and multiple

constituencies. For managers whose images

blind them to important parts of this chaotic

reality, it is a world of frustration and

failure. For those with better theories and

the intuitive capacity to use them with skill

and grace, it is a world of excitement and

possibility. A mess can be defined as both a

troublesome situation and a group of people

who eat together. The core challenge of

26

leadership is to move an organization from

the former to something more like the latter.

“

I do not claim to know the answers. These

are just simple suggestions to be considered

for appropriate and effective change. I have

worked with the company for over eleven

years and it is my opinion that the company

has not properly adapted to a changing

world. Furthermore, through methods of

control and micromanagement, Papa John’s

fails to take advantage of the immense value

of many employees while alienating many

others. If Papa John’s considers the values

and abilities of each individual and then

adjusts its expectations with consideration to

each employee’s abilities, then the company

will much further benefit from the fruits of

their labor.

Take these words as you wish. It is my hope

that I can offer valuable and advantageous

recommendations that may be considered

and utilized to lead to more profitable and

successful business methods.

Greatest Regards,

Colin Mustful

This was quite a strong and deliberate message I made.

However, despite the District Manager’s appeal to accept

and consider feedback, I received no response to this letter,

nor did I receive any acknowledgement of its receipt.

27

Certainly, if Papa John’s openly sought constant

improvement, it would at least open a line of

communication with me regarding this letter.

28

Manifesto

Papa John’s Pizza intentionally diverts its business

practices away from its written core values. Its core values,

though important, are only used as a duplicitous guile; a

tool to squeeze as much utility and profit from every single

employee, from every single customer, and from every

single pizza. What it says is a lie and how it operates is

hypocrisy. Ultimately, hypocrisy undermines the

confidence of its customers and the integrity of its

employees. This is what Papa John’s does.