Bob Sutton

Blame, Failure, and The No Asshole Rule

As I emphasize on my list to left of 15 Things That I Believe, one of the best diagnostic to assess whether an organization is effective or innovative is "What Happens When Someone Makes a Mistake?" I made that this argument one way or another in every book I have every written and perhaps 50% of the speeches I have made in the past decade.  As I say in the above link (which is a story about Amazon, an organization that continually impresses me with its learning culture):

"Failure will never be eliminated, and so the best we can hope for from human beings and organizations is that they learn from their mistakes, that rather than making the same mistakes over and over again, they make new and different mistakes.

The upshot for Jeff Pfeffer and me is that, perhaps the single best diagnostic to see if an organization is innovating, learning, and capable of turning knowledge into action is “What happens when they make a mistake?” Stealing some ideas from research on medical errors, leaders and teams can “forgive and forget,” which may be temporarily comforting, but condemns people and systems to make the same mistakes over and over again – in the case of hospitals, this means you bury the dead (or close the incision) and don’t talk about it.  Or you can remember who made mistakes, chase them down, humiliate them, and thus create climate of fear. In such situations, the game becomes avoiding the finger of blame rather than surfacing, understanding, and fixing mistakes (see Harvard’s Amy Edmondson’s wonderful research on drug treatment errors for evidence on this point).  Or you can Forgive and Remember, which is not only the title of a great book by Charles Bosk, it is the philosophy that the best teams and organizations use. You forgive because it is impossible to run an organization without making mistakes, and pointing fingers and holding grudges creates a climate of fear. You remember – and talk about the mistakes openly –so people and the system can learn. And you remember so that, even though you have tried to retrain people and teach them, if some people keep making the same mistakes over and over again, then, well, they need to be moved to another kind of job."

The connection to The No Asshole Rule, however, was made clear in a most thoughtful blog post from Peter Seebach in response to the book.  I was especially taken by this paragraph about his workplace:

I don’t think we explicitly have a “no-asshole” rule; if we do, I’ve not been told of it. We do, however, have a corporate culture which undermines the things that are essential for bullying. There’s a total lack of interest in blame, so far as I can tell. People certainly can, and do, try to figure out how something went wrong — but not for the purpose of assigning blame, just for the purpose of fixing it. No one expects that people won’t make mistakes, or yells at them for making mistakes. As a result, people are more comfortable than they might otherwise be coming forward with information about problems which were caused by their mistakes. Net result: Less time trying to shift blame, less time before the problem is fixed.

Now that sounds like a functional workplace.. a nearly perfect example of how "forgive and remember" ought to work. And the link to rule is splendid. 

The Best Asshole Buster Story I've Heard In a Long Time

A reader named Kevin just wrote and told me a great story:

A good friend of mine in college was at a busy nightclub, on the crowded dance floor, dancing with his girlfriend.  It was very crowded, to the point where you could barely dance and in close proximity to everyone around you.  He overheard a guy that was “hitting” on a girl.  He had been drinking and was pretty obnoxious.  He told the girl that he very much wanted to get” into her pants”.  Her response was “sorry buddy, there is already one asshole in these pants, and no room for another”.  The guy was immediately defused and left the dance floor with his tail between his legs, and no longer bothered anyone at the nightclub.  Thought you might get a chuckle from this brilliant comeback.

Is it true? I don't know and don't care, it is the best asshole put-down story I've heard in a long time.  Another great story came from Tina a few years back on an funny moment in her MBA class -- and that one is better documented than the tale above.

Is It Time for a Stupid Rules Contest at Stanford?

I love my university, I've been treated far better than I deserve during my 25 plus years at Stanford.  But as much a I love it, I wonder if it is time for us to run something like a "stupid rules contest" here.  I once met the CEO of a large bank in New England who explained to me how they had made things much better by running such a contest and taking the suggestions seriously. For example, they got rid of a rule that people waiting outside a branch could not be let in until official opening time.  They changed things so, if it was 10 or 15 minutes before opening time and, say, people were waiting outside in the cold, employees could open the door and let them wait in the warm lobby.

I don't want to mention any specific rules at Stanford, as I don't want to point fingers at any group or person.  But although no doubt each was developed and implemented with the best of intentions, it seems to me that they accumulate like barnacles on a ship, with one after another being added.  Each one slows down the process of teaching and research, and the old ones never seem to be removed.

Perhaps a stupid rules contest here would help. I admire Stanford's leaders, so this is not meant to be an attack on any individual, I just think it is something that happens to organizations over time, and I wonder if it would be a good time to haul our organizational ship into the dry dock and scrape off some of those old barnacles -- and perhaps some new ones we have grown to that make things harder to do than need be. 

How Much Do You Hate Performance Reviews? Take Sam Culbert's Test

One of the most lively discussions we've had on this blog was around a post I wrote a couple years ago called Performance Evaluations: Do They Do More Harm Than Good.  The reason, I argued, is that that they are done  badly in most places that the best performance evaluation might be no performance evaluation at all. In too many places, they are done by badly trained people, the forms and procedure  often have little relevance to the people being evaluated or to organizational goals, they take a huge hunk of time (a bad 360 degree evaluation can waste weeks), and often leave both the evaluator and the person being evaluated feeling less rather than more motivated. As I said in my earlier post,the famous quality guru W. Edwards Deming was vehemently opposed to using them at all.  As Jeff Pfeffer and I wrote on page 193 of The Knowing-Doing Gap:

Deming emphasized that forced rankings and other merit ratings that breed internal competition are bad management because they undermine motivation and breed contempt for management among people who, at least at first, were doing good work. He argued that these systems require leaders to label many people as poor performers even though their work is well within the range of high quality. Deming maintained that when people get unfair negative evaluations, it can leave them "bitter, crushed, bruised, battered, desolate, despondent, dejected, feeling inferior, some even depressed, unfit for work for weeks after receipt of the rating, unable to comprehend why they are inferior."  

To Deming's point, there is one organization I work with -- a high tech firm with about 250 employees -- that eliminated formal reviews except when people are being considered for a promotion or when they are having serious performance problems and need to "on plan" (i.e., shape up or be fired). They have about ten different levels in the organization, and everyone at the same level gets the same pay and same sized bonus.  And they have been emphasizing frequent and lower stakes feedback instead.  So I know of at least one place that is having some success breaking from this often hollow and destructive ritual.

 If you want to read the most compelling and complete case against the traditional performance evaluation, however,I suggest that you pre-order UCLA Professor Sam Culbert's new book Get Rid of the Performance Review. He first made this argument in the Wall Street Journal, but the book digs into this argument in far more detail and offers solutions for managers and companies who want to replace the traditional review -- or at least reduce the damage that they do.  To help spread the word about the book, and to find out if as many people despise the performance review as Sam (and I) believe, he has -- a bit like the ARSE -- designed a ten-item test called How Much Do You Hate Performance Reviews?  I just took it and scored a 36, which means I really hate them.  

Take the test and let me know what you think, and after you complete it, you can read the first chapter of the book.  I predict that this book is going to spark a lot of controversy and, I hope, inspire leaders and organizations to use performance evaluations less, and to do a better of using them.  At least I hope so.

Here is the first question to give you a taste:

1- My favorite performance review was:

	a. when my boss correctly identified weaknesses that I was eager to work on.
	b.when I was reviewed, anonymously, by many insightful colleagues I interact with, including some who want my job.
	c. when my boss asked me to first review myself, allowing the boss to correct my silly self impressions.
	d. when my boss forgot to give me one

The Urban Dictionary Accepted Passhole! Please Vote for it When It is Posted

I just got an email (it took them just a couple hours) from the Urban Dictionary that our definition of Passhole as ""someone who opts out of participating in a decision, but then complains bitterly about the outcome." has been accepted."  BUT -- and I should have looked before -- Passhole is already there, with 14 different definitions of the word, most having to do with driving.  The top rated one is:

The idiot drivers that move steadily along, but suddenly increase speed when they wake up and realize you are passing them. If they succeed in blocking your opportunity to pass, they will immediately resume the former, annoying pace. If you pass them successfully, they will ride your bumper for a short time before returning to la-la land.

Our definition will appear in a couple days. When it does, please get in there and vote for it early and often!

Thanks again, that was fun.

Passhole Wins: But Don't Use It to Blame the Victims of Broken Organizations or Bad Bosses

Or, in the words of Steve Jobs, the journey was the reward in this case.  As most readers will recall, this all started as a little contest in response to Mozilla's Asa Dotzler: Let's Invent a New Word or Phrase: What do you call someone who "opts out of participating in something but then complains about the outcome."  I have been overwhelmed by the number of suggestions, and even more than that, the quality and complexity of the conversation about the various candidates.  At the moment, there are a combined 80 comments on the post above and the follow-up post that listed the "finalists."   My reading of the votes is that -- although not everyone liked it --  passhole got the most votes.

I just submitted Passhole to the Urban Dictionary  as a new word.  I changed the definition just slightly to  "someone who opts out of participating in a decision, but then complains bitterly about the outcome."

In order to honor some of the other suggestions (I apologize if yours didn't make it, I picked them based on my biases, but of course, other will have different preferences), I added the following words to the list of synonyms and related words and phrases that ask for: passive-aggressive, Monday morning sniveler, detached dissident, douchenag, sour grapers, unconscientious objector, inverted  cheerleader, submarine, seagull, weenie-whiner, whampire, free-griper. I have never submitted anything to the Urban Dictionary, but I felt compelled given your remarkably thoughtful suggestions and comments. I understand that they reject a lot of submissions -- I will let you know how it turns out. Once again, I can't thank everyone enough for making so many comments, and make such thoughtful comments.

Indeed, as much as I love the fun of the names and all that, I was even more taken with the wonderful conversation about the dangers of labeling people passholes. Many smart comments were made, and although labeling people has advantages ( I would argue, for example, that openly talking about norms against assholes or passholes, and calling others or yourself when you violate those norms, are signs of a healthy culture), nonetheless, multiple commentors did a lovely job is calling out the risks of the label. Note these comments in particular, as I think they are especially wise:

Bob G. makes a great case that labeling people as passholes can, at times, be a case of blaming the victim:

If an organization finds itself populated with large numbers of the "non-participating disgruntled," perhaps a little self-examination is in order. Are they really all just a bunch of worthless whiners? Or is it *possible* that the organization has somehow attracted them, or even created them? Is this, in fact, a symptom of an asshole environment, rather than simple flawed characters? People who have been ignored, abused, and had their ideas twisted and/or stolen are easily dismissed as having a "bad attitude." Do not blame the victims, folks. This is a complex and nuanced problem.

Dave described such an asshole environment:

I think you are all jumping on the trashing bandwagon a little too fast. I happen to work in one of those very toxic environments where you are pretty much discouraged to contribute, when you do contribute, your feedback is pretty much disregarded and the administration does what they want anyways (meaning they "pretend" to want feedback, but only go through the motions), and very often decisions made do go down south, affecting those of us on the frontlines. So yes, after a while, those like us who actually care just stop giving the feedback or saying anything... I refuse to take the blame for asshats who make bad decisions in spite of getting good advice (ie they choose to ignore the good advice). So, you know, lay off a bit. It is not always as simple as you think.

Thomas raised an important concern about the labeling that really made me think:

What's the net effect of an exercise in this sort of "personality branding". Let's come up with a name for the sorts of people that annoy "us". Let's come up with something mean to call "them". What's up with that, Bob?

And I thought that CV Harquail did a great job of wrapping things-up:

I've gotten a kick out of the suggested names, but I have to chime in to support of Thomas's concern about the 'branding' of a person by applying such a label.There are several important and serious concern about labeling a person -- one of which is that depersonalizes them and makes them all about the behavior, not about who they are in toto.Plus, as Maren pointed out, once we attach a label to the behavior/person, it can lead us to "complain about the complainers" and let ourselves off the hook for acting to fix it.

So, let's find a good (and funny!) name to capture this dysfunctional behavior *and* also figure out a generous, positive way to respond to it when we see folks trying it.

I put C.V's comment in bold, because, after going through this exercise -- which was more involved and educational than I ever imagined at the outset -- that is pretty much where I stand.  For me, the upshot of all this is that organizations and leaders have a responsibility to remove obstacles to authentic participation and when they find that -- after decision has been made -- passholes surface and start torpedoing the decision, they should look in the mirror before blaming them.  On the other hand, a well-functioning team or organization will stop this kind of behavior in its tracks and in particular leaders will model the right behavior -- which includes resisting the temptation to be a passhole even though they have the power to do so and calling out their own sins when they act like one. 

Once again, a big thanks to all of you for individual and collective wisdom.

Lazy Bee, Passhole,Unconscientious Objector, Inverted Cheerleader, Submarine, Seagull, Weenie-whiner, Whampire, or Free-griper?

I am both delighted and overwhelmed by the deluge of smart and often responses to my  last post: Let's Invent a New Word or Phrase: What do you call someone who "opts out of participating in something but then complains about the outcome. You made 57 comments -- by far a record for any Work Matters post and C.V. Harquail put up a related and quite inspiring conversation with Maren, one of her readers that i found very thoughtful.  As you may recall, this was all sparked by an email from Mozilla's Asa Doztler, who asked the question.  There are about 100 suggestions in the various comments and so many are wonderful, that is isn't easy to pick the best.  So how about this. I will pick some I especially liked.  Please let me know what your favorite is, or if you prefer another, and we will see what Asa and his colleagues prefer as well. Here are nine and I pasted in text when people offered it. 

Lazy Bee. Instead of being a busy bee who helps everyone out and brings in honey, this is a bee who doesn't help out the group but reserves the right to sting you once the work is done.

Passhole.  Describes someone who passes on the opportunity to contribute to an idea, then criticizes what others come up with. Also appropriate for a driver in the right lane who speeds up and recklessly cuts in front of you

Unconscientious objector

"Inverted cheerleaders" comes to my mind; goes with the people who suffer from rectal-cranial inversion syndrome.

Submarines: They stay at depth until the last minute (when you are about to ship a product or are trying to pass a final milestone) and then pop up and torpedo (obviously with no constructive criticism either).

Seagull: A "seagull contributor", like a seagull manager, usually holds themselves above and beyond the fray, but sporadically swoop down to steal your french fries and crap on everything.

Weenie-whiner

Whampire: someone who whines while feeding off the energies of the living. Someone who whines while feeding off the energies of the living.

Free-griper: captures both the free-riding and the kvetching...

What is your favorite?  Which one did I leave out that you liked even better?  Any more suggestions?

Let's Invent a New Word or Phrase: What do you call someone who "opts out of participating in something but then complains about the outcome."

This question came in an email yesterday from Mozilla's Asa Dotzler, who is renowned for his skill as an open-source marketer, especially in spreading the Firefox browser.  The engine that propels any open source community is having a wide range of smart and hardworking people who generate and refine solutions, and are eager to step in and fix them when things go wrong.  So maintaining norms that encourage people to participate in generating solutions and making decisions-- rather than those who don't pitch in or help make decisions but always complain bitterly about the outcome  -- is crucial to any open source community. 

I would add that the same goes for life inside organizations: Some people refuse to speak-up or pitch-in when ideas are being developed, are unable or unwilling to go to key meetings, and generally don't have the will, time, or inclination to help their colleagues, but then repeatedly shoot-down the decisions that are made, refuse to help implement them, and bad mouth their more hardworking colleagues.  They are destructive assholes in my book.  Indeed, as Jeff Pfeffer and I showed in The Knowing-Doing Gap, there are some organizations where people seem to get rewarded and promoted for shooting down other people and their ideas --- not for generating, proposing, and implementing ideas.  At one large bank we studied, we saw and were told about episode after episode where people who proposed new ideas were ripped to pieces. The people who got ahead in the organization had learned it was career suicide to actually develop and push ideas -- the rewards were all given to critics who not only took down the new ideas, but also took down people who developed and proposed them.

To return to Asa and his friends at Mozilla, they want to discourage this kind of behavior (and so do people in a lot of other workplaces), and are trying to come-up with a punchy, sticky, and fun word to describe these destructive characters.  Here is what Asa wrote me:

A few of us at the office today realized that we didn't have a good word for someone who opts out of participating in something but then complains about the outcome. The most obvious example is someone who doesn't vote and then laments the election results. Ideally this word wouldn't be specific to simply expressing a preference (as in voting) because we'd like it to also include people who, given the opportunity to participate in something much more involved (say, stopping global warming,) fail to take advantage that offer and then complain about the results.  

We came up with a few multi-hyphenated phrases, what I'm calling the "German" approach, but it sure would be nice to have a single, short, and at least somewhat derogatory sounding term for this kind of person.  If you know of an existing English word, or care to help by making one up, we'd love to hear from you.

 

We'll also definitely credit any new word to the creator if we manage to push a that new word into popular use.

I can't come up with anything good.  Terms like "lazy complainers," "destructive second-guessers," and "listless lamenters" don't cut it.  In the spirit of the open source movement, I asked Asa if I could put this out here and see if the readers of Work Matters could come up with something better. We would love to see your ideas. Language is a powerful thing, and it would be great to have powerful word to describe this destructive behavior and/or the people who do it again and again.

IDEO CEO Tim Brown: "I found it vaguely embarrassing and frustrating to be in an office."

I have argued in the past that there are a lot of evidence-based disadvantages to working in an open office, as there are many more interruptions, distractions, and other stressors --- and of course less privacy.  And there are quite a few studies that show when people move from closed to open office designs, they don't like it all and their productivity sometimes drops.  I had an experience a few weeks back, however, that has me questioning the limits of this research -- and believing that if an organization has the right norms, leadership, and especially collective trust  (and have the right people and right skills to truly do cooperative work), that open offices can be a splendid thing. 

This all struck me a few weeks back when I went to visit  David Kelley at IDEO to chat about some ideas we were hatching for the Stanford d.school (which David, a Stanford professor, co-founded along with IDEO... David was the strongest driving force behind both ventures).  I had the usual delightful conversation with IDEO's receptionist (Joanie was working that afternoon) and went upstairs to what is best described as IDEO's "management floor," where IDEO's CFO, head of marketing, Chairman (David Kelley), General Manager (Tom Kelley), and CEO (Tim Brown) all work.  As I turned the corner to the main floor, sitting right where the receptionist on the floor would sit (if they had one, they don't) was none other than CEO Tim Brown.  I frankly took a double-take, as (in many organizations) he was sitting in just the place that would be reserved for an assistant, and frankly, would be seen as one of the lowest status places to sit because of the constant interruptions and because there was no gatekeeper to keep colleagues and random visitors like me from walking-up and talking to him.  I assumed this was a mistake or something, but became more puzzled when I realized that there was some stray group (including Chris Flink, head of  IDEO's New York office) in what I thought was Tim's office.  After I met with David (who was charming and fun as always), I saw that Tim was still there, and I asked him why he wasn't in his office. He said it wasn't his office any longer and that he had moved to what I would call the "receptionist's position," which made him -- as he later explained it -- "the most public person on the floor."

I called him a week or so later to ask more about this approach. He told me that most of IDEO's senior people had moved out of their offices and now when there was a need for more private conversations, there were a lot of small conference available (i.e., their old offices) that everyone could use.  He then explained that after working for IDEO for many years -- including as head of their London and San Francisco offices -- after he became CEO five or six years ago and was given his own office (albeit a pretty small one with glass that limited his privacy) he found it "vaguely embarrassing and frustrating to be in an office." After awhile, he and others moved to a different approach, where they were out in the open and there was more casual and exchange and fewer barriers.  I also asked Tim what happens when visits IDEO's other offices -- at places like London, Chicago, New York, Shanghai, and San Francisco. He said that -- although he spends time in conference rooms in meetings with IDEO people and clients (especially when confidential matters are discussed), he takes a desk in the middle of the action because "When I am there to visit and get to know the people and how they work, I can't learn much sitting in a private office."  

We also had a conversation about what he does when he needs a quite place to work, after all, he did write a great book last year called Change By Design.  He said that he has plenty of quiet time to think, especially when he travels, and that to write a book, well that was something that he did at home on nights and weekends!

To me, the upshot of all this is NOT everyone should move to an open office and every CEO should be in the middle of the social swarm like Tim.   Rather, the lesson is that what Tim and other senior people at IDEO do works when you have the right kind of culture and leadership, when the work requires interdependence and knowledge sharing, and people have developed the right skills and routines to work effectively when they are out in the open and on display to everyone else.  I think it is especially important to develop strong norms around courtesy, about how loud to talk, when to avoid interrupting others, and so on, and to make it safe for anyone in the setting to gently remind others when they are violating such norms.  I have noticed, for example, that it took some years to develop these kinds of norms at the Stanford d.school (the one "open place" that I work at a fair amount), and we are now -- on the whole -- quite considerate and respectful. The great thing about IDEO, of course, is that they have the kind of culture and skilled people who can make openness work.

P.S. In fact, if you are interested in Tim's perspective on the kind of people they strive to hire and develop, check out this recent interview that Morten Hansen (of Collaboration fame) did with Tim Brown on "T-Shaped People."

What a Mess: The Tenure Appeal Meeting at Ohio University

I got a comment this morning about the outcome of the the appeal meeting at Ohio University for Bill Reader's tenure case.  You may recall that I wrote about this in detail in my post on The No Asshole Rule Versus Compassion for the Mentally Ill. The meeting appears to have been an ugly scene.  According to the report in the school paper:

"A standing-room-only crowd of students and faculty members in Baker University Center 219 heard Dean Greg Shepherd and Director Tom Hodson defend their decision to deny Reader tenure, calling him a non-collegial bully incapable of working with current tenured faculty."

Reader and his supporters offered a much different perspective:

Reader painted a drastically different picture in which professional jealousy and personal disagreements motivated Hodson and three tenured professors to conspire to ruin his career.

Toward the end of the nearly three-hour hearing, Assistant Dean Eddith Dashiell said she's considered the school a "hostile work environment" since 1997.

"The school of journalism has had a history of bullying," Dashiell said, adding that the behavior of the school's tenured faculty during her 18 years in Athens has made her feel threatened and uncomfortable.

It is impossible to know the truth based on the facts in this report.  But it is possible for all of us to take this as a cautionary tale.  When you as a boss let things fester and don't deal with "asshole problems," be it among a single colleague or many of them, you risk having things degenerate into a a total mess like this one.  When everyone starts calling everyone else an asshole, as is happening here, then it is a sign to me of an asshole infested place.  As I wrote in The No Asshole Rule, when you are embedded in such a situation, it is very difficult to avoid becoming an asshole both because emotions and norms are so contagious, and if you spend your days confronting one asshole after another, often the only way to survive is to throw the crap back at them.   Again, I don't know how much of this is true of the School of Journalism at Ohio University, but regardless of what happens after this case, it seems to that the leaders -- probably at the School level-- need to step and figure out what is going on and how to stop it.  In such situations, a change in leadership is usually necessary even if particular bosses are not to blame, they are so entwined with old destructive patterns and perceptions that replacing them is necessary for starting  anew.

Finally, to repeat my main advice about asshole infested places like this one seems to have become (I hope I am wrong, but if you read the above story, it sure seems like a reasonable inference), the best thing you can do is to figure out how to get out as fast as you can if you are trapped in such a human cesspool.

I Am Now Blogging at Psychology Today

I just started blogging at Psychology Today last week. This page and blog will remain the place where I put the lion's share of my effort.  Most of my posts will appear here first, and then I will reprint some of them there to reach a different audience.  The name of my blog there is Work Matters: Straight Talk and Solid Evidence About Organizational Life.  I also will let you know when I write anything in Psychology Today that is now printed here.  For starters, I thought a good way to introduce myself to Psychology Today readers was to introduce them to a range of my old posts, so I have put-up slightly updated versions of Strong Opinions, Weakly Held, A Strange But Effective Way to Stop Employee Theft, and my post about Jim March's assertion that most claims of originality are actually reflections of ignorance, hubris, or both. 

If you have any suggestions about old posts that you would like me to reprint for Psychology Today readers, please let me know.  Thanks.