Bob Sutton

Who is the Best Boss You Ever Had? Or Saw in Action?

As an academic, I am pretty lucky in that -- although there are people who wield authority over us -- we get a great of independence and our deans and other leaders don't push us around very much.  I've also been lucky to have some great bosses since arriving at Stanford, notably I was very impressed with John Hennessy's decisiveness and entrepreneurial spirit when he was dean of the School of Engineering (he rose from Dean to Provost to President in just a few years, so others with a lot more power noticed too) and I a huge admirer of my current dean, Jim Plummer, who also is quite entrepreneurial, and one of the most compassionate and least selfish leaders I've ever encountered. And he has fantastic values, as he thinks and acts like students and young faculty are the most important people in campus because he sees them as the future of the institution and beyond.  I've also mentioned that how I am a huge fan of Joel Podolny, who was never exactly my boss, but I had a lot of contact with him when he was an Associate Dean at the Stanford Business School --Joel  is now the new dean of Apple University. 

In my travels in the real world, I've also met a lot of bosses I admire. David Kelley at IDEO has had a huge influence on me and thinks more creatively about leadership and management than anyone I have ever met (and is one of the most famous product designers and design thinkers in the world). David will say things that just blow me away... like when things are confused and out of control, he will say sure, we need to try to clean up things, but that life --especially innovation -- is always messy and you just need to learn to deal with it -- it will never go away if you are doing it right. (Indeed, check out this FastCompany story  about all the things that others have learned from David) Or in thinking about how to teach design thinking better (David is also the founder of the Stanford d.school) he wills at stuff like "We are doing good design work, but we aren't telling very compelling stories about ... we need to become better storytellers).  Other bosses I admire include Mitchell Baker and John Lilly at Mozilla, and when it comes to bigger companies A.G. Lafley has consistently impressed me. And, who knows if she can turn things around (it isn't going to be easy). But I like what Carol Bartz at Yahoo! is doing and how honest she is being about the challenges and changes.    I have never met him, but I also greatly admired Donovan Campbell's combat leadership after reading the wonderful Joker One.

In looking at this list of diverse leaders, I think that, if there is one thing that all these people have in common is that I always find what they say and do to be authentic, there isn't a bullshitter in the bunch.  So perhaps that is something that is a hot button for me.  There are other qualities that each has as well, like Kelley's compassion, honesty, and simple but spot on creativity and A.G. Lafley's ability to gently and persistently express and implement admirable values and business strategies.  But clearly, I am singing  executive and author Bill George's tune here (another great boss) -- check out his book with Peter Sims if you want to learn more.

I've left many folks out, but as I have been thinking a lot about great bosses for both my recent HBR article on How to Be a Good Boss in A Bad Economy and another writing project that I am working on, I wonder if others could might want to join the conversation, I'd love to hear your stories and ideas about:

1. Who is the best boss you ever had, or saw in action?

2. Why? What made him or her so great? 

I'd love your thoughts.

Jeff Pfeffer on Why "Efficient Market" Thinking is Inefficient

Jeff Pfeffer has, for years now, been remarkably articulate about why some economic theories are often wrong and believing them can be hazardous to organizational health (full disclosure: I am biased as I have written some of these papers with him, but he worked in this area long before I started writing with him and he continues to do so).  Jeff has an especially lovely gem over at BNET that reflects his sense of humor, smarts, and persistent penchant to rely on evidence rather than to accept strong assumptions that cloud judgment on the trouble with "efficient market" thinking.

A taste:

You know the joke about two economists walking down the street and seeing a $20 bill lying on the sidewalk. The first economist says, “Look at that $20 bill.” The second says, “That can’t really be a $20 bill lying there, because if it were, someone would have picked it up already.” So they walk on, leaving the $20 bill undisturbed.

The logic — that there are no opportunities for achieving exceptional returns because if such opportunities existed, they would be quickly discovered and implemented by almost everyone — underlies not only the efficient market theory in the world of finance but is incredibly pervasive in management decisions about all sorts of topics. I have had people tell me that downsizing must be effective — notwithstanding lots of empirical evidence to the contrary — because if it weren’t, companies wouldn’t be doing it. Similarly for individual pay-for-performance incentive schemes and those pervasive, but despised, forced-curve performance evaluations that neither managers nor employees like but companies mandate. Most companies are doing them, so they must be a good thing to do, again, evidence to the contrary. Efficient market thinking presumes that not only are crowds wise — if everyone is doing something it must be optimal — but that, by inference, doing what everyone else does is the path to success or at least to avoiding calamity.

We should know better. In fact, we do: Numerous behavioral scientists ranging from Duke University social psychologist Dan Ariely to University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler, have shown that cognitive biases and irrational behavior are pervasive, crowds can be foolish as well as wise, and neither asset prices nor management practices necessarily make sense.

Jeff's arguments (read the rest, it gets even better) for some reason reminds of what one of my friends in college used to say when people were following the herd rather than thinking for themselves or taking a different path: "Eat shit, 10 billion flies can't be wrong."

The Boss's Journey

As I was reading and thinking about bosses yesterday, something struck me.  I realized, or perhaps a better word is speculated, that in the 30 years or so I’ve spent teaching, studying, and hanging out with aspiring bosses, rookie bosses, and (both good and bad) veteran bosses that, although the names change, it seems as if I keep seeing the same movie again and again.   The journey most bosses take seems to comprise roughly four stages. 

The first stage is awe, where the aspiring boss is overly impressed with anyone who has an impressive title and lead’s others. 

The second stage is cynicism and disgust.  After working for a couple years and seeing how lame their boss is (and perhaps seeing seemingly once great bosses take a fall), they wonder who so many bosses are so lame given how easy the job is to do. 

The third stage is how can I be so lame? It sets in shortly after the boss takes his or her first leadership job.  I once taught a master’s student who ripped apart every boss he ever had and every boss discussed, but this all changed when he got his first management job heading a small product development team. He confessed, “I was always talking about what a loser my last boss was; now I find myself hoping that I can be as good as him some day.”  

The fourth stage (which not all bosses make it to) happens when the boss comes to believe, this is a damn hard job, but the more I do it, the better get at it.

I wonder, does this sound right to you?  What am I missing or oversimplifying?

Wisdom, Randomness, and the Naskapi Indians

I was just reading an old article by Karl Weick, one of my intellectual heroes that you hear about here now and then.  It is called "The Collapse of Sensemaking," Weick published in it in the Administrative Science Quarterly in 1993.  I played a modest role in its publication because I was an associate editor there at the time and after hearing Karl present the paper in Michigan, I asked him to submit to ASQ.  Karl certainly knew about ASQ, as he edited it for years, but his reaction was that this analysis of Norman McClean's lovely Young Men and Fire might just be too weird for this respectable (and I confess) rather stuffy publication (Note that both us were editors there, and it is a great journal, but well, that is how academic publications can be).  But I begged a little and argued that the reviewers would love it, and I think that helped convince him to submit it.  Luckily, it got rave reviews from distinguished peers and was soon published, and remains one of the most intriguing articles I've ever read. It is an interesting paper in that, every time I read it, I learn something new because there are so many twists and turns and Weick's mind works like no one else's I have ever read.

Here is a great part, which argues, essentially, that (near) randomness is sometimes the most rational decision process.  On page 641, Weick talks about how a hallmark of wise people is that they are neither too cautious nor too confident -- both of which are dangerous because the overly cautious fear new information as it only deepens their uncertainty. And those who are too confident also are not curious, because of course, they already know all the answers and feel little need to learn more or to question their own ideas. 

Then, over pages 641 and 642, Weick tells a lovely story, and provides an intriguing analysis, which I reproduce below:

A good example of wisdom in groups is the Naskapi Indians' use of caribou shoulder bones to locate game (Weick, 1979).  They hold bones over a fire until they crack and then hunt in the directions to which the bones crack. The ritual is effective because the decision is not influenced by the outcomes of past hunts, which means that the stock of animals is not depleted. More important, the final decision is not influenced by the inevitable patterning in human choice, which enables hunted animals to become sensitized to humans and take evasive action. The wisdom inherent in this practice derives from its ambivalence toward the past. Any attempt to hunt for caribou is both a new experience and an old experience. It is new in the sense that time has elapsed, the composition of the hunter band has changed, the caribou have learned new things, and so forth. But the hunt is also old in that if you have seen one hunt you have seen them all: There are always hunters, weapons, stealth, decoys, tacks, odors, and winds.  The practice of divination incorporates the attitude of wisdom because past experience is discounted when a new set of cracks forms a crude map for the hunt.  But past experience is also given some weight, because a seasoned hunter "reads" the cracks and injects some of his own past experience into an interpretation of what the cracks mean.  The reader is crucial. If the reader's hunches dominate, randomization is lost.  If the cracks dominate, then the experience base is discarded.

The lesson, or at least one lesson (there are dozens in this paragraph), is that there is a delicate balance between acting as if everything brand new and everything is the same as it ever was, and wise people find constructive ways to strike that balance.  And the implication is also that, in many decisions we make, we are so biased by our past experience and cognitive biases that introducing more randomness (and perhaps naivete and ignorance than usual) rather than less might do the trick. Along those lines, I have had numerous people tell me that the first iPhone was designed by people who had never done a phone before, so they didn't know what it was "supposed to" do.  Is that so?

More generally, I would appreciate any comments on how Weick's perspective on wisdom does -- does not have -- implications for other decisions.

Meet the "I Hate People" People: Jonathan Littman and Marc Hershon at Kepler's This Wednesday at 7:30

Jonathan and Marc don't hate all people, but they make a great case that there are all kinds of types in the world that drive us crazy and being prepared to deal with them is crucial.  I also especially relate to what they call the soloist, as although I like people, I can't only deal with them in small doses and when I have taken proper precautions, so I really resonate with this book.  If you want to meet Jonathan and Marc -- one of the must fun pair of authors you will ever meet -- they will be at Kepler's in Menlo Park at 7:30 on Wednesday. I will be introducing them, which should be good fun.  If you come to the event, you might want to ask Jonathan, now a respected and dignified adult, if the story that (as a teenager) he accidentally drove his father's Alfa Romeo into the swimming pool is true. This is purely a rumor, and when I asked Jonathan if it was true once, and I did not fully understand the answer.   I continue to hope it is true, as it is such a great story -- and increased more admiration for Jonathan. 

Also, if you go to the event and haven't yet bought the book, please buy it at Kepler's as everyone benefits when we support this local bookstore. I love Amazon, but you can't see Jonathan and Marc there in person, can't walk through the aisles and touch the book, and can't take your new book (just signed by these guys) outside and have an espresso or glass of wine at the lovely cafe right next door when you are online.

I look forward to seeing you there. Here is the scoop from the Kepler's website.

Sexism and Female Playwrights

Today's New York Times describes a fascinating trio of studies -- by a clearly brilliant undergraduate named Emily Glassberg Sands (her research is a lot better than most doctoral dissertations) -- that reveals some sexism against female playwrights. Check out the article Rethinking Gender Bias in the Theater. The first study shows that the main reason that fewer plays written by women are produced is because they write fewer plays than men.  The third study shows that plays that do get produced that are written by women make more money than those written by men -- on average, they were 18% more profitable -- the implication being that standards are higher for female than male playwrights.  But the second study is really fascinating, as it revealed clear sexism -- by WOMEN, but not men.  I quote the article:

'For the second study, Ms. Sands sent identical scripts to artistic directors and literary managers around the country. The only difference was that half named a man as the writer (for example, Michael Walker), while half named a woman (i.e., Mary Walker). It turned out that Mary’s scripts received significantly worse ratings in terms of quality, economic prospects and audience response than Michael’s. The biggest surprise? “These results are driven exclusively by the responses of female artistic directors and literary managers,” Ms. Sands said.'

If both men and women were biased against women, as there are numerous studies that show that negative stereotypes against women, minorities, and are often held just as strongly by members of those groups as outsiders -- notably by John Jost at NYU.  I also want to emphasize that plenty of other research documents gender bias by men against women. Just look at the top management teams and boards of Fortune 500 firms -- that is mostly a story of men bringing in people who look and act like their favorite person on the planet: Themselves! Or as Harvard's Rosabeth Moss Kanter called this process, "Homosocial Reproduction."

Nonetheless, this is pretty compelling evidence of unabashed sexism by women against themselves? Do you believe this is true in other settings?  If so, why would this happen?  

P.S. You can find many of John' Jost's articles at his website, where he offers free downloads. And you might also check out his most controversial  research on "Why are conservatives happier than liberals?"

 

New York Times, I Hate People, Censorship, and Headphones as Protective Devices

This morning's Sunday New York Times has a well-researched piece by Phyllis Korkki in her Career Couch column called "I Find You Annoying, But I Can Cope." It starts out with a quote from Jonathan Littman about the implications of the ideas in I Hate People for dealing people who bug you at work (see their post), and travels through a lot different methods for coping with the problem from several other researchers and the like.  I was quoted in the article several times, emphasizing some of my favorite themes from The No Asshole Rule including the virtues of learning indifference and emotional detachment to deal with people who bug you, especially when you can't make an immediate escape -- to not let them touch your soul as I say so often.

 Alas, very early in my conversations with Phyllis she informed that, as had happened with The New York Times from the outset, they wouldn't publish the name of my book, even though it is a bestseller, the ideas are used in many companies, it was on their bestseller list (albeit as The No ******* Rule), and they accepted a lot of money from my publisher to print large ads that mocked them for not printing the title.  In fact, they weren't even willing to indicate that I was an author of a book on the subject in the article.  I find the whole thing silly but made clear to Phyllis that I understood Times policy and we should go ahead with the interviews, and I think she did a great job of capturing all sorts of ways of coping with challenge of working with people who drive you crazy.  This censorship thing comes with the territory, and as I wrote here and here at Huffington awhile back, is something I've tried to have fun with -- but I remain amazed by who is offended and who is not by the title -- it was fine for a bible studies class, the Wall Street Journal, and Fortune, but not for The New York Times!

I also wanted to dig into my comment in the article about the virtues of using headphones when you are in a loud office environment that makes it hard to concentrate (The above drawing takes this to its logical conclusion, because as I mentioned to her and Jonathan did too, I described how conflicts sometimes erupt in workplaces because other eat food that smells bad to their colleagues).  When I talked to Phyllis, I mentioned that a good pair of noise-canceling headphones had prov en essential to my son for shutting-out his loud college roommate last year.  In addition, it reminded me of 1995 study (here is the reference and abstract)by Greg Oldham and his colleagues, an experiment conducted in an organization, where they gave a random sample of employees the opportunity to listen to headphones while they worked (people who held diverse jobs in retail organization) and then tracked their tracked their reactions for four weeks, and compared them to people in a control condition who weren't offered the chance to use headphones.  They found employees who used headphones "exhibited significant improvements in performance, turnover intentions, organization satisfaction, mood states, and other responses."  They also found that people in the most boring and simple jobs had the most positive reactions to wearing the headphones... so there is some decent, if not definitive, evidence to support the use of headphones.

The HateMobile

The authors of I Hate People, Jonathan and Marc, customized their rental car so it was a rolling advertisement for their book. A brilliant move I think,  although perhaps a bit dangerous in New York City. Check out their post, which also describes the excitement they generated  handing out promotional swag in Times Square.  These guys are getting piles of attention in the main stream media, CNN,Wall Street Journal, and New York Times. So I have to hand it to them because they are doing the guerrilla marketing thing too.

The No Asshole Rule at Shakespeare Miami

I still get perhaps 20 emails a week from people about the challenges and triumphs of dealing with workplace assholes. I try to respond to each, but don’t print most of them because I know that readers of this blog aren’t interested in reading about all assholes all the time, and I would be bored to tears too if that was all I ever wrote about.  But every now and then I get a note that is just wonderful and feel compelled to share it.  Today, I got one of my favorite notes ever, from Colleen Stovall, who is the Producing Artistic Director at Shakespeare Miami – which enforces the no asshole rule.  I usually don’t print emails verbatim, but Colleen’s note is so good that I don’t want to deprive you of any of it.  Here it is:

Dear Dr. Sutton:

I have worked with attorneys in the past and witnessed firsthand what unchecked aggression and bad behavior can do to morale and performance. Many years ago I was brought in to cover maternity leave for a legal secretary who worked for a "screamer". I was in despair and ready to quit until I realized that I had nothing to lose. I walked into his office and calmly told the screamer that the first time he raised his voice to me I would erase his hard drive. I thought I would be fired on the spot, but strangely, he agreed. From then on all it took was a raised eyebrow. Life at work became much better for both of us.

Behavior in the theater can easily become very destructive. Directors routinely turn a blind eye to bad behavior in the name of nurturing or retaining top talent. Some talented actors think that to be a "real" leading actor, they need to behave like jerks. This attitude can become destructive and quickly poison the morale of an entire cast. Anyone applying for a position with Shakespeare Miami is not only told about our "No Assholes" rule, they are required to sign an agreement to abide by it. It is posted on our website: www.shakespearemiami.com

What We're Looking For in Actors Ensemble (the French word for "together")

We choose to work with talented, entertainers who are NICE people who get along with fellow actors and crew.  We want people who make it a pleasure for a director to have you on their stage. We are looking for parts of a whole, people who can function well as a team. Following the advice of the Harvard Review of New Management Techniques', we are committed to the ideas in the award winning book by Bob Sutton "The No Assholes Rule". In order to create a creative, healthy work environment where talent is recognized, young people are mentored and actors can feel challenged to learn and to polish their craft, we have instituted an active, committed and strongly enforced "No Assholes" rule in our company. For more information on this management technique, to buy his award winning book or to take the test to see if you qualify....see Bob's webpage: www.bobsutton.typepad.com

I just wanted you to know that it really works. Thanks so much.

Sincerely,

Colleen Stovall
Producing Artistic Director
Shakespeare Miami

Great Review for "I Hate People" In Today's Wall Street Journal

At breakfast this morning, my wife pointed out that I Hate People (which I endorsed and is a book I love) got a long and very positive review in today's Wall Street Journal.   The reviewer did a bit of nit-picking, but he clearly is a big fan of the book.  Predicting which books will be best-sellers and which will not is impossible, but my first reaction to reading this book, which persists, is that if any book in the current market deserves to be one, this is it, because business books that are both fun and useful are as rare as hen's teeth. Check out the review here, and here is a taste.

Refreshingly, the authors don't pretend to have all the answers. If the workplace career-killer happens to be your boss, they admit, sometimes the best you can do is hang in there and hope that he or she self-destructs. (And don't expect any help from HR.)

"I Hate People" is at its best with specifics like the best length of time for a meeting (half an hour, and no laptops or cellphones allowed) and the ideal size of a project team (three to five people). For those who dread being trapped into cellphone chit-chat with a windbag colleague, there is a devilishly clever online service called Slydial, which sends your call directly to voicemail without running the risk of a time- and spirit-sapping conversation.

"I Hate People" is a bracing antidote to the management bromide that "there is no 'i' in 'team.' " True enough, Messrs. Hershon and Littman would say -- but if you move things around a bit, there is a "me."

Suggested Names for the Selfish Superstar Inventory

Last week, I did a posting about the Selfish Superstar Inventory that I am developing for a current writing project, and I asked people to suggest names and items for this non-scientific scale. I got quite a few suggestions via email and in comments on the post. I think I have dug them all up.  Here they are:

CRASS -- Critical Ranking Analysis of Selfish Superstars

EGOS -- Evaluation Gauge for Overbearing Superstars

BRATS -- Basic Ranking of Asshole Tendency of Superstars

BRASS -- Basic Ranking Assessment of Selfish Superstars

MESS -- Measurement Exam for Selfish Superstars

S.H.I.T. --   Superstar Hubris Indicator Tool (Or Selfish Human in need of Training)

WIIFM -- What's In It For Me

Pretty Things for Pretty People

I.A.M. -- It's all about me

SPARSE -Superstar Primadonna Asshole Rating Self Exam

What is your favorite? Also, let me know if you have any other ideas for titles or items on the scale. 

Thanks,

Bob

The Asshole and Umpire

We are are in the middle of baseball season here in the United States, and as in any sport where people succeed and fail in public and there is performance pressure, the situation is ripe to turn even mild-mannered people into temporary assholes, and of course, to unleash the full force of certified assholes.  On that point, I got an instructive and entertaining email from Dave Coates, a senior HR manager and a guy who has served as an umpire now and then.  Here is his story:

A few years ago I was an umpire for a local softball organization.  During the third inning in one game I blew a call at second base.  The coach for the negatively impacted team immediately got in my face and spontaneously hit a full-blown asshole rage.  I called timeout and sent both teams to their respective dugouts and asked the coach to join me in centerfield.  His rage continued until I told him to shut-up or the game was over.  Once I had quiet, I told the coach that he was right, I had blown the call and I was not going to reverse it.  However, my mistake did not cost his team any runs and earlier in the game his shortstop had made two fielding errors that has cost his team three runs.  I now want to know why is it okay for him to get in my face and cuss me out based on my error, but he never said a word to his shortstop when the errors had cost his team runs.  The coach was speechless.  I then told him he had two choices: 1) Shut the hell up and play the game with no further incident, or 2) If the yelling at the umpire continued I would forfeit the game to other team taking his team out of contention for the league championship.  Needless, to say the game was finished without further incident.  To this day, the coach is still an asshole.

One of the interesting things about this story is that Dave used the "Dirty Harry" method of conflict resolution -- exercising the full powers of his position (I guess Dirty Harry went beyond the rules a lot, but Dave was fully in his rights).  I believe that, when you have the power, and people are acting like flaming assholes, it is fully justified.  Unfortunately, most of us don't have such power to deal with the assholes in our lives and must resort to more subtle methods.

Dave, thanks for the story!

The Selfish Superstar Inventory: I'd Love Your Ideas

I am working on a little quiz based on something that Jeff Pfeffer and I have been thinking about since we wrote The Knowing-Doing Gap a decade ago, that continues in The No Asshole Rule, and I am thinking about again right now for my current work on great bosses.  We've thought a lot about the problem of destructive internal competition,and one of the little revelations we've had over the last few years is that one of the best diagnostic questions for determining if a boss or organization is fueling cooperation and information sharing-- or stomping it out -- is "who they are the superstars here?"  Bosses who reward solo superstars who stomp on others, stab them in the back, and steal their ideas are -- whether they want to or not -- breeding people and building a culture that anoints greedy and selfish superstars.

In contrast, bosses who anoint people as superstars only when they do stellar solo work AND when they help others succeed too, are creating the right kinds of stars.  I have written a lot over the years about different reward systems.  Hard Facts reviews pretty compelling evidence that organizations that emphasize the differences between the very best versus the "merely" competent and reliable employees may do a better job of holding on to the stars. But they often undermine overall team and organizational performance.   Nonetheless, I have been fascinated to learn in recent years that, although there are huge differences among the compensation systems at places like IDEO, McKinsey, GE, and Procter & Gamble, all are similar in that -- to be treated as a star -- you need to help others succeed, not just do great individual work.

Along these lines,I am trying to come-up with a fun and instructive way to show the damage that selfish superstars do (for a current project).  I am trying to come up with something as fun and useful as the ARSE (Asshole Self-Assessment Rating Exam), which is closing in on 200,000 completions.  The working title is the SSI (Selfish Superstar Inventory), and I am looking to generate about 20 diverse --  including humorous -- items.  This post is a plea for help.  In particular:

1. If you have a better title, I would love to hear it. The SSI doesn't quite sing like ARSE.

2.  I'd love suggestions for items on the quiz.  To give you a sense of the kind of thing I am experimenting with:

People we hire:

Love to brag about their accomplishments.

Say “we” but think “me.”

See their peers as competitors, even “the enemy.”

People who get ahead here:

Stomp on colleagues on the way to the top

Are always loved by their superiors, but often despised by their peers and subordinates

Ask for help, but never seem to give it

Don’t need to play well with others.

Constantly push for more goodies for themselves, but never go to bat for colleagues.

Note I am in the early stages of this project, so please don't hesitate to suggest a different structure and, in the spirit of brainstorming, go for wild ideas.  I think I am making things too tame thus far. Thanks! I am looking forward to your ideas

Layoffs: One Deep Cut Versus Lots of Little Cuts

There is a good conversation about the challenges of managing during tough times over at McKinsey.com where people are discussing the video, Good Boss, Bad Times, which is based on my current HBR article. There is an interesting and insightful comment by Wendy (and quite a few others too, I especially like the one by Alan Himmer) about the nuances of leading during tough times.  As I look at the comments, however, I realize that although videos are wonderful, they can't quite contain the nuances of an article.  And, in fact, Wendy makes an excellent point that, although I don't touch on it in the video, is something that comes up in the article, and is something I've been painfully aware of since doing a case of the collapse of Atari over 20 years.  As Wendy put it, 'try to make budgetary cuts in one fell swoop—it is better to cut too deep than to go back to the troops with more bad news. Incremental cuts only destroy employee confidence and leave them “stuck” with confusion and resentment.'

Wendy's advice dovetails with the argument in my article in that, to manage well during tough times, a good boss gives people as much predictability as possible -- and especially does everything he or she can to make clear when people are "safe" versus have reason to worry.  One of the worst things a boss or company can do is to make constant cuts at seemingly random intervals, as it causes people to live in a constant state of fear as they wait for the other shoe to fall.  As Wendy suggests, although a single deep cut is hell, it is a better alternative than wave after wave of smaller cuts.  Of course, things these days are unpredictable enough that what may seem like a deep and adequate cut today may later turn out to be inadequate,doing fewer and deeper cuts to the extent possible is a more effective strategy in the long-run.

Pink Slip: Maureen Rogers' Great Blog

Right after The No Asshole Rule was published, I wrote a bit about Maureen Rogers' blog Pink Slip and she wrote about the book.  But I had not visited much recently until the other day.  I not only was reminded was reminded of her sharp wit and delightful writing style, I realized that her blog had got even better over the last year or two. I was just delighted by her post Throwing at the Batter about workplace "situations that should result in a return bean-ball, a suspension, or a good old-fashioned bench clearing brawl - but never do" such as throwing team members under the bus and the vile practice of unnecessary fire drills. Maureen blogs mostly about workplace issues, but somehow ties it to everything from Grapenuts to When Hockey Moms Go Bad.

Maureen has a strong and original voice, a sense of fun, and makes creative connections among seemingly unrelated ideas -- but after you listen to her, it all makes good sense.  Maureen, I am sorry to have been away so long, but I will be back as a regular.  

Don't Let Them Touch Your Soul

In The No Asshole Rule, and in my asshole management tips, I talk about all sorts of different ways to engage with and undermine assholes, everything from direct confrontation to building coalition against them, to embarrassing them.  But I also point out that learning the art of indifference and emotional detachment, to not let them tough your soul, is at times the best thing you can do to protect yourself.  I mostly have recommended this strategy for people trapped with assholes who, at least for now, they can't escape.  But I was fascinated by a story in today's Wall Street Journal called "Are Misbehavin" about all the awful rude things that theater goers do these days -- not because they do so many rude things, but because of the way that one performer dealt with a remarkably rude audience member:

During a Saturday matinee of the Holocaust drama "Irena's Vow," a man walked in late and called up to actress Tovah Feldshuh to halt her monologue until he got settled. "He shouted, 'Can you please wait a second?' and then continued on toward his seat," recalls Nick Ahlers, a science teacher from Newark, N.J., who was in the audience. He says the actress complied.

Ms. Feldshuh says she typically pauses when she's interrupted. She doesn't recall the incident, which she says may be evidence of the Zen attitude she's cultivated onstage. "I have no negative energy about it to even remember," she says.

I am in awe of Ms. Feldhush's ability to not let such awful behavior touch her soul, to protect her mental health and ability to perform without getting rattled.  Her comment about not having the negative energy to even remember it is just lovely, and to me, a sign of great focus and mental health -- indeed, as I've discussed here before, people who ruminate over slights and remain bitter (compared to those who forgive others) generally suffer better mental health. 

Yet, part of me wonders if a better strategy is still to fight back, to not let those assholes get away with their dirty work, as in this example from the story:

Earlier this year, Patti LuPone lit up gossip blogs when she broke character in "Gypsy" to scream at an audience member taking pictures. Ms. LuPone says her frustration boiled over. "I had just had 10 months of pointing out to ushers texting, pointing out to ushers videoing, pointing out to ushers somebody on a phone," she says. "I just freaked."

I wonder what thoughts people have about when it is best to "go Zen" versus fighting back, and if there is a constructive middle ground (perhaps going Zen during the rudeness, but then having a system where the asshole is not allowed to buy a ticket again, much like the "blacklist" that some major airlines use to ban asshole passengers). 

P.S. Also check out this story on LA Theatre Etiquette -- good fun.

Sutton's Law, Orginality, and Wisdom

I got a note from a friend who was concerned that he had given a talk where he gave me credit for the term "attitude of wisdom," but when a summary was published, it was presented as his idea. It is great to have friends who give you credit for ideas and, as I think is evident in this blog, I try to take great care to describe the sources of my ideas (not only to give people credit, but also because readers may want to dig in deeper and may also disagree with my interpretation).  But my friend's note reminded me of something that I've thought a lot about over my earlier career as a pure academic and more recently as someone who tries to bridge the worlds of research and practice -- the tensions and pitfalls around giving other people credit and claiming that one has an original idea.

On the one hand, as my friend was so careful to do, I think it is important to try to acknowledge where your ideas come from -- for reasons already enumerated here, to give credit, because people may want to learn more, and because they may want to challenge your interpretation.  I also think it is important to acknowledge others because it reflects how the process of developing academic and applied ideas in the behavioral sciences operates: There are few if any new ideas, and creativity happens largely through moving old ideas from where they are known to where they are unknown and blending them in new ways (See Andy Hargadon's book to learn more).  So most claims -- by academics or gurus -- that they have developed entirely new ideas are suspect, and as James March once told, me, most claims originality reflect arrogance, ignorance, or both.  I got sufficiently tired of all the false claims of originality -- especially among so-called  management gurus -- that (both here and in Hard Facts) I once proposed "Sutton's Law" after the now defunct Business 2.0 was kind enough to call me management guru:

"If you think that you have a new idea, you are wrong.  Someone probably already had it.  This idea isn’t original either; I stole it from someone else."

On the other hand, trying to figure where an idea came from -- when it was first developed and who developed it -- is often an impossible task.  The best (and most enjoyable) example of this challenge is seen in the lovely old book called On the Shoulders of Giants, where sociologist Robert Merton tried to trace the origins of the phrase " "If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." This is often attributed to Newton, but as Merton shows on his amusing and impressive scholarly journey, nailing down the origins of an idea is often impossible and (following March's comment and Sutton's Law) the only thing that is usually safe to assume is that if someone claims they invented an idea out of whole cloth, they are suffering from arrogance, ignorance, or both. 

So to return to my friend's concern about the phrase "The Attitude of Wisdom," I think I first saw it used by Karl Weick, who attributed a psychologist named John Meacham, who credited (among others) psychologist Erik Erikson and "Socrates, as expressed by Plato."  And on and on it goes. So I don't know where it came from, but I do know it wasn't my idea.

I am left with two practical lessons. First, trying to figure out the sources of an idea and taking care to give others credit for ideas leads you to think about an idea more deeply and protects you from arrogance (or being seen as arrogant) even if you may never find the real source. Second,  when it comes to the every day challenges of management, and life in general, perhaps the most important thing is to follow (Jeffrey) Pfeffer's Law:

"Instead of being interested in what is NEW, we ought to be interested in what is TRUE."

As usual, Jeff cuts to the heart of the matter.

Apes, Humans, and The No Asshole Rule

The discussion of baboons in Harvard Business Review, as well as here and at the HBR site, reminded me of some intriguing work by anthropologist Christopher Boehm about whether humans (and other apes) are "prone to dominate or live harmoniously with each other."  The puzzle that Boehm tried to untangle was why, given that chimps, gorillas, and Bonobos (with which we share over 98% of the same genes) are so distinctly hierarchical and dominated by alpha males; yet studies of human hunter-gathers show that they are so distinctly egalitarian. Boehm studied 50 small, non-literate cultures to see how egalitarian they were, and why. He found that they were quite deliberately egalitarian- - and believed so strongly in maintaining political parity among adults, that males who turned into selfish bullies or who just tried to boss around everyone too much we were treated as "moral deviants."  Their peers responded aggressively by shaming, ostracizing, and ejecting them from the group. 

Boehm's interpretation of this intolerance for bullying and self-aggrandizement is fascinating, both in terms of the evolutionary basis of the no asshole rule and the tug of war that you see constantly in society between the numerous people prone to grab power and goodies for themselves and the numerous people that fight back to stop them (think of the current battle over executive pay).  Boehm's interpretation is that human hunter-gathers were actually quite similar to their fellow apes in that "they were prone to dominate each other," and thus "if these people had not so vigilantly worked against inequality, they would have soon turned hierarchical."  To put words in Boehm's mouth, people in these tribes aggressively enforced the no asshole rule as a deterrent against excessive dominance.

Boehm goes on to make a fascinating statement about we humans and our closest relatives that I think explains a lot about the behavior we see in so much of society: "We must ask, then, why a species so inclined to domination has been motivated to insist that power be shared so equally. And here, I believe, is the answer: Just as all four of the aforementioned species have strong propensity to domination and submission, so do they naturally resent being dominated."  In other words, we are both attracted to power (and to the powerful) but hate being pushed around and have a desire to parity (or more egalitarian relationships). 

I've been thinking about this a lot this morning because these tensions -- which clash the point of being irreconcilable-- help explain why there is so much inconsistency in human social behavior.  It also explains why being a leader requires walking a tightrope. On the one hand, people want a leader who they see as strong and in control (and leaders want to dominate their followers), but followers also want a leader who is unselfish, benevolent, and egalitarian.  Striking just the right balance here, day after day, isn't easy for any leader -- and as I wrote about in the HBR article, the dynamics of power make it even tougher because of the toxic tandem (people in power tend to become oblivious to their followers; while followers tend to watch their leaders actions very closely).  Yet to walk the tightrope, leaders need to be especially in tune with how their people react to every little move they make.

P.S. You can read Boehm's article here in Greater Good or if you really want to dig-in, check out his book Hierarchy in the Forest.

Starting a Movement, Learning to Lead: The Palo Alto Pedestrian Mall Over at Harvard Business Review

Julia Kirby wrote a great post over at the Harvard Business Review blog about the impressive progress that Amrita Mahale, James Thompson, Svetla Alexandrov, and Dave Hughes made over the past couple weeks in starting a movement and debate about whether to close the main drag in downtown Palo Alto and turn it into a pedestrian mall.  As I wrote last week, this has sparked a heated and serious debate in the community.  And a lot of press coverage.  Today, it was picked-up by Julia over at HBR, who focused on Dave Hughes (an Army Captain and Iraq veteran who is teaching at West Point next year), and what he learned about leadership from the experience. 

I have had the pleasure of teaching Dave in three different classes, and he is a delight (Also, talk about a no excuses guy -- he did make it to class when he spent the night before in the hospital, but asked to be excused on the day his wife had a baby!).  He also has wonderful leadership skills, as the article with Julia implies.  But I also want to make sure and emphasize that the other members of Team Wildfire, Amrita, James, and Svetla did a marvelous job as well -- although we also understand that Dave's experience in Iraq (he flew helicopters and coordinated hundreds of missions) definitely makes a great story.  If you are curious, check out Starting a Movement, Learning to Lead. Also, I think I learned a lot more about leadership from watching Dave in action than he ever learned from me and other Stanford faculty.  In any event, as always, anything that Julia writes is a delight to read.

I Hate People: A Book You Will Love

 

Writing a business book that is funny and useful is REALLY tough to do.  The Peter Principle qualifies, so does Up the Organization, and so does my all time favorite business book on anything, Orbiting the Giant Hairball.  But most books that attempt this trick end-up as big flops. A brand new book is coming out this week that is so funny and useful that belongs in the esteemed company of such masterpieces.  I  Hate People: Kick Loose from the Overbearing and Underhanded Jerks at Work and Get What You Want Out of Your Job presents a compelling recipe for navigating through the kinds of people in the workplace that make us all miserable.  Authors Jonathan Littman and Marc Hershon call these jerks, losers, and time-suckers "The Ten Least Wanted." Examples include "Stop Sign," "Flim-Flam," "Bulldozer," and one of my least favorite "Smiley Face." The book is filled with all kinds of testsfor assessing how much you hate people, how many of these difficult people you must deal with, and more important, it is filled with great advice about how to survive and thrive among these creeps and losers.

They are also doing a host of funny and effective stuff to give readers a taste of the book, or to help people who read the book dig into the ideas more.  Check out their blog, I Hate People... But It's Nothing Personal, especially check out their silly conversation about how "Smiley Face" bosses express insincere passion as they screw-up people's lives. I also loved their post on Brits Have the Shortest Fuse.  And if you are really lucky, you can get an "I Hate People"  Do Not Disturb sign from them somehow.. I brought them home to my three teenagers on Friday, and now one hangs from each of their doors. 

Jonathan and Marc have written a great book, I believe, because they have different skills, but see the world in the same way. Jonathan is an experienced writer and author, notably joining Tom Kelley to write their IDEO-inspired books The Art of Innovation and Ten Faces of Innovation, and Jonathan has done a lot of serious journalism too,.  In fact, he has spent a great deal of time over the past couple years writing about steroid scandals in sports.   Marc is a wildly creative guy, perhaps most well-known for is work inventing the names of famous things such as the BlackBerry and Swiffer, but he also does and teaches stand-up comedy, produces cartoons for newspapers, and writes screenplays for movies, especially for the Hallmark channel... to name just some of the creative stuff he does.  The book is written in a consistent and persistently funny voice that reflects the quirks and skills of these two very talented people.

Finally, I Hate People has one of the funniest endorsement's I've ever seen. Comedian Dana Carvey says "Ironically, I hate the people who wrote this book."  I would also add that much as Arthur Bell's blurb suggest, this is the rare book that is clever and funny -- as you laugh along with Jonathan and Marc, you realize that their analysis and solutions are actually deeper and more useful than the piles of management books out their that take themselves far more seriously -- indeed, when I read it a few months back for the first time when they asked me to do a blurb, I was just blown away by how clever their ideas were for dealing with, coping with, and triumphing over the parade of creeps and idiots who populate too many workplaces.

Amazon just started shipping it today, you might want to grab a copy.