I recently did a video "book brief" for BNET about The No Asshole Rule and received a few strong complaints about the title -- the strongest in a long time. I responded, but I also thought that I would update my original blog posting on the topic. I have received some complaints now and then since the book was published, as you can see in my Publisher's Weekly piece and this wonderful letter to the San Francisco Chronicle. But as I have written here, I am mostly shocked by how few people object to the term, and by some of the places -- like this bible study class -- that use the word openly. Nonetheless, as I am getting more push back on the title than I have in awhile, I thought I would re-run a post that I put-up last October, before the book was published, on "Why I Call Them Assholes." I've edited it just slightly. In particular, check-out the comments from readers; they are wonderful. Here goes:
I confess that I have received surprisingly few
complaints about publishing a book titled The
No Asshole Rule (or if you speak German, Der
Arschloch-Faktor). One of the most surprising things about the
experience of writing the book, selling it to publishers, and now talking about
it to various people, is how few complaints I’ve received about the somewhat
dirty title. Perhaps the most serious complaint was from the Harvard
Business School Press (HBSP), whose editors wanted to publish the book as long as I
changed to a more respectable title -- something I declined do. Jeff and I have had a fantastic
experience with HBSP on our current book,
Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense, and I would
recommend them to any business author. But I found their negative reaction to the title a bit amusing because
my original essay on the rule (called “More Trouble Than They Are Worth") was
published in their sister publication the Harvard
Business Review, and it contained the word “asshole” 7 or 8 times. In their defense, the Harvard brand is one
that smacks of respectability and even a touch of stuffiness. And as I told them when they tried to get me
to change the title, if I was in management at the Harvard Business School
Press, I wouldn’t publish a book with “Asshole” in the title either, as even if
it sold well, it would be bad for their brand image. So off I went to other publishers, and I've
been delighted with Warner Business Books.
I haven’t had many complaints since. I have done media interviews where they requested
that I use the word “jerk.” When I did a radio
interview with Ron Reagan, he let me use the word “a-hole.” Just recently, though, I had a complaint that
really got me thinking about why I use the word, and if it is a wise and civil
thing to do. A couple weeks ago, BusinessWeek published a “centerfold”
story about my perspective on brainstorming and a list of eight brainstorming
tips based on my research and experience with creative teams. In the story,
they (without censoring the title) were kind enough to say that my next book is
The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized
Workplace And Surviving One That Isn’t. The story provoked a most thoughtful e-mail from one reader:
One thing
caught my eye, though: If it isn’t too late, get a new title for your
upcoming book. Vulgarism has no place in serious business. It
weakens your ideas and diminishes your credibility. Maybe you could
brainstorm with some of your colleagues and come up with a better one.
This critique got me
thinking about why I was using this “vulgarism.” Was I just being cute? Was I
doing it to sell books? Certainly, I
plead guilty to that charge -- it would be a lie to deny that. Was I doing
it because I am a vulgar person? That
might be true too, but the other books and articles that I write rarely contain
dirty talk.
There are two main reasons why, at least for me, no
other word works as well for describing these demeaning and mean-spirited
people. The first reason has to do with authenticity
and the second follows from my goal of affecting what people actually think about and
do in organizations.
To start with authenticity, when I tangle with
nasty person, I don’t think “what a jerk” or “what an abusive person.” The first thing that comes to mind is “what
an asshole.” That is also the word that
nearly everyone I know uses to describe these creeps, even though they may
later censor it. In The No Asshole Rule, for example, I describe a law firm that actively
enforces what they call a "no jerk rule" in media reports, but when I talked to a senior partner, he confirmed
that, they call the people that they screen out “assholes” rather than
jerks. And just the other day, my wife
was talking with an attorney who specializes in labor law litigation, and this
attorney was amused to hear the title of my forthcoming book because so many potential clients that
she turns away are really complaining about working for assholes, not about
sexual harassment or discrimination. This
attorney reported that “asshole” is the word that her potential clients often use
and nearly always really mean -- and she turns most away because it probably
isn’t unlawful to be an equal opportunity asshole in most places, despite all
the damage they do.
Finally,
another sign that that this phrase is authentic from both an intellectual and
emotional standpoint came, to my surprise, in an email that I received
from an accomplished researcher who studies emotional abuse in the
workplace. As I say the book, she wrote,
“Your work on the ‘no asshole rule’ has certainly resonated with my colleagues
and me. In fact, we often speculate that
we would be able to predict a large proportion of variance in job satisfaction
with one ‘flaming asshole item.’ Basically, if we could ask whether your boss is
one, we would not need any other [survey] items. …. Thus, I agree that while
potentially offensive, no other word quite captures the essence of this type of
person.”
We teach our Ph.D. students at Stanford in the Center for
Work, Technology and Organization who do ethnographies of the workplace
that using foul language is sometimes necessary for providing accurate and
realistic descriptions of what people say and how they feel. I believe that –
in terms of both descriptive and emotional accuracy – other words are simply
inferior for describing how persistently demeaning people act and, especially,
the feelings they unleash in their victims.
My second argument is that, since my aim is to help
people understand how to spot these demeaning creeps, understand the damage
they do, and how to build civilized organizations that screen-out, reform and
expel nasty people, I should use language that people will remember and spread.
After all, as Chip and Dan Heath show so
brilliantly in their forthcoming book Made
to Stick, no matter how good an idea is, if it isn’t “sticky,” if it isn’t
something that people talk about, recall persistently, and gets them excited,
then it can’t have any impact on what they do. Chip and Dan show how “sticky ideas” are
embedded in Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credentialed, Emotional Stories that
Stick – which boils down to SUCCESS, one of the few “evidence-based acronyms”
I've ever seen. I won’t lead you through
a detailed march through these seven standards, but I do think that the phrase “The
No Asshole Rule” fits their standards for a sticky idea better than, say, the “no
nastiness,” “no bully,” or no “psychological abuse” rule – particularly because
it is more emotional and more concrete than other phrases, it easier to weave
into stories that “stick” with people, and it provokes an array of depressing,
funny, and touchy stories from other people as well.
Again, perhaps I am just trying to justify or glorify my vulgar language or crass desire to sell books, but I believe that these other arguments about authenticity and stickiness are sound too – - with all due respect to the thoughtful person who gently chastised me in that e-mail.
P.S. Another reason that, at least for me, that no other word works as well that when I am acting like a nasty creep (I plead guilty, it does happen), I don;t say to myself "Gee Bob, you are acting like a jerk." I say to myself "You are acting like an asshole. Stop it." So -- again to be authentic -- this is what I call myself when I've been bad to help gain a bit of self-control, not some sanitized word.
Ann,
Yes, the title is me.. in the way you mean!
And Mr.Schmoe,
The title of the book is set... let's see the reaction. And I hope you are right about the German title, I will be there Weds AM to do a book tour!
I appreciate the votes of support from both of you.
Posted by: Bob Sutton | October 02, 2006 at 10:27 PM
To be-provocative is good, paradox equally good (zen confusion, dissonance, opening up a hardened mind to be receptive to new ideas).
And asshole is certainly a provocative little word :) Grabs attention in the attention economy. If it was my book I'd also run a newspaper-test on it, how would I feel if some employee, stressed out for a multitude of personal reasons, topped themselves after they were labelled/judged as an asshole at work, and I read about it in the morning paper. If I could live with that, I'd go ahead and publish, otherwise I'd find another devilishly and sticky metaphor. FWIW :)
PS. The german title is delicious
Posted by: JoeSchmoe | October 02, 2006 at 01:17 PM
Bob -
Just like 11 1/2 weird ideas - No Asshole is definitely sticky and not only "authentic" but precise! I would think that few misinterpret your meaning.
I "discovered" you about 6 years ago (I'm sure you were around before then - but not for me!) and one reason it was easy for me to relate to your views was that you appeared authentic (and passionate) to me.
That title is you (hmmm...not that you're an asshole - you know what I mean!). I almost consider it more playful than vulgar.
Posted by: ann michael | October 02, 2006 at 11:07 AM
Bob, in Italy the word is much, much stronger and used much more frequently too.
As you point out, language is powerful. Although the word -- particularly in this very PC environment -- sounds and looks a bit, how can I put this, out there, it is effective as a descriptor. We all know who we're talking about from our own live examples.
Posted by: Valeria Maltoni | October 02, 2006 at 09:00 AM