Author: supermoxie

  • What are the Key Ingredients to a Well-Lived Life? Help Andrew and His 91-Year Old Grandmother

    I just got this charming and heart-warming email:

    Dr.
    Sutton,

    My grandmother is 91 this year. I
    have been interviewing her attempting to gather her ingredients for living a
    ‘well lived life.’ See www.awojecki.typepad.com/aw

    She has developed a recipe of ten
    ingredients for the well lived life. Certainly, any recipe for a well-lived life
    would include avoiding assholes to some degree. Her ingredients weren’t
    necessarily focused on organizational structures or practices, but I think her
    ingredients have resonance in shaping interpersonal perspectives on more
    engaging and interesting workplaces.

    I’m attempting to write a book for
    her in 38 days which will be a testimony to her recipe for living the good life.
    It will be her Christmas present. I’m looking for people who might be interested
    in sharing some of their own ingredients for a life well lived.

    What key principles, themes, or
    practices do you embody in living life to its fullest? Is there a story or
    example you could share?

    Please feel free to pass on the
    website above to others as I’m attempting to build a larger conversation on
    recipes for a well lived life.

    I appreciate your
    time.

    Cheers,

    Andrew
    Wojecki

    I encourage people to contact Andrew and to help him with this project, as it sounds both inspiring and fun.  It reminds me of The Happiness Project, which I just love.

    I guess I have two initial answers for Andrew. In general, the question of ingredients to a well-lived life are hinted at in my 15 things that I believe , which is on the main page of this blog.  But if I was to pick a single lesson or story that I’ve learned from working on The No Asshole Rule, it would be this lovely Kurt Vonnegut poem and the story surrounding it,

    As I’ve written here before, here is how I set up the Vonnegut lesson in the book:

    ‘If you read or watch TV programs about
    business or sports, you often see the world framed as place where everyone
    wants “more more more” for “me me me,” every minute in every way.
    The old bumper sticker sums it up: “Whoever dies with the most toys wins.” The
    potent but usually unstated message is that we are all trapped in a life-long
    contest where people can never get enough money, prestige, victories, cool
    stuff, beauty, or sex – and that we do want and should want more goodies than
    everyone else.

    This attitude fuels a quest for constant
    improvement that has a big upside, leading to everything from more beautiful
    athletic and artistic performances, to more elegant and functional products, to
    better surgical procedures and medicines, to more effective and humane
    organizations. Yet when taken too far,
    this blend of constant dissatisfaction, unquenchable desires, and overbearing
    competitiveness can damage your mental health. It can lead you to treat those “below” you as inferior creatures who are
    worthy of your disdain and people "above" you who have more stuff and status as
    objects of envy and jealousy.

    Again, a bit of framing can help. Tell yourself, “I have enough.” Certainly,
    some people need more than they have, as many people on earth still need a safe
    place to live, enough good food to eat, and other necessities. But too many of
    us are never satisfied and feel constantly slighted, even though – by objective
    standards – we have all we need to live a good life. I got this idea from a lovely little poem
    that Kurt Vonnegut published in The New
    Yorker
    called “Joe Heller,” which was about the author of the renowned
    World War II novel Catch 22. As you can see, the poem describes a party
    that Heller and Vonnegut attended at a billionaire’s house. Heller remarks to Vonnegut that he has
    something that the billionaire can never have, "The knowledge that I’ve
    got enough." These wise words
    provide a frame that can help you be at peace with yourself and to treat those
    around you with affection and respect:

    Joe Heller  

    True story, Word of Honor:
    Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer
    now dead,
    and I were at a party given by a billionaire
    on Shelter Island.

    I said, "Joe, how does it make you feel
    to know that our host only yesterday
    may have made more money
    than your novel ‘Catch-22’
    has earned in its entire history?"
    And Joe said, "I’ve got something he can never have."
    And I said, "What on earth could that be, Joe?"
    And Joe said, "The knowledge that I’ve got enough."
    Not bad! Rest in peace!"

    –Kurt Vonnegut

    The New Yorker,
    May 16th, 2005

    P.S. If you are in a Vonnegut kind of mood, check out this great post on "15 Things that Vonnegut Said Better That Anyone Else." My favorite of the bunch — because it rings so true and is backed by so much scary research — is "We must be careful about what we pretend to be." 


  • Realists vs. Idealists: Thoughts about Creativity and Innovation

    Realists_and_idealists

    I’ve
    been thinking about this cartoon a lot over the past week, as my colleague Huggy
    Rao
    and I spent last week leading an executive program called Customer-Focused
    Innovation
    . I will write a more
    detailed blog post about the program in the next week or so. This is a joint venture between the Stanford
    d.school and Graduate School of Business. I wrote a long post about what happened
    last year, but the basic structure is that the mornings are devoted to case
    discussions and lecture, where the executives use “clean” academic models to
    talk about ways to tackle innovation problems; and the afternoons are done in
    the “messy” d.school style, where they get out and observe an innovation
    challenge (this year it was redesigning the gas pump experience), brainstorm some
    solutions, develop some prototype solutions, and then get feedback from
    executives in the industry about what they like and don’t like about the
    solutions. The d.school experience was led by Perry
    Klebhan
    (who took a week off from his job as CEO of Timbuk2) and Alex
    Kazaks
    (who took a week of vacation from his job as a McKinsey consultant).

    I
    first saw this New Yorker cartoon in a book called The
    Social Psychology of Organizing
    by Karl Weick, one my heroes who I’ve blogged
    about
    here before. I was thinking of it all week for several reasons.

    First,
    in innovation, the people who precisely quantify – or try to quantify – the risks
    of any new idea can often come up with excellent reasons why a particular idea
    is likely to fail, and indeed, since most new ideas have a high failure rate,
    they are usually right when their logic – whatever numbers they assign – is applied
    to any particular new idea. BUT the rub is that if your organization never
    tries anything new because there is always a strong case against any new idea. As
    an example, look at this week’s Fortune, it shows that none of “green”
    investments yet backed by Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield, & Byers (where
    Al Gore just accepted a job) has been financially successful yet.  So the realists are winning a lot of innings
    lately – but without the idealists, we all lose in the end.

    Second,
    one of the most powerful and persistent findings in the behavioral sciences is
    the self-fulfilling prophecy: Simply
    believing that something will happen, and convincing others that it will be so,
    increases the odds that it will, indeed, come true
    . Realists often do a fantastic job of
    convincing others why good ideas will fail; while idealists push on and inspire
    others to join them against the odds. Now, I am not against realists. We need
    real evidence and we need to know the risks of what we are doing, but the irony
    is that the odds of failure may be objectively lower for idealists then
    realists (and pessimists); so the prophecies of each group may be fulfilled. Moreover, when the odds are against you or
    your idea, oddly enough, one of the few methods that have been shown to
    increase the odds of success is convince yourself and others that – if everyone
    just persists – the odds of success are high. This paradox has always intrigued me and I write about it a lot in Weird Ideas
    That Work.
    And does have a very practical, and
    evidence-based, implication: All other things being equal, you should bet on
    optimists rather pessimists.

    Third
    and finally, it reminded me of the difference between the “clean” classroom
    experience in the morning and the “messy” d.school experience in the
    afternoon. The mornings were taught by
    master teachers, accustomed to orchestrating lecture and classroom discussion
    in way that scored runs consistently and predictably in just about every
    session (after you have taught case 50 times or more, the odds are that you’ve
    heard most of the questions before, and know how to handle the class). But the d.school experience meant that the
    teaching team was leading new exercise and that the executives were out of
    their comfort zones. Walking around gas stations, doing intense teamwork with
    people they had never met before, building prototypes of gas stations (and throwing
    away lots of ideas). So, to paraphrase what one executive said to us last year,
    the runs in “clean” part pile up faster and more consistently with in mornings,
    but at the end, the d.school experience wins out for many of them because they
    actually do creative work and have it evaluated by people who might actually
    use those ideas. Indeed, as a general
    rule, talking about how to make creativity happen in an organization is a lot
    less messy and confusing than actually doing creative work.

    Of
    course, both the “clean” and “messy” approaches have strengths. In particular,
    it is easy to forget the big picture – the firm’s innovation strategy or core
    cultural elements – when you are talking to a pissed-off customer or trying to
    build a model of a gas station out of Lego, sliver tape, and foam. So Huggy and
    I believe that leading innovation requires both.

    P.S.
    Note that I got (i.e., bought) permission from The New Yorker t o use this cartoon on my blog for six months.
    Please don’t paste into your page without getting permission from them.

  • Fascinating Article on Bad Decision-Making by the Israeli Defense Force

    Check-out this insightful article that we posted over at our website Evidence-Based Management. As Jeff Pfeffer puts it so well:

    "We have just posted an amazing article by an Israeli professor that has
    some fascinating material on how things went so wrong for the Israeli army in
    its recent struggles in Lebanon. The article highlights the importance of
    assumptions, mental models, and mind sets as crucial to making better and
    better informed decisions."


    The article is by Raanan Lipshitz and here is the abstract:
     

    "This paper argues that the
    Israel Defense Force (I.D.F.) failure in the second Lebanon war can be partly
    attributed to commanders mindless and insufficiently critical decision making
    processes at the individual, group and organizational levels, or the platoon/tactical,
    division/operational and GHQ/strategic levels. Four cases are analyzed. The
    first three cases confirm the proposition during planning and opening stages of
    the war. The fourth case tests confirms its validity during the war’s second,
    ground campaign phase. The paper presents an inclusive psychological
    conceptualization of decision making that is radically different from the
    calculative conceptualization that underlies mainstream decision research. The
    descriptive and prescriptive implications of the paper’s findings and the model
    that it presents generalize beyond the second Lebanon War and Military Decision
    Making to decision making in business and the conduct of decision research."

  • IL Metodo Antistronzi: A Fast and Fun Trip To Italy

    Antistronz_buster
    Stronz-busters means asshole busters.

    I had a great time promoting "The Anti-Asshole Method" in Italy. One of the highlights was a conference where speeches were given by a well-known journalist, an official from the ministry of labor, a union leader, and an executive, who all spoke out against the problem of assholes in Italian organizations.  It was interesting that the Italian term for asshole, "stronz" or "stronzi," was described by each speaker as the best term for these creeps — so it appears to translate pretty well.  And although I’ve had people make this comment to me many times in the United States, I’ve never have heard it from members of a panel at a formal conference. I also did a whirlwind of about 10 interviews for TV, radio, and newspapers (with help from three different translators), and had about 3,000 visitors to this blog from a story in Corriere Dela Sera, the leading paper in Rome, which talked about it as "Metodo antibastardi," or the anti-bastard method.  We also had great fun on Saturday morning when a producer from a TV show called "Uno Mattina" decided that my hotel lobby was too dull to shoot the interview and just walked into a bookstore a couple doors down and convinced them to let us film it there — then he decided that his parents should be in on the fun (he was perhaps 40, they were perhaps in their late 70’s) and he invited them to watch the interview, and kept putting them in background shots.  That was a lot of fun because he was so full of life.

    My hosts  Felice, Loretta, and Patrizia from Elliot Edizoni  took wonderful care of me. Everything was organized well and they took me out to three long and lovely Italian dinners, plus one long lunch, not bad given I was in Italy less than 72 hours. They were charming and extremely entertaining.  It was inspiring to be around them because they aren’t cogs in some giant publishing house that is weighed down with arbitrary and silly traditions.  They are running start-up, with everyone working to do what needs to be done.  They have also embraced the web with more sophistication than most U.S. publishers.  Indeed, Patrizia was delighted when their blog on IL Metodo Antistronzi got over 12,000 hits on Friday, the day that the Corriere Dela Sera story came out.   They have printed about 150,000 copies of the book, so the "anti-asshole method" is well-known in Italy.

    Felice and his colleagues will also be publishing my other books in Italian, Weird Ideas That Work, The Knowing-Doing Gap, and  Hard Facts. I hope that we can use the publication of those books as an excuse to see each other again, as they are great people.

    P.S. I learned some interesting things about workplace assholes and their management in Italy, and I will write about that in a few days. 

  • The Ultimate Cost

    I am on my way back from Italy (at London’s Heathrow airport) and got several emails pointing to this grisly murder of New York real estate agent and former punk rock manager Linda Stein.  The New York Times reported:

    The assistant, Natavia S. Lowery, 26, of Brooklyn, said she was
    driven to violence by the victim herself, who, she said, treated her
    poorly, “just kept yelling at her” and even made her ill by blowing
    marijuana smoke in her face, officials said.

    Finally, Ms. Lowery
    told detectives, she bashed Ms. Stein six or seven times in the back of
    the head on Oct. 30 with what she called a yoga stick after Ms. Stein,
    62, made a racially demeaning remark, other law enforcement officials
    said.

    “Lowery, who had been Stein’s personal assistant for
    approximately four months, claimed that Stein had been verbally abusive
    to her,” Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said at a news conference yesterday at 1 Police Plaza
    .

    It sounds like a sad mess. If Ms. Lowery is guilty, her actions are indefensible, but that is a moral judgment.  When people feel trapped and belittled, they can do awful things.

  • I am in Italy Talking About Il Metodo Antistronzi

    Italy_cover

    I am back early next week and promise will let you know what happens. If you have any advice for me about what to ask the Italians about workplace assholes and how the problem plays out there, I’d be most grateful. 

  • Innovation in Complex Organizations: Calling All Stanford Masters Students

    Bonny_michael_and_john
    Michael Dearing and I are teaching this class again. We had a blast last year, changing tires on a NASCAR racing car, doing quick "consulting jobs" to a host clients with real problems, reading Orbiting the Giant Hairball and the Innovator’s dilemma.  This class is a bit different from other d.school classes as it entails a bit more reflection, reading, and conversation than most — but that conversation is made "real" by talking with managers and executives from real companies, and trying to help them a bit with the tough struggle of sustaining innovation in a complex organization. We consider, critique, and try to improve some of the ways that big organizations innovate (a tough challenge, as this post shows)

    Here is the scoop, including testimonials:

    Innovation in Complex Organizations
    Applications due by Dec 1, 2007 – email mdearing@stanford.edu with a statement of interest and a
    writing sample of any length

    (MS&E 282 A, B)

    Time – Thursdays 3-6PM, 3 Units, Enrollment limited to 12

    The purpose of this course is to offer students a chance to
    pause, discuss, and integrate design thinking and innovation in business in a small seminar, case-study format. This centerpiece of
    this small seminar will be three or four "live" case studies where,executives from large, complex organizations come to class
    and describe their efforts to move creative new ideas from inception to implementation. Past cases have included Google AdSense,
    P&G, NASCAR, Method Home, and General Motors. They will describe
    how their organizations screen and move along promising
    ideas and how their organizational practices facilitate and impede that
    journey. Student teams will analyze each case and provide
    recommendations to the executives, who along with the teaching
    team,will judge the work. The final project will be a general
    analysis and set of recommendations about this vexing organizational
    problem.

    This course is co-sponsored by
    the d.school and STVP (Stanford Technology Ventures Program).

    Teaching Team: Robert Sutton, Management Science &
    Engineering

    Michael Dearing, d.school

    "If you’re looking for a small class on big ideas, this is it!  This course provides the perfect setting for a rich, intellectual discussion on challenges that large organizations face in trying to remain innovative.  When I took the class, I loved the unique opportunity to engage with top-level executives in companies like P&G and General Motors.  The fact that they listened to our ideas and took notes was very rewarding." — G.B. MSE Masters Student

    " When you have Claudia Kotchka from P&G in the room asking you your
    opinion on her organizations design process, you know you are involved in something unique.I loved 282 not just because of the incredible projects, but working together as a team made it even more amazing. As a group, we formed this amazing bond that ended up feeling like a few hours with good friends, rather than the usual weekly class. I would recommend this class to anyone who wants a rich, and deep learning opportunity."
    — K.W., Masters Student in the Joint Program in Design

    P.S. The picture above is from our NASCAR day — we can’t promise that will happen again, but we will have fun.

  • How a d. School Course is Different

    Misc_manifesto_2
    I  recently wrote a
    post
    aimed at Stanford students that announced the courses that we are
    going to be teaching next term. One of
    the classes that I am teaching next term — with Debra Dunn and Kris Woyzbun –
    – is called Business Practice Innovation, where the focus is on treating
    organizational practices as prototypes. This is part of a series of classes that a group of us are developing where
    we try to bring design thinking to business problems. I got a note from a Stanford MBA about the
    class, and I thought it would be interesting to share both the question and the
    (lightly edited) answer. These d School
    classes are so different than most other university classes (at least that I
    know of), that I am constantly giving long explanations that sound something
    like what you see below. This one is a
    bit more detailed than usual, so I thought it might be interesting to anyone
    who is interested in how we are teaching innovation. Plus it will give me
    something to show to other Stanford students that ask similar questions.

    The
    question was:

    Dear Professor Sutton,

    Would it be possible to receive additional information regarding
    this course? Specifically, I would like
    to better understand what you mean by "changing business practices?" Is this
    coming up with a change to the business model / company strategy / new
    businesses or products? Additionally, who is going to implement the changes:
    the student teams / the company employees with the student teams? I guess what
    I am asking is: is this a management consulting type project? What are the
    aspects of design in the course?

    I
    answered:

    Thanks
    for writing. I wouldn’€™t exactly call it a management consulting class. I guess some of what we will do in class is
    sort of like consulting, but the hallmark of this class —  and others in the
    design and business initiative — €“ is using design thinking to tackle business problems (not just to advise others, to get in there and do it).
    This means developing a point of view about the problem, observing people in
    context, developing some potential solutions, picking one or two prototype
    solutions that seem most promising, implementing them, and in the basis of what
    happens, keeping the solutions, revising them, or discarding them, and
    iterating on and on.

    Clearly,
    in a 10 week class, we can’t do something like, say, a merger or change an
    organization’€™s manufacturing strategy. Instead, in this class, you would work
    in a small team (two or three students) directly with people in companies to
    develop and then implement prototype solutions. So, let’s take one project we
    might do (listen to the might, these are not clean and pretty and organized
    classes like most business classes. We have real companies and things come up.
    Sometimes we are set to go, and then it falls through. But we have firm
    commitments from two organizations, and are "€œin talks" with two others). So, let’s
    consider one rapidly growing high tech company. The process of getting new
    employees on board is kind of a mess (in fact, the word "mess"€ isn’€™t meant to
    be negative here; they believe that their messiness is one of the keys to their
    success).  But let’s say we applied the design process to improving the
    first 24 hours that a new employee is on the job –€“ that is the design problem.
    Teams in the class would go through stages that look something like this (all
    in 2 weeks, 3 weeks tops):

    1.
    Develop a point of view on the first
    24 hours of the new employee experience. For example, one point of view might be: "What can the employee do him or
    herself that first day to make the experience better, without any additional
    resources, management, or peer action." This is just one possible point
    of view: peers and bosses could be involved too, but those would be different
    points of view.

    2.
    Your team would observe —  take
    notes, pictures, shadow, do interviews, and so on — two or three new employees
    during their first day on the job.

    3.
    Your team would then brainstorm ways
    that a new employee could better survive the first day. You would pick a few of
    the best ideas — prototype solutions — and develop ways to implement them and communicate them to new employees.

    4.
    Your team would then work with the company to test your prototype solutions, say, on one to three new
    employees. You would implement it very
    quickly and (even on the fly) and keep refining and improving it as much as you
    can given the severe time constraints that you will work under.

    5.
    You would then do a presentation to the class that describes your method, what
    you did, and what you learned.  The presentation would not only be to the
    class and teaching team, it would be to members of the company where you did
    your work. People from the company would not only would give you comments, they
    would also evaluate (yes, grade) your solution.

    This class is a prototype itself, and we as the teaching
    team will no doubt ask you to do something slightly different than above, and
    change things on the fly too. But I think that my fantasy above communicates how
    these classes are different than my image of a "management consulting€
    class." I think of consulting as mostly
    offering advice; although I guess that is part of what we do, our emphasis is
    on trying to change things. There
    is less talking about what the company ought to be doing, and more emphasis on
    finding (often small) ways to get them to do it RIGHT NOW. And  getting our hands dirty in the messy  initial  stages of implementation.

    I
    hope this helps some; it is about as clear as I can be, as our process is fuzzy
    and messy. Thanks again for asking, and feel free to send this to other
    students.

    Bob

    P.S. The napkin above is the original "d.school manifesto," produced a couple years ago (after
    going through a process much like that described above) by George
    Kembel
    and Diego
    Rodriguez.
    I think it still pretty much describes what we are trying to accomplish.

  • Assholes Anonymous in the Urban Dictionary

    Anonymous
    A surfer named George was kind enough to send me this link to Assholes Anonymous in the Urban Dictionary. The program is described as follows, check out all 12 steps:

    Assholes
    Anonymous or AA – A 12-step program for assholes in an attempt to
    recover from its horrible sphincter grip into recovery. An asshole can
    never be cured but they can be “in recovery.”