Author: supermoxie

The Innovation Process: Fantasy vs. Reality

The longer that I study innovation, the more I realize how hard it is to actually make it happen in a large company on a routine basis. Even companies that are renowned for their ability to do so, like 3M, struggle to get it right (check out this BusinessWeek article, which is one of the best articles I’ve ever read on innovation in any outlet). My main conclusion about innovation in large organizations at this point is that, although some practices and processes are more effective than others, the evidence about what actually works remains incredibly murky. As one wise consultant told me recently, if you are going to consult on this topic, and want to be honest about it, you need to be a lot more humble than, say, if you are consulting on process improvement. To me, this means that if someone tells you that they have the magic solution — be it stage gates, six sigma, or design thinking — to all your innovation problems, I would assume that that they are either bullshitting, or engaging in wishful thinking. The definition of Bullshit used by Harry Frankfurt fits perfectly here:

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the
truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who
lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent
respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he
believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly
indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the
bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side
of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts
at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except
insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with
what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe
reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit
his purpose.

This brings me to the innovation process. A lot of companies try to use a stage gate system something like the one pictured below. I am sure it helps some companies and they can tell you success stories. But the process just never seems as clean and efficient as the picture — even when good products and the like come out at the end, it usually feels like a disorganized mess. And putting testimonials aside, I still haven’t found any systematic evidence that using a stage gate process actually helps –or hurts– innovation.

In contrast, consider the picture that a Swedish consultant sent me today. Apparently, this is something he found on the wall at Volvo. His translation of the six stages of product development in the picture are:

1 Enthusiasm
2 Confusion
3 Sober up
4 Hunting the guilty
5 Punishment of the innocent
6 Honours to those who didn’t participate

Just as with stage gates, I can’t find any solid evidence that confirms that this is second picture reflects how the process actually happens, but it strikes me as much more authentic than the first. Or perhaps the first picture is what managers hope will happen, and the second picture is what actually happens much of the time.

Finally, unlike my last post on graphology, I should emphasize that reading research on innovation does not provide a clear picture of what will work and will not. I often turn to singer Jimmy Buffet here; remember his line “Some things in life
are a mystery to me, while other things are much too clear.” The innovation process in large organizations is one of those things that is still a mystery to me. There are some hints about what works and what does not, and when. But as that consultant commented to me, this is an area where considerable humbleness, and I would add, a sense of humor, is wise.

I also realize that — despite my cynicism and complaints — organizations still have to develop new ideas and implement them, and that if they don’t try something, then nothing will ever happen. Academics like me may complain from the sidelines, but the messy business of getting things done goes on. And I suppose that flawed systems might be better than none at all.

But I also believe that less bullshit and more commitment to the hard facts would lead to better innovation processes in most organizations.

October 13, 2007
Evidence-Based Management and Graphology: Don’t Use Handwriting Analysis to Identify Assholes

A
few months back, I got an email with the header “Our Test Identifies an Asshole
Before They Are Hired.” As I dug into
it, I realized that the author (who I won’t name, as that would make me an
asshole) was claiming that he and others in his company could reliably
identify and screen out future workplace assholes by analyzing handwriting
samples. He even sent me an example of a
report that –- based on only a handwriting sample – concluded that a job
candidate was a “bad apple,” who had problems including “self-centered,” “aggression,”
“moody”, “ and a “poor team player.”

I
try to be open-minded and love strange ideas when they are treated as
hypotheses, hunches, and interesting experiments. BUT I also believe strongly in evidence-based
management, and that managers have a responsibility to act on the best evidence
available. Unfortunately, although graphology
is used routinely in some countries to help select new employees (notably in France),
existing research suggests that it is not a valid method for selecting new
employees.

Perhaps the most
damning study was published by Frank Schmidt and the late John Hunter in the Psychological Bulletin in 1998. These two – very skilled and very careful researchers–
analyzed the pattern of relationships observed in peer reviewed journals during
the prior 85 years to identify which employee selection methods were best and
worst. General mental ability (IQ and related tests) was the best predictor and work sample tests (e.g., seeing if people can
actually do the job) were the best of the 19 examined. Two predictors stood as the
worst, graphology and age. Here is the
rank order of the 19 predictors they examined – the key thing to know here is
that neither graphology nor age provided any
valid information at all about whether future employees would do better or
worse on the job.

1. GMA tests

2. Work sample tests

3. integrity tests

4. Conscientiousness tests

5. Employment interviews
(structured)

6. Employment interviews
(unstructured)

7. Job knowledge tests

8. Job tryout procedure

9. Peer ratings

10. T & E behavioral
consistency method

11. Reference checks

12. Job experience (years)

13. Biographical data measures

14. Assessment centers

15. T & E point
method

16. Years of education

17. Interests

18. Graphology

19. Age

Perhaps some rigorous research demonstrating the predictive power of graphology will eventually be
published, or even has been published. I searched for new research that contradicted Schmidt & Hunter, but I didn’t
find any; perhaps there is some that I don’t know about. I could only find
research that examined why the process of looking at handwriting samples
and hearing expert opinions might fuel the illusion of validity, even if graphology has
no validity at all.

Practicing evidence-based management is about
acting on the best knowledge that you have right now, but being open to new
evidence and information. Based on the
best research that I know of, my advice is don’t
use graphology to screen out workplace assholes, or for any other employee selection
decisions. It appears to be useless.

I
am sure that this will make some graphologists unhappy, but then again, astrologers
have huge faith in their methods as well.

October 12, 2007
Have You Ever Been “Poisoned By Power?”

I’ve written a lot here about how being put in a position of power can turn people into insensitive jerks. This is also the theme provoked a deluge of response to a question that I asked over at LinkedIn, so I know that this is something that people care about a lot. BUT caring about it, even admitting in private that you’ve suffered from at least temporary bouts of asshole poisoning when you’ve been in power is one thing, but talking about it in a public forum is an entirely different thing — I realize that this is something that most of us would rather not do.

If you DO want to talk about it, here is your chance! I wrote an article based on ideas in The No Asshole Rule and some of the ideas on this blog for an enlightened publication at UC Berkeley called The Greater Good — which has published the work of a host of well-known academics and other authors. For example, there are articles by Daniel Goleman and Richard Sapolsky in the current issue. My article will be published in a forthcoming special on power dynamics, and it especially focuses on the dangers of being in power and how to overcome them. The editor The Greater Good, Jason Marsh, made a suggestion that, at first, made me squirm: Why don’t we find someone who fell prey to these dynamics to write about it in a sidebar to the article? My first reaction was "I can’t ask people to do that."

My second reaction was that I am not comfortable asking this question directly to people who have talked to me about acting like temporary assholes, but I am comfortable making a general appeal. I have talked about times when I’ve been a temporary asshole in my book, and as I like to say, "assholes are us." In addition, this is a sufficiently weird idea that it strikes me as an intriguing experiment. After all, compared to what people do on the Dr. Phil show, this is a mild request.

Here is Jason’s email to me — feel free to write him directly or to write both of us. He is the editor, so he is the one who gets to decide what gets published and in what form, so writing in does not assure that you get in print:

"For the blog posting, please say that we’re looking for a short (350-word), first-person essay written by someone whose personal experience resonates with the phenomenon you describe in your book/essay–someone who was poisoned by a position of power, found they started to act abusively toward co-workers of lower rank, but then realized what had happened to him or her and tried to change his or her behavior. If they have a story they want to share, they can email me directly at jhmarsh@berkeley.edu"

I won’t reveal any of the names of people who write me or Jason on this blog (unless people want me to do so), but I will provide a general report in a week or so about the reactions to this plea (beyond any comments on this blog), as I am very curious to how many people respond to this request and what the tone and content of such responses might be — and you might be as well.

October 11, 2007
The Asshole Rating Self-Exam (ARSE) Passes 115,000 Completions

Aaron over at Electric Pulp wrote to tell me that the ARSE test, as of yesterday, was at 116,309 completions. So the self-examination continues.

In the last few weeks, I’ve had the strange experience of meeting a host of people — including a Target executive, an IT manager, and the Executive Director of a non-profit — who introduced themselves to me by telling me their name and ARSE number. Like "Hi, I am Joe, and I am a 2." Each time this happens, my immediate reaction is that I have no idea why they are applying a number to themselves, and then I remember why. Those of you who have taken the test will recall that 0 to 5 suggests you are not an asshole, 5 to 15 that you are a borderline certified asshole, and over 15 that you are a certified asshole.

I just took the test again for myself (my score varies by my mood, I confess), and I got a 2. I’ve scored as high as an 8, so either I am in a good mood or my level of self delusion is higher than usual.

The fantastic pictures are by freelance artist Lisa Haney, her take on how bullies do their dirty work — this was a series of drawings that she apparently did for the New York Times. Taken together, they remind of different ways to assholes do their dirty work, sort of a five-item test that might compliment the written items. The top picture is mobbing — where a group gangs up on one poor victim. The drawing is perfect because, at least for me, the victim’s body language and expression demonstrate how assholes can leave a victim feeling demeaned and de-energized so well. And then if you look at the panel above, I see a screaming boss or co-worker, then a boss who insults other’s intelligence (this one reminds me of the TV personality who asked a producer "What did you do, take your stupid pills this morning?"), then the backstabber, and finally the asshole who makes it hard for others to do their jobs by withholding the information that they need. Indeed, it is interesting that Lars Dalgaard at SuccessFactors defines an asshole, in part, as someone who interferes with the "transparency " that he believes is essential to an effective organization.

So, while being victim to any one of Lisa’s bullying techniques is bad enough, you can imagine a 5 point scale, where 0 is best and 5 worst:

People where I work:

Scream at me
Treat me like I am stupid
Subject me to two-faced backstabbing
Keep secrets that make it hard for me to do my job
Gang-up on me

The last one seems like the worst to me, but I am taken by how much of the "asshole problem" is captured by Lisa’s five pictures.

Check out her website — Lisa also is an occasional contributor to Mad magazine. By the way, if I were Guy Kawasaki, I might call it something like the LSAT — Lisa’s Short Asshole Test!

P.S. Back to Electric Pulp, they just did a website for Stephen Colbert’s new book I Am America. Among other things, you can petition Oprah to put him on her show so he can promote his book!

October 11, 2007
The d.school Designs an Innovation Lab for Elementary School Kids

A group including Scott Doorley, Alex Ko, Kim Saxe, and Susie Wise worked like crazy this summer to design the space, furniture, curriculum, and
program for a new lab that teaches design thinking skills to kids. Check out the complete story at d.school news. The first lab is at Nueva School in Hillsborough, and is pictured above. As the story says "Coaching support and prototype development will continue through the
school year and work to take the curriculum to Stanford’s East Palo
Alto Charter School has already begun."

October 8, 2007
“When Times Are Difficult, We Don’t Take It Out On The Lowest Man On The Totem Pole”

This quote comes from "Bill and & Dave’s Memos: A Collection of Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard’s Writings", a book that was edited by Albert Yuen and assembled with help from Karen Lewis, HP’s longtime archivist. It is credited to Bill Hewlett (who is standing next to Dave Packard in the picture).

The book doesn’t exactly have an organized plot and some of the memos aren’t exactly exciting — Hewlett and Packard weren’t known for their charisma, just their competence. And if you want to more complete story about HP, I recommend Michael Malone’s recent book "Bill & Dave," but as we saw in Dave Packard’s 11 Simple Rules, reading the original writing and speeches from these two guys provides a fascinating and unfiltered view of how HP used different such practices than most companies did then and do now.

The most striking thing to me is that Bill and Dave often articulate such a different set of assumptions about what motivates human behavior, the purpose of a business, and how people ought to be treated. The statement by Bil Hewlett about the "low man" starts of the section on "Managing in Tough Times," and was used in his speech about why — during a downtown in 1970 — HP elected to give most employees a Friday off every two weeks (and thus pay them for only 9 instead of 10 days) instead of doing a 10% layoff. Hewlett emphasized that because everyone from him to the janitor got the same percentage in the profit-sharing plan at time, that the same principle of equality should be applied during hard times as well. And he talked about how everyone would need to work to stop overtime expenses and expenses generated by temporary workers. He did discuss some exceptions, notably a plant that has massive back orders, where it made no sense to give people every tenth day off. Although HP certainly paid different amounts to different people in those days, this essay is striking because it seems to me that most companies go after the "low man" (or "low woman") first when times get tough.

Moreover, although Hewlett’s perspective is rarely articulated and acted by executives (and indeed, in this era of worshiping star employees, many companies articulate and act on the opposite values), recent evidence supports the idea that laying off employees during a downturn is a bad idea, especially in a high tech firm, It turns out that the costs of getting rid of excess employees, waiting for an upturn, and then hiring a new batch of employees often exceeds the cost of avoiding layoffs and waiting for an economic recovery.

Check out the Bain & Company study on “Debunking Layoff Myths” that I’ve talked about before. They examined S&P 500 firms during 2000
and 2001. Bain found that it usually takes companies 12 to 18 months
before the financial benefits of layoffs kick-in, because of severance
costs and less obvious costs like the negative effects of layoffs on “survivor”
productivity. By the time the savings can be enjoyed, the economy often begins to rebound, so companies then spend money hiring a new batch of employees. And those new people often have skills much
like those who were sent packing. According to Bain, such “binge and purge”
employment practices are often misguided ways to control labor costs, especially when companies do knowledge intensive work.

The upshot is that HP’s approach may not only have been humane, it is consistent with some modern evidence. Of course, some hard times stretch out too long to avoid layoffs and some companies have too many employees even for the good time. So the old HP approach will only work if you already have the kind of people that you need, but you just have too many of them for now.

October 8, 2007
Help! Ideas Wanted About Running “No Asshole Rule” Workshops

A couple weeks ago, I got an email from the Chief of Neonatology at a large hospital (they take care of new infants, especially the sick and premature). She wrote:

“After recently reading your book, "The No Asshole Rule" I bought
an additional 20 copies for my faculty and fellows. I plan on using it as
the basis of discussion for our annual retreat this fall. Do you have any
recommendations for activities that we can do in addition to general discussion
of the principles of the book?”

This is a damn good question. And indeed, it is
something that I’ve been thinking about ever since. I have counseled quite a few leaders by now
about the steps required to implement the rule, and when I speak to groups
about workplace assholes, I talk about how to
implement the rule in some detail (I focus in organizational practices – selection,
rewards, leadership, managing the little moments, and so on — based in the ideas in Chapter 3 of the
book). But I have not developed interactive materials for workshops with small
groups. I made a few suggestions to this
doctor based on role playing exercises that I’ve used for other purposes, such
as teaching Stanford students how to deal with difficult interview questions
and nasty interviewers. And I know that
most organizations –- by law, in most cases — do harassment training;
perhaps such materials can be expanded to include bullying (or have been already).

I don’t know nearly enough to answer this
question well. If any of you have any
suggestions about how to run such workshop, or know of existing materials, I
would appreciate your ideas.

Thanks,

Bob

October 7, 2007
Why Rewarding People for Failure Makes Sense: Paying “Kill Fees” for Bad Projects

The notion that companies ought to reward people for failure and punish them for success is, at best, a dangerous half-truth. A high failure rate is a hallmark of innovation. Whether we are talking about products, new companies, or new business processes, there is little evidence that aiming to reduce failure rates is a useful strategy.

U.C. Davis Professor Dean Keith Simonton, who has spent much of his career doing long-term quantitative studies of creative genius, has concluded that a high failure rate is a hallmark of creative geniuses — he concludes that the most creative people — scientists, composers, artists, authors, and on and on — have the greatest number of failures because they do the most stuff. And he can find little evidence that creative geniuses have a higher success rate than their more ordinary counterparts; they just take more swings at the ball. Check out his book Origins for Genius , perhaps the most complete review of research on the subject.

The upshot of all this is that the most creative people — and companies — don’t have lower failure rates, they fail faster and cheaper, and perhaps learn more from their setbacks, than their competitors. One of the biggest impediments to faster and cheaper failures is that once people have made a public commitment to some course of action and have devoted a lot of time and energy to it, they become convinced that what they are doing valuable independently of the facts. My colleague and friend Barry Staw at the Haas Business School has devoted much of his career to studying this process of "escalating commitment to a failing course of action." Barry shows through a host of experiments, field studies, and case studies that such irrational devotion can be extremely destructive and remarkably hard to stop once it starts.

One antidote to such misguided commitment is provide people incentives for pulling the plug as early as possible on failing projects. Merck, the giant pharmaceutical firm, is doing a host of things to improve their innovation process these days, and following Staw’s research, Peter Kim, the new head of R&D has instituted what they call "kill fees"" at Merck, paying out serious dollars to scientists who pull the plug on failing projects. As BusinessWeek reported:

‘An inability to admit
failure leads to inefficiencies. A scientist may spend months and tens
of thousands of dollars studying a compound, hoping for a result he or
she knows likely won’t come, rather than pitching in on a project with
a better chance of turning into a viable drug. So Kim is promising
stock options to scientists who bail out on losing projects. It’s not
the loss per se that’s being rewarded but the decision to accept
failure and move on. "You can’t change the truth. You can only delay
how long it takes to find it out," Kim says. "If you’re a good
scientist, you want to spend your time and the company’s money on
something that’s going to lead to success."’

If you blend together research suggesting that failing faster rather than failing less often is essential to innovation, that an action orientation is essential to innovation, as well as research suggesting that so-called experts aren’t very good at guessing which new ideas will succeed and fail, you can see why I proposed in "Weird Ideas That Work" that creativity is sparked when organizations "reward success and failure, punish inaction." It may sound really weird, but in addition to the evidence that supports it, Merck seems to be doing it. And so do a lot of other creative organizations.

When I really want to get executives upset, I sometimes propose that they reward failure MORE than success when they are managing creative work. I am not sure if I believe it is a good idea, but having the discussion can be pretty interesting.

October 4, 2007
Jon Keegan’s Drawing in Publisher’s Weekly

I published a "Soapbox" article in Publisher’s Weekly called The Decent Thing to Call My Book a couple weeks ago, about the legal and personal challenges of talking about a book with the word "asshole" in the title. In the essay, I discuss — among other things — how paranoid some radio producers were about the host or me saying the "a-word" on the air, as they feared getting fined by the FCC and getting fired. Jon Keegan does drawings for Publishers Weekly, and captured the mood during quite a few of my interviews just perfectly with the above drawing. Check out his blog and comment .

By the way, my all time favorite weird censorship was by the BBC "presenter" who told me I could say "asshole" but not "arse." Yes, as the saying goes, we are two countries divided by a common language

October 2, 2007
BusinessWeek: Six Months on the Bestseller List for The No Asshole Rule

The new BusinessWeek bestseller list came out yesterday, and I am pleased to report The No Asshole Rule is on it for the sixth month in a row — hanging around at #8. And I am also please to report that Chip and Dan Heath’s wonderful Made to Stick has just hit eight months on the list, moving up from #13 to #6. I suspect that the jump is because school started, and this book is quickly becoming a standard text in a host of college classes, from marketing, to sales, to organizational behavior, to public health — anyone who wants to craft a message that spreads, is remembered, and will shape behavior ought to read it.

October 2, 2007