Author: supermoxie

  • Jeff Pfeffer on Why People Lie to Themselves and Others

    This is one of those 50Lessons videos, where they ask an expert to make a series of short comment on several aspects of management.  They are now running these on The Times of London’s website, including one on The No Asshole Rule that was filmed before the book was written   They just put one up today with, Jeff Pfeffer, my friend and co-author. As usual, Jeff is proactive and evidence-based — and absolutely fearless about about naming the names of people and companies. Jeff, for example, lumps together Enron and GE in making his arguments in a manner that I find funny, disturbing, and as always, annoyingly logical.  Check out: Professor Pfeffer: Why We Would Rather Lie Than Be Associated With Failure.

  • New Study: Rudeness Reduces Task Performance and Helpfulness

    A
    recent post on the BusinessWeek blog
    IQ Matters, asks
    “Why All The Focus On Jerks?”
    It is
    a good question, and I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately, as I am working
    on a little essay on exactly that question. Before I get to this cool new
    rudeness study, let’s consider one reason for the interest in jerks, bullies,
    and all those terms used to describe these creeps and their workplaces.

    Jena
    McGregor, who wrote the post, points to a couple of new scholarly studies – one
    of abusive supervisors and the other of rudeness —  in the October Academy of Management Journal as one indication of the rising
    interest in jerks.  McGregor also mentions other signs of interest like SucceesFactors “no assholes
    policy,” Jim Kilts discussion of “the no jerk rule” in his new book, as well as
    the attention directed at The No Asshole
    Rule.

    I
    would argue that academic studies aren’t just a sign of interest in the problem,
    I would add that –- despite all the whining and hand wringing these days that
    business research doesn’t matter much (see this report)
    —  the interest in jerks, abusive
    supervisors, bullying, mobbing, or as I call them, assholes, has risen in part because there is a growing – – and
    increasingly more rigorous – body of academic research that shows how nasty
    people and nasty behavior damages people and undermines organizational
    performance. This research has been widely reported in the press, and leaders
    of organizations –- including in corporations, government, non-profits, and
    labor unions –- are being influenced by such research, and I would argue, ought
    to be influenced by such research.

    To this point, consider one of the new studies in
    the October 2007 Academy of Management
    Journal
    , which considers the question “Does Rudeness Really Matter?” Christine
    Porath
    and Amir Erez
    conducted a series of controlled experiments to examine the effects of rudeness
    on how well people perform on routine and creative tasks, as well as how likely
    they are to help others. Porath and Erez used different interventions to make
    their experimental subjects feel as if they had been victims of rudeness –
    having the experimenter berate them for being late, having a an apparent
    stranger  berating students would
    couldn’t the find the right room (“Can’t you read? … I am not a secretary here,
    I am a busy professor”), and in the final experiment, just thinking of a time
    when they were victims of rudeness.  In
    other words, these are studies of two incidents where people were abused by temporary
    assholes, and one incident where they were asked to dredge-up memories of a
    past encounter with an asshole.

    Experiments are sometimes questioned as they measure
    seemingly trivial behaviors – in this case performance meant completing
    anagrams and imaging different uses for a brick; helpfulness meant whether or
    not participants helped the experimenter after he or she “accidentally” dropped
    ten pencils or books.   The advantage of experiments, however, is that
    they allow a level of control that is impossible in “real” settings – people
    are randomly assigned to different conditions and everyone in the same
    condition is subjected to pretty much the same thing.  As a result,  it is much easier to
    untangle WHY people respond differently under different conditions. So, for
    example, in addition to the effects on performance demonstrated across the
    three different experiments, I was struck by the effects on helpfulness. In experiment 2 (where the rude professor
    berated  the “lost” student, saying
    “Can’t you read?”), a few minutes later when the experimenter (who apparently
    had no connection to the rude professor) “accidentally” dropped a pile of
    books, only 24% of the insulted students helped pick up the books, but 73% of
    those who weren’t insulted volunteered to lend a hand.

    As always, more research is needed. But I find this study compelling and,
    certainly, it suggests that  little bits
    of nastiness can have a big cumulative impact. And when you combine this study
    with findings from a host of field studies by researchers including Bennett
    Tepper
    , Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik, Christine
    Pearson,
    Loraleigh Keashly, and many others, you
    can see that the human and business case against  assholes keeps growing. And despite all howls that business research
    doesn’t matter much, this research keeps bolstering the message that breeding
    and putting up with these creeps just plain costs too much. This message is seeping into business
    culture throughout the world (Europe is well ahead of the U.S.), the list of
    organizations that take this problem seriously is growing,
    and the lawyers are starting to line-up to make sure that, when organizations
    allow such abuse to persist, it will start costing them serious money.

    Plus, putting the lost costs, lost productivity,  and lost creativity aside,  this emerging social movement means that when leaders
    are suspected of running an asshole infested workplace, they run a risk of being
    deluged with unpleasant questions from the press, job candidates, clients, shareholders
    and so on that they would rather not have to answer.

  • It Was “Like A Huge Asshole Nest”

    Last
    week, I wrote a post describing “Evidence-Based
    Asshole Pricing”
    used by a U.K, consulting firm, where they had
    conducted careful analysis of project costs and concluded that:

    We’ve therefore abandoned the old pricing altogether and simply
    have a list of difficult customers who get charged more.  Before the No
    Asshole Rule become widely known, we were calling this Asshole Pricing.
    It isn’t just a tax, a surcharge on the regular price; the entirety of the
    price quoted is driven by Asshole considerations.

    That
    post provoked a email from a project manager at a different European
    consulting firm, who told me a story about the damage done and costs created by working
    with an asshole client. I have organized
    the story into short “chapters” changed a few names to protect the innocent and
    guilty, edited a couple sentences for clarity, but this is what he sent
    to me, and in his own words (His words are in blue text):

    The Job

    We
    are IT Consultants and recently implemented a rework of the information system
    of a large European company.  We had heard that they were a tough client,
    and knew it would be hard, not THAT hard. 

    The Client’s Asshole Moves

    We
    got everything and more from our client that you depicted in The No
    Asshole Rule
    , Consider some examples: 

    • Clients routinely arriving 30 minutes late at workshops, yelling
      to get summarized everything that was said, and objecting to any decision that
      was made before they arrived.
    • People putting down our work every day, arguing day after day
      that we were just unskilled, writing directly to our managers.
    • Bad faith, lies, threats, physical threats, non-factual garbage
      in every meeting, report, email (that would be sent to anyone then).
    • Assholes hiring assholes. 
    • Internal conflicts within
      the client organization that we were trying to serve — between the operational pole, the marketing,
      the IT branch, and us in the middle; we constantly paid both financial and
      emotional costs because they were late or took contradictory decisions – and refused
      to admit that we ever to blame.
    • They were constantly spying
      on their employees who are answering phone calls all day to check if they’re OK
      with their customers. We became convinced they were using these tools with us.
    • Some people from the customer’s crew came to us ask for stupid
      things all day long, which slowed our work and distracted us –- and then led us
      to be blamed by other people in the client organization.

    Effects on the Team

    • More illnesses on our team than usual, or people asking to work
      at home rather than at the customer’s place, me included
    • Our own managers in their comfortable offices were even
      bullshitted into believing we were bad at what we were doing, no matter how
      successful were our previous missions

    • We began to become
      assholes ourselves, which didn’t improve the situation



    It was like a huge asshole nest. After being insulted in the middle of an exec
    meeting, one of us left and never came back. The core of the crew made up of
    the three remaining ones was enriched by two project directors that were flying
    too high, and a dozen of the developers. On top of us, the pressure went down,
    still below us, the pressure went up, all the more as our development crew was
    mostly made of rookies who had never thought IT would be sick like this and who
    lost motivation really fast.

    How the Consulting Team Helped Itself

    Our experience, our professionalism and our charisma, all put
    together, saved us and the project

    • One of us was a pro of project management and emotional
      disengagement who would always highlight the customer’s errors and support his
      two teammates. He was the strongest at trapping the customer at its own game,
      always repeating to himself like a mantra "it’s not my company it’s not my
      money."
    • I was the one able to
      laugh at anything, but I was always surprising these guys at being unmerciful.
      I was writing and recording anything, asking for dates, always asking to write
      and control every meeting minutes. I surely looked like the paranoid one but it
      saved us many times too. Small victories.
    • · I was also the development team leader and was supporting and
      training the rookies. I was trying to make them report all the pressure on
      me/us so that they could still work efficiently instead of resigning overnight.
    • · The third guy was the weaker in terms of professionalism but he
      was strong at finding the non-certified assholes, the few ones that were simply
      infected, and he could "turn them into something good" by repeatedly
      inviting them to have a coffee with us or setup some dinner, etc. And they
      would remain on our side then.
    • · Like you wrote, we were one way or another giving a shelter to
      each other, regarding our own abilities, in order to workaround and circumvent
      the asshole nest.

     The Key Moment

    There was one big issue still: we were working at
    the same floor as all the assholes, including the CEO in a separate office, and
    it was causing lots of "interferences" in our work on top of that
    "sick daily atmosphere".

    One day, one of the customer’s project managers really
    pushed me in front of everyone, and I had to deal with him using a
    "calculated anger". It was the perfect opportunity to take my
    computer with me and move to the open-space upstairs which I had noticed was
    almost empty, without fearing any retaliation. All my team mates followed me
    the next day! We had managed to "say no", to "retreat" in a
    proper way.

    From that day we stopped being infected, being assholes ourselves, and the main
    word became "NO" to anything they would ask/do/breathe that was not
    part of our contract. It was like digging oneself out of a tomb, not the end of
    the story, yet a great step.

    Postscript

    This
    correspondent also sent a second mail giving me permission to use his story,
    and adding two interesting facts about the experience:

     The asshole I mentioned who was always late and would
    object with any decision taken in a meeting left the firm last Friday. The 3 of
    us former-teammates bought a copy of your book and sent his gift wrapped!

    I estimated that this project cost my company close to 1 million euros. I’m not
    even talking about the shortfall of the customer itself. The project has not
    yet reached the acceptance stage.

    Our correspondent also added some wise reflection
    about this 18 month experience, which I think provides useful guidance for
    others who have survived, as he put it, "a huge asshole nest.”

    You’re
    right, they’re everywhere. Now -with the experience- I realized being only
    negative would only make me tired -or worse, depressed, or even worse- with my
    work. So I’m trying to get past this and "squeeze some good out of the
    bad", no matter how subjective these phrases may be.

    I think that blending
    this vivid story about the financial and emotional costs generated by an
    asshole client with the more detached and systematic analysis that I posted
    earlier on asshole-based pricing provides quite a one-two punch; Together they make a strong case  for
    charging nasty clients asshole taxes, doing asshole based pricing, and when possible
    avoiding – or walking away – from projects dominated by such demeaning and
    demanding creeps. Indeed, my
    correspondent also suggested that his colleagues who worked on the project
    continue to face pressure and criticism from the senior management at both his
    firm and the client firm –- so another cost of working with assholes is that
    they can damage your reputation and career no matter how much of yourself and your skills that you sacrifice for them.

  • C.K. Gunsalus on Narcissistic Leaders

    Ck_cover_2
    I’ve written before about C.K. Gunsalus’s  compelling and useful book The College Administrator’s Survival Guide.   It is a great book that should be read by every college or university administrator — or anyone who wants to become one (plus I love the cover and can’t resist putting it up here again, that poor guy looks like he is in so much pain).  Tina continues to come-up with all sorts of gems about administration (she is one of my email pals), many of which apply to companies just as well as colleges.  Check out her post on the Harvard Press website, which considers the question: Are the the top leaders of today’s universities increasingly corporate and narcissistic?  I am not sure that simply being "corporate"is bad, as the private sector has some splendid leaders, but I agree completely that leaders who suffer from relentless selfishness and hubris are a terrible thing for universities or any organization. Check out Tina’s post. To warm you up, here are two of my favorite gems:

    "My current favorite academic
    oxymoron is “emergency strategic plan.”  What, exactly, is such a
    beast, especially as they tend to be developed following the advice of
    external consultants, and have remarkable similarities?"

    And:

    "The days of the reluctant
    academic leader—an accomplished scholar who took on the role to serve
    the institution or to give something back—what we used to call the
    servant-leader, have been washed away in a tidal wave of narcissistic,
    corporate-style leaders.  Characteristics of these leaders include
    highly personalized “branding” of leadership, often complete with a
    theme or tag-line and much publicity for the leader’s individual
    virtues.  Web pages often prominently feature images of the leader,
    including events where the leader has recently been feted or
    headlined."

    Tina’s observations are backed by a study
    published in 1997 in the Administrative
    Science Quarterly
    by Mathew Hayward and Donald Hambrick.  These researchers concluded that CEO hubris
    led companies to pay excessive amounts when buying firms, which in turn
    undermined long-term financial performance. The two examined the
    "acquisition premiums" (the amount paid above the listed stock price)
    paid in 106 large acquisitions. After ruling out numerous other competing
    explanations through multiple regression, they found that firms led by apparently
    "self-important" CEOs – those who were getting a lot of press, giving
    a lot speeches, and that had enjoyed a recent surge in stock price — consistently
    paid larger premiums.

    So, hubris is not
    only a bad thing in academia, it does plenty of damage in corporations too.

    P.S. Many of you will also think of Jim Collin’s blockbuster Good to Great when you read these findings, and indeed, the message is similar to his argument and (modest) evidence about Level 5 leaders, those relentless and selfless leaders who are driven to do what is best for their companies rather than best for themselves.  I think that the strength of Collin’s evidence is overrated, but the message is on target and supported by much research (even though almost none of that research was mentioned by Collins — the book is a brilliant piece of writing and I believe has done much good, but the claims about the quality of the evidence and originality of the ideas are overstated).

    P.P.S.  Also, forgive my cynicism, but since this hugely influential book came out, I have developed a hypothesis I would love to see tested:  LEADERS WHO TELL YOU THAT THEY ARE LEVEL FIVE LEADERS ARE RARELY IF EVER LEVEL FIVE LEADERS.   

     

  • Evidence-Based “Asshole Pricing” at a UK Consulting Firm

    I have written about assholes taxes now and then, most recently in Clients from Hell and Asshole Taxes. The lesson is that, although there are times when firing difficult and/or demeaning clients is best for both your mental health and your pocketbook, an intermediate approach is to charge assholes higher rates.  Extracting more money from nasty clients makes the exchange more equitable because they require more of your time and emotional energy than more reasonable clients AND it feels better to take the abuse if you can tell yourself "I am being paid a 50% premium to work with this jerk." (Sort of like the notion of combat pay).

    On this point, a "specialised consultant" David C. just sent in an amazing comment — I think he is from the UK based on both his address and spelling — where he explains that his firm calculated the cost of different kinds of clients. They found that the primary driver of how much it costs them to serve a client is how difficult the client is to work with.

    So David’s firm now uses what they call Asshole Pricing.

    I reprint David’s entire comment below — fascinating.

    I run a specialised consulting business.  There are various metrics that describe the complexity of each job. 

    After accumulating accurate time sheets for a year or so, we set about analysing them.  We found that the relationship between the metrics and time actually taken to complete each assignment was weak: R2 < 0.2. 

    What drives the cost to complete a job was the tractability of the original client.  If he accepts recommendations and works collaboratively to implement them, things go much quicker than if he bitches about the recommendations and obstructs the implementation.

    We’ve therefore abandoned the old pricing altogether and simply have a list of difficult customers who get charged more.  Before the No Asshole Rule become widely known, we were calling this Asshole Pricing.  It isn’t just a tax, a surcharge on the regular price; the entirety of the price quoted is driven by Asshole considerations.

    I wonder if anyone else out there has made such calculations, as David’s firm brings the concept of the "total cost of assholes" to an entirely new level.

  • BNET Book Brief: No Asshole Rule

    Bnet_3
    BNET has a new series called Book Briefs, and I recently was filmed for a segment on The No Asshole Rule, which you can find here.  I’ve done a lot of interviews by now on the book, but this one was especially fun because they took a bunch of film, edited it pretty heavily, and inserted all sorts of crazy graphics.  A big advantage of this level of editing is that A LOT of the ideas in the book are packed into just a few minutes, especially ideas from the chapter about how to implement the rule.

  • My CEO: Marina Park’s New Job at the Girl Scouts

    My wife’s new job was announced today.  Marina has been at a law firm now called Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman for about 25 years — she started there as a summer associate in law school.  Her last job there was an 8 year stint as firm-wide managing partner.  By the time her stint ended, Pillsbury had almost 1000 lawyers.  Marina worked with firm Chair Mary Cranston as the first women to lead one of the 100 largest law firms in the country.

    Marina_park_2
    Marina’s new job is CEO of the Northern California Girl Scouts.  Quite a switch! 

    This was not a rash decision.  I was taken with how Marina went about deciding what she wanted to next, as it was so systematic, yet had such a large emotional component. She worked with an executive coach to develop a deeper understanding of what her strengths were, and especially, the kind of work that gave her the most satisfaction.  Marina considered everything from going to back to practicing law, to being a general counsel at a big public company, to becoming a law firm strategy consultant, to retiring. She even talked about getting a herd of goats and making goat cheese (Marina’s favorite childhood pet was a goat). 

    The themes that kept coming-up, however, were that she wanted to do something that gave back to others, that made use of her considerable leadership and management skills, and that helped women become more confident and successful.  Marina has done volunteer work for the Girl Scouts over the years and first heard about the job about a month ago. Marina immediately was very interested in the job because it fit so well with the kind of person she is and wanted to become.

    Marina’s search for a job that fit her sense of self reminded a bit of Gretchen’s Rubin’s Happiness Project, Marina devoted a lot of energy to thinking about what made her happy and where she could do the most good by her standards, not the standards that others held for her.   Marina never compared herself to others during her journey and barely considered pay differences between different possible jobs in making the decision — something that is tough for most human beings to do. Marina is sad about leaving a firm that she has worked at so long and where she has so many friends, but is very excited about her new job.

    Here is the press release. And yes, you will see pleas on this blog to buy Girl Scout cookies in the future!

     

    Breaking News!

    Girl Scouts of Northern California Appoint Marina H.
    Park as new CEO

    Please click here to download the official
    press release

    The Council
    Realignment Committee is continuing its work in the hope that we will all be
    together in the merger with our sisters from all five Girl Scout Councils on
    October 1, 2007.

    Our biggest step
    in moving forward is the hiring of our new CEO. We are excited to announce that
    we have named Marina H. Park as the new Chief Executive Officer for Girl Scouts
    of Northern California effective November 1. Marina joins the Girl Scouts of
    Northern California from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, a leading law
    firm. At Pillsbury, Marina served as managing partner, one of the highest-level
    positions, and worked to establish Pillsbury as a recognizable law firm for
    women attorneys, lawyers of color, and lawyers of diverse sexual orientation.

    With professional and
    personal connections throughout Northern California, Marina, a former
    Girl Scout, will help bring girls from rural, suburban and urban areas together
    under the newly formed Girl Scouts of Northern California.

    Marina is no
    stranger to the importance of a volunteer-based organization. She began her
    career serving as a Vista Volunteer. Marina also has first-hand leadership
    experience as a volunteer herself in the Girl Scout community. As one of the
    founding mentors of Camp CEO, Marina shared the vision and devoted her time to
    bringing life-changing opportunities to high school girls in our underserved
    communities.

    “I have seen the
    Girl Scout community make a real difference for the girls who participate,”
    said Park. “Girl Scouts is an inclusive organization that helps change the
    world, one girl at a time.”

    Where Girls Grow Strong

  • When Good Things Happen DESPITE Management Action: Ron Avitzur’s Story About Apple’s Graphing Calculator

    My
    list of “15 Things That I Believe” starts with Sometimes the best management is no management at all — first do no
    harm!
    If you start looking closely
    at how many innovations arose in large organizations, you will find that yes,
    sometimes management recognized and helped them along, other times management
    tried to stomp them out, and still other times, management had no idea that
    they were happening, but didn’t mind using them and getting the money they
    produced.

    The most lovely statement I’ve ever seen on
    the imperfect link between management action (or the action of any given group
    or person)  and organizational
    performance was written by Stanford Professor (now emeritus ) James March, in
    his classic 1981 paper “Footnotes to Organizational Change," which was published
    in the Administrative Science Quarterly. I urge you to dig up a copy of this paper
    and read it, as it does a lovely job of summarizing themes from vast numbers of
    studies, and add one creative twist after another. March’s conclusion is that organizations are
    remarkably flexible, not rigid, although they often change in ways that leaders
    (and others) don’t expect or want. Here
    is a key excerpt (with references removed):

    What most reports on implementation indicate, however, is that not
    that organizations are rigid and inflexible, but that they are impressively
    imaginative. Organizations change in response to their environments, but rarely
    change in a way that fulfills the intentions of a particular group of
    actors. Sometimes organizations ignore
    clear instructions; sometimes they pursue them more forcefully than intended;
    sometimes they protect policy makers from folly; sometimes they do not. This ability to frustrate intention, however,
    should not be confused with rigidity; nor should flexibility be confused with
    organizational effectiveness.

    I
    was reminded of all this by recent note that I got from Ron Avitzur about how
    he and his friend Greg Robbins developed graphing calculator for Apple AFTER the
    project had been canceled (they were both contractors) and they were no longer
    being paid to work by Apple. But their badges still worked for awhile, and so
    they kept coming to work, and because they wanted to finish the project – and
    so many people at Apple helped them in little ways – they not only kept
    sneaking into work to finish the calculator, it has been part of every
    Macintosh since 1994.  Not many people
    spend their days sneaking into a Fortune 500 company to do work for free that
    is in the best interests of the company! 

    The
    story is so wonderful because at every turn, when they faced a setback, someone
    at Apple would unofficially step in and help them – and keep the project
    rolling — to help them break the rules. Take this snippet:

    ‘We were saved by the layoffs that began that month. Twenty
    percent of Apple’s fifteen thousand workers lost their jobs, but Greg and I
    were safe because we weren’t on the books in the first place and didn’t
    officially exist. Afterwards, there were plenty of empty offices. We found two
    and started sneaking into the building every day, waiting out in front for real
    employees to arrive and casually tailgating them through the door. Lots of
    people knew us and no one asked questions, since we wore our old badges as
    decoys.”

    This
    story is very well documented.  You can find
    Ron’s written description here,
    listen to it on This
    American Life
    , or see Ron tell the
    long version at Google.   In
    March’s terms, this is a story where good things happened despite rather than
    because of managerial intention. People who weren’t in management positions
    took action to keep the project going, “to protect policy makers from folly”
    even though that entailed breaking many rules. The story also has a cool ending as, ultimately, senior management got
    behind the project. This story is
    consistent with the view I emphasize in Weird
    Ideas That Work
    , that there are times when good management means no
    management at all. And there are even times (as David Packard showed in the
    Chuck House story
    ) that, when employee defiance results in a great product,
    the wisest thing to do is thank them, and ship the thing! Also like Chuck House, Ron and Greg  were (sneakily) defiant because they believed so strongly that  what they were doing was best for the company and for Apple users — and were remarkably effective at recruiting people to help by SHOWING  them their work.   

    Ron,
    thanks for telling me about your lovely story. It should be a standard lesson in all
    creativity and innovation classes.  I am
    going to start using it in my classes this year, as it is part of  a larger lesson from the innovation literature — leaders want the MONEY that comes from innovation, but often can’t bring themselves to  get out of the way enough so that creativity actually can happen.  This is a theme that I’ve heard from IDEO and d.school founder David Kelley many times. 

  • Chega de Babaquice: Portuguese for The No Asshole Rule?

    Chega_de_babaquice_2
    The Portuguese edition of The No Asshole Rule just came out in Brazil. They call it Chega de Babaquice — I also understand that, given the strangeness of markets, that there will be a different Portuguese edition coming out in  Portugal.

    Here is a link to the book — and if anyone out there could tell us what Chega de Babaquice translates to precisely English, I would appreciate it! As I recall, it means something like "no more silliness."  If so, it is quite toned down, apparently unlike the French version, Objectif Zéro-sale-con : Petit guide de survie face
    aux connards, despotes, enflures, harceleurs, trous du cul et autres personnes
    nuisibles qui sévissent au travail

    A French journalist recently wrote me that "The
    English tagline of your book is a sweet lullaby compared to the French one.
    Your publisher not only bought into the glorification of slang but obviously ran
    with it (listing all the synonyms of "asshole" in one concise,
    explosive sentence). I had to laugh…”

    I guess the French are less touchy about dirty talk.  In fact, my French editor suggested that I call the sequel "The Asshole Shits Again." I think she was joking, but I am not entirely sure!

     

  • Brian Witlin and Golaces

    Laces

    As Diego has written about on Metacool, Brain Witlin captures the spirit of the d.school as well as anyone we know.  I first got to know Brian when he was a member of a student team in our Creating Infectious Action class that came up with a website called www.firefoxies.com, which led thousands of people to download the Firefox browser. Since Brian graduated from Stanford a couple years back,  we have been lucky to have him as a coach in some of our d.school classes over the last couple years.  But what has been astounding is all the different ways that Brian has been combining his design skill with his keen sense of what people want and think is cool.  Earlier in the year, he was written-up in Wired for inventing a device called a  "Lamitron" for the hip bag company, Timbku2, where Perry Klebhan is CEO. Here is how Wired put it

    The goal here is to turn recyclables into chic laptop and messenger
    bags. Witlin, 28, hatched the idea at Stanford’s Institute of Design
    (where Klebahn doubles as a professor). By heating polyethylene bags
    just enough to fuse them together, he creates a tough, flexible
    material that he hopes will become a stand-in for Cordura or canvas.
    Using specs from Timbuk2, he built a $100 machine to make 8-foot-long
    sheets of the stuff, suitable for cutting and sewing. Lamitron 1.0 may
    be crude, ugly, and potentially flammable, but it works. "Innovation is
    not a clean sport," Klebahn says.

    Timbuk2lamitron_2
    The finished totes look super cool, in a battered, Blade Runner sort of way.

    Check out the prototype bag from the Lamitron — Timbuk2 is working with Brian’s company RootPhi to bring these precluded bags to market — above is one of the prototypes and you can read more here.

    Go_laces_2_2

    At the same time the Brian has been working on these other projects (including helping me a bit to spread the word about The No Asshole Rule), he has been coming up with all sorts of other ideas for other products and businesses — as Diego says, he is the ultimate "just do it" entrepreneur and designer.  Perhaps the most promising of these ideas is product called "Golaces,"  which are these stretchy  rubber sort of things that you use on our sneakers instead of laces — which look cool and turn your sneakers into slippers (which also allow you to get your shoes on and off fast — very hand for airport security screening lines — and help kids who want tie shoes now but, well, aren’t quite ready for them yet).  Golaces has garnered a lot of interest from both major shoe companies and retailers, and is starting to appear in stores.  But if you can’t wait find Golaces near you right now, or are just curious about this new product, check out www.golaces.com, which just launched.

    Golaces_2


    I hope that Golaces are huge hit, and things sound like they are going great.  But no matter what happens, Brian has so many ideas and acts on them so quickly, we will see A LOT more new products and cool business ideas from him in the coming years.  Brian ‘s ability to do brainstorming and rapid prototyping — and to be a constructive part of a team — are among the keys to his success.