Work Matters

Author: supermoxie

  • No Asshole Rule Round-Up: From the McKinsey Quarterly to the Commonwealth Club, to the Vatican

    There
    have been some interesting, and as always, diverse bits of news about The No
    Asshole Rule         over the last few weeks:

    1.
    I published an article in The McKinsey
    Quarterly     a few months back on “Building the Civilized Workplace,” which is based on the book. The folks at McKinsey report that it was the
    most frequently downloaded article last month, as it was the month before.  You can see
    the rankings at The McKinsey Quarterly
    site and also link to an abstract of the article, and register to download it.   

    2. The No
    Asshole Rule     continues to hang around on some of the best-seller lists. In
    particular, the current issue of BusinessWeek
    lists it as #7 among
    hardcover business books.       

    3.
    I am giving a talk on the book at the Commonwealth Club this coming Monday
    night, July 9th. There is a
    wine and cheese reception starting at 5:30 and the talk is from 6 to 7. Admission is $18 for non-members and free for
    members. Click here for more
    information and to register in advance.

    4.
    Barry Ritholtz over at The Big Picture seems have used a picture
    of The No Asshole Rule     cover to ward off nasty people while he
    is on vacation. (Another thanks to Dave
    for pointing this one out). He never actually mentions the book, but has a large
    picture of the cover next to a message that warns:

    I
    will leave the admin work to my able and trusty assistant Ginger. That includes
    dealing with spammers, asshats, and trolls. 

    She
    has instructions to terminate with
    prejudice    :

    Unpublish
    any impolite or off topic comments;

    Delete
    anything that remotely looks like spam;

    Suspend
    anyone starting a flame war;

    Ban
    all trolls and asshats;

    Show
    no mercy to anyone;

    If
    you find yourself unpublished or banned this week, well, that means you are
    prime proctological material. You have offended her delicate sensibilities, and
    will have to wait until I return to file an appeal.

    This
    use of the cover reminds me of the attorney who reported that she was going to
    display the book in her office to “remind” her colleagues to be nicer to her.

    5. There is a new website called www.sendahole.com. I don’t quite have the
    courage to put the picture of the product on my blog (I know, I know, I am
    being a hypocrite… I talk about assholes, but don’t want to put a picture on my
    blog. Don’t ask me to explain, I am not that rational).

    For
    $7.95 (includes shipping), here is the service they provide:

    Sphincter FactoryTM
    A-holes are made from the finest quality rubber. They measure approximately
    3/4" in diameter and are 1/4" thick, and are pliable, just like the
    real thing! Each A-hole comes packaged individually and has a pithey greeting
    on the back. They are mailed in plain brown envelopes using only the Sphincter
    Factory’s return address. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ARE NOT INCLUDED!

    6. My friends over at SuccessFactors wrote me that “A gentleman by the name of Eldon
    Romney e-mailed SuccessFactors earlier this week looking to create his own
    "No Assholes" policy for Mensa. He mentioned that he heard about them
    through your book.”       Mensa is an
    organization for very smart people.  According to Wikipedia, “Mensa accepts individuals who score at or above the 98th
    percentile on certain standardized IQ tests.”     

    I
    guess – – just like every other organization that I know –- there are some
    problems with demeaning members at Mensa. Eldon is proposing a list of 12 rules that he calls “Rules of Conduct
    for “Enlightened Mensans.” Here they are:

    As an “Enlightened Mensan”:

    1. I will exhibit my passion for
    Mensa membership by showing through my behavior that I value fellow Members.

    2. I will demonstrate respect for
    others: I will be nice, listen to others and respect myself, acting with
    integrity.

    3. While engaging in Mensa
    activities, I will act within legal and ethical boundaries.

    4. Mensa is nothing without other
    members; I will treat others as part of a valued team, acknowledging each
    member’s contributions.

    5. I will strive to improve myself
    and learn from my mistakes and from the suggestions of others.

    6. I will attempt to communicate clearly and honestly when I have something
    to say. When I do not have anything to say, I will feel free to listen.

    7. I will attempt to have fun and
    share my enthusiasm.

    8. I will not be a jerk.

    9. I will not talk negatively or destructively behind someone’s back; I
    will attempt to discuss issues and concepts more than people and personalities.

    10. I realize I have tremendous
    influence for both good and otherwise and that my actions can either help make
    Mensa a wonderful experience or a dismal one. I will attempt to foster
    goodness.

    11. I will attempt to live by these
    rules. If other Mensans fall short of these rules, I will try to speak up and help
    them better themselves; in turn, I will do my best to be open to suggestions
    and even criticism should I not live by these virtues.

    12. I will do my best to be patient
    and kind at Mensa events and elsewhere

    I
    find these all be fascinating, especially #10, as it makes clear how everyone
    should take responsibility for how others experience the organization. This is an important element of implementing
    the no asshole rule in its most effective form.

    I checked
    with Eldon about these rules and to make sure it was OK to talk about them here;
    he replied:

    Please feel free to post whatever you
    would like; please also understand that while I am a member of Mensa and am the
    American Mensa Ombudsman, my list of Rules is currently mine alone and holds no
    official weight within Mensa (at least yet)!  Mensa as an organization holds no opinions,
    but individuals and/or groups within Mensa can and do hold strong opinions. One
    of my strong opinions is that your book is full of insight that Mensans need to
    consider. Hopefully my presentation will help more to do just that!

    7. I gave a talk in late May on “The No Jerk Rule” at
    Stanford, at the Stanford Technology Venture’s weekly “Entrepreneurial Thought
    Leader’s Seminar.” I was interviewed by
    Stanford student and seminar organizer Mike Rothenberg and I fielded numerous
    questions from the audience of about 100. You can listen to or download the seminar here.  In addition, there are many other free MP3’s of other seminars
    on this website, as well as some great video that is organized into short clips. And if you are interested in attending these
    seminars in person, they are held every Wednesday at 4:30 on the Stanford campus
    and are open to the public. Check the STVP
    website     in late September to see who will be presenting this fall.

    8. The Vatican released what one of my
    correspondent’s described as “the no asshole rule for drivers.” According to the Associated Press, these     "Ten
    Commandments" for drivers,     among other things,      “warned about the
    effects of road rage, saying driving can bring out "primitive"
    behavior in motorists, including "impoliteness, rude gestures, cursing,
    blasphemy, loss of sense of responsibility or deliberate infringement of the
    highway code."      If you have
    ever driven in     Italy ,
    you will know that they need some of these rules, but I am not optimistic that
    they will have much effect.  Indeed, the
    AP reports that these “commandments” provoked substantial cynicism among Italians.

    That
    is it for now; I suspect that the next couple months will be slow with so many
    of us taking vacations, but I will have another update when there are enough
    tidbits for another round-up.

  • Inexpensive = Good? Two Buck Chuck Wins a Double Gold at the California State Fair

    Two_buck_chuck_2

    My mother is having a a field day with this story. I am constantly trying to convince my mom to "upgrade" her taste in wines, bringing her moderately-priced fine wines from throughout the world to "break" her of buying those cheap bulk wines.  I especially turn up my nose at the $1.99 wines that they sell at Trader Joe’s under the Charles Shaw label. That much ballyhooed "Two-Buck Chuck" bottled by Bronco Wines (which is ran by Fred Franzia, who was once convicted for making fraudulent claims about the wines in his bottles). 

    Well, I still can’t bring myself to run out a buy a case, but news leaked out in The Press Democrat last Thursday that Charles Shaw’s 2005 California Chardonnay beat-out 350 other chardonnays in a blind tasting conducted by a diverse group of 64 judges at the California State Fair.  Wines were rated independently of price, so this means that Two-Buck Chuck beat out many wines in the $25-$30 range, as well as quite a few that retail for over $50.

    The judges are being accused of being unsophisticated.  The Press Democrat reports, "The California State Fair competition is dismissed by some critics as
    representing broad-based consumer tastes rather than the palates of
    true wine connoisseur."  I also claim to dislike "approachable" wines like these that are meant to appeal to mass-market tastes. But it makes me wonder — even though he was convicted of fraud — if Fred Franzia’s claim that expensive wines are often just well-marketed rip-offs has some merit. 

    My mother says she is going to run out and buy a case.  I confess: I asked her to save a couple bottles for me. 

  • Ideas from Google to Help Microsoft

    About two weeks back, I wrote a post about the search engine battles between Yahoo! and Google.  I acknowledged that Google was and is one of the most impressive companies in business history.  But I titled the post: Arrogance: Google’s Achilles’ Heel?.  I expressed concern (as have others) that excessive pride and the feeling that somehow people in the firm were smarter than other human beings could be the firm’s undoing; and I contrasted the Google spirit with the Jerry Yang’s renowned modesty (Yang is Yahoo!’s co-founder and now new CEO).

    That post generated some interesting comments, notably from a couple current Google job candidates.  And it prompted Dave, one of the folks who makes comments on this blog and sends me some very interesting emails, to point me to a fascinating blog posting that is — apparently — making the rounds at Microsoft.  This post is called Life at Google – The Microsoftie Perspective.  It is intriguing because it seems to be written by someone who worked at Google, but now works at Microsoft, and it presents one of the rare balanced inside glimpses into Google.  And it contains thoughtful suggestions about practices that Microsoft should steal from Google (including free food and Google’s amazing tech support). 

    My view is that the competition among Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft is a great thing for consumers.  I am rooting for it to go on for years.  In particular, I think a little more competition in the search engine business would be especially beneficial to everyone (well, except perhaps to Google shareholders).

    P.S. I thought one of the most interesting comments that I got was from a current Google job candidate who asked about Google’s "Don’t be Evil" policy. As I discuss in the The No Asshole Rule,  my discussions  with people at Google (including senior executives and recent hires) suggest that this motto is, or at least was, a force against hiring and encouraging nasty people. Here is what the candidate (who posted under "anonymous") reported:

    ‘I have had two phone interviews with Google in the past week. I have
    asked each interviewer about the “don’t be evil” policy at Google. In
    both cases, the first words out of the interviewer’s mouth were “We are
    environmentally friendly….” I was working under the prevailing
    assumption that the first cannon of the “don’t be evil” policy would be
    “Don’t treat your fellow employee like an asshole.” I guess my
    assumption was incorrect.’

  • Pfeffer at His Best: What Were They Thinking?

    Pfeffer
    If
    you want to read something wonderful from one of our great organizational
    theorists, I urge you to buy Jeff
    Pfeffer’s     brand new book What Were
    They Thinking? Unconventional Wisdom About Management    .

    This
    is a completely biased opinion. I have
    written two books with Jeff and numerous articles, and we are close
    friends. But let’s start with my claim
    that Jeff is one of our greatest organizational theorists.  For my tastes, our three greatest living academic
    organizational theorists are, in my opinion, The University of Michigan’s Karl
    Weick    , Stanford’s (now retired) James
    March    , and Jeff Pfeffer. When I say “academic,”
    I mean scholars who have contributed important theories and published extensively
    in peer reviewed academic journals. If you look at the work of any organizational theorist
    who has ever lived, no one except for perhaps Nobel Prize Winner Herbert Simon exceeds
    the breadth and depth of Jeff’s contributions.

    I
    invite you to look at Jeff’s record; here is a link to his
    academic vita    . Note that Jeff has
    published 13 books and over 150 articles and chapters. These often landmark publications are on a remarkably
    wide range of topics including power and politics, demography, wage
    differences, joint ventures, organizational size, leadership, job design, the
    person-situation debate, human resource management practices, performance
    metrics, economics, and his most recent work on “time as money.”  He has won virtually every award that the field
    has to offer and keeps cranking articles and books out, and now at 60  years
    old, he isn’t slowing down.  I have
    always     especially been impressed by the degree to which Jeff treats (and talks
    about) research as a social process. One
    of the keys to Jeff’s success is that he works so well with so many co-authors. He has had over 40 different co-authors and
    he is so good to work with that few of us end-up writing just one paper with
    Jeff.  This is quite a feat given that an academic
    article can easily take several years to complete (my last academic paper with
    Jeff took about four years from the first brainstorming session to publication)
    and a book can take even longer.

    What
    distinguishes Jeff from other star academic organizational theorists, however,
    is that he uses so much of this academic knowledge to influence what
    organizations and their managers actually do. Jeff isn’t as well known in
    managerial circles as Peter Drucker or Jim Collins.  But I believe that his work should be as
    well-known because his ideas are so research-based and so practical. And unlike
    most star academics in his field, Jeff is deeply immersed in the stuff
    of organizational life. Jeff is on the boards of two companies and has been on
    several others; and unlike some “wimpy” academics on boards, Jeff is very
    active. One day, as we were going to
    lunch, I asked him how his day was going: He replied that he had just fired his
    first CEO! He was the one the board
    appointed to do it. Jeff has presented his ideas to hundreds of companies and tens
    of thousands of managers over the years, and is constantly writing articles and
    books that blend his deep academic knowledge with his remarkable understanding
    of the practical demands faced by real managers and leaders.

    Jeff
    is most useful – and most fun to listen to – when he starts ranting about some
    managerial or organizational problem. He
    is funny, irreverent, and has no compunction about biting the hands that feed
    him (e.g., Jeff makes a compelling case against the value of MBA education –
    something that he does, in part, for a living).   And no
    matter how strongly you disagree with him, he has this annoying habit of basing
    his arguments on the best theory and evidence in peer-reviewed academic publications.
    Plus when he writes about an unstudied topic, his logic is often so compelling
    that refuting his arguments is extremely difficult. I have, unfortunately, been on the wrong
    side of hundreds of arguments with Jeff over the years – so I speak from
    experience. This is partly because I
    disagree with many of his opinions, and partly because our motto is “the more
    we fight, the better we write.”  So even
    if we seem to be agreeing about something, we often argue about anyway to
    challenge our assumptions and develop our logic.

    Now,
    let’s return to Jeff’s new book, What Were
    They Thinking.         I just got my
    copy in the mail from Amazon yesterday, and read it for the third time. Every
    time I start to read this book, I end-up devoting a couple hours to the thing,
    re-reading it from start to finish.  It contains
    one compelling rant after another. These essays are organized into sections on “People
    Centered Strategies,” “Creating Effective Workplaces,” “Power Play” (also see Jeff’s
    classic and standard MBA text for classes on organizational power and politics Managing
    With Power    ), “Measures of Success,” and “Facing the Nation” (On organizations
    and public policy).

    You
    will be taken by each of the 28 essays in this book, and if you are like me,
    you won’t be able to choose a favorite. To
    give you a taste, however, consider Chapter 8, called “Let Workers Work.” Jeff shows how increasing numbers of
    companies are placing a larger burden on employees to choose among multiple insurance
    plans, to choose among dozens or hundreds of options of spending retirement savings,
    and to devote increasing numbers of hours to doing the work required to receive
    these benefits. Jeff than goes through
    case after case to show how much time employees are expected to devote to
    figuring out and using their benefits. Jeff points out that this trend is
    spreading even though the logic of the modern organization is based on the
    concepts of the division of labor and specialization. Yet, in direct defiance of such logic, one organization
    after another (including Stanford University) is asking employees to spend more
    and more time dealing with their benefits in order to save some short-term administrative
    costs. Jeff wonders why so many
    organizations require so many skilled and highly paid workers to do work that
    they don’t know how to do well and, in many cases, could be done more quickly and
    cheaply by specialists.

    Or,
    if you want to read an annoying and well-crafted argument, check out Chapter 27
    on “What to Do – and Not Do – About Executive Compensation.” Pfeffer calls for less transparency about CEO pay. He argues that one of the main things that drive
    up CEO pay is that every human-being thinks of him or herself as “above average.”
    He shows how making CEO salaries public
    helps ratchet up pay because most boards and most CEOs like to think of
    themselves as superior people who associate with other, similarly superior
    humans. So, every year, companies keep
    raising CEO salaries to support this illusion that they are “better than the
    rest” (an illusion largely unaffected by poor performance – humans are
    remarkably skilled at rationalizing away poor performance). 

    Jeff
    makes the counter-intuitive, but theory-based, argument that if boards and CEOs
    couldn’t engage in social comparison because they had no information or
    had only unreliable information about other companies, this ratcheting process would be
    short-circuited. Pay levels might go down because boards would instead focus on
    equity within companies and would be more likely to be offended by outrageous
    numbers.  This is classic Pfeffer:
    Annoying, research-based, and quite possibly right.

    If
    you want to read something by one of the greatest organizational theorists, if
    you want to be entertained, if you want to confront some good ideas that
    will make you squirm, and that might just cause you to change how you manage for
    the better, What Were
    They Thinking    ?     is the book for you. Or at least that is my deeply
    biased opinion.

  • A List of Places That Don’t Tolerate Assholes

    Lars_and_the_sign
    Last week, a reporter asked me if The No Asshole Rule was ever actually used in organizations.  That question motivated me to assemble a diverse list of places where the rule is used or has been used to help sustain civility.  (The picture to the left is CEO  Lars Dalgaard standing next to the "no assholes" sign at SuccessFactors). Finding and studying these examples is important, I believe, because they suggest a host of ways that people can install and spread the rule.   Check out my new post over at Huffington on Places
    That Don’t Tolerate Assholes     for details, but here is the list (many of which have appeared here in bits and pieces):

    Barclays
    Capital

    The
    Disbarred Lawyer

    Lloyd Gosselink and Perkins
    Coie

    Sterling Foundation
    Management

    Gold’s Gym

    van Aartrijk
    Group

    The Wine
    Buyer

    “Asshole-Free
    Section” in a Bar

    Washington Mutual

    Texas Bible Studies Class

    SuccessFactors

    Arup’s
    “No Dickhead Rule”     

    If you have more examples, I would love to hear them.  I am especially interested in cases where once nasty places were transformed into civilized places.

  • The “No Dick Rule” and the “Asshole-Free Section”

    I am always looking for examples of how people enforce The No Asshole Rule.  For regular readers of this blog, you’ve heard a lot about SuccessFactors no assholes rule.   In the last week, I’ve come across two other great illustrations, from dramatically different settings.

    Robert_care_2
    The first came in email from Robert Care (pictured to the left), the CEO of Australian and Asian operations of a multinational engineering consulting firm called ARUP. Mr. Care wrote me that he had ran into the book in Sydney Airport, and reported that his company has a similar rule:

    "I work for a truly wonderful professional services company
    that is truly extraordinary and that is doing really well in many many
    ways.  Three years ago I became the CEO of our Australasian
    operation.  It occurred to me that there was an issue (not just in the
    Australasian part of our operations) that needed to be dealt with."


    "I then heard something in September 2005 that started me thinking, and
    then talking to my close colleagues.  They encouraged me to speak more
    widely in my organisation and eventually we evolved a ‘no dickhead policy’.
    "

    Mr Care sent me some of the documentation that they use to support the rule,
    notably a memo that he wrote in July 2006, called Let’s Talk, which explains
    what the rule means.  He started by explaining how he get the idea:

    "On ‘that day in September’ 2005, the Sydney Swans won the Australian
    Rules Football League (AFL) flag for the first time in 72 years. In the
    euphoria that followed one clear story emerged for me above all else. The
    Swans, in describing how they came to win, captured it with two words: ‘no
    dickheads’. They did not say what it meant, but everyone understood or had
    their own ‘take’ on it. Later statements made it clearer – ‘they played for
    each other’, ‘team spirit’, ‘knowing your role and doing it’ and ‘helping each
    other when that doesn’t work’.."

    Then he goes onto explain what the rule means at ARUP:

    "To me ‘no dickheads’ refers to recruiting and retaining people who
    support and enhance our culture rather than weaken it; it means getting square
    pegs into square holes and round pegs into round holes – the right people for
    the right jobs; it means that we are team players working for each other not
    ourselves; it means that it is not alright to be a bully or abuse people who
    are in less powerful positions; it means that if it doesn’t feel right it
    probably isn’t.

    By the way – the problem is not about being a ‘dickhead’; it is about behaving
    like one. And it is not even about behaving badly on the odd occasion – we’re
    all guilty of that. The real problem is about systematic and continual bad or
    inappropriate behaviour. It is damaging to the people who work with these
    ‘dickheads’, and for the firm as a whole.

    So how do you know if you are behaving like a ‘dickhead’? How about considering
    the impact you have on others? Do other people walk away from interactions with
    you feeling good about themselves, or at least that they have been treated
    fairly, or do they try to avoid interacting with you? Are you understanding
    about other people’s strength and weaknesses and realistic in your
    expectations? Do you enhance others’ self esteem? This is what being a team is
    all about! And we want a team, a very successful team."

    Mr. Care also makes the critical point that the rule is especially important to
    apply to top performers, an essential element in enforcing such rules, as I
    have emphasized many times:

    "OK, so we have said this is how we want it to be. But it is not enough to
    say it, we have to uphold it – and it might be painful. If the ‘dickhead’ is
    also a poor performer then the solution is obvious. The real challenge is when
    an otherwise good or exceptional performer has the problem. What do we do? I
    would argue that we have a duty and obligation to make sure the person knows
    the effect they are having on others. But beyond that, it is only the person
    themselves that can make the change, and they may not try, or may not succeed.
    If that’s the case I believe we should go our separate ways."

    I believe that Mr. Care completely "gets it," and he has a huge
    amount to teach other big companies.  But it also seems that the rule can
    be useful in very small organizations, notably bars and pubs where all that
    alcohol consumption can turn people into (at least temporary) assholes.
    Pam over at Writing,
    Work and Weasels     (a funny and most insightful blog) described how a
    customer applied the rule one night:

    "Once, at my father’s pub, we had a
    particularly raunchy crowd of drunken, loudmouth idiots. One of our regulars
    took a piece of cardboard from a beer delivery box and a magic marker, and
    scrawled “Asshole-Free Section.” He stuck it on the corner of the bar where we
    were sitting, and we entertained ourselves for an hour or so saying “hey,
    didn’t you bother to read the sign?” to anyone who came to sit with us.

    Too bad we can’t do that at work.

    In a bar, everyone calls everyone else an asshole. That’s because if you spend
    enough time there, you will become one at some point. Your friends will love you
    for it, and everyone else will be glad they’re not you.

    But I’ve always said that in spite of the drunkenness and the mooning, the
    quarrels and brawls and stuff people say that would never have come out of
    their mouths before that third shot, I’ve met more bona-fide assholes at work
    than in the bar. An asshole in a suit and tie is still an asshole, just one
    without an excuse."

    I love the contrast between these two stories. It
    makes me realize that — although jerks may always be with us — so will the urge
    to expel them and drive them away from us!

  • Management Philosophies: The Virtues of Authenticity vs. the Dangers of Hypocrisy

    I
    led a discussion of The
    Knowing-Doing Gap     with a group of about 60 project managers
    yesterday. The Knowing-Doing Gap was my first management book; Jeff Pfeffer and
    I published it in 2000. But interest in it persists.  After all, every organization (no matter how successful)
    struggles to turn knowledge into action.

    Project
    managers are an especially interesting group to talk with about gaps between
    talk and action because they are often charged with implementing
    what senior managers say. This means
    that, if what executives say is helpful and authentic, it helps them do their
    jobs.  But if those words are useless, hypocritical, or insincere, then it makes their jobs
    a lot harder – and it breeds cynicism as they are forced to ignore or even defy
    what their leaders say to get their jobs done.

    This
    all came into sharp focus yesterday when we were talking about management
    philosophies, and how the best leaders use philosophies that are general enough
    to guide a wide range of actions, but specific enough to actually be useful.  I gave some of my favorite examples. At IDEO, they say “enlightened trial and
    error outperforms the planning of flawless intellects.” This sounds like fancy language, but at IDEO,
    it means – whether it is a product, a customer experience, or an organizational
    process you are developing – that you better spend most of your time developing
    and testing prototypes, rather than talking about ideas that MIGHT work. At Intel, they say “disagree and then
    commit.” This means that, before a decision,
    you are expected to argue about what should be done and why, but after the
    decision is made, the time for argument is over.  Instead, it is your job to help
    implement it rather than to keep second guessing the decision.

    The project managers gave lots of examples,
    both good and bad, of management philosophies that they lived under. The most
    impressive was manager who worked at Genentech who printed out their philosophy,
    brought to the class, read it, and explained how it affected so much of what
    she and her colleagues did every day. Here it is, straight from the first
    page     of their website:

    Genentech’s mission is to be the leading biotechnology company, using human
    genetic information to develop novel medicines for serious and life-threatening
    diseases. We commit ourselves to high standards of integrity in contributing to
    the best interests of patients, the medical profession, our employees, our
    communities and our stockholders.

    This
    project manager emphasized that the phrase “using human genetic information to
    develop novel medicines for serious and life-threatening diseases” shaped
    whether or not they would try to tackle a problem and how they would do it. In
    particular, she emphasized, that Genentech focused on projects where they used cutting edge science and carefully avoided “me too” products that are
    developed by so many pharmaceutical firms. She emphasized that they talked about this phrase constantly, and that
    it not only affected which projects they started, it also guided the
    decision-making process for pulling the plug on projects. Finally, she
    emphasized that there was virtually no cynicism within the company about the philosophy — something I find impressive, and perhaps the best litmus test of any management philosophy.

    In
    contrast, another project manager from a large utility gave an unfortunate
    example of what happens when a company has an inauthentic philosophy, something
    that executives write and say that turns out to be untrue or a half-truth. In this case it was “Delight the Customer,”
    which she emphasized was not a true goal because they are monopoly and so it
    was the kind of thing that did not actually guide anyone’s behavior inside the
    company, but did generate cynicism among both employees and customers.

    My
    “philosophy” on such statements is that, if you aren’t absolutely serious about
    living-up to them, or your company will be unable to do so, it is better to say
    nothing than to come across as hypocrite. The best cautionary tale I know of in this regard (given my focus on
    civilized workplaces) was the fiasco that the large law firm Holland &
    Knight had a few years ago, when after ballyhooing their “no jerks” policy to
    the press, a host of accusations of sexual harassment and related problems
    leaked out into the press — especially to the St. Petersburg Times.  To
    quote that newspaper    , the lawyer at the center of this storm, Doug Wright,
    tried to defend himself at one point as follows:

    In his defense during the investigation, Wright said he
    did not target women, and this week denied the harassment allegations to this
    newspaper.

    "I joke and tease with everyone," he stated
    last year. "I suppose some might think that makes me an indiscriminate
    jerk."

    I don’t believe
    that being an equal opportunity jerk is “better” than just acting like a jerk
    toward woman alone. And I do believe that that being known as a hypocritical
    and asshole infested company is even worse than being known as just an asshole
    infested company.

    The upshot of all
    this is that a well-honed philosophy can have powerful and positive effects, in
    part, because one of the most important jobs of leadership is to help people
    make decisions about where they should be focusing efforts — and a good philosophy like the one at Genentech can have such effects. BUT if a leader pushes a philosophy, he or
    she better mean it, or the hypocrisy will become obvious  to everyone, and breed cynicism both inside and
    outside the organization.

  • Penelope Trunk’s Brilliant Post on Huffington

    Penelope Trunk, of Brazen Careerist fame, has a stunning post on the new Huffington business blog, on Hold CEOs Accountable for Their Bad Parenting.   Don’t miss it, she just nailed it.  Check out this line:

    "We have a double standard in our society: If you are poor and you
    abandon your kids, you are a bad parent. But if you are rich and you
    abandon them to run a company, you are profiled in Fortune magazine."

  • Management IQ: New Blog at BusinessWeek

    BusinessWeek writers Diane Brady, Michelle Conlin and Jena McGregor have just started a new blog called Management IQ. The first round of posts are pretty cool. Given my fascination with online games as laboratories for organizations, I am especially taken by their post about how IBM is doing research on games like World of Warcraft to test and develop leadership skills, because "IBM says, those same capabilities (rallying people you’ve never met to your cause, quickly learning new
    skills, finding people who have the right talent for the right moment)
    are exactly what’s important for today’s modern managers."

  • Arrogance: Google’s Achilles’ Heel?

    As a Stanford Engineering School
    faculty member, I am delighted with the success of both Yahoo! and Google. After all, both were founded by pairs of
    Stanford engineering students.  Yahoo!
    was started in a trailer on campus by by David Filo and Jerry Yang, and Google was
    started by  Serge Brin and Larry Page. These two companies are competitors, especially in the search business,
    and there is little doubt that at the moment that Google is the victor.  Yang

    The
    news yesterday that co-founder Jerry Yang had been appointed
    the new CEO of Yahoo!     made me wonder, however, if a change of fortune is in
    the cards. Perhaps it is just because I
    love modest nerds, especially when they are underdogs – Jerry Yang certainly
    qualifies.

    But there is one thing about
    Google that makes my skin crawl and that gives me that sick feeling in my stomach
    that something could go terribly wrong there, and do so quickly. As much as I admire
    Google’s people and products, I wonder if the supreme confidence that has
    driven their growth will cause them to stumble. I have seen hints from Google
    insiders that, somehow, they believe that     Silicon Valley
    history and economic principles don’t apply to them because, “after all, we are
    Google.” The first time I heard this, I
    winced because Google has many, many connections to Stanford, and in my nearly
    25 years as a faculty member here, I’ve learned that when faculty justify their
    actions by saying “after all we are Stanford,” it means that they haven’t
    bothered to think about the logic or they believe that were are so special that
    the “usual” rules don’t apply to us.  These are vile and dangerous beliefs.

    Google
    looks nearly insurmountable at the moment.  But I keep hearing louder and louder whispers
    of concern from     Silicon Valley insiders about
    Google – especially concern about their arrogance. Just yesterday, one was complaining to me
    that the arrogance is so thick that people in Google don’t see it, “it is like
    a goldfish doesn’t realize it swims in water.” Stanford students who interview
    there for jobs (even those who gets jobs – and they are the largest employer of Stanford
    students at the moment) complain about it openly. Even Google CEO Eric Schmidt has admitted that
    Google might suffer from a touch of it at times.

    Supreme
    confidence is not new at Google. About a year before Google went public, my
    Stanford college Jeff Pfeffer and I had a long interview and lunch with Google
    co-founder Larry Page, during
    which he expressed concern that job candidates who interviewed at Google saw
    them as arrogant. Jeff and I found Larry to be charming, but well, a bit full
    of himself too. Larry’s personality was a lot like the company he has
    created – he was among the most likable arrogant people that I’ve ever met. Indeed, I think that their “don’t be evil”
    motto (which they take seriously) may help them overcome many of the hazards of
    arrogance.

    Certainly,
    in retrospect, Larry Page’s supreme confidence was warranted – he has since
    become one of the richest people in the planet. Moreover, as I’ve argued in Weird
    Ideas That Work,     extreme faith in your ideas and your people is a hallmark
    of successful innovators, because it creates self-fulfilling prophecies that
    fuel effort and growth. So all that confidence is probably a key to Google’s current success and may fuel their future
    success as well.

    BUT
    just as in many tragedies, the same thing that leads to a person’s greatness
    can also lead to their downfall as well. I worry that, because Google has never
    had a major stumble, they are starting to see themselves as impervious to
    the fate of every company in Earth that has come before them. A few weeks back,
    I heard some Google insiders talking about HP in a condescending tone. Sure, HP
    has had troubles, but they are still the only great enduring big company in Silicon Valley,
    on top of both the PC and printer businesses over 60 years after Bill and Dave
    started the company.  I wonder if Google will be one of the largest and most
    profitable firms in     Silicon Valley 50 years
    from now?  The odds are against them.

    To
    return to Jerry Yang and Yahoo! Yes, Yahoo has stumbled, being late to search
    and video on the web, and they are not – at the moment –- the employer of choice
    for Stanford engineering students and MBAs.   Plus Google’s technical dominance– and sheer confidence
    to act (not to mention piles of cash to fuel action)– may simply make them an insurmountable
    competitor. But that little voice inside of me keeps saying that, if Google just
    stumbles modestly, and the illusion of supremacy and invulnerability is
    shattered, then things could unravel very quickly.  In contrast, Yahoo! has been
    through the bumps, and I see a lot of evidence of hard won wisdom among its leaders. I see the courage to act on what they know, combined
    with the humility to update when they are wrong. Indeed, these are hallmarks of
    Yahoo!’s two new leaders, President Susan Decker and CEO Jerry Yang.

    I
    also see other little troubling signs. I keep hearing rumors that the red tape
    is getting thicker at Google; while Yahoo! is in a phase of cutting it
    out. And one message I hear over and
    over again is that Google is hiring so fast that they aren’t always bringing in
    the very best people. And finally, I
    keep getting emails from Stanford students who have been at Google for a year
    or two, and have left for another company because “they weren’t having enough fun.”

    These
    are all weak signals, my information is suspect and uneven, but the one thing
    that everyone seems to agree on is the arrogance that pervades Google, and
    is barely noticed by insiders, is off-putting at best and a warning sign of future trouble at worst. I have no special influence over Google, but my
    gut feeling is that, if they want to hold-off Yahoo! and other competitors,
    they should keep the don’t be evil policy and charming courage and confidence,
    but learn a bit more humility, learn to ask better questions, and especially,
    to listen better.

    In
    closing, I want to emphasize that these are both great companies, they treat
    their employees incredibly well, and I have admired every executive and
    engineer that I’ve met from both places. But I worry about the long-term effects of all that arrogance at Google.

    An
    interesting footnote. Jerry Yang, David Filo, Serge Brin, and Larry Page have
    something else in common – they are all Stanford dropouts from engineering PhD
    programs. There is a long and glorious tradition
    of Stanford dropouts getting rich and famous: others include John Steinback,
    John McEnroe, Tiger Woods, and Reese Witherspoon! And, of course, Bill Gates is
    one of Harvard’s most famous dropouts.