Author: supermoxie

  • Southerners, Civility, and Cultures of Honor

    I received an extremely thoughtful e-mail this morning, which made me realize that I ought to explain my assertions in The No Asshole Rule about men raised in the southern United States in a bit more detail.  A woman working in Ohio (and a native West Virginian) wrote me the note below.  I changed a word to avoid revealing the name of her company, deleted a sentence that provides too much identifying information, and deleted a subsequent bit of text that was on a different point.  The rest is verbatim:

    I really
    enjoyed your book, The No Asshole Rule, but I have to take issue with one
    theory you offered: that southern men tend toward asshole behavior more so than
    others. As a feminist and a West Virginian, I’m here to tell you that I would
    take 10 male bosses leaning toward redneck southern sensibilities to the one
    effeminate jerk from
    Connecticut
     
    that I had to suffer for six months. He would call me into his office, attack
    me personally, all the while answering phone calls from his mother and assorted
    friends while I sat there squirming to get out of his cologne-smelling presence.
    Worse he had some skin disorder that caused the skin on his face to flake off
    in huge scaly chunks, and he would pick at his face while giving me advice
    about a personality disorder he detected in my behavior. And this
    Connecticut asshole spent a great deal of time telling us Cowtown Columbus, Ohio natives how to dress when we visited the sophisticated city of Hartford….. I don’t know what you’re
    basing your theory on Mr. Sutton, but as a West Virginian living in
    Ohio.for 24 years, I’ve
    worked with a lot of men from the south, and I honestly can’t agree with your
    assessment. Now, don’t get me wrong, I do not for one minute believe all people
    from Connecticut are as big an asshole as my Hartford boss, but given the
    choice between a guy from Dallas and a guy from Hartford, I’m going to Dallas.

    There is evidence to support this writer’s experience, but also an interesting twist about Southern men.

    For starters, Southerners are probably more civilized in general — and less abusive as bosses — than other Americans.  I first saw evidence that Southerner’s were generally more civilized when, in the 1980’s, I did research with the Southland Corporation about courtesy in 7/Eleven stores.  My colleague Anat Rafaeli and I analyzed a national probability sample of 576 stores. We found (among other things) that stores in the southern United States were more likely to have clerks who offered greetings, established eye contact, smiled, and said "thanks" during customer service interactions than in other parts of the country (the worst courtesy levels were in 7/Eleven’s in the northeastern United States, and the western and midwestern stores were in the middle).

    A recent national study of the frequency of abusive supervision  (see my post if you want some details) provides more direct support for this pattern.  This study of 534 workers by the Reed Group found that 44%  of American workers reported working or having worked for an abusive boss.  The regional differences were similar to our old 7/Eleven data. I quote “Southern workers (34%)
    are less likely to have experience with an abusive boss than are their
    Northeastern (56%) and Midwestern (48%) counterparts.”

    BUT the twist, and the one I talk about in the book, is that although southerners (particularly southern men) are generally more polite than people from other parts of the country, when they feel as if their honor is affronted, they tend to react with considerably more anger and hostility than people raised in other parts of the country — because, as academics put it, they are from a "culture of honor." Here is the key excerpt from The No Asshole Rule:

    Anthropological research shows that
    these are cultures where men gain and sustain status by being known as someone
    who “can’t be pushed around” and “who won’t take any shit.” American examples include the old “cowboy”
    west and southern
    United States. . These were both once unruly and unstable places where law-enforcement
    was largely absent, and where one’s wealth and social standing could easily be
    wrestled away by others – and even though that has changed in many parts of the
    west and south, the culture of honor persists to this day. People raised in these cultures are
    especially polite and considerate in most interactions, in part, because they
    want avoid threatening the honor of others (and the fight it provokes) – even
    long after they have moved to another part of the country. Once they are affronted, men raised in these
    places often feel obligated to lash back and protect what is theirs, especially
    their right to be treated with respect or “honor.”

    Some intriguing experiments
    published the Journal of Personality and
    Social Psychology
    by Dov Cohen and his colleagues show that, for men raised
    in the southern
    United States,
    the culture of honor continues to have measurable and strong effects, even
    after they have moved to the northern
    United States.  In this 1996 study at The University of
    Michigan, subjects (half Southerners and half Northerners) passed a stooge who
    “accidentally” bumped into him and called him an “asshole.” There were big differences between how the
    northerners and southerners reacted: 65% of the northerners were amused by the
    bump and insult and only 35% got angry; only 15% of the insulted southerners
    were amused and 85% got angry. Not only
    that, a second study showed that southerners had strong physiological reactions
    to being bumped, especially substantial increases in cortisol (a hormone
    associated with high levels of stress and anxiety), as well as some signs of
    increased testosterone levels. Yet Northerners showed no signs of physiological
    reaction to the bump and insult.

    John_wayne_3
    The lesson from these experiments,
    plus a host of other studies, is that if you were raised as southerner – or
    perhaps a cowboy – you will likely be more polite than your colleagues most of
    the time, but if you run into an even mildly insulting asshole, you are prone
    to lash-out and risk fueling a cycle of asshole poisoning.

    To wrap it up, the best evidence and theory I know shows that West Virginian woman is right  — Southerners are  civilized day in and day out than others in the United States, BUT if you challenge or offend them, they are far more likely to construe what you do (including calling them an "asshole") as fighting words!  And the same applies to the old west, hence my picture of John Wayne in the classic cowboy film Stagecoach — The Duke appears to be defending his honor! 

    Once again, I want to thank that thoughtful woman from West Virginian for her note. And I invite comments on this research, which I find quite fascinating.

    Culture_of_honor
    P.S. The study by Dov Cohen and his colleagues also suggests another interesting twist — calling someone an asshole can sometimes transform a civilized person into a temporary asshole.  And, of course, this research suggests that if call southerner or a cowboy an "asshole,"  you are especially asking for it! If you are really interested in the topic, check out Richard E. Nisbett and Dov Cohen’s book Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South.

  • Designing a Cup Holder for Bikes: A New Film From d.school Students on the Process

    Coffee_cup_holder
    I have already written about Gus Bitdinger’s fantastic "movie version" of one my favorite creativity books, Gordon McKinsey’s classic Orbiting the Giant Hairball. The students at the Stanford d.school are at it again, and have new film, called The Stanford Design Thinking Process.  This 7 minute film shows how a group four students — Madalina Seghete, Dorothea Koh, Mannan Amin and Ana Paula Azuela Garcia — used the design thinking methods that we teach to develop a prototype drink holder for bicylcles. It shows the primary design practices including user observation, brainstorming, developing a point of view, prototyping, testing, and doing multiple iterations.  The idea for this project was sparked by students who wanted a place to keep a nice hot cup of coffee as they pedaled between classes. Check it out on youTube.

    P.S. Mada Seghete reports that it took about 5 hours to do this little cup holder project and about another 15 hours to produce and edit the video — so this is a very quick design process, but I especially like it because it shows the main elements of the design process so clearly.

    Also, some of you might react with "that is mighty crude prototype."  That is a key part of the process . Our perspective on prototypes is that — in the early stages of the design process — we encourage people to come up with quick, crappy, and easily disposable "low-res" prototypes that allow them to quickly test a concept.  This prototype is good enough that the students could ride around with a cup of coffee (see the film), and thus test the concept. But it is crude enough that they could quickly discard it, modify it, and so on — such lack of investment encourages  creativity because they don’t become overly enamored in an idea just because they worked like crazy to make a bad or incomplete idea look "too perfect" and it enables rapid iteration though the design-build-test cycle.  Finally, note that, although Gus Bitdinger isn’t even a member of the class these student’s did the video for, he appears quite a bit in the video as a user of the product. I’ve been joking that we should hire him as the head of the d.school film department.

  • Book Signing on Wednesday Night: At Books Inc in Mountain View

    Books_inc
    I will at Books INC in
    Mountain View (California) to
    talk about The No Asshole Rule
    and sign some books on Wednesday, May 30th.  The event starts at 7:30 and bookstore is at 301 Castro Street.  Please stop by and say hi if you are in the neighborhood.

  • My First Huffington Post

    Huffington_post
    My first post in the new business section of the Huffington Post just went up.  It is the first of several posts that introduce readers to The No Asshole Rule. Then I will start turning to various management and business topics. It won’t be all assholes all the time!  I was also delighted to see that one of the bloggers is Penelope Trunk; check out her (usual) fiery, persuasive, and controversial post on the pay gap between men and women.

  • The No Asshole Rule Round-Up

    The No Asshole Rule continues to provoke stories and reactions, many from the people who read this blog and
    write to me, and although things are less crazy than a few months ago,
    also continues to provoke media attention. This is a round-up of some interesting things that happened
    over the past few weeks, plus I am giving a couple local talks in the area that
    are open to the public this week.

    Porcupines with hearts of gold. I received several detailed emails from
    people who told me stories about bosses they had who, on first impression,
    seemed like assholes, but after you got past their gruff exterior, they were
    actually great people. I think that such stories are important to hear and
    think about, and I am working on a post dedicated to people who, on first contact,
    seem nasty, but are actually great people. I’ve always talked about how important
    it is to be slow to label people as assholes, but am thinking about it more deeply
    now. I mentioned this at a talk recently at a software firm, and the audience
    just cracked-up when one engineer said something like “We say that people like
    this have a bad user interface, but a good operating system.” If you have ideas and/or stories about this  perspective, please write!

    Subtle assholes.  I received an especially thoughtful email from a
    woman who started by saying “Thank you for your
    book. I found that it reads almost like the Zen of Working with an asshole by
    basing responses and framing situation as the kindest and happiest among us do.”

    But she went on to make a great point about something that the book should have
    developed more.

     One comment, however. I felt that this book was almost too
    heavily waited to the very flaming asshole and not nearly enough on the more
    subtle arse.  …..I would encourage you to
    write about the methods and the effects of the more subtle arse; the alter-ego
    to the flaming asshole – who can have just as profound an effect on people but
    is much less obvious to weed out. I related well to the feeling of uselessness,
    helplessness and lack of confidence that the more flaming assholes inspired in
    the stories in your book. But I did not relate to the bosses’ characters that
    made them feel that way. I think the subtler jerks are just as bad, but much,
    much harder to recognize.

    I
    agree completely, and although I touch on jerks who treat others as invisible
    and so on in The No Asshole Rule, I agree that I need to focus more on the moves made by
    subtle assholes. Indeed, these more
    subtle assholes actually can often get away with doing more damage than their
    more “over the top” and less politically skilled counterparts.

    Nasty to her nannies. A huge number of people in the United States
    and everywhere else in the world – work taking care of other people’s children,
    and plenty of these bosses are assholes.  Susan Tabas Tepper, a Phildelphia
    area millionaire, is apparently a repeat
    offender
    . The Main Line Times reports

    The latest incident of alleged abuse occurred at about 10:40
    p.m. on May 20.
    Tepper, who had been drinking earlier that night at dinner, became angry when
    Urszula Kordzior, a native of Poland

    who was employed by Tepper as a nanny, wanted to leave the residence that
    night, according to the criminal complaint.


    Tepper allegedly blocked the doorway when Kordzior attempted to
    exit the home and leave in a vehicle that Tepper provided as part of the
    employment agreement, the complaint said. Demanding that Kordzior turn over the
    keys to the vehicle, Tepper followed the nanny outside, the complaint said. Continuing
    to yell at Kordzior, Tepper scratched the left side of Kordzior’s face and lip
    with her hand and then shoved her to the ground, according to the complaint.

    Kordzior’s nine-year-old daughter attempted to intervene,
    telling Tepper not to hurt her mother, the complaint said. Tepper, using an
    epithet directed at the girl, then shoved the girl, the complaint said.

    Flyingarse
    The Flying ARSE takes off.
    I finally launched The Flying ARSE, a 24 item self-test that
    you can take to see if you are driving other airline passengers, or perhaps to take
    with others in mind.  I thank Diego
    and Pam
    Slim
    for their posts, and several blog readers for making some suggestions about
    improving the test. I will get some information from Electric Pulse about how many
    people are taking the test and the range of scores. Meanwhile, the original ARSE is
    approaching 90,000 completions.

    Recent press coverage. I spent an hour on Joy Cardin’s show last Thursday on
    Wisconsin Public Radio and had some most interesting callers. I was personally
    most troubled by the faculty member from a university who complained that one
    of his colleagues as constantly driving young faculty out of his academic
    department, but that because this senior faculty member brought in a lot of
    research money, everyone in the administration and his colleagues were afraid
    to confront him about his behavior.  Alas, academia can be as bad as the private
    sector. You can listen to the program
    here
    . I also had several other articles on the book appear including one in
    CIO Insight
    and another on TheStreet.com.
    I found this article
    by David Simanof
    f in the Tampa Tribune to be especially thoughtful.

    The Huffington Post business section is live. As I wrote about a couple
    weeks ago, The Huffington Post, one of the highest rated “gang blogs” on the
    web is just starting a business
    section
    . It went this weekend and
    has some interesting posts. I especially
    like the one by Giles Slade called Hold
    the iPhone.
    I will also post there occasionally, and I just sent them a couple posts that introduce Huffington
    readers to The No Asshole Rule.

    Two talks and
    book signings on May 30th.
       I am doing two talks and book signings in a
    four hour period on Wednesday, May 30th in the Stanford area. Both are
    open to the public. The first will be an interview by Stanford student Mike Rothenberg
    in the DFJ Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders Seminar
    Series on the Stanford Campus.
      It
    will be held from 4:30 to 5:30 in the Skilling Auditorium and be followed by a
    book signing. This is a Stanford class,
    but it is open to the public, and Skilling holds a lot of people.  Also, the talk will be available as podcast at the above URL within 24 hours (usually sooner than that). Next, I run over to Books INC in
    Mountain View to
    talk about The No Asshole Rule
    and sign some books there too. That event starts at 7:30 and the bookstore in is at 301 Castro Street.

    Parting shot: Bringing the book to work
    can be risky!
    I
    got this email awhile back, but never printed it: Mr.
    Sutton- Maybe you have received similar emails, but I was just called by my
    boss and told not to bring The No Asshole Rule book back to work.  I left
    the book on my desk at work and read it during breaks, and I didn’t care if
    people saw the title or not, I actually talked about it to some
    coworkers.  Anyway, I thought you might be interested in how your book has
    been banned in my office. 

  • Check Out Tom Davenport

    Tomd As I’ve written here before, I Harvard Business Online has recently revamped their website and, as part of the changes, have brought in several of us to blog about various topics.  I write on The Working Life.  I just sat down and read through a bunch of them and was especially struck by several of Tom Davenport’s posts about The Next Big Thing. I have always been a big fan of Tom’s many books, like Working Knowledge (with Larry Prusak) and his latest — evidence-based argument — in Competing on Analytics.   I was delighted to read the range and spirit of his posts, especially check out his latest post, which argues "I believe there is a power shift taking place within and across organizations from producers of information to consumers."  Tom, as someone who has spent big chunks of time as both an academic researcher and in corporate roles, has always impressed me with ability to weave together evidence, theory, and his practical experience to recognize trends and to solve real problems. He is also one of those people who tells people the facts and opinions that he believes will help them most, rather than help them feel as good as possible — for now.

    Also, check-out Gil Corkingdale’s latest post on "A Question of Style" in her Letter from London.  I found her observations about the costs that women face for "fashion errors" rang all too true.

  • Take the Poll: Can We Speak of Assholes at Church?

    Richard Beck over at Experimental Theology has already challenged and changed my assumptions about how The No Asshole Rule has been received among many Christians, especially in his post on 1 Corinthians and the No Asshole Rule, where Richard described how he read from the book in Sunday school, and concluded that 1 Corinthians meant "Basically, don’t be an asshole."  I have also written a number of related posts lately about Christianity and the book, including the Sacred and the Profane and Applying the Rule at the Highest Level.

    Richard’s latest effort in this direction is a poll, which asks the question Can We Speak of Assholes at Church?   The poll asks: Is the content of the book The No Asshole Rule important and  appropriate for church based study?  Just 30 votes are in (and some very interesting comments): 73% say it is important and appropriate and that the title of the book should be overt; 23% say that the content is important but the title is inappropriate; and 3% (one voter) says that it is "Unimportant and inappropriate (i.e., book content and style irrelevant and inappropriate for a church-based study)."

    I urge you to vote and to check out Richard’s fascinating blog. Richard, thanks for your wisdom and courage and I look forward to the results of your poll.  I am going to vote right now!

  • The Prototyping Process: How It Has Evolved on the Web

    Guykawasakilarge
    Guy
    Kawasaki is one of the most intriguing people I know in
    Silicon
    Valley
    because he has had the courage to try so many things. His
    initial fame came at Apple, where he was renowned as their all-star marketing evangelist
    (Guy remains one of the most engaging speakers I have ever seen: He is smart,
    funny, and unlike too many of us, does not take himself too seriously). Then,
    when the dotcom boom hit, he started his own venture firm. Garage.com. Guy
    didn’t do it like everyone else either – most local VC’s stay out of sight and
    lurk in boardrooms, and can only be spotted having breakfast at Buck’s in
    Woodside or Il Fornaio in Palo
    Alto. Guy was the VC for the masses. He held one-day entrepreneurship boot camps,
    and at the height of the madness, thousands of people would attend (like rock
    concerts, some would sleep in line overnight to get good seats). And he did
    other crazy things: I recall waiting for the movie at a local theater, and an advertisement
    appeared on the screen encouraging entrepreneurs to send their business plans
    to Garage.com. Guy also wrote a few
    best-selling books along the way too.  Guy
    has morphed himself yet again, and has become a leading – perhaps the leading –
    business blogger at How to Change the
    World
    .

    The
    great thing about Guy, as you can see from his history,
    is he does not act like
    the best he can be is a perfect imitation of what he used to be – he is always
    trying new things. Some succeed, some
    fail, and no matter what happens, he is always learning (and adding to his pile
    of stories for those great speeches he gives). In this spirit, Guy launched a new venture last week called Truemors.com. Essentially, it is a site where
    rumors are submitted, and readers vote for them or against them. The current buzz on blogs is pretty mixed
    about the site, with some bloggers complaining about the interface, others about
    the lack of focus, some because he is moderating the comments too much, others
    that he is moderating the comments too little.

    I
    suspect that some of these concerns are valid and having been to the site, I
    found that it was less compelling, for example, than Guy’s amazing blog. I think it needs to be more visually
    compelling in particular. Regardless of
    the ultimate fate of Truemors, to me it is indicative of both Guy’s wisdom in
    particular and how entrepreneurship in the current Web 2.0 environment (for
    lack of a better term) is so much different than the first dotcom boom.

    Consider
    a few features of how Guy is launching the site:

    1.
    It was developed for about $12,000 by Electric Pulp before being launched; as
    Guy pointed out in the Wall Street
    Journal,
    during the first boom, there would be a pitch (and if he was
    lucky) some VC might have thrown a few million bucks at it. And then it would
    have probably failed after burning through all that money.

    2.
    Guy is treating this as first, quick and dirty prototype, and he is getting people
    in the user community to help him come up with ways to improve it. Now, as with all designers, I am sure that
    hearing negative comments is no fun, but as we teach our students in the Hasso Plattner Institute of
    Design at Stanford
    , the fastest way to improve your prototype is to get it
    in front of users and to keep iterating in response to their feedback. In the “bad old days” a bunch of venture
    capitalists (none of whom had ever managed a web company, and most of whom had
    never funded a successful one) would pick away and make suggestions about the
    site before it was launched. In the new
    world, for better or worse, you can just put it out there, and update it constantly
    in response to the customer and user responses. Guy’s site may keep getting better and ultimately succeed, or at worst,
    it will be a cheap failure and you will probably learn something.

    3.
    I also have to commend Guy for having the simple courage to do this; Guy has
    spent a lot of time giving people feedback on their ideas for new companies
    (and like all VC’s. most of this is usually negative, as most new things have a
    lot of flaws). Guy is putting himself on
    the line in a most public way.

    4.
    So, for me, the upshot of all this is that Guy is demonstrating the very
    essence of design thinking that we teach at the Stanford d.school – get a
    prototype out there that is cheap, show it to a lot of users or customers,
    update quickly in response. This
    increases your chances of succeeding and, if you do fail (as will often
    happen), it will be cheap and fast.

    I
    first learned about how entrepreneurship on the web had changed so dramatically
    about two years ago. Jeff Pfeffer and I had just finished our book Hard
    Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense
    , and I was talking
    about it with a group at Stanford that included John Lilly, now COO
    of Mozilla
    (most famous for the Firefox open
    source browser). I mentioned that one of
    the main ideas of the book was that the most effective leaders treat their
    organizations as an unfinished prototype. John – a mighty smart guy I’ve known for about 10 years – went on to
    explain that the meaning of a prototype for a web-based company had changed
    dramatically since the dotcom boom:

    Jeff
    Pfeffer and I wrote about this in an article
    in Strategy & Business, and I think
    that John’s wisdom goes a long way to explain why Guy’s approach is so smart
    –whether Truemors ultimately succeeds or not. To quote part of the opening two
    paragraphs of the article:

    ‘John
    Lilly, formerly the CEO and founder of a Web-design firm and corporate
    incubator called Reactivity, recently recalled what it took to sell an idea to
    venture capitalists during the dot-com boom of the late 1990s. In a period of
    30 weeks, his team generated 30 PowerPoint presentations as “prototypes” for a
    diverse group of Internet-based startups. Out of these, a combination e-mail
    and Web browser was chosen as the most promising. Its PowerPoint presentation
    was fine-tuned and then shown to potential backers. Based primarily on this
    slide show — there was very little else for the venture capitalists to go on —
    Reactivity raised more than $100 million for a new company (now defunct) called
    Zaplet.

    “That
    approach wouldn’t work now,” said Mr. Lilly, currently vice president of
    business development and operations at Mozilla Corporation. “By and large,
    venture capitalists only fund Web-based companies that already have proven the
    ability to attract customer traffic.”’

    As
    John suggests, venture capitalists now want to see a website that works and
    attracts traffic. And as Guy suggests, this
    means that there will be times when you don’t actually need a venture
    capitalists any longer, or for that matter, major corporate funding for your
    web-based venture – if you have a good idea and some skilled programmers (or
    can hire some for a little while), you can throw it out there and see if it
    works.

    Friendly_fox_team
    Does
    this all sound too easy? Perhaps it
    does, and indeed, most new websites, as with most new ventures, fail. But a
    very interesting student project in our current d.school class on Creating
    Infectious Action
    shows how it works. One of the student groups came-up (this was done by 4 students in less
    than 2 weeks…. and I think they have only one who can program) with something
    called My eBay Fox – which is a
    version of the Firefox browser that is “customized to provide you with a better
    eBay experience.” The students are Tyler
    Hicks-Wright, Madalina Seghete, Ana Paula Azuela Garcia, and Peter Gleason — they have a blog, of course, which you can
    check out – I also include a picture of the team.

    I went to class last week, and Diego Rodriguez reported that they had
    overall 30,000 unique visitors to the site so far that week (it was only
    Thursday) – a heck of a week. On Saturday,
    Tyler reported that they were up 40,000
    unique visitors and 13,000 downloads.

    There
    is also an interesting twist: It turns
    out that eBay and Mozilla have been working jointly on
    a customized version that is similar to the student’s project  for months, and these students have produced
    something that (I am told, I am not an eBay user) is quite good in just a couple
    weeks. Check out this article,
    which probably overemphasizes the competitive aspects, but is an interesting
    read. Note that the students came up
    with this idea without any prior knowledge that eBay and Mozilla were working
    on a similar product – in fact, I was sitting near Mozilla COO John Lilly (who
    visited class) when he first heard about it, while is jaw dropped a bit, he did
    not make any attempt to stop the group — after all, it was their idea, they didn’t know that a similar product
    was under development, and Mozilla’s hallmark is open source development (which
    is why the have less than 100 paid employees and over 100 million users).

    Now,
    to return to Guy. He is doing the same
    thing the students are doing. He put it
    a quick and inexpensive prototype, he will keep improving it on the basis of
    feedback, and if it succeeds, that is wonderful. If it fails, the worst thing
    that happens is that he will have learned something and will have some great
    stories to tell – although he will have missed the fun of all those PowerPoint
    pitches to VC’s like in the good old days, and at the extreme, the chance to
    burn through millions. I am not saying
    the venture capital business is obsolete, it is just that if you have a
    web-based company, you need to have a site up and working, and making some
    money, before you try to pitch the company.

    This
    approach may sound new, but although web prototyping are more realistic and
    faster now, they notion of doing a lot of things and seeing what sticks is a very
    old idea. Failing fast and failing
    forward is a hallmark of creative geniuses through the ages, at least if you
    believe large scale historical studies done on one sample after another –
    artists, scientists, composers, and so on —  by Professor Dean Keith Simonton at the
    University of California at Davis.  He
    concludes:

    “Creativity
    is a consequence of sheer productivity. If a creator wants to increase the production of hits, he or she must do
    so by risking a parallel increase in the production of misses. ….. The most
    successful creators tend to be those with the most failures!”

    So
    the most creative people don’t have higher hit rates, they just do and make more
    stuff.

    P.S.
    The four students on the d.school team keep tweaking My eBay Fox, but that doesn’t seem to
    be enough for them… they also have launched a Firefox tool bars for Facebook,
    called My Facebook Fox, which
    is already getting positive reviews too. Not bad for four young people, who each have other classes as well
    .

    P.P.S.
    A shorter version of this post also appears on my Harvard Business Online blog,
    The
    Working Life
    , buy I wanted to post the whole thing here, as it has some
    important twists and turns that were cut, and I wanted to make sure and get the
    student’s names and pictures in – very important!

  • 15 Things I Believe

    These 15 beliefs are posted to the left on this blog too.  But I thought it might be useful to have them in a post as well,  These are current as of December 26, 2007.  I expect that they will change.

    1. Sometimes the best management is no management at all — first do
    no harm!

    2. Indifference is as important as passion.

    3.
    In organizational life, you can have influence over others or you can have
    freedom from others, but you can’t have both at the same time.

    4.
    Saying smart things and giving smart answers are important. Learning to listen
    to others and to ask smart questions is more important.

    5. Learn how to fight as if you are right and listen as if you are
    wrong: It helps you develop strong opinions that are weakly held.

    6. You get what you expect from people. This is especially true when
    it comes to selfish behavior; unvarnished self-interest is a learned social
    norm, not an unwavering feature of human behavior.

    7. Getting a little power can turn you into an insensitive
    self-centered jerk.

    8.
    Avoid pompous jerks whenever possible. They not only can make you feel bad
    about yourself, chances are that you will eventually start acting like them.

    9. The best test of a person’s character is how he or she treats those
    with less power.

    10. The best single question for testing an organization’s character
    is: What happens when people make mistakes?

    11. The best people and organizations have the attitude of wisdom: The
    courage to act on what they know right now and the humility to change course
    when they find better evidence.

    12. The quest for management magic and breakthrough ideas is
    overrated; being a master of the obvious is underrated.

    13.
    Err on the side of optimism and positive energy in all things.

    14. It is good to ask yourself, do I have enough? Do you really need
    more money, power, prestige, or stuff?

    15. Jim
    Maloney is right: Work is an overrated activity

  • An Insider’s View of Constructive Confrontation at Intel

    Losing_faith
    I have always been a big fan of Andy Grove and of Intel’s constructive
    confrontation approach. But, as with all effective management practices, the use of this approach may be difficult to sustain in practice and over
    time.  A former Intel insider, Logan Shrine, wrote me this morning about
    his book about the demise of the Intel culture (written with Bob Coleman) called
    “Losing
    Faith”.
       

    Logan’s comments, prompted by my positive
    comments about Grove and constructive confrontation in my book, are pretty interesting:

    “Intel has what’s called "constructive confrontation"
    that was instituted as part of the Intel culture under Andy Grove.  As an
    ex-Intel employee who had worked there under Andy Grove and also under the two
    subsequent CEO’s (Barrett and Otellini), I can tell you unequivocally that
    constructive confrontation was a license for assholes to be assholes and
    express themselves (one most likely thinks of engineering
    stereotypes).   It wasn’t there to police them, but to give people
    carte blanche to express those behaviors.  There is and has never been
    (during my tenure) any consequences for managers who are assholes at the
    company.  As someone who worked at other Fortune 500 companies before
    joining Intel, I can say without question that Intel’s culture is dysfunctional
    and anomalous to what’s considered acceptable behavior in any other corporation
    that has any semblance of a human resources structure.   

    Now, you are probably thinking that I’m a bitter ex-Intel employee.  I’m
    not.  In fact, I’d like to attest that what made Intel’s culture
    operationally perform was when everyone was treated equally under constructive
    confrontation and people exercised their right to constructively confront other
    people when they witnessed a clear violation of Intel values.  Although I
    would not condone Intel’s form of this behavior at any other company, it worked
    at Intel when the culture was egalitarian in its enforcement of the
    practice.  What changed in the culture (I talk about this in my book, "Losing Faith: How the Grove Survivors
    Led the Decline of Intel’s Corporate Culture
    ") is when the managerial
    ranks put themselves "above" the values and practices of the culture
    – in effect, considered themselves "entitled."  Once this
    occurred, there was an obvious and visible change in the hiring practices to
    bring people in who wouldn’t "question" management or the behaviors
    that were in antithesis of the published values.  Managers didn’t confront
    other managers, subordinates didn’t question their managers (even when some of
    their decisions didn’t make sense or were self-serving instead of benefiting
    the company), and people became confused and disillusioned.  This led to
    breakdowns in process and project execution and subsequent declines in
    operational efficiency and performance.

    This sounds like a most interesting book, and Intel is a company that I’ve always followed closely and
    been fascinated by, I just ordered a copy.

    In addition, I want to emphasize  (whether they are doing it right at Intel or
    not), a large body of research shows that groups are more effective when they
    fight in atmosphere of mutual respect – with performance that trumps groups
    that don’t fighting over ideas,  or worse
    yet, engage in vicious personal conflict — something I talk a lot about in Weird Ideas That Work.  If Logan is right, it
    appears that Intel is swerving toward less constructive conflict, and that the
    culture is losing its edge in other ways. But I would be curious to hear about Intel from other knowledgeable insiders,
    former insiders, and anyone else who knows Intel well their reactions to
    Logan’s note and his book (if you have read
    it, of course).