Author: supermoxie

  • True North: Economics and Humanity are Compatible

    True_north_2
    Today’s New York Times has a glowing review of True North, by Bill George (Former CEO of Medtronic, a Jim Collins "Good to Great" leader, and now a Professor at Harvard Business School teaching leadership), with help from Peter Sims.  The book is based on interviews with 125 other leaders and executives like Starbuck’s Howard Schultz and Xerox’s Ann Mulcahy.  These cases — in combination with George’s accomplishments — show that leaders who create humane organizations that really care about their people and their customers — and don’t just view them as units that exist for the purposes of extracting "as much economic value as possible" every minute of every day — not only can thrive financially, they do it in such a way that people can travel through their days with dignity.  And as George shows with his cases of successful leaders, they can also have a life outside of work.

    I find this book so encouraging because it defies the assumption in so many companies that the key to success is squeezing everything you can out of your people (and customers) RIGHT NOW and then discarding them the minute that the return on investment goes south.  I saw these assumptions in action at a professional service firm that I spoke at about five years ago in Baltimore.  I had a couple phone conversations with the Chair of the firm where he was abrupt and — although he had signed the contract already — didn’t want to talk about the content of the talk, he just wanted to continue negotiating the terms of the deal in his favor.  Then, when I arrived, I sat next to a partner who had been with the firm over 30 years, and — although we had barely met — one of the first things out of his mouth was, "This used to be a place where we prided ourselves on striking a balance between humanity and economics; now it is all economics all the time. It is a cold heartless place that sees people and clients as units of production, and nothing else."  Perhaps 30 minutes later, when I spoke to the head of the firm, all he talked about was how important he was and about pushing profits higher and higher as quickly as possible.

    I was shocked by how widespread the asshole poisoning was in the company.  During the time I was around, I only had two kinds of interactions with people:

    1. Either they expressed hurt or fear (like the woman — a senior partner — who told me how hard it was for her to succeed because the "model" partner had a wife who did all the child care, and her husband also worked. Even though she was "highly profitable," the senior management of the firm viewed her children as a black mark against her).

    2. Or they people expressed hostility — putting down people in nasty ways. At first, I thought they didn’t like me, as nearly every conversation wasn’t just an argument, it was like talking to Simon Cowell on the American Idol.  People didn’t just put down my ideas, the disagreement was also peppered with personal insults.  I then realized that this was exactly how the Chairman interacted with everyone else in the firm, so it was an interaction norm that everyone followed and enforced.   

    True North
    is such an important book because  — in sharp contrast to this nasty firm — it shows that leaders who authentically care about their people and customers not only create more humane places, but that caring translates into greater commitment and loyalty.  And it has other more subtle effects too.  If you care about people, and are humble and wise enough to listen to them and hear what they actually say, you end-up focusing  on what they need to succeed emotionally and financially. Not on getting as much money out of them this minute as much as possible.  At the Stanford d.school, we call this the human-centered design process, and Bill George’s words and (more importantly) his actions show that such understanding translates into better leadership because you can end-up giving employees and customers what they need — not what you believe they should have or what is best for you in the short-term.

    Let me give you a specific example from Bill George.  I have met Bill a couple of occasions and seen him speak twice.  When Bill took over as CEO of Medtronic, which is a medical device company, he had no prior experience in the industry. As Jeff Pfeffer and I show in The Knowing-Doing Gap, leaders who are brought in to operate a business that they don’t understand often get in big trouble — too often, they ride into town and make massive changes, without taking the time to learn the business.  I asked George how he dealt with his lack of knowledge of the industry. He told me that he spent 70% of his time during the first nine months that he was CEO in hospitals, watching surgeons install Medtronic devices in people and talking to doctors, hospital administrators, nurses, and patients about their view of the company and it’s products.

    I believe that most boards of directors and stock analysts would balk at a CEO who did this and complain that he or she wasn’t spending enough time running the company.  But George’s understanding of the human impact of his company’s products appeared to pay off in the long run — during the decade that he led Medtronic, it’s market capitalization rose from about 1 billion to about 60 billion. Not bad for a guy who puts people first and believes that employees need a balance between life and work.

    To return to the difference between the leader of that professional services firm and the leaders that Bill George wants to select and breed, as The New York Times says, "That’s a common thread  in the strongest leaders, Mr. George argues: they have a deep desire to serve a greater goal beyond making money."

  • New Evidence: Testosterone Poisoning Turns People into Assholes

    The No Asshole Rule talks about testosterone poisoning as a kind of joke. Apparently, it is a real affliction that turns people into assholes. Here is the lead to the story:

    While most people are upset or concerned when someone gives them an angry look, there are others — with high levels of testosterone — who actually enjoy angry expressions and seek ways to provoke them, new research suggests.

    "It’s kind of striking that an angry facial expression is consciously valued as a very negative signal by almost everyone, yet at a non-conscious level can be like a tasty morsel that some people will vigorously work for," study co-author Oliver Schultheiss, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, said in a prepared statement.

    Note that this finding appears to hold for both men and women.

    Read the rest of the story: Some People Find Angry Expressions Rewarding.

    The implication: Perhaps if you want to keep assholes out of your organization, you need to take a blood test (and measure their testosterone levels) and their ARSE Test score!

  • An Asshole Infested Law Firm

    Aric Press, the editor of the American Lawyer, has told me that he believes that large law firms are prone to breeding and encouraging demeaning behavior.  He wrote an editorial about this problem when my Harvard Business Review essay on the rule came out in 2004 and printed a long excerpt from the book in the American Lawyer.  Of course, law firms aren’t the only places that can turn nasty — in fact, there is a lot of evidence that nurses, medical students, and residents face especially persistent abuse — but this report from a legal secretary at a large law firm really caught my attention. I have removed the opening and ending, and of course, her name, but edited nothing else:

    I am a legal secretary who has
    worked with countless assholes my entire working life.
      Attorneys, upper management and even staff and
    secretaries who demean and poison the workplace with their vindictiveness,
    competitiveness and general lack of respect for others.
      I have found that management’s "solution" to
    dealing with these types of people is that YOU must tip toe around them because
    "
    well, you know how he/she
    is".
      Now how much sense does that
    make?!
      I wish I had the money to
    purchase hundreds of copies of your book, along with your "asshole
    quiz" and send them, (anonymously of course!), to every asshole I’ve ever
    worked with – like the partner I’ve worked with who never ever looks at me,
    speaks to me or acknowledges that I exist.
     
    I HATE this asshole.
      Or the attorney who wishes I
    could "meet his needs better" when he NEVER communicates with me at
    all.
      Or the female attorney who will rips me to shreds when the
    printer malfunctions but expects humor and compassion when she makes a mistake
    of her own or the bullying senior partner who gets away with making mincemeat
    out of underlings by screaming and hollering at them because he/she brings in
    so much business for the firm.
      It’s
    sick.

    The damage done is scary.  One of the main things I’ve learned since publishing the book is that organizations would be wise to devote less energy to fighting the war for talent and more energy to finding ways to avoid wasting and ruining the talent that they already have.

  • Marge’s Asshole Management Metric: Update

    Last summer, I posted one of my favorite "asshole management stories" after hearing a funny — and fascinating — report from an executive named Bill about the technique that his colleague, Marge, uses in meetings. I called this technique "Marge's Asshole Management Metric."  It generated a lot of discussion and some disagreement.  I just heard from Bill, who tells me that they are still using Marge's method at his company and it continues to be highly effective.  In case you missed it the first time, here is the original post:

    Earlier this week, I was teaching a class on evidence-based management to a group of electronics executives. I talked a bit about the no asshole rule in class. This provoked a rowdy conversation during the session, which restarted with a smaller group after the class officially ended. The best story was told to us by a software executive named Bill (his real name, but I’ll omit other details), who described the asshole management technique used by Marge (also her real name), his former boss at the company.  Bill described how Marge uses a four-point system (ranging from 0 to 3) to rate the degree to which a person is acting like an asshole. 

    Bill told and showed us how, in the middle of a meeting, Marge would sometimes point at someone, and hold up three fingers to communicate that (at least for the moment) he or she was being too nasty and needed to calm down, and how –- because Marge was so well-respected and they all understood the system — such signals had an instant and powerful effects.

    Well, since we had this discussion with Bill in Thursday, I've exchanged pretty detailed e-mails with Marge and Bill, and she has given me permission to share her system with others. And as you will see, Marge has a very sophisticated system, and there are times when she believes that being more rather less of an asshole is necessary. Unfortunately, I think she is right.

    In her own words, this is Marge’s scale:

    0 = You are a very nice person, and very passive. No one can say a word against you, and would never think to call you an asshole.

    1 = You are a normal person who can occasionally assert yourself on an issue you are passionate about, but you handle yourself in a non-confrontational way in nearly all occasions.

    2 = You can consistently assert yourself in a non-confrontational way and are occasionally an asshole, but you feel horrible about it afterwards, and you may or may not apologize (but you probably will have to confess your remorse to someone).

    3 = You can consistently be an asshole and you either do not recognize this or you simply enjoy it.

    Bill added:

    Your rating fluctuates and you can use this rating to manage people to different effect. For example, at [our company] Marge has signaled to me in meetings that I was meeting a 2.5 or a 3, which indicated to me that I should tone things down. (I was usually around a 1, for the record, which was considered acceptable) Others have been labeled a 0.5 or lower, and were told they needed to manage their average rating up closer to 1.

    Marge and Bill added that she originated this system in her old company where, often, she had to signal to her people that more nastiness was required to avoid being trampled by others because it was not a nice place. In Marge’s words:

    The system originated at another Silicon Valley company that had a far more confrontational and abrasive culture. Political survival demanded that people be consistently a 2.0 and sometimes a 2.5. I had a number of 0.5's on my team and we were all concerned that we were getting battered and beaten by teams that consisted of 3.0's.  

    I couldn’t make up stuff this good if I tried.

    Four observations:

    1. This system fascinates me because it helps me understand why the word “asshole” rather than the milder “bully” or “jerk” is so important to use: This is the word that people actually use to think about, talk about, and in Marge’s case, manage this behavior. The other words may mean nearly the same thing, but simply lack the emotional punch that goes with it.
    1. It shows that the degree to which people are, and need to be, assholes are heavily determined by the organization they live in.  If the culture is really nasty, you may need to do it to survive, and even if you don’t want to do it, I would  add, it is a disease you will probably catch from your colleagues.
    1. I wish that being an asshole was never necessary, but as I discuss in my chapter on “The Virtues of Assholes,” there are times when it is necessary for survival, and even desirable, at least in the short-term.
    1. If you work in a place that is knee-deep in assholes, and you don’t want to turn into one or feel forced to act like one every day, the best thing you can do for yourself is to get out. Note that Marge is at a nice place now, and uses her system to help calm people down rather than to crank them-up. This lesson is consistent with what I’ve seen other places, and is one of the main points in my chapter on keeping the inner jerk that lurks in all of us from rearing its ugly head.

    Finally, I want to thank Marge and Bill for telling me all about this system, letting me tell you about it, and for writing much of this blog.

     

  • Harvard Business Online Launches a New Website — It Includes Blogs

    Harvard Business Online launched a new website a few days ago that includes new content and a nice new look and feel.  As part of this effort, they have recruited a bunch of us as "Discussion Leaders," or in plain language, bloggers. This gang includes Tom Davenport, Tammy Erickson, Eric McNulty, Larry Prusak, Michael Watkins, and Gillian Corkindale.  I am part of the group too, and my postings appear under Bob Sutton — The Working Life, which fits with the Work Matters theme of this blog well. I’ve got two posts up now to introduce readers to my perspective, one on What I Worry About and Why and the another on a theme I’ve talked about here before, but with some new twists, Why I Wrote The No Asshole Rule. My next few posts are on the new design and business classes that we have been teaching at the Stanford d.school, look especially for a future post with a video of an original song by Stanford graduate student Gustavo Bitdinger called  "Back to Orbit," which is inspired by Gordon MacKenzie’s classic book Orbiting the Giant Hairball.

    Our editor and chief cat herder in this adventure is Jimmy Guterman, who has done a masterful job of balancing pressures for Harvard to do something bold but that still preserves the mighty Harvard Business School brand.  There is already a lot of content up on these blogs, and more will be posted at regular intervals (as I understand it, each of us will put up a post at least once a week). Check out what is up, add some comments (which are moderated).  This is a really big step for Harvard Online, so I encourage you to give them feedback (I certainly have not hesitated). At the same, time remember (as I have to remind myself) that they need to be a bit more careful with this site than a private blog.  They face pressures to please a set of diverse and opinionated stakeholders (from Harvard Business School faculty, to their demanding readers, to Harvard Business School Publishing — which uses the site to sell content) — or at least not to alienate too many of them too deeply.   In light of the pressures they face, I am impressed how "loose" they are being with the blogs.  But I am gently pushing them to open things a bit more and you might "help" them with this as well.  Our philosophy at the Stanford d.school is that everything is a prototype, and although this site is a damn big improvement over the old one, it can and will keep getting better, and they need input — and yes, critical comments — to make that happen.

  • KFOG Interview With Lars And Me About The Rule

    Peter_finch
    Peter Finch, who hosts the morning show on local San Francisco rock radio station station KFOG,  interviewed Lars Dalgaard of SuccessFactors and me for this fun little piece

    Hit the link or get it here: Download Fogfilesaholes.mp3

    It is a lot more fun than the usual radio interview. It is airing four or five times this week.

    P.S. As he talks about in the piece, Lars Dalgaard is the only CEO I know who insists that new empoyees sign a contract agreeing not to act an asshole — other places have the rule,  but Lars is most direct about it.

  • New Jerk City: New York Post Story

    Post_cover

    Today’s edition of the New York Post has a long story on The No Asshole Rule by Chris Erikson, called New Jerk City.  The main story does a nice job of summarizing the book’s main points, along with the range of reactions that it has generated — as it says, I never thought I would write a book that result in an appearance on a "shock jock" radio show like Mancow, a forthcoming article in the respectable McKinsey Quarterly, and as a reading in a bible studies class.  There is also a sidebar on "surviving snakes" which is based on my longer post on "Tips for Surviving Asshole Infested Workplaces."

    Boris
    The best part of the package, however, is the sidebar about HBS Professor Boris Groysberg’s research which shows that, even in investment banking, enforcing the no asshole rules pays dividends. Note Boris’s clever test for assessing if a culture is no-asshole or pro-asshole:

    CULLING THE CREEPS

    There are industries that put a premium on genteel, courteous behavior. And then there’s investment banking.

    "If there was a poster child for an industry where jerks are
    tolerated, it would be investment banking," is how Harvard Business
    School professor Boris Groysberg puts it.

    Which is why during a long-term study of top investment banking
    firms, Groysberg and his partner, Ashish Nanda, were somewhat surprised
    to find that those who enforced a "no a – – hole rule" reaped clear
    dividends.

    "Firms that have policies of maintaining a nonhostile work
    environment have done much better overall than firms where complete
    jerks are tolerated," says Groysberg, who was studying whether the
    success of "superstars" crossed over when they moved from one firm to
    another. "So what we found was very similar to what Bob [Sutton]
    describes in his book."

    For starters, Groysberg and Nanda found that such firms have
    significantly lower turnover. And employees were willing to work there
    for less money.

    "To be in a friendly work environment, people would work at a
    significant discount from what they could get just by crossing the
    street," he says.

    Groysberg is too diplomatic to name the worst
    offenders, but cites Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs as the most
    vigilant about weeding out jerks. Having spent a fair amount of time at
    various firms while doing his research, he says the difference in
    culture between such firms and those that let jerks run wild can be
    clear to see.

    "I found that if you just sit quietly in the dining room and
    observe how food gets ordered and how people eat and interact, in half
    an hour you can tell if this particular culture is more a – –
    hole-friendly than others," he says. – C.E

  • Rob Cross on Energizers vs. De-energizers

    Rob_cross_2
    Rob Cross is a Professor at the University of Virginia and has done A LOT of great academic work and work with companies on social networks. Rob is a driving force behind the The Network Roundtable at the University of Virginia, a consortium of companies and researchers that are interested in learning more about and applying network analysis techniques. Check out their website for all sorts of information.  Rob and Andrew Park also have written a great –and useful — book called The Hidden Power of Social Networks.

    Robs_book__2
    All of Rob’s work is interesting, but I am especially taken by the research that he and his colleagues have done on "energizing" vs. "de-energizing" interactions.  They have done a series of studies showing, to oversimplify a bit, that employees who tend to leave others feeling energized after interactions  get better performance evaluations, advance more rapidly, and spark more innovation when compared to "de-energizers" (people who bring other’s down, who leave them feeling sapped).  I am fascinated by this research because I define assholes, in large part, as people who leaves others feeling demeaned and de-energized.  So this means that, although my book and lots of other writings contain lists of actionsthat cause people to feel demeaned (yelling, teasing, glaring, treating people as if they are invisible), Rob’s approach suggests that a more elegant and powerful way to measure whether some is an asshole is to simply ask how people feel after a single interaction (energized or de-energized? demeaned or esteemed?) and after a series of interactions: The first being a measure of if someone is a temporary asshole; the second being a measure of if someone is a certified asshole.

    Rob wrote me and explained the single question they use to determine if a person is experienced by others in his or network as an "energizer" or a "de-energizer. This is amazing stuff to me because it is so simple, and these effects on others explain so much about how people propel — poison — the people in their networks and their own careers (Important note: Do not use this question for research without getting permission from Rob and then giving him credit):

    People can affect the energy and enthusiasm we have at work in various ways. Interactions with some people can leave you feeling drained while others can leave you feeling enthused about possibilities. When you interact with each person below, how does it typically affect your energy level?

    Response Scale:

          1 = De-energizing

          2 = No effect/Neutral

          3 = Energizing

    To measure if a person is an asshole, I believe that there are only one or two additional questions required. Something like "After you interact with this person, do you typically feel better about yourself, worse about yourself, or roughly the same?"  Or, "after you interact with this person, do you feel esteemed, demeaned, or about the same?"  The blend of the energy question and one of these should be a nice way to assess if someone leaves people who are energized and esteemed (a constructive energizer, an anti-asshole) or de-energized and demeaned (a certified asshole, especially if it is a pattern).

    I am trying to figure out some ways and places to measure this stuff, and am hoping to recruit Rob to help as has some really cool software that he uses with the companies that he works with and that are partners in his network. The thing I like about this method is that it is so simple, and Rob’s pile of research shows that it will likely work for detecting assholes as well.  Of course, the methods used by researchers who studying bullying and psychological abuse are also useful, as they look at what assholes do not on what they "do to" people (teasing, yelling, taunting, glaring and all that).  By combining the two approaches, a pretty complete picture of what assholes do and what they do to others should emerge.

    Check out the work done by Rob and his colleagues.  It is great stuff.

  • Time Magazine Story

    Time_cover_4 The new Time Magazine has a story and sort of a review of The No Asshole Rule called No Jerks Allowed.  Author Lisa Cullen writes for Time about workplace issues (that is her picture below). Lisa has a fun angle and writes with pizazz. She does, however, seem to celebrate assholes more than I do, asking: "Imagine American Idol without Simon, House without House, Family Guy without Stewie. Colleagues of Steve Jobs bear the scars, but wouldn’t you prefer him on your team than theirs?" I see the upside of assholes, as seen in my Changethis essay and chapter on "the virtues of assholes."

    Cullen_lisa Unlike Lisa, however, I think that most assholes aren’t worth the trouble, as even if being an asshole helps people win at times, my view is that if you are a winner and an asshole, you are still an asshole and I don’t want to be around you. I would also add that the belief that acting like an asshole helps you win is a suspect assumption.  It is at least in large part a cultural myth, and while it may lead to short-term wins at times, the upshot (to steal an old line from Groucho Marx) is that "time  wounds all heels" (or at least most of them).

    I was also amused to see that at least two of Lisa’s effective assholes are fictional characters (I say at least two because I sometimes think that American Idol’s Simon Cowell is putting on an act to drive up ratings, albeit a convincing one). And as I also like to emphasize, organizations that enforce the no asshole rule the right way aren’t a breeding ground for wimps.  On the contrary, many are extremely performance oriented and celebrate constructive conflict (rather than demeaning, nasty, and personally insulting conflict).

    In any event, it is a fun story, and I don’t want to paint Lisa as exactly an advocate of assholes, because as she admits, "beastly bosses have shaved months off my life."

    P.S. Note that Lisa Cullen has a post up called "In Defense of Office Assholes."
    Again, she makes some good arguments, but I am concerned that she is creating an excuse for people to act like assholes or to tolerate them too much.

  • 44% of U.S. Employees Have Worked for an Abusive Boss: More Evidence That Assholes are Everywhere

    Wwwreuterscom
    A study of
    American workers released today found that nearly half have worked for an
    abusive boss. This study was conducted by the
    Reed Group for the Employment Law Alliance.  They surveyed a representative sample of 1,000
    American adults within the past two weeks, which resulted in interviews with
    534 workers. Much research on bullying
    and abusive supervision uses “convenience samples,” which means the researchers find anyone
    they can to complete the survey, a method that does not produce results that can be generalized
    to a larger sample. So this study uses a much
    better sample than most. Check out the press release if you want to learn more.

    The main finding was that 44% of the respondents said they have worked
    for a supervisor or employer whom they considered to be abusive.  I will write a longer post about this later,
    but it adds to a growing body of research demonstrating that workplace assholes
    are a serious and widespread problem. And
    note that this is a study supported by a big group of employment lawyers, who
    are leading the charge against organizations that allow, or even encourage, such
    abuse to persist.

    So it might be a lot cheaper and less time-consuming to
    implement the no asshole rule in your organization now, then facing an onslaught
    of lawyers and lawsuits later. I am not a fan of litigation and believe that
    some people who routinely file lawsuits are assholes who do it to exact revenge.
    And some do it in place of therapy (or
    as a misguided form of anger management therapy).  But if some companies won’t implement the rule
    for the right reasons, perhaps the threat of litigation will cause them to implement
    it for the wrong reasons

    P.S. I was also interested in their findings that “Southern workers (34%)
    are less likely to have experience with an abusive boss than are their
    Northeastern (56%) and Midwestern (48%) counterparts.” In the 1980’s, I worked with Anat Rafaeli and
    Larry Ford on a study of courtesy in 7/Eleven Stores.  Larry, who was then their director of field
    research, drew a representative sample of 576 stores (out of about 7000 in North America), and had an army of
    researchers who went into the stores to observe employee courtesy – measured as
    greeting customers, smiling, establishing eye contact, and saying thank you. We
    found a similar pattern: people in the South were the most civilized and people
    in the Northeast were least.  Midwesterners
    and Westerners were somewhere in the middle.

    P.P.S. This graphic is actually from a Reuters story about The No Asshole Rule, but I like it so much that I have been looking for an excuse to post is again.