Kevin and the gang at Fast Company asked if they could publish a second excerpt from Good Boss, Bad Boss. They picked my list of 11 Bosshole Busters from Chapter 8 and tuned it into a slide show. You can see it here (that's the first slide above and I like the picture they used below for one of the slides, although I would not want to be that woman). I confess the slideshow is a lot more fun than the black and white list in the book.
I got a note from my book publicist, the relentless and civilized Mark Fortier, about an interesting new study. Here is what the inquiry said: "A new survey by Adecco (http://bit.ly/9jvwdW) finds that more than three-quarters of bosses say their relationships with workers has improved in the past three years because of the recession." When I clicked on the link, I saw that, indeed, the survey of 1000 employees and bosses found "78 percent of bosses say they feel closer to their teams than they did three years ago (pre-recession) and 61 percent of employees agree." I would take this survey with a gran of salt, as it does not appear to use a representative sample, but it is interesting when taken together with other recent research (using better samples) that show about 80% of U.S. employees report feeling respected and supported by their bosses and the 2010 WBI/Zogby survey that shows the percentage of U.S. employees who report being bullied at work has dropped from about 13% to 9% since their 2010 survey.
Mark asked what might explain these findings, why despite all the fear, layoffs, and extra hours worked, bosses and employees might be feeling better about each other than before the meltdown, and might even be treating each other better too! Several reasons occlude to me, and I would love to know other reasons that might occur to you:
1. Fewer rotten bosses. The downsizing and such that so many firms have gone through during the last three years mean that bad bosses of all kinds have been weeded-out, or put on notice that if they don’t improve, they will be shown the door. So incompetent bosses of all kinds have been shown the door, which includes those who are not respected by their followers and who treat their followers like dirt. Certainly, plenty of civilized and competent bosses have been shown the door during the downturn, but perhaps organizations have used it to get rid of the rotten apples — and as I discuss in Good Boss Bad Boss and here at HBR, rotten apples do massive damage.
2. The civility movement. During the last few years, perhaps the tolerance for nasty and disrespectful bosses has decreased. I see the popularity of The Power of Nice, The Civility Solution, The No Asshole Rule as symptoms of this movement, as it would delusional to view a few books as a cause. Perhaps the weight of one press report after another on bullying and lousy bosses helped with the cause. And perhaps the lawyers have played a role as there are more cases of bully bosses – even equal opportunity bossholes – getting sued and paying big sums. So between the “opportunity” to get rid of nasty bosses with the downturn, the increasing society pressure to not tolerate such behavior, and the realization by more bosses that being a good boss entails treating people with respect, a bit of change has occurred in the composition and behavior of the workforce.
3. Thinking about money less. Another explanation, which I heard from a CEO of a company that has gone through numerous rounds of layoffs, is interesting. When his company was growing like crazy and competitors were as well there was a sense on strong competition is his firm as people believed that they had to battle to “get mine.” And indeed, this is consistent with research that shows, when the focus in life is on money, people become more selfish and see others as “the enemy.”
4. Compassion and mutual support. The multiple rounds of layoffs that occurred in some companies appears to have encouraged some bosses and “surviving” employees to their attention turn attention to the “humanity” part of the job, to giving people support who have lost jobs and — among survivors — to bond together to get through the stressful times. An inspiring example from Intel ends Good Boss, Bad Boss:
Intel executive Patricia (Pat) McDonald demonstrated similar awareness in 2006 when managing a factory in Hillsboro, Oregon. As part of a company-wide reduction, several managers at the plant lost jobs. An engineer who worked for Pat, Sumit Guha, told me how “she recounted the contributions of these employees in an open forum, wishing them luck, acknowledging that these employees were being let go for no fault of their own, and we all gave these employees a hand in appreciation of their contributions.” Things got worse in early 2009 when Intel announced the factory would cease production at year’s end because it was using older technology – and approximately 1000 workers would lose their positions. Pat not only expressed concern and compassion, she took a stance demonstrating that she had her employees’ backs. Pat quickly announced to her team that although output metrics would continue to be important, helping people get through the transition was a higher priority – especially finding affected employees new jobs inside and outside of Intel. Pat and her team not only provided extensive outplacement counseling and related services, they personally visited numerous local employers to campaign for new jobs for their people. Managers and employees emulated this behavior. For example, employees shared job search leads and helped each other prepare for interviews, even as they were vying for the same positions.
Sumit emphasized that Pat’s dogged efforts to “earn trust and respect from a process of engagement” and her ability to understand “the implications of decisions from the employees’ point of view and adjust her course of action accordingly” were what separated her from ordinary bosses. This “deep sense of benevolent care” was especially constructive after the end of production was announced because, “At a time when the economy was collapsing, her actions helped maintain a sense of calm amongst us.” Pat’s emphasis on people and connection with them not only instilled calm, her priorities helped many find good new jobs. And plant performance didn’t suffer a bit; productivity, efficiency, and quality reached record levels in 2009.
Pat’s people admired her because she was in tune with what it felt like to be them and she focused on how the things she said and did shaped their moods, efforts, and loyalty – whether they lost jobs or remained at Intel.
5. Lowered expectations. Finally, if I put on my psychologist hat, I could make a more cynical argument — that even if nothing objective changed between bosses and their charges, people would report being more satisfied. The average employee has fewer choices of bosses and jobs then before the bust. So if they believe their boss is bad, but can’t exit, it leads to constant unhappiness. To avoid unhappiness, reality aside, people with good mental health will simply adjust their attitudes and beliefs such that they see the same old boss as OK. This is so sort of like “If you cant be with the one you love, love the one you are with.” To put it another way, research on happiness shows that it is not so much driven by how objectively wonderful everything is, but rather by the difference between what you have and what you expect. So the lowering of expectations that comes with a downturn may lead people to appreciate what they have more – so the same old thing, the boss in this case (or the boss's opinion of his her team) may seem better than in the past.
I offer these five explanations as hypotheses. I am not really sure why people report liking their bosses more and bosses report liking their teams more, it is an intriguing question.
I am going to be doing a short talk about Good Boss, Bad Boss and do a book signing at Books Inc in Palo Alto on Tuesday at 7PM. The adress is 855 El Camino Real and the Town & County shopping center. Here is the URL. I hope to see you there. I love their motto for such events: The Experience You Can't Download.
I am also doing a second talk at Pixar (sorry, that isn't open to the public) later in the week, one of my favorite companies on the planet. Last time I was there, I heard — and have since fact-checked and got permission from Ed Catmull to share — the most inspiring "got your back story" I've ever encountered. It will come out later in the week at HBR.org and I will alert Work Matters readers when it is posted.
As reported here a couple days ago, the folks at CNN and NPR's The World program found my post from last September on the (then) trapped miners, which focused on the competence and compassion of their leader, Luis Urzua (An interesting effect of Google and the web, as this seems to be all the result of the high page rank of my original post). The link between the story and me new book became even clearer when, as wrote here, one of the first things that Chile's president said to Urzua after he surfaced was "You acted like a good boss."
I have probably been on TV 20 or 25 times before, but I was still pretty nervous about these interviews . I was straining to learn as much as I could about the miners but still was wary of claiming knowledge I did not have. Also, when they do TV from a remote location rather than in the studio or in scene with interviewer, it is weird because you can't see the person you are talking to or the graphics or other film ( there was also background noise in at least two of my interviews, and at first, I didn't realize it was footage of the miners being rescued). You sit in a dark room with bright lights in your eye and try to look into the camera — and hope that you don't look or sound like like a complete idiot!
In all, I did three CNN interviews. The first was a short one on the miners only with Don Lemon on Wednesday afternoon. The second was on CNN International, and ran four minutes or so, and focused on lessons that bosses could learn from the miners (see it here). The third was today, Sunday, and although it started with the miners, most of the interviews was on the book itself (see it here).
I am not the last person who should judge how these things went, but I felt a lot more comfortable during the last interview than the first. I also appreciated how carefully the CNN staff worked to bring in ideas from the book.
I suspect this is the end of my stint on CNN. It was fun, but I was amazed how nervous and distracted I was as the interviews loomed, especially the first one. I don't feel like that about radio and perhaps that is why I was most comfortable during The World piece also has (in my biased opinion)the best content, but of course, radio usually affords more time.
Well, as this media stuff is fun, but I am feeling as if it is time for me to stop yakking quite so much and to listen and learn more.
Over the years, I have had a few people write or call me to yell at me because someone had given them a copy of The No Asshole Rule anonymously — I remember a nasty phone call from a police sargent who had been left a copy that included an inscription suggesting that he was a certified asshole and needed the book. As I have written here before, calling someone an asshole can be an asshole move — and also has potentially dangerous consequences including creating (or further pissing off) one of your enemies. Yet there still may be times when sending The No Asshole Rule to the creep of your choice may have benefits ranging from an act of revenge to a sincere desire to deliver the message to someone who needs to hear it (but that you don't want to risk his or her revenge or wrath).
As such, I was intrested to learn about an outfit called "Your Secret Gift" in this Daily Finance story about various gifts employees to send to their boss on National Boss Day (which was Friday, October 15th). Note this paragraph
On the other hand, if there's no hope for the bad boss, then a louder wake-up call may be in order, such as "The No Asshole Rule" by Robert Sutton. Boss is a real scumbag? How about three toy scum “bacteria” in a Petri dish, a more direct hint. The Boss Toss catapult lets the sender give the boss the heave-ho. The first season of The Office on DVD draws a comparison between the manager in question and the notoriously inept Michael Scott. The Bullsh*t Button or even a piece of realistic fake dog poop in a gift box say more than words can express.
Here is the url to send The No Asshole Rule — it costs a little more than Amazon, but under certain conditions, it well worth the price!
As readers of Work Matters know, like so many of us, I am quite obsessed with the (now) feel-good story about the trapped miners and their rescue. I was taken with Luis Urzua's leadership, especially during the first couple of weeks when they were trapped with little food and no knowledge of the efforts being made to rescue them. I love what the President said to Luis, of course, because I am quite focused on good and bad bosses these days — given that is what my new book is about. Here is the story and the exchange was reported as follows:
"A 70-day shift is a very long shift," said Mr. Urzua, standing before Chilean President Sebastien Pinera to symbolically hand over his leadership. "The first days were very difficult." Mr. Pinera told the miner: "You acted like a good boss. I receive your shift."
Lovely, isn't it?
I had written a post in early September called "Luis Urzua and the Trapped Miners: A Good Boss, Performance, and Humanity," which considered the reasons that he appeared to be such a competent and compassionate leader. That post emphasized how he was a good boss because he understood how to be "perfectly assertive,had grit, used the power of small wins, understood how to stay "in tune" with the emotional needs of his people, and he "had their backs." As the stories have been been emerging about what Urzua did in those scary early days, another theme emerges, a set of lessons, that are also worth mentioning. As I write in Good Boss, Bad Boss and also in my HBR article on being a good boss in a bad economy, when people are facing stress, fear, and uncertainty of any kind, the "recipe" that good leaders follow reflects four main ingredients:
1. Prediction. In crisis situations, the big things — like whether the rescue will happen or the next round of layoffs will cost you your job — are often impossible to forecast. But a useful palliative is create as much predictability in terms of the small things — when meals occur, what they will be, and other little details of life. You could see with how Urzua rationed the food in the early scary days and in how they used the lights underground — including the headlights of trucks — to simulate 12 hours "days."
2. Understanding. Even when people can't change elements that cause distress, understanding why bad things have happened and the implications for what people should do know is very important. This not only helps people understand what to do, it gives them a sense of purpose. Urzua and his team were kept apprised of the details of the three rescuse attempts and instructed what the implications were for how they could themselves and why.
3. Control. Along related lines, even when people can't influence the final outcome — including bad ones (unlike the miners). when there are elements of their lives they can have some "Mastery" over, it has a big impact. You could see it in their efforts to stay in physical shape (I love the story about the miner who ran miles each day), and even in Luis Urzua's expressions of concerned that, although they had cleaned up things as well as possible before leaving the cave, there was a lot grabage that they couldn't get rid of. Also, the efforts of 62 year old Mario Gomez as the group's spirital guide was important — he organized a small chapel, led the men in prayer, and counseled them about their fears and other emotional issue— both provided a way to introduce predictability in their lives and provided a way they could take control over their time.
4. Compassion. The compassion that Urzua conveyed for his men was evident in his concern for them, and also the concern for others. He was completely devoted to their safety, physical health, and well-being — as all the reports show. And I loved that he was the last miner out… it reminded me of the old saying "officers eat least." I would be very curious to know the more micro-details of his demeanor during the ordeal. The reports thus far is that he was very calm, which is the best possible emotion for a leader to convey and spread during scary times.
I should also note that prediction, understanding, control, and compassion isn't just a recipe for crises, following these four guidelines can help bosses do a better job of all sorts of mundane but important things, especially when doing management "dirty work" like dealing with employees who are poor performers or are behaving in destructive ways.
P.S. I am scheduled to be on CNN International tonight to talk about this kind of stuff. I did get on CNN yesterday, but only for a few minutes. PRI's The World also aired a fairly detailed interview that Lisa Mullins did with me. You can download the MP3 of the episode here — the interview comes about 9 minutes in. As I said yesterday, Lisa is a great interviewer.
This is evidence of the power of Google. I wrote a post a couple months called Luis Urzua and the Trapped Miners: A Good Boss, Performance, and Humanity — it is reprinted above. As you can see, it links Luis's actions to many of the central ideas in Good Boss, Bad Boss, especially Chapter 1. This morning, I had calls and emails from both The World and from CNN. With most book PR, to be franbk, it starts with inquires from my book publicists or from me. But this case is interesting because the producers did Google searches and then contacted me directly. I already did a taped interview that will appear later today on NPR and PRI with anchor Lisa Mullins — a great interviewer with a great voice. I am now scheduled to appear on on CNN at 1 Pacific/4 Eastern as part of the coverage for an hour.
I am excited about this and am going to see if I can find a tie without a stain on it!
I have been traveling enough that I did not get around to posting this until now. Good Boss, Bad Boss is hanging in there pretty well on the bestseller lists. In particular, last Sunday it was number 6 on the New York Times Business Bestseller list for hardbacks. Also, The No Asshole Rule was number 5 on the paperback business list and my publisher tells me will appear on other New York Times lists over the next couple weeks. The sales of these books are a bit surprising to me because — despite the rise of the web — the success of both books is due more to sales in old fashioned bookstores than online sales. Good Boss, Bad Boss is doing especially well at Barnes & Noble stores (see the rather rough picture above of a Barnes & Noble store in Midtown Manhattan) and The No Asshole Rule paperback is doing well in airport bookstores, especially Hudson's, which is displaying it prominently.
This is the title of an upcoming performance, described as a monologue, by Mike Daisey, at the venerable Berkeley Repertory Theatre. Here is the description (go here for more details and to buy tickets):
In The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs, Daisey dives into the epic story of a real-life Willy Wonka whose personal obsessions profoundly affect our everyday lives—and follows the trail to China where millions toil in factories to create iPhones and iPods.
I wonder if it will be any good. I am tempted to see it. At the same time, I confess that I am starting to feel sorry for both Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg in some ways. The bright glare of attention has many disadvantages and isn't much fun. But they are both fascinating characters and it is hard to resist following their antics and speculating about their motivations.
P.S. Thanks to Marijke for pointing this out.
The Ig Nobel Prize is given out by a group called Improbable Research, which celebrates "achievements that first make people laugh,
and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate
the unusual, honor the imaginative — and spur people's interest in science,
medicine, and technology." The 2010 awards were handed out on September 30th, and one one of the doctoral students I work with, Isaac Waisberg, pointed out that one of the prizes was awarded to a simulation that demonstrated — if the Peter Principle is true — organizations would be better off promoting employees randomly rather than promoting people until they they reach their level of incompetence. Isaac knew I was interested in The Peter Principle as I wrote the foreword to the 40th Anniversary edition. Here is a link to the PDF of the article and here is the abstract:
The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study
Authors:
Alessandro Pluchino,
Andrea Rapisarda,
Cesare Garofalo
In the late sixties the Canadian psychologist Laurence J. Peter advanced an
apparently paradoxical principle, named since then after him, which can be
summarized as follows: {\it 'Every new member in a hierarchical organization
climbs the hierarchy until he/she reaches his/her level of maximum
incompetence'}. Despite its apparent unreasonableness, such a principle would
realistically act in any organization where the mechanism of promotion rewards
the best members and where the mechanism at their new level in the hierarchical
structure does not depend on the competence they had at the previous level,
usually because the tasks of the levels are very different to each other. Here
we show, by means of agent based simulations, that if the latter two features
actually hold in a given model of an organization with a hierarchical
structure, then not only is the Peter principle unavoidable, but also it yields
in turn a significant reduction of the global efficiency of the organization.
Within a game theory-like approach, we explore different promotion strategies
and we find, counterintuitively, that in order to avoid such an effect the best
ways for improving the efficiency of a given organization are either to promote
each time an agent at random or to promote randomly the best and the worst
members in terms of competence.
This is just a simulation, not an empirical test. But the virtues of randomness are also found in an earlier experiment that showed groups that randomly selected leaders performed better than those that were asked to selected a leader from among their peers. Here is the summary I wrote in Weird Ideas That Work:
Further evidence for the virtues of
making random decisions comes from a pair of experiments in Australia by S.
Alexander Haslam and his colleagues. Their experiments compared the performance of
small problem solving groups (3 to 5 people) that were asked to select their
own leaders with groups that were randomly assigned a leader (i.e., a person
whose name appeared either first or last in the alphabet). These experiments involved 91 groups that
worked on one of three closely related group decision-making exercises, the
“winter survival task,” the “desert survival task,” or the “fallout survival
task.” Each of these small groups of
college students developed a strategy for ranking potentially useful items for
the particular task, and their decisions
were scored relative to expert ratings.
Both experiments showed that groups
that had randomly assigned leaders performed significantly better than those
that had selected their own leaders.
Random assignment was shown to be superior to groups that had used
either an informal process where they
selected leaders by “whatever means you see fit” or a formal process where each
group member completed 10 self-report questions on a leadership skills
inventory that had been shown to predict managerial success in prior
studies. Leaders who scored the highest
on the inventory were assigned to lead groups that used the formal process.
There were no significant differences between groups that used an informal or a
formal process. Both had inferior
performance to groups with randomly selected leaders.Haslam and his colleagues believe that
the process of selecting a leader in these experiments focused attention on
differences between group members, which undermined the group’s sense of shared
identity and purpose, which in turn, undermined performance. Instead of thinking about how to solve the
problem together, or having a “united we stand, divided we fall” mentality,
they thought about differences between them that were unrelated to the task —
like who had more prestige in the group and why. My interpretation is similar. I would add that the leaders who are given a
mandate to be in charge of a group often – without realizing – start imposing
their individual will too strongly, which can stifle the range of ideas that
are seriously considered by the group.
The researchers admit that they have suggested only one possible
explanation for these findings, and acknowledge that a random process of
selecting a leader is probably inferior to a systematic process for groups that
do other tasks. But these findings are
intriguing because they force many of us – both practitioners and researchers
– to see an old problem in a new way,
they spark the “vu ja de” mentality.
They suggest our assumptions about how to select
a leader may, at least at times, be flawed.
I am not arguing that we ought to give-up and start selecting and promoting leaders randomly. But it is interesting to consider randomness because doing so challenges our assumptions about the rationality of what we do in life Indeed, speaking of randomness, last year I heard that Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman (he won the real prize, not to Ig) was running a simulation that seemed to show that if the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies were randomly reassigned to different companies, there would be no significant impact on firm performance. I don't know what happened to that research, or even how accurate that rumor is, all I can find is this WSJ article where he chimes in on the subject. If anyone knows more, please comment.
P.S. The reference for the experiment is
Haslam, S. A, C. McGarty, R. A. Eggins,
B. E. Morrison, & K. J. Reynolds, “Inspecting the Emperor’s Clothes:
Evidence that Randomly Selected Leaders can Enhance Group Performance”, Group
Dynamics: Theory, Process and Research 2 (1998): 168-18
P.P.S. For another post on randomness, check out this one about decision-making among the Nasakpai Indians.