Work Matters

Category: Bosses

  • Good Boss, Bad Times on McKinsey Quarterly’s Top Ten for 2009

    Earlier in the year, some of you may recall that I published an article in the Harvard Business Review called "How to Be a Good Boss in a Bad Economy" and — to my amazement — the folks at the McKinsey Quarterly (who are sort of competitors with HBR)  not only posted a video interview with me about the article, when HBR published the article online, they provided a link to the McKinsey video and in turn McKinsey provided a link to the HBR story.  Well, McKinsey just announced that the video — called Good Boss, Bad Times — was among their most popular for 2009. The video is free, as McKinsey has a different business model than Harvard, which charges you for content (after giving you a free taste).

    I thought the comments in response at McKinsey were most thoughtful. In particular, Frank Shoniker, who is President of SBT Media in Canada wrote in October, 2009:

    Well, back on June 10th
    I commented on the emotion of dealing with having to let people go. Who
    knew that less than a month later it would be my turn! With an
    experience less than ideal, I can only offer advice on what makes a
    “good boss” vs. a “toxic boss”. I can sum it up in 6 questions:
    1. Do you make decisions in isolation?
    2. Do you have your staff’s “back”?
    3. Do you put yourself in the “other guys shoes”?
    4. Do you trust others?
    5. Do you listen to the contrarians?
    6. Are your ideas always the best?
    If you answered honestly, all you bosses out there, you
    will know where there are areas for improvement. I leave you with what
    I hope my staff continue to think about me, that I was predicable,
    understanding, that I gave them some control over their business lives,
    and that I was compassionate. At the end of the day we all have to live
    with ourselves.

    I found this both brilliant and touching, and I appreciate Frank's willingness to share his wisdom.

    As I look forward to the new year, I am hoping that things improve enough that, perhaps by Fall, that  I will be pitching articles and videos to places like HBR and McKinsey on "How to Be a Good Boss in a Good Economy."

    P.S. It seems like there are still some free downloads left of the HBR article (they give a limited number to authors to give away).  Please let me know if it doesn't work and I will take down this note.  Try here for the pdf:

    http://custom.hbsp.com/b01/en/implicit/p.jhtml?login=SUTT052609S&pid=R0906E

  • Work Matters: The Best of 2009

    I tried to resist the temptation to do one of these "best of" lists, but I succumbed as I started looking back at posts from the year. As I looked back at this year versus last, I realized that the focus on workplace assholes that was so strong when I started this blog in 2006 has faded quite a bit, and I tend to focus more broadly on workplace and management issues. Sure, I still talk about assholes (I have accepted that, no matter what else I ever have done or will do, I will always be "the asshole guy").  Yet, no doubt because it is the theme of my next book, I now talk more about bosses — what it takes to be a good one, the difference between good ones and bad ones, and a host of related topics. 

    I picked my favorite from each month. I usually picked a post that generated a lot of comments. I always appreciate the comments that people make, and I thought that they were better than ever this year — so I thought it would also be fun to pick my favorite comment on each post.  I know this runs long; sorry,  I am professor who is prone to profess too much!

    January: Eleanor Roosevelt vs. Randy Komisar on Failure.  This post was inspired by two opposing quotes, which are contradictory, but — I believe — both true.  'The first is from former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt: "Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself." This has to be true. But serial entrepreneur, serial author, and venture capitalist Randy Komisar also made a compelling case when he argued "yes, you can learn from others, but  "the only way to really, really get your money's worth, is to do it yourself" because "nothing else creates that hollow feeling in your stomach."  

    This post generated 10 thoughtful comments.  My favorite was from John, who wisely pointed out "I also know a few airplane pilots. They are definitely in Eleanor Roosevelt's camp. It may depend on how onerous the penalties for failure are." 

    February: CEO Compensation Research : Why You Want Rich People to Set Your Pay.   I picked this one because CEO compensation has been such a hot topic.  This post summarizes a study by Charles O'Reilly and his colleagues that shows — independently of firm performance and size — the more money that people on the CEO's compensation committee make, the more they pay the CEO. Essentially, people use themselves as the standard to set pay.  Here is a key sentence from the post " O'Reilly and his colleagues report that for every $100,000 that
    the average member of the compensation committee is paid, the CEO's pay
    goes up another $51,000 per year."

     Of the eight comments, I especially liked Murthy's (a former student) detailed response, which ends with "When you become an investor, your
    job is to help and support companies to increase their shareholder
    value. Bashing them or their leadership to the public does not increase
    your shareholder value. If anything, it creates essentially the same
    emotional dynamic that any of us have when we have a jerk for a boss.
    So maybe a little less "I think wall street sucks" and a little more "I
    believe in the American financial system" would be useful for the
    morale of those companies as well as the morale of the country in
    general."

    March: My Final Exam Question: Can You Answer It?  This was about the final exam question that I have been using in my introduction to organizational behavior class for over a decade — in fact, Murthy answered it when he was student.  I will be using it again next term: "Design the ideal organization. Use course concepts to defend your answer."  For years, I told the students that it was really hard and I would have trouble answering.  I realized that I finally did answer it a few years back when I wrote The No Asshole Rule. Every year, I wonder if I should try something else, but then every year the best answers are so good that I can't resist asking it again.

    I suggested that, while the students get 3000 words, and The No Asshole Rule ran over 40,000 words, that if I was forced to write something short, I would say ""A place where people are competent, civilized, and cooperative — and
    tell the truth rather than spewing out lies and bullshit."  I would also add that this is pretty similar to how I define a good boss in my new book.

    The best part of this post were the 24 comments that people made about their vision of an ideal organization.  I can't resist picking two because they were so good. Whitney wrote "My ideal organization is one where I can have more positive impact in the world than I can accomplish on my own.I've worked for both kinds of companies. I left my last employer
    because group work took everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
    Where I work now, 1 + 1 usually adds to 3."  And Hayli wins the brevity award "Fewer meetings, more teamwork."

    April: A Well-Crafted Critique of Business "Success" Books and My Ambivalence About Good to Great.  This post was about Drake Bennett's article in the Boston Globe, which reviewed the weak evidence that underpins many management bestsellers — especially Good to Great.  Drake included a quote from me, ""There's value in mastering the obvious," he says. "If Jim Collins's
    impact is to get people to do stuff that they know they should do
    already – facing the hard truths or being selfless or whatever – I
    certainly don't think that's a bad thing." 

    As I explained in the post, I do think that Collins book is a good read and has helped many managers do a better job, but as someone who believes in and has written about evidence-based management, I am disturbed by the book because it makes such excessive claims about the quality of the research and newness of the ideas.  As I wrote in the post "ironically, this book about the virtues of modest leaders reveals considerable hubris in its claims." 

    Of the nine comments, I thought that Glenn's was especially thoughtful " I debate
    this with 'Collins Disciples' all the time. Also, I believe what adds
    to the issue is that too many people have stopped thinking. They read a
    book, follow it blindly, and believe they have all the answers. When
    they should read it, apply some critical thinking to see if and how it
    applies to their situation, then implement as appropriate." 

    May: Of Baboons and Bosses. This post dug into a claim in my June 2009 HBR article on "How to Be a Good Boss in a Bad Economy" that "the typical member looks at the the alpha make every 20 to 30 seconds to see what he is doing."  I linked this to research showing that subordinates are often hyper-focused on every little move that their bosses make — something that many bosses are remarkably oblivious to and that undermines their ability to lead effectively. 

    Of the five comments, I liked John Foster's best, notably his reminder that "leaders
    should always remember they are on stage, being "looked at" for cues.
    It's a powerful way to create movement or change."

    June: The Selfish Superstar Inventory.  The aim of this post was to ask for questions and ideas for a survey I was developing to assess if an organization breeds and rewards — or punishes and expels — selfish backstabbing superstars.  I suggested statements indicating that people who get ahead in such organizations do things like "stomp on colleagues on the way to the top" and "Are always loved by their superiors, but often despised
    by their peers and subordinates." 

    The 17 comments in response to this post were especially wonderful. My favorites include many on Tory's long list including "Scrub subordinates names from their work before passing it up the chain," Ed's "If a project fails, I don't feel bad if my part of it was successful," and Stu's 'Believe in the 30 Rock mantra, "I'm going to get mine!"'  A descendant of the "SSI" will appear in my new book and I will put out an online version around the time the book is published.  I used a lot of the suggestions, so thanks everyone!

    July: You Know Your Boss is A Certified Asshole When…..  I was inspired to write this post both because the ARSE continues to be completed by so many people (it is now well over 200,000 completions) and by a note I got from an executive who had an asshole boss that her kids called Mr. GIANT BUTTHOLE."  The responses to this questions from readers who wonderful, including Lesa's "Making a
    staff person drive 80 miles round trip at 9:00 pm at night to a
    client's house to get a (non-essential, non-urgent) signature because
    "we do whatever it takes to get the job done."  I also cringed at Ergoboy's "    He
    corners every employee that you work with and interrogates them looking
    for dirt on you. Any possible dust particle gets wildly exaggerated,
    documented, and then shown to you on a write-up." 

    August: Wal-Mart and Girl Scout Cookies: Thin Minty Gate.  This post was inspired by CV Harquail's story about how Wal-Mart was test-marketing imitations of two of the best-selling Girl Scout cookies — a post that generated a lot of national media attention.  I expressed disgust with Wal-Mart's actions and I especially focused on why it was a bad business decision for them, taste and ethics aside.  I also warned readers that I was biased because my wife, Marina Park, is CEO of the Northern California Girl Scouts. I thought Cecelia summed it up well "The most
    important issue in this article is the community responsibility Walmart
    carries. (Or lack thereof in this case). It is in bad taste to go into
    direct competition with an organization they work closely with in order
    to provide a safe place for these girls to fund-raise. In communities
    where Walmart is already established, their profits exceed that of the
    local Girl Scout troop by a disgusting amount."  

    September:  What are the Dumbest Practices Used By U.S. Companies?   This one was pretty fun, as I asked for ideas for a speech I was going to give in Singapore. I started with three: 1. Dangerous complexity; 2. Dysfunctional internal competition, and 3. Breaking-up teams constantly.  Then 27 great comments roared in, including Pat's wise 'Rewarding Firefighters not Fire Inspectors.In other words, the people spotting the problems and fixing them
    before the "fire" do not get rewards. The "firefighters" who rush and
    put out fires in progress do get reward.'  I also loved Patricia's "Killing the messenger" and Rodney's ""When the
    risk of making a decision for employees inside the organization is
    considered to be greater than the benefit of making one."  I can't resist one more, Wally has made a lot of great comments this year, including "    We hope
    for magical leadership instead of developing good systems. When we do
    develop systems we favor the engineered and the technological over the
    human and common-sensical."

    October: The post that probably had the most content was Challenging Ingrained Assumptions at HR, which summarized the short speech I ultimately gave in Singapore — and the 27 comments were great.  Dblwyo, for example,  was tough but (often) on target when he argued that "HR like many other functional specialties, e.g. IT and logistics, doesn't have more clout because it hasn't earned it."

    But I can't resist picking Art Imitates Life: The Muffin Incident on Entourage as the best post.   In this scene on the HBO show, my favorite TV asshole, Ari Gold fires an assistant for bringing him the wrong muffin — which is exactly what (according to the Wall Street Journal) Academy Award winning Producer Scott Rudin did to one of his assistants. There were only two comments, but I thought Tony summed-up Ari well "I am also
    a big fan of Ari Gold from Entourage. It is funny how such an
    ego-centric, manipulative character can be so interesting. Working with
    someone with his personality would be a nightmare but his aggressive
    drive is impressive." 

    November: Your Lack of Planning is Not My Emergency.   This is a saying I love.  This post generated seven comments, I especially liked Flint's comment "Or the corollary, "If everything is an emergency, then nothing is."  This was also the month where I did a bunch of posts on testosterone — including the study that showed young men who drive a new Porsche respond with higher levels but not when they drive an old Toyota Camry station wagon. 

    December: The Boss's Journey.  It was my last post, but it was my favorite because the comments were so good.   My argument was that  'As psychologist William Schutz
    explained, “Understanding evolves through three phases: simplistic, complex,
    and profoundly simple.”'  I suggested that      bosses might follow much the same journey. Wally, as usual, was spot on, commenting that  'Most
    "leadership development" programs are isolated courses that don't
    recognize that leadership development is cumulative. If you can help
    less experienced supervisors learn, use peer support to help them get
    vicarious experience, and teach them to use feedback and mentors, you
    can help them develop faster and more effectively.    '  

    The Good Cop, Bad Cop Technique also generated some great comments, notably "culture guru," who reported "You just
    explained our parenting style, added at least another 10 years to our
    already 22 year old marriage, and have removed my final resistance to
    going into business with my husband."

    Congratulations if you have read this far. I suspect this is my longest post of the year.

    It's been quite a year. And now I am not the only blogger in the family.  My wife, Marina Park, now blogs regularly at SF Gate, the online arm of the San Francisco Chronicle, in the City Brights Section. I especially liked her recent post on Small Steps to Make the World a Better Place.

    I started writing Work Matters in June 2006. It  passed one million page views this year (1125533 as of this moment, with a lifetime average of 863 page views per day.)  It now includes 815 posts and 3195 of your comments.  Thanks for reading my stuff and thanks for all those wonderful comments.

    I hope you and yours have a happy new year.



  • The Boss’s Journey: The Path to Simplicity and Competence

    Being a great boss is a lot tougher than it looks. 
    I realized this a few months back when one of my former students came back to
    chat.  When he took my introduction to organizational behavior class, he
    routinely ripped apart his former bosses and many bosses we studied in class,
    calling them “lazy,” “idiotic,” and “incompetent.”  He sure changed his
    tune after getting his first job as a boss — heading a small product
    development team.   During our conversation, he admitted that he
    needed “a little therapy” and confessed “This is really a tough job.  I am
    confused and keep screwing-up.    ”

    This new boss was in the second phase of the journey
    required to develop true expertise in any craft. As psychologist William Schutz
    explained, “Understanding evolves through three phases: simplistic, complex,
    and profoundly simple.”  (I have written about Schutz before, see this
    post    ). This process means, as my distraught student learned, being a great boss
    seems deceptively easy at first blush.  But no boss can master the craft
    without traveling through a purgatory of uncertainty and confusion.  The
    best bosses also realize that, although the stretches of confusion become
    shorter and less frequent over time, this quest for deep understanding never
    ends.  There is no magic cure or shortcut that will instantly transform youy into a skilled
    boss.  But I do believe – following Schutz’s model – that path becomes
    easier if you devote yourself to the relentless pursuit of simple competence     (a
    theme I expand on in my     BusinessWeek
    essay     published earlier in the year).

    My view is that great bosses realize there will always be
    times when they are overwhelmed and baffled, that confronting and wallowing
    through excessive complexity is necessary for developing useful rather than
    useless simplifications.   Yet no matter how bewildered great bosses
    might be at a given moment, they strive to develop a simple mindset and master
    seemingly obvious moves.  The result is that, if you talk to the best
    bosses about their craft, they often make it seem so simple — P&G’s AG Lafley
    being exhibit one here.     After all, this
    clear thinking and elegant expression are the fruits of their labors. 
    This is why, when you ask great bosses about the “secrets” of their success,
    they usually answer there is no mystery; they are     just doing their jobs. 

    This perspective is based on some theory and research,
    but of course, it is just an opinion colored by my biases and the quirks of my
    experience. What do you think?  Does it fit your view of the boss’s
    journey. Also, what important parts have I left out?

  • Guys List of the Top Ten Candidates to Run GM

    Guy Kawasaki has applied his usual charm and delightfully twisted sense of humor to develop a list of 10 candidates to run GM. Here are Guy's top three, but don't miss the list:

    1. Steve Jobs (Apple). GM would create the most
    beautiful cars, but you’d need to refill it once a day. You could only
    buy accessories from the GM store after Phil Schiller approved them.
    Gas pumps would need new nozzles because Steve mandated non-standard
    gas-tank fittings.

    2. Steve Ballmer (Microsoft). GM cars would look
    similar to those of German and Italian marques, but it would be seven
    revisions into the car’s lifecycle before they ran decently.

    3. Sarah Palin (Unemployed). Palin would introduce
    cars that you couldn’t brake or steer called Rogues. Shotgun racks
    would be a factory option on the Cheney model. However, before they
    ship, she would resign. When Katie Couric asked her which car magazines
    she read, she responded, “Most of ‘em.”

    Also, I was thinking that a serious candidate might be Xerox's Anne Mulcahy, as she led one of the toughest turnarounds in recent U.S. history. Plus all the men have failed at this job, so perhaps it is time to try the other gender! Or, perhaps Carly Fiorina could do this instead of running for the Senate in California to demonstrate that she can keep and flourish in a job where she P& L responsibilities — something she didn't demonstrate at HP.  And if Carly failed, she could have the special distinction of having been thrown under the bus by both John McCain and Barack Obama!

  • Working for an “Impossible Boss:” Is the Only Option to Suffer in Silence Until You Can Escape?

    I was just reading a compelling and heavily research based by psychologist Robert Hogan called Personality and the Fate of Organizations.  In Hogan's chapter on "The Psychology of Managerial Incompetence," he cites an interesting study by by McCall and Lomdardo (see this book for a summary of much of it) where they had interviewed a large number of managers about "career defining events."  Every manager reported that they had spent a long stretch "working for an impossible boss, not difficult, cranky, or abusive, but impossible."  So their first conclusion is that just about every adult will have to work for an impossible boss at some point.  The researchers reached a second conclusion that troubles me, "when working for an intolerable boss, if a  person sticks up for him or herself and refuses to bullied,  his or her career will be irreparably damaged.  When working for an awful boss, a person's only option is to suffer in silence."  

    I was taken aback by this advice. It certainly isn't always wrong, as I suggest on my list of tips, there are times where the best option when working for a bad boss is to suck it up and take it — and get out as fast as you can. But there are just too many examples — and research too — about how trampled underlings have successfully fought back against abusive and incompetent bosses.  A couple famous cases come to mind right away — Brad Bird now of Pixar fame and Robert Townsend, the author of the classic Up The Organization — indeed, Bird's case, he was hired by Pixar in part because he had no tolerance for incompetent authority figures; indeed, his past firing from Disney was career enhancing move. 

    These guys ultimately succeeded, in part, because they fought back against bosses they did not think were competent.  I also have had several longstanding email exchanges with people who are now CEOs because they fought back against and ousted their incompetent and mean-spirited predecessors.   In The No Asshole Rule,  I do emphasize that if you have an asshole boss, sometimes the best thing to do it is become emotionally detached and not let it touch your soul. But I also argue that there are times you can fight back, and when underlings band together and fight back — and practice some skilled politics — they can win against a bad boss, and help rather than damage their careers too.

    I should also add that, although the typical person stuck with an impossible boss might be better off riding out the storm in silence and turning the other cheek, if everyone followed this advice, bad bosses would never be punished, reformed, and fired and terrible decisions would never be stopped.  If you haven't read Michael Lewis' story about AIG, this might be a good time to do it.  He presents well-researched evidence that one reason that AIG messed up so badly was they had an "impossible" boss named Joe Cassano running their Financial Products unit, who was intolerant of dissent, and those who tried to stand-up to him learned it was better not to and left, leaving only people who didn't fight back, suffered his tirades in silence, and said things like "Joe, you are right."  The article estimates this unit lost about 45 billion dollars, and suggests that the fear that Cassano instilled in his followers was a large contributing factor.  I wonder, are those underlings who suffered in silence really better off now — not to mention U.S. taxpayers who have loaned AIG nearly 200 billion bucks.

    That's my reaction. What do you think?

    1. Is this advice right?  If you have an impossible boss, is it usually is a career-limiting move to fight back?

    2. How do you know when to fight versus when to keep your head down and escape as fast as you can?

    3. What is the best way to fight back?

  • Jeff Pfeffer on the Misguided Lust for Outside CEOs as Saviors

    Jeff Pfeffer has an inspired post over at BNET in which he reviews the evidence — and tells some evidence-based stories — about how companies that become enamored with the magic of an outside CEO who can ride in on his or her white horse and save the day are deluding themselves.  Jeff relies in part on Harvard Business School Professor's Rakesh Khurana's well-crafted Searching for the Corporate Savior.  As Pfeffer notes, and as we discuss in our book Hard Facts, that — although there are very vivid stories of outside saviors, notably Gerstner at IBM, the track record for outsiders is generally weak.  As one example, Boris Groysberg's research on GE executives who became CEOs of other companies found that, on average, their new companies performed well-below the industry average. This effect was especially pronounced when their past experience did not fit those skills required for the new company (This finding was reversed when there was a good fit. Boris reports that a good fit was associated with performing about 15% above the expected industry average, something called "annualized abnormal returns;" while those companies that had a GE CEO who didn't fit performed about 40% below average). 

    The upshot, as Jeff and I suggested in The Knowing-Doing Gap, is that the best CEOs and other bosses have the experience and skill required to run their businesses — and insiders have an upper-hand in the typical case.  Compare Xerox's former CEO and now Chair Anne Mulchay to HP's fired Carly Fiorina. Anne had numerous different jobs at Xerox and had been there more that 20 years. And she is widely praised by insiders as a good listener.  Note that Carly not only had a tendency to become bored with the details of running HP's business, Fortune reported that she had never had any P&L responsibility in prior jobs before becoming HP CEO. Moreover, Carly, although brilliant, was known to be a lousy listener when it came to talking to insiders, and instead preferred  to rely on consultants. When Mark Hurd came in, one of the first things he did was to fire hundreds of them.  During Carly's reign, I once was at Silicon Valley party where I was talking with a disgusted high-ranking HP insider who was complaining that Carly — who is charismatic and inspiring — was perfectly suited to politics because there are no real deliverables, which fit her skills perfectly!  I guess Carly figured that out too, as she is now running for the U.S. Senate in California.

  • Your Lack of Planning is Not My Emergency

    I have no idea who first said this, but I've always liked it. I first heard it from my friend and co-author Jeff Pfeffer. Unfortunately, it reflects a hallmark of a certain of bad boss. They keep their people in a constant state of suspense and paranoia because they keep springing one vile surprise after another on them — and then act like their followers are difficult or incompetent when they resist or protest such absurd last minute demands.

  • Asshole Boss of the Year?

    There is always a lot competition for this title. But (courtesy of Gawker and a tip from Scott), Vadim Ponorovsky, who owns the restaurant Paradou in Manhattan, appears to have won the prize.  Here is the email he sent to his staff, which was forwarded to Gawker:

    To All,

    Please read this email carefully. This is the last time we will be discussing this.

    This weekend, saturday and sunday we had 451 customers. Guess how
    many emails we collected? 60? 80? 40? No. None of those. We, or more
    acurately you, collected 2 emails. Thats less than half of one percent.
    2 fucking emails.

    WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU ASSHOLES?!?!?! How many times do we
    have to tell you how important it is that you collect emails. Everytime
    we have a slow night and you make no money and you sit there bitching
    about how you make no money, remember its because youre fucking lazy
    motherfuckers. YOU SHOULD ALL BE FIRED IMMEDIATELY!!!!! ALL OF YOU,
    INCLUDING THE HOSTS!!!!

    Let me guess, youre probably sitting there saying "Vadim is such a
    fucking asshole. How dare he speak to me like this. I dont need this."
    Youre right, you dont, so why dont you get the fuck out. Any and all of
    you.

    Youre probably sitting there saying "How dare he speak to me like
    this. How dare he not have respect for me". Youre right there also. I
    have absolutely no respect for any of you. Why? Because every fucking
    day, all of you continue to show that you have absolutely no respect
    for me or Alex. So if you dont respect us enough to do the little that
    we ask you to do, then GET THE FUCK OUT YOU FUCKING LAZY DISRESPECTFUL
    ASSHOLES!!!!!

    Effective immediately, any server or host who fails to collect at
    least 20 emails per week, will be fined $100. Anyone failing to collect
    at least 20 emails for two weeks in a month will be fired immediately.
    No matter what. No matter who you are.

    You dont want to do your job, you dont want to do what we ask, you dont belong at Paradou. Go find another place to work.

    How dare you disrespect Alex and me this way. How dare you completely ignore what we ask of you time after time after time.

    I am sick of all this shit, you bunch of fucking children. This is
    what I have to deal with at 6AM?!?!? I wouldnt tolerate this from my 13
    year old, and Im sure as shit not going to tolerate it from any of you
    assholes.

    You give no respect, you get 10 times back.

    If you can top that, let me know.

    P.S. There are all sorts of subsequent actions here, from a defense by the owner (with more F words and a claim that he practicing Reagonomics) and apparently there are death threats against him.  See here, here, and here.

  • Leaders get the behavior they display and tolerate

    I was at a gathering of HR managers and executives yesterday held at Pixar, and one of the participants made this observation at one point. Frankly, there were a lot of people and we kept rotating among groups, so although I write it down quickly so I wouldn't lose it, I got so lost in thought about it that by the time I looked-up, we were all rotating to different groups and I lost rack of who said it.  I will try to figure out who it was — yes, it is an oversimplification, but one of the most compelling ones I've heard.  I especially like that word "tolerate" as it conveys the subtle notion that there are often many things that happen in the workplaces that bosses don't try to discourage or stop because they have so much other stuff to do, they don't know how to go about stopping it, they believe they have more pressing matters to deal with, or they just don't have the emotional energy to deal with. 

    Then,  I started thinking about this quote again when I was watching The Office last night and saw how the tolerant Jim (now co-manager) brilliantly dealt with a level of defiance and screwing around by Ryan that he couldn't tolerate by assigning him to an office in closet (see the episode here on Hulu).

  • Testosterone Levels, Top Dogs, and Collective Group Confidence

    My favorite behavioral science website, BPS Research Digest, posted a summary of an amazingly weird and rather troubling psychological experiment.  The upshot is that people — both men and women — vary in testosterone levels and (no surprise), when people with high testosterone levels aren't in leadership positions, "they can find it stressful and uncomfortable when denied the status that they crave."  A bit more surprising is that the reverse is true as well, that "people low in testosterone find it uncomfortable to be placed in positions of authority." The main finding from the research is that when groups suffer from "mismatch" between status and testosterone levels (where those with high testosterone levels are placed at the bottom of the pecking order, and those with low levels are placed at the top), the group has less confidence in its abilities get things done.  I quote from the BPS summary:

    Michael Zyphur and colleagues
    assigned 92 groups of between 4 and 7 undergrads to an on-going task
    that involved meeting twice a week for 12 weeks, and included creating
    a professional management-training video. Six weeks into the project
    the researches measured the participants' testosterone levels via
    saliva samples. They also asked all members in each group to vote on
    each others' status. Then six weeks after that, at the end of the
    project, the researchers measured each group's collective efficacy by
    summing members' confidence in their group's ability to succeed.

    The
    key finding was that groups made up of members whose status was out of
    synch with their testosterone level tended to have the lowest
    collective efficacy. The researchers think that testosterone-status
    mismatch within a group probably has a detrimental effect on that
    group's collective confidence. However, another possibility, which they
    acknowledge, is that a lack of group confidence leads to a mismatch
    between testosterone levels and status among group members.

    The implication is fairly horrifying — perhaps companies will start using testosterone levels to make decisions about whether or not to put people in leadership positions.  Even if it is "evidence-based" (although these results are preliminary), the thought makes me a bit sick. 

    Here is the reference:

    Zyphur,
    M., Narayanan, J., Koh, G., & Koh, D. (2009). Testosterone–status
    mismatch lowers collective efficacy in groups: Evidence from a
    slope-as-predictor multilevel structural equation model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110 (2), 70-79.