Category: Dignity at Work

My post earlier this week was about Morten Hansen's Collaboration, which I found to be one of the best management books that I had read in a long time. In contrast, I thought I would write about the worst workplace book that I have read in a long time, The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work by Alain de Botton, which I first heard about in The Economist in a pretty positive review that made it sound as if the book celebrated work and workers.

Unfortunately, as I read the book, I found it was really a cheeky assault on the dignity of the people who had invited the author into their lives. Although he described what they did and the complex connections among the world-wide supply chain they were part of  quite well, his apporach seemed to be to belittle and trivialize the work, character, and aspirations of the people he wrote about.

I was especially disturbed by how much he seemed to disrespect and the managers and workers who produced a biscuit (or "cookie" in American) called "Moments."  He trivialized the skills and enthusiasm of everyone involved in the complex process of developing making these biscuits. The author is a very skilled writer, so his disrespect is woven into his words with remarkable subtlety, such as in these sentences he wrote about his conversation with the "warm-hearted and garrulous" plant manager Michael Pottier:

"Years of working around noisy machinery had left my host mildly deaf in one ear and given him a concomitant habit of leaning in uncomfortably close during discussions. so close that I dreaded his enunciation of a word with a p or a g in it." 

Then de Button goes onto convey that, although he was bored with  Pottier's detailed explanations, he was struck by a "surprisingly intense pride in the plant and its workers."  Why he found such pride surprising is beyond me — these people worked hard and saw them self as producing a good product — sure, biscuit's don't save lives, but neither do most books. This kind "cheeky" humor at the expense of people who had taken the time to talk with the author and provided him with warmth and hospitality pervade the book, and at least for me, completely ruined the experience of reading what is a well-researched manuscript with fascinating information about the connections and complexity of the modern workplace. 

All in all, the book reminded me of one of my favorite Kurt Vonnegut's quotes, which I've printed here before:

“If
it weren’t for the people, the god-damn people” said Finnerty, “always getting tangled
up in the machinery. If it weren’t for them, the world would be an engineer’s
paradise.” Kurt
Vonnegut, Player Piano (1952:59)


In similar fashion, Mr. de Button seems fascinated with the machinery of modern supply chains and workplaces, but rather disgusted with the human-beings who invent and run that machinery. In reading the book, I couldn't help but think of the wonderful books I've read over the years that — although presenting warts and all views of work — still conveyed so much respect and dignity for the people doing the work, including Ben Hamper's amazing Rivethead about his life on the assembly line, Tracy Kidder's astounding Soul of a New Machine, and my favorite creativity book Orbiting the Giant Hairball. 

Perhaps I am being unfair to Mr. de Button because I don't quite get that English "cheeky" wit that runs throughout the book as I am an unsubtle American. But I have always admired the work and desire for dignity in all the workers I've studied, whether they be bill collectors, 7/Eleven clerks, nurses, teachers, hospital workers, product designers, or CEOs.  I like enthusiasm, skill, and pride in whatever human forms it takes.  And I dislike pomposity and lack of empathy in whatever forms it takes as well, and Mr. de Button chronic self-importance and clever disdain for workers of all kinds made my stomach turn as I read the often mean-spirited Pleasures and Sorrows of Work. 

P.S. To my amazement, I learned from CV Harquail's comment below that The New York Times reviewed this book in June and reached a similar conclusion. In fact, they used the exact same quote as I did above, and called it mean-spirited.  Please forgive my lack of originality and I guess this is certainly is not a scoop.  Also, see CV's comment for a bit of dirt below — apparently Mr. de Button reacted with some public hostility to the review, but later apologized.  As an author myself, I understand the feeling and have been tempted to do the same when I have received less than flattering reviews. CV thanks so much.

Check out this quiz over at Harvard Business Online by Steven DeMaio.  I especially like this last question:

10. When work makes me tired, as inevitably happens, what kind of tired feeling is it?
A. usually the good kind, like exercise gives you
B. it varies — sometimes a good kind, sometimes bad
C. the kind that makes you feel sad, lazy, useless, or angry

This blog is funny, sad, useful, and tells many truths.  John, one of the folks who does the blog, is an unemployed filmmaker who started it after being laid-off.  It is remarkably create and professional. For starters, take a look at Michael Spafferty's Video Resume. 

I wrote a few months back about some intriguing research on the power of gratitude, showing that people who kept "gratitude journals," (keeping track of the good things that happen to them and things that they appreciate in life) not only reported better physical and mental health, their partners also noticed it as well (including reports that they slept better). A new study shows that the positive effect of gratitude on signs of well-being such as mastery, relationships with others, and self-acceptance happen over and above personality factors.  Similar to the study of gratitude journals, this study by Alex Wood and his colleagues suggests, that regardless of one's personality, taking time to notice and appreciate the good things in life can help all of us.  This strikes as me as an especially  important finding given the difficult times.

Here is the source and the abstract for those of you who want to know more:

Wood, A. M; Joseph, S; Maltby, J "Gratitude uniquely predicts satisfaction with life: Incremental
validity above the domains and facets of the five factor model"   Personality and Individual Differences, 45:54-60.

ABSTRACT
This study tests whether gratitude predicts psychological well-being
above both the domains and facets of the five factor model.
Participants (N = 201) completed the NEO PI-R measure of the 30
facets of the Big Five, the GQ-6 measure of trait gratitude, and the
scales of psychological well-being. Gratitude had small correlations
with autonomy (r = .17), and medium to large correlations with
environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relationships, purpose
in life, and self-acceptance (rs ranged from .28 to .61). After
controlling for the 30 facets of the Big Five, gratitude explained a
substantial amount of a unique variance in most aspects of
psychological well-being (r_equivalent = .14 to .25).
Gratitude is concluded to be uniquely important to psychological
well-being, beyond the effect of the Big Five facets.

P.S. Also, the senior author of this study, Alex Wood at The University of Manchester has done a lot of cool of research on gratitude that is listed on his web page. 

Today’s New York Times business section had a front page article about Zingerman’s, called A Corner Deli With International Appeal. I have fond memories of Zingerman’s, as it opened when I was a doctoral student in Organizational Psychology at The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor Michigan back in the early 1980’s.  I thought it was one the greatest places I had ever been, with fantastic sandwiches, delicacies from all over the world, and a great staff.  But I hadn’t followed it very closely over the years.

I do recall that, even in the early days, The New York Times called it the greatest deli outside of New York City.  But until I read the article and did a bit more homework, I hadn’t realized that this little deli –which still exists in an unassuming part of town — was now part of a 30 million dollar a year business with over 500 employees.  Founder’s Paul Saginaw and Ari Wienzweig remain the owners and remain dedicated to quality ingredients of all kinds, and expanded to other areas including a brisk mail order business and other areas including their own brand of coffee.  Now they are world renowned for their quality foods, and many people trek to Ann Arbor to visit the deli rather than The University of Michigan. That little deli now brings in about 10 million a year.  Even though it it is still almost impossible to park nearby, the deli remains the emotional and financial heart of the business. What I was most taken with, however, is that that Saginaw and Wienzweig have grown this business by focusing in the quality of their products and service, and on treating their employees very well, and treating profit as a secondary goal.   

They share their financial results with everyone, including in the newsletter for customers.  They make modest margins because they buy expensive ingredients and treat their suppliers fairly, are so devoted to quality in other ways, and give so much back to their employees (the return this year on their deli’s 10 million was 5% and, on the mail order business’s 8 million, was 3.5%). As the Times reports:

Along with hourly wages, vacation time (as much as six weeks after
20 years), health and dental care and food discounts, full-time
employees receive “gain sharing,” which pays out if their part of the
company exceeds its annual business plan……The
structure also helps explain why margins remain low even as revenue has
risen. To pay employees, support local producers and contribute to the
community, “a big piece of it is charging enough money,” Mr. Weinzweig
said.

After living in Silicon Valley so long, where there is so much greed, and just about everyone seems focused on squeezing every cent of everyone around them — employees, customers, suppliers — Zingerman’s is a refreshing reminder that financial greed isn’t always the first priority for every owner and manager.  It reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut’s poem Joe Heller, which as I have written here before, Vonnegut allowed me to reprint in The No Asshole Rule.   Paul Saginaw and Ari Wienzweig seem to believe, like Joe Heller (the author of Catch 22) did, that they have enough, and that using their talents to create something beautiful and to give back along the way is a better thing than maximizing their personal wealth at every turn. Indeed, the article ends with two great points from the founders:

But Mr. Saginaw said profit, in itself, was not Zingerman’s
motivation. “We’ve had dozens and dozens of opportunities to franchise,
sell the name, take the check and walk away,” Mr. Saginaw said.

Instead,
Mr. Weinzweig said, the idea was to create a special experience. “Our
goal in 2020 is to leave our world better than it was when we came
here,” he said.

P.S. In addition to The New York Times article, check out this INC article on Zingerman’s, called The Coolest Small Company in America

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."