Work Matters

Category: Evidence-based Management

  • Taking The Path of Most Resistance: The Virtues

    I am blogging only intermittently as I am pretty focused on reading, talking to people, and generally fretting, worrying, and trying to structure the book on scaling constructive action that Huggy Rao and I are trying to write. I have been reading everything from psychological experiments on how different metaphors affect our perceptions and action, to studies of the mathematical and administrative challenges of scaling computer systems, to research on cities of different sizes (especially some interesting stuff that suggests bigger is better). But the area where scaling has been studied perhaps most directly is in  education, including studies of how to replicate great charter schools and how to substitute effective practices for ineffective practices in large school systems.  

    This weekend, I read an old (1993) but excellent study commissioned by the Casey foundation on what it takes comprehensive school reform in large school systems.  I was taken with its counter-intuitive title "The Path of Most Resistance"  (see the PDF here), in part, because it ran counter to some of the (evidence-based) assumptions that we have developed about scaling, including the notion that scaling depends on finding ways to simplify things and reduce cognitive load on people, and the notion that changes that are consistent with local cultures and traditions are easier to implement than those that run counter to embedded beliefs. 

    As I read the report, however, I realized that the authors agreed with some of these points, as they weren't arguing that leaders should TRY to make things harder on themselves, but rather, to do large scale change right, there argument was that a lot of very hard things need to get done.  They argued that taking the easy way out — expecting instant results; not taking the time to engage with parents, students, administrators, local politicians and other key crucial actors; doing it on the cheap; expecting everything to go smoothly–  and a host other "easy solutions  — simply weren't realistic or wise for would-be change agents. The examples of successful large scale change they examined all took pretty much the opposite approach — there was a lot of patience and a long term perspective, time was taken to involve major constituencies, lots of resources were devoted to the effort, and a host of other tactics that entailed doing things the hard way rather than the easy way. 

    More broadly, I think it is intriguing to use their title to flip assumptions about change.  Sometimes the tougher road is the better road, as people go in with a more realistic mindset, they are ready for setbacks,  and expect to spend the time and money necessary.  And, as an added bonus, any social psychologist will tell you that the more effort and sacrifice people make toward something, the more committed they will be to it.   Indeed, as I watch successful innovators — ranging from the teams we teach at Stanford's design school to Pixar's amazing journey — the most successful tend to have this "it is going to be tough, but I can and will do it" mindset.

    On the other hand, I think there is an important caveat, one the Jeff Pfeffer and I have written about in Hard Facts. One of the impediments to successful change is that people use the belief that "it is difficult and takes a long time" to avoid trying to make necessary changes at all.  Or, worse yet, they  propose a long-term change process, but only start working on it just before the "due date" — perhaps proposing a two-year project, but doing all the work in the final months (much like my students who, even though I assign a paper months in advance, don't start it until the night before).  In addition, there are many constructive changes that are not difficult and do not take a long time — such as changing small rules or procedures, experimenting with a new and delimited program, and so on.   Unfortunately, all too often, large scale change is slowed or stopped because people delay or fail to complete the array of small and easy steps required to accomplish any large change (In other words, they fail to focus on the daily small wins).

    Finally, there is an old but interesting lesson in creative thinking here, one consistent with the notion of "having strong opinions, weakly held."  The challenges of doing successful change look a lot different when you assume that "taking the path of least resistance" is best versus assuming that "taking the path of most resistance" is best.  Indeed, although they are pretty much exact opposites, you can learn a lot about change when you look for conditions under which each statement is true and false.  More generally, a good way to spark creativity is to take your most dearly held assumptions and ask "suppose the opposite were true?"

     

  • Caffeine: It Undermines Performance on Collaborative Tasks for Men, Enhances It For Women

    I can't believe that I missed this study reported by BPS research last January.  Way cool.  It compared the performance of men working in pairs to women working pairs.  The researchers placed them under performance pressure, and varied whether they drank caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee.   The "caffeinated" men performed worse, while the women performed better.  Here is the opening paragraph from BPS, which suggested that the stimulant has these varying effects because, when cranked-up physiologically, people tend towered their most natural and well-rehearsed behavior — which means that men get more aggressive and women become more collaborative:

    If a meeting becomes stressful, does it help, or make things worse, if team members drink lots of coffee? A study by Lindsay St. Claire and colleagues that set out to answer this question has uncovered an unexpected sex difference. For two men collaborating or negotiating under stressful circumstances, caffeine consumption was bad news, undermining their performance and confidence. By contrast, for pairs of women, drinking caffeine often had a beneficial effect on these same factors. The researchers can't be sure, but they think the differential effect of caffeine on men and women may have to do with the fact that women tend to respond to stress in a collaborative, mutually protective style (known as 'tend and befriend') whereas men usually exhibit a fight or flight response.

    Clearly, this is a "more research is needed" situation.  But, if it generalizes to real life, the implication is that, if you are running a meeting and it is attended by all women, give them caffeinated drinks, but if it is all men, or perhaps a blend of men and women, given them the decaf if you want cooperation and better performance.  

    Here is the reference:

    St. Claire, L., Hayward, R., and Rogers, P. (2010). Interactive Effects of Caffeine Consumption and Stressful Circumstances on Components of Stress: Caffeine Makes Men Less, But Women More Effective as Partners Under Stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40 (12), 3106-3129 DOI:

  • Dan Heath: Thinking About “Feelings” Not “Rationality” Provokes Ethical Action

    Earlier this week, I happend to be on the same plane with Chip Heath of Made to Stick and Switch fame, a friend I have known for years, long before either of us were writing books and we were focused only on writing academic articles. There was a long flight delay (apparently due to red tape at American Airlines, at least that was what the pilot complained about repeatedly.. I guess communication is a problem at AA as he said "we are always the last know" several times.. and in fact the AA website posted the correct departure time before he was informed of it). 

    So we had a lot of time to talk.  We talked a lot about the new books we are each trying to write and traded ideas about studies and stories that might help one another develop our ideas. 

    At one point, Chip told me about an intriguing study that his brother (and co-author) Dan had written about in Fast Company in 2009, one that I found fascinating.  The upshot is that people who were instructed to to rely on their "gut feelings" were far more ethical than those who were instructed to be "rational" and disregard their emotions.

    This is Dan's lovely summary — go here for the rest of the story:

    Consider a provocative series of experiments conducted by Chen-Bo Zhong of the University of Toronto. He put test subjects into interactions with an anonymous partner where they had two options: to treat their partners fairly or to lie to them. If they decided to lie, they would gain at the expense of their partners.

    Before making the decision to cheat or be fair, the test subjects were given some guidance. Some were encouraged to think rationally about the situation and to ignore their emotions. Equipped with this advice, the great majority (69%) analyzed the situation and concluded that they should screw their partners. Others were primed to "make decisions based on gut feelings." Their guts were pretty trustworthy: Only 27% lied.

    There's a twist: Even though the study shows that we would be treated better by people who trust their feelings, we're leery of them. When people were given a choice to interact with a rational decision-making partner or a gut-trusting one, 75% chose the rational partner.

    Zhong concluded that "deliberative processes can license morally questionable behaviors by focusing on tangible monetary outcomes and reducing emotional influence."'

    Now, as Dan suggests, think of bias in business against "feelings" and for "rationality," a bias implied in the "twist" that he reports.  It is pretty scary.  It is also scary to see how many people lied… even 27% in the "feeling" condition and 69%, over two-thirds, in the "rational" condition. This study is also consistent with other research that shows, when people are focused on money, they turn individualistic and selfish, so there is other evidence that a narrow focus can lead to all sorts of destructive behavior.

    The implications here for practice are, however, quite interesting.  As Chip explained as we chatted on that delayed flight, this little study suggests that when you are trying to promote ethical behavior, you should say things to others (and yourself) like "Don't just focus on winning and on how much money you are going to make, also think about how you are going to feel about yourself afterwards — will you be proud or ashamed?"   I like that advice, and indeed, as I watch some of the dreadful behavior by both politicians and executives, perhaps it might help them (and the rest of us) if they chanted this little mantra often.

    Perhaps a more simple way to put it is, "How will you feel about yourself later?"  Not a bad mantra for all of us.

     

     

  • More Reasons Creativity Sucks: Creative People Seen as Having Less Leadership Potential

    Ever since the days when I was writing Weird Ideas That Work, I have been careful to point out various ways that creative people suffer in comparison to their less imaginative counterparts.  My focus has been largely on the differences between doing creative and routine work (see this post on why creativity and innovation suck).  Much theory and research suggests a long list, including:

        1. Creativity requires failing most of the time; routine work entails succeeding most of the time. So doing creative means screwing up constantly, while doing routine work means you are usually doing things right and well. As Diego and I like to say, failure sucks but instructs.

         2. Creativity involves constant conflict over ideas, although that can be fun when it is done right, even the most healthy groups struggle to avoid having conflict over the best ideas turn very personal and very nasty.

        3. Creativity is messy,scary, and inefficient. Routine work is clean, comforting and efficient.

        4. Doing creative work right means generating a lot of bad ideas, it also means that most of your good ideas will get killed-off too.

    I could go on and on. But the best quote I have ever seen on the probabilities and emotions associated with doing creaitive work is from James March (I quote this in Weird Ideas That Work), quite possibly the most prestigious living organizational theorist. Rumor has it that he has come fairly close to winning the Nobel Prize in Economics once or twice:

    "Unfortunately, the gains for imagination are not free. The protections for imagination are indiscriminate. They shield bad ideas as well as good ones—and there are many more of the former than the latter. Most fantasies lead us astray, and most of the consequences of imagination for individuals and individual organizations are disastrous. Most deviants end up on the scrap pile of failed mutations, not as heroes of organizational transformation. . . . There is, as a result, much that can be viewed as unjust in a system that induces imagination among individuals and individual organizations in order to allow a larger system to choose among alternative experiments. By glorifying imagination, we entice the innocent into unwitting self-destruction (or if you prefer, altruism)."

    I don't mean to bring you down even further, but a study with more bad news for creativity — actually an academic paper containing three intertwined studies — just came out by Assistant Professor Jennifer Mueller at the University of Pennsylvania. It is called "Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential?"  The upshot is that people who are seen as more creative are judged by others as having LESS leadership potential than their unimaginative peers UNLESS they are also seen as charismatic. 

    This bias against creative people is first demonstrated in their study of employees of a company in India who were in jobs where they were expected to do creative work.  It was then replicated in a controlled experiment, with about 200 students, half of whom were assigned to be idea generators or "pitchers" and half to be "evaluators." The pitchers were then divided into two groups.  As the researchers, they were asked to either '1) prepare a creative (novel and useful) or 2) a useful (but not novel) solution to the following question: “What could an airlines do to obtain more revenue from passengers?"' 

    The results are pretty troubling. In short, although the judges saw no significant differences in the usefulness of the ideas generated, and did construe that subjects who were instructed to generate creative ideas did, in fact, come up with more creative ideas than those instructed to come-up with ideas that were not novel, the judges also consistently construed the more creative subjects as having less leadership potential, measured with this 3-item scale: “How much leadership would this applicant exhibit?”, “How much control over the team’s activities would this member exhibit?”, “I think the applicant is an effective leader.” (α = .86).

    The bright spot, or perhaps the warning, is that, int he third study, where the "charismatic leader prototype was activated" (this was done by asking judges to list five five characteristics of a charismatic leader), things changed.  Here is how the researchers described their findings from this third study: "when the charismatic prototype was activated, participants rated the candidate in the creative idea condition (M = 4.08) as having significantly higher leadership potential than the candidate in the useful idea condition (M = 3.41; t = -3.68, p < .01). Conversely, when the charismatic prototype was not activated, participants rated the candidate in the creative condition (M = 3.08) as having significantly lower leadership potential than the candidate in the useful condition (M = 3.60; t = -2.03, p < .05)."

    BNET asked first author Mueller to explain these findings, and I thought she came-up with a pretty good answer: 

    'Muller notes that leaders must create common goals so their groups can get things done. And the clearer goals are, the better they tend to work, which means leaders need to root out uncertainty. One way leaders can do this is to set standards and enforce conformity.  But when asked to describe a creative person, words like “quirky,” “nonconformist” and “unfocused” often take their place right alongside “visionary” and “charismatic.” Says Mueller: “The fact is, people don’t just feel positively about creative individuals-they feel ambivalent around them.”'

    Yes, this is one just paper. But it is done carefully and uses multiple methods. And it is instructive as I do think — and there is evidence to show — that our stereotypes of the hallmarks of creative people do often see at odds with our beliefs of great leaders.  In particular, to add to Mueller's list, creative people are also often seen as inner focused (not just unfocused), inconsistent, and flaky.  That is not the boss that most of us want.  It is also interesting that charisma seems to be the path to being seen as both creative and having leadership potential.  It certainly has worked for the likes of Steve Jobs, Francis Ford Coppola, IDEO's David Kelley, and Oprah Winfrey. 

     This research suggests that if you are a creative type, and want to lead, do everything you can to get your boss and other evaluators thinking about charisma — "activate" the charismatic leader prototype by talking about well-known charismatics, and perhaps engaging in actions congruent with the "prototype" of a charismatic person — articulate, inspiring, setting forth an emotionally compelling vision, and touching on themes and stories that provoke energy and passion in others. 

    On the other hand, there are plenty of successful creatives who have achieved leadership positions who seem to lack at leasst some of these qualities — Mark Zuckerburg, Bill Gates, David Packard, and Bill Hewlett come to mind.   And there are still other successful creatives who led wonderful and important lives despite having little if any interest in leading others — Steve Wozniak and Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman appear to qualify. Indeed, although we need great leaders, it seems to me that — especially at this moment in history — we need creative people even more.

    To me, the upshot is that these findings are intriguing and some people may find them useful — especially creatives who are trying to get leadership jobs. But it also strikes me that presenting a false front usually backfires in the end, and perhaps the most important implication is that, if you are in a position to judge and select leaders, keep reminding  yourself that you will probably be unfairly biased against creative people — unless you think they are charismatic (or you are just thinking about charisma), in which case you may be giving those creatives too much credit for their leadership potential!

    I love a careful and creative study like this one.   No it is not perfect or the final word, no study is or can be, but it is pretty damn good.  If you want to read the whole thing, here is complete reference, including a link to the PDF:

    Jennifer Mueller, Jack Goncalo, Dishan Kamdar (2011), Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential?, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

     

  • New Research: We Are More Creative When We Help Others Than Ourselves

    There is an interesting set of findings from psychological experiments that suggest we see others' flaws and strengths more clearly than our own (I wrote about this in Good Boss, Bad Boss) and that, on average, human-beings make more rational decisions when make them for others rather than themselves.  As Jeff Pfeffer and I advised in Hard Facts:

    See Yourself and Your Organization as Outsiders Do

    A big impediment to evidence-based management is that human beings, especially those with good mental health, often have inflated views of their own talents and prospects for success. This rampant optimism is a double-edged sword. The upside is that it creates positive self-fulfilling prophecies, which increase the odds of success. The downside is that excessive optimism causes people to downplay or not see risks, and to persist despite clear evidence they are traveling down the wrong path. One study found, for example, that over 80 percent of entrepreneurs surveyed estimated that chances were over 70 percent that their venture would succeed, and over 30 percent believed that their firm was certain to succeed—even though only about 35 percent of new businesses survive their first five years.  Max Bazerman’s book on managerial decision making shows that outsiders often make more objective judgments than insiders do—so having a blunt friend, mentor, or counselor can help you see and act on better evidence.  This is one reason why Kathleen Eisenhardt’s study of successful versus unsuccessful Silicon Valley start-ups found that in companies that survived and thrived, the CEO usually had a trusted counselor on the team—while CEOs of unsuccessful firms usually did not. These counselors were typically ten to twenty years older than the CEO, with broad industry experience, and were most valuable for helping CEOs recognize when they were traveling down the wrong path and a shift in strategic direction was needed.

    This finding that it is better to rely on others than ourselves is also seen in a new study described at one of my favorite blogs, BPS research.   Here is the summary at BPS:

    Across four studies involving hundreds of undergrads, Polman and Emich found that participants drew more original aliens for a story to be written by someone else than for a story they were to write themselves; that participants thought of more original gift ideas for an unknown student completely unrelated to themselves, as opposed to one who they were told shared their same birth month; and that participants were more likely to solve an escape-from-tower problem if they imagined someone else trapped in the tower, rather than themselves (a 66 vs. 48 per cent success rate). Briefly, the tower problem requires you to explain how a prisoner escaped the tower by cutting a rope that was only half as long as the tower was high. The solution is that he divided the rope lengthwise into two thinner strips and then tied them together.

    For the complete description, go here.  The implication of these diverse studies are quite instructive.  If we want to make better decisions, make faster decisions, have a more realistic picture of our strengths and weaknesses, and now, apparently, be more creative, we need to ask others for their opinions and assistance.   There is even a kind of weird implication that rather than working on our own problems, we should always be working on others.  So, despite the cynicism about consultants, they actually do serve a moreimportant  role than many of us have recognized. Certainly, this research suggests the importance of having mentors and colleagues who will give you help, advise you on decisions, and point out the flaws in your beliefs and actions– and that the world would be a better place if we did so in turn for others.  Another cool implication is that consultants need outside advisors when it comes to tackling their own challenges and problems.  In any event, these studies certainly provide interesting evidence of how much humans we need one another.

    The citation for the creativity research is:

    Polman E, and Emich KJ (2011). Decisions for Others Are More Creative Than Decisions for the Self. Personality and social psychology bulletin

     

  • “Have Some Sugar” and Six Other Ways to Be Good: Evidence from BPS Research

    One of the my favorite blogs on the planet is BPS Research,  where folks from the British Psychological Society summarize the latest psychological research — and do so with delightful charm and accuracy.  I was just visiting (it is a great place to look around) and, as part of just one post, they offer "7 Ways to Be Good."

    Check out these links to studies from peer-reviewed journals:

    Learn healthier habits
    Have an energy drink
    Use your inner voice
    Practise self control
    Clench your muscles
    Form if-then plans
    Distract yourself

    They are all wonderful, but I was especially amused by the experiment showing that students who (after an exam that presumably depleted their glucose levels) had a "high-glucose lemonade" were more likely to offer help to a classmate who was facing eviction and to offer larger donations to charity.  No, it wasn't just because the experimenter gave the students a gift…the students in the control condition (who were less generous) were given a low-glucose lemonade.  Sugar isn't all bad! 

  • A Great Pixar Story: Alvy Ray Smith and Ed Catmull Serve as Human Shields

    Note: I originally posted this at HBR.org. You can see the original and the 13 comments here and can see all my posts at HBR here.  I will continue to devote the lion's share of my blogging effort to Work Matters, but plan to post at HBR a couple times a month.

    Pixar is one of my favorite companies on the planet. I love its films, its creative and constructive people (The Incredibles director Brad Bird is among the most intriguing people I've ever interviewed), and its relentless drive toward excellence. There's a pride that permeates that place, along with a nagging worry that, if they don't remain vigilant, mediocrity will infect their work. So I was thrilled to be invited to give a couple of talks about Good Boss, Bad Boss at Pixar last Fall. After the first one, Pixar veteran Craig Good (who has been there at least 25 years — I think he said 28 years), came up and told me an astounding story.

    Droidmaker-2guys

     

     

     

    The story occurred to Craig because he'd just heard me claim that the best bosses serve as human shields, protecting their people from intrusions, distractions, idiocy from on high, and anything else that undermines their performance or well-being. For him, that brought to mind the year 1985, when the precursor to Pixar, known as the Computer Division of Lucasfilm, was under financial pressure because founder George Lucas (of Star Wars fame) had little faith in the economics of computer animated films. Much of this pressure came down on the heads of the Division's leaders, Ed Catmull (the dreamer who imagined Pixar long before it produced hit films, and the shaper of its culture) and Alvy Ray Smith (the inventor responsible for, among many other things, the Xerox PARC technology that made the rendering of computer animated films possible). The picture to the left shows Ed and Alvy around that period.

    Lucas had brought in a guy named Doug Norby as President to bring some discipline to Lucasfilm, and as part of his efforts, Norby was pressing Catmull and Smith to do some fairly deep layoffs. The two couldn't bring themselves to do it. Instead, Catmull tried to make a financial case for keeping his group intact, arguing that layoffs would only reduce the value of a unit that Lucasfilm could profitably sell. (I am relating this story with Craig's permission, and he double-checked its accuracy with Catmull.) But Norby was unmoved. As Craig tells it: "He was pestering Ed and Alvy for a list of names from the Computer Division to lay off, and Ed and Alvy kept blowing him off. Finally came the order: You will be in my office tomorrow morning at 9:00 with a list of names."

    So what did these two bosses do? "They showed up in his office at 9:00 and plunked down a list," Craig told me. "It had two names on it: Ed Catmull and Alvy Ray Smith."

    As Craig was telling me that story, you could hear the admiration in his voice and his pride in working for a company where managers would put their own jobs on the line for the good of their teams. "We all kept our jobs," he marveled. "Even me, the low man on the totem pole. When word got out, we employees pooled our money to send Ed, Alvy, and their wives on a thank-you night on the town."

    Certainly such extreme staff protection is rare and sometimes it might not even be wise. I can't say that every proposed layoff is immoral or unnecessary. But consider the coda: a few months after this incident, Pixar was sold to a guy named Steve Jobs for 5 million bucks and, as they say, the rest is history. And some 25 years later, that brave shielding act still drives and inspires people at Pixar.

    P.S. I want to thank Pixar's Craig Good, Elyse Klaidman, and Ed Catmull for telling me this story and letting me use it. If you want to learn more about Pixar's astounding history, I suggest reading David Price's The Pixar Touch. It is well researched and a delight to read. While you're at it, check out Alvy Ray Smith's site and Dealers of Lightning if you want to learn about the impact this quirky genius has had on computer animation and other technical marvels.

  • Good Boss, Bad Boss: USA Today and The McKinsey Quarterly

    Over the break, a bit more news came out after I wrote posts on kudos for Good Boss, Bad Boss and the popularity of my list of 12 Things Good Boss Believe over at HBR.Org.

    Last week, USA Today published a pair intertwined stories on workplace bullying, both of which drew on a long interview they did with me (and interviews with a host of other folks too, like Babson's Tom Davenport). The main story was called Bullying By the Boss is Common But Hard to Fix. I think the best part of this story (which, alas, opens with a story about Hooters from the TV show Undercover Boss) is the thoughtful list of why companies fail to take action compiled by journalist Laura Petrecca — it includes impediments including: victims keep quiet, intervention can take time (this is one reason assholes especially get away with their dirty work when teams and companies are under time pressure), discipline can be subjective, legal recourse can be unclear (e.g., it is still unclear in most states if it is unlawful to be an equal opportunity asshole), and savvy bosses learn to work the system (as I said in the article " "They kiss up and kick down."

    I also thought the second story, a sidebar on Survival Strategies for Workers Whose Bosses are Bullies was useful, and a nice complement to my list of Tips for Surviving and Asshole Infested Workplace.   Here is the sidebar:

    Bosses often get a bad rap — mainly because they are just that: the boss.

    These are the folks who scrutinize vacation day requests, ask for client reports to be revised and tell employees the company decided against 2010 raises. So naturally they will be closely scrutinized — and criticized — by workers, simply because they have such a large impact on their life.

    "Bosses pack a wallop, especially on their direct reports," says Robert Sutton, author of Good Boss, Bad Boss.

    However, there are many supportive, compassionate managers out there, Sutton says. "Most of us think our bosses are OK."

    But for the folks toiling under a lousy manager, the daily stress can be severe. Some ways to deal with a bad boss:

    •Have a heart-to-heart. "Perhaps your boss is one of those people who aren't aware of how they come across," Sutton says. It could be worth it to have a "gentle confrontation" with the manager in hopes of evoking a behavior change.

    •Get help. "It's like a bully on the playground," says Tom Davenport, co-author of Manager Redefined. "At some point you have to go tell the teacher."

    Employees should keep a detailed diary of a boss' bad behaviors and then bring up those specific instances when lodging a complaint.

    "Don't talk about the way you feel. Don't say 'I'm hurt,' " says workplace consultant Catherine Mattice. Instead give very specific examples of how the boss crossed the line.

    •Zone out. With some effort — be it meditation, therapy or another method — some folks are able to leave their work troubles at the office. "Learn the fine art of emotional detachment," Sutton says. "Try not to let it touch your soul."

    •Update the résumé. "Start planning your escape," Sutton says. Sure, the economy may not be the best for job seekers, but those who put feelers out now will have a head start when the hiring freeze thaws.

    In addition, I also  learned that the McKinsey Quarterly piece based on Good Boss, Bad Boss, "Why Good Bosses Tune In To Their People"  was among their 10 most read pieces in 2010.  You can see the complete list and access is free, although you do need to register.  My favorite on the McKinsey list is "The Case for Behavioral Strategy" by Dan Lavallo and Oliver Sibony.  It makes a compelling, evidence-based, case about the damage done by executives who make strategic decisions without taking their own cognitive biases into account and shows how executives can make superior decisions (and thus help their companies and keep their jobs) by taking steps to dampen and eliminate these universal human imperfections.

    Enough looking back on 2010, its time to move forward into 2011!

  • “12 Things Good Bosses Believe” is the Most Popular Post at HBR in 2010

    I got a note from Julia Kirby at HBR a few days back that my list of "12 Things Good Bosses Believe"   has been the most popular post at HBR.Org in 2010 — a list based on ideas from Good Boss, Bad Boss. 

    Here is Jimmy Guterman's list of the Top 10 posts at HBR in 2010:

    1. 12 Things Good Bosses Believe
      Robert Sutton, author of Good Boss, Bad Boss, ponders what makes some bosses great.
    2. Six Keys to Being Excellent at Anything
      Tony Schwartz of the Energy Project reports on what he's learned about top performance.
    3. How (and Why) to Stop Multitasking
      Peter Bregman learns how to do one thing at a time.
    4. Why I Returned My iPad
      Here, Bregman finds a novel way to treat a device that's "too good."
    5. The Best Cover Letter I Ever Received
      Although David Silverman published this with us in 2009, it remained extremely timely this year.
    6. How to Give Your Boss Feedback
      Amy Gallo reports on the best ways to help your boss and improve your working relationship.
    7. You've Made a Mistake. Now What?
      We all screw up at work. Gallo explains what to do next.
    8. Define Your Personal Leadership Brand
      Norm Smallwood of the RBL Group gives tips on how to convey your identity and distinctiveness as a leader.
    9. Why Companies Should Insist that Employees Take Naps
      Tony Schwartz makes the case for naps as competitive advantage.
    10. Six Social Media Trends for 2011
      David Armano of Edelman Digital ends the year by predicting our social media future.

    I am pleased and also somewhat embarrassed because, well, I haven't quite finished the post yet! I promised to write detailed posts on all 12 ideas listed, but I only made it through the first 10. I will finish in the next couple weeks, or at least I hope to, as life keeps happening while I make other plans (as that lovely old saying goes). 

  • A Concise and Brilliant Peer-Reviewed Article on Writer’s Block

    Below you can see an entire article (including a reviewer's comment) that may look fake, but is legitimate. It was published by Dennis Upper in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis in 1974, and is funny, true, and inspired — and a great demonstration that "brevity is the soul of wit."   Academics, especially the editor's of our journals, have a well-deserved reputation for being humorless assholes (note I edited a couple academic journals and include myself in this swipe), so I give these editors a lot of credit.  A big thanks to Thomas Haymore for telling me about this masterpiece and to Professor Brad DeLong for publishing it on his blog a few days ago.

    20101202-byxs511wwrihgy5rcac24kucbr