Work Matters

Category: Evidence-based Management

  • CNN’s Campbell Brown Departs With Class

    In this era of finger-pointing, blame-storming, and circular firing squads, no one seems to be willing to admit mistakes and language is carefully parsed to avoid by lawyers, spin doctors, and executives to avoid taking personal blame or at least take as little responsibility as possible when the shit hits the fan.  One of my favorite vague terms is when executives or their spokespersons say "mistakes were made," but don't do say by whom  (they carefully omit terms like '"by me" or "my company). In contrast to this relentless stream of self-serving horseshit, CNN's Campbell Brown showed massive class and honesty in her announcement yesterday that she was stepping down. As the AP reported: 

    Brown said it was her decision to leave. She said she could say she
    was leaving to spend more time with her two young children or pursue new
    opportunities, and both would be partly true.

    "But I have never
    had much tolerance for others' spin, so I can't imagine trying to
    stomach my own," she said. "The simple fact is that not enough people
    want to watch my program, and I owe it to myself and to CNN to get out
    of the way so that CNN can try something else."

    Huh? No excuses? No finger-pointing?   Perhaps the exceedingly lame BP officials could learn something Campbell Brown's authentic "no bias, no bull persona."  From what I can tell, bull, BS, distortion, and finger-pointing are their primary response to the oil spill in the Gulf.   The lawyers may rush in and complain that they must act like way because of liability, the interests of the shareholders, and so on — but I think even the shareholders are losing patience with BP's bullshit and am willing to bet that these leaders lame responses will cost a lot of them their jobs.   For an interesting comparison, check out CEO Michael McCain's actions at Maple Leaf Foods, and how he responded when his company's tainted product was linked to at least 10 deaths — he apologized and accepted responsibility, and never, once, made any statement meant to minimize perceptions of damage by his firm or made excessive claims about progress that was being made to reverse the problem. 

    As for Campbell, thanks for all your great work over the years, and thanks for being such a breath air in an era where most public figures seem to have mastered the fine art of claiming the lions share of credit when things go well — and ducking blame when things do not.  By the way, as I have discussed before, there is evidence that managers and CEOs who accept responsibility when things go wrong — and propose ways to reverse the problems — lead companies that are more effective over the long haul than companies were leaders refuse to accept blame (see my posts here and here).  And managers who use this tactic (accepting blame for setbacks and errors)  are seen as more competent and legitimate. So what Campbell Brown did not only shows class, it may help her career in the long haul.  I certainly hope so.

  • The Power of “Nonsexual Touching” By Women

    Early in my career, I did a bunch of studies on the expression of emotion in organizational life.  My colleague Anat Rafaeli and I studied employees 7/Eleven clerks, grocery store clerks in Israel, bill collectors and police interrogators (I blogged about our research on the good cop, bad cop methods here).  One of the findings that came from Anat's analysis is that both men and women respond positively from warmth and friendliness from women, but not necessarily from men. 

    I also remember an old study of waitresses that showed both male and female customers give higher tips when they are lightly touched by a waitress.  My students always giggle when I talk about the power of non-sexual touching, and the finding that both men and women appear to like being touched by women — but not necessarily men.  The root of all this, at least some researchers argue, all goes back to mothers, who early in life make most of us feel more secure — and gain our compliance — through physical warmth and affection.  Certainly, fathers play that role too, but across societies, women do most of the touching and holding of newborns.   And, of course, even the most affectionate father is incapable of breast-feeding! To return the research on waitresses, I just found it summarized in a 2010 article called called "The Science of Interpersonal Touch," which was published by Alberto Gallace and Charles Spence in the Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (34:246-259),  They report:

    Crusco and Wetzel (1984) examined
    the effects of two types of touch in a restaurant setting. The
    waitresses in this study were instructed to briefly touch customers
    either on the hand, on the shoulder,
    or not to touch them at all as they were returning their change after
    they had received the bill. Crusco and Wetzel used the size of the tip
    given by the customer to the waitress as their independent variable.
    Surprisingly, the researchers found that the tipping rate of both male
    and female customers was significantly higher in both of the touching
    conditions than in the baseline no-touch condition (a phenomenon that
    has been labelled the ‘Midas touch’ effect; e.g., [Crusco and Wetzel, 1984], [Erceau and Guéguen, 2007] and [Stephen and Zweigenhaft, 1986];
    see also Kaufman and Mahoney, 1999)

    A brand new study follows in this tradition of research on the power of nonsexual touching by women.  A series of experiments by Jonathan Levav and Jennifer Argo just published in Psychological Science shows that both men and women who are lightly touched by a woman on the back are more likely to take bigger financial risk in an investment game than those not touched at all, or touched by a man.  Here is a nice summary of the study if you want to learn more. 

    I always find such studies both instructive and amusing. I also think it is important to note that the new study in Psychological Science doesn't show that the touching by men has a negative effect, it just has no effect.  I find the explanation that this all goes back to the power of moms to be quite fascinating (and I cant think of a better one, perhaps you can).  As Levav and Argo suggest in the opening of their article, there is compelling research on both humans and animals that, when infants suffer from a lack of maternal physical contact early in life, they suffer physical and mental health problems for their rest of their lives.  The most famous studies were done by Harry Harlow on monkeys in 1950's– which among other things– found that a fake cloth mother seemed to be better for infant monkeys then one made of wire mesh or no mother at all (you can read Harlow's classic 1958 American Psychologist article here, I just re-read it and was frankly appalled and fascinated at the same time).

    I wonder, what are some of the other practical implications of this research — and does anything bother you about it?  Indeed, the implications I think of are pretty disturbing.  One implication I thought of is that casinos would make more money if all the dealers were women (this is unlawful, by the way)and they were trained to lightly touch all customers. Come to think of it, perhaps cocktail waitresses at casinos already perform this function, and keep customers sitting and gambling as they wait for their drinks, and, of course, the alcohol itself probably encourages customers to take bigger risks.  So they may be applying this principle already!

  • Bad is Stronger Than Good: The 5 to 1 Rule

    "Bad is Stronger Than Good"  is the title of one of my favorite academic articles, which shows that negative information, experiences, and people pack a far bigger wallop than positive ones.  I touched on this theme in The No Asshole Rule and dig into in detail in the forthcoming Good Boss, Bad Boss. But perhaps the most important finding for most of us is the research on  romantic relationships and marriages: unless positive interactions outnumber
    negative interactions by five to one, odds are that the relationship will fail.      Scary, isn't it?

    Several studies found that when the proportion of negative
    interactions in a relationship exceeds this “five-to-one rule” divorce rates go way up and
    marital satisfaction goes way down.     The implications for all of us in long-term relationships are both instructive and daunting: If you have a bad interaction with your partner, one (or apparently two, three, or four) positive interactions aren't enough to repair the damage.  It apparently takes at least five — at least over the long-term. Related studies on workplaces suggest, along similar lines, that bosses and companies will get more bang for the buck if they focus on eliminating the negative rather than accentuating the positive (although the latter is important, the best evidence suggests that more effort and resources should be focused on getting rid of bad people and experiences).

    P.S. The citation is Baumeister, R.F.,
    Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad is stronger than
    good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. Here is a link to the pdf:     http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71516.pdf.

  • Management Snake Oil: A Classic Example

    I was going through my email this morning and there it was, an email containing a classic sign that some vendor was promising more than any management tool or method can deliver.  The headline was "No More Hiring Mistakes Interviewing the Right Way." 

    This suggests they are selling snake oil because they are asserting that, if you use their tool or whatever, you won't make any hiring mistakes.  Perhaps their product or whatever (see here) does reduce the percentage of hiring errors, but there is no hiring method that eliminates all mistakes.  Plus interviews — although useful — are not the best method for selecting new employees (see this classic study for an evaluation of different methods). 

    I don't claim to know anything about this tool, but I do know that these folks are making excessive claims that cannot be supported any sound research,  This is yet another instance that supports a great observation from my hero James March, who once wrote me "“Most claims of originality are testimony to ignorance and
    most claims of magic are testimonial to hubris.”

  • Washing Your Hands Reduces Buyer’s Remorse

    Psychology Today reports that this finding will be published in Science magazine tomorrow.   The authors suggest that this happens because of the: "clean slate effect": washing may expunge the emotional power of past
    acts–perhaps even good ones–from the mental record.     Perhaps I should have washed my hands after buying my iPad. It might have saved me from writing that ambivalent post about my purchase!

  • Forgive Yourself for Past Procrastination: You Will Perform Better Next Time

    There is a delightful little study summarized in BPS Research that shows students who forgive themselves for procrastination in their preparation for past tests feel better about themselves, procrastinate less in the future, and perform better on future tests compared to students who do not forgive themselves.  I like this finding because it suggests that beating yourself up for past screwing around and procrastinating is destructive — it is better to forgive yourself and get on with life.  In general, there is a lot of research on the virtues of forgiving yourself and others.

    The citation is: Wohl,
    M., Pychyl, T., & Bennett, S. (2010). I forgive myself, now I can
    study: How self-forgiveness for procrastinating can reduce future
    procrastination. Personality and
    Individual Differences, 48     (7), 803-808

  • Naps Are Wonderful, Especially If You Can Lie Down

    Asleep-on-job-homer2
    I have always been intrigued by research on sleep, sleep deprivation, and naps.  In brief, a pretty big body of research shows that sleep deprivation, make people unhappy, nasty to others, and undermines their creativity and performance.  And a related body of research suggests that even a short nap can help combat the damage caused by sleep deprivation.

    Along these lines,  a new study of naps summarized at BPS compared the performance of students (measured by their ability to identify out-of-pitch tones) who had no nap after lunch, who had a 20 minute nap leaning forward and resting their head on a desk, or had a 20 minute nap lying down.  The researchers found that people who had either kind of nap performed better then those who did not nap, but those who napped lying down had the best performance of all.

    Napping is dangerous in some situations — as Homer demonstrates above. But there are lots of jobs where sleeping in the job is simply viewed as evidence of laziness or lack of motivation.  This new  research suggests that we might change the norms in some workplaces — a nap room sounds kind of nice, doesn't it?

    P.S. The citation is Zhao,
    D., Zhang, Q., Fu, M., Tang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2010). Effects of
    physical positions on sleep architectures and post-nap functions among
    habitual nappers. Biological
    Psychology, 83     (3), 207-213

  • New Study: It is better to brag about yourself than about others

    This is one of those studies that produces effects in an experiment, but may be so oversimplified that it doesn't apply to real organizational life. But it is cool. 

    As BPS Research reports, a recent pair of experiments by Haifa University Researcher researcher Nurit Tal-Or examined  the impact of bragging about those close to you versus bragging about yourself.  She found that this  "indirect
    self-promotion, known as 'burnishing' carries all the costs of bragging
    but none of the gains."  For example, Dr. Nurit Tal-Orng second experiment showed (similar to her first) that "The boasting student, whether done directly or indirectly, was rated by
    participants as more manipulative than the control version student. And
    yet only the student who boasted about himself was rated as more able
    than the control student."

    Dr. Tal-Or speculates that these findings happened because "When people boast about the success of other people, this need to
    bask in the reflected glory of the success of others may be perceived as
    pathetic and unworthy of respect.'"  Or perhaps because "when people brag about their associates' success, their audience
    may suspect that they themselves do not have any successes of their own
    to be proud of."  These interpretations seem possible, and this research does call into question the value of bragging about others at least in situations where people have just met and don't have — or expect to have — long-term relationships. But, for me, two critical pieces of the puzzle are missing (although I am not trying to be overly critical, all research is incomplete and no one study can answer every question).  

    The first is that this research (apparently) doesn't consider the effect of the bragging on the perceived ability of those who were praised.  So, if other people are saying how great you are, it may not help them much, but it may help you.  The second, related, issue is that in organizational life, friends and allies often have implicit or even explicit "exchange relationships" where they brag about each other — so they do not come across as arrogant but word still spreads of their successes (although Tal-O's study suggests that bragging about others can make you look manipulative too, so perhaps this method doesn't work as well as many people believe). 

    These concerns and questions aside, it is still a surprising study, and, well, I guess that there might be times when you are better-off bragging about yourself than your colleagues, relatives, and so on because it helps you come across as competent (if still manipulative).  I am not wild about the implications, I confess, because these results may encourage people to rave about themselves — but it appears that this is an evidence-base method for convincing others that you are competent. 

    So much for modesty.  Beware, however, that this is essentially a study of what kind of bragging creates the best first impression on strangers who meet for the first time.  Over time, people who constantly brag about themselves may damage their reputations as colleagues tire of their relentless chest-pounding and arrogance — and come to see them as annoying braggarts.

    P.S. The citation is Tal-Or,
    N. (2010). Direct and indirect self-promotion in the eyes of the
    perceivers. Social Influence, 5
    (2), 87-100

  • Repairs at the Cleveland Clinic

    Please forgive my vague post a couple weeks back saying that Work Matters would be silent for a few weeks, but I wanted to protect my family's privacy as I had a serious health matter to deal with.  I am glad to say I on the mend and (slowly) getting back to work far more quickly than expected. 

    On April 6th, I had open heart surgery at the renowned Cleveland Clinic to fix a leaky aortic valve.  This problem was detected about five years ago and my doctors have been keeping an eye on it since then.  Essentially, the problem was that my valve was leaking badly enough that about 50% of the blood that it pumped out was leaking back in.  This is probably something I was born with that just got worse over the years.  I was without symptoms, and in fact, until a just a few days before the surgery, was riding my bike through the hills around Stanford for a good 90 minutes at least 5 times a week — in part I kept of the exercise because, as my doctors advised, the better shape I was in going into surgery, the better shape I would be coming out.  It was also crucial to maintaining my mental health. But as there was eventual risk of heart failure, my doctors helped me make the decision to have the surgery before any irreversible damage occurred.  I was also pleased to discover from various other tests that (despite my family history of blocked arteries and an imperfect diet and other health behaviors) my coronary arteries were clear and so there is no indication I will need anything stents or a bypass in the foreseeable future and that the repair should last a long time.

    Patients First logo FINALa I went through a fairly complex decision process with numerous conflicting opinions about whether to do it at Stanford or Cleveland, whether to wait or do it now, and what kind of valve to have (tissue –usually from a cow or pig –or mechanical).   I decided on Cleveland because they do so many more of these surgeries than Stanford and, as I decided on a tissue valve, they especially do far more of those (perhaps 1000 a year) than other places — and volume is among the main predictors of surgical success. I also was impressed by their low mortality and complication rates and that they simply seemed generally more organized than Stanford.  Of course, their are many great places to get heart surgery, and Stanford is one of them. but I was more comfortable with Cleveland.  So, although I never thought of myself as a medical tourist, there I was, fitting the definition perfectly.  Fortunately, my Stanford insurance appears to apply in Cleveland as well as it would in California.  I would describe the Cleveland Clinic as a kind of heart surgery factory. but one where nearly every employee we met, from the people who cleaned the floors and rooms, to the dedicated nurses (especially Amanda, Theresa, and the rather magical Virginia), to the cardiologists and surgeons, where competent and compassionate.  Many employees at the clinic wear buttons (see to the left) that say "Patients First." If my experience is representative, this isn't just hollow talk, that saying guides and reflects how people at the Clinic think and act.

    I am especially grateful to my surgeon, Dr. Gillinov Marc Gillinov (pictured to the left).  Dr. Gillinov is surrounded with a team that worked together to keep track of the big
    picture and little details associated with each patient — which I found most comforting as in too many hospitals information flow is remarkably bad.  Gillinov
    also operated on Robin Williams, doing a very similar operation, cow valve and all.      Check out this video of Robin Williams on
    Letterman talking joking about the surgery… at one point Robin does an imitation/paradoy of
    Gillinov’s voice that is pretty spot on:      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IhaAC4dN2Q.       Not
    only is Gillinov     quite famous on the traditional
    measures used to judge surgeons (experience, awards, publications in peer reviewed journals) and well-loved by those who work with him (rather than respected but deeply
    feared and disdained for his narcissism, which a    re hallmarks of     too many other
    world-class surgeons),     he has a child-like enthusiasm about
    practicing his craf    t.     Dr.     Gillinov  seems to bounce around the hospital spreading
    positive     energy — one of is colleagues said her nickname for him was "Sparky."      He loves his job as much as anyone I ever met —  the last time I encountered that same level of dedication, joy, and pursuit of perfection all in one package happened several years back when a group of us     interviewed Brad Bird, Pixar's Academy Award winning director.     

    Croke_225 I also want to give a huge thanks to my primary care doctor in Palo Alto, the amazing Jeffrey Croke (pictured to the left), who first detected the problem and provided clarity at a key moment when I was receiving conflicting opinions  and to Dr. Erik Price, my cardiologist in Palo Alto, who is better at explaining things than anyone I have ever met.  I was helped by so many doctors and nurses at Cleveland, and was sufficiently delirious much of the time, that I can't remember them all (I mentioned a few by first nake above), but I want to mention and thank Chris Webb, a Cardiothoracic Nurse Practioner who did such a great job of keeping track of my case as a whole and Dr. Colleen Koch for special help getting a great cardiothoracic anesthesiologist Michelle Capdeville.  My brain seems to be working just as well (or some would say just as badly) as before the surgery.  For this kind of surgery,  where I went on the heart-lung machine,  a big part of the anesthesiologist's job is to protect the brain.  And I was especially taken with the Dr. William Stewart, a cardiologist at Cleveland who showed remarkable wisdom — especially  the ability to treat me as a whole person rather a collection of symptoms.  I will eventually do a post about just Dr. Stewart, as I found him to be such an exceptional human-being.  

    Perimount I don't want to leave the impression that every thing went absolutely perfectly, that I was the perfect patient, or that the people at Cleveland are without flaws.  None of that is true, as I have more than my shares of human flaws, the Clinic is a human organization, and as in all places, some people are stronger and more caring than others. I also  can't assure anyone that they will have as positive an experience at Cleveland as I did — there are always risks and variation across cases.   But for me, the experience (and so far the outcome) have turned out better than I ever hoped.  Today, just two weeks after surgery, I feel far better than I ever thought was possible at this juncture.   This is serious surgery as they crack open your chest, put you on the heart lung machine, stop your heart, cut out (and repair) the bad parts and put in new good ones.   In my case, I have a new aortic valve that that is built around a cow's valve (see the picture to the left) and they also did repairs to the "aortic root"  by replacing much of the tissue with Dacron.  I have some aches and pains and am taking some pain pills.  But I am up and around, able to work three or four hours a day, and have
    done a 45 minute walk each of the last two days (with a little rest in
    the middle).  And my mind feels quite clear — although in evaluating this post and other things I write (as I slowly return to work) in the coming couple weeks, please keep in mind that they are written by a man who is slightly stoned on Oxycondone. 

    Thank so all of you who wrote comments and nice personal emails in response to my post saying I was out for awhile, and to my family, friends, and colleagues for being so supportive.  Please forgive me if I am a little slower to respond to things than is usual, as I am trying to pace myself.

  • Switch is #1 on The New York Times List: The Heath Brothers Do It Again

    Switch I opened that The New York Times Books section yesterday, and there it was: Chip and Dan Heath's new book Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard was Number 1 on the "Advice" list (a list that is usually harder to get on than thr Nonfiction list).  My reaction was "Holly Cow," or as as I wrote Chip, it was really "Holly Shit."   Number 1!  This is their second New York Times bestseller and second masterpiece in a row following the now classic Made to Stick.  I read a pre-publication version not because Chip and Dan sent it to me, but because my wife Marina Park — CEO of the Northern California Girl Scouts — got a copy (along with thousands of other people like her in positions to bring about change). This is not only a brilliant marketing strategy, it means that the ideas are spread and will be used by people in positions to do the most good.   As you can see from Marina's  blog post, she found the book to be extremely useful in thinking about both her role and other social problems.

    A toast to the Heath Brothers, two guys who have woven together evidence-based ideas and great stories to write two of the most useful books of our era.  Indeed, many authors write about things they can do well themselves, but these guys not only write about ideas that spread and stick, and how to make change happen, they demonstrate their working knowledge of these topics by implementing  brilliant marketing strategies.  And on top of that, they are two of the nicest guys around.