Work Matters

Category: General

  • A Week With My New Apple iPad: I Like it But Don’t Love It

    The stock market is going crazy today over Apple's higher than expected earnings — I just looked and at this moment the stock price is already up about 6% since opening today and has more than doubled in price in the past year.  The primary driver of this success is the iPhone, the stories say, along with a big increase in PC sales and optimism about the more than 500,000 iPad's sold.

    I bought an iPad last week because I love my iPhone so much (I just got it about 7 or 8 months ago, and the user experience never ceases to impress me — everything about it is great except the battery life) and also because I figured that, since I was going to have a lot of time on hands recovering from my surgery, it would be fun to have a cool new to toy.  The rave reviews for it in the the New York Times and Wall Street Journal convinced me that it would be a great device for occupying my time, providing a handy way to read books, watch movies, read newspaper and magazine stories, casually surf the net, play some games and so on.  And as I owned an iTouch for years, I loved it and often said "Wow, a giant version of this would be awesome."

    So one of the first things I did after getting home from Cleveland was to buy an iPad.  I have been using it a few hours a day for a week now.  I like it but love it far less than expected, to the point that  I am thinking of selling the modest number of Apple shares I bought the day it was announced that Steve Jobs was taking leave (I believed that Apple had built such a strong organization that it would be fine without Jobs)and the stock plummeted to around $80 (it is about $260 right now, this is one of my rare smart investments). I am thinking, solely based on my experience with the iPad, that perhaps it is time to sell my stock (although I hesitate I because the iPhone is so great and part of me wonders that, even if the iPad does not turn out to be such a huge success, if the lessons learned from developing it will make the iPhone ever greater).

    Why am I so lukewarm about the iPad after a week?  In short, the combination of the surprisingly heavy weight and the glare on the screen make using it for any length of time a constant battle for comfort — the result is a surprisingly bad user experience despite all the hype to the contrary.  I am annoyed and uncomfortable whenever I use the thing for more than 5 or 10 minutes. Claims that it is a laptop killer strike me as dead wrong.  The software is great but using the thing sucks in many ways.

    The first day I had it, I rented a movie I have always loved, Blade Runner, and tried to watch it for over an hour before simply giving-up. I struggled to get in the right position where I could see it perfectly without glare and get in position where I did not have to hold the surprisingly heavy thing up in the air in the perfect position.  After carefully piling up pillows on my lap, and adjusting them, I got it just right, until I got up to got to the bathroom, and readjustment took another 5 minutes.  A laptop, buy the way, would have been much easier because you can adjust and hold the angle screen more easily.

    Then, I started reading books.  It especially sucks for that — if reading books is important to you, do it the old fashioned way or buy a Kindle.  It's not bad for reading a quick newspaper story or two, but is awful for prolonged reading.   I am currently reading a great book called Open by Andre Agassi on the iPad — the best sports memoir I have ever read. Fortunately, because we also have Kindle, I was able to get it (for no additional charge) and all the books other books we bought for the Kindle moved onto my iPad (which was one reason I bought it).  My wife mostly uses the Kindle, but I use it sometimes, and I can tell you that using it for reading books provides a VASTLY superior experience to the iPad.  The Kindle is so much lighter, comfortable for me to hold in any position, especially holding it in the air for long periods in various positions (as I have been doing) as I read it in bed or sitting.  In contrast not only does the weight of the iPad make it uncomfortable to read for even short periods in many different the same positions where a book or Kindle would work well, getting it positioned just right to avoid the glare adds a second variable to the struggle (a problem the Kindle's non-glare screen largely avoids, even though it lacks the beauty of the iPad screen) — one that is often more vexing the wright or, to be more precise, creates a bad human experience for the user as you try to deal with these two challenges at once. Right now, my plan is to finish Open, but I will probably never try reading another book on the iPad again: destroying one of my greatest pleasures with constant discomfort seems like a ridiculous thing to do to myself again. 

    Note the thing I like the IPad best for is it provides an instant and beautiful way to to surf the web, so I am using it right now as a second machine to help me figure out which links to remove from my blog and and how to reorganize it on my laptop, and having the second screen on the iPad is much easier than switching back and forth between tabs in a browser on one machine.  The iPhone navigation is also fantastic in the larger format. And the iPad provides wonderful opportunities for "social" internet surfing. Rather than huddling around a monitor or passing back and forth that tiny iPhone, the iPad is wonderful for sharing the Internet with others — we used it the other day to show my 80 year old mom my daughter's prom pictures, and it was great for passing around, as the screen is dazzling and it is perfect for people to hold for short periods.  So for easy access and instant access to the web, social surfing, and that wonderful iPhone browsing experience made even more wonderful, I love it. I also quite like the keyboard.

    But for just about everything else so far, I find it a very awkward device, lousy for movies and books because of the blend of glare and weight.  Also note that after my wife used it just briefly, she usually refuses to pick it up because "it is too heavy and the glare drives me me nuts." So I am a bigger fan than her of this device.

    Others, of course, may have a different experience and I am not quite ready to say I am sorry I bought it.  But part of me wonders, for a just a a few hundred extra, bucks I could have got one of the new Apple laptops, and especially because we have a Kindle, it might have been a better use of my money.  I will keep experimenting and as I said I do like some things about the iPad, but my advice at the moment is that it is not a must have device. 

    I wonder if my experience with the iPad is consistent with others who bought or used the device.  Let me know what you think.

    And what do you think, is time to sell my Apple stock? 

  • I Won’t Be Posting For a Few Weeks

    Dear Work Matters Readers,

    I've got a personal matter to take care of over the next few weeks. After that, I will be back to blogging with enthusiasm, learning the wonders and weirdness of Twitter, and talking about some new projects I have cooking.  I also promise a detailed explanation of my absence when I get back.  Thanks and I look forward to your comments and emails when I return.

    Thanks,

    Bob

  • Blame, Failure, and The No Asshole Rule

    As I emphasize on my list to left of 15 Things That I Believe, one of the best diagnostic to assess whether an organization is effective or innovative is "What Happens When Someone Makes a Mistake?" I made that this argument one way or another in every book I have every written and perhaps 50% of the speeches I have made in the past decade.  As I say in the above link (which is a story about Amazon, an organization that continually impresses me with its learning culture):

    "Failure will never be eliminated, and so the
    best we can hope for from human beings and organizations is that they
    learn from their mistakes, that rather than making the same mistakes over and
    over again, they make new and different mistakes.

    The upshot for Jeff
    Pfeffer and me is that, perhaps the single best diagnostic to see if an organization is
    innovating, learning, and capable of turning knowledge into action is “What happens when they make a mistake?”
    Stealing some ideas from research on
    medical errors, leaders and teams can “forgive and forget,” which may be temporarily comforting,
    but condemns people and systems to make the same mistakes over and over again –
    in the case of hospitals, this means you bury the dead (or close the incision)
    and don’t talk about it.  Or you can remember
    who made mistakes, chase them down, humiliate them, and thus create climate of
    fear. In such situations, the game becomes avoiding the finger of blame rather
    than surfacing, understanding, and fixing mistakes (see Harvard’s Amy
    Edmondson    ’s wonderful research on drug treatment errors for evidence on
    this point).  Or you can Forgive
    and Remember    , which is not only the title of a great book by Charles Bosk,
    it is the philosophy that the best teams and organizations use. You forgive
    because it is impossible to run an organization without making mistakes, and
    pointing fingers and holding grudges creates a climate of fear. You remember –
    and talk about the mistakes openly –so people and the system can learn. And you
    remember so that, even though you have tried to retrain people and teach them,
    if some people keep making the same mistakes over and over again, then, well,
    they need to be moved to another kind of job."

    The connection to The No Asshole Rule, however, was made clear in a most thoughtful blog post from Peter Seebach in response to the book.  I was especially taken by this paragraph about his workplace:

    I don’t think we explicitly have a “no-asshole” rule; if we do, I’ve
    not been told of it. We do, however, have a corporate culture which
    undermines the things that are essential for bullying. There’s a total
    lack of interest in blame, so far as I can tell. People certainly can,
    and do, try to figure out how something went wrong — but not for the
    purpose of assigning blame, just for the purpose of fixing it. No one
    expects that people won’t make mistakes, or yells at them for making
    mistakes. As a result, people are more comfortable than they might
    otherwise be coming forward with information about problems which were
    caused by their mistakes. Net result: Less time trying to shift blame,
    less time before the problem is fixed.

    Now that sounds like a functional workplace.. a nearly perfect example of how "forgive and remember" ought to work. And the link to rule is splendid. 

  • Parking Tickets for Assholes

     AHole Parking Tickets
    I have been digging through old emails, as I had fallen behind do the press of my book deadline and other craziness, and came upon one from Jim about youparklikelikeanasshole.com.  It isn't exactly a wildly active blog, but I quite liked the "notices" or parking tickets you can download on the cite, they could come in handy.  You can see the main one above, but better copies are available at the cite.  

  • Treating Organizational Practices as Prototypes: A d.school course for Stanford Graduate Students

    Debra Dunn, Kris Woyzbun, and I are teaching our course on Organizational Practices as Prototypes (MS&E 287)for the third year in a row at the Stanford d.school.  This is a small course — just 12 students — focused on applying the design process to organizational behavior issues.  In past years, our students have worked on improving the experience of JetBlue customers who have delayed flights, improving the employee onboarding at IDEO, developed prototypes for improving employee performance feedback at Mozilla and Cooliris, and — as you can see here in BusinessWeek — helping to revamp the all hands meeting at Timbuk2.

    This year, we have the first two projects planned and are in the process of lining-up the third and final one.  The first project, led by d.school stalwart and design star Perry Klebahn, will be short one focused on how to recruit and design jobs for the new generation of knowledge workers.   The aim of this project, in addition to getting the class to jump right into the challenge of designing organizational practices the first day, will be to teach students the design thinking process and involve students in an intense "get to know you" exercise. 

    The second project will be with JetBlue and we will be working with Sam Kilne for the third time. Sam is fantastic at setting-up things so that students have great access to JetBlue employees, is very responsive to students questions, and gives fantastic feedback.  The topic this year is developing means so that JetBlue employees can provide timely and useful feedback and suggestions to management — a project we are calling "reinventing the suggestion box."  

    As you can tell, this is a hands on class, where the emphasis in learning by doing, and in that vein, developing prototypes that organizations actually implement. Alas, it is only open to Stanford graduate students (although I promise occasional updates here). The details are here. Class meets 3:30 to 5:00 MW at the Stanford d.school. If you are interested in applying, please send a resume and an pitch about why you want to join the class to both Debra and me (our emails are found on the link).

    P.S. The official name of the class this year is "Prototyping Change in Entrepreneurial Firms." 

  • Rave Review for Change By Design in New York Times

    9780061766084

    The Sunday New
    York Times     had a rave review for Tim Brown’s new book on design thinking,
    Change By Design.  I best start by saying
    that I am not an objective critic of Tim or the company where he is CEO,
    IDEO.  I did an 18 month ethnography of
    IDEO in 1990s, I have been an IDEO Fellow for about 15 years (which is
    something they sometimes pay me for but usually not, it is sort of like being
    an honorary first cousin), and I am friend and admirer of Tim’s along with
    IDEO’s founder and now Chairman, the rather magical David Kelley (a word I
    would apply to no one else I know personally). 
    I also wrote a blurb for the book because, as the Times review indicates, it shows so many of the best qualities of
    IDEO’s culture and Tim’s modesty, skill, and courage – and his deep and
    sensible understanding of what it means to be a “design thinker. “

    The review, called “Redefining a Profession,”
    concludes that Tim has successfully avoided one of the biggest risks in a book
    like this one – coming across as too much of a commercial for the firm he leads.  Tim accomplishes this by simply being
    himself, and indeed, when I read the galleys, that was my comment…”This is 100%
    Tim Brow.,”  In any conversation you have
    with Tim, he will do things that many CEOs do not, he will give others lots of
    credit, he will tell wonderful stories, talk honestly about what works and what
    doesn’t, and about the limits of the methods used by his company, not just the
    strengths.  Indeed, for me, as much as I
    am a big believer in the power of design thinking, after hanging around the
    Stanford d school for five years or so, although I believe we teach our
    students well, I am often disturbed because “design thinking” is treated as the
    answer to every problem and also as more like a religion than a set of
    practices for sparking creativity.  Tim and
    his many colleagues at IDEO have had the courage to apply design thinking to
    almost any problem – from designing better websites, to changing how
    programmers work together, designing a couple thousand products, revamping
    operations, and changing customers experiences. 
     In doing so they have
    simultaneously pushed the limits of design thinking beyond what others thought
    possible (hence the title “Redefining a  Profession”) while always acknowledging the
    limits of the approach.

    I also want to make sure to mention that Tom Kelley
    – who has played may key roles in the firm and is perhaps the best speaker I
    have ever seen on any topic – has also written two early books that are about
    and inspired by IDEO: The Art of
    Innovation     and The Ten Faces of
    Innovation    , both are also wonderful books, but they are much different than
    Tim’s as they reflect Tom’s personality and experiences.  So if you have read these two books, there is
    still plenty to glean from Change By
    Desig    n.  Although Tim Brown, Tom
    Kelley, and David Kelley all are similar in that (reflecting the IDEO culture) all
    are people who can actually listen, have the courage to try weird stuff and
    learn no matter the outcome, treat others with respect and dignity, are deeply
    curious about everything, and believe that work isn’t just about making as much
    money as possible.  All three talk and
    act  like if you aren’t having fun and
    doing work that matters to you and others, something is wrong, no matter how much
    money you are making. 

    In short, I can’t be unbiased about Change By Design, but The New York Times has a reputation for
    pulling     no punches, so I am glad to see that they loved the book.  I have had the privilege of hanging out with
    a lot of people from IDEO over the past 15 years or so, and it has made my life
    much richer.  So I am pleased to see that
    more objective observers than me see the value of their work and wisdom as
    well    . 

  • Forbes Column: Get Rid of Jackass Clients

    Shaun Rein, Managing Director of the China Market Research Group, just posted a column at Forbes called Get Rid of Jackass Clients.   Shaun does a great job of making the business case against jackass clients, but I especially like his final argument.

    Finally, life is short. While we all have to put up with difficult
    situations and people sometimes, you can't let chronically difficult
    clients affect the health and well-being of your family. If your kids
    or significant other tell you you're especially grumpy, then think
    about whether a client is causing your stress, and whether that stress
    is worth it. Most of the time it isn't.

    High-paying jobs and the
    resulting benefits like vacation homes, jewelry and gadgets are great,
    but at the end of the day, always remember why you work so hard.


    The No Asshole Rule     talks about the damage done by asshole clients and customers, and talks about organizations that apply the rule. But since the publication of the book, this is one of the main themes that people bring-up again and again, from the professional services firm in Europe that has "evidence-based pricing for asshole clients" to the wine buyer from Berkeley who wrote me that, in his business, a customer could either be be an arse or a no pay, but not both.  These and many other stories led me to develop the ACHE, the Asshole Client from Hell Exam, which you can complete here to determine if your client is a certified asshole.

  • My Final Exam Question: Can You Answer It?

    The quarter is winding down at Stanford, and my course assistants and I are busy grading some very creative final exams.  In my course "Organizational Behavior: An Evidence-Based Approach," I give the students the final exam question on the first day of class, and it is due the last day.  It is, "Design the ideal organization. Use course concepts to defend your answer."

    It is really a hard question, but the best answers knock my socks off.  I think of great ones over the years, like the paper on the ideal mosque, the one on the ideal honey company, the guy who was engaged and showed about how he would apply course concepts to building the ideal family, and this year, the student who did something like Alice-in-Wonderland, meets a start-up, meets behavioral research and somehow pulled it off perfectly.  I asked students this question for years, but never tried to answer it myself until I wrote The No Asshole Rule.  But frankly I would have failed myself for the answer, as I exceeded the 3000 word limit by about 40,000 words!

    What is your ideal organization? You don't have to use all 3000 words — in fact 25 words or less might be most fun.  There are hints about aspects of my ideal organization that go beyond The No Asshole Rule on my list of "15 Things I Believe." But if I forced myself to stay under 25 words, I would say something like:

    "A place where people are competent, civilized, and cooperative — and tell the truth rather than spewing out lies and bullshit." 

    Right now, I am very tired of the lies and bullshit.

    What is your answer?

  • Joker One: A Stunning Book

    51q2eZPzzUL._SL500_AA240_
    Last week, I listened to this interview by Terry Gross on Fresh Air, with former Marine platoon leader Donovan Campbell — who served three combat tours, two in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.  His book, Joker One: A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood, was published this week, I ordered it as soon as I heard the interview and so my copy arrived yesterday.  I am about 100 pages into it, and it is some book.  Donovan is splendid and deeply honest writer, describing his strengths and weaknesses without flinching, and he does an astounding job of bringing you into the scene. It is not only a great book about the love and brotherhood in a combat platoon, it provides lovely general lessons about what it feels like and how to be effective at leading people who are your face-to-face charges, not those distant subordinates you barely know, but the people who know your quirks,habits, and the rest of the human stuff about you.

    To give you a taste, Terry Gross asked Donovan to read this passage about how to lead during combat below:

    "You can't think of home, you can't miss your wife, and you can't wonder how it would feel to take a round through the neck. You can only pretend that you're already dead and thus free yourself to focus on three things: 1)finding and killing the enemy, 2) communicating the situation and resulting actions to adjacent unit and higher headquarters, and 3) triaging and treating your wounded.  If you love your men, you naturally think about number three first, but if you do you're wrong.  The grim logic of combat dictates that numbers one and two take precdence."

    I told you the guy can write.  I can hardly wait to finish the book.

  • Celebration of Publication of 100 Best Business Books at Stanford d.school

    I wrote a couple weeks back about the little celebration we had at the d.school of 100 Best Business Books of All Time.  There is a more detailed and I think more fun description of what happened on 800CEORead blog by Kate, who organized the event. Check out the post.  One of the audience asked the four of us authors for a little take away, for a little sound bite to summarize something important we believed.  Jeff Pfeffer, to his credit, resisted some as — and I know this from many conversations with him — he thinks that giving people a short take away at the end of a class or session cane be mistake because people should build think for themselves and build their own takeaways.  After a bit of resistance from Jeff, he provided one, as Randy Komisar, Chip Heath, and me.  As Kate's post indicates, here they are:

    Jeff: Drive fear out of the organization.

    Randy: Be passionate about what you do.

    Chip: Know when to say no. Too often people say yes to everything.

    Bob: Fight as if you are right, listen as if you are wrong.

    One other comment, writing is lot like developing any other product, there is a lot of iteration and a lot of failure on the road to success. Randy reported that they rewrote Monk and the Riddle 17 times; Chip Heath reported that he and Dan rejected about 30 covers before they finally convinced their publisher to do that fantastic silver tape cover on Made to Stick, and Jeff and I also had a long battle with our publisher who insisted that "Louder than Words" was a much better title than The Knowing-Doing Gap.