Category: The No Asshole Rule

I wrote a post several months ago about entrepreneur and venture capitalist Joi Ito. I talked about how Joi was using his World of Warcraft guild as a place to prototype different ways of managing and structuring an organization.  World of Warcraft is one of the most popular of the massively multiplayer online role-playing game, and success in the game depends heavily on cooperation and coordination among team members.  I was fascinated how Joi was "learning on the fly" by experimenting with different rules and role assignments, and more generally, how online games seem to be a great place for develop and test different prototypes for structuring and managing "real" organizations — which are doing more and more of their work "virtually" all the time (so the distinction is blurring). 

In this spirit, I just found out about a World of Warcraft guild called Return from the Edge that implemented the no asshole rule .  They did so, according to one of the leaders who writes on their blog RTFE Updates, because "I just finished reading Prof. Robert Sutton’s The No Asshole Rule:
Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t. Here at
RftE we’ve always talked about being positive and friendly but I think
allowing assholes to thrive in the guild has gone too far and is
indefensible. There are real costs to allowing people with these
attitudes run rampant throughout our organization."

Although the writer makes clear that the rule needs to be modified for the online world in general and World of Warcraft in particular, he goes on to explain:

As it applies to our guild though we are implementing the No Asshole
Rule. Current assholes no matter their knowledge or "worth" to the
guild will receive demerits for interactions that go against our
mission and rules.

I received an extremely thoughtful e-mail this morning, which made me realize that I ought to explain my assertions in The No Asshole Rule about men raised in the southern United States in a bit more detail.  A woman working in Ohio (and a native West Virginian) wrote me the note below.  I changed a word to avoid revealing the name of her company, deleted a sentence that provides too much identifying information, and deleted a subsequent bit of text that was on a different point.  The rest is verbatim:

I really
enjoyed your book, The No Asshole Rule, but I have to take issue with one
theory you offered: that southern men tend toward asshole behavior more so than
others. As a feminist and a West Virginian, I’m here to tell you that I would
take 10 male bosses leaning toward redneck southern sensibilities to the one
effeminate jerk from Connecticut 
that I had to suffer for six months. He would call me into his office, attack
me personally, all the while answering phone calls from his mother and assorted
friends while I sat there squirming to get out of his cologne-smelling presence.
Worse he had some skin disorder that caused the skin on his face to flake off
in huge scaly chunks, and he would pick at his face while giving me advice
about a personality disorder he detected in my behavior. And this Connecticut asshole spent a great deal of time telling us Cowtown Columbus, Ohio natives how to dress when we visited the sophisticated city of Hartford….. I don’t know what you’re
basing your theory on Mr. Sutton, but as a West Virginian living in Ohio.for 24 years, I’ve
worked with a lot of men from the south, and I honestly can’t agree with your
assessment. Now, don’t get me wrong, I do not for one minute believe all people
from Connecticut are as big an asshole as my Hartford boss, but given the
choice between a guy from Dallas and a guy from Hartford, I’m going to Dallas.

There is evidence to support this writer’s experience, but also an interesting twist about Southern men.

For starters, Southerners are probably more civilized in general — and less abusive as bosses — than other Americans.  I first saw evidence that Southerner’s were generally more civilized when, in the 1980’s, I did research with the Southland Corporation about courtesy in 7/Eleven stores.  My colleague Anat Rafaeli and I analyzed a national probability sample of 576 stores. We found (among other things) that stores in the southern United States were more likely to have clerks who offered greetings, established eye contact, smiled, and said "thanks" during customer service interactions than in other parts of the country (the worst courtesy levels were in 7/Eleven’s in the northeastern United States, and the western and midwestern stores were in the middle).

A recent national study of the frequency of abusive supervision  (see my post if you want some details) provides more direct support for this pattern.  This study of 534 workers by the Reed Group found that 44%  of American workers reported working or having worked for an abusive boss.  The regional differences were similar to our old 7/Eleven data. I quote “Southern workers (34%)
are less likely to have experience with an abusive boss than are their
Northeastern (56%) and Midwestern (48%) counterparts.”

BUT the twist, and the one I talk about in the book, is that although southerners (particularly southern men) are generally more polite than people from other parts of the country, when they feel as if their honor is affronted, they tend to react with considerably more anger and hostility than people raised in other parts of the country — because, as academics put it, they are from a "culture of honor." Here is the key excerpt from The No Asshole Rule:

Anthropological research shows that
these are cultures where men gain and sustain status by being known as someone
who “can’t be pushed around” and “who won’t take any shit.” American examples include the old “cowboy”
west and southern United States. . These were both once unruly and unstable places where law-enforcement
was largely absent, and where one’s wealth and social standing could easily be
wrestled away by others – and even though that has changed in many parts of the
west and south, the culture of honor persists to this day. People raised in these cultures are
especially polite and considerate in most interactions, in part, because they
want avoid threatening the honor of others (and the fight it provokes) – even
long after they have moved to another part of the country. Once they are affronted, men raised in these
places often feel obligated to lash back and protect what is theirs, especially
their right to be treated with respect or “honor.”

Some intriguing experiments
published the Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology by Dov Cohen and his colleagues show that, for men raised
in the southern United States,
the culture of honor continues to have measurable and strong effects, even
after they have moved to the northern United States.  In this 1996 study at The University of
Michigan, subjects (half Southerners and half Northerners) passed a stooge who
“accidentally” bumped into him and called him an “asshole.” There were big differences between how the
northerners and southerners reacted: 65% of the northerners were amused by the
bump and insult and only 35% got angry; only 15% of the insulted southerners
were amused and 85% got angry. Not only
that, a second study showed that southerners had strong physiological reactions
to being bumped, especially substantial increases in cortisol (a hormone
associated with high levels of stress and anxiety), as well as some signs of
increased testosterone levels. Yet Northerners showed no signs of physiological
reaction to the bump and insult.

The lesson from these experiments,
plus a host of other studies, is that if you were raised as southerner – or
perhaps a cowboy – you will likely be more polite than your colleagues most of
the time, but if you run into an even mildly insulting asshole, you are prone
to lash-out and risk fueling a cycle of asshole poisoning.

To wrap it up, the best evidence and theory I know shows that West Virginian woman is right  — Southerners are  civilized day in and day out than others in the United States, BUT if you challenge or offend them, they are far more likely to construe what you do (including calling them an "asshole") as fighting words!  And the same applies to the old west, hence my picture of John Wayne in the classic cowboy film Stagecoach — The Duke appears to be defending his honor! 

Once again, I want to thank that thoughtful woman from West Virginian for her note. And I invite comments on this research, which I find quite fascinating.

P.S. The study by Dov Cohen and his colleagues also suggests another interesting twist — calling someone an asshole can sometimes transform a civilized person into a temporary asshole.  And, of course, this research suggests that if call southerner or a cowboy an "asshole,"  you are especially asking for it! If you are really interested in the topic, check out Richard E. Nisbett and Dov Cohen’s book Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South.

I will at Books INC in Mountain View (California) to
talk about The No Asshole Rule and sign some books on Wednesday, May 30th.  The event starts at 7:30 and bookstore is at 301 Castro Street.  Please stop by and say hi if you are in the neighborhood.

Richard Beck over at Experimental Theology has already challenged and changed my assumptions about how The No Asshole Rule has been received among many Christians, especially in his post on 1 Corinthians and the No Asshole Rule, where Richard described how he read from the book in Sunday school, and concluded that 1 Corinthians meant "Basically, don’t be an asshole."  I have also written a number of related posts lately about Christianity and the book, including the Sacred and the Profane and Applying the Rule at the Highest Level.

Richard’s latest effort in this direction is a poll, which asks the question Can We Speak of Assholes at Church?   The poll asks: Is the content of the book The No Asshole Rule important and  appropriate for church based study?  Just 30 votes are in (and some very interesting comments): 73% say it is important and appropriate and that the title of the book should be overt; 23% say that the content is important but the title is inappropriate; and 3% (one voter) says that it is "Unimportant and inappropriate (i.e., book content and style irrelevant and inappropriate for a church-based study)."

I urge you to vote and to check out Richard’s fascinating blog. Richard, thanks for your wisdom and courage and I look forward to the results of your poll.  I am going to vote right now!

I have always been a big fan of Andy Grove and of Intel’s constructive
confrontation approach. But, as with all effective management practices, the use of this approach may be difficult to sustain in practice and over
time.  A former Intel insider, Logan Shrine, wrote me this morning about
his book about the demise of the Intel culture (written with Bob Coleman) called
“Losing
Faith”.   

Logan’s comments, prompted by my positive
comments about Grove and constructive confrontation in my book, are pretty interesting:

“Intel has what’s called "constructive confrontation"
that was instituted as part of the Intel culture under Andy Grove.  As an
ex-Intel employee who had worked there under Andy Grove and also under the two
subsequent CEO’s (Barrett and Otellini), I can tell you unequivocally that
constructive confrontation was a license for assholes to be assholes and
express themselves (one most likely thinks of engineering
stereotypes).   It wasn’t there to police them, but to give people
carte blanche to express those behaviors.  There is and has never been
(during my tenure) any consequences for managers who are assholes at the
company.  As someone who worked at other Fortune 500 companies before
joining Intel, I can say without question that Intel’s culture is dysfunctional
and anomalous to what’s considered acceptable behavior in any other corporation
that has any semblance of a human resources structure.   

Now, you are probably thinking that I’m a bitter ex-Intel employee.  I’m
not.  In fact, I’d like to attest that what made Intel’s culture
operationally perform was when everyone was treated equally under constructive
confrontation and people exercised their right to constructively confront other
people when they witnessed a clear violation of Intel values.  Although I
would not condone Intel’s form of this behavior at any other company, it worked
at Intel when the culture was egalitarian in its enforcement of the
practice.  What changed in the culture (I talk about this in my book, "Losing Faith: How the Grove Survivors
Led the Decline of Intel’s Corporate Culture") is when the managerial
ranks put themselves "above" the values and practices of the culture
– in effect, considered themselves "entitled."  Once this
occurred, there was an obvious and visible change in the hiring practices to
bring people in who wouldn’t "question" management or the behaviors
that were in antithesis of the published values.  Managers didn’t confront
other managers, subordinates didn’t question their managers (even when some of
their decisions didn’t make sense or were self-serving instead of benefiting
the company), and people became confused and disillusioned.  This led to
breakdowns in process and project execution and subsequent declines in
operational efficiency and performance.

This sounds like a most interesting book, and Intel is a company that I’ve always followed closely and
been fascinated by, I just ordered a copy.

In addition, I want to emphasize  (whether they are doing it right at Intel or
not), a large body of research shows that groups are more effective when they
fight in atmosphere of mutual respect – with performance that trumps groups
that don’t fighting over ideas,  or worse
yet, engage in vicious personal conflict — something I talk a lot about in Weird Ideas That Work.  If Logan is right, it
appears that Intel is swerving toward less constructive conflict, and that the
culture is losing its edge in other ways. But I would be curious to hear about Intel from other knowledgeable insiders,
former insiders, and anyone else who knows Intel well their reactions to Logan’s note and his book (if you have read
it, of course).

Paul Wolfowitz has been shown the door at The World Bank. But there is one interesting angle to the story that I had missed until Lilly (in England) pointed out there were stories (at least in the UK papers) about Mr. Wolfowitz’s expletive-laced reaction to the investigation about his involvement with his girlfriend Shaha Riza’s transfer and pay raise.

The Guardian ran a story — apparently based on an internal investigation conducted at the World Bank about Mr. Wolfowitz’s behavior — that reported:

Sounding more like a cast member of the Sopranos than an international
leader, in testimony by one key witness Mr Wolfowitz declares: "If they
fuck with me or Shaha, I have enough on them to fuck them too."

The Guardian reported that "The angry comments attributed to Mr Wolfowitz came from damning
testimony by Xavier Coll, head of human resources at the bank, who
provided investigators with his notes of a meeting with Mr Wolfowitz
last year."

I always take press reports  — especially those likely based on leaks from political enemies — with a grain of salt.  But if this report is accurate, it may help explain why (in addition to political differences) the staff of the World Bank was so eager to send Wolfowitz packing. He sounds like a flaming asshole, and other elements of the story suggest (again, if they are accurate), that he showed some of the classic dysfunctions that people in power suffer from, which I’ve discussed here before, and are so well-documented in academic research:

1. He was focused on satisfying his own needs — in this case, his girlfriend’s needs.

2. He was oblivious to (or didn’t care about) his underlings reactions and opinions.

3. He acted like the rules didn’t apply to him — Guardian quotes the report as saying ""Mr Wolfowitz saw himself as the outsider to whom the established rules and standards did not apply."

 

I have written about how one of the most surprising — at least to me — reactions to The No Asshole Rule has been the small, but vehement, group of religious folks who have endorsed the book.  Richard Beck over at Experimental Theology has been especially supportive, first writing a post about how he read from The No Asshole Rule in a bible studies class to make the point that the book’s main message was quite similar to the famous 1 Corinthians passage.

Richard ends the post as follows:

So, we reflected on all this in my Sunday School class.  And after reflection on the No Asshole Rule, I read these famous words:

Love
is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is
not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily
angered, it keeps no record of wrongs…

Basically, don’t be an asshole.

I was most interested to see that Richard’s post generated 8 other quite supportive comments, many applauding him for his open-mindedness (I agree heartily). And comments on Richard’s follow-up post suggest that he inspired at least one other person to raise the rule in a bible studies class.

I also had some interesting exchanges with a Presbyterian minister who thanked me for writing the book and reported that, although he didn’t quite think it was appropriate to discuss in a sermon, the problem of "jerks" plagued every congregation that he had worked with, and that he was having one-on-one conversations with people about the book, and its implications for running the church.

In that spirit, someone sent me the above Bizarro cartoon, which shows the "delete button" being pushed at the gates of heaven.  The message seems to be that being a believer isn’t enough.

Are
you one of those jerks who make air travel miserable for the rest of us? Or have you suffered through a recent flight
with an unusually rude and self-absorbed passenger?  If so, take my new 24-item test at www.flyingarse.com –  do it with yourself or
another passenger in mind.  It is finally
ready – and check-out the silly donkey with the little wings, our official
flying arse mascot.

Diego
over at Metacool has already taken
the test . As I would expect, he is
a pretty civilized passenger. He scored a “3” out of 24, very low (I scored a “4”).
I also have a more detailed
post on the test at my Harvard Online blog, The Working Life.

I want
to thank Sally Baron, Marina Park, a certain unnamed pilot for a major airline,
and newlywed Brienne Zimmer at Electric Pulp
for all their help with the test.  I also
want to thank everyone who sent me suggestions about items to include in the
Flying ARSE and for telling me so many frightening and funny stories about outrageous
passenger behavior — see my earlier post on
Airline Arseholes for some crazy stories (the worst is Marissa’s story
about the “tuna fish groper”). 

Please
let me know what you think of the test, suggest some additional items, and keep
the stories coming.

P.S. The original ARSE, the Asshole Rating
Self-Exam, keeps going strong, with about a 1000 people a week still completing
it – we are now at over 85,000 completions.

 

I just received this email this morning, a note from a U.S. Marine officer who said some nice things about The No Asshole Rule.  I am opposed to violence or threats of violence.  At the same time, I confess that couldn’t help sympathizing with the Marine who sent me this story.  The No Asshole Rule talks about how, when you face an overbearing asshole, there are times when intimidation and power games are the only way to protect yourself and your organization.  Pulling out a gun and threatening to hurt someone are desperate actions, and this Marine is not proud of what he did, but at the same time, he was in desperate straights and was committed to doing what was best for his fellow Marines. Read the story and let me know what you think.

Here is his story, unedited (except for a couple typos):

I’m reminded of a story of
my own which I’d like to share with you. I was part of a special project for
the Marine Corps. I was in a leadership role actively playing a part in the
physical military operations and the academic/management part ruled by civilian
contractors. Because of my education, I was tasked to play a liaison role which
often meant bearing ill will from both parties as I tried to explain their
intentions to the others. Right off the bat, a member of the civilian
management team rubbed me the wrong way. I wasn’t sure what it was until he
severely berated one of my senior Marines, telling him at one point that
"we had all taken a oath to defend this Nation." I was offended by
that. I knew for a fact he took no such oath. But more importantly, I believed
that he was acting in a manner in which he thought was consistent with military
leadership– an assumption he developed from watching too many movies.

I held my tongue at the moment but that
evening during our After Action Review, I brought the issue up. We were seated
across from each other at a conference table. As soon as I aired my complaints,
he puffed up in his chair, put both hands on the table and started looking at
me menacingly. He was a large man– about six and a half feet and easily 250
pounds. At that moment, I realized that he was trying to physically intimidate
me. I’m much smaller– about 5’10" and 190 pounds. I could tell that this
was a natural reaction to him and he did this often. For a moment I was amused.
When he continued to glare at me, I finally drew my sidearm, placed it on the table and
said to him, "Calm down. I deal in real violence." He settled down
and walked out of the office a couple of minutes later. I hoped that this
encounter would shift his behavior but it didn’t. He was a senior member of the
team and he started treating everybody else worse. Me– he mostly left alone. I
think I made my life better but I sure didn’t do anything to make my teammates
lives easier.  Eventually, the most senior member of the civilian team
removed him but not before I threatened to "accidentally" hurt him in
training. I’m not proud I had to resort to that.

This was my first contact
with the civilian management world and I was not impressed. Unfortunately, my
experiences after haven’t been much better. We certainly have our share of
lousy leaders in the military world but I was surprised to see how much
backstabbing and political in-fighting existed in civilian leadership circle.

Like other aspects of organization life, dealing with assholes is a tough thing to do, and morality and ethics aren’t always defined by a clean and beautiful line that separates right from wrong.  I have mixed and complex reactions to this story. Part of me wants to say "this is wrong, guns and physical threats are always wrong."  But the other part says "This Marine was in a bad spot, and took the only effective course of action available to him."  I would appreciate other opinions, as this one has me troubled.

Melissa Chinchillo from Fletcher & Parry LLC (my literary agent) wrote me with some good news about the Brazilian title for The No Asshole Rule. She reports:  "Campus in Brazil will publish NAR at the end of
May under the title Chega de Babaquice!"  Alas, my initial understanding was that this meant no more assholeness, or something like that, but apparently it means something much milder, like "no more silliness." 

Melissa also sent me a round-up of the countries and publishers for The No Asshole Rule will be published — as  she says, there are only a few small markets left unsold like Indonesia, Thailand, Poland
Poland, Romania, Hungary:

UK – Warner  (published
under "Sphere". distributes to countries including Ireland, South Africa,
Australia, New Zealand, India, And Singapore)

Germany – Hanser

France – Vuibert/Albin Michel                                              

Italy
– Elliot Edizione                                       

Spain – Gestion 2000/Planeta                                             

Netherlands
– Scriptum

Brazil – Campus

Portugal
– Actual Editora                                           

Japan 
– Kodansha                                          

Denmark –
Huset Forlag                                           

Korea 
– Theory and Praxis                                          

China –   China Remin University Press 

Turkey
– Remzi                                    

Russia
– Callidus                                              

Taiwan
– Locus    

It has also been interesting dealing with press from all over the world; journalists in Australia, Ireland, and Brazil seem especially excited about the book lately. And as I reported earlier, some of the most amusing "language problems" occurred with the English press, notably the interview with the BBC "presenter" who was perfectly comfortable with me saying "asshole," but not let me say "ARSE" as it would offend her audience.  I have learned that the opposite tactic works in the U.S.; I have never got in trouble for saying "arse" on American radio.

P.S. For French readers, a long article (with a couple of sidebars) on Objectif Zéro-Sale-Con just came out in 01men magazine.