Work Matters

  • Some Bosses Live in Fool’s Paradise: The Mum Effect

    As I wrote earlier in the week, my post over at HBR on 12 Things That Good Bosses Believe generated a lot of interest and 75 comments.  I am now going to dig into each of the 12 points in detail over there.  The first one is "I
    have a flawed and incomplete understanding of what it feels like to
    work for me.      Or as Julia Kirby retitled it, Some Bosses Live in Fool's Paradise.  I talk about a host of psychological and structural factors that lead to such delusion, including the "Mum Effect"

    Bosses are insulated from reality. As Jeff Pfeffer and I
    reported in Hard Facts, extensive research proves that people
    routinely "shoot the messenger." Bearers of bad news, even when they
    aren't responsible for it in any sense, tend to be blamed and to have
    negative feelings directed toward them. The result is the "Mum Effect":
    subordinates with good survival instincts soften bad news to make it
    sound better, or avoid passing it along to their bosses at all.
    Therefore, in a steep hierarchy it is a happier and happier story that
    reaches the top ranks. Our most disturbing example came courtesy of
    physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman after his
    investigation     of the 1986 explosion of the space shuttle Challenger.
    He said he'd asked a group of engineers to estimate the probability
    that the shuttle's main engine would fail, and their estimates ranged
    from 1-in-200 to 1-in-300. But when he asked the head of NASA to make
    the failure-rate estimate, the answer he got was 1-in-100,000. Feynman
    pointed to this as an illustration of managerial isolation from reality,
    a problem he believed to be rampant throughout NASA. 

    I should add, however, that not all followers keep bad news away from their bosses to the same degree.  I wonder, what can a boss do to encourage people to deliver bad news?  Yes, not shooting the messenger is a start. But is seems to me that their must be a lot more. 

    P.S. Also, I got into argument over at HBR with commentor who took me to task for using the terms superior and subordinate.  He suggested team member because I was emphasizing power differences so much.  My response was that I am not talking about the world as we might like it to be, I am talking about the world as it is, and every organization has a system of rank and hierarchy, and the resulting power differences have hue effects on what people think, feel, and do.  Perhaps I was too tough, or perhaps I am a cynic, but while I do believe that leaders that de-emphasize spower differences are more effective than leaders who emphasize and expand them at every turn, I also believe that power differences are a fact of organizational life, and denying them sets people up for failure.

  • Management Consulting Circa 1960: Booz Produces 125 Feet Of Reports a Year

    Allen

    One of the doctoral students that I work with at the Center for Work, Technology and Organization, the irrepressible Isaac Waisberg, is working on a fascinating dissertation on what management consultants do.  Yesterday, he successfully defended his dissertation proposal and I am looking forward to a great dissertation from him.  Being a thorough researcher, Isaac has been meticulously studying the history of management consulting. In the process, he dug up this wonderful BusinessWeek cover story from 1960.  Note the 1960 stamps from the Stanford library.  The text says, essentially, that James Allen of Booz, Allen & Hamilton leads a firm that produces 125 feet of management reports a year — and I guess the picture provides the proof.

    Of course, the consulting business has changed a lot in the past 50 years.  It has grown massively and I am sure that Booz would be quick to argue that they do a lot more than produce reports (that was probably true then as well).  I also suspect the current metric would be PowerPoint decks per year at many firms.  But in other ways, the key question remains the same and one that drove us to write The Knowing-Doing Gap and is also the subject a chapter in Good Boss, Bad Boss: Are all those reports and the advice they contain a substitute for action or an impetus to action?

  • Fear-Based Performance Management at Fox News?

    Regardless of what you may think about Fox News, it is hard to argue with their commercial success.  Nonetheless, at least based on a leaked memo published over at Gawker, it appears that senior management is concerned about a rash of mistakes.  They are apparently responding by instituting a fear-based system. 

    I say "apparently" because I have no idea if this is actually written by Fox executives. Real or fake, it provides a good illustration of the kind of thing that seems reasonable, but that — at least if you believe the basic underpinnings of the quality movement (quality guru W. Edwards Deming's mantra was "Drive Out Fear") and related research by Amy Edmondson and others on psychological safety, mistakes, and learning — these are practices that aren't likely to eliminate mistakes, but they will amplify CYA behavior, brainstorming, and tendency to make the same mistakes over and over again.  I would add that perhaps they may increase personnel costs as people are fired for their mistakes, blamed and shown the door, and then new people come in and keep making the same mistakes because the system stifles learning. 

    Here is the alleged memo from the Fox executives.  Let me know what you think about it — would this work in your organization?

    Subject: Quality
    Control     We had a mistake on Newsroom today when a wrong book cover
    went on screen during a guest segment, the kind of thing that can fall
    through the cracks on any day with any story given the large amount of
    elements and editorial we run through our broadcasts. Unfortunately, it
    is the latest in a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months. We have
    to all improve our performance in terms of ensuring error-free
    broadcasts. To that end, there was a meeting this afternoon between
    senior managers and the folks who run the daytime shows in which
    expectations were reviewed, and the following results were announced:
    Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors.
    Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in
    immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant
    roles in the "mistake chain," and those who supervise them. That may
    include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other
    possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all
    obviously play a role in performance reviews.

    So we now face a great
    opportunity to review and improve on our workflow and quality control
    efforts. To make the most of that opportunity, effective immediately,
    Newsroom is going to "zero base" our newscast production. That means we
    will start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and
    manageable elements. To share a key quote from today's meeting: "It is
    more important to get it right, than it is to get it on." We may then
    build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be
    sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never
    having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again. Please know that
    jobs are on the line here. I can not stress that enough. I will review
    again during our Monday editorial meeting, and in the days and weeks
    ahead. This experience should make us stronger editorially, and I
    encourage everyone to invest themselves one hundred and ten percent in
    this effort.

    P.S. See this post on "The best diagnostic question" for a much different approach to learning from failure. Although I should note that there is another interesting element here: The memo implies that getting it right rather than getting done as quickly as possible will be rewarded more now –which is a step away from from fear and toward quality. 

  • 12 Things Good Bosses Believe is Most Read at Harvard Business Review

    As I noted here last week, I posted a list of of 12 Things that Good Bosses Believe on the Harvard Business Review site last week.  I am going to write posts about each of these themes over the coming weeks (some of which will be familiar themes if you read this blog regularly). The list generated about 40 comments and I see that it is currently number #1 of their most read on their landing page.   I will publish the complete list here after all the links are published at HBR, but for now, you need to visit there to see the full list.  And please add a comment if you would like. 

  • Aristotle on How to Avoid Criticism

    I was just reading Jonathan Fields great blog "Awake at the Wheel" and came upon a wonderful little quote from Aristotle : “To avoid criticism say
    nothing, do nothing, be nothing.”       Jonathan's last pair of comments are especially nice:

    Sure, criticism hurts.
    But a life unlived hurts more.

  • BP Improves Their Rhetoric

    I wrote a post last week taking BP to task for the heartless CYA language in the giant ads they were taking out in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere.  I lamented that there wasn't even a hint of human compassion, that they were taking responsibility in the most mealy mouth way possible, and that the dull march through the facts conveyed that will they were taking steps to stop the leak and clean-up the mess, their cold corporate heart wasn't in it.  I made a comment that it seemed to be written by lawyers, not caring people. On second thought, that is unfair to lawyers as many have far for common-sense and humanity than the narrowly focused and emotionally tone deaf people who wrote those ads.

    I was taken to task on this blog and at Psychology Today where I reposted my BP comments for,among other things, being naive to expect anything else.  One reader chastised me here:

    "Of course
    BP's language is legalistic, with every public word chosen carefully.
    There will be lawsuits, and lawyers will scrutinize their every
    utterance over the last century for ammo. Would you really expect any
    public admission of culpability from them as the vultures are gathering?"

    Comments like above one are, in my view, correct in that we would expect them to be careful about what they say because of all the lawsuits.  But to me — and this is a difference between a good lawyer and a bad one, by the way –a  good lawyer and the leaders they advise balance litigation concerns with other business issues, such as the hits in the press and stock market the firm is taking and (to be crass) what will enable the current management survive the firestorm of blame.  As I said in my last post, there are plenty of examples of leaders and firms that have effectively struck this balance and I reject the argument that purely legalistic language or even the absolute best language to protect the company during future litigation is always the business decision.  Indeed, I believe that BP's numerous indications of arrogance and coldness have attracted and motivated more vultures and the legalistic language, finger-pointing, and dull language have made things worse. 

    While I will refrain from commenting on the reality of what they are doing (it is hard to know, and frankly, I remain unimpressed based on the disputed and twisted facts I do encounter about BP).  But I do give them credit for finally getting the compassion thing right and other elements required to come across as actual caring human beings in their big ad today in The New York Times. 

    The new headline is "We Will Make This Right"   Compare it to the old headline in the ad last week, which sounded like a dull corporate memo from a cold-hearted creep: "Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response" — it did not even say whose response.  In the new ad, while I bet their more narrow-minded lawyers are squirming at the language, there are statements that suggest compassion, accepting responsibility for fixing things in less mealy-mouthed language, and a commitment to pay for it (well, they may sue others to get the others, but saying that taxpayers won't pay for the clean-up is smart if it is true).  Examples include "Stopping the leak will be a major step, but only start.  We know our responsibility goes much further."   And although they stop short of quite admitting blame, we finally see some compassion here;  "The spill and hardship endured by Gulf families and businesses should never have happened."   And they end well:  "You expect us to make this right. We will." 

    Note that I am being very careful to withhold judgment about the reality here, and the fact that it has taken BP many weeks to use language that suggests a hint of humanity suggests to me that this is not their first instinct.  But better late than never, at least from a PR standpoint.

    Also, there is another message beyond the humanity that comes through in this ad that is quite consistent with research on effective leadership when the shit hits the fan: They are talking about things they have done and will do to take control of the situation — one of the topics I discuss in chapter 2 of Good Boss, Bad Boss, which is on how the best bosses persuade others they are in charge. If you are in a leadership position, a big part of your job is convincing people that you are wrestling to get control over even difficult events and are making progress — that there is a link between what you and your people are doing and good things that are happening and that will happen.  BP started-out pointing so many fingers at others that they didn't seem to quite grasp this point, but seem to be slowly getting it as well. Of course, if they never stop the leak, their credibility will evaporate, but it does seem like their sustained period of failure to do so may have finally taught them to express some compassion and wisdom — or to be more cynical, perhaps they are so desperate that they are pretending to be caring and compassionate as a last resort!

    There is a lesson here for every leader who ever gets into a PR mess.  If your lawyers are only thinking of future litigation and don't grasp its importance relative to other business risks, beware of their advice. Specialists of any stripe can be dangerous when they see events only from the perspective of their narrow expertise, be they engineers, HR people, PR people, or lawyers.  But I believe lawyers are especially prone to causing such problems because they are often especially adept at arguing their point of view and trashing others.  This can be a great quality, but only when used with proper precautions and in the context of the larger business decision.

    If you are convinced by your persuasive lawyers to use legalistic and vague language, and talk like heartless people who don't care about anyone but yourselves and who are bent on pointing fingers at everyone else, it may help with the litigation down the road.  But in the intervening years, you may be fired, your organization may decline or die, and in fact, by the time those lawsuits are contested, you or your company may have ran out of money to pay your lawyers — and pay the claims against your company.   Again, a great lawyer is crucial under such conditions, but the great ones see beyond their narrow area of expertise.

  • 12 Things Good Bosses Believe — Check It Out At Harvard Business Review

    As I wrote earlier in the week, I got motivated to update and expand my list of "17 Things I Believe" to the left because — as part of revving up for the publication of Good Boss, Bad Boss — I was putting together a list of 12 Things Good Bosses Believe, which was just posted the morning over at Harvard Business Review. Some of these themes are developed in Good Boss, Bad Boss, others are ones that I have written about here and elsewhere.   To give you a taste, here are the first four:

    1. I have a flawed and incomplete understanding of what it feels like
      to work for me.
    2. My success — and that of my people — depends largely on being the
      master of obvious and mundane things, not on magical, obscure, or
      breakthrough ideas or methods.
    3. Having ambitious and well-defined goals is important, but it is
      useless to think about them much. My job is to focus on the small wins
      that enable my people to make a little progress every day.
    4. One of the most important, and most difficult, parts of my job is
      to strike the delicate balance between being too assertive and not
      assertive enough.

    Note that none of these are linked to posts or sources that explain the nuances of what I mean and the evidence behind the beliefs.  Over the next two or three weeks, I will write a post over at HBR about each one of these beliefs and, as I do, the link will be added to the list. I will let you you know when each appears.  When the list is done, I will likely add it this blog.  Meanwhile, check out the list on HBR, and please give me some feedback either there or here.

    P.S. A big thank you to Julia Kirby for her help with the list over at HBR.

  • A Shitty View of the Pecking Order

    Assholes
    I posted another variation of this drawing a couple years back, but the text and the drawing on this one is one is much better.  And unfortunately, as I have written about multiple times (see here and here), there is plenty of evidence that people at the top of pecking order are prone to shit on those at the bottom — and to be unaware of their insensitive moves.  But the good news — as I show in Good Boss, Bad Boss — is there are plenty of people at the top of the pecking order who find ways to overcome this tendency to shit on their underlings.

    P.S. Leon, thanks for sending this!

    P.P.S.  You owe to yourself to go to Bruce Lynn's comment below and to click on the url, it is a thing of beauty.

  • 17 Things I Believe: Updated and Expanded

    In gearing up for my next book, Good Boss, Bad Boss, I am putting together a list of "12 Things that Good Bosses Believe," which you will soon see on this blog and elsewhere.  In the process, I took two or three ideas from my old list of  "15 Things I Believe" that has been on this blog for a long time. So I decided it was a good time to update and expand that list, as I have not changed much in the last couple years.  So I spent the morning updating the new list, now "17 Things I Believe," which you can see to the left.

    The first 9 items aren't really changed much, although one or two of the links are updated.  Items 10 through 16 are all new.  And item 17, which I removed for awhile, is back because I thought it was important to remind others — and myself — that there is a lot more to life than work.  Here is the new list. As always, I would love your comments, and as this is a pretty big change, if you have ideas about items you might add (or subtract) if it was your list, or that you think I should add or subtract, I would love to hear your reactions.  Here it is (and note that #17 has no link):

    1.
    Sometimes the best management is no management at all — first do no
    harm!

    2.
    Indifference is as important as passion.

    3.
    In organizational life, you can have influence over others or you
    can have freedom from others, but you can't have both at the same time.

    4.
    Saying smart things and giving smart answers are important. Learning to
    listen to others and to ask smart questions is more important.

    5.
    You get what you expect from people. This is especially true when it
    comes to selfish behavior; unvarnished self-interest is a learned
    social norm, not an unwavering feature of human behavior.

    6.
    Avoid pompous jerks whenever possible. They not only can make you
    feel bad about yourself, chances are that you will eventually start
    acting like them.

    7.
    The best test of a person's character is how he or she treats those
    with less power.

    8. Err on the side of
    optimism and positive energy in all things.

    9.
    It is good to ask yourself, do I have enough? Do you really need more
    money, power, prestige, or stuff?

    10.
    Anyone can learn to be creative, it just takes a lot of practice and
    little confidence

    11.
    "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."

    12.
    If you are an expert, seek-out novices or experts in other fields. If
    you are a novice, seek out experts.

    13.
    Sutton's Law: “If you think that you have a new idea, you are wrong.
    Someone else probably already had it. This idea isn’t original either; I
    stole it from someone else”

    14.
    "Am I a success or a failure?" is not a very useful question

    15.
    The world would be a better place if people slept more and took more
    naps

    16.
    Strive for simplicity and competence, but embrace the confusion and
    messiness along the way.

    17. Jimmy Maloney is right, work is
    an overrated activity.

  • BP: Why can’t they say they are sorry and trying to make sure it will never happen again?

    As I read The new York Times and Wall Street Journal every day, I ended-up reading BP's huge "Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response" ad twice today.  I suspect it was written by their legal department, as there are things it does not contain that really bug me and will bug others and — by the way, are bad crisis management, if you believe the best studies on what leaders can do to protect the reputation and long-term financial performance of their firms when the shit hits the fan (I talk about some of this research here and in links within it).

    1. There is not a hint of human compassion, it is cold, carefully crafted language. It simply lists facts, it offers no sympathy to the people who died, none to those whose livelihoods will be affected, and none about the animals who are dying.  The language is utterly without a hint of warmth or empathy for anyone.  This gives me the creeps and I believe reinforces the perception they are a cold heartless company with executives who care about no one but themselves.

    2. There is not a hint of an apology or admission of mistake.  The language is very indirect and legalistic. They say: "BP has taken full responsibility for dealing with the spill.  We are determined to do everything we can to minimize impact.  We will honor all legitimate claims."  Perhaps they can't apologize or admit error, but look at research on executives and firms that weather crises more effectively (a great example is Maple Leaf Foods, see the CEOs apology). Researchers who study errors or setbacks have shown that the problem with this strategy of pointing fingers at others and not accepting blame is that when you talk as if you are a hapless victim of a problem caused by others or by forces that no one can control (as BP seems to be doing), you also are seen as lacking the power to fix it…. it amplifies the perception that you are out of control and don't know what you are doing.

    3. Finally, and this is also consistent with research on how to deal with a crisis or failure, I see not even a hint in this statement that BP is doing everything (or anything) within its power to learn from this horrible spill so that it is unlikely to ever happen again, and if it does, so they will be able to respond more quickly and effectively next time. This kind of language and attitude is crucial for both perceptual and objective reasons.   From a perceptual standpoint, it conveys more compassion and also that all those people and animals will not have suffered in vain.   From an objective standpoint, clearly, there are many lessons from this fiasco, and any competently ran company learns from mistakes — indeed, I think all of us wonder what they might already be doing differently in their many other drilling platforms.  I think that talking about that would help them.

    There is plenty of blame to go around here, and I am sure that BP does not deserve all of it.  But I think they could handle both the optics and objective elements of this crisis far more effectively (And I wonder if in the end the lawyers' advice will cost them more money, as so many politicians and prosecutors will be motivated by their heartless response to go after them with special vehemence).

    No doubt, there are many facts I don't know about what is really happening.  But these omissions disturb me and, if you are a leader, you might want to use this as an opportunity to think about how you would handle such a PR nightmare if it hit your organization.  It is a lot cheaper and easier to learn from BP's errors than it your own.