Work Matters

  • 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

  • Bosses, Empathy, and Teaching: Thoughts from an Anonymous CEO

    One of the bad and good things about spending a couple years writing a book is the process requires writing and then deleting a huge amount of text.  This morning, I was reading through some of the scraps from Good Boss, Bad Boss and I ran into an inspired argument from a local CEO (I am not using his name because I didn't ask him if I could use it here, and so I think that is the civil thing to do). This CEO argued that he is most effective at his job when thinks and acts a lot like a teacher.

    I wish we could have found a place for this section in the book.  But I've learned (in line with this post quoting Steve Jobs) that if you are an author (or do any other kind of creative work) you not only have to discard a lot of bad ideas, you also have to get rid of a lot of good ideas — otherwise there is too much complexity in the final product and you can't focus your full energy on what matters most.  So every author ends up deleting things he or she loves, and this is one of my favorite "discarded darlings" from Good Boss, Bad Boss.

    For this post, I've changed the CEO's name to "Sam," but the rest is just as it would have appeared in the book and reflects multiple emails where this very sharp CEO and I exchanged revisions to reach a point where the text reflected both of our beliefs on the subject.  Here is the excerpt:

    Sam reports that to be an empathetic
    boss, he has learned to devote close attention to his little facial expressions,
    off-hand comments in emails and conversations, and seemingly trivial things like
    whether he acknowledges people when passing them in halls.  Sam went on to explain that this becomes
    easier when he adopts what might be called a follower-centered mindset:

     
    “Life is a lot better when think about my job as one of helping everyone be good,
    helping everyone learn whatever they need, and teaching where I've got
    experience and expertise. When I think in terms of helping people learn to be
    even better, it automatically puts me into an empathetic mode (because
    teaching, fundamentally, is about understanding where the learner is coming
    from), and that sets up the interaction really well.  I can't always stay in this teaching mode.
    Sometimes there are real pressures and things I need to deliver on.  Sometimes external stressors in my life cause
    me to forget to be empathetic. But usually now I can notice when it's happening
    and correct it.”

    As Sam and I talked, we realized that
    – whether it is a big important meeting or the most trivial conversation,
    email, or blog post – the best bosses seem to keep asking themselves:     “Why am I doing this? Is it because I am on
    an ego trip and trying to get more goodies and glory for myself?  Or is it really the best thing for enhancing
    my people’s collective performance and humanity?”

    When bosses can honestly answer the
    question with a “yes” (and peers, bosses, and followers concur with their
    assessment), good things happen.  People
    do good work. They experience dignity and pride in each other. 

     I am so struck by this comment from Sam that I want to repeat it:  "When I think in terms of helping people learn to be
    even better, it automatically puts me into an empathetic mode (because
    teaching, fundamentally, is about understanding where the learner is
    coming
    from    )."  I believe he is talking about a hallmark of the most admired and effective bosses.

    What
    do you think of this view of
    leadership?  Does it strike you as
    right?  Or is it too idealistic? 

    P.S. If you read the comments below, you will see that the "anonymous" CEO quoted here has read it and is comfortable with having his name attached.  It is John Lilly, CEO of Mozilla, which is most famous for the Firefox browser.   So "Sam" is really "John."  John, thanks for wisdom and great exchanges.  Also, John writes a great blog, which among other things, contains great stuff on all the book's he reads.

  • Craig Ferguson’s Intriguing Joke: Does Every Group Have at Least One Asshole?

    In The No Asshole Rule, I make a tentative argument that it might be better to have one token asshole in a group (rather than none) to show others how NOT to behave — a suggestion supported by some behavioral science research, especially studies on littering that show people are less likely litter into a setting that has one piece of garbage than none at all (apparently because the one bad example makes the norm against littering  more vivid).  Frankly, I was not sure about the wisdom of this argument then, and am even am less sure of now.  The reason I am less sure now (although I do have examples where a single token asshole was used by colleagues to remind themselves how not to behave) is that negative emotions and behaviors pack such a big wallop and are so contagious that the speed at which the negativity can spread from the token asshole to everyone else means this is can be a dangerous practice.

    This all sets the stage for an old joke.  I think I first heard it from Craig Ferguson, the late night talk show host:

    Every group has an asshole. If you look around and don't see one, that means it is you.

    I think that is as good an asshole joke as I have heard.   Perhaps it is funny because it is true — it is consistent with research showing that we humans are remarkably oblivious to our flaws.  In particular, this  joke is instructive for bosses because power is so toxic and so many bosses are so oblivious to their asshole ways.

  • The No Asshole Rule: A Useful Book Even For People Who Don’t Read It?

    This September, I will be publishing a new book called Good Boss, Bad Boss: How to be the best… and learn from the worst, which I will introduce here in some detail here very soon (It was just posted on Amazon and can be pre-ordered; but I am going to wait a few days before writing about in part because they have a few things to fix on the page with both the image and the text). I also have a paperback version of The No Asshole Rule that will be published at the same time, which includes a new chapter, an Epilogue, called "On Being that Asshole Guy."  The paperback isn't even available for pre-order yet.  And  I will talk more about the new chapter as we get closer to launch and it is available to order.  But I can say that I had a huge amount of fun writing the new chapter and got into it so much that neither I nor my editor could quite believe it. 

    When I began the chapter, our agreement was that it run a short 3000 words. Yet once I started digging through the highlights and thinking of all I had learned from being the asshole guy, I realized that there was no way that 3000 words was enough and my editor agreed when he saw the first draft. So the new chapter will be about 7500 words — I think the first draft was in the 10,000 word range.  I started by re-reading the emails people sent me — I dug up about 3000.  I was simply astounded by the range, quantity, and especially the quality. I went back and re-read all the pertinent blog posts here, and more generally used it as an opportunity to think about what I learned from one of the weirdest and most enlightening experiences of my professional life.

    One of the many odd things that struck me as I reflected on the experience was that I had written a book that many people claimed was remarkably useful, even though they hadn't read it. As an author, I confess that this insight still disturbs me both because I worked so hard on every sentence in the book and, well, I want people to spend the money to buy my book.  Here is what I said about this insight in the new chapter (note that a word here and there might be different in the final version):

    I
    believe the title struck such a nerve is because, for most people, the A-word
    captures the emotional and tangible elements of working with, managing, and
    being these destructive characters so well — indeed, people who haven’t read a
    page make remarkably accurate guesses about the contents.  This is
    disconcerting because, after all, I devoted a big hunk of my life to
    researching, writing, and editing these words.   Mark Twain defined a
    “classic” as “a book which people praise and don't read.”  The No Asshole
    Rule     isn’t a classic, but takes Twain’s point further by being a book that
    people can understand pretty well without reading.   There are other
    reasons the book is useful to those who don’t read it. An attorney explained
    that although she had not read it yet, she displayed a copy prominently in her
    office – and pointed to it when one of her colleagues started turning nasty. 
    An executive from a large internet company told me a similar story
    recently.  He claimed to have read it and liked it, but said it was most
    useful as a protective device.  People saw it on his desk, which reminded
    them to be civil, and “When they do lose it, I hold it up in front of my face
    like a shield – they get the message and turn it down immediately.”

    I also know leaders who haven't read the book, but still use it to help enforce the rule. The leaders of several professional
    services firms discussed the book with me and explained they use the rule to
    help set their partners’ salaries – especially to justify paying less to top
    earners who are all-star assholes. At one firm, the lead partner waved the book
    around as he announced the rule would be used in compensation decisions.     A
    couple years later, he told me it was working so well that he really ought to
    read it!  Copies of the book have also been used as symbolic weapons
    against asshole bosses.  In 2008, I gave a talk on the Stanford campus to
    several hundred leaders of nonprofit organization    s. Afterwards, a
    vice-president from one non-profit pulled me aside and told me how they finally
    got their abusive CEO sacked.  The senior team (sans CEO) met with the
    board of directors, gave them each a copy of the book, and all threatened to
    resign if the CEO was not removed immediately.  The board voted to fire
    the CEO later that day.

    I still think this is pretty weird, but I have accepted it as just one more twist in The No Asshole Rule story.  If you have any other ideas or stories about how the book can be used to good — or I suppose bad — effect even by people who don't read or buy it, I would be most curious to hear.

  • Fantastic Free Conference on Reconciling Business Growth and Sustainability on May 4h at Stanford


    My friend and colleague Debra Dunn
    from the Stanford d.school just wrote me about a conference that she is hosting
    as part of her class on Sustainable Abundance. 
    She has put together such a fantastic line-up that I think I am going to
    sneak out of the house to attend.   Here
    are the details and it is open to the public and free. BUT as they need to know
    roughly how many people are attending, if you are going to do so, please     RSVP to miniconference@rocketmail.com.  Here is the scoop:

    2010
    SUSTAINABLE ABUNDANCE MINI CONFERENCE

    Theme: Reconciling Business Growth and Sustainability

    When:   Tuesday, May 4, 3:15-5:00

    Where:  Stanford d.school, Peterson Building (Building 550), Studio 1

    Panelists:

    Andrew Ruben, Wal-Mart.  He was appointed
    by Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott as the first vice president of the company's
    sustainability initiative. Now he heads Wal-Mart's private brand sourcing
    strategy and drives   increased ecological transparency of Wal-Mart's
    suppliers.

    Adam Lowry, co-founder of Method Home Products.
    Lowery now  heads the Greenskeeping team
    at Method, which is composed of environmental specialists, scientists, and toxicologists

    Albert Straus, founder and President of Straus
    Family Creamery    , the first Organic Dairy west of the Mississippi

    The conference will be moderated by Debra Dunn and Bob Adams.   Bob pioneered the design for sustainability practice at IDEO, where
    he is now a Fellow.

    The range
    of experience and skill here is just stunning. 
    The thing that really impresses me about this line-up is that every
    person is deeply committed to supporting sustainably in ways that mesh with and
    support financial performance.  And all
    five — the panelists and moderators — have done more than talk about doing so,
    they each spent years making it happen, 
    I also have heard most of them speak, and this is a remarkably lively,
    fun, and honest group.  Again,     please
    RSVP to miniconference@rocketmail.com.   

    P.S. As
    an added bonus, if you go to the conference, you get to see the new d.school
    building, which is very cool.

  • Nice Article in WSJ on Banishing Office Jerks, But They Seem Afraid to Say “Asshole”

    A few weeks back, just before my surgery, I was interviewed by Sue Shellenbarger of the the Wall Street Journal about an article she was doing on workplace jerks and their management.  The article on Banishing the Office Jerks appeared today, and I must say — after reading hundreds of these things over the last few years — this is one of the very best.  It focuses particularly on  Lars Dalgaard, the CEO of HR software firm SuccessFactors.  I have written about Lars and his firm's "no jerks" rule several times, including here and here (they used to call it "no assholes," but cleaned it up right about the time they went public).  I am glad that I introduced Sue to Lars.  He admits that he was an workplace jerk early in his career,  As I suggested to Sue when I told her about Lars, one of the things I admire most about him is that in a world where most executives are so guarded and so defensive that it is difficult to understand what the hell they are actually saying, Lars tells the truth.  (Indeed, as I was watching the Goldman executives testify to congress yesterday, I realized that — no doubt with help from their lawyers — they seemed to have mastered the art of talking on and on without ever actually conveying any content.)  I have talked to Lars about how he sees himself as a recovering asshole before, but I was struck to see how, in the article, he traced it back to family dynamics when he was growing-up (a topic that people who study workplace assholes rarely touch on): 

    He has since realized that an old family pattern was at work, he says.
    His father was so tough and blunt with him when he was small that he was
    behaving the same way with others, trying to be "the hero CEO, the
    Rambo" who ignored people's feelings. Now that he is conscious of the
    problem, he says he has changed his ways. He has even instituted a
    "no-jerks" policy at his company, banning similar behavior by others.

    I was also pleased to see that Sue included a bit of information about another one of my favorite executives, Paul Purcell of Baird, who as I have written here before credits his firm's no asshole rule for both its civilized culture (it keeps rising on Fortune's best place to work list) and also credits it for helping Baird — a financial services firm — grow stronger during financial meltdown.  I write a fair amount about Paul and Baird in my next book, Good Boss, Bad Boss, as I find him one of the most impressive CEOs around in terms of his ability to build a culture that strikes a healthy balance between humanity and performance.  I was interested to see that Sue reported:

    Paul Purcell, chairman, president and chief executive, estimates he has fired more than 25 offenders in the last five years,
    including people who "hurt and belittle other people," or who put their
    own interests ahead of clients or the firm. When he speaks to groups of
    prospective recruits, he warns them: If you're a jerk, "don't come,
    because we'll figure it out. It will be worse for you than it is for
    us.    "

    A final little point, Sue writes that Baird "has a no jerks rule."  That is actually a bit inaccurate.  As the Fortune story makes clear, they call it The No Asshole Rule at Baird.  Apparently, although the WSJ had enough courage to write out the name of my book once or twice a few years back, and called it the The No A——- Rule on their bestseller list, they have lost their nerve again as they not only censor Baird's rule, they described me as "an author of a book on bad workplace behavior."  Oh well, I am more optimistic that they will spell out the name of my next book,  as Good Boss, Bad Boss is very clean title.

    My whining about censorship aside, check out the WSJ article, it is excellent.

  • Why Newcomers Often See Things More Clearly Than Old Hands

    The Wall Street Journal had a fascinating story this morning about about "Fabulous Fab" Tourre, the young Goldman Sachs banker who is at the center of their latest public relations nightmare.  Writer Dennis Berman argues that Fab may be A Hero in Villain's Garb because, if you look at the emails he sent to friends, he is often questioning his "place in an-ever absurd realm of CDs, CDOs, and CDO-squareds."  Berman notes that Tourre "expresses deep doubts about some of the very things that got Wall Street in such a mess."  The inspired part of Berman's analysis is that, although Goldman called the Fab's emails "immature and embarrassing to the firm,"  he suggests that we consider that the Fab's:

    "[D]oubts and concerns reflect the virtues of newcomers in organizations — when they first arrive, they can see the virtues, flaws, and quirks of an organizational culture.  But as they become more deeply socialized, they begin to accept it all as "normal," and do not question — or even notice –what they are doing or why the are doing it."  

    Building on Berman's lovely point, the young and under-socialized are often those who see the world for what it is, and speak up about it.  Of course, it is a child who speaks the truth in the "The Emperor's New Clothes," the classic the tale by 'Hans Christian Andersen about two
    weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes invisible to those
    unfit for their positions or incompetent.  When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child
    cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

    The Goldman case aside (I am not ready to call The Fab a hero), there is a crucial lesson here for every boss and every organization.  Awareness — and innovation too– depend on listening to the young and naive, to those who are not yet brainwashed and unable to see what is odd, wrong, and what might be done differently.   As I argued in Weird Ideas That Work, if you are an expert, seek and listen to novices, as their fresh eyes can provide insights that you are unable to see.  Or as Diego puts it over at Metacool, seeing old things in new ways, depends on finding ways to adopt "the beginners mind" or "the mind of a child."  In some organization's I have worked with, senior executives accomplish this with "reverse mentoring" programs, where they are assigned to listen to and be coached by newcomers.  This is an effective strategy if the veterans actually make it safe for the rookies to speak their minds.

    Along these lines, one of my favorite stories (as told by Firefox's Asa Dotzler) was when Netscape hired a 15 year-old kid named Blake Ross as a summer intern. Blake apparently stood-up at a company meeting and explained why the website had become so crappy and was doomed to fail.  This is the same 15 year-old kid who had been working for free on the Netscape open source project that eventually led to the development of the Firefox browser — and had spent hundreds of hours stripping-out lousy Netscape code, so he knew what he was talking about. And his prediction about the demise of Netscape was on target. 

  • 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

  • His ARSE Score Dropped from 12 to 2: More Evidence That Asshole Poisoning is Contagious

    One of the main themes in The No Asshole Rule is that, if you work with a bunch of mean-spirited creeps, it is very difficult to avoid catching these "adult cooties."  There are at least two reasons this happens.  The first is that a pile of studies show that emotions and behavior patterns are remarkably contagious — that without realizing it, we mimic the way that people around us act.  The second reason is self-preservation: If you work with a bunch of nasty creeps who put you down all the time, treat you as if you are invisible, bad-mouth you, and tease you in hostile ways, sometimes the only way to protect yourself (for better or worse) is to return fire.   These points are supported by academic research, especially the one about emotional contagion.

    Yet it is always fascinating to see how this stuff plays out in the real world. I got an intriguing email the other day from a fellow (who had written me a second time) to report a big drop in his ARSE (Asshole Rating Self-Exam) score after leaving an asshole-infested workplace and moving to a civilized one.  Here is his email, with names of companies and people removed:

    Hi Bob,
    I sent you
    an email several years back (I believe around March 2008) when I left a
    horribly poisonous company after less than 3 months of employment.

    Since then I
    have started with [an energy company].  Very different environment. It's not
    Shangri-la but it's definitely a more positive workplace.

    When I was
    working for [the horribly poisonous company ] I had taken the ARSE exam and scored a 12 (after answering
    honestly). Today, I retook the test (answering honestly again) and scored a 2.
    I've sent the test to others in my work group and asked them to give me their
    test scores. The highest score was a 6.


    I also find
    myself much more productive and spend most of my time working on how to achieve
    the group's goals instead of how to protect mysel    f    .

    This story also reinforces a point I make over and over again on this blog and every other place I write and speak: If you are in an asshole-infested work group or organization, the best thing you can do is to get out as fast as you can.  Yes, there are ways to limit the damage, fight back, and to make changes — but they don't always work, and even when they do, you can suffer a lot of damage in the process.

  • 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