Work Matters

  • The Meanest Bartender in San Francisco

    At this point, we certainly don't need any additional evidence that people get VERY worked-up about assholes, but I can't resist this fantastic post on SF Gate (the San Francisco Chronicle website) by Harmon Leon on "Who are the meanest bartenders in San Francisco?"  The best part is the comments, a whopping 468 for a rather sleepy part of blogging universe.  This post is brilliant and very funny.  For example, consider this excerpt:

    The award for the all time meanest bartenders in San Francisco has got
    to go to the crew at the     Zeitgeist.
    Besides scowling things like, "F-ing yuppies," if someone with a shirt
    with buttons orders a drink, there is always an unpleasant sort of
    life-has-kicked-them-in-the-nuts, unhealthy tweaker vibe when you when
    you try to order a drink.

    One time the bartender threw my change at me because I left her 4
    quarters as a tip for a beer. (That still equals a dollar, right?)
    Serious issues. Extra points for the bouncer always doing my favorite
    non-ironic, closing time speech: "Last call! Drink `em up! You don't
    have to go home BUT YOU CAN'T STAY HERE    !"

    I love this, it reminds of a now long dead but famous San Francisco waiter Edsel Ford Fong who was the star attraction at rather mediocre Chinese restaurant.  You went there for his brilliant and funny insults.. I once asked him for a fork, which he turned into a public shaming ritual as he made me walk and get it myself while he taunted me for my disrespect of him, his restaurant, and all Chinese people on the planet.  He is immortalized  at the San Francisco Giants lovely ballpark, where there is a Chinese restaurant named Edsel Ford Fong.

    Under the right conditions, a professional asshole can be a lot of fun. 

  • Blame is Contagious, Except When People Have High Self-Worth

    A pair of themes that I have returned to over and over again at Work Matters are:

    1. One of the most revealing tests of a leader or organization is "what happens when people fail" (especially, creating psychologically safety rather than a climate of fear is important, as is accountability for mistakes).

    2. Emotions, especially negative ones, are dangerously contagious.  Indeed, one of the main themes of The No Asshole Rule is that one of the most reliable way to turn into a jerk is to have a boss who is a jerk or to enter a swarm of of them — it is hard to resist catching the poisoning.  

    A recent study by Nathaniel Fast at USC (who got his PhD at Stanford) and Stanford Business School Professor Larissa Tiedens in the January 2010 issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology provides compelling new evidence of the nuances of how an especially vile form of nastiness spreads — blaming others when things go wrong.  The article is called “Blame Contagion: The Automatic Transmission of Self-Serving
    Attributions” and is apparently the first series of experiments that have ever examined if blaming others spreads like a contagious disease. Plus it contains a fascinating twist — blame was highly contagious EXCEPT when the researchers first took steps to help research subjects bolster their self worth.  There is a great summary of on the USC website here.  But some key highlights are (quoted from the summary):

    1. Anyone can become a blamer, Fast said, but there are some common traits.
    Typically, they are more ego defensive, have a higher likelihood of
    being narcissistic and tend to feel chronically insecure.

    2. The experiments showed that individuals who watched someone blame
    another for mistakes went on to do the same with others.In one experiment, half of the participants were asked to read a
    newspaper article about a failure by Gov. Schwarzenegger, who blamed
    special interest groups for the controversial special election that
    failed in 2005, costing the state $250 million. A second group read an
    article in which the governor took full responsibility for the failure.     Those who read about the governor blaming special interest groups
    were more likely to blame others for their own unrelated shortcomings,
    compared with those who read about Schwarzenegger shouldering the
    responsibility    .     (the emphasis in mine). 

    3. Another experiment found that self-affirmation inoculated
    participants from blame. The tendency for blame to spread was completely
    eliminated in a group of participants who had the opportunity to affirm
    their self-worth. “By giving participants the chance to bolster their self-worth, we
    removed their need to self-protect though subsequent blaming,” Fast
    said.

    This last finding is especially important and has all sorts of interesting implications for leadership, life, and  especially politics.  Apparently, pointing fingers at others is not only contagious, it is amplified by insecurity and apparently eliminated when people feel valued and esteemed.   Note this crucial to the effectiveness of a group or organization because, when something goes wrong, if the response is a "circular firing squad" as I have heard it called, then not only do people devote their energy to attacking each other, they have less energy — and little incentive — for working on repairing the problem.  

    Also, this research perhaps helps explain the sad state of much of American politics these days. Blamestorming is a contagious disease that has spread and I am confident that among those in the political ranks (or who aspire to higher office) the incidence of insecurity and especially narcissism is very high.  As an example of someone who plays in both spheres, Carly Fiornia former HP CEO and now candidate for Senate in California was infamous for her narcissism and her penchant for blaming others, as documented in the Fortune article that finally drove he board to fire her.  Turning to her new life as a politician, if  you have not seen her Demon Sheep Attack Ad, you have missed something weird and wonderful). Although Carly does not suffer from insecurity, the narcissism findings ring true.

    To return to leadership and management, the lesson from this new research, as well as many other studies of psychological safety. is that great bosses treat mistakes as an opportunity to learn, develop careers, and make the system stronger. And, yes, for accountability too.  As the USC summary of the above research indicates, there are organizations out there that are remarkably good at learning from mistakes, rather than as an opportunity for finger-pointing and humiliation of culprits:

    Or managers could follow the lead of companies such as Intuit, which
    implemented a “When Learning Hurts” session where they celebrated and
    learned from mistakes, rather than pointing fingers and assigning blame.
    The blame contagion research provides empirical evidence that such a
    practice can avoid negative effects in the culture of the organizatio    n.

    This is damn good advice for any boss.

     

  • Front Stage Vs. Backstage Behavior: A Cultural Lesson?

     I try to understand and respect the differences among cultures, what they mean for how I should behave, and the implications for how well — or badly — management practices from one culture apply to another.  But trying to understand them does not mean that I quite know how to deal with differences as I encounter them in the moment, or even if what I THINK are cultural differences really are differences — or just reflect the usual variation in organizational cultures and human personality that are always present. But I might have learned something in Singapore last week that is a cultural difference — and I would appreciate any comments about if I am right or wrong, and that add nuances that I no doubt mixed. 

    I had the privilege of spending three days in Singapore last week working with leaders in industry and the government on leadership and innovation issues.  In one of the workshops I helped lead, I reviewed various studies and examples showing that constructive conflict is linked to group performance and, especially, creativity and innovation.  If you read this blog, you will see this theme pretty often, as I write about having strong opinions weakly held, fighting if you are right and listening as if you are wrong, fast fights at the Stanford d.school, and this was big theme in the interview we did a couple years ago with Brad Bird of Pixar. All these studies, however, are (I believe) conducted in western countries.  One of the folks I was working with in Singapore commented that open — even if constructive — conflict is something that westerners do, but Asians tend not to do (and indeed although I engaged in some open disagreement, especially with a fellow American academic, there was not much other open disagreement in any of the workshops).

    BUT I am talking about in open — if small — public forums.   In contrast, I spent a lot of time in one on one conversations engaging in quite active debate and (polite) two-way constructive criticism.  Indeed, I would say that I engaged in more argument in one-on-one conversations than I would with a typical American business crowd.   I would also add that these backstage conversations — for the most part — helped improve the workshops and sharpen my thinking.  So here is my hypothesis, that as the famous sociologist Erving Goffman emphasized, there is always a huge difference between front stage and back stage behavior in organizational life… and in this case, the amount and quality of constructive conflict I experienced was similar to what I would expect from a U.S. organization, but the difference is that it all happened backstage.

    My tentative hypothesis here is that there is just as much constructive conflict in Singapore and perhaps other Asian countries as in western countries, but more of it happens in one-on-ones and otherwise behind the scenes.  I suspect that a lot of you out there will say "duh" in response, but I am curious to hear if this seemingly obvious truth is, well, true.   And if it is wrong or partly wrong, why — and any other related insights. Thanks.

  • The Polish Translation of The No Asshole Rule is Out: What Does This Cover Say?

    Polish No Asshole Rule

  • I Call Them Adult Cooties

    I am putting the finishing touches on a new chapter of The No Asshole Rule that will appear in the paperback edition of the book, which will be published in September. The title of the chapter (which looks like it will persist) is "On Being the Asshole Guy."  To help write the chapter, I have been re-reading thousands of emails and comments on this blog.  I thought you might like the line that I use a title for this post.  It came in an email from a pastor in Georgia, who asked "Do You Study Churches?"  She went on express concern that the nasty and petty parishioners were turning her mean:

    I entered a toxic
    environment and I too have fallen for being an asshole (actually I call them
    the 'adult cooties').  I am trying to turn around and be more sensitive,
    especially as I tend to stress my secretary rather than kick my dog    .

    As we've seen here many times, nastiness is a contagious disease, even for priests, ministers, and rabbis — after all, they are just human being like the rest of us.   But I love her phrase "adult cooties."  

    P.S. The paperback edition of The No Asshole Rule will be released in conjunction with my new book, Good Boss, Bad Boss: How to be the best… and learn from the worst."  I will begin blogging about that in the next couple weeks.



  • If Your Boss is an Asshole, Don’t Give Him or Her the Book

    One of the strange things about The No Asshole Rule that took me at least a year after publication to understand is that just owning, displaying, and — in particular — giving someone the book as a present (or even suggesting they read it) can have strong effects.  And they are not all good. On the positive side, a senior executive at a large professional service firm told me that at a meeting of the firm's partners, the CEO waved around a copy of the book and told them that whether or not they followed the rule would be factored into compensation decisions.  Most of them had not read the book, and didn't read it after that, but just the act of waiving around the book and suggesting something like "and if you are a chronic asshole, we are going to push the delete button pictured on the cover" was enough to get their attention and, I am told, did help a few of the most recalcitrant jerks tone down their nastiness. 

    A number of people have also explained to me that the book is a useful "defensive tool" or "protective device." An
    attorney reported that although she had not read it yet, she bought a copy and
    displayed it prominently in her office – and pointed to it when one of her
    colleagues started turning nasty.  A senior executive from a large
    technology company told me a similar story just a few weeks ago    .  He did
    claim to have liked and read the book, but argued it was even more 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 usually get the message and turn down venom immediately.     

    But there are also dangers to simply owning the book, as people are
    sometimes offended by it — especially when they are concerned that they are the
    asshole in question.  In the fast few
    years, several people have told me that when they brought the book to work,
    they were ordered to hide it, bring it home, and never bring it to work again
    because the title was in such bad taste.  An office assistant wrote me
    that her boss put a negative note in her personnel file because the book upset
    several coworkers.  This assistant added that the only person it really
    upset was her boss, because she was a certified asshole and she and everyone
    else knew it.  In a more troubling case, a woman berated me on the phone
    and over email because her sister was fired for bringing the book to work
    because her boss found the title offensive.  This cold-hearted act
    provided further evidence he was a bosshole, but that was little consolation as
    she needed the job.

    Unfortunately,
    I learned of a new example of the dangers of using the book (regardless of its
    actual contents) yesterday in a rather heartbreaking comment that “Regan” made
    in response to my question “What’s the worst advice you have ever received:”  

    The
    only management book I have ever bought was the "No Asshole Rule"
    because it was about time someone put it in writing. It was a great book, my
    whole department loved it – they advised me give it to my boss to read – he did
    not see the humour in it, and he must have seen himself clearly fit the
    definitions of "asshole" because I lost my job shortly after giving
    him the book. So, although I think The No Asshole Rule is the best management
    book ever written – I think the advice about giving it to your boss if he/she is
    a tyrant is pretty bad advice – didn't work out too well for me anyway…    ..

    I
    found it quite painful to read how much Regan liked my book and how much it
    ended-up hurting him — I didn't advise him to give to his boss, but I hope others can learn from this incident .  Although I hope
    you find the ideas in the book to be helpful, but I also hope that – especially
    if you are in a place where paranoia and mistrust run high and psychological
    safety is low – you will learn from these cautionary tales, and be careful
    where you bring the book and who you give it to as a "present." 

    A broader lesson is that – ironically – telling a person that he or she is an asshole can be an insulting thing to do, and can
    sometimes turn even a civilized person into an asshole. 
    And apparently, this is especially true if that
    person really is a certified asshole (and especially dangerous to you if he or she wields power over
    you).

  • If Your Actions Inspire People to Dream More, Learn More, Do More and Become More, Then You Are A Leader

    Apparently, John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States said that. I like that quote because, while so much writing, research, and advice focuses on what leaders say and do (which is right), sometimes people forget that the measure of a leader is found in how he or she affects others, and Adams makes the point so well.

    I encountered this quote in an "inspirational" slide deck with music called "Are You A Leader," which was apparently done by a company called Signature. A reader named Matt was kind enough to point me to it, suggesting I might like it.  I did like a lot of the quotes in it and it was well done, although it is a little too pretty and uncritical for my tastes, but that probably says more about my personality than the quality of the deck — which was clearly done with much thought and care.

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

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

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

  • DoYou Like My New Graphics?

    I was rather shocked, and quite delighted, to get an email from Katie Clark at IDEO yesterday with several different new graphics for the top of my blog.  I didn't ask her or talk to her about, she just decided to send me some new ones because she and her colleagues at IDEO were looking at my blog and decided to try some new designs.  I feel mighty lucky to have friends who are world class designers and decide on a whim to give me presents like that.  Thanks Katie!

    The new design above is the one I like best.  In the IDEO and d.school spirit, this is a prototype and I can always go back to the old design or perhaps see if you like one of the other one's better.  For starters, what do you think of the new design above?

    P.S. I would also like to give a big thank you to Tim Keely for inserting the new graphic.

  • Boris Groysberg’s Research on Star Employees: Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth

    I have written here fairly often about research by Harvard Business School's Boris Groysberg on the virtues and limits of star employees.  One of my posts described has delightful research that shows firms should steal superstar women, not men.  It turns out that when star men move to another firm, they tend to do a lot worse in the new setting.  In contrast, star women tend to sustain their performance when they go to another firm.  Groysberg suggests this difference is explained because women are more skilled at establishing new relationships and less likely to engage in dysfunctional internal competition in their new firms.

    Boris's new research is equally fascinating, a while back, he sent me an article he wrote with two colleagues called called "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth" (see complete reference below). They studied over 6000 industry analysts from 246 research departments in Wall Street firms — these are people who write reports about the current and expected performance of firms, and who specializes in particular industries. Their reports predict future earnings for companies and contain recommendations about whether to buy or sell stocks.  As Boris and his colleagues show, some of these analysts are stars, selected by the Institutional Investor as being the top person in their industry and being picked as a star is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation.  The results of this research are interesting because, while some leaders might think that there is no such thing as having too many stars, Boris and his colleagues found a curvilinear relationship between the number of stars in a group and overall performance — so, having a few stars help, have a few more doesn't hurt (but doesn't help), but groups reach a tipping point where too many stars seem to dampen performance. 

    Groysberg and his colleagues suggest that the "too many cooks" problem happens because partly because, when a group is filled with individual stars, the dynamics degenerate because people devote excessive attention to the the internal status game and competition and hesitate to share information that may help the group as a whole, but will threaten their standing in the group.  In other words, when there are too many stars, people focus on what is best for themselves, see other top performers as people who are in the way rather than people they should help, and the overall performance of the team seems less important.

    This is just one study, but a quite rigorous one one.  And it adds for evidence to the claim that Jeff Pfeffer made in the The Knowing-Doing Gap that dysfunctional internal competition is one of the most vile impediments to turning knowledge into action in groups and organizations.  Once the game becomes "I win when you lose," the team or organization suffers.

    Here is the complete reference: Groysberg, Boris, Jeffrey T. Polzer, and Hillary Anger Elfenbein. "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth: How High Status Individuals Decrease Group Effectiveness." Organization Science (forthcoming).