Work Matters

  • Meet the “I Hate People” People: Jonathan Littman and Marc Hershon at Kepler’s This Wednesday at 7:30

    400000000000000164222_s4
    Jonathan and Marc don't hate all people, but they make a great case that there are all kinds of types in the world that drive us crazy and being prepared to deal with them is crucial.  I also especially relate to what they call the soloist, as although I like people, I can't only deal with them in small doses and when I have taken proper precautions, so I really resonate with this book.  If you want to meet Jonathan and Marc — one of the must fun pair of authors you will ever meet — they will be at Kepler's in Menlo Park at 7:30 on Wednesday. I will be introducing them, which should be good fun.  If you come to the event, you might want to ask Jonathan, now a respected and dignified adult, if the story that (as a teenager) he accidentally drove his father's Alfa Romeo into the swimming pool is true. This is purely a rumor, and when I asked Jonathan if it was true once, and I did not fully understand the answer.   I continue to hope it is true, as it is such a great story — and increased more admiration for Jonathan. 

    Also, if you go to the event and haven't yet bought the book, please buy it at Kepler's as everyone benefits when we support this local bookstore. I love Amazon, but you can't see Jonathan and Marc there in person, can't walk through the aisles and touch the book, and can't take your new book (just signed by these guys) outside and have an espresso or glass of wine at the lovely cafe right next door when you are online.

    I look forward to seeing you there. Here is the scoop from the Kepler's website.

  • Sexism and Female Playwrights

    Today's New York Times describes a fascinating trio of studies — by a clearly brilliant undergraduate named Emily Glassberg Sands (her research is a lot better than most doctoral dissertations) — that reveals some sexism against female playwrights. Check out the article Rethinking Gender Bias in the Theater. The first study shows that the main reason that fewer plays written by women are produced is because they write fewer plays than men.  The third study shows that plays that do get produced that are written by women make more money than those written by men — on average, they were 18% more profitable — the implication being that standards are higher for female than male playwrights.  But the second study is really fascinating, as it revealed clear sexism — by WOMEN, but not men.  I quote the article:

    'For the second study, Ms. Sands sent identical scripts to artistic
    directors and literary managers around the country. The only difference
    was that half named a man as the writer (for example, Michael Walker),
    while half named a woman (i.e., Mary Walker). It turned out that Mary’s
    scripts received significantly worse ratings in terms of quality,
    economic prospects and audience response than Michael’s. The biggest
    surprise? “These results are driven exclusively by the responses of
    female artistic directors and literary managers,” Ms. Sands said.'

    If both men and women were biased against women, as there are numerous studies that show that negative stereotypes against women, minorities, and are often held just as strongly by members of those groups as outsiders — notably by John Jost at NYU.  I also want to emphasize that plenty of other research documents gender bias by men against women. Just look at the top management teams and boards of Fortune 500 firms — that is mostly a story of men bringing in people who look and act like their favorite person on the planet: Themselves! Or as Harvard's Rosabeth Moss Kanter called this process, "Homosocial Reproduction."

    Nonetheless, this is pretty compelling evidence of unabashed sexism by women against themselves? Do you believe this is true in other settings?  If so, why would this happen?  

    P.S. You can find many of John' Jost's articles at his website, where he offers free downloads. And you might also check out his most controversial  research on "Why are conservatives happier than liberals?"

     

  • New York Times, I Hate People, Censorship, and Headphones as Protective Devices

    21career-190 This morning's Sunday New York Times has a well-researched piece by Phyllis Korkki in her Career Couch column called "I Find You Annoying, But I Can Cope." It starts out with a quote from Jonathan Littman about the implications of the ideas in I Hate People for dealing people who bug you at work (see their post), and travels through a lot different methods for coping with the problem from several other researchers and the like.  I was quoted in the article several times, emphasizing some of my favorite themes from The No Asshole Rule including the virtues of learning indifference and emotional detachment to deal with people who bug you, especially when you can't make an immediate escape — to not let them touch your soul as I say so often.

     Alas, very early in my conversations with Phyllis she informed that, as had happened with The New York Times from the outset, they wouldn't publish the name of my book, even though it is a bestseller, the ideas are used in many companies, it was on their bestseller list (albeit as The No ******* Rule), and they accepted a lot of money from my publisher to print large ads that mocked them for not printing the title.  In fact, they weren't even willing to indicate that I was an author of a book on the subject in the article.  I find the whole thing silly but made clear to Phyllis that I understood Times policy and we should go ahead with the interviews, and I think she did a great job of capturing all sorts of ways of coping with challenge of working with people who drive you crazy.  This censorship thing comes with the territory, and as I wrote here and here at Huffington awhile back, is something I've tried to have fun with — but I remain amazed by who is offended and who is not by the title — it was fine for a bible studies class, the Wall Street Journal, and Fortune, but not for The New York Times!

    I also wanted to dig into my comment in the article about the virtues of using headphones when you are in a loud office environment that makes it hard to concentrate (The above drawing takes this to its logical conclusion, because as I mentioned to her and Jonathan did too, I described how conflicts sometimes erupt in workplaces because other eat food that smells bad to their colleagues).  When I talked to Phyllis, I mentioned that a good pair of noise-canceling headphones had prov en essential to my son for shutting-out his loud college roommate last year.  In addition, it reminded me of 1995 study (here is the reference and abstract)by Greg Oldham and his colleagues, an experiment conducted in an organization, where they gave a random sample of employees the opportunity to listen to headphones while they worked (people who held diverse jobs in retail organization) and then tracked their tracked their reactions for four weeks, and compared them to people in a control condition who weren't offered the chance to use headphones.  They found employees who used headphones "exhibited significant improvements in performance, turnover intentions,
    organization satisfaction, mood states, and other responses."  They also found that people in the most boring and simple jobs had the most positive reactions to wearing the headphones… so there is some decent, if not definitive, evidence to support the use of headphones.

  • The HateMobile

    Hatemobile
    The authors of I Hate People, Jonathan and Marc, customized their rental car so it was a rolling advertisement for their book. A brilliant move I think,  although perhaps a bit dangerous in New York City. Check out their post, which also describes the excitement they generated  handing out promotional swag in Times Square.  These guys are getting piles of attention in the main stream media, CNN,Wall Street Journal, and New York Times. So I have to hand it to them because they are doing the guerrilla marketing thing too.

  • The No Asshole Rule at Shakespeare Miami

    I
    still get perhaps 20 emails a week from people about the challenges and triumphs
    of dealing with workplace assholes. I try to respond to each, but
    don’t print most of them because I know that readers of this blog aren’t
    interested in reading about all assholes all the time, and I would be
    bored to tears too if that was all I ever wrote about.  But every now and then I get a note that is
    just wonderful and feel compelled to share it. 
    Today, I got one of my favorite notes ever, from Colleen Stovall, who is
    the Producing Artistic Director at Shakespeare Miami – which enforces the no
    asshole rule.  I usually don’t print
    emails verbatim, but Colleen’s note is so good that I don’t want to deprive you
    of any of it.  Here it is:

    Dear
    Dr. Sutton:


    I have worked with attorneys in the past and witnessed firsthand what unchecked
    aggression and bad behavior can do to morale and performance. Many years ago I
    was brought in to cover maternity leave for a legal secretary who worked for a
    "screamer". I was in despair and ready to quit until I realized that
    I had nothing to lose. I walked into his office and calmly told the screamer
    that the first time he raised his voice to me I would erase his hard drive. I
    thought I would be fired on the spot, but strangely, he agreed. From then on
    all it took was a raised eyebrow. Life at work became much better for both of
    u    s.

    Behavior in the theater can easily become very destructive. Directors routinely
    turn a blind eye to bad behavior in the name of nurturing or retaining top
    talent. Some talented actors think that to be a "real" leading actor,
    they need to behave like jerks. This attitude can become destructive and
    quickly poison the morale of an entire cast. Anyone applying for a position
    with Shakespeare Miami is not only told about our "No Assholes" rule,
    they are required to sign an agreement to abide by it. It is posted on our
    website: www.shakespearemiami.com

    What We're Looking For in Actors Ensemble (the French word for
    "together")

    We
    choose to work with talented, entertainers who are NICE people who get along
    with fellow actors and crew.  We want
    people who make it a pleasure for a director to have you on their stage. We are
    looking for parts of a whole, people who can function well as a team.     Following the advice of the Harvard Review of New Management Techniques', we
    are committed to the ideas in the award winning book by Bob Sutton "The No
    Assholes Rule". In order to create a creative, healthy work environment
    where talent is recognized, young people are mentored and actors can feel
    challenged to learn and to polish their craft, we have instituted an active, committed
    and strongly enforced "No Assholes" rule in our company. For more
    information on this management technique, to buy his award winning book or to take
    the test to see if you qualify….see Bob's webpage: www.bobsutton.typepad.com


    I just wanted you to know that it really works. Thanks so much.

    Sincerely,

    Colleen Stovall

    Producing Artistic Director

    Shakespeare Miami

  • Great Review for “I Hate People” In Today’s Wall Street Journal

    At breakfast this morning, my wife pointed out that I Hate People (which I endorsed and is a book I love) got a long and very positive review in today's Wall Street Journal.   The reviewer did a bit of nit-picking, but he clearly is a big fan of the book.  Predicting which books will be best-sellers and which will not is impossible, but my first reaction to reading this book, which persists, is that if any book in the current market deserves to be one, this is it, because business books that are both fun and useful are as rare as hen's teeth. Check out the review here, and here is a taste.

    Refreshingly, the authors don't pretend to have all the answers. If
    the workplace career-killer happens to be your boss, they admit,
    sometimes the best you can do is hang in there and hope that he or she
    self-destructs. (And don't expect any help from HR.)

    "I Hate People" is at its best with specifics like the best length
    of time for a meeting (half an hour, and no laptops or cellphones
    allowed) and the ideal size of a project team (three to five people).
    For those who dread being trapped into cellphone chit-chat with a
    windbag colleague, there is a devilishly clever online service called
    Slydial, which sends your call directly to voicemail without running
    the risk of a time- and spirit-sapping conversation.

    "I Hate People" is a bracing antidote to the management bromide that
    "there is no 'i' in 'team.' " True enough, Messrs. Hershon and Littman
    would say — but if you move things around a bit, there is a "me."

  • Suggested Names for the Selfish Superstar Inventory

    Last week, I did a posting about the Selfish Superstar Inventory that I am developing for a current writing project, and I asked people to suggest names and items for this non-scientific scale. I got quite a few suggestions via email and in comments on the post. I think I have dug them all up.  Here they are:


    CRASS
    — Critical Ranking Analysis of Selfish Superstars


    EGOS — Evaluation Gauge for Overbearing Superstars

    BRATS
    — Basic Ranking of Asshole Tendency of Superstars

    BRASS — Basic Ranking Assessment of Selfish Superstars

    MESS — Measurement Exam for Selfish Superstars

    S.H.I.T. —   Superstar Hubris Indicator Tool (Or Selfish Human in need of Training)

    WIIFM — What's In It For Me

    Pretty Things for Pretty People

    I.A.M. — It's all about me

    SPARSE -Superstar Primadonna
    Asshole Rating Self Exam

    What is your favorite? Also, let me know if you have any other ideas for titles or items on the scale. 

    Thanks,

    Bob

  • The Asshole and Umpire

    We are are in the middle of baseball season here in the United States, and as in any sport where people succeed and fail in public and there is performance pressure, the situation is ripe to turn even mild-mannered people into temporary assholes, and of course, to unleash the full force of certified assholes.  On that point, I got an instructive and entertaining email from Dave Coates, a senior HR manager and a guy who has served as an umpire now and then.  Here is his story:

    A few years ago I was an umpire for a local
    softball organization.  During the third inning in one game I blew a call
    at second base.  The coach for the negatively impacted team immediately
    got in my face and spontaneously hit a full-blown asshole rage.  I called
    timeout and sent both teams to their respective dugouts and asked the coach to
    join me in centerfield.  His rage continued until I told him to shut-up or
    the game was over.  Once I had quiet, I told the coach that he was right,
    I had blown the call and I was not going to reverse it.  However, my
    mistake did not cost his team any runs and earlier in the game his shortstop
    had made two fielding errors that has cost his team three runs.  I now
    want to know why is it okay for him to get in my face and cuss me out based on
    my error, but he never said a word to his shortstop when the errors had cost
    his team runs.  The coach was speechless.  I then told him he had two
    choices: 1) Shut the hell up and play the game with no further incident, or 2)
    If the yelling at the umpire continued I would forfeit the game to other team
    taking his team out of contention for the league championship.  Needless,
    to say the game was finished without further incident.  To this day, the
    coach is still an asshol    e.

    One of the interesting things about this story is that Dave used the "Dirty Harry" method of conflict resolution — exercising the full powers of his position (I guess Dirty Harry went beyond the rules a lot, but Dave was fully in his rights).  I believe that, when you have the power, and people are acting like flaming assholes, it is fully justified.  Unfortunately, most of us don't have such power to deal with the assholes in our lives and must resort to more subtle methods.

    Dave, thanks for the story!

  • The Selfish Superstar Inventory: I’d Love Your Ideas

    I am working on a little quiz based on something that Jeff Pfeffer and I have been thinking about since we wrote The Knowing-Doing Gap a decade ago, that continues in The No Asshole Rule, and I am thinking about again right now for my current work on great bosses.  We've thought a lot about the problem of destructive internal competition,and one of the little revelations we've had over the last few years is that one of the best diagnostic questions for determining if a boss or organization is fueling cooperation and information sharing– or stomping it out — is "who they are the superstars here?"  Bosses who reward solo superstars who stomp on others, stab them in the back, and steal their ideas are — whether they want to or not — breeding people and building a culture that anoints greedy and selfish superstars.

    In contrast, bosses who anoint people as superstars only when they do stellar solo work AND when they help others succeed too, are creating the right kinds of stars.  I have written a lot over the years about different reward systems.  Hard Facts reviews pretty compelling evidence that organizations that emphasize the differences between the very best versus the "merely" competent and reliable employees may do a better job of holding on to the stars. But they often undermine overall team and organizational performance.   Nonetheless, I have been fascinated to learn in recent years that, although there are huge differences among the compensation systems at places like IDEO, McKinsey, GE, and Procter & Gamble, all are similar in that — to be treated as a star — you need to help others succeed, not just do great individual work.

    Along these lines,I am trying to come-up with a fun and instructive way to show the damage that selfish superstars do (for a current project).  I am trying to come up with something as fun and useful as the ARSE (Asshole Self-Assessment Rating Exam), which is closing in on 200,000 completions.  The working title is the SSI (Selfish Superstar Inventory), and I am looking to generate about 20 diverse –  including humorous — items.  This post is a plea for help.  In particular:

    1. If you have a better title, I would love to hear it. The SSI doesn't quite sing like ARSE.

    2.  I'd love suggestions for items on the quiz.  To give you a sense of the kind of thing I am experimenting with:

    People we hire:

    Love to brag about their accomplishments.

    Say “we” but think “me.”

    See their peers as competitors, even “the enemy.”

    People who get ahead here:

    Stomp on colleagues on the way to the top

    Are always loved by their superiors, but often despised
    by their peers and subordinates

    Ask for help, but never seem to give it

    Don’t need to play well with others.

    Constantly push
    for more goodies for themselves, but never go to bat for colleagues.

    Note I am in the early stages of this project, so please don't hesitate to suggest a different structure and, in the spirit of brainstorming, go for wild ideas.  I think I am making things too tame thus far. Thanks! I am looking forward to your ideas

  • Layoffs: One Deep Cut Versus Lots of Little Cuts

    There is a good conversation about the challenges of managing during tough times over at McKinsey.com where people are discussing the video, Good Boss, Bad Times, which is based on my current HBR article. There is an interesting and insightful comment by Wendy (and quite a few others too, I especially like the one by Alan Himmer) about the nuances of leading during tough times.  As I look at the comments, however, I realize that although videos are wonderful, they can't quite contain the nuances of an article.  And, in fact, Wendy makes an excellent point that, although I don't touch on it in the video, is something that comes up in the article, and is something I've been painfully aware of since doing a case of the collapse of Atari over 20 years.  As Wendy put it, 'try to make budgetary cuts in one fell swoop—it is better to cut too
    deep than to go back to the troops with more bad news. Incremental cuts
    only destroy employee confidence and leave them “stuck” with confusion
    and resentment.'

    Wendy's advice dovetails with the argument in my article in that, to manage well during tough times, a good boss gives people as much predictability as possible — and especially does everything he or she can to make clear when people are "safe" versus have reason to worry.  One of the worst things a boss or company can do is to make constant cuts at seemingly random intervals, as it causes people to live in a constant state of fear as they wait for the other shoe to fall.  As Wendy suggests, although a single deep cut is hell, it is a better alternative than wave after wave of smaller cuts.  Of course, things these days are unpredictable enough that what may seem like a deep and adequate cut today may later turn out to be inadequate,doing fewer and deeper cuts to the extent possible is a more effective strategy in the long-run.