The Harvard Business Review is hosting an online "debate" on How to Fix Business Schools. The first salvo is fired by Joel Podolny, a long time academic who just took a job Apple as a a vice-president and is now the "dean" of of Apple University. A bunch of us will be joining the debate. I wrote something placing the blame partly on the excessive stature given to the field of economics in business schools, although that is one part of a complex set of problems — I am not sure when it will appear. Another issue, which Joel touches on, is that most business schools focus more on teaching people how to talk about management than teaching them to actually do it. As an academic who is paid to talk and write about management, it is pretty clear to me by now that it is a lot easier to talk about than to actually do it! By the way, Joel is one of the rare academics who actually seems to talk about and do it well.
-
Rick Wagoner: Scapegoating or a Sign of Cultural Change?
I wasn't surprised to read that Rick Wagoner had been canned as part of the deal to get more bailout money from Washington. Scapegoating is a useful temporary measure for pleasing external critics. But it is often a symbolic act that is done in lieu of any substantive changes. As I have written before, and in detail, I believe that a core problem with GM is their broken culture — see the first post (which has more hits than anything I ever posted) and the follow-ups here and here, plus the comments are very telling.
I wonder, have people at GM changed their behavior in meetings — are the new top dogs still doing all the talking? Are they doing anything to actually get in touch with the experience of owning a GM car? Or are they still acting like all that really matters is the GM pecking order, regardless of the quality of the ideas, the cars, and the experience of owning a GM car? That's the real question. Clearly, under Wagoner's leadership, there was an inability (certainly on his part) to grasp and implement the need for a cultural change and GM still has too many product lines and far too many choices of options (this both complicates the manufacturing and supply chain, and screws-up the selling and buying experience — making it longer and so that people are less satisfied because they have too many choices, see The Paradox of Choice). It seems they are finally trying to do something about it (Anyone want to buy the Hummer brand? GM might give it to you for free!)
I am rooting for the automobile industry, especially for all those people who so desperately need jobs. But as the old saying goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while hoping that something different happens. This isn't a bad description of how GM has been ran for years. Time well tell if this change is just window dressing. Of course, a rebound in the economy will help them — but it also will mask the core problems they have if they somehow manage to survive.
-
Interesting Shoes
I taught this week in a Stanford executive program called Leading Strategic Execution, specifically on the nitty-gritty of of being a good boss in a bad economy — especially how to implement hurtful things such as layoffs and pay-cuts in ways that do as little harm as possible to people's dignity, well-being, and productivity.
Today, after lunch, an executive told me a story about how a secretary where he worked walked-up to the boss and asked "when are the layoffs?" The boss looked shocked and wondered what in the world prompted the question. She answered that when something bad was about to happen, he stopped looking people in the eye when he talked to them and looked at his feet instead. So the codeword in the place was "the boss is wearing interesting shoes today," which they all knew meant that something bad was going to happen. The specific lesson is to look your people in eye, and the general lesson is that — especially when people are living in fear — they watch the bosses every move VERY closely.
What are some other signs you've seen from bosses that bad news is coming?
-
Guy Kawasaki’s Peter Principle Pop Quiz
Guy just posted a pop quiz over at his American Express blog that melds the culprits of the financial meltdown (plus a few politicians) with the crazy language — my favorite jargon monoxide of all time — from The Peter Principle. Here are two sample questions, but you need to go to Guy's site to take the whole pop quiz:
-
Richard Wagoner’s record at GM proves which Peter axiom?
-
In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.
-
The incompetent supervisor evaluates input, not output.
-
The habitually incompetent can, by random action, be right once in a while.
Answer: 1. Obviously. [2: Wrong. Both inputs and outputs tanked. 3: Wrong. When was he ever right?]
-
-
Which of Peter’s axioms best explains Bernie Madoff?
-
Gargantuan Monumentalis: giant burial park, big mausoleum, and huge tombstone syndrome.
-
Rigor Cartis—abnormal interest in charts, with dwindling concern for realities that the charts represent.
-
Image Replaces Performance—a substitution technique involving smoke and mirrors.
-
2 and 3 only.
Answer: 4: Correct. At least, this explains his clients. [1: Wrong:
you’re confusing Madoff with Robert Stanford. 2: True, but not the
entire answer. 3: True, but not the entire answer.] -
I love the quiz because it shows how, although the times have changed, the concepts in the Peter Principle apply as well as they did 40 years ago, and the language that Dr. Peter invented remains as funny — and accurate — as ever.
-
-
Interview on Peter Principle in Women for Hire
As I wrote awhile back, I was lucky enough to be invited to write the foreward to the of writing the 40th Anniversary edition of The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong. When it is officially published in a couple weeks, I will do a longer post. But I did have fun with an interview I did at Women for Hire. My main point, I suppose, is that although both women and men are at risk of being promoted to their level of incompetence, that since organizations generally hold women to higher standards than men (and look the other way when a man is incompetent), that there are probably more incompetent men than women in the workplace. It is jsut a hypothesis, but backed by studies on negative stereotypes of women and actions against them — see Through the Labyrinth.
-
Revenge versus Indifference: The Virtues of Letting it Go
There is a lot anger these days toward all sorts of villains associated with the meltdown. And I certainly got plenty mad at the AIG executives and a lot of those financial services CEOs. But I have tried to remind myself that getting angry and obsessed with avenging others isn't very healthy.
Yes, there are times when justice demands it and when fighting back creates feelings of control. Indeed, when it comes to fighting back against assholes, my favorites stories include Jason Zweig's tale of the abused airline employee who sent the culprit's bags to Nairobi (even though he was going to LA), Sue Sherman's story (see the post about Jason's story)about how she taught new bus drivers in Ann Arbor to save-up an "accident" for revenge against an asshole driver during Christmas time, and my favorite about the radio producer who got back at her food-stealing boss by putting some Ex-Lax laced candies on her desk.
But it is also important to remember the downsides of revenge include — as you can see in Getting Even, a classic and well-documented effect is that it can fuel a vicious circle of revenge where each party feels as if the last act of revenge needs to be avenged, and each side travels through life being harmed and then harmed — without the score ever being settled.
The other and related aspect of revenge is that there are times when people who are damaged devote so much emotional energy and mind share to thoughts of getting even and generalized anger toward their abuser that consumes them, and — whether they are able to fight back or not — that inability to get it out of their mind damages their mental and physical health and their other relationships. I emphasized in The No Asshole Rule that, especially when you are trapped in situation – bad job with an asshole boss — that you can't escape from, learning the fine are of emotional detachment, of simply going through the motions to keep your income coming in, but not letting it touch your soul, is sometimes the best solution. Alas, with unemployment rates what they are, I am afraid that more and more people throughout the world are trapped in that situation than ever before — so although not everyone agrees me — I would argue that learning not to give a shit may be a more important survival skills than ever. I blogged about Why Indifference is as Important as Passion awhile back, and as you can see, got some strong reactions, both pro and con. Tom Peters especially objected — although I suspect that he isn't trapped in a job with an asshole boss while struggling to pay mortgage and keep food on the table, like all to many Americans are these days. He brags about leaving McKinsey, but I would point out that writing the best selling business book of all time gave him an escape route that most people don't have! I generally agree with Tom on most things, but not this time. I think his argument holds best for elites during good times, and not so well for the most people the rest of the time.
Indeed, to that point, an interesting study by some Spanish researchers was just published (see it summarized at BPS Digest) that followed 500 employees who suffered job stress, and compared those who responded with thoughts of revenge and anger to those who responded with emotional detachment. The findings suggest that those who responded with detachment were less likely to be bullied and (albeit a weaker finding) were less likely to suffer strains such as unhappiness, depression, and loss of sleep. The authors also cite related research in the article that shows having the ability to "switch-off" thoughts about the stress of work during off-work hours protects people from the damage caused by a stressful job.
As I have written before, I am not saying that people ought to be doormats. In fact, as I read through the research on bullying, revenge, asshole bosses, and detachment, my sense is that fighting back and winning against a bully — but finding a way to do it without worrying about it constantly and without creating a cycle of revenge might be the best solution possible. Indeed, the airline employee that Jason Zweig met seemed to have it down. She seem unfazed by the assholes tirade, and just smiled through it all, and sent his luggage 6000 miles or so from his destination. Alas, however, such perfect acts of revenge are often impossible. The old saying "don't get mad, get even" is a useful half-truth — but beware of being locked in a battle with someone who applies the same strategy.
And, in any case, do everything you can to avoid letting it touch your soul.
P.S. The study is: B
MORENOJIMENEZ, A RODRIGUEZMUNOZ, J PASTOR, A SANZVERGEL, E GARROSA
(2009). The moderating effects of psychological detachment and thoughts
of revenge in workplace bullying. Personality and Individual Differences, 46 (3), 359-364 -
Oblivious Rich Assholes
One of the themes seen in the current outrage about AIG, executive pay, and the rest is that what seems "normal" to people who have a lot of money and power may be interpreted as signs that they are arrogant, greedy, and insensitive assholes by people who lack such riches and influence. There are lots of causes of this weird clash, but certainly one of these — as I have written here before — is that being in positions of power and status causes people to become remarkably oblivious to the needs, feelings, actions, and even mere presence of those who lack power. See here and here.
Lawyers aren't the only ones who suffer from this disease, but the dynamics of law firms, with vast status differences and cultures that too often encourage selfish and nasty behavior, are breeding grounds for such dynamics. When my wife worked at a law firm, she often commented how insensitive some the lawyers were to paralegals and legal secretaries, standing and talking in front of their desks as if they didn't exist, bragging about their riches, or perhaps most unfortunate, complaining about how little they were paid within easy earshot of people making who made one-tenth of that amount.
Along these lines, I ran into a great blog post at She's Lump. I frankly can't figure out who Lump is, but she clearly works in an office with a lot of attorneys who are suffering from power poisoning. And her blog is great, no bullshit, and straight from the heart. Here is her post There Apparently Isn't a No Asshole Rule Here — which starts:
For a little over a week, I’ve been making a list of things I hear the
many attorneys I work with say on the elevator ride up to my office.
It’s not as if I’m eavesdropping because I am in an elevator
after all, and it’s somewhat hard to have a conversation without
someone taking note – and that someone is obviously ME.These
attorneys want to know everyone’s business as well as flaunt their own
for the whole elevator audience to hear (OK, not all of them are like
this). Or maybe they’re just fucking loud.Loudly trying to ONE UP the other.
One uppers are assholes.
Then, she provides all kinds of examples of "one uppers," notably the attorney who is bragging about his new Porsche and then is one-upped by the one who bought a new plane.
Of course, lawyers aren't the only ones who suffer from this problem — I am all also for capitalism and I think it is great when people get rich, especially if they are people I like. And certainly, we need people to start buying stuff to help bring back the economy. But if you have more money or power than the people you come in close contact with, the lesson is that you might show a little restraint and awareness about how insensitive your words and deeds may sound — unless you WANT them to think you are an asshole.
P.S. This also reminds me of a conversation that I had with one of my former neighbors perhaps 15 years ago. I asked her what she was doing for Thanksgiving. She looked very sad,and told me that, she would have to stay around the Bay Area because her husband — a new venture capitalist — hadn't made enough money to buy a place in Palm Springs like his more wealthy partners. Envy is an awful thing, isn't it? By the way, her husband struck it rich during the dotcom boom, and she know lives in a huge mansion. I am not sure they ever got the house in Palm Springs, but I hope she is happy with her riches. I guess Kurt Vonnegut's poem didn't capture her world view.
-
Joker One Reviewed in the New York Times
I wrote a rave for Joker One about a week ago, after hearing an interview on Fresh Air and reading the first 100 pages. I have since finished the book, and I thought it was one of the best books I've read in a long time. The Sunday New York Times had a very positive review — I especially agree with the comments about the books unflinching honesty. When I see how much responsibility author Donovan Campbell takes and versus the finger pointing and blamestorming we now see in corporate America and government too it helps me understand the stark contrast between real a leader that cares about his or her followers versus so-called leaders that only care about themselves. As reviewer James Glanz put it so well 'a central virtue of “Joker One” is that the narrative is honest — and remarkably detailed, relying on Campbell’s logbooks and diary, as well as his formidable memory — even when the story makes him or the Marines look bad.'
-
Dependicitis
'The situation when no one feels comfortable giving an
answer other than "it depends"This is similar to the
"teeter-totter syndrome" in The Peter Principle, defined in their amazing glossary as simply the "inability to make decisions," in fact, I guess dependicitis is a special case — or root cause — of the teeter-totter syndrome.Thanks Xaio!
-
My Final Exam Question: Can You Answer It?
The quarter is winding down at Stanford, and my course assistants and I are busy grading some very creative final exams. In my course "Organizational Behavior: An Evidence-Based Approach," I give the students the final exam question on the first day of class, and it is due the last day. It is, "Design the ideal organization. Use course concepts to defend your answer."
It is really a hard question, but the best answers knock my socks off. I think of great ones over the years, like the paper on the ideal mosque, the one on the ideal honey company, the guy who was engaged and showed about how he would apply course concepts to building the ideal family, and this year, the student who did something like Alice-in-Wonderland, meets a start-up, meets behavioral research and somehow pulled it off perfectly. I asked students this question for years, but never tried to answer it myself until I wrote The No Asshole Rule. But frankly I would have failed myself for the answer, as I exceeded the 3000 word limit by about 40,000 words!
What is your ideal organization? You don't have to use all 3000 words — in fact 25 words or less might be most fun. There are hints about aspects of my ideal organization that go beyond The No Asshole Rule on my list of "15 Things I Believe." But if I forced myself to stay under 25 words, I would say something like:
"A place where people are competent, civilized, and cooperative — and tell the truth rather than spewing out lies and bullshit."
Right now, I am very tired of the lies and bullshit.
What is your answer?
