• Korean Gamer Gets a $500,000 Contract

    One of my students sent me a link to this story.  This guy plays Warcraft III, which isn't as popular as it once was in the states, but remains a favorite among professionals, and outside the U.S. — apparently especially in Korea.  Here is the lead tot he story:

    "22 year old Jae Ho 'Moon' Jang, a Korean WarCraft 3 professional gamer who was dismissed from the MyM team just over a week ago, was rumoured to have negotiated a contract with WeMade FOX,a
    Korean gaming organisation.The rumour was confirmed yesterday with Moon
    signing a 700 million Korean Won contract (£350,000 GBP, €390,000 EUR
    or $470,000 USD) over three years. There were thousands of people
    present during the signing, where he also was presented with his new
    uniform, the typical WeMade FOX colours: green, white and black.'

    This isn't exactly what top professional athletes get paid, but still pretty impressive.  The gaming business, as most of you know, is huge … bigger than the movie business by some calculations.

  • Standing vs. Sitting: The Compassion Angle

    In my post yesterday, I talked about seating arrangements, and the notion that men –although not necessarily women — at the head of the table are seen as leaders.  Cindy asked about standing vs. sitting and power dynamics.  My hunch, is that standing is taken as a sign of power, and I bet there is some research out on the question. Indeed, given the struggles that women have to be recognized as leaders, especially in mixed-gender groups, I would suggest both going to the head of the table AND standing if you want to run the show.

    But power is different than compassion.  I just ran into an interesting study suggesting that oncology (i.e., cancer) doctors who sit rather than stand are seen as more compassionate, and that is what patients much prefer them to do during consultations.  To generalize beyond these data, it strikes me that anytime that it is an emotionally sensitive meeting (rather than one where efficiency is the main goal), sitting down is good idea.

    Here is the reference:

    F.Strasser, J.Palmer, J.Willey, L.Shen, K.Shin, D.Sivesind, E.Beale, E.Bruera.  "Impact of Physician Sitting Versus Standing During Inpatient Oncology
    Consultations: Patients' Preference and Perception of Compassion and
    Duration. A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 489-497,2005.

    Here is the abstract:

    The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of
    physician sitting versus standing on the patient's preference of physician
    communication style, and perception of compassion and consult duration.
    Sixty-nine patients were randomized to watch one of two videos in which the
    physician was standing and then sitting (video A) or sitting and then standing
    (video B) during an inpatient consultation. Both video sequences lasted 9.5
    minutes. Thirty-five patients (51%) blindly preferred the sitting physician, 16
    (23%) preferred the standing, and 18 (26%) had no preference. Patients
    perceived that their preferred physician was more compassionate and spent more
    time with the patient when compared with the other physician. There was a
    strong period effect favoring the second sequence within the video. The
    patients blinded choice of preference (P =
    0.003),
    perception of compassion (P
    =0.0016),
    and other attributes favored the second sequence seen in the video. The
    significant period effect suggests that patients prefer the second option
    presented, notwithstanding a stated preference for a sitting posture (55/68,
    81%). Physicians should ask patients for their preference regarding physician sitting
    or standing as a way to enhance communication.

  • Cranky Need Not Apply

    It is time to update my Honor Roll of Places That Don't Tolerate Assholes.  I got an email from Nils today with a nice addition, from a group of partners Green Modern Kits, who provide energy efficient solutions of all kinds, including plans for green cabins and houses.  Well, their website reveals how the no asshole rule  can sometimes be created in response to a disturbing event. 

    "Today, after all this time, I received my first rude request for
    information. Rude Person, I appreciate your interest, but I will not
    expose you to our nice, talented people I have worked so hard to find.
    Rude Person, if you speak to
    us that way, how will you treat your contractor? Their subs?"

    They also added a new item to their terms of service: " Are you cranky? This may not be the company for you."  The folks at Green Modern Kits might enjoy the ACHE (Asshole Client for Hell Exam) or have their clients do some self-examination with the ARSE.

  • Meetings: Where You Sit, How You Act, and What People Think Of You — Plus Evidence of Sexism

    0730_66workpl

    When I was in graduate school at The University of Michigan, the group dynamics researchers used to talk about how seemingly innocent things could have a big effect on how much influence that people had.  One of the things they talked about a lot (as I recall from old studies done at Harvard) was that just putting people at the head of the table — randomly assigning them — would lead them to talk more, to order other people around, and to be seen as the leader. Indeed, a lot of this research is summarized in this great story called "You are Where You Sit" that was in BusinessWeek in 2007 — especially in the above graphic (click on to see a larger version). 

    Unfortunately, as I was looking for those old Harvard studies — which I am still searching for — I ran into a disturbing series of experiments on sex differences by Natalie Porter and her colleagues.  These studies show that when research subjects were shown pictures of people sitting around a table, that when a man was sitting at the head, he was nearly always identified as the leader, but when a woman was sitting at the head of the table, she was only  identified as the leader consistently when it was an all female group. Note that both male and female research subjects made more or less identical ratings — so the women held the negative stereotypes just as strongly as the men,  Here is the abstract if you are curious:

    This study shows that women are unlikely to be seen as leaders. Subjects (n =448) rated each member of a five-person group (shown in a photograph) on leadership attributes and also chose one of the five as "contributing most to the group. "Eight different stimulus slides were used. In two slides the "head-of-the-table" cue to group leadership was pitted against sex-role stereotypes. A man seated at the head of the table in a mixed-sex group was clearly seen as leader of his group, but a woman occupying the same position was ignored. The head-of the-table cue identified women as leaders only in all-female stimulus groups. The data were consistent with the hypotheses that sex stereotypes still control social judgments, and that discrimination operates nonconsciously and in spite of good intentions.

    This study is old, but not that old — 1983.  I wonder if it would still hold today. Based on how few women are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, I fear that they still would. What do do you think?

    Note the reference is:  Porter, N., Geis, F.L., & Jennings, (Walstedt), J. (1983). Are women invisible as leaders? Sex Roles, 9, 1035-1049.

  • “Quality is the Best Business Plan,” Pixar’s John Lasseter

    I was reading back through the interview that we did with Academy award winning director Brad Bird for The McKinsey Quarterly last year, and came on this wonderful quote from Brad about his boss at Pixar, John Lasseter.  I found it when searching on the word "quality" in the transcription, and realized that during the 90 or so minute interview we did with Bird, "quality" and "ideas" were terms that he used over and over, sometimes together and sometimes separately. And when he talked about money, he emphasized that, although it was necessary, no matter how much money you throw at an idea, if the concept is flawed in the first place, you end-up with high quality but dull movies — which had helped cause the decline of the Disney Animation studios.  As Bird described his brief career there: "I went to Disney at time where they were doing really beautiful quality of really boring ideas.  That was right after the great masters had left and I basically got fired for, quote, rocking the boat."

    Interesting stuff. And a reminder that the greatest innovators are willing to fight for their ideas, something I have been worrying is stifled in these tough times, that innovation and entrepreneurship are slowing down.  I did feel a little better the other day when a sharp Stanford student  argued to me that, since jobs are so hard to come by, he figured it was a great time to start his own company.  He also figured that the stigma of failure is at an all-time low, because it is happening so widely.  How is that for a twisted but weirdly logical reason to take a big risk? He figures that if he succeeds in this economy, people will be REALLY impressed, and if he fails, well, it won't reflect badly on him at all because so many great companies and people are struggling.

  • Joker One: A Stunning Book

    51q2eZPzzUL._SL500_AA240_
    Last week, I listened to this interview by Terry Gross on Fresh Air, with former Marine platoon leader Donovan Campbell — who served three combat tours, two in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.  His book, Joker One: A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood, was published this week, I ordered it as soon as I heard the interview and so my copy arrived yesterday.  I am about 100 pages into it, and it is some book.  Donovan is splendid and deeply honest writer, describing his strengths and weaknesses without flinching, and he does an astounding job of bringing you into the scene. It is not only a great book about the love and brotherhood in a combat platoon, it provides lovely general lessons about what it feels like and how to be effective at leading people who are your face-to-face charges, not those distant subordinates you barely know, but the people who know your quirks,habits, and the rest of the human stuff about you.

    To give you a taste, Terry Gross asked Donovan to read this passage about how to lead during combat below:

    "You can't think of home, you can't miss your wife, and you can't wonder how it would feel to take a round through the neck. You can only pretend that you're already dead and thus free yourself to focus on three things: 1)finding and killing the enemy, 2) communicating the situation and resulting actions to adjacent unit and higher headquarters, and 3) triaging and treating your wounded.  If you love your men, you naturally think about number three first, but if you do you're wrong.  The grim logic of combat dictates that numbers one and two take precdence."

    I told you the guy can write.  I can hardly wait to finish the book.

  • “That’s so when we go to court, I’ll remember that you’re an Asshole!”

    Here
    is a little story about a driver who would score very high on the Asshole
    Rating Self-Exam (ARSE)
    :


    An Officer stops a driver for running a red light.
    The guy is a real jerk
    and comes running back to the officer demanding to know why he is being harassed by the Gestapo! So the officer calmly tells him of the red light violation. The "Motorist" instantly goes on a tirade, questioning the officer's ancestry, sexual orientation, etc., in rather explicit terms.


    The tirade goes on without the officer saying anything.
    When he gets done with writing the ticket he puts an "AH" in the
    lower
    right corner of the narrative portion of the ticket. He then hands it to the "Violator" for his signature. The guy signs the ticket angrily,
    and
    when presented with his copy points to the "AH" and demands to know
    what
    it stands for.

    The Officer says, "That's so when we go to court, I'll remember that you're an Asshole!"


    Two months later they're in court. The "Violator" has such a bad
    driving
    record he is about to lose his license and has hired a lawyer to represent him. On the stand the officer testifies to seeing the man run the red light. Under cross examination the defense attorney asks; "Officer is this a reasonable facsimile of the ticket you issued my client?"


    Officer responds, "Yes sir, that is the defendants copy, his signature and
    mine, same number at the top.


    Lawyer: "Officer, is there any particular marking or notation on this
    ticket you don't normally make?"

    Officer: "Yes sir, in the lower right corner of the narrative there is an "AH," underlined."

    Lawyer: "What does the "AH" stand for, officer?"

    Officer: "Aggressive and Hostile Sir."


    Lawyer: "Aggressive and Hostile?"


    Officer: "Yes Sir?

    Lawyer: "Officer, Are you sure it doesn't stand for Asshole?"


    Officer: "Well Sir, You know your client better than I do!"

    P.S. Les, thanks for sending the story.

  • Dilbert and The Smart Talk Trap: The Dangers of Skilled Bullshitting

    44411.strip

    One of the main themes on The Knowing-Doing Gap is something that we call "The Smart Talk Trap," that there are too many times in organizations when executives, managers, and other people say smart things instead of doing smart things, and somehow after they have said all the right things, they feel so much better that they believe no other action is necessary or somehow their magical words will turn into action without having to do anything else.  Another variation is when bosses do seemingly brilliant talk, talk that they believe is brilliant too, and then — because they don't know what they are talking about — people either resist turning it into action or, when they try, it turns out to be impossible (I recall a stage gate system at one of my client's organizations that was impossible to use.)  Indeed, bad ideas of this last variety helped inspire Jeff Pfeffer and I to write Hard Facts because we kept dealing with organizations where people believed that they were doing the right thing, but we believed it was wrong based on the best evidence– they suffered from doing-knowing gaps, as we came to call them.

    The above cartoon is intriguing because it seems to reflect a case of skilled bullshitting leading to dumb action — and the bullshitter knows it is dumb.  Dilbert thought it he was talking about garbage, he just threw together a presentation to get through a meeting. Unlike many bosses and others who do this,however, Dilbert realizes his ideas are garbage — but now it seems they are being acted upon!  The only other thing I've ever heard like this in real corporate life happened with a talking Barney doll at Microsoft.  Here is the story from Weird Ideas That Work — note that like Dilbert, it was an idea that the team believed was bad from the start, yet somehow it was turned into action.  The extra twist was whether or not the product sucked, it was a commercial success.  This story was told to me in 2000 by Justin Kitch, CEO and founder of Homestead, a dotcom start-up that still exists and apparently was bought by Intuit.  I am also impressed to see that Justin is still CEO, and in fact, most of his founding team is still intact.   I have to learn more about what happened. 

    Here is the Barney story:

    Right after he graduated from Stanford,
    Justin went to work for Microsoft in a group that developed educational software
    for young children.  One day, Justin led a brainstorming session on “What
    would be the worst product we could possibly build.”  His idea was 
    “Let’s do that, and think opposite.  Think about what’s the worst
    characteristics it could have?  What’s the least educational thing we
    could do?”   The result was  “A talking Barney Doll, it was
    called Barney 1, 2, 3.  It was a Barney doll that talked to you and taught
    you numbers.   I still have the drawing.   I made it as a
    total joke and I gave it to my boss.” 


    To Justin’s dismay, Microsoft came out with pretty much the same product a
    couple years later.  He said  “I couldn’t believe it.  They
    built exactly what we brainstormed would be the worst possible product.” 

    Note that Justin seemed confident that “my
    team's little chuckle over Barney had nothing to do with the eventual project,” but
    others I talked to were less sure — in any event Justin made clear to me that he refused to take any credit for that "piece of shit."  This little incident and Dilbert’s cartoon suggest that you have to
    be careful who you show your silly ideas to – and in Justin’s case, the lesson is also that ideas
    that seem dumb may have more merit than you think – at least by commercial
    standards.

    P.S. The phrase "Smart Talk Trap" was actually invented by Suzy Welch, yes Jack's wife, when she was an editor at the Harvard Business Review and worked on a paper based The Knowing-Doing Gap. Suzy was a damn good editor.

  • Terrell Owens: Time Wounds All Heels?

    Terrellowens1

    I argued in The No Asshole Rule that, even in organizations that routinely breed, tolerate, and even celebrate assholes — where run-of-the-mill assholes are barely noticed — there can come a point where a person has become such a flaming asshole or the damage has become so evident, that the rule is applied and the person is sent packing.  I wrote the No Asshole Rule to encourage organizations to have higher standards, but it is interesting to see that, in the case of Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Terrell Owens — a superb individual talent, but a selfish and difficult player — that he has been sent packing by his employer. This happened because — apparently — he was undermining teamwork and distracting coaches and the quarterback from the bigger picture.  Owens was sent packing by the Philadelphia Eagles a few years earlier for pretty much the same reasons.   You can see a kind of similar pattern with Indiana University basketball coach Bob Knight, who got away with a lot nastiness (including, apparently, choking a player at practice).  The same thing happened with Steve Jobs, when he was forced out of Apple — although it is interesting that in his second tour there were far fewer signs that he was acting like a jerk (now he is trying to recover from some awful illness of course).

    Copy of Button
    So, it might be that most organizations will eventually enforce the rule if someone is out of control or damaging enough.  Perhaps time does wound all heels, but it sure takes a long time before it happens in some places.

  • The Enron Code of Ethics: Something Every Boss Should Read

    I dug this old thing out for a paper I am working on.  Enron is an ancient story, but as we see the wave of scandals rolling through, I think it is important to once again remember how much hypocrisy and pure dishonesty spews out of organizations at times.   Part of the story is the weird phenomenon that we talk about in The Knowing-Doing Gap, that talk is sometimes treated as a substitute for action, that by saying the right thing it somehow excuses people from actually doing it.  Attached is a 60+ page pdf from The Smoking Gun of Enron's Code of Ethics, dated July, 2000.  It starts with a foreword from the late Kenneth Lay, who was back to being CEO by then, which opens with this sentence:

    "As officers and employees of the Enron Corp., its subsidiaries, and its affiliated companies, we are responsible for conducting the business affairs of the companies in accordance with all applicable laws and in a moral and honest manner."

    In reading this, I start to wonder, what does the code of ethics in Bernie Madoff's company look like?  Also, this is a very detailed document, as I said over 60 pages.  My hypothesis is that the longer a code of ethics in a company, the more likely they are too be sleazeballs. As I've heard my father-in-law say many times, when people talk about ethics and morals more than seems necessary, his impulse is hide the good silverware.

    Here is the Download for Enron ethics