Work Matters

  • Orville Wright Did Not Have A Pilot’s License

    That sentence is the entire text of Chapter 19 in Gordon MacKenzie's 1998 Orbiting the Giant Hairball, still the best book on what it takes to be creative in a big company — or really — in any company.  If you haven't read it, and are interested in innovation or creativity, skip the newer stuff and start with the hairball. I was reminded of this one sentence chapter when I was reading an advanced copy of Jack Covert and Todd Sattersten's The 100 Best Business Books of All Time, which comes out in February.  I will be posting more on the 100 Best in the coming months.

    P.S. Speaking of short, here is the entire first sentence of the 100 Best: 11,000.  As Jack and Todd tell us (based on ISBN numbers issued) that is how many business books were published in 2007. Staggering, isn't it?

    Hairball

  • New Security Flaw in Internet Explorer — Time to Switch to Firefox

    There is a serious new security flaw that was just uncovered in Internet Explorer. I am biased as I love Mozilla's people and their mission — but it seems to me that it is a good time to switch to the Firefox Browser.  You can get it here and you will be amazed by how quickly it happens — remember to import your bookmarks from Internet Explorer and the rest is absurdly easy.

  • Microcosmographia Academica: One Of The Greatest Books On Organizational Politics

    F.M. Cornford was a renowned classics professor at Cambridge University who lived from 1874 to 1943. He published famous works such as From Religion to Philosophy: A Study in the Origins of Western Speculation. I confess, however, that the only book of his that I have ever read is his short and extremely funny: Microcosmographia Academica, which is subtitled "Being a Guide For The Young Academic Politician."  My father-in-law, who was the Provost at the University of California at Berkeley at the time, first told me about the book perhaps 32 years ago –  as soon as he discovered that I was embarking on academic career.  More accurately, he grabbed the book and started read passages aloud to me.  He is off doing other things now, notably developing  Rockpile Vineyard  out of nothing. But I can still remember him reading these sentences to me and then laughing like hell:

     "I shall take it that you are in the first flush of ambition, and just
    beginning to make yourself disagreeable. You think (do you not?) that you
    have only to state a reasonable case, and people must listen to reason and
    act upon at once. It is just this conviction that makes you so unpleasant."

    This statement, unfortunately, is just as true of academic politics now as it was when Cornford published it in 1908 in Microcosmographia Academica.

    I just re-read Cornford for something I am writing.  After a failed scramble to find my copy, I ordered an out-of-print version from Amazon.  But it turns out that there was no need to spend the money, the entire little book is free right here.

    As you will see, this little masterpiece is at once both a charming period piece and a largely accurate description of how organizational politics unfold in academia to this day — and in a lot of other organizations as well. Cornford's advice for young organizational politicians is just as useful as what you can find in Pfeffer's Managing With Power, and will all due respect to Jeff, it is a lot funnier.

    It doesn't take long to read the book, but I can't resist reprinting a several of my favorite passages:

    A Caucus is like a mouse-trap; when you are outside you want to get in;
    and when you are inside the mere sight of the other mice makes you want to
    get out.

    Political influence may be acquired in
    exactly the same way as the gout; indeed, the two ends ought to be pursued
    concurrently. The method is to sit tight and drink port wine.

    The Principle of the Wedge is that you should not act justly now
    for fear of raising expectations that you may act still more justly in the
    future — expectations which you are afraid you will not have the courage
    to satisfy. A little reflection will make it evident that the Wedge
    argument implies the admission that the persons who use it cannot prove
    that the action is not just. If they could, that would be the sole and
    sufficient reason for not doing it, and this argument would be superfluous.

    The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that you should not now
    do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid
    successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case,
    which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially
    resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary,
    either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows
    that nothing should ever be done for the first time.

    When other methods of obstruction fail, you should have recourse to
    Wasting Time; for, although it is recognised in academic circles
    that time in general is of no value, considerable importance is attached
    to tea-time, and by deferring this, you may exasperate any body of men to
    the point of voting against anything. The simplest method is
    Boring. Talk slowly and indistinctly, at a little distance from the
    point. No academic person is ever voted into the chair until he has
    reached an age at which he has forgotten the meaning of the word
    'irrelevant'; and you will be allowed to go on, until everyone in the room
    will vote with you sooner than hear your voice another minute. Then you
    should move for adjournment. Motions for adjournment, made less than
    fifteen minutes before tea-time or at any subsequent moment, are always
    carried

    I especially love this last one, as although we live in a world where there is so much pressure and apparent reward for being engaging and inducing excitement, Cornford's point — that being deadly boring is a useful tactic — is a delightful counterpoint.   As he says, being boring is a great way to obstruct change. I have also seen it used to great effect by a smart administrator to calm a group of upset faculty members (I was one of them).  Our anger evaporated because the long rambling talk was so boring that it took all the energy we had just to stay awake.  I thought that this particular administrator was simply a boring speaker as this was the first time I ever saw him — I only realized it was a brilliant political tactic a couple years later when I saw him give a charming speech that had the audience roaring with laughter throughout.

    And, yes, motions for adjournment are always popular.  Indeed, I can think of a few especially popular faculty at Stanford who don't usually say much at meetings, but are quick on the draw with motions for adjournment. One of my favorite lines, which I heard years ago, was "It is 1:30 and I believe it is time to declare victory."

    Enjoy.

  • Insights About Leaders and Followers from an Evolutionary Perspective

    I just finished read a wonderful article in the American Psychologist called Leaders, Followership, and Evolution, by Mark Van Vugt and his colleagues.  You can get a pdf from Van Gut's website here.  They take an evolutionary perspective, showing — among other things — that leaders in the groups that we evolved from led small face to face groups, which (my interpretation) may help explain why leaders of large organizations fail so often — it isn't something that humans as a species have much experience doing.  The authors also make a compelling case that people who rose to leadership positions in such groups did so because of their ability to serve the needs of followers rather than their ability to intimidate and bully.  Along related lines, they point out that another implication of an evolutionary perspective,is that people who study leaders typically devote too much attention to leaders and not enough to followers. 

    I especially like this quote from page 190, which they show is bolstered by quite a bit of research on leadership in modern organizations:

    “[G]ood
    leaders should be perceived as both competent and benevolent because followers
    want leaders who can acquire resources and then are willing to share them.”

    This post just scratches the surface.  This is a carefully researched and unusually creative piece on leadership.  If you are interested, I suggest diving in deeper.

  • Be Thankful for the Good Things: It Makes You Happier and Healthier

    My Thanksgiving message was about the silver lining that I see in the recent financial troubles, that this is a time when being greedy and selfish is definitely not cool, whether you are a college student or CEO.  That message reminded me that there is an interesting stream of research on gratitude in recent years.  I know, it may sound flaky and new age, but this stuff is based on careful studies by skilled researchers, many of which are controlled experiments with random assignment to conditions. Two of the most active researchers here are Robert Emmons and Michael McCullough, who edited a collection called The Psychology of Gratitude.  Emmons also published Thanks more recently, a practical guide, which was just published in paperback.

    The upshot of many of these studies is, regardless of your personality, you can become a healthier and happier person by simply devoting more time and energy to thinking about the good things in your life, the little things for which you are grateful.  For example, A
    series of intertwined experiments by Emmons and McCullough
    examined “gratitude journals,” where research subjects wrote down at least five
    things each day for which they were grateful. 
    This modest intervention had measurable effects. Emmons and McCullough found that people who kept such journals enjoyed
    superior physical and mental health.  Not
    only were they happier than people who weren’t keeping gratitude journals, they
    reported fewer physical health problems (e.g., stomach aches, headaches, sore
    throats, skin problems), and sleeping more hours and waking up more refreshed
    in the morning.  And their spouses or
    significant others reported that they were more upbeat, energized, and
    satisfied with their lives    .

    What do you think?  Am I being too mushy, or are the times ripe for gratitude and perhaps a little self-reflection?

     The citation for this study is: Emmons,
    R.A., & McCullough, M.E. (2003).  Counting blessings versus burdens:
    Experimental studies of gratitude and subjective well-being.     Journal of
    Personality and Social Psychology, 84    , 377-389

    P.S. Check out John Lilly's related post, If This Isn't Nice, What Is?

  • Business Language That Makes Me Squirm

    Bullshit bingo
     
    A lot of people have joked about the horrible and hollow language that people use in business. There is the game of bullshit bingo for those who want to pass the time in boring meetings (pictured above). And a couple years back I blogged about Polly LaBarre's brilliant term to define the entire mess, jargon monoxide. Lots of business terms bother me, largely because, although they once actually meant something, they now seemed to be used by people who don't actually know what they mean or the phrases are just plain worn-out.  I have used a trick for years when I suspect that people are spewing out jargon but don't know what they are talking about. I ask them to define their words — it is amazing how often they can't do it.  I still remember the executive who got mad it me years ago when I asked him to define a "simultaneously loose-tight organization," which was from Peters and Waterman's In Search of Excellence.  I think it means, essentially, that management tries to control a few critical things but leaves a lot of other things unconstrained.  But I am still not entirely sure and that touchy manager had no idea what he was talking about.

    In any event, I have been especially annoyed lately by three phrases, in part, because I keep hearing them used by students who have limited, if any, business experience and in ways that seem misguided.  

    Leverage: This is of course what got a lot of homeowners with sub-prime loans and their banks in trouble.  But the way I keep hearing it used, at least is by people who want to do as little as possible and get as much back as possible.  This can be a good way to make money, but last year a student used it to explain why he was doing so little work and his team was doing so much, he called it "leveraging my team members' talents."  A pretty fancy way to say he was lazy as hell.

    Value Added: This term is based on a noble concept, that one's efforts or ideas should add value.  We all want that.  But I keep hearing it used as a euphemism for "what is in it for me?"  It hasn't happened to me, but a number of colleagues in business schools have had students come up after a class, announce the amount that they had paid for the last hour or two of class (perhaps a couple hundred bucks?) and then say "the value added for my time isn't worthwhile."  I am not arguing that people should waste their time, but as I have noted before, viewing time as money does very bad things to your mind — it turns people into selfish jerks.

    Core Competence: This is a word that is just plain worn out, although it seemed to mean something when it appeared in the great book, Competing for the Future.  But the meaning has been squeezed out of it, and while doing what you are good at, and leaving the rest to others, is often a wise move in business and life, it still grates on my nerves because I have heard it used in ways that Hamel & Prahalad could never have imagined or wanted.  I tend to use it only in sarcastic ways now, such as when I claimed that GM' core management competence was explaining why they couldn't change, the "no we can't" mindset.

    These words sound like fingernails on the chalkboard to me… which ones drive you crazy or which should be banished?

  • Management Wisdom from Tommy Lasorda

    Lasorda, Tommy
    "    I believe managing is like
    holding a dove in your hand. If you hold it too tightly you kill it,
    but if you hold it too loosely, you lose it.    "
    Tommy Lasorda

    I grew up in the San Francisco area and thus was trained to despise the
    Los Angles Dodgers, which Tommy Lasorda coached for years.  But this
    little quote from him is brilliant, and applies to management and a lot
    of other challenges in life — including parenting.

    P.S. Here is where I found the quotes if you want to hear more of Tommy's wisdom.

  • How and Why Asshole Doctors Harm Patients

    Gooser

    I've written quite a bit about rude, arrogant, and insensitive doctors.  Dr. Gooser stars in in The No Asshole Rule (note the artist's rendition above, which Value Rich magazine provided to go along with the text on page on page 21) and my post on Dr. Gooser about digs into evidence showing that bullying is especially prevalent in medicine.  On the brighter side of things, new guidelines by the Joint Commission (which regulates U.S. hospitals) mean that those hospitals that let bullies run rampant risk losing accreditation.  Also, one of the most heartening notes I ever got from a doctor was about how — after suffering so much abuse from attending physicians during their medical training — he and his fellow residents vowed to treat residents and nurses with respect when they rose to more powerful positions.   A vow,  he reported, that all had kept (see this post). I've also written about the impressive efforts that some hospitals and doctors are beginning to take to reduce medical errors, especially in neonatal intensive care units.

    As such, I was intrigued to see a story in the science section of today's New York Times that discussed how nasty and arrogant doctors not only drive nurses out of the profession, they also can create a climate that causes more medical errors.  Here is one example from the story:

    In one instance witnessed by Dr. Angood of the Joint Commission, a
    nurse called a surgeon to come and verify his next surgical patient and
    to mark the spot where the operation would be done. The harried surgeon
    yelled at the nurse to get the patient ready herself. When he showed up
    late to the operating room, he did not realize the surgery site was
    mismarked and operated on the wrong part.

    “The surgeon then
    berated the entire team for their error and continued to denigrate them
    to others, when the error was the surgeon’s because he failed to
    cooperate in the process,” Dr. Angood said.

    A hostile environment
    erodes cooperation and a sense of commitment to high-quality care, Dr.
    Angood said, and that increases the risk of medical errors.

    Check out the rest of the article here  plus the accompanying piece on "The Six Habits of Highly Respectful Physicians." 

    I have been keeping track of the problem of nastiness in hospitals — especially by doctors — for a few years and I have been disturbed by how more and more evidence keeps coming out about the damage done by such widespread nastiness. But I am heartened by the serious steps that are apparently being taken to tackle the problem — including by the Joint Commission.

  • Karl Popper on Truth

    Here is a little philosophy I like from Karl Popper.  It is a little like saying "failure sucks but instructs," but far more elegant:

    “Since we can never know anything for sure, it is simply not worth searching for certainty; but it is well worth searching for truth; and we do this chiefly by searching for mistakes, so that we can correct them”

    P.S. The source is: Popper, K. R. 1992. In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years.
    London: Routledge.

  • The Silver Lining: Selfishness and Greed are Not Cool These Days

    I was not planning on doing a Thanksgiving message, but something dawned on me last night as I thought back to the kinds of things I've been seeing from my colleagues and students at Stanford, the people who write me on this blog, my wife's stories about the Girl Scouts and the needs of under served girls and their families, and what I've been reading in various press reports and stories about the responses to the economic crisis. 

    The lost jobs, economic suffering, and fear are terrible things and my heart goes out to all those who are hurt and will be hurt by this mess.  In the Thanksgiving spirit, however, I do see something to be thankful for these days: Being greedy and selfish — doing things for me, me, me and ignoring or exploiting others in the process — is out of fashion.  The current crop of Stanford students are the most socially conscious I have ever encountered during my 25 years here — things like stopping global warming, improving K-12 education, and reducing poverty are seen as what the coolest students do.  And — despite how hard it is to get a job — recruiters will tell you that, to get the best students, they need to demonstrate serious commitment to these and related issues.   The stories about greed and insensitivity in corporate America make the headlines, but I keep running into managers and executives who are worried about their people, who fight to protect their jobs, who take pay cuts so that others have more, and who see their job is easing the psychological and objective pain suffered by those they work with and their families. I also see it in politics.  The crisis seems to be bringing out the best in both U.S. parties. My sense is that ideological battles and raw self-interest (although they still are present) are simply far less acceptable than in the past, and that people are trying to pull together to fix things so that everyone benefits.  Sure, there is the usual finger-pointing and some evidence of greed, but a lot more energy is being devoted in positive directions than I can ever recall.

    I have written about and reprinted a touching Kurt Vonnegut poem here and talked how kind he was to let me reprint it in The No Asshole Rule. It is called Joe Heller.  The main theme is that the knowledge that "I have enough"  can be a source of good mental health, and I would add, can lead to more constructive and generous relationships with other people.  Although nearly all of us who have enough have lost a lot of money this year, I don't actually know anyone who has complained bitterly about it. Doing so is just is not cool, as whining about it is selfish given that so many people who don't have enough have lost so much. Here is the poem, which strikes me as especially appropriate for the times.  It is one of the last things that Vonnegut wrote before he died.

    Joe Heller  

    True story, Word of Honor:
    Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer
    now dead,
    and I were at a party given by a billionaire
    on Shelter Island.

    I said, "Joe, how does it make you feel
    to know that our host only yesterday
    may have made more money
    than your novel 'Catch-22'
    has earned in its entire history?"
    And Joe said, "I've got something he can never have."
    And I said, "What on earth could that be, Joe?"
    And Joe said, "The knowledge that I've got enough."
    Not bad! Rest in peace!"

    –Kurt Vonnegut

    The New Yorker,
    May 16th, 2005

    There is interesting research by Stanford's Dale Miller and others showing that unbridled self-interest is not the natural human condition; rather being selfish versus altruistic are behaviors that can be prompted by the way that we frame a particular problem or choice or by the behavior of people around us.  In other words, being greedy and selfish are social norms that are provoked or suppressed in most human beings by different conditions.  A silver lining of these dark times is that greed is seen as bad behavior and doing things for the common good is seen as, well, good behavior.

    P.S. You can read Dale's paper on "The Norm of Self-Interest" here. It is more accessible than most academic papers and an evidence-based challenge to the assumptions made by many economists.