• How Can a Leader Avoid Becoming a Selfish Jerk? 245 Answers on LinkedIn

    LinkedIn is the world’s largest professional online network, with 14 million members, and over 300,000 new people are joining every week. They started an "Answers series" this week, where guests ask LinkedIn members for thoughts about a topic related to small businesses and start-ups.  The first guest was presidential candidate Barack Obama.  He generated a huge number of comments, as you would expect, over 1300 in the first 24 hours.  I was delighted to be the second guest.  The question I asked ( posted here) was:

    Does power corrupt?

    As people become
    more powerful, there’s a tendency for bad behavior to surface. What
    suggestions do you have for leaders to avoid becoming a jerk in the
    face of rising pressure and demands?

    The answers have been pouring in ever since — up to 245 a few minutes ago. The range of ideas and breadth of wisdom is pretty striking.  Here are three good ones to give you a taste:

    Abe
    Adam Pingel

    Software architect with strong theory
    background

    On that topic, I always think of this quote:

    "Nearly all men can
    stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power."

    – Abraham Lincoln

    Ernie Funari

    Director of North American Sales –
    Acceleration Solutions – F5 Networks

    Treat everyone around you as if they had their children standing next to
    them. To children – parents are heros. If you keep this in mind, why would you
    treat someone’s hero with disrespect?

    Jennifer (Ano) Cole

    Project Coordinator at Nike

    Power doesn’t corrupt, rather it’s society’s treatment of power and how that
    power is used by the person wielding it. Getting used to ‘giving in’ to that
    feeling of entitlement (because you’ve attained a certain amount of power) is
    what transforms powerful people into massive jerks. It’s an easy to get yourself
    into, but also problematic because others reinforce it. Everyone caters to
    people of authority with that ‘entitlement’ perspective, which some people view
    as courtesy or showing respect. But 9 times out of 10, they’re really not
    respecting the person, they’re respecting the power that person has. (beause
    they have this, drive a that, eat here, etc…)

    How to avoid becoming a
    jerk…make it a point to do something you used to do before you got ‘powerful’
    like drive your own car to a fast food drive thru, or get into a pickup
    basketball game at the park. Hang out on the carpet with your kids and wrestle
    around, seeing things from their perspective. Volunteer regularly at a senior
    center by just visiting with someone for 30 minutes. Do something real – people
    will respect and love you for who you are and not for the power you have in your
    leadership role.

    Another suggestion – take time off from your leadership
    life, and even your personal family life. People have forgotten what it’s like
    to be alone with their own thoughts. Alternatively we fill our minds with things
    so that way you never have to deal with the scum on the bottom of the barrel.
    If you can’t manage/master the contents of your own mind, your perspective, your
    focus, who you are at the core – it will affect your leadership ability
    negatively. I guess Jesus knew what he was doing calling for the observance of
    the Sabbath – just take a scheduled amount of time to get your head clear and
    center yourself. Doesn’t have to do anything with religion or society or what
    other people think. You’ll be all the better for it and others will too.

    Again, this is just a taste, there are hundreds more.

    I have written here a lot about research on how power can turn people into jerks, including posts on It Isn’t Just a Myth, Power Turns People into Assholes and  More Evidence That Power Turns You Into a Self-Serving Jerk. But one of the problems with academics (I plead guilty here) is that although we are great at showing what will happen under certain conditions and explaining why things happen, we often don’t get around to coming up with useful ways to help people avoid problems — or ways how to help magnify the good things in life. As such, I appreciate how practical so many of these suggestions are about how to avoid becoming a self serving jerk once you get some power.  If you are a Linked-In member, or want to join, you can add your ideas as well.

    Finally,  I just love the Lincoln quote.  The No Asshole Rule proposes that "the difference between how a person treats the powerless versus the powerful is as good a measure of human characters as I know."  It seems that Lincoln said pretty much the same thing, and of course said it much better, almost 150 years ago.  So this isn’t a new idea, but to paraphrase my colleague and co-author Jeff Pfeffer, "it is more important to focus on doing what is true than what is new!

  • The No Asshole Rule Wins Quill Award for Best Business Book

    Icon_awards_2
    The winners of the Quill Awards were announced this morning, and to my surprise, The No Asshole Rule won for best book of the year in the business book category.  I was surprised because the other four books were so great, and because it still amazes me that respectable sponsors like Publisher’s Weekly, NBC, AARP, and Parade Magazine seem to be non-plussed by the rather dirty title.  The other four nominees were:

    Small Is the New Big: and 183 Other Riffs, Rants, and Remarkable Business Ideas
    Seth Godin; Portfolio
    Women & Money: Owning the Power to Control Your Destiny

    Suze Orman; Random House/Spiegel & Grau

    Send: The Essential Guide to Email for Office and Home
    David Shipley and Will Schwalbe; Alfred A. Knopf

    Chocolates on the Pillow Aren’t Enough: Reinventing the Customer Experience
    Jonathan M. Tisch, Karl Weber; John Wiley & Co

    Quite a group! I am honored.  The winners were determined by "a Voting
    Board consisting of more than 6,000 booksellers and librarians."  Winners in other categories include  Cormac McCarthy for The Road (a stunning book) and Al Gore for The Assault on Reason.  Other winners include Amy
    Sedaris, Nora Roberts, and Walter Isaacson.

    The awards will be presented on October 22nd at a "gala
    ceremony" in New York City.  The hosts are NBC’s Ann Curry and Al Roker.  The
    list of presenters of includes Tiki Barber, Lorraine Bracco,
    Stephen Colbert, Tom Brokaw, Tina Brown, Mary Higgins Clark, Jonathan Groff, Brooke
    Shields.  My 17 year old wants Colbert to present it to me, as he would do such an artful job of insulting me. Lorraine Bracco  might be the best choice,  because she did a lot of "asshole management" during all the years she played Tony Soprano’s therapist on HBO!

    The Quills Award are meant to be the most populist of book awards, sort of like the People’s Choice awards for TV, movies, and music.  As such, the biggest prize of the night, the Quills Book of the Year, is determined by popular vote. You can vote for your choice on the link.  And some of my friends have been nice enough to vote for The No Asshole Rule. But it is hard for me to argue — for example —  that it is a better book than wonderful works like The Road or Einstein.  And as I said in my first post when I learned about the Quills nomination, in my biased opinion, the best business book published in the past year is Chip and Dan Heath’s Made to Stick.  For some reason, it wasn’t nominated. Lucky for me, as it would have been tough to beat.

    My wife is excited about going to the ceremony, so it looks like we are going to New York in October.   And my thanks to all those people in the book business who voted for The No Asshole Rule!   

  • Why These Two Guys Are So Much Alike

    02rubin1901 There was a great article in this Sunday’s New York Times about music guru Rick Rubin, who was hired last May to be co-head of Columbia records. Rubin took the job under unusual conditions. He never goes to a corporate office. He doesn’t have a phone or a desk. He doesn’t travel. What he does do is just listen to music, select artists, and help them make their material stronger. Rubin has one of the strongest track records in the business, serving as a producer to stars including the Dixie Chicks, Metallica, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Weezer, and Neil Diamond.  It can take him years to finish an album. As the artists write songs, they are constantly scrutinized and criticized by Rubin. The Dixie Chick’s Natalie Maines says that “he listens with his eyes closed” and then he gives precise and instant advice like “You need a new chorus.” Rick Rubin is not your usual executive.  He is, however, deeply knowledgeable about the process of making music.

    Two things about this story struck me. The first is about creativity. It is interesting that Columbia has paired Rubin with a traditional executive named Steve Barnett. Barnett is the guy who has an office and a phone has to go to all those corporate meetings.  And a guy like Rubin needs a partner like that. That’s one of the things that I realized when I was writing Weird Ideas That Work. Whenever there is someone who seems to be breaking all the rules – -be it Richard Branson of Virgin, Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman, or Beatle John Lennon — there always seem to be  a “straight man” (or woman), or a lot of them, who provide cover and does the routine and often less glamorous stuff that needs to be done – John Lennon admitted toward the end of his life that he never could have been so creative (and so difficult) without the “cover” provided by Paul McCartney and manager Brian Epstein.

    Don_p_2   The other thing that struck me about this story was that the move was lot like what Ford Motor Company did in 1985. They appointed a lifetime Ford executive, Don Petersen, as head of the company.  The comparison between Petersen and Rubin may seem odd, but when I interviewed Petersen in 1990’s, a few years after he retired, he said something that really stuck with me. He said something like: “I guess that they were so desperate to save the company that that they actually appointed someone to be CEO who knew something about making cars and trucks, not another bean counter.”  Under Petersen’s leadership, they came out with the Ford Taurus and massively increased the quality of their cars and trucks.  Jeff Pfeffer also told me a story – he has talked to Petersen more than I have – that goes something like this: During the first meeting that Petersen went to as CEO, he pointed out after an hour or so that no one in the room had yet mentioned the words “car” or “truck,” and perhaps that was part of their problem.

    Indeed, when Jeff Pfeffer and I started looking into leaders that were skilled at turning knowledge into action, who weren’t just masters of smart talk, a pattern emerged – they actually understood something about the work they were leading and the product or service that their firm is providing. Indeed, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Martha Sterwart, and Steve Jobs certainly have their quirks, as do the Larry and Serge at Google, but I think it is no accident that those folks know so much about the products that their companies produce and the markets where they are sold. So, to me, the move to hire Rubin is a lot like the move to Petersen – – both companies reached a point of desperation where they felt compelled to find someone who had the deepest possible knowledge about what they make and sell.

    Finally, what should leaders do who end-up leading a company where they don’t understand the work? That happens a lot, and executive firms often press for leaders from outside the company or industry to take CEO jobs. One answer is provided by Bill George, who led Medtronic during the period that it went from “Good to Great,” and is profiled in Jim Collins’ best-seller.  George is now a Harvard Business School Professor and author of a couple of books.  When he took over Medtronic, he didn’t know much about the medical device industry, so rather than jumping in and ordering everyone around right away, he spent most of his first year in hospitals, watching doctors install medical devices, talking to them, to patients, and to executives and managers at hospitals who often make the decisions to buy the devices. After he learned a bit about the business and the work done by its customers, George then started devoting more time to more traditional CEO activities.

    So, the lesson is that organizations are lot easier to manage well when the people in charge understand the work itself.  They can provide better guidance, they know when to get out of the way, and they are better able to tell when an employee or external advisor has good — or bad — ideas.

  • Workplace Bullying Survey: 37% of American Workers are Targets

    The Workplace Bullying Institute released one of the best, perhaps the best ever, national survey of workplace bullying over the Labor Day weekend.  This is a representative national sample of nearly 8000 adults. The interviews were conducted in mid-August.  Check out this detailed report about the study, which was conducted by Zogby, a polling firm.

    A few findings were especially striking to me.  Here is the main question and the answers:

    Question: At work, have you experienced or witnessed any or all
    of the following types of repeated mistreatment: sabotage by others
    that prevented work from getting done, verbal abuse, threatening
    conduct, intimidation, humiliation?

    Responses

    Yes, I am experiencing it now or have in the last year, (12.6) 13%
    Yes, it has happened to me in my worklife, but not now or in the last year, (24.2) 24%
    I’ve only witnessed it, (12.3) 12%
    I’ve been the perpetrator myself, 0.4% (n=22)
    Never had it happen to me and never witnessed it, (44.9) 45%

    This research  confirms prior findings that bullying is common, but that it is not something that just about everyone always faces at work on a daily basis– 13% of American’s report facing current bullying.   I also suspect that the self-reports that less than 1/2% of Americans have been or are bullies are underestimates, as not many people are willing to admit "I am a workplace asshole."  But these findings do confirm that nasty and demeaning behavior is a huge problem in the American workplace.

    Three other findings also strike me. First, men are more likely to be bullies than women: 60% of bullies are men, 40% women.  In contrast, 57% of the "targets" are women and 43% are men. Given that men, on average, still hold more powerful positions than women, this is not a surprise.  As I’ve discussed,  there is lots of evidence that power turns people into assholes.

    Second, 40% of targets leave their job voluntarily, 23% are terminated, and 13% are transfered to another job in the same organization. But only 14% of bullies are terminated and another 9% are punished but not fired. So it seems, as we have seen on this blog and in The No Asshole Rule, that too many of these creeps are getting away with their dirty work.  And these findings also show (like prior research) that employers who are allowing bullies to do their dirty work aren’t just hurting victims, these creeps are driving out good people. As this report shows in detail, and I show with a vivid case of just one asshole from one organization, the total cost of assholes can be staggering.  These researchers estimate that, if these findings can be generalized (and it is a representative sample) that bullies have driven over 20 million people out of their jobs.

    Finally, this survey found that 72% of the bullies were bosses, people who were positions of authority over targets. When people ask me why The  No Asshole Rule focuses more attention on bosses, and less on people who abuse peers or superiors, I reply that it is because so much research shows that workplace assholes "kick down."  Of course, that is not to dismiss the damage done by people who "kick" peers and superiors — it is also a huge problem.  But the lion’s share of abuse does roll down the hierarchy.   

    As I say in  the book, one of the best tests of a human being’s "goodness" is how well he or she treats people with less power.  Unfortunately, this survey suggests that too many people are failing that test. 

    Take a look around the Workplace Bullying Institute’s web site, which has excellent resources.  You can also see this interview that was played on CNN this weekend, with the WBI’s Dr. Gary Namie talking about this study and the problem of bullying — and I am on briefly at the end.  Frankly, it is nice to have a plug for the book, and I suppose all the snippets of various opinions from lots of different people are nice.  But I would have rather seen CNN talk more about this study.  They barely touched on it even though it is one of the most important, and most rigorous, studies on this problem. 

    Finally, I am more ambivalent than Dr. Namie about the need for anti-bullying legislation, as I worry it will just add more work for lawyers and not provide much real protection. Plus I worry that the only way to collect a lot of financial damages in court is to suffer a lot of physical, emotional, and financial damages– so it may encourage people to stay who really ought to get out now.  But I agree with Namie 100% about the damage done by these demeaning creeps, and frankly, even if these laws (now introduced in 13 states) don’t pass, the threat of litigation may inspire some firms and leaders to stop tolerating the assholes in their organizations. So it may cause some to do the right thing for the wrong reason.

    I confess that, however, when I heard the argument by a business leader on the CNN story that modern workers are essentially too smart to take it from bullies and will leave, and that employers who allow bullies to suffer will be at a competitive disadvantage, so there is really no need for the laws, I started drifting a bit more toward being in favor of anti-bullying laws. I’ve never believed that "the market" will take care of everything — it didn’t work for gender and racial bias (or harassment), so why should it work for bullying?  I still worry about anytime when the lawyers rush in, that all sorts of bad things will happen.  Perhaps that is unfair to lawyers, but I keep hearing this argument from lawyers!

    Laws aside, this poll adds compelling evidence that when organizations allow asshole poisoning to flourish and spread, their leaders not only have suspect human values, they are engaging in bad business practices.  Also, as an advocate of evidence-based management, it is nice to see such a careful study.

  • Robert Cialdini’s Classic Football Fan Study

    Influence
    Robert Cialdini’s  book Influence is the classic text for teaching the art and science of persuasion to students of all kinds and of all ages — in psychology, marketing, organizational behavior, and political science, and that is just for starters.  I’ve used it to teach groups ranging from undergraduates to CEOs. It is the best place to learn about the psychology of how to persuade people to do what you want them to do AND how to defend yourself against people who are trying to persuade you to do things that you don’t want to do.  It is filled with great stories and is one of the best translations of research into practice that I’ve ever seen — the only thing I’ve seen in recent years in the same league is the Heath’s masterpiece Made to Stick. 

    Cialidini
    I’ve been assigning Influence to my organizational behavior students for about 20 years, and when I run into a former student, many will admit that they don’t remember much from my class, but they nearly always bring up Cialdlini’s book and how useful it has been in careers ranging from sales, to politics, to practicing law, to medicine, and on and on.  Mark Twain once said something like a classic is a book that everyone talks about, but no one reads. Influence defies that truism — people continue to read it and use it.

    I was thinking about Cialdini because it is the start of college football season.  I am not an especially avid football fan, although I do root vaguely for the Cal Bears (Stanford is my employer, but Cal is my alma mater).  My wife and I were in downtown Palo Alto on Saturday night, and I was pretty surprised to see that – although there had just been a Stanford game with UCLA a few hours earlier, played about a mile away, I was seeing few people wearing Stanford colors.  There were a lot of UCLA colors.  That wasn’t a surprise because there were thousands of their fans in town for the game.  What surprised me, however, was that I was seeing as at least as many people in downtown Palo Alto wearing Cal colors as Stanford colors (note that Cal is about 50 miles from Palo Alto, and Palo Alto is clearly Stanford territory).

    It all seemed a little weird until I remembered the study conducted by Cialdini and five other colleagues in 1976:  Stanford had lost that day (walloped by UCLA, 45 to 17) and Cal had won an exciting game (beating Tennessee 45 to 31).  Cialdini did years of research on impression management and persuasion before he wrote his wonderful book. And although most social psychologists do all their work in the laboratory where they have full experimental control, but a lot less realism, Cialdini has always been very imaginative about finding ways to study people in "real" settings.

    The study is called "Basking in Reflected Glory: 3 (Football) Field Studies." It was published in 1976 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  Cialdini wanted to show that when people are associated with a winner, even in most tangential ways, they take steps to "bask" in the reflected glory and when they are linked to a loser, they take steps to distance themselves.  Cialdini did this brilliant thing of — rather than just asking students at football schools how they felt about their teams and so on — he recruited other colleagues who taught large introduction to psychology classes at six other "big time" football schools (Cialdini was at Ohio State at the time, a school that takes its football very seriously).  On the Monday after each game during the football season, these psychology professors simply counted the percentage of students in their seven classes who wearing their school’s logo and colors to class. 

    There was a very strong effect. When their football team had won, students were far more likely to wear school colors to Monday’s psychology class than when their team had lost. Moreover, an added twist was that the bigger the margin of their team’s victory, the greater the percentage of students who showed-up wearing school colors and logos. Cialdini and his colleagues also did some cool follow-up studies showing that students were far
    more likely to use the word "we" when describing their team’s victory than when talking about their team’s defeat.  As I once heard Cialdini put it at a Stanford talk, ‘Fans say "We are #1" after a victory, but say "they sucked" after a defeat.

    This research, to me, not only shows the power of the "basking in reflected glory " phenomenon, where people try to claim status by their (objectively very weak) association with a winner.  It shows, following my earlier post on the dangers of quantitative evidence, that a simple count can be very powerful when the researchers does it in a context where the numbers matter.   So, counting the number of Cal colors and logos that people are wearing to class over at UC Berkeley this morning means something; and the comparison between Cal and Stanford psychology classes will mean something once school starts at Stanford in a few weeks. Unlike the man that Steinbeck complained about who pulled a dead, evil smelling fish out of a jar to get an accurate count of the number of spines, but in doing so recorded many lies, Cialdini’s simple counts do reveal many truths about the phenomenon he is studying.

    Bear_helmet
    Meanwhile, in the spirit of Cialdini’s research, since Cal won on Saturday, see the logo to the left. Go Bears! We’re #1! And all that.

  • Former Gillette CEO Jim Kilts: “Never Hire a Prick”

    Doing_what_matters_2
    There is an interesting video clip of an interview on CNN.com with former Gillette CEO, Jim Kilts.  The interviewer quotes some familiar advice in Kilts’ new book, Doing What Matters.  Kilts argues that one of the practices that fueled Gillette’s success during the years he led the company was "Never Hire a Prick, Even a Smart One."   And, indeed, Kilts has an impressive track record, having led turnarounds at both Nabisco and Gillette.  Kilts talks about how how "pricks"  are smug self promoters and  are destructive to the organization, and him it is essential to avoid hiring them or to drive them out of a company. As he says, they can get short-term results, but they break down people and organizations over the long haul.  I prefer the word "asshole" because it applies to both men and women, but it appears that Mr. Kilts is talking about more or less the same thing. So I will add him to the list of leaders and places that use the no asshole rule — which I think I will start calling The No Asshole Rule Honor Roll!

    P.S. I just ordered the book and will write a little review of it after I’ve read it. He sounds like a great leader, but I am somewhat concerned about the huge payoff that Mr. Kilts is enjoying for selling Gillette to Procter & Gamble  — although I do have soft spot in my heart for P&G as (starting with CEO A.G. Lafley) they are one of the most civilized companies I know and are also deeply committed to innovation.

  • Andy Hargadon on the Virtues of Qualitative Research

    Andy
    Andy Hargadon is author of a great book called How Breakthroughs Happen and is a Professor at the University of California at Davis.  I know  Andy well as I chaired his dissertation and we did an intensive study of innovation at IDEO in 1990’s, which resulted in several papers published in peer reviewed papers on brainstorming and technology brokering.  Andy wrote a post a few weeks back on his blog, Harga-blog, about the virtues of qualitative research. He sings a similar song to that in my recent post on Evidence-Based Management Doesn’t Mean Just Quantitative Evidence, and in fact, quotes the same Steinbeck that I did.  Andy, who knows a lot about innovation, does a fascinating job of showing how — within organizations — a focus on  quantitative measures can lead to some unfortunate consequences (I hadn’t seen his post until today, his was first!) Andy quotes a Wall Street Journal story that demonstrates how what economists call "perverse incentives" for producing patents led to some pretty dysfunctional behavior at HP a few years back (before Mark Hurd got there, I believe these incentives are now removed):

    "What [Carly] Fiorina doesn’t mention is why the number of patents
    skyrocketed. Much of it had to do with a program put in place in 1999
    to get HP into the top 10 patent producers. It relied on paying
    engineers for each new possible filing. At the time, it was $175 for a
    basic "invention disclosure," $1,750 if it became a patent application,
    and another chunk of cash and a plaque for an actual patent.  One
    engineer, Shell Simpson, nearly tripled his salary by working weekends
    in the first year by filing 120 disclosures and 70 patent
    applications-at one point taking two weeks off to work on patents
    full-time."

    Or as my colleague Jeff Pfeffer sometimes says — be careful what you reward people to do, you might get just that and NOTHING else.  I agree with Andy that this is a problem caused partly by placing too much emphasis on the count, but I also think that not all financial reward systems have such perverse effects.  All have their quirks, but some work better than others.

  • The Rule Keeps Chugging Away

    It has been about 7 months since The No Asshole Rule was released in the U.S., and it seems to still be chugging away. Frankly, I didn’t expect the sales and attention to persist so long.  CNN came down to film me last week, and I understand that the segment will appear sometime this weekend and I seem to still be doing several U.S. media interviews a week. Sometimes for stories directly on the book, and increasingly on stories on different, but related issues, such as the BusinessWeek All Star Professor Story, a most interesting Financial Times story on The Cost of Hidden Bias at Work (reporting some compelling research done by Freada Klein’s Level Playing Field Institute), and the recent Wall Street Journal story on layoffs.

    But I still am talking about the book plenty and the wave of emails from people who are oppressed by assholes, are fighting back, or have implemented the rule hasn’t slowed down much.  It is still hanging around the BusinessWeek bestseller list, moving from #13 to #7 on the list that was just released.  Plus I just got an email from the folks at McKinsey that the article based on the book, on Building a Civilized Workplace,has been the most frequently downloaded article on their site this year.

    I am starting to move onto some other projects, but the persistent attention is nice, but also bewildering.  And the book did just get released in Italy, in fact today is the official publication date. Its called   Il Metodo Antistronzi there, and I had the weird experience — from midnight to 1AM — of being on an Italian radio show where I couldn’t understand what they were saying, and the questions I was asked and answers I gave were through a translator.  I did gather, however, that there is as much concern about assholes in Italy as anywhere else.  And any of you who read Italian might be amused by this online crusade against an asshole boss.

    And on it goes. Thanks to everyone for all the support and please keep the comments and emails coming. I remain delighted and often surprised by the new things that I learn every day.

  • Dave Packard’s 11 Simple Rules

    Bill_and_dave
    I’ve been reading Michael Malone’s fascinating book "Bill and Dave: How Hewlett and Packard Built the World’s Greatest Company." I think it is a great read. One of my favorite parts is a more complete description of the story about how — after directly defying Dave Packard’s orders to stop working on a product — Chuck House continued working on an oscilloscope that became a commercial success. Rather than punishing or firing Chuck, Packard gave him a medal for "Extraordinary Contempt and Defiance Beyond the Usual Call of Engineering."  The HP insiders I know who have read the book say they like it, but do complain that it glosses over Hewlett and Packard’s flaws.  Nonetheless, it is an instructive read, especially given how different the assumptions that Hewlett and Packard followed are from those seen in most companies.

    I was especially intrigued by Packard 11’s simple rules, which he first presented at an internal meeting in in Sonoma in 1958. If you follow these, you don’t need the no asshole rule.  These are fantastic guidelines for building a civilized workplace.   Take the first one, for example: "Think of the Other Fellow First."  Sure it is simple, sure you knew it, but seeing the world through others’ eyes is probably most important single step for avoiding the self-obsession and selfishness that routinely happens when people are put in positions of power, as I discussed on this blog earlier this week.

    Here is the list. I’ve found this on many places on the web. This version comes the HP website, here. It does caution that is is for internal use, but as these have been published so many places and they are such wonderful standards,  and I found it on a public website, I can’t imagine that putting here can do any harm — only good.

    Dave Packard’s 11 Simple Rules

    1. Think first of the other fellow. This is THE foundation
    — the first requisite — for getting along with others.
    And it is the one truly difficult accomplishment you must
    make. Gaining this, the rest will be "a breeze."

    2. Build up the other person’s sense of importance.
    When we make the other person seem less important, we frustrate
    one of his deepest urges. Allow him to feel equality or superiority,
    and we can easily get along with him.

    3. Respect the other man’s personality rights. Respect
    as something sacred the other fellow’s right to be different
    from you. No two personalities are ever molded by precisely
    the same forces.

    4. Give sincere appreciation. If we think someone
    has done a thing well, we should never hesitate to let him
    know it. WARNING: This does not mean promiscuous use of obvious
    flattery. Flattery with most intelligent people gets exactly
    the reaction it deserves — contempt for the egotistical
    "phony" who stoops to it.

    5. Eliminate the negative. Criticism seldom does
    what its user intends, for it invariably causes resentment.
    The tiniest bit of disapproval can sometimes cause a resentment
    which will rankle — to your disadvantage — for years.

    6. Avoid openly trying to reform people. Every man
    knows he is imperfect, but he doesn’t want someone else trying
    to correct his faults. If you want to improve a person, help
    him to embrace a higher working goal — a standard, an
    ideal — and he will do his own "making over" far more
    effectively than you can do it for him.

    7. Try to understand the other person. How would
    you react to similar circumstances? When you begin to see
    the "whys" of him you can’t help but get along better with
    him.

    8. Check first impressions. We are especially prone
    to dislike some people on first sight because of some vague
    resemblance (of which we are usually unaware) to someone else
    whom we have had reason to dislike. Follow Abraham Lincoln’s
    famous self-instruction: "I do not like that man; therefore
    I shall get to know him better."

    9. Take care with the little details. Watch your
    smile, your tone of voice, how you use your eyes, the way
    you greet people, the use of nicknames and remembering faces,
    names and dates. Little things add polish to your skill in
    dealing with people. Constantly, deliberately think of them
    until they become a natural part of your personality.

    10. Develop genuine interest in people. You cannot
    successfully apply the foregoing suggestions unless you have
    a sincere desire to like, respect and be helpful to others.
    Conversely, you cannot build genuine interest in people until
    you have experienced the pleasure of working with them in
    an atmosphere characterized by mutual liking and respect.

    11. Keep it up. That’s all — just keep it up!

    P.S. The connections between the Stanford Engineering School and HP have always been very close. In fact, Bill and Dave borrowed $500 from Engineering Professor Fred Terman to start their company!

     

     

  • Do You Need a Penis to Qualify as a B-School All-Star?

    BusinessWeek just put together a list
    of “B-School
    Stars,”
    which they describe as “10 B-school professors who are influencing contemporary
    business thinking beyond the halls of academia.”  I am honored to be on the list, to join the
    likes of Warren Bennis, Steve Levitt, and Nobel Prize winner Myron Scholes.  But a few things about the story are bugging
    me. For starters, I confess that,
    although I enjoy the benefits of sometimes being called a “thought leader” or “management
    guru,” these labels have always made me squirm a bit because they imply a
    flawed perspective on how knowledge is developed.  As I wrote in CIO Insight a few years back when Business 2.0 applied the “guru” label to me:

    ‘My main objection is that gurus are glorified as lone geniuses
    who conjure up revolutionary new ideas about strategy, innovation, marketing,
    managing people and the like. Gurus seem to do everything in their heads
    without thinking about others’ work, while famous scientists thank those who
    came before them, as Sir Isaac Newton did when he [supposedly] said, "If I
    have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." The
    implication is that management knowledge is developed through a drastically
    different process than that in the physical sciences, that only an anointed
    management genius can generate big new ideas, that they do it alone, and that
    their ideas are magically produced in complete form without drawing on others’
    work.’

    Toward this end, Hard
    Facts 
    proposes Sutton’s Law: “If you think that you have a
    new idea, you are wrong. Someone probably already had it. This idea isn’t
    original either; I stole it from someone else.”
    I
    think that this law especially holds true when it comes to business ideas. For
    example, when Jeff Pfeffer and I were writing Hard Facts, we took a
    detailed look at Harvard Business Review’s annual lists of “Breakthrough
    Business Ideas,” examining lists that were published across several years. We concluded that none if these 60 or so “breakthroughs’
    were actually original (including ideas on these lists that were credited to us,
    such as the no asshole rule and evidence-based management). Making claims that one has spanking-new
    breakthrough may fuel book sales and help consultants land new clients, but as Stanford’s
    Jim March once wrote
    me “most claims of originality are testimony to ignorance and most
    claims of magic are testimony to hubris.”

    Rosabeth
    In
    addition to my concerns that stories about star academics can fuel the fiction
    of the lone genius, and that most alleged breakthrough business ideas are
    really repackaged old ideas, another
    thing about the BusinessWeek list REALLY
    bugged me: All ten “stars” were men, and from what I can tell from the
    pictures, all white men. This bugged me because I could immediately think of
    women management professors who have had huge impacts outside of academia. The first person who came to mind was Harvard’s
    Rosabeth
    Moss Kanter,
    whose Men and
    Women of Corporation
    is one of the most influential business books ever
    written, and who has had a huge impact over the years with her writing,
    speaking, and consulting on innovation – as well as in a host of other
    areas. Rosabeth’s  2006 Harvard
    Business Review
    article, “Innovation:
    The Classic Traps,
    ” is perhaps the best thing I have ever read in the huge
    pile of writing on this subject. 

    Kathy
    I
    also thought of my Stanford colleague, Kathleen
    Eisenhardt,
    a strategy professor in my department, whose work has
    affected the direction taken by numerous major corporations and
    start-ups. Moreover, a recent Fortune magazine cover story described the
    book that Kathy wrote with Google’s Shona Brown (who is also
    Kathy’s former doctoral student), “Competing
    on the Edge,”
    as providing the blueprint for Google’s approach to business
    strategy –- see Chaos
    By Design.
    These are just two
    examples of women who qualify as “B School Stars,” I could go on and on. And
    there are also plenty non-white males that I could nominate as well, starting,
    for example with Stanford Business School’s brilliant Hau
    Lee,
    who has had a huge effect on the supply of numerous companies of all
    sizes, and has been involved in the founding of multiple companies.

    Perhaps
    I shouldn’t complain about an article that puts me in such nice company and that
    says such nice things about me. Perhaps I
    am being ungrateful and obnoxious. But I’ve
    always felt that, as a tenured professor who claims to do fact-based research,
    I have an obligation to say what I believe is true. Or, as I’ve written before
    (stealing a phrase from
    Michigan’s
    Karl Weick), to “argue as if I am right, and to listen as if I am wrong.”  It sometimes gets me trouble, and there are
    people who wish I would keep my mouth shut and quietly gather the golden crumbs
    that come with such press attention.

    In
    this case, I felt compelled to complain because I believe that there are a lot
    of woman (and non-white men) all star business school professors out there, and
    that the BusinessWeek writers should have
    listed some of them, as it could fuel the inaccurate impression that only
    professors who have a penis and a white face are having big impacts outside of
    academia.  I hope they provide a broader list next time that
    they list B school all stars. 

    P.S.
    Also, it is a small thing, but I am not exactly a business school professor. My
    primary appointment is in the Department of Management Science &
    Engineering, which is in the
    Stanford Engineering School. I do have a courtesy appointment in the Graduate
    School of Business, so I guess calling me a B School professor is technically accurate.
    Plus I do profess and write about
    management, and I have had quite a few Stanford Business School
    students in my
    classes over the years.  I also think
    that Steve Levitt has his primary appointment in the economics department, not
    the business school, at
    Chicago. I don’t consider this exactly a flaw in the
    story, however, as people from many different disciplines – economics, sociology,
    psychology, anthropology, and engineering – produce knowledge that is relevant
    to business, and the exact place that they work in academia often doesn’t
    matter much.