Work Matters

Tag: bosses

  • Meetings and Bosshole Behavior: A Classic Case

    One of the themes in Good Boss, Bad Boss, as well as some of my past academic research (see this old chapter on meetings as status contests), is that bosses and other participants use meetings to establish and retain prestige and power.  This isn't always dysfunctional; for example, when I studied brainstorming at IDEO, designers gained prestige in the culture by following the brainstorming rules, especially by generating lots of ideas and building on the ideas of others.  And when they built a cool prototype in a brainstorm, their colleagues were impressed.  The IDEO status contest was remarkably functional because it wasn't an I win-you lose game; everyone who brainstormed well was seen as cool and constructive. In addition, the status game rewarded people who performed IDEO's core work well. 

    Unfortunately, too many people, especially power-hungry and clueless bosses, use meetings to display and reinforce their "coercive power" over others in ways that undermine both the performance and the dignity of their followers.   As I've shown, bosses often don't realize how destructive they are because power often causes people to be more focused on their own needs, less focused on the needs and actions of others,and to act like "the rules don't apply to me." 

    I was reminded of the dangers of bosshole behavior in meetings by this troubling but instructive note I received the other day.  It is a classic case.  Note this is the exact text sent me by this unnamed reader, except that I have changed the bosshole's name to Ralph to protect the innocent and the guilty:

    I wanted to pass on to you a trick my most recent crappy boss used to use in meetings.

    The manager I am thinking of is particularly passive-aggressive and also really arrogant at the same time. He was notorious for sending these ridiculous emails that were so long that no one would read them. (He’s also an engineer in every sense of that word) This was at a technology company and we used to start our Mondays off with a business/technical discussion. These meetings initially took an hour but soon turned into 2 and would regularly go 3 and sometimes 4 hours. It was mostly ‘Ralph’ talking expansively about the issues at hand, about those mother-scratchers in the head office and why we shouldn’t take our challenges back to them (Really? Don’t want to solve anything? Really?). It was just unbelievable, we rarely got anything useful accomplished.

    His favorite tricks, though, were pretty much verbatim from your book. He’d arrive 10 – 20 minutes later for almost every meeting and then kill them once in a while. He added an interesting twist to this too. Every so often, if we knew we had work items to cover, we’d forget about the last time and start the meeting without him. Then he’d arrive an hour late without apology, ask what we covered and then make us start the whole meeting again. After all, it couldn’t be a real meeting without ‘Ralph’. And we needed to learn from his vast wealth of experience, didn’t we?

    A few questions:

    Have you ever seen behavior like this in other places?

    If you are a boss, how do you stop yourself from wielding power in dysfunctional ways, and instead, create a functional status contest?

    If you boss acts like an overbearing jerk during meetings, how can you fight back?

  • A Great Pixar Story: Alvy Ray Smith and Ed Catmull Serve as Human Shields

    Note: I originally posted this at HBR.org. You can see the original and the 13 comments here and can see all my posts at HBR here.  I will continue to devote the lion's share of my blogging effort to Work Matters, but plan to post at HBR a couple times a month.

    Pixar is one of my favorite companies on the planet. I love its films, its creative and constructive people (The Incredibles director Brad Bird is among the most intriguing people I've ever interviewed), and its relentless drive toward excellence. There's a pride that permeates that place, along with a nagging worry that, if they don't remain vigilant, mediocrity will infect their work. So I was thrilled to be invited to give a couple of talks about Good Boss, Bad Boss at Pixar last Fall. After the first one, Pixar veteran Craig Good (who has been there at least 25 years — I think he said 28 years), came up and told me an astounding story.

    Droidmaker-2guys

     

     

     

    The story occurred to Craig because he'd just heard me claim that the best bosses serve as human shields, protecting their people from intrusions, distractions, idiocy from on high, and anything else that undermines their performance or well-being. For him, that brought to mind the year 1985, when the precursor to Pixar, known as the Computer Division of Lucasfilm, was under financial pressure because founder George Lucas (of Star Wars fame) had little faith in the economics of computer animated films. Much of this pressure came down on the heads of the Division's leaders, Ed Catmull (the dreamer who imagined Pixar long before it produced hit films, and the shaper of its culture) and Alvy Ray Smith (the inventor responsible for, among many other things, the Xerox PARC technology that made the rendering of computer animated films possible). The picture to the left shows Ed and Alvy around that period.

    Lucas had brought in a guy named Doug Norby as President to bring some discipline to Lucasfilm, and as part of his efforts, Norby was pressing Catmull and Smith to do some fairly deep layoffs. The two couldn't bring themselves to do it. Instead, Catmull tried to make a financial case for keeping his group intact, arguing that layoffs would only reduce the value of a unit that Lucasfilm could profitably sell. (I am relating this story with Craig's permission, and he double-checked its accuracy with Catmull.) But Norby was unmoved. As Craig tells it: "He was pestering Ed and Alvy for a list of names from the Computer Division to lay off, and Ed and Alvy kept blowing him off. Finally came the order: You will be in my office tomorrow morning at 9:00 with a list of names."

    So what did these two bosses do? "They showed up in his office at 9:00 and plunked down a list," Craig told me. "It had two names on it: Ed Catmull and Alvy Ray Smith."

    As Craig was telling me that story, you could hear the admiration in his voice and his pride in working for a company where managers would put their own jobs on the line for the good of their teams. "We all kept our jobs," he marveled. "Even me, the low man on the totem pole. When word got out, we employees pooled our money to send Ed, Alvy, and their wives on a thank-you night on the town."

    Certainly such extreme staff protection is rare and sometimes it might not even be wise. I can't say that every proposed layoff is immoral or unnecessary. But consider the coda: a few months after this incident, Pixar was sold to a guy named Steve Jobs for 5 million bucks and, as they say, the rest is history. And some 25 years later, that brave shielding act still drives and inspires people at Pixar.

    P.S. I want to thank Pixar's Craig Good, Elyse Klaidman, and Ed Catmull for telling me this story and letting me use it. If you want to learn more about Pixar's astounding history, I suggest reading David Price's The Pixar Touch. It is well researched and a delight to read. While you're at it, check out Alvy Ray Smith's site and Dealers of Lightning if you want to learn about the impact this quirky genius has had on computer animation and other technical marvels.

  • Team Guidelines From A New Boss: How Can He Make Sure People Live Them?

    I got a fascinating note from an employee of a big company about the "team norms" that were articulated by his new boss.  I think they are great, but have a crucial question about them. Here they are: 

    I. Show respect

    Support one another…don't blind-side one another in public.

     Provide one another with a safe place…honor confidentiality.

     Show up to meetings on time…and if you're running late, call.

     Maintain professionalism…especially with clients / learners.

    II. Be transparent

    No hidden agendas

    Get to the point…don't beat around the bush. 

    III. Stay positive

    Celebrate successes

    Have fun

    Here is my question. Talk is not a substitute for action.  Guidelines like these are great when they are drive and reflect behavior, but when they are consistently violated, they are worse than having no guidelines at all because the stench of hypocrisy fills the air.  As such, what advice do you have for this boss to make sure that his team actually lives these norms?

    My first thought was that he should focus on what happens when team members — or himself — violate the norms.  After all, in any human group, people will break rules.  In healthy groups, bosses call out others (and themselves) when transgressions occur, but do it in ways that builds rather than destroys safety and trust.  It's noteasy to do, but I;'ve seen great bosses like IDEO's David Kelley do it in masterful ways.

    That's my first thought. I would love to hear others.

    P.S. A big thanks to the unnamed employee for sending these norms to me.

  • “12 Things Good Bosses Believe” is the Most Popular Post at HBR in 2010

    I got a note from Julia Kirby at HBR a few days back that my list of "12 Things Good Bosses Believe"   has been the most popular post at HBR.Org in 2010 — a list based on ideas from Good Boss, Bad Boss. 

    Here is Jimmy Guterman's list of the Top 10 posts at HBR in 2010:

    1. 12 Things Good Bosses Believe
      Robert Sutton, author of Good Boss, Bad Boss, ponders what makes some bosses great.
    2. Six Keys to Being Excellent at Anything
      Tony Schwartz of the Energy Project reports on what he's learned about top performance.
    3. How (and Why) to Stop Multitasking
      Peter Bregman learns how to do one thing at a time.
    4. Why I Returned My iPad
      Here, Bregman finds a novel way to treat a device that's "too good."
    5. The Best Cover Letter I Ever Received
      Although David Silverman published this with us in 2009, it remained extremely timely this year.
    6. How to Give Your Boss Feedback
      Amy Gallo reports on the best ways to help your boss and improve your working relationship.
    7. You've Made a Mistake. Now What?
      We all screw up at work. Gallo explains what to do next.
    8. Define Your Personal Leadership Brand
      Norm Smallwood of the RBL Group gives tips on how to convey your identity and distinctiveness as a leader.
    9. Why Companies Should Insist that Employees Take Naps
      Tony Schwartz makes the case for naps as competitive advantage.
    10. Six Social Media Trends for 2011
      David Armano of Edelman Digital ends the year by predicting our social media future.

    I am pleased and also somewhat embarrassed because, well, I haven't quite finished the post yet! I promised to write detailed posts on all 12 ideas listed, but I only made it through the first 10. I will finish in the next couple weeks, or at least I hope to, as life keeps happening while I make other plans (as that lovely old saying goes). 

  • Good Boss, Bad Boss on Five “Best Business Book” Lists for 2010

    Good Boss, Bad Boss has been selected as among the best business books of the year on five lists I've heard about.  These are:

    1. INC Magazine's list of "Best Books for Business Owners."

    2. One of the Globe & Mail's Top 10 Ten Business Reads of 2010.

    3. One of the four "best of the rest" selections by 1-800-CEO-Read in the leadership category, behind the winner Bury My Heart at Conference Room B. (I love that title, just brilliant).

    4. The New York Post's Round-Up of Notable Career Books for 2010.

    5. The Strategy & Business list of the four best Best Business Books in the leadership category.  See the excerpt below from, Walter Kiechel III's story here, which I found to be generally fun, thoughtful, and well-written (you have to register, but it is free). Here is Walter's rollicking review:

    Better Bossiness

    Finally, for a head-clearing blast of sauciness, pick up a copy of Robert I. Sutton’s Good Boss, Bad Boss: How to Be the Best…and Learn from the Worst. In a year when too many leadership books combined solemn with vapid, Sutton’s decision to focus on the figure of “the boss” comes across as thoroughly refreshing. Even after decades of study, we may not agree on what constitutes a leader or all the proper functions of a manager, but everybody knows who the boss is.

    If it’s you, however long you’ve been at it, you can probably benefit from Sutton’s breezy tour of the wisdom he has distilled from scholarly studies, his own experience, and the thousands of responses he received to his last book, The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t (Business Plus, 2007). To say that Sutton, a Stanford professor, wears his learning lightly is to understate the case. At times he wears it like a vaudeville comedian’s gonzo-striped blazer with accompanying plastic boutonniere shooting water. This is a weirdly merry book, perfect for a down year — but not an unserious book.

    Consider, for example, Sutton on the imperative to take control. Yes, you as a leader have to, he counsels, in the sense that “you have to convince people that your words and deeds pack a punch.” And he offers up a series of fairly familiar gambits to that end: “Talk more than others — but not too much.” “Interrupt people occasionally — and don’t let them interrupt you much.” “Try a little flash of anger now and then.” What redeems this from being mere Machiavellian gamesmanship is Sutton’s admission that any control you pretend to is probably largely an illusion — there’s a lot of play-acting in any executive role, he wants us to know. He makes the case that pushing too hard in the wrong way is a lot more dangerous than not pushing hard enough. Given the danger of the “toxic tandem” — your people are always scrutinizing you, at the same time that power invites you to become self-absorbed — leaders are always on the edge of becoming bad bosses, or even worse, bossholes. So he also advises you to blame yourself for the big mistakes, serves you up a seven-part recipe for an effective executive apology, reminds you to ask the troops what they need, and finishes with the injunction, “Give away some power or status, but make sure everyone knows it was your choice.”

    Another chapter title captures the overall aspiration Sutton advocates: “Strive to Be Wise.” His is a street-smart, been-around-the-block-but-still-a-happy-warrior brand of wisdom, rooted in a boss’s understanding of himself or herself coupled with an appreciation that bosses have to take action and make decisions, including doing lots of what Sutton labels “dirty work.” As a boss “it is your job to issue reprimands, fire people, deny budget requests, transfer employees to jobs they don’t want, and implement mergers, layoffs, and shutdowns.” Wise bosses understand that although they may not be able to avoid such unpleasantness, how they go about the dirty work makes an enormous difference. Empathy and compassion are good places to start, says Sutton. Layer on constant communication with the affected, including feedback from them you really listen to, however painful it is. Finally, you’ll probably need to cultivate a measure of emotional detachment, beginning with forgiveness for the people who lash out at you. And maybe reserving some forgiveness for yourself.

    Indeed, Good Boss, Bad Boss is in its entirety a page-by-page guide to better bossly self-awareness. The variety of sources cited can be dizzying. On one page you may get a summary of two academic studies, a quote from Dodgers coach Tommy Lasorda, a recollection of Sutton’s parents, and three examples of bad bosses sent in to Sutton’s website. (At times, the book seems almost crowdsourced and puts one in mind of Charlene Li on the power of social technology to expose behavior.) What gives all this consistency and makes for an enjoyable read is Sutton’s voice throughout — at times yammering, on rare occasions bordering on the bumptious, but in general so “can you believe this?” ready to laugh at the author’s own pratfalls, and so eager to help, that the net effect is sneakily endearing. Rather a comfort in a low, mean year.

    That guy can write, huh?

    As a closing comment, I am tickled with the recognition this book received and certainly that it appeared on The New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller lists.  But perhaps the most important thing to me is that, when I talk to bosses of all levels — from management trainees, to project managers, to chefs, to film directors and producers, to CEOs and top management teams, the core themes in the book sometimes surprise them a bit, but nh early always strike them as pertinent and central to the challenges they face.   I have talked to some 50 different groups about the ideas in Good Boss, Bad Boss since June and — although I enjoy talking about all my stuff with engaged audiences — there is something about this book that engages people more deeply than any book I've written since Jeff Pfeffer and I came out with The Knowing-Doing Gap in 1999.

    Finally, I want to thank all of you who read my blog for your support and encouragement. Your suggestions, stories, and disagreements (with me me and each other) played a huge role in shaping the content and tone of Good Boss, Bad Boss, and I am most grateful for all the ways you helped.

  • Building a Better Boss: A Webinar With Polly LaBarre and Me

    Labarre2007-bw Polly LaBarre has been developing, sparking, and spreading ideas about innovative companies and people for about 15 years now, first as one of the most insightful (and downright fun) editors of Fast Company in its early days, then as a TV personality who did cool innovation stuff at CNN, co-author of Mavericks at Work, a great speaker at events of all kinds, and now at her latest adventure, the Management Innovation Exchange (or MIX) — which she is  leading with Gary Hamel, Michele Zanini, and David Sims.  I love the MIX Manifesto:

    Why Not?

    What law decrees that our organizations have to be bureaucratic, inertial and politicized, or that life within them has to be disempowering, dispiriting and often downright boring? No law we know of. So why not build organizations that are as resilient, inventive, inspiring and socially responsible, as the people who work within them? Why not, indeed. This is the mission of the MIX.

    I've known Polly at least 12 years, as I was involved a bit in the delightful madness of Fast Company conferences and other things in its crazy early years, and she wrote one of the best stories on Weird Ideas That Work. Polly is also, as many of you will recall, the person who I learned the phrase "Jargon Monoxide" from, which I still love. 

    As part of the MIX adventure, Polly and I are doing a webinar on bosses on this Thursday, December 9th at 11AM Eastern.  The basic plan is that I will spend about 25 minutes or so presenting core ideas from Good Boss, Bad Boss.  Then Polly and I will spend 15 or 20 minutes have a more rollicking a no doubt less linear conversation about it, and then the last 15 minutes or so will be more general Q&A. Polly is fun and always imaginative; I hope you will join us — and yes, it is free! Once again, you can sign-up here.

  • Why a CEO Needs a Candid Advisor from OUTSIDE the Organization

    I was reading through notes I took about six months ago during a talk given by a CEO of a large company, who was fired by his board because his firm had serious performance problems — and was taking great risks — that he never learned about until it was too late, and the firm was in deep trouble.  I can't identify him, but as I have warned here, at HBR,and in Good Boss, Bad Boss, every boss risks living in a fool's paradise — and the more power the boss wields over others, the greater the risk.

    Here is his comment:

    "You desperately need a candid adviser.  When you become CEO, you get a lot of bullshit.  You don't information so much as you get sales pitches.  You're alone in the ring."

    This guy learned the hard way; I offer it so others can avoid the pain and obvious embarrassment he felt.  He looked like wounded animal during this talk, but I had to give him credit for being honest. 

    P.S. If you read Andrew Sorkin's well-crafted Too Big To Fail, you can see how out of touch the leaders of big financial services firms were in the run-up to the meltdown.

  • “Lend Me Your Wallets:” Research on the Link Between Charismatic CEOs and Stock Price, Featuring Steve Jobs

    I was exchanging emails the other day with Dave Ulrich, my co-author on Asian Leadership, and asked him what he was working on.  He answered that he was pretty interested in the link between CEO actions and stock price.  Dave's interest reminded me of a delightful and imaginative 2004 study of such links by Frank Flynn (co-author of the narcissism study I discussed last week) and Barry Staw.  It is called Lend Me Your Wallets: The Effect of Charismatic Leadership on External Support for an Organization.  Flynn and Staw did two studies on charisma in this paper, which they defined as follows:

    Such individuals exude confidence, dominance, a sense of purpose, and the ability to articulate a vision for followers
    to grasp (House, 1977; Conger, 1991). Charismatic leaders are able to communicate this vision to their followers, and by the force of their own excitement and enthusiasm, induce their followers to support this vision (Yukl and Van Fleet, 1992). In this sense, charismatic leaders are said to have remarkable influence over subordinates who internalize the leader’s vision of what can be achieved through collective effort (Bass, 1985).

    The first was a field study, where they compared 46 firms led by CEOs who were identified as charismatic (a total of 44 CEOs.. it appears two were used twice) who led Fortune 500 firms between 1985 and 1994.  They found that, independently of objective financial information, firms led by charismatic CEOs enjoyed higher stock prices.  Moreover, this effect was magnified during difficult financial conditions — during economic downturns, charismatic CEOs had an even stronger effect on stock price. (Perhaps when people are under duress, they especially gravitate to the hope and energy that such leaders exude).

    This first study was used to set the stage for a second study using Steve Jobs. Note that although this study was published in 2004, the data collection was actually done years earlier (things move slow in academia), in late 1998, barely a year after Jobs had returned to Apple.  There was a lot of hype and hope about Jobs, but he was not seen as the magical CEO heis now.  This research was done  in the very early and uncertain days of the turnaround. 

    The set-up of the study was as follows (I am simplifying): 150 students were asked to imagine they had inherited $10,000 from a relative and were asked to alocate the money among three investment options: an indexed mutual fund, a money market certificate, or Apple stock.  All were shown objective fiancial information about Apple's recent performance (and the performance of money markets and mutual funds too). Half were given information suggesting that Apple's prospects for a turnaround were bright and half were given information that Apple's prospects for a turnaround were dim.  Then came the big manipulation: Half were shown a videotape of Jobs doing a 20 minute presentation at a trade show (I am pretty sure I loaned this to them for the experiment, Jobs talks about all the ways things are getting better and is his usual compelling self) and half did not see the video. 

    The results were pretty interesting.  The subjects who saw the film rated Jobs as considerably more charismatic than those who did not. And those who saw the film were willing to invest more money in Apple than those who did not. This effect was driven primarily by people who were presented negative predictions about Apple's future. Those who did not see Jobs invested an average of $1329 but those who saw Jobs invested an average of $3327 (compared to a $400 bump for those who saw the film but were presented information suggesting that Apple's future was bright).

    This study is imperfect, as all studies are. But I find it fun, imaginative, and intriguing.  For starters, it shows both the dangers of charismatic leaders — because they can distract people from the facts or at least color the ways those facts are construed (especially when fear and pessimism are in the air).  This research also shows how charismatic leaders have the potential to start a positive self-fulfilling prophecy.  And in the specific case of Jobs, it is intriguing to think about the astounding long-term success of Apple under his leadership the last 13 years or so, especially in light of Jim Collins dim view of charisma in both Built to Last and Good to Great.  I have complained about Collins' mediocre and over-hyped methodology before (see here and here) and the fact that he elected to ignore literally hundreds of past studies (including many studies on charisma and performance) and to simply rely on two very small samples to make sweeping claims.  As I have also said before, I find his books to be compelling in terms of the writing and despite this specific complaint about charisma, I generally agree with his claims and  could point to many other studies that support them.

    What do you think?  Is Jobs' charisma an important part of the Apple turnaround?  And what are the virtues and dangers of charismatic leaders?

  • The Leadership and Influence Summit: Its Free, Online, and Happening Now

    I was invited to be part of this cool online event and I am most impressed with the quality of the content and speakers.  It was originally scheduled to run just two days, but it has been  so successful that it has been extended until November 30th.  Check it out here: You need to register, but it is free.  There are about 30 short talks (6 to 20 minutes) from thought leaders including Robert Cialdini, Charlene Li, Tim Sanders, Jim Kouzes, Marshall Goldmith, Stan Slap, and on and on.  The diversity and quality are pretty impressive.  I hope you enjoy it.

    P.S. I contributed my AlwaysOn keynote, which you can also see here.

  • Penis Poisoning Posts at BNET

    I have written extensively in The No Asshole Rule, in Good Boss, Bad Boss, and numerous posts (like this one) about the dangers of power poisoning, about how when people hold positions of authority over others, it often leads them to become more focused on their own needs, less focused on the needs and reactions of others, to act like the rules don't apply to them — along with a host of unattractive responses including the lack of impulse control and the tendency to dehiumanize others.   In this vein, I worked with the folks at BNET to do two posts (which just appeared) on a particular form of power poisoning, which I call "penis poisoning."  The first post is called "Would You Let Lust Ruin Your Career?"  Here is the opening:

    An old Yiddish saying in Portnoy’s Complaint – Phillip Roth’s lewd classic – describes the misguided behavior of all too many powerful men: Ven der putz shteht, ligt der sechel in drerd, which means “When the prick stands up, the brains get buried in the ground.” From recent academic research and press reports, it’s clear that power can poison even the most intelligent and well-meaning people when they take influential positions.

    I then explain a bit about the effects of power poisoning and offer advice for powerful men, starting with "Accept that you, as the owner a penis, are at risk."  The second post is what BNET calls a "rogues gallery"  called "Sex, Lies, and Stupidity;" which considers men who have apparently had impulse control problems of this kind ranging from former senator Larry Craig, to Bill Clinton, to Tiger Woods, to former HP CEO Mark Hurd, to pedophile Catholic priests.

    Sex is always fascinating to us human beings and so these posts are already generating comments. Yes, it is an entertaining topic, but it is also a serious one.  Penis poisoning ruins many people's lives — and is something that many organizations handle badly.