Work Matters

Tag: bosses

  • 12 Things Good Bosses Believe is Most Read at Harvard Business Review

    As I noted here last week, I posted a list of of 12 Things that Good Bosses Believe on the Harvard Business Review site last week.  I am going to write posts about each of these themes over the coming weeks (some of which will be familiar themes if you read this blog regularly). The list generated about 40 comments and I see that it is currently number #1 of their most read on their landing page.   I will publish the complete list here after all the links are published at HBR, but for now, you need to visit there to see the full list.  And please add a comment if you would like. 

  • 12 Things Good Bosses Believe — Check It Out At Harvard Business Review

    As I wrote earlier in the week, I got motivated to update and expand my list of "17 Things I Believe" to the left because — as part of revving up for the publication of Good Boss, Bad Boss — I was putting together a list of 12 Things Good Bosses Believe, which was just posted the morning over at Harvard Business Review. Some of these themes are developed in Good Boss, Bad Boss, others are ones that I have written about here and elsewhere.   To give you a taste, here are the first four:

    1. I have a flawed and incomplete understanding of what it feels like
      to work for me.
    2. My success — and that of my people — depends largely on being the
      master of obvious and mundane things, not on magical, obscure, or
      breakthrough ideas or methods.
    3. Having ambitious and well-defined goals is important, but it is
      useless to think about them much. My job is to focus on the small wins
      that enable my people to make a little progress every day.
    4. One of the most important, and most difficult, parts of my job is
      to strike the delicate balance between being too assertive and not
      assertive enough.

    Note that none of these are linked to posts or sources that explain the nuances of what I mean and the evidence behind the beliefs.  Over the next two or three weeks, I will write a post over at HBR about each one of these beliefs and, as I do, the link will be added to the list. I will let you you know when each appears.  When the list is done, I will likely add it this blog.  Meanwhile, check out the list on HBR, and please give me some feedback either there or here.

    P.S. A big thank you to Julia Kirby for her help with the list over at HBR.

  • The Dangers of a Harried Boss

    The always insightful Wally Bock made a great comment in response to my last post, where I asked about the conditions under which performance evaluations actually seemed to work.  Wally, drawing on his research on effective versus ineffective supervisors, reported (in part):

    The result
    was that when time came for the official, on-the-company-form,
    performance review, their sessions were very different from their
    less-effective peers. Top performing supervisors took more than three
    times as long for the session.

    Wally's comment got me thinking because, as I thought about the difference between good and bad bosses, it made me realize that — although good bosses are concerned about using their time well, and especially, making sure not to waste their people's time — that they tend to think and act as if it is more important to do things as well as possible than to do things as quickly as possible.  Indeed, some of the work bosses I can think of always seemed to be focused on finishing whatever they are doing at the moment so they can get on to the next thing.  The result, unfortunately, is that they spend their days rushing around, doing one thing after another badly. 

  • Bad is Stronger Than Good: The 5 to 1 Rule

    "Bad is Stronger Than Good"  is the title of one of my favorite academic articles, which shows that negative information, experiences, and people pack a far bigger wallop than positive ones.  I touched on this theme in The No Asshole Rule and dig into in detail in the forthcoming Good Boss, Bad Boss. But perhaps the most important finding for most of us is the research on  romantic relationships and marriages: unless positive interactions outnumber
    negative interactions by five to one, odds are that the relationship will fail.      Scary, isn't it?

    Several studies found that when the proportion of negative
    interactions in a relationship exceeds this “five-to-one rule” divorce rates go way up and
    marital satisfaction goes way down.     The implications for all of us in long-term relationships are both instructive and daunting: If you have a bad interaction with your partner, one (or apparently two, three, or four) positive interactions aren't enough to repair the damage.  It apparently takes at least five — at least over the long-term. Related studies on workplaces suggest, along similar lines, that bosses and companies will get more bang for the buck if they focus on eliminating the negative rather than accentuating the positive (although the latter is important, the best evidence suggests that more effort and resources should be focused on getting rid of bad people and experiences).

    P.S. The citation is Baumeister, R.F.,
    Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad is stronger than
    good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. Here is a link to the pdf:     http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71516.pdf.

  • Bosses, Empathy, and Teaching: Thoughts from an Anonymous CEO

    One of the bad and good things about spending a couple years writing a book is the process requires writing and then deleting a huge amount of text.  This morning, I was reading through some of the scraps from Good Boss, Bad Boss and I ran into an inspired argument from a local CEO (I am not using his name because I didn't ask him if I could use it here, and so I think that is the civil thing to do). This CEO argued that he is most effective at his job when thinks and acts a lot like a teacher.

    I wish we could have found a place for this section in the book.  But I've learned (in line with this post quoting Steve Jobs) that if you are an author (or do any other kind of creative work) you not only have to discard a lot of bad ideas, you also have to get rid of a lot of good ideas — otherwise there is too much complexity in the final product and you can't focus your full energy on what matters most.  So every author ends up deleting things he or she loves, and this is one of my favorite "discarded darlings" from Good Boss, Bad Boss.

    For this post, I've changed the CEO's name to "Sam," but the rest is just as it would have appeared in the book and reflects multiple emails where this very sharp CEO and I exchanged revisions to reach a point where the text reflected both of our beliefs on the subject.  Here is the excerpt:

    Sam reports that to be an empathetic
    boss, he has learned to devote close attention to his little facial expressions,
    off-hand comments in emails and conversations, and seemingly trivial things like
    whether he acknowledges people when passing them in halls.  Sam went on to explain that this becomes
    easier when he adopts what might be called a follower-centered mindset:

     
    “Life is a lot better when think about my job as one of helping everyone be good,
    helping everyone learn whatever they need, and teaching where I've got
    experience and expertise. When I think in terms of helping people learn to be
    even better, it automatically puts me into an empathetic mode (because
    teaching, fundamentally, is about understanding where the learner is coming
    from), and that sets up the interaction really well.  I can't always stay in this teaching mode.
    Sometimes there are real pressures and things I need to deliver on.  Sometimes external stressors in my life cause
    me to forget to be empathetic. But usually now I can notice when it's happening
    and correct it.”

    As Sam and I talked, we realized that
    – whether it is a big important meeting or the most trivial conversation,
    email, or blog post – the best bosses seem to keep asking themselves:     “Why am I doing this? Is it because I am on
    an ego trip and trying to get more goodies and glory for myself?  Or is it really the best thing for enhancing
    my people’s collective performance and humanity?”

    When bosses can honestly answer the
    question with a “yes” (and peers, bosses, and followers concur with their
    assessment), good things happen.  People
    do good work. They experience dignity and pride in each other. 

     I am so struck by this comment from Sam that I want to repeat it:  "When I think in terms of helping people learn to be
    even better, it automatically puts me into an empathetic mode (because
    teaching, fundamentally, is about understanding where the learner is
    coming
    from    )."  I believe he is talking about a hallmark of the most admired and effective bosses.

    What
    do you think of this view of
    leadership?  Does it strike you as
    right?  Or is it too idealistic? 

    P.S. If you read the comments below, you will see that the "anonymous" CEO quoted here has read it and is comfortable with having his name attached.  It is John Lilly, CEO of Mozilla, which is most famous for the Firefox browser.   So "Sam" is really "John."  John, thanks for wisdom and great exchanges.  Also, John writes a great blog, which among other things, contains great stuff on all the book's he reads.

  • Craig Ferguson’s Intriguing Joke: Does Every Group Have at Least One Asshole?

    In The No Asshole Rule, I make a tentative argument that it might be better to have one token asshole in a group (rather than none) to show others how NOT to behave — a suggestion supported by some behavioral science research, especially studies on littering that show people are less likely litter into a setting that has one piece of garbage than none at all (apparently because the one bad example makes the norm against littering  more vivid).  Frankly, I was not sure about the wisdom of this argument then, and am even am less sure of now.  The reason I am less sure now (although I do have examples where a single token asshole was used by colleagues to remind themselves how not to behave) is that negative emotions and behaviors pack such a big wallop and are so contagious that the speed at which the negativity can spread from the token asshole to everyone else means this is can be a dangerous practice.

    This all sets the stage for an old joke.  I think I first heard it from Craig Ferguson, the late night talk show host:

    Every group has an asshole. If you look around and don't see one, that means it is you.

    I think that is as good an asshole joke as I have heard.   Perhaps it is funny because it is true — it is consistent with research showing that we humans are remarkably oblivious to our flaws.  In particular, this  joke is instructive for bosses because power is so toxic and so many bosses are so oblivious to their asshole ways.

  • Dear Bosses: Is It Your Last Chance To Reverse Your Vile Ways? Or Is It Too Late?

    I was delighted to read that, finally, we saw some serious job growth last month in the United States, with 162,000 new jobs added in March.  When this bright news is blended with the recent Conference Board study showing that employee dissatisfaction is at an all time high (less than half of Americans are satisfied with their jobs, down from 61% in 2005, and workers under 25 are especially dissatisfied), it suggests that a lot of companies and bosses better come to grips with the fact that many of their best people are laying in wait, patiently grinding out the days, but will dash for the exits when the job market gets better. 

    As much research shows — by Gallup and many academics too — people quit bosses, not organizations for the most part. If you are a boss and believe that your people love you and will never leave you, well, it just might be a good time to look in the mirror.   As I've discussed here before, the very act of wielding power can make you blind to how your subordinates are really responding to you.  And, of course, given the lack of options, many smart employees (especially those with emotional control and long-term time perspectives) realize that the wisest strategy is to stay on the good side of a bad boss to avoid negative performance reviews and the demotions or firings that often follow — and so they will get good recommendations when they try to land a better job (and boss) down the road.  This means, dear bosses, that you may well be victim to a game of mutual deception, where you are deluding yourself into believing that you are great at your job, but if you really knew how it felt to work for you, you would be shocked to discover that you are seen as an asshole, incompetent, or both.  AND your most able employees are helping you sustain this delusion to protect themselves in the short-term and keep their options open in the long-term.

    After these years of cost-cutting and treating employees as if they are damn lucky to have a job, we are seeing hints that the balance of power is starting to swing back back to employees. A lot of companies and bosses have treated their people badly during the rough last few years — doing far damage than is necessary (as I have written about in Harvard Business Review article and talk about in this related video on the McKinsey site).  It is probably too late for many lousy employers and managers out there to reverse course, as even if they try to do so, their people will  rightfully see it is an inauthentic ploy.  But a good start for many companies might be to try to figure out who your worst bosses are and make an extra effort to reform or (if necessary) remove them as quickly as you  can.  And even if you have been a truly good boss — or good company — during these tough times, it might be a good time to take stock and consider how to treat your people even better and find out what they really need to be happy and perform well on their jobs — and do everything within your power to give to them. 

    I would be very curious to hear from readers: If you are a boss, are you stepping up your efforts to treat your people well?   What about those of you out there with good bosses?  Is the research right?  Have you built up loyalty that will persist when the good times return?   And what about those of you with crummy bosses, have you been waiting, patiently, to politely tell your vile overseer to take this job and shove it when something better comes along?

  • The Power of the First Follower

    Check out this fantastic 3 minute TED video.  Derek Sivers provides a brilliant brief conceptual analysis, touching on points including:

    1. Leaders are over-rated, if someone does not follow, they are just lone nuts.

    2. The first follower is the one who creates a leader.

    3. The leader had the wisdom to treat the first follower as an equal, which encouraged him to join and stay.

    4.  The people who come after everyone's doing it are interesting, as they rush to get there soon enough when it is still cool but safe because a lot of people are doing it.

    5. At some point, it may spread so far that people will risk ridicule for not joining.

    6. Leaders are over-rated, early — especially first followers — followers provide an underrated form of leadership.

    I would add, as a small addition, that another way to think about the leader here is he succeeded because he was sensitive to what would motivate the first follower and the other early followers. 

    This is a case of influence by someone without authority.  But just think if you had authority and also applied these principles. That is what great leaders — and first followers — do, it seems. 

    P.S. A big thanks to Scott for sending this my way.

  • Blame is Contagious, Except When People Have High Self-Worth

    A pair of themes that I have returned to over and over again at Work Matters are:

    1. One of the most revealing tests of a leader or organization is "what happens when people fail" (especially, creating psychologically safety rather than a climate of fear is important, as is accountability for mistakes).

    2. Emotions, especially negative ones, are dangerously contagious.  Indeed, one of the main themes of The No Asshole Rule is that one of the most reliable way to turn into a jerk is to have a boss who is a jerk or to enter a swarm of of them — it is hard to resist catching the poisoning.  

    A recent study by Nathaniel Fast at USC (who got his PhD at Stanford) and Stanford Business School Professor Larissa Tiedens in the January 2010 issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology provides compelling new evidence of the nuances of how an especially vile form of nastiness spreads — blaming others when things go wrong.  The article is called “Blame Contagion: The Automatic Transmission of Self-Serving
    Attributions” and is apparently the first series of experiments that have ever examined if blaming others spreads like a contagious disease. Plus it contains a fascinating twist — blame was highly contagious EXCEPT when the researchers first took steps to help research subjects bolster their self worth.  There is a great summary of on the USC website here.  But some key highlights are (quoted from the summary):

    1. Anyone can become a blamer, Fast said, but there are some common traits.
    Typically, they are more ego defensive, have a higher likelihood of
    being narcissistic and tend to feel chronically insecure.

    2. The experiments showed that individuals who watched someone blame
    another for mistakes went on to do the same with others.In one experiment, half of the participants were asked to read a
    newspaper article about a failure by Gov. Schwarzenegger, who blamed
    special interest groups for the controversial special election that
    failed in 2005, costing the state $250 million. A second group read an
    article in which the governor took full responsibility for the failure.     Those who read about the governor blaming special interest groups
    were more likely to blame others for their own unrelated shortcomings,
    compared with those who read about Schwarzenegger shouldering the
    responsibility    .     (the emphasis in mine). 

    3. Another experiment found that self-affirmation inoculated
    participants from blame. The tendency for blame to spread was completely
    eliminated in a group of participants who had the opportunity to affirm
    their self-worth. “By giving participants the chance to bolster their self-worth, we
    removed their need to self-protect though subsequent blaming,” Fast
    said.

    This last finding is especially important and has all sorts of interesting implications for leadership, life, and  especially politics.  Apparently, pointing fingers at others is not only contagious, it is amplified by insecurity and apparently eliminated when people feel valued and esteemed.   Note this crucial to the effectiveness of a group or organization because, when something goes wrong, if the response is a "circular firing squad" as I have heard it called, then not only do people devote their energy to attacking each other, they have less energy — and little incentive — for working on repairing the problem.  

    Also, this research perhaps helps explain the sad state of much of American politics these days. Blamestorming is a contagious disease that has spread and I am confident that among those in the political ranks (or who aspire to higher office) the incidence of insecurity and especially narcissism is very high.  As an example of someone who plays in both spheres, Carly Fiornia former HP CEO and now candidate for Senate in California was infamous for her narcissism and her penchant for blaming others, as documented in the Fortune article that finally drove he board to fire her.  Turning to her new life as a politician, if  you have not seen her Demon Sheep Attack Ad, you have missed something weird and wonderful). Although Carly does not suffer from insecurity, the narcissism findings ring true.

    To return to leadership and management, the lesson from this new research, as well as many other studies of psychological safety. is that great bosses treat mistakes as an opportunity to learn, develop careers, and make the system stronger. And, yes, for accountability too.  As the USC summary of the above research indicates, there are organizations out there that are remarkably good at learning from mistakes, rather than as an opportunity for finger-pointing and humiliation of culprits:

    Or managers could follow the lead of companies such as Intuit, which
    implemented a “When Learning Hurts” session where they celebrated and
    learned from mistakes, rather than pointing fingers and assigning blame.
    The blame contagion research provides empirical evidence that such a
    practice can avoid negative effects in the culture of the organizatio    n.

    This is damn good advice for any boss.

     

  • Good Boss, Bad Times on McKinsey Quarterly’s Top Ten for 2009

    Earlier in the year, some of you may recall that I published an article in the Harvard Business Review called "How to Be a Good Boss in a Bad Economy" and — to my amazement — the folks at the McKinsey Quarterly (who are sort of competitors with HBR)  not only posted a video interview with me about the article, when HBR published the article online, they provided a link to the McKinsey video and in turn McKinsey provided a link to the HBR story.  Well, McKinsey just announced that the video — called Good Boss, Bad Times — was among their most popular for 2009. The video is free, as McKinsey has a different business model than Harvard, which charges you for content (after giving you a free taste).

    I thought the comments in response at McKinsey were most thoughtful. In particular, Frank Shoniker, who is President of SBT Media in Canada wrote in October, 2009:

    Well, back on June 10th
    I commented on the emotion of dealing with having to let people go. Who
    knew that less than a month later it would be my turn! With an
    experience less than ideal, I can only offer advice on what makes a
    “good boss” vs. a “toxic boss”. I can sum it up in 6 questions:
    1. Do you make decisions in isolation?
    2. Do you have your staff’s “back”?
    3. Do you put yourself in the “other guys shoes”?
    4. Do you trust others?
    5. Do you listen to the contrarians?
    6. Are your ideas always the best?
    If you answered honestly, all you bosses out there, you
    will know where there are areas for improvement. I leave you with what
    I hope my staff continue to think about me, that I was predicable,
    understanding, that I gave them some control over their business lives,
    and that I was compassionate. At the end of the day we all have to live
    with ourselves.

    I found this both brilliant and touching, and I appreciate Frank's willingness to share his wisdom.

    As I look forward to the new year, I am hoping that things improve enough that, perhaps by Fall, that  I will be pitching articles and videos to places like HBR and McKinsey on "How to Be a Good Boss in a Good Economy."

    P.S. It seems like there are still some free downloads left of the HBR article (they give a limited number to authors to give away).  Please let me know if it doesn't work and I will take down this note.  Try here for the pdf:

    http://custom.hbsp.com/b01/en/implicit/p.jhtml?login=SUTT052609S&pid=R0906E