Work Matters

Tag: evidence-based management

  • How Many Pilots Does a 737 Need? Evidence-Based Management in Action

    I have been reading a lot about group and organizational size lately because it is a key issue for understanding the "scaling problem" that Huggy Rao and I are currently tackling.  After all, if you want to grow a large organization or network, it is crucial to understand how large "the building blocks" should be, how many people a leader can lead, and the the upper limits of organization and network size.   You will likely see other posts on this issue here as I am fretting over this question a lot.  But I couldn't resist a quick post drawn from J. Richard Hackman's fantastic book Leading Teams. 

    Richard reports an astounding solution to a disagreement between United Airlines and the pilots union when United was making its first big purchase of the 737 aircraft.  Boeing designed the cockpit so that it could be flown by either a two or three person crew.  Of course, United wanted two pilots because of the enormous savings in labor expenses; the union wanted three pilots because they argued that, since the planes would be flown in busy air spaces, it would be better to have a third person on board to help with demanding work and to keep an eye out for problems.   Well, this kind of disagreement didn't surprise me and I am sure it doesn't surprise me.  But what shocked me as that United and the union jointly sponsored an independent group to study the differences between two and three person crews during actual flight operations.  The study found no consistent differences between two and three-pilot crews.  As Hackman reports on page 119 of Leading Teams:

    "Members of the three-person crews did leave the cockpit more frequently to visit the cabin, which may have helped strengthen the work relationship between pilots and flight attendants. But they caught no more potentially conflicting traffic called to their attention by air traffic control than did the two-person crews."

    Chalk-up one for management on this one; as Richard points out, 737s are now exclusively flown by pairs of pilots, not trios.  I love this story because it appears to be an actual evidence-based decision. Unfortunately, this happens far less than it should.  As a process, it fascinates me because asking an objective third party to study problem when two parties have conflicting ideologies, goals, or incentives –and agreeing in advance to a decision that fits the evidence — seems like the right way to go about things.  I am not even sure if that is what happened in this case, but I fancy the notion.  I know that it usually won't be feasible in real life because we human-beings aren't that cooperative and rational, but it would lead to more effective and safer organizations.

    P.S. Check out Hackman's awesome recent post at HBR on group effectiveness. He has been studying this problem for over 40 years and I believe knows more about both the academic and practical challenges than anyone on the planet.

     

  • Evidence that “Retail Therapy” is Effective

    Just as I feared!  BPS Research reports a recent article containing a series of small studies that shows "retail therapy" does work — at least in a sample of young American consumers.  And they found little evidence of regret or guilt after the purchases.  Here is the description of the third and most compelling of the studies:

    "Lastly the researchers had 69 undergrads complete two retrospective consumption diaries, two weeks apart, documenting their purchasing behaviour, mood and regrets. All the participants admitted in the first diary to having bought themselves a treat (mostly clothes, but also food, electronics, entertainment products and so on). Sixty-two per cent of these purchases had been motivated by low mood, 28 per cent as a form of celebration. Surprisingly perhaps, treats bought as a form of mood repair were generally about half the value of treats bought for celebration, reinforcing the notion that retail therapy is constrained, not out of control. Moreover, according to the diaries, the retail therapy purchases were overwhelmingly beneficial, leading to mood boosts and no regrets or guilt, even when they were unplanned. Only one participant who'd made a retail therapy purchase said that she would return it, given the opportunity."

    I better not show this study to my teenage daughters.  They love retail therapy and I have never seen a hint of guilt from them… only the motivation to do more in the future!

    The citation is: Atalay, A., and Meloy, M. (2011). Retail therapy: A strategic effort to improve mood. Psychology and Marketing, 28 (6), 638-659 DOI: 10.1002/mar.20404.

    P.S. As I have said before,  BPS Research Digest is one of my favorite places on the web.  Check it out.

     

  • New Research: We Are More Creative When We Help Others Than Ourselves

    There is an interesting set of findings from psychological experiments that suggest we see others' flaws and strengths more clearly than our own (I wrote about this in Good Boss, Bad Boss) and that, on average, human-beings make more rational decisions when make them for others rather than themselves.  As Jeff Pfeffer and I advised in Hard Facts:

    See Yourself and Your Organization as Outsiders Do

    A big impediment to evidence-based management is that human beings, especially those with good mental health, often have inflated views of their own talents and prospects for success. This rampant optimism is a double-edged sword. The upside is that it creates positive self-fulfilling prophecies, which increase the odds of success. The downside is that excessive optimism causes people to downplay or not see risks, and to persist despite clear evidence they are traveling down the wrong path. One study found, for example, that over 80 percent of entrepreneurs surveyed estimated that chances were over 70 percent that their venture would succeed, and over 30 percent believed that their firm was certain to succeed—even though only about 35 percent of new businesses survive their first five years.  Max Bazerman’s book on managerial decision making shows that outsiders often make more objective judgments than insiders do—so having a blunt friend, mentor, or counselor can help you see and act on better evidence.  This is one reason why Kathleen Eisenhardt’s study of successful versus unsuccessful Silicon Valley start-ups found that in companies that survived and thrived, the CEO usually had a trusted counselor on the team—while CEOs of unsuccessful firms usually did not. These counselors were typically ten to twenty years older than the CEO, with broad industry experience, and were most valuable for helping CEOs recognize when they were traveling down the wrong path and a shift in strategic direction was needed.

    This finding that it is better to rely on others than ourselves is also seen in a new study described at one of my favorite blogs, BPS research.   Here is the summary at BPS:

    Across four studies involving hundreds of undergrads, Polman and Emich found that participants drew more original aliens for a story to be written by someone else than for a story they were to write themselves; that participants thought of more original gift ideas for an unknown student completely unrelated to themselves, as opposed to one who they were told shared their same birth month; and that participants were more likely to solve an escape-from-tower problem if they imagined someone else trapped in the tower, rather than themselves (a 66 vs. 48 per cent success rate). Briefly, the tower problem requires you to explain how a prisoner escaped the tower by cutting a rope that was only half as long as the tower was high. The solution is that he divided the rope lengthwise into two thinner strips and then tied them together.

    For the complete description, go here.  The implication of these diverse studies are quite instructive.  If we want to make better decisions, make faster decisions, have a more realistic picture of our strengths and weaknesses, and now, apparently, be more creative, we need to ask others for their opinions and assistance.   There is even a kind of weird implication that rather than working on our own problems, we should always be working on others.  So, despite the cynicism about consultants, they actually do serve a moreimportant  role than many of us have recognized. Certainly, this research suggests the importance of having mentors and colleagues who will give you help, advise you on decisions, and point out the flaws in your beliefs and actions– and that the world would be a better place if we did so in turn for others.  Another cool implication is that consultants need outside advisors when it comes to tackling their own challenges and problems.  In any event, these studies certainly provide interesting evidence of how much humans we need one another.

    The citation for the creativity research is:

    Polman E, and Emich KJ (2011). Decisions for Others Are More Creative Than Decisions for the Self. Personality and social psychology bulletin

     

  • “Have Some Sugar” and Six Other Ways to Be Good: Evidence from BPS Research

    One of the my favorite blogs on the planet is BPS Research,  where folks from the British Psychological Society summarize the latest psychological research — and do so with delightful charm and accuracy.  I was just visiting (it is a great place to look around) and, as part of just one post, they offer "7 Ways to Be Good."

    Check out these links to studies from peer-reviewed journals:

    Learn healthier habits
    Have an energy drink
    Use your inner voice
    Practise self control
    Clench your muscles
    Form if-then plans
    Distract yourself

    They are all wonderful, but I was especially amused by the experiment showing that students who (after an exam that presumably depleted their glucose levels) had a "high-glucose lemonade" were more likely to offer help to a classmate who was facing eviction and to offer larger donations to charity.  No, it wasn't just because the experimenter gave the students a gift…the students in the control condition (who were less generous) were given a low-glucose lemonade.  Sugar isn't all bad! 

  • Tom Davenport on Great Decisions at Pixar

    Check out Tom's new post at HBR on Five Ways Pixar Makes Better Decisions.   As often strikes me when I learn more about a great company like Pixar, their success is grounded in knowing and consistently doing obvious but powerful things.  While some management gurus are saying we have to reinvent management for the times, what they are doing at Pixar are approaches that I have been around for a long time.

    Indeed, when we interviewed Brad Bird (Academy Award winning director of Pixar blockbusters The Incredibles and Ratatouille) he emphasized that the most important lessons he learned — like persistent attention to quality, the power of pride in doing good work, constant feedback and constructive conflict, and on and on — came from his early interactions with the master animators ( known as Walt's Nine Old Men ) at Disney who produced classic films like Snow White, Dumbo, and so on.

    Here is just a little taste from Tom's great post:

    Even though directors have autonomy, they get feedback from
    others.     "Dailies," or movies in progress, are shown for
    feedback to the entire animation crew. In The Economist
    interview, Catmull also describes a more extensive periodic peer review
    process:

    We have a structure so they get their feedback from
    their peers. … Every two or three months they present the film to the
    other filmmakers…and they will go through, and they will tear the film
    apart. Directors aren't forced to respond to the feedback, but they
    generally do — and the films are generally better for it.

    This is a great example of striking a healthy balance between autonomy and control, which is always a balancing act.

    Also, I wonder, do people agree with my argument that there really isn't difference between what great bosses did 50 or 100 years ago and what they do now? Or, as some thought leaders argue, it is time to reinvent management?  My view, perhaps too cynical, is that claims that a brand new management paradigm and practices have been invented, that I as a thought leader or guru am selling them, and if you don't use my stuff or accept my given truth, you are doomed for trouble, smacks of snake oil.  

    P.S. If you want to read a great book on Pixar, I suggest The Pixar Touch, which I wrote about here. Their history will just amaze you.

  • Management Snake Oil: A Classic Example

    I was going through my email this morning and there it was, an email containing a classic sign that some vendor was promising more than any management tool or method can deliver.  The headline was "No More Hiring Mistakes Interviewing the Right Way." 

    This suggests they are selling snake oil because they are asserting that, if you use their tool or whatever, you won't make any hiring mistakes.  Perhaps their product or whatever (see here) does reduce the percentage of hiring errors, but there is no hiring method that eliminates all mistakes.  Plus interviews — although useful — are not the best method for selecting new employees (see this classic study for an evaluation of different methods). 

    I don't claim to know anything about this tool, but I do know that these folks are making excessive claims that cannot be supported any sound research,  This is yet another instance that supports a great observation from my hero James March, who once wrote me "“Most claims of originality are testimony to ignorance and
    most claims of magic are testimonial to hubris.”

  • Naps Are Wonderful, Especially If You Can Lie Down

    Asleep-on-job-homer2
    I have always been intrigued by research on sleep, sleep deprivation, and naps.  In brief, a pretty big body of research shows that sleep deprivation, make people unhappy, nasty to others, and undermines their creativity and performance.  And a related body of research suggests that even a short nap can help combat the damage caused by sleep deprivation.

    Along these lines,  a new study of naps summarized at BPS compared the performance of students (measured by their ability to identify out-of-pitch tones) who had no nap after lunch, who had a 20 minute nap leaning forward and resting their head on a desk, or had a 20 minute nap lying down.  The researchers found that people who had either kind of nap performed better then those who did not nap, but those who napped lying down had the best performance of all.

    Napping is dangerous in some situations — as Homer demonstrates above. But there are lots of jobs where sleeping in the job is simply viewed as evidence of laziness or lack of motivation.  This new  research suggests that we might change the norms in some workplaces — a nap room sounds kind of nice, doesn't it?

    P.S. The citation is Zhao,
    D., Zhang, Q., Fu, M., Tang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2010). Effects of
    physical positions on sleep architectures and post-nap functions among
    habitual nappers. Biological
    Psychology, 83     (3), 207-213

  • You Know It Is Snake Oil When They Say That It Explains 75% of Success in Life

    I
    clearly have strong beliefs about what drives human behavior, and think there is
    pretty strong evidence to support many of them. At the same time, I believe
    equally strongly that there are no magical cures for organizational and
    individual problems, or any one theory that explains all human behavior.
    Behavioral scientists battle over these issues — and they should, it leads to
    better evidence — over things like nature versus nurture, extrinsic versus
    intrinsic rewards, cognition versus emotion, and on and on, and each of us —
    me too — is probably unduly biased in favor of our pet theories.  There
    is a lot of evidence out there to fuel different arguments and I often am
    bewildered about what causes human behavior (remember this research about how
    the sawmill stopped theft….if you read this in combination with Salt Passage
    Research    , you can get completely confused). But, in reading so much of this
    stuff over the years –while it is clear that some behavioral theories and
    interventions work better than others — the thing I am most sure of is that
    there no one golden theory that is by far the most powerful and effective, and
    that provides the golden path to success.

    The
    corollary to this conclusion (which is evidence-based) is that when anyone
    claims they are hocking a theory that explains 75% of success in life, it is
    safe to assume they are selling you snake oil. To quote James March once again,
    as I suggested in my post on Good to Great, “Most claims of originality are
    testimony to ignorance and most claims of magic are testimonial to hubris.”

    I
    was reminded of this problem once again when I received an invitation for a
    workshop on emotional intelligence (called "EQ" sometimes) that an
    obviously well-meaning consultant was putting on at one of my kid's schools. 
    The advertisement for this event claimed that "EQ" was far more
    powerful for explaining success in life than "IQ," in fact, the
    advertisement claimed it explained 75% of success in life.  I am a big fan
    of the general idea behind emotional intelligence, and believe that more successful
    human-beings — especially bosses –enjoy higher emotional intelligence, which
    researchers (the one's who apparently coined the concept and published the
    first studies) John Mayer and his colleagues define as "The ability to
    engage in sophisticated information processing about one's own and others'
    emotions, and the ability to use that information as a guide to thinking and
    behavior."  As I wrote to this consultant, I definitely think that the
    schools in my area would be better-off if everyone — students, teachers, and
    administrators– had higher EQ, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that
    (despite debate about exactly what it is and how it works), that more EQ leads people to more success — and to have more civilized human exchanges
    too.  

    Yet, much as the main popularizer of EQ apparently did, this
    consultant undermines her legitimate message by making excessive claims — in
    March's lingo, claims that she wielding magic.  The case of EQ is interesting
    because, while Goelman and his colleagues were selling it as nearly a cure all
    (I went to one of his speeches, and he was making outrageous claims about the
    amount of variance in organizational performance that were explained by
    a leader's EQ), more careful research and more measured claims were emerging from
    Mayer and other researchers.  To this point, please read what Mayer and his
    colleagues wrote in an article published in the American Psychologist in
    2008 called "Emotional Intelligence: Now Ability or Eclectic
    Traits."  On page 504, they argue:

    A journalistic rendering
    of EI created and also complicated the popular understanding of it. Goleman’s
    (1995) bestselling book Emotional Intelligence began with the early version of
    our EI model but mixed in many other personality traits including persistence,
    zeal, self-control, character as a whole, and other positive attributes. The
    book received extensive coverage in the press, including a cover story in Time
    magazine (Gibbs, 1995). Because the book included, in part, the theory we
    developed, some investigators wrongly believed that we endorsed this complex
    and, at times, haphazard composite of attributes as an interpretation of EI.

    The journalistic version
    became the public face of EI and attracted further attention, in part, perhaps,
    owing to its extraordinary claims. Goleman (1995, p. 34) wrote of EI’s
    importance that “what data exist, suggest it can be as powerful, and at times
    more powerful, than IQ.” A few years later, Goleman (1998a, p. 94) remarked
    that “nearly 90% of the difference” between star performers at work and average
    ones was due to EI. …. Our own work never made such claims, and we actively
    critiqued them (Mayer, 1999; Mayer & Cobb,2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1997;
    Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,2000). More recently, Goleman (2005, p. xiii)
    wrote that others who believed that EI predicts huge proportions of success had
    misunderstood his 1995 book.


    I suspect the consultant's claims
    about the magical powers of EQ simply were repeating these widely accepted beliefs
    — apparently first perpetuated (but now denied) by Goleman.  In addition to
    sending this consultant the Mayer paper, I also sent her an article (summarized
    here) that analyzed
    85 years worth of research and showed that, for better or worse, the strongest
    evidence we have is that IQ is mighty powerful predictor of success.  I
    hope I didn't come across as     arrogant or overbearing when I suggested to her:
    "I am not an IQ freak at all, and in fact, I believe that it has a large
    social and economic component – and although my ideology and values press to me
    believe in EQ and related indicators of the ability to read and respond to
    others, I try to be careful to stick to the data and avoid excessive
    claims.  I think what you are doing is wonderful, but please be careful
    not to fall into the trap of making excessive claims to attract attention."

    For me, all this raises an interesting
    question, or I suppose challenge, that I wrestle with constantly.   I
    believe in evidence-based management and also have strong opinions that are grounded in evidence but are also shaped by my values (e.g., no matter how
    much money you make, in my book you are still a loser if you are an asshole)
    and by the quirks of my experience in this life.   The challenge is
    to walk the line between selling ideas that I firmly believe can make
    organizations better places, without overselling them — it is hard to do both
    because of the temptations (money and attention, for starters) and because, in
    many cases, people yearn for simple, powerful, and complete solutions to their
    problems (and keep asking for them even when you are careful to say that you
    don't have them and neither does anyone else    ). 

  • Work Matters: The Best of 2009

    I tried to resist the temptation to do one of these "best of" lists, but I succumbed as I started looking back at posts from the year. As I looked back at this year versus last, I realized that the focus on workplace assholes that was so strong when I started this blog in 2006 has faded quite a bit, and I tend to focus more broadly on workplace and management issues. Sure, I still talk about assholes (I have accepted that, no matter what else I ever have done or will do, I will always be "the asshole guy").  Yet, no doubt because it is the theme of my next book, I now talk more about bosses — what it takes to be a good one, the difference between good ones and bad ones, and a host of related topics. 

    I picked my favorite from each month. I usually picked a post that generated a lot of comments. I always appreciate the comments that people make, and I thought that they were better than ever this year — so I thought it would also be fun to pick my favorite comment on each post.  I know this runs long; sorry,  I am professor who is prone to profess too much!

    January: Eleanor Roosevelt vs. Randy Komisar on Failure.  This post was inspired by two opposing quotes, which are contradictory, but — I believe — both true.  'The first is from former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt: "Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself." This has to be true. But serial entrepreneur, serial author, and venture capitalist Randy Komisar also made a compelling case when he argued "yes, you can learn from others, but  "the only way to really, really get your money's worth, is to do it yourself" because "nothing else creates that hollow feeling in your stomach."  

    This post generated 10 thoughtful comments.  My favorite was from John, who wisely pointed out "I also know a few airplane pilots. They are definitely in Eleanor Roosevelt's camp. It may depend on how onerous the penalties for failure are." 

    February: CEO Compensation Research : Why You Want Rich People to Set Your Pay.   I picked this one because CEO compensation has been such a hot topic.  This post summarizes a study by Charles O'Reilly and his colleagues that shows — independently of firm performance and size — the more money that people on the CEO's compensation committee make, the more they pay the CEO. Essentially, people use themselves as the standard to set pay.  Here is a key sentence from the post " O'Reilly and his colleagues report that for every $100,000 that
    the average member of the compensation committee is paid, the CEO's pay
    goes up another $51,000 per year."

     Of the eight comments, I especially liked Murthy's (a former student) detailed response, which ends with "When you become an investor, your
    job is to help and support companies to increase their shareholder
    value. Bashing them or their leadership to the public does not increase
    your shareholder value. If anything, it creates essentially the same
    emotional dynamic that any of us have when we have a jerk for a boss.
    So maybe a little less "I think wall street sucks" and a little more "I
    believe in the American financial system" would be useful for the
    morale of those companies as well as the morale of the country in
    general."

    March: My Final Exam Question: Can You Answer It?  This was about the final exam question that I have been using in my introduction to organizational behavior class for over a decade — in fact, Murthy answered it when he was student.  I will be using it again next term: "Design the ideal organization. Use course concepts to defend your answer."  For years, I told the students that it was really hard and I would have trouble answering.  I realized that I finally did answer it a few years back when I wrote The No Asshole Rule. Every year, I wonder if I should try something else, but then every year the best answers are so good that I can't resist asking it again.

    I suggested that, while the students get 3000 words, and The No Asshole Rule ran over 40,000 words, that if I was forced to write something short, I would say ""A place where people are competent, civilized, and cooperative — and
    tell the truth rather than spewing out lies and bullshit."  I would also add that this is pretty similar to how I define a good boss in my new book.

    The best part of this post were the 24 comments that people made about their vision of an ideal organization.  I can't resist picking two because they were so good. Whitney wrote "My ideal organization is one where I can have more positive impact in the world than I can accomplish on my own.I've worked for both kinds of companies. I left my last employer
    because group work took everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
    Where I work now, 1 + 1 usually adds to 3."  And Hayli wins the brevity award "Fewer meetings, more teamwork."

    April: A Well-Crafted Critique of Business "Success" Books and My Ambivalence About Good to Great.  This post was about Drake Bennett's article in the Boston Globe, which reviewed the weak evidence that underpins many management bestsellers — especially Good to Great.  Drake included a quote from me, ""There's value in mastering the obvious," he says. "If Jim Collins's
    impact is to get people to do stuff that they know they should do
    already – facing the hard truths or being selfless or whatever – I
    certainly don't think that's a bad thing." 

    As I explained in the post, I do think that Collins book is a good read and has helped many managers do a better job, but as someone who believes in and has written about evidence-based management, I am disturbed by the book because it makes such excessive claims about the quality of the research and newness of the ideas.  As I wrote in the post "ironically, this book about the virtues of modest leaders reveals considerable hubris in its claims." 

    Of the nine comments, I thought that Glenn's was especially thoughtful " I debate
    this with 'Collins Disciples' all the time. Also, I believe what adds
    to the issue is that too many people have stopped thinking. They read a
    book, follow it blindly, and believe they have all the answers. When
    they should read it, apply some critical thinking to see if and how it
    applies to their situation, then implement as appropriate." 

    May: Of Baboons and Bosses. This post dug into a claim in my June 2009 HBR article on "How to Be a Good Boss in a Bad Economy" that "the typical member looks at the the alpha make every 20 to 30 seconds to see what he is doing."  I linked this to research showing that subordinates are often hyper-focused on every little move that their bosses make — something that many bosses are remarkably oblivious to and that undermines their ability to lead effectively. 

    Of the five comments, I liked John Foster's best, notably his reminder that "leaders
    should always remember they are on stage, being "looked at" for cues.
    It's a powerful way to create movement or change."

    June: The Selfish Superstar Inventory.  The aim of this post was to ask for questions and ideas for a survey I was developing to assess if an organization breeds and rewards — or punishes and expels — selfish backstabbing superstars.  I suggested statements indicating that people who get ahead in such organizations do things like "stomp on colleagues on the way to the top" and "Are always loved by their superiors, but often despised
    by their peers and subordinates." 

    The 17 comments in response to this post were especially wonderful. My favorites include many on Tory's long list including "Scrub subordinates names from their work before passing it up the chain," Ed's "If a project fails, I don't feel bad if my part of it was successful," and Stu's 'Believe in the 30 Rock mantra, "I'm going to get mine!"'  A descendant of the "SSI" will appear in my new book and I will put out an online version around the time the book is published.  I used a lot of the suggestions, so thanks everyone!

    July: You Know Your Boss is A Certified Asshole When…..  I was inspired to write this post both because the ARSE continues to be completed by so many people (it is now well over 200,000 completions) and by a note I got from an executive who had an asshole boss that her kids called Mr. GIANT BUTTHOLE."  The responses to this questions from readers who wonderful, including Lesa's "Making a
    staff person drive 80 miles round trip at 9:00 pm at night to a
    client's house to get a (non-essential, non-urgent) signature because
    "we do whatever it takes to get the job done."  I also cringed at Ergoboy's "    He
    corners every employee that you work with and interrogates them looking
    for dirt on you. Any possible dust particle gets wildly exaggerated,
    documented, and then shown to you on a write-up." 

    August: Wal-Mart and Girl Scout Cookies: Thin Minty Gate.  This post was inspired by CV Harquail's story about how Wal-Mart was test-marketing imitations of two of the best-selling Girl Scout cookies — a post that generated a lot of national media attention.  I expressed disgust with Wal-Mart's actions and I especially focused on why it was a bad business decision for them, taste and ethics aside.  I also warned readers that I was biased because my wife, Marina Park, is CEO of the Northern California Girl Scouts. I thought Cecelia summed it up well "The most
    important issue in this article is the community responsibility Walmart
    carries. (Or lack thereof in this case). It is in bad taste to go into
    direct competition with an organization they work closely with in order
    to provide a safe place for these girls to fund-raise. In communities
    where Walmart is already established, their profits exceed that of the
    local Girl Scout troop by a disgusting amount."  

    September:  What are the Dumbest Practices Used By U.S. Companies?   This one was pretty fun, as I asked for ideas for a speech I was going to give in Singapore. I started with three: 1. Dangerous complexity; 2. Dysfunctional internal competition, and 3. Breaking-up teams constantly.  Then 27 great comments roared in, including Pat's wise 'Rewarding Firefighters not Fire Inspectors.In other words, the people spotting the problems and fixing them
    before the "fire" do not get rewards. The "firefighters" who rush and
    put out fires in progress do get reward.'  I also loved Patricia's "Killing the messenger" and Rodney's ""When the
    risk of making a decision for employees inside the organization is
    considered to be greater than the benefit of making one."  I can't resist one more, Wally has made a lot of great comments this year, including "    We hope
    for magical leadership instead of developing good systems. When we do
    develop systems we favor the engineered and the technological over the
    human and common-sensical."

    October: The post that probably had the most content was Challenging Ingrained Assumptions at HR, which summarized the short speech I ultimately gave in Singapore — and the 27 comments were great.  Dblwyo, for example,  was tough but (often) on target when he argued that "HR like many other functional specialties, e.g. IT and logistics, doesn't have more clout because it hasn't earned it."

    But I can't resist picking Art Imitates Life: The Muffin Incident on Entourage as the best post.   In this scene on the HBO show, my favorite TV asshole, Ari Gold fires an assistant for bringing him the wrong muffin — which is exactly what (according to the Wall Street Journal) Academy Award winning Producer Scott Rudin did to one of his assistants. There were only two comments, but I thought Tony summed-up Ari well "I am also
    a big fan of Ari Gold from Entourage. It is funny how such an
    ego-centric, manipulative character can be so interesting. Working with
    someone with his personality would be a nightmare but his aggressive
    drive is impressive." 

    November: Your Lack of Planning is Not My Emergency.   This is a saying I love.  This post generated seven comments, I especially liked Flint's comment "Or the corollary, "If everything is an emergency, then nothing is."  This was also the month where I did a bunch of posts on testosterone — including the study that showed young men who drive a new Porsche respond with higher levels but not when they drive an old Toyota Camry station wagon. 

    December: The Boss's Journey.  It was my last post, but it was my favorite because the comments were so good.   My argument was that  'As psychologist William Schutz
    explained, “Understanding evolves through three phases: simplistic, complex,
    and profoundly simple.”'  I suggested that      bosses might follow much the same journey. Wally, as usual, was spot on, commenting that  'Most
    "leadership development" programs are isolated courses that don't
    recognize that leadership development is cumulative. If you can help
    less experienced supervisors learn, use peer support to help them get
    vicarious experience, and teach them to use feedback and mentors, you
    can help them develop faster and more effectively.    '  

    The Good Cop, Bad Cop Technique also generated some great comments, notably "culture guru," who reported "You just
    explained our parenting style, added at least another 10 years to our
    already 22 year old marriage, and have removed my final resistance to
    going into business with my husband."

    Congratulations if you have read this far. I suspect this is my longest post of the year.

    It's been quite a year. And now I am not the only blogger in the family.  My wife, Marina Park, now blogs regularly at SF Gate, the online arm of the San Francisco Chronicle, in the City Brights Section. I especially liked her recent post on Small Steps to Make the World a Better Place.

    I started writing Work Matters in June 2006. It  passed one million page views this year (1125533 as of this moment, with a lifetime average of 863 page views per day.)  It now includes 815 posts and 3195 of your comments.  Thanks for reading my stuff and thanks for all those wonderful comments.

    I hope you and yours have a happy new year.