Work Matters

Tag: leadership

  • 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.

  • Narcissism and Creativity: Intriguing and Troubling Findings

    A trio of researchers — Jack Goncalo and Sharon Kim of Cornell University and Frank Flynn of Stanford — have done a pair of experiments on narcissism and creativity (see the description here) that are fascinating and have some disturbing implications.  In both studies, they used a questionnaire called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (see the long version of it here and test yourself) to assess if people suffered — or perhaps enjoyed — this characteristic. 

    In the first study, students were placed in pairs and asked to pitch an ideas to their partner for a movie concept. The results: "the ideas impressed the person evaluating the pitch roughly 50% more than did those from the least narcissistic pitchers."  BUT the interesting twist was when these same ideas were evaluated by two independent observers who only saw the ideas on paper, but did not see the pitches:  "Having only seen the movie pitches in written form, they found the narcissists' ideas to be about as creative as proposals from non-narcissists. The difference, the researchers say, was in the pitch itself: narcissists were more enthusiastic, witty, and charming—all traits, according to past research, that people associate with creativity."

    In other words, the live pitches led people to make an attribution error, to confuse stereotypical features of creative people with creative ideas. (This explains, by the way, why creative people who come in bodies that can't pitch need someone on their team to sell their ideas: Steve Wozniak would not have succeeded without Steve Jobs' pizazz.)

    The second study bugs me, and even though I don't like it, I am trying to resist rejecting it because it was done quite well.  "The researchers composed 4 person teams of various numbers of narcissists: asked them to draw up proposals to improve the performance of real businesses and other organizations. Teams made up of three or four narcissists came up with incremental proposals and failed to generate and discuss many ideas, but so did teams with no narcissists. The teams that generated the most ideas were half narcissist."  Senior author Jack Goncalo speculated that this finding may have occurred because: "narcissists can help get ideas on the table. If there are too many of them, however, there may be too many egos in the room, preventing anything from getting done."

    As I said, I am not especially happy about the findings of this study, in part, because even if these findings do generalize to the real world, narcissists do so much damage that they still may not be worth the trouble.  On the other hand, this research is consistent with more applied and qualitative writings by Michael Maccoby (see this HBR article) that suggest narcissists are high magnitude people, with strong pros and cons.  Maccoby summarized this perspective brillantly:

    Leaders such as Jack Welch or George Soros are examples of productive narcissists. They are gifted and creative strategists who see the big picture and find meaning in the risky proposition of changing the world and leaving behind a legacy. Indeed, one reason we look to productive narcissists in times of great transition is that they have the audacity to push through the massive transformations that society periodically undertakes. Productive narcissists are not only risk takers willing to get the job done but also charmers who can convert the masses with their rhetoric. The danger is that narcissism can turn unproductive when, lacking self-knowledge and restraining anchors, narcissists become unrealistic dreamers. They nurture grand schemes and harbor the illusion that only circumstances or enemies block their success. This tendency toward grandiosity and distrust is the Achilles’ heel of narcissism. Because of it, even brilliant narcissists can come under suspicion for self–involvement, unpredictability and—in extreme cases—paranoia.

    I'd love your reaction to this research and more generally to the notion that — contrary to my biases — that narcissists may at times may be worth the trouble!

  • Fast Company Slideshow: A Boss’s Guide to Taming Your Inner Jerk

    Bosses Guide

    Kevin and the gang at Fast Company asked if they could publish a second excerpt from Good Boss, Bad Boss.  They picked my list of 11 Bosshole Busters from Chapter 8 and tuned it into a slide show. You can see it here (that's the first slide above and I like the picture they used below for one of the slides, although I would not want to be that woman).  I confess the slideshow is a lot more fun than the black and white list in the book.

      6.020214-F-4500W-002

  • Chile’s President to Luis Urzua: “You acted like a good boss”

    As readers of Work Matters know, like so many of us, I am quite obsessed with the (now) feel-good story about the trapped miners and their rescue.  I was taken with Luis Urzua's leadership, especially during the first couple of weeks when they were trapped with little food and no knowledge of the efforts being made to rescue them.  I love what the President said to Luis, of course, because I am quite focused on good and bad bosses these days — given that is what my new book is about.  Here is the story and the exchange was reported as follows:

    "A 70-day shift is a very long shift," said Mr. Urzua, standing before Chilean President Sebastien Pinera to symbolically hand over his leadership. "The first days were very difficult." Mr. Pinera told the miner: "You acted like a good boss. I receive your shift."

    Lovely, isn't it?

    I had written a post in early September called "Luis Urzua and the Trapped Miners: A Good Boss, Performance, and Humanity," which  considered the reasons that he appeared to be such a competent and compassionate leader.  That post emphasized how he was a good boss because he understood how to be "perfectly assertive,had  grit, used the power of small wins, understood how to stay "in tune" with the emotional needs of his people, and he "had their backs."   As the stories have been been emerging about what Urzua did in those scary early days, another theme emerges, a set of lessons, that are also worth mentioning.  As I write in Good Boss, Bad Boss and also in my HBR article on being a good boss in a bad economy,  when people are facing stress, fear, and uncertainty of any kind, the "recipe" that good leaders follow reflects four main ingredients:

    1. Prediction.  In crisis situations, the big things — like whether the rescue will happen or the next round of layoffs will cost you your job — are often impossible to forecast.  But a useful palliative is create as much predictability in terms of the small things — when meals occur, what they will be, and other little details of life. You could see with how Urzua rationed the food in the early scary days and in how they used the lights underground — including the headlights of trucks — to simulate 12 hours "days." 

    2. Understanding.  Even when people can't change elements that cause distress, understanding why bad things have happened and the implications for what people should do know is very important.  This not only helps people understand what to do, it gives them a sense of purpose.  Urzua and his team were kept apprised of the details of the three rescuse attempts and instructed what the implications were for how they could themselves and why.

    3. Control.  Along related lines, even when people can't influence the final outcome — including bad ones (unlike the miners). when there are elements of their lives they can have some "Mastery" over, it has a big impact.  You could see it in their efforts to stay in physical shape (I love the story about the miner who ran miles each day), and even in Luis Urzua's expressions of concerned that, although they had cleaned up things as well as possible before leaving the cave, there was a lot grabage that they couldn't get rid of.  Also, the efforts of 62 year old Mario Gomez as the group's spirital guide was important — he organized a small chapel, led the men in prayer, and counseled them about their fears and other emotional issue— both provided a way to introduce predictability in their lives and provided a way they could take control over their time. 

    4. Compassion.  The compassion that Urzua conveyed for his men was evident in his concern for them, and also the concern for others.  He was completely devoted to their safety, physical health, and well-being — as all the reports show.  And I loved that he was the last miner out… it reminded me of the old saying "officers eat least."   I would be very curious to know the more micro-details of his demeanor during the ordeal. The reports thus far is that he was very calm, which is the best possible emotion for a leader to convey and spread during scary times.

    I should also note that prediction, understanding, control, and compassion isn't just a recipe for crises, following these four guidelines can help bosses do a better job of all sorts of mundane but important things, especially when doing management "dirty work" like dealing with employees who are poor performers or are behaving in destructive ways.

    P.S. I am scheduled to be on CNN International tonight to talk about this kind of stuff.  I did get on CNN yesterday, but only for a few minutes.  PRI's The World also aired a fairly detailed interview that Lisa Mullins did with me.  You can download the MP3 of the episode here — the interview comes about 9 minutes in. As I said yesterday, Lisa is a great interviewer.

     

     

  • The Good News About Good Bosses

    It is mighty easy to focus on how much better the world's bosses could be, and on the plight of all the unhappy workers out there who work for lousy ones.

    And it's not necessarily a bad thing to focus on that. We know that in organizations, "bad apples" do spoil bunches, and bad experiences leave deeper impressions than good ones. This is why, in Good Boss, Bad Boss,
    I emphasize that the first order of business must be to get rid of or
    reform any supervisors who take a toll on employee well-being, dignity,
    commitment, and performance. Moreover, there is evidence that plenty of
    bosses are failing, in these tough times, to make work a joy. A survey early this year
    of a good representative sample of American workers found that only 45%
    of them were satisfied with their jobs. That marked a record low in the
    22 years the Conference Board has been asking. (Contrast it with 49% in
    2008 and 61% in 1987.) Only 51% of them were satisfied with their
    bosses (down from 55% in 2008 and 60% in 1987).

    But other evidence paints a less gloomy picture. For example, a recent poll [pdf]
    by StrategyOne of over 500 American workers finds that over 80% of
    employees feel respected by their supervisors and believe their
    supervisors value their work. And I just heard from a Danish journalist
    about an ongoing effort by staffing firm Randstad to index satisfaction and other work-related attitudes and behavior across 26 countries. While Japan, according to it,
    has the lowest satisfaction, with only 41% of its workers calling
    themselves either very satisfied or satisfied with their employer,
    Denmark tops the charts at 83%. (Note that there is other research that
    shows the Danes are the happiest people
    in the world.) US workers, while not as satisfied as their near
    neighbors the Canadians (78%) still came in at 70%. Worldwide, some 68%
    of employees are satisfied with their employer. (I realize this does not
    necessarily mean they are satisfied with their bosses. The old saw that people leave bosses, not companies, is supported by a lot of research.)

    Even when it comes to one of my favorite sins to preach against — the presence of jerks in management ranks (it's why I've unfortunately been referred to as "the asshole guy"), evidence offers a bright side. The excellent 2010 Zogby/Workplace Bullying Institute study showed
    that although 34.5% of respondents had experienced workplace bullying
    at some point in their career, fewer than 9% were currently experiencing
    it — a drop from the nearly 13% who reported being bullied in 2007.
    Bosses were meting out much of that abuse but not all of it. Most
    interesting to me is that half the sample (50%) reported they had never
    been bullied or even seen others bullied in their workplaces.

    Clearly, in light of all this research, you can see the glass as half
    full or half empty. But I have done much of my writing in the
    half-empty mode, critiquing bad bosses. In fact, I am even now drawing
    up my list of the "Top 11 Clueless, Comedic, and Cruel Bosses" based on
    the striking and sometimes disgusting examples that readers have
    provided here.

    I think it is important to focus on the good as well. As we've seen,
    even the most pessimistic evidence suggests that most bosses are
    managing to do a decent job. And some go much further than that.

    So let's take a moment to thank all the great bosses of the world. I would start with one of my own, Jim Plummer, the Dean of the Stanford School of Engineering. (If you want to know why I am so devoted to Jim, see Chapter 3 of Good Boss, Bad Boss.)
    Other bosses I've seen in action and singled out for praise have
    included Bonny Simi of JetBlue, David Kelley of IDEO, AG Lafley of
    P&G, Joel Podolny (now at Apple, but he was a great Associate Dean),
    Brad Bird of Pixar, Lenny Mendonca of McKinsey, and Whitney Mortimer of
    IDEO.

    Who are your favorites? In the spirit of this "glass half full" post,
    let's use the comments section here to compile a serious counterweight
    to all the coverage of clueless and crappy managers. Reflect for a
    minute on the best boss you've ever had, and then I would love to hear
    the story.

    P.S. This post first appeared last week at HBR.org under the title "The Not-So-Bad News About Bosses." I also want to give a big thank you to HBR's Julia Kirby for her splendid editing.  

  • A Great Comment From Kelley Eskridge About Bosses and Control

    I have been a huge fan of Kelley Eskridge for awhile now, and have written about her here before and I quote her Good Boss, Bad Boss. I am always especially struck by the power of her writing.  Just yesterday, she wrote a comment in response to my post on authenticity versus the challenge a boss faces of convincing people that he or she is in charge.  Check out a snippet from Kelley's comment:

    "Controlling a team is like driving a car. The whole machine can work
    wonderfully well, but if no one's at the wheel… Who's driving is
    either an agreement, or it's a car crash.
    Whenever I work in a situation where someone else is in the lead, I want
    that person to assume control. I agree to trust them to have a notion
    of where we're going. I do not want to have to backseat drive all the
    damn time."

    I think that is lovely and emotionally compelling.  It also is consistent with a lot of research on the differences between competent and crummy bosses. 

    P.S. I am not entirely sure what Kelley is up to these days; I know she was running Humans at Work and also writing fiction, and has significant management experience.  But her blog suggests she is really focusing on writing fiction these days — clearly, that woman can write!

  • Good Boss, Bad Boss Speech at the Commonwealth Club On Monday Night

    6a00d83451b75569e2013486d62d78970c

    As indicated in my post about speeches in September, I have been busy talking to various groups about the main ideas in Good Boss, Bad Boss.  I had a lot fun at Pixar, Disney Studios, IDEO, and Google talking to large groups, and also learned a lot from an interactive two hour session with a dozen or CEOs in Boston last Thursday.  Unfortunately, those talks were not open to the public. But the one I am doing tomorrow at the venerable Commonwealth Club is open.  I think this is my fourth or fifth talk at the Commonwealth Club, and the audiences are diverse and smart.  I am also going to have the honor of being introduced by Mary Cranston, the first woman to head a top 100 hundred law firm in the United States (and my wife's former boss!). Mary now serves on several corporate boards, including Visa.   

    Here are the details of the talk and a place to buy tickets online.  It starts at 6PM. 

    Also, for those on Peninsula, I have open talks on the Peninsula on September 30th, at Xerox PARC and at the Silicon Valley Commonwealth Club.

  • A Tough Question From Professor Bret Simmons About Being An Authentic Boss

    Bret_Simmons

    I did an online interview on Good Boss, Bad Boss with Professor Bret Simmons, who is one of my favorite bloggers.  Bret does a lovely job of striking a practical balance between what the best evidence shows about management and other organizational behavior and the practicalities and realities of organizational life (as an example, don't miss his most recent post on the Ten Most Important Leadership Functions).  Bret asked me some mighty hard questions about the book; perhaps the one that caused me to pause most is this exchange (see the rest of the interview here)

    Bret's Question:

    Of
    all your suggestions on how to be a good boss, the one I struggled the
    most with was the first one – take control. Is it really possible to
    “trick” others that you are in control? What conditions might cause the
    illusion of control to be ineffective or even backfire?

    My Answer:

    Bret, I struggled with this too.  In fact, if you look at the table
    that summarizes these tricks I warn “Learn to be assertive enough. Don’t
    become an overbearing asshole when you use these strategies.”  I guess
    there is sometimes a fine line between what is “faking it” versus what
    means a skilled leader uses to convince others that he or she is in
    charge.  There is pretty strong evidence that when we BELIEVE our
    leaders are in charge, we do better work and they have a better chance
    of keeping their jobs and being admired by others.   That list was meant
    to show well-meaning leaders the evidence-based moves that help
    convince others they are in charge so they can get things done.

    So, in
    the case of one leader I worked with a bit who was well-liked but was
    not instilling enough confidence, it was useful for him to learn things
    like he should go to the head of the room and stand-up, to battle back
    when others interrupt him too much, that going through a process of
    grabbing some power and then giving it away (he did this by taking a
    large high status for awhile and then, as he saw how crowded people
    were, he had it turned into a conference room and took a smaller
    office).  On one level, these are “tricks,” but on another level, by
    learning about the kinds of things that were seen by his people as
    evidence that he was “finally stepping-up and taking charge” made him a
    more effective leader.

    When does that backfire?  It backfires especially badly when a boss
    becomes so confident or pig-headed that he or she feels superior to
    everyone else – the smartest person in the room, who doesn’t need to do
    things like listen to people, like allow and encourage them to question
    his or judgment, and to admit and learn from setbacks and failure.  Note
    this is delicate balance that I talk about a lot in Chapter 3 on
    wisdom.  More broadly, the best bosses constantly do a balancing act
    here – acting confident but not really sure (see this post
    at HBR).  I think of three bosses I’ve met who are especially adept at
    his, David Kelley of IDEO, Brad Bird at Pixar, and AG Lafley at Procter
    & Gamble.  In fact, I seriously considered naming the book “Top Dog
    On A Tightrope (this was Marc Hershon’s idea, a guy who, among other
    things, names things for a living – he named the Blackberry and the
    Swiffer).

    I think that Bret forced me to think more deeply what I see as a real dilemma for bosses.  Yes, I believe that all of us, including bosses should aim to be our "authentic selves" BUT we also need to realize that there might be times when we follow or habits and instincts and say whatever is on our minds, that we undermine the ability of others to get their work done, drive them crazy, and undermine their confidence in us.  Or to put it another, I once had a rather unpleasant argument with a colleague where (without using the word), I asked him to be less of an asshole to students, he argued back that  he was just being his natural sense.  I argued back that his authentic self was doing enough doing enough damage to other people and to his reputation that he might want to think about making some adjustments. I am not arguing for bringing in the clones,there is clearly a tough balance to reach here as weirdos, people rough edges, naysayers, and a host of other difficult people play essential roles and, if we stomp the zest out of them or send them packing, our lives will be duller for it, we will make worse decisions, and our organizations will be less creative.

    I would appreciate your thoughts on this dilemma or balancing act, as it can be a tough one for bosses and their followers, peers, superiors and mentors to navigate.

  • Bad Is Stronger Than Good: Why Good Bosses Eliminate the Negative First

    The Sunday New York Times just published a piece I wrote for their "Preoccupations" section called "How Bad Apples Infect the Tree."  This post digs into the arguments that I made about rotten apples in more detail.

    Of all the tunes in the Johnny Mercer songbook, the most generally beloved must be "Accentuate the Positive" — whether your favorite cover is Bing Crosby's, Willie Nelson's, or someone else's. Chances are that you yourself could summon up the chorus word for word (and click here if you want accompaniment).

    You've got to accentuate the positive
    Eliminate the negative
    Latch on to the affirmative
    Don't mess with Mister In-Between

    It trips off the tongue so easily that you might not even notice that Mercer is telling you to do two things, not just one. Eliminating the negative, as any skilled leader can tell you, is not just the flipside of accentuating the positive. It's a whole different set of activities. For someone with people to manage, accentuating the positive means recognizing productive and constructive effort, for example, and helping people discover and build on their strengths. Eliminating the negative, for the same boss, might mean tearing down maddening obstacles and shielding people from abuse.

    Certainly, every leader should try to do both. Yet, given that every boss has limited time, attention, and resources, an interesting question is: which should take priority? A growing body of behavioral science research provides a pretty clear answer here: It's more important to eliminate the negative.

    The seminal academic paper here is called "Bad is Stronger Than Good" [pdf]. Roy Baumeister and his colleagues draw on a huge pile of peer-reviewed studies to show that negative information, experiences, and people have far deeper impacts than positive ones. In the context of romantic relationships and marriages, for example, the truth is stark: unless positive interactions outnumber negative interactions by five to one, odds are that the relationship will fail.

    Scary, isn't it? Yet it was confirmed by several studies that, among relationships where the proportion of negative interactions exceeds this one-in-five rule, divorce rates go way up and marital satisfaction goes way down. The implication for all of us in long-term relationships is both instructive and daunting: If you have a bad interaction with your partner, following up with a positive one (or apparently two, three, or four) won't be enough to dig out of that hole. Average five or more and you might stay in his or her good graces.

    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. For some time, I've been campaigning for a certain form of this, urging companies to eliminate the worst kind of colleagues from their workplaces. Research by Will Felps and his colleagues on "bad apples" is instructive. (You can hear him talk about it on This American Life). Felps decided to look at the effect of toxic colleagues on work groups, including what I would call deadbeats ("withholders of effort"), downers (who "express pessimism, anxiety, insecurity, and irritation," a toxic breed of de-energizers), and assholes (who violate "interpersonal norms of respect"). His estimates that a team with just one person in any of these categories suffers a performance disadvantage of 30% to 40% compared to teams that have no bad apples.

    Similarly, another study by Andrew Miner and his colleagues tracked employees' moods, and found that the impact on an employee's feelings of a negative interaction with the boss or a coworker was five times stronger than that of a positive interaction.

    So, negative interactions (and the bad apples that provoke them) pack a real wallop in relationships at work and elsewhere. They are distracting, emotionally draining, and deflating. When a group does interdependent work, rotten apples drag down and infect everyone else. Unfortunately, grumpiness, nastiness, laziness, and stupidity are remarkably contagious.

    My chapter in Good Boss, Bad Boss on "Stars and Rotten Apples" opens with the story of how I got to know a CEO named Paul Purcell. It was after his company, Baird, had landed on Fortune magazine's list of the "100 Best Places to Work". Fortune briefly explained, "What makes it so great? They tout the "no-a**hole rule" at this financial services firm; candidates are interviewed extensively, even by assistants who will be working with them." Having written an entire book on that topic, I immediately contacted Leslie Dixon, their HR chief, and she introduced me to Paul Purcell. As I wrote in Good Boss, Bad Boss:

    Paul told me that he had seen and suffered destructive assholes in past jobs, so when he got to Baird, he vowed to build a jerk-free workplace. When I asked how he enforced the rule, Paul said that most jerks were screened-out via background checks and interviews before they met him. But he did his own filtering too, 'During the interview, I look them in the eye, and tell them, "If I discover that you are an asshole, I am going to fire you."' He added, "Most candidates aren't fazed by this, but every now and then, one turns pale, and we never see them again — they find some reason to back out of the search." When I asked Paul what kinds of jerks are most poisonous, he said: "The worst assholes consistently do two things: 1.Put their self-interest ahead of co-workers and 2. Put their self-interest ahead of the company."

    Clearly this is someone who didn't need any research to tell him that "bad is stronger than good." By refusing to tolerate selfish jerks, Paul Purcell gives us a great model of eliminating the negative. And the fact that he doesn't seem to procrastinate when it comes to doing the unpleasant work of dealing with destructive people and poor performers is another benefit backed up by research. Consider a classic study [pdf] by Charles O'Reilly and Barton Weitz on how supervisors handled "problematic" sales employees (in which category they placed salespeople guilty of bad attitudes as well as other problems like low productivity and lack of punctuality). Bosses of the most productive groups confronted problems directly and quickly, issued more warnings and formal punishments, and promptly fired employees when warnings failed. The words and deeds of these no-nonsense bosses inspired performance because they made crystal clear that they would not tolerate crummy work. Related studies of punishment in the workplace show that employees respect bosses more when they punish destructive characters more swiftly and intensely – so long as they are fair and consistent.

    The upshot is, if you are the boss, doing such "dirty work" is part of your job — and although you might not enjoy playing the heavy, doing it doesn't make you the jerk. If you can't or won't do it, either you ought to be in another line of work or, at least, you ought to team up with someone who can.

    With further apologies to Johnny Mercer, sure, as boss you should spread joy up to the maximum, but your main task is to bring gloom down to the minimum. Get that priority straight, and set the stage for your people to do their best work. Or pandemonium is liable to walk upon the scene.

    Note: I originally posted this over at HBR.org as number 10 of my list of 12 Things Good Bosses Believe.  Some of the comments over there are from people who don't quite buy this perspective, and think that accentuating the positive is job one for a boss.  Part of me agrees with these concerns, as in some ways, asking what is more important — accentuating the positive or eliminating the negative — is a silly question.  It is akin to asking "what is more important, your heart or your brain?"  But an evidence-based perspective suggests that step 1 for leading a great team is getting rid of (or repairing) bad actions, procedures, and people and step 2 is amplifying and importing "good" stuff.

  • Good Boss, Bad Boss Speeches in September

    Susan Angel Devil

    As Good Boss, Bad Boss is officially published this month — in fact, today is the official publication day — I am doing quite a few speeches on the book. Most are "closed," but three are open to the public, as indicated below.  I hope to see you at one of these events:

    September 8th: Disney Studios (Burbank, CA)

    September 8th: IDEO (Palo Alto, CA)

    September 9th: Pixar  (Emeryville, CA)

    September 10th: Google (Mountain View, CA)

    September 16th: Center for Corporate Innovation (Boston, MA)

    September 17th: Leading Strategic Execution (Stanford Executive Program, requires enrollment)

    September 20th: Commonwealth Club, San Francisco (Open to the public, admission is $20 and 7$ for students, sign up online)

    September 23: Learning Essence (Mexico City, Mexico).

    September 29th: Amazon (Seattle, WA).

    September 30th: Commonwealth Club, Silicon Valley, noon to 1pm (Santa Clara, CA. Open to the public, admission is $20; sign-up online)

    September 30th, Xerox PARC Forum (Palo Alto, CA, 6:00 PM.  Free and open to the public)

    3 P.S. Those beautiful angel and devil chairs at the top of the post above are by Susan Kare , who did them (and the rest of the design) for my Good Boss, Bad Boss PowerPoint deck, and who also consulted on the cover design for the book.  Susan has done many fantastic designs and is most famous for designing many of the icons on the original Macintosh, including the trash can and that frowning smiling face that Macs made when they booted.
    Susan-kare2