Work Matters

Tag: Norms

  • Adopting The No Asshole Rule: Don’t Bother If The Words Are Hollow

    I just got off the phone with executives from an unnamed large company who are thinking about implementing a "no jerk rule." I am, of course, a big fan of this idea. And there are organizations that have such rules and the implement them effectively, such as Baird, the financial services firm.

    But I think they were a bit taken aback by how vehement I was about the dangers of just plastering the words everywhere, and not following it with the real work of implementing The No Asshole Rule (and, of course, this applies to any other norm in the organization… we wrote a lot about this in The Knowing-Doing Gap).  I wanted to know if the reward and prestige systems already supported the rule, and if not, how they were going to change things.  I wanted to know if the senior executives already modeled the right behavior, and if not, was something being done to make sure they changed their behavior.  I wanted to know if there were known assholes in visible positions, and if there were, was something going to be done to change their behavior or send them packing –to signal that the words were not hollow. 

    As with all norms, the espoused beliefs don't mean much unless they are backed by what people do — especially during the little moments.  Google is an interesting case in point.  Although they are imperfect like every human organization, it remains a civilized place because, as one senior executive explained to me years ago, "it isn't efficient to be an asshole here."  That is a sign to me that the norm is working, and all the strategy and product stuff aside, it is impressive they seem to have sustained this norm despite their size and the relentless performance pressures.  

    To return to the dangers of hollow rhetoric: It is especially destructive when it comes to the no jerk or or no asshole rule.  When organizations say it, but don't do it, when it does not constrain and describe how people act — and no serious efforts are being made to begin implementing the norm — the result is that double-whammy:  Leaders are seen as both assholes and hypocrites.  

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

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

    I. Show respect

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

     Provide one another with a safe place…honor confidentiality.

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

     Maintain professionalism…especially with clients / learners.

    II. Be transparent

    No hidden agendas

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

    III. Stay positive

    Celebrate successes

    Have fun

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

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

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

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

  • Jeff Pfeffer on “Perverse Norms” About Good Management

    I was reading through an old but still spot-on book by my friend and co-author Jeff Pfeffer,  The Human Equation, which provides an evidence-based case about why companies that put people first enjoy superior financial performance over the long-run.   Jeff makes an argument that is a variation of something one of my college friends used to say, "eat shit, 10 billion flies can't be wrong."  But he adds prestige and status as an added twist in a section he labels "Perverse Norms about What Constitutes Good Management," and how such norms often emerge even though they conflict with the evidence.   He uses the example of layoffs — which are no doubt sometimes necessary.  But executives often seem to act in ways that clash with evidence showing that companies that do layoffs last and least tend to perform best over time:

    " If the world believes that laying-off employees by the carload is good management and confers status on those that do it with the most vigor, it will be difficult for executives to resist the temptation to conform to the normative definition of "good management" and thereby achieve approval."

    As usual, Jeff is smart and blunt.