Robert I. Sutton's Blog, page 9

I wrote a detailed post here on Apple after reading Adam Lashinsky wonderful Inside Apple: How America's Most Admired—and Secretive—Company Really Works.  Adam is a Senior Editor at Fortune and we've had intermittent conversations and email exchanges over the years about Apple and broader leadership and organizational issues.  Now we are doing it in front of a live audience in Palo Alto on Thursday April 5th at the Churchill Club -- it is at 7:30 AM, bright and early.  Here is the description, but the key thing to know is that Adam and I are planning to have a conversation and, after awhile, to invite the audience to join us:

Adam Lashinsky, Sr. Editor-At-Large at Fortune and author of the new book, Inside Apple: How America's Most Admired—and Secretive—Company Really Works teams up with Bob Sutton, Stanford professor and author of Good Boss, Bad Boss and The No Asshole Rule, to discuss and share insights into the secret systems, tactics and leadership and innovation strategies that made Apple the world's most valuable company. Among the questions they will address: How are Apple's attributes different from other companies? What can companies large and small learn and potentially replicate?

We hope to see you there, although I should warn you that admission isn't cheap ($34 for members and $54 for non-members).  I am looking forward to this because Adam is such a thoughtful guy and, as always, I love thinking and learning about leadership and management issues.

In particular, one of my takeaways from reading Inside Apple was that the company has done a brilliant job of eliminating needless cognitive load on people by giving them focused and clear responsibilities, keeping teams small, and -- weirdly-- by having a culture of secrecy (because members aren't distracted by a whole bunch of information they would get in a more "transparent" company). So the book offers interesting lessons on scaling-up excellence. To be clear, I am not advocating that every leader and company should adopt Apple's ways, but it is intriguing and instructive.

I spent the morning trying to organize and make sense of various materials that Huggy Rao and I have been gathering about scaling.  I came across a most interesting post on "Learnings from 2011" that was apparently written by Xenios Thrasyvoulou, CEO of European-based start-up called Peopleperhour.com, which enables you to hire people "remotely, for small projects or a few hours a week." 
The post was quite interesting, well-crafted and introspective.  But the advice at the end stopped me in my tracks:
"Life is too short to waste it with people who don't get it, whatever "it" may be for you, so make sure you surround yourself with people who do"
This is such good advice because human attitudes and behaviors are so infectious.  If you are surrounded with a bunch of smart, graceful, caring, and action-oriented people, all that goodness will rub-off on you; and if you are surrounded with a bunch of people with the opposite attributes, that will infect you too.  This is why who you choose to hang out with, hire, fire, spend time with, and avoid has so much influence on everything from acting like an asshole, to building a creative organization, to scaling-ip excellence, to living a happy life. 
Yet, implementing this philosophy in real life isn't easy.  I would love to hear some ideas about how people make it happen.

Last week, I wrote a post saying how much I liked The Power of Habit, while at the same time, I confessed that I didn't much like the cover.  As I emphasized, it was a lesson that the old you "you can't judge a book by its cover" was true, but I do think that great cover designs are hard to achieve and continue to appreciate nice ones.  Above, you can see one I really like, for Gretchen Rubin's forthcoming Happier at Home.  Recall Gretchen is the author of the blockbuster The Happiness Project (which I reviewed here as a self-help book for people who hate self-help books).  This cover is not only beautiful, it matches her title and identity very well.  I am not sure when her new book comes out, but I am looking forward to it.

Steve Davidoff has a well-researched piece on the antics and impact of narcissistic CEOs in The New York Times.  The allegations of deeply selfish and unlawful actions by chief executive of Delphi Financial, Robert Rosenkranz, appear to have motivated the piece. Here is just one of the vile acts listed by Davidoff:

Despite restrictions in Delphi Financial's charter, Mr. Rosenkranz demanded in negotiations that he be paid over $110 million more than other shareholders, a number that a special committee of Delphi Financial's board negotiated down by about $50 million.

To me, the piece really gets interesting when Mr. Rosenkranz digs into the research, including:

1. Henrik Cronqvis and his colleagues found that the more deeply a company was in debt, the more its chief executive was willing to borrow to buy a house!

2. In another study: "Flying small planes is viewed as thrill-seeking behavior. Professors Cain and McKeon found that chief executives with pilot licenses were more prone to engage in acquisitions, with the theory that takeovers are risky, yet exciting ventures."

This second study reminds me of a hypothesis that Huggy Rao (my co-author of the scaling project) has proposed:  Male CEOs who have "trophy wives" are more likely to lead companies that make risky investments, as having a trophy wife is indicative that the boss had been fooling around at some point (also a risky behavior).

The question that always nags at me when it comes to narcissism and related bad behavior displayed by powerful people is how much of it is provoked in a once decent person who is infected with power poisoning (there is plenty of evidence that this happens, much of which I review in my bossholes chapter in Good Boss, Bad Boss) versus the explanation that giving a selfish and narcissistic jerk a powerful position gives them greater opportunity to reveal their greed and self-absorption. In real life, it is probably some of both.  And the way the organization is structured makes a difference too -- this is one reason why people who study corporate governance often advocate having "checks" on CEO power.

In any case, I thought it was a nice article and it raises all osrts of issues about CEO selection and the structure of executive roles.

My late father, Lewis Sutton, was a World II veteran.  Like many of his generation, the things he learned and experiences he had -- from the terrors of the Battle of the Bulge to the joys of chasing French women -- profoundly shaped the course of his life.  Part of what he learned was the language, funny and accurate expressions that -- although now falling out of use -- still provide lovely compact summaries of life's complexities. 

I was reminded of two of my favorite sayings today by this excerpt from the  new chapter in the Good Boss, Bad Boss paperback posted today at Fast Company: "When There Is No Simple Solution at Work, Learn to Embrace the Mess."

Here is part of the piece:

Good Boss, Bad Boss shows the value of checklists, of instilling predictability during scary times, and offers A.G. Lafley's philosophy that the best managers make things "Sesame Street simple." These and other examples demonstrate that simplicity, clarity, and repeatable steps can reduce the burdens on people, promote performance, and save money. We human beings especially love simple stories that communicate clear solutions and actions; when Conrad Hilton was on the Johnny Carson show, he pleaded with millions of Americans, "Please remember to put the shower curtain inside the tub."

Yet there is there is a hazard to this quest: People start believing that every challenge has a clear and simple solution. Stories about past triumphs fuel this predilection. They can make life sound orderly and predictable, even though when the events unfolded, people were probably bewildered and overwhelmed much of the time. As singer Jimmy Buffett put it in his song Migration: "Some things are still a mystery to me/While others are much too clear."

Bosses have to be prepared to deal with both circumstances. They need to search for clear solutions and simplify things when possible. But it is impossible to be a leader without facing stretches where you and your followers are overwhelmed with the complexity and uncertainty of it all. When this happens, to maintain everyone's spirits keep them moving forward, and to sustain collective stamina, sometimes it is best to embrace the mess--at least for a while.

This challenge reminded me of two of the most famous and fun World War II expressions:

Snafu -- situation normal, all fucked-up

fubar -- fucked-up beyond all recognition

One CEO I know, also the son of a World War II veteran, uses the distinction between the two to help decide whether a "mess" requires intervention, or it is best to leave people alone for awhile to let them work through it. 

He asks his team, or the group  muddling through mess: "Is it a snafu or fubar situation? " He finds this to be a useful diagnostic question because, if it is just usual normal level confusion, error, and angst that is endemic to uncertain and creative work, then it is best to leave people alone and let hem muddle forward.  But if it is fubar, so fucked-up that real incompetence is doing real damage, the group is completely frozen by fear, good people are leaving or suffering deeply, customers are fleeing, or enduring damage is being done to a company or brand -- then it is time to intervene. 

Its not a bad diagnostic, and dovetails well with another theme from Good Boss, Bad Boss -- that the best bosses are "perfectly assertive," they know how to diagnose situations to determine when to watch, evaluate, coach or criticize their followers -- versus when it is best to just get out of the way.  

I would love to hear other ideas about how a boss knows when it is time to intervene versus time to "manage by getting out of the way."

The Power of Habit has been sitting on my desk for a couple months, as the publisher sent me an advance copy.  I didn't start reading it until today -- although I was most impressed by this recent piece in The New York Times based on the book.  What a compelling read!  It is evidence-based and great reading -- if you want to learn how companies track our habits, try to weave their products into our lives, and how we can understand and change our own habits for the better, it is all there. 

I confess that I didn't pick it up because I am not wild about the cover design, It is hard to grasp on quick glance and, well, I do not find it especially attractive -- but once I started reading the book, I realized it is the rare cover that actually provides a great compact summary of a book's core ideas.  And having struggled with the cover design process myself quite a few times now, I can tell you that it isn't easy getting something as emotionally compelling as Made to Stick or as beautiful as Enchantment.   In any event, The Power of Habit reminded me that the old saw "you can't judge a book by it's cover" is true! 

Work Matters reader and fellow blogger, Chris Yeh, sent me a link to a Sport's Illustrated story about the discouraging downfall of the UCLA basketball program.  And I don't mean the drop off in performance at UCLA in the past few years, I mean the loss of its soul and the rise of a culture of contempt -- with rampant lousy leadership, bad role models, asshole poisoning.  Chris summed it all up well:

It's terrible.  Thank goodness John Wooden isn't alive, or this would have killed him.  To trample on his legacy like this is atrocious.

UCLA's John Wooden, the "Wizard of Westwood" not only won more national championships than any coach of a male college basketball team, he fostered a culture of mutual respect and individual development that turned his players -- whether they were superstars like Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Bill Walton or bench-warmers -- into more confident, cooperative, and compassionate human beings.

It appears coach Ben Howland has had the opposite effect.  As you can see in this excerpt from the Good Boss, Bad Boss paperback over at Fast Company on the power of subtraction, there is plenty of evidence that when leaders and peers display bad behavior and don't act swiftly and firmly to stop, the vile actions and attitudes spread like wildfire -- and the result isn't just bad performance, it is a culture of contempt that damages everyone involved.

Here is the upshot of the SI story about what happened the last few years under coach Ben Howland:

"Over the last two months SI spoke with more than a dozen players and staff members from the past four Bruins teams. They portrayed the program as having drifted from the UCLA way as Howland allowed an influx of talented but immature recruits to undermine team discipline and morale. Fistfights broke out among teammates. Several players routinely used alcohol and drugs, sometimes before practice. One player intentionally injured teammates but received no punishment."

The story offers many twists and turns, it is long and well-researched.  It provides many old but true lessons about how a bad boss can ruin a good team. If you are a leader of a group or organization of any size, it is worth studying and then taking a long hard look in the mirror and asking yourself -- am I doing that too?  Here are a few questions you might ask yourself:

1.  Are you focusing on strategy, but ignoring your team?

Strategy matters, but it is not enough.  According to the story this was Howland's general management style. He acted as if the human part of his job was a nuisance. As the article explains:

Other than during practices and games, he had little contact with his athletes, according to players. He showed up moments before a workout began and was gone before players paired off to shoot free throws at the end. Several team members say that his approach was how they imagined an NBA coach would run a team.

2. What behavior do you model? 

The SI story reports numerous examples of abusive and disrespectful behavior on his part:

Each of the players who spoke to SI said they found Howland socially awkward and disapproved of the verbal abuse they say he directed at his staff, the student managers and the weakest players. One player said if he saw Howland waiting for the elevator he would take the stairs.

3. Are you so focused on your own needs and wants that you insist that others indulge your little quirks? 


The inner focus that comes with power poisoning can cause leaders to indulge and bizarre and petty behavior that -- even if they are not aware of it -- conveys that they are focused on their own self importance and don't give a hoot about others.  For example, SI reports:
The players were puzzled by some of their coach's idiosyncrasies. Howland seemed obsessed with the temperature in the film room. If it was not exactly 76º a student manager was certain to feel Howland's wrath. The water bottles handed to him had to be just cold enough and not too large.
4. Do you apply different rules to "stars" than to other team members even when they take reprehensible actions? 


The story describes how star freshman Reeves Nelson was repeatedly physically abusive to fellow players in practice. Here is one of a string of such incidents:

Walk-on Tyler Trapani was another Nelson victim. After Trapani took a charge that negated a Nelson dunk, Nelson went out of his way to step on Trapani's chest as he lay on the ground. Trapani is John Wooden's great-grandson.

There are many other examples, but this one is symbolic as Nelson was literally trampling on a body that contained some of Wooden's DNA.  Here is how Howland was reported to have responded to such bad behavior:

After each of the incidents, Howland looked the other way. One team member says he asked Howland after a practice why he wasn't punishing Nelson, to which he said Howland responded, "He's producing."

5. Are you succeeding because the peer culture among your followers is hiding or offsetting your deep flaws? 

This is one of the interesting parts of the story, and something every leader should think about.  In many cases, teams and organizations succeed DESPITE rather than BECAUSE of their leaders flaws.  In Howland's early years at UCLA, when the team was winning and morale among the players was good despite Howland's quirks and flaws, it was apparently due in large part to the tight bonds among the team members, an unusually mature and low ego group (which began unraveling in about 2008):

 It was a team of prefects, the protectors of the UCLA dynamic, who looked out for each other, making sure that no one got into trouble, that no one threatened what they were trying to accomplish or what UCLA has always been about. They were a tight group. If they went out, to the movies or a party, they were 15 strong. That kind of camaraderie is not unusual on good teams, but Howland's former players say he had very little to do with instilling it.

6. Is your boss letting YOU get away with toxic and incompetent leadership?

I was pretty stunned to read this:

UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero, who through a spokesperson declined SI's interview request, told ESPN.com in January, "I need Ben Howland. Why would I even think about looking at someone else?" He added, "By his own admission, [Howland] made some mistakes. But I'm going to work with him. I'm not going to crucify him for those mistakes. Because Ben Howland is a hell of a coach, and anyone who understands basketball, anyone that's been around him, that knows the game, has the utmost respect for what he does as a coach. ... We need to turn it around, and we all get that. But we will."

The above quote is quite discouraging as it suggests that, well, so long as he goes back to winning, all is forgiven. As far as I am concerned, if the SI story is accurate, Howland suffers too deeply from power poisoning, committed too many selfish sins, and has demonstrated so much incompetence in dealing with people he is hired to look after and motivate to be allowed to continue in any leadership position. 
The problems I've listed only begin to scratch the surface of the damage done under Howland's apparently flawed leadership. I haven't even got into the partying, the players who came to practice still stoned from the night before, and the bench-warmer who couldn't enter a game during "garbage time" because he didn't bother wearing his jersey under his warm-up jacket (the same player now says he can't believe, in retrospect, that he did it -- but bad leadership and bad team dynamics cause people to do weird and dysfunctional things).
Apparently, there are signs that Howland is doing a bit better this year and is taking steps to deal with bad behavior.  Last year, Howland finally stopped putting up with Reeves Nelson's awful behavior -- for example, last season, he finally showed the courage to call fouls on Nelson in practice (in the past, "[Howland] always gave Reeves the benefit of the doubt on foul calls in practice so Reeves wouldn't lose it and be even more disruptive").  Nelson finally was kicked-off the team last November.   And now even Nelson and mother believe Howland should have been nipped the bad behavior in the bud.  As Nelson told SI:
"I'm not trying to make excuses for what I did, but I got into some weird behavior patterns, and I think my mom was saying that if instead of one big punishment at the end, what if there had been smaller punishments along the way."
Perhaps Howland will change his ways.  People do get better and perhaps he will learn to be less of a jerk, be in tune with the people he leads, to avoid letting superstar run roughshod over others, and to do the little bits dirty work when necessary.  I am not especially optimistic, especially after smelling the "winning is the only thing" attitude from Howland's boss.  Regardless, I believe this is a useful cautionary tale for any boss, and in particular, I  think of this guideline in Chapter 1 of The No Asshole Rule:
The difference between how a person treats the powerless versus the powerful is as good a measure of human character as I know. 
P.S. Note that Reeves Nelson did an interview where he disputes many of the bad things said about him in the article and his law firm is demanding that SI retract the article.

 

 

Good Boss, Bad Boss is already shipping in paperback at Amazon, about two weeks before the official publication date.  It has a new red cover (which I like, I hope it isn't too intense for you) and a new chapter, an Epilogue called "What Great Bosses Do: Lessons I've l Learned Since Writing Good Boss, Bad Boss."  Fast Company already published an excerpt from the new chapter on power poisoning and will be publishing more snippets in the coming weeks. 

This all got me thinking about Good Boss, Bad Boss, about all the fun I had fretting over and talking with people about ideas in the book, and about lots of others ideas about bosses too, since the book was first published in September, 2010.  In doing so, I looked back on some of the most popular posts and related stories on bosses.  These include:

1. Being a Good Boss is Pretty Damn Hard -- Reflections on Publication Day

2. Lessons from Nightmare (and Dream) Bosses -- INC Interview

3. How to Be a Good Boss -- by Matt May

4. When the Shit Hits the Fan, Women are Seen as Better Bosses than Men

5. Drinking at Work -- It's not all bad -- a piece for Cnn.Com

6. Is it Sometimes Rationally to Select Leaders Randomly?

7. Clueless and Comical Bosses: Please Help Me With Examples

8. A Cool Neurological Explanation for the Power of Small Wins

9. How a Few Bad Apples Can Ruin Everything -- a Wall Street Journal piece I wrote

10. What are Good Things About Having a Lousy Boss?

11. Pixar Lore: The Day Our Bossses Saved Our Jobs -- at HBR.org

12. David Kelley on Love and Money

I could have added a lot more -- let me know which ones you like, which ones you don't form the above list, and which ones I should have added from the past six years or so I've been writing Work Matters. Thanks so much for everything

I recently posted an updated version  of People and Places that Use The No Asshole Rule.  In that spirit, a group of students in my class Organizational Behavior: An Evidence-Based Approach did a little case study of how a local start-up (with about 150 people now) is sustaining a civilized workplace.  I liked this simple decision-tree as it captures much of the essence of how to enforce the rule -- assuming they actually use this rather than just talk about it!

This is open to all.  The line-up looks awesome.   The ideology of organic food, the health issues, and the challenges of feeding a large population on a budget.  Debra Dunn is always awesome and always sees the complexity.   Please register at the above email if you are going to join the fun.