Bob Sutton

Wisdom From BART Executives

I give talk yesterday on The Knowing-Doing Gap to executives at BART, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system.  They run a system that includes over 100 miles of track in the San Francisco area and that carries almost 400,000 riders a day. I was fortunate enough to get a behind-the-scenes tour of some of the operation.  I was impressed with the great job that these people do of keeping this complex system running, and was especially struck by two things. 

The first thing was their story about how they built their internal, home grown, computer system for tracking trains and communicating with each other throughout the system.  They did it for about 5 million dollars and it is mostly open-source code.  It was a classic case where necessity is the mother of invention, or if you prefer different language, where innovation happened because of a big constraint that they had to work around (See what Diego says about constraint and creativity).  They couldn't afford a 20 million dollar proprietary system from an outside vendor, so they had to do something different.  The result is that they now have a system that does an impressive job of making information nearly all key aspects of operations easily and quickly available, that fits their needs, and that they can easily modify as they learn along the way.  I was also interested in what they had done because I know that one of the causes of Jet Blue's infamous fiasco on February 14th, 2007, where thousands of passengers were trapped on planes, was that they were using a system from an external vendor to track planes and so on that they had outgrown. 

 The second thing that I learned was a bit of wisdom from a senior executive who had been at BART for many years.  He was describing his leadership philosophy, which emphasized an urgency to act and to make things right.  But he also emphasized that the kinds of things they do at BART -- running and sustaining such a complex interdependent system -- can't happen without intense information sharing and cooperation.  As such, when we were talking about the challenges of managing performance, he commented that there are two kinds of things employees which could make that always provokes his immediate attention: 1. treating others with disrespect and 2. communicating poorly with others.  I think that is great advice for any leader.

I've been riding BART for over 25 years and it does work very well. It was impressive to see it from the inside. Certainly, they face all sorts of political challenges and other problems, but I think they are doing a mighty good job. Most of the trains do run on time!

Porcupines With Hearts of Gold Over at BusinessWeek.com

As I wrote a few weeks back, BusinessWeek is trying an experiment where they are using blogs and comments on blogs to produce material for a forthcoming double-issue on the workplace.  So I have been blogging a bit in the section on toxic bosses. My editor there, Michele Conlin, tells me that the blogging part of this experiment is winding down and they are now moving toward selecting and editing the content. She especially liked the story about the "Asshole Boxing" methods used by the salesman with an asshole boss. I also put up a new post over there yesterday on "porcupines with hearts of gold," which argues that it is wise to be slow to label people as assholes, in part, because some people have rough exteriors but are great people once you get past the initial impression. I am very curious to see how the special issue comes out, and in any event, I have to give BusinessWeek credit for having the courage to experiment with something new.

The No Asshole Rule for Doctors: Hospitals Will Risk Losing Accreditation

I've written here and in The No Asshole Rule about how physicians are among the worst bullies, and also, about how when people around them (especially nurses) fear that they will be bullied for pointing-out mistakes by doctors, that the lack of psychological safety leads to more mistakes (and also drives good people out of nursing and other medical professions).  I have seen this kind of bullying first hand (see this post about Dr. Gooser) as well. And see this post too about an asshole infested hospital. It appears that with this recent court ruling against a bullying doctor and, more recently, with is new set of guidelines for hospitals for the Joint Commission, which accredits most U.S. hospitals, that the pressure against asshole doctors is mounting. I quote from this AP story:

'CHICAGO - Bullying doctors can make nurses afraid to question their performance, resulting in medical errors, according to a hospital group that announced new requirements for cracking down on intimidating behavior.

Outbursts and condescending language threaten patient safety and increase the cost of care, according to a safety alert issued Wednesday by the Joint Commission, an independent organization that accredits most of the nation's hospitals.

Hospitals will be required by next year to have codes of conduct and processes for dealing with inappropriate behavior by staff, said the group's president, Dr. Mark Chassin. Hospitals without such systems risk losing their accreditation, he said.

Powerful doctors mean money for hospitals because they choose where to admit their patients, but they "should not be left off the hook," said Dr. Peter Angood, vice president of the group, which is based in suburban Chicago.

Grena Porto, a nurse involved in the group's efforts, said nurses need to be "appropriately assertive" and feel safe enough to ask a doctor, "Are you sure we're supposed to operate on the right leg, rather than the left?"

Nurses, pharmacists and hospital administrators also can be culprits, but it's the doctors who bully nurses that are the most significant for patient safety, said Dr. Alan Rosenstein, a researcher on the topic. He applauded the group's action.'

BNET Story On How Tough Financial Times Create Crummy Workplaces

Lindsey Blakely interviewed me a few weeks ago for a BNET article on  "Five Signs That You Have a Crummy Job."  She identifies five ways that downturns can make life worse even for people in organizations who have survived layoffs. Blakely marches through unpleasant changes such as reduced innovation, severed emotional ties, a climate of fear, and the one I talked about -- that the bureaucrats sometimes seize power. The classic effect is that the rest of the organization shrinks, while the number of people who deal with money and enforcing rules increases, leaving fewer people to do the actual work of the organization. And those that remain are subjected to more and more red tape that is instituted in the name of saving money.  So the people doing the real work get less and less efficient, and the rule mongers keep reproducing themselves, and thus write and enforce more rules.

BUT I think that it is important to point out that tough times don't always lead to these and other dysfunctions.  Some of the most effective leaders use financial troubles and other crises as an opportunity to make changes that can strengthen the organization. For example, check out this post at Harvard Business Online on Alan Meyer's classic study that compares the different reactions of hospitals to a crisis.  Those leaders that labeled the crisis as an opportunity-- rather than a threat -- were able to make some impressive changes in their organizations.  Here is the advice I gave in that post last year based on Meyer's study and other research, and I think it holds pretty well for leaders in a variety of settings:

 If you want to make the best out of a good situation, focus on what is going wrong and can go wrong.

If you want to make the best out of a bad situation, focus on what is going right and could go right.

Thanks, and let me know what you think of the crummy job article, including any other crummy things that happen and -- especially -- how to stop crummy things from happening to organizations when the going gets tough.

Asshole Boxing Over at BusinessWeek.Com

I just put-up this post over at BusinessWeek based on an inspired email I got from an oppressed employee who uses "asshole boxing" and a variety of other clever tactics to blunt the damage he suffers from an asshole boss.  They used the picture above to lead into the post.

The No Asshole Rule as “Like Garlic to a Vampire.”

I just got an interesting note about how one person uses The No Asshole Rule as a defensive tool at work. I have edited his email a bit for length and to protect the innocent (and the guilty):

“I'm currently working in a pretty toxic office that has a certified A-Hole in a senior management position. Even though this person should be a professional colleague and teammate, this person has gone out of her way to be rude, dismissive, and insulting, using all of the techniques you cover in your book. Her attacks are largely targeted at me for some unknown reason. I've never done anything to her or said anything offensive to her or about her to others. I've tried on several occasions to reach out to her with my assistance on projects where I have significant expertise, but she has quite rudely dismissed all my attempts to try and work with her as a teammate.

 I noticed an interesting phenomenon when I started leaving your book on the front of my desk. Her attacks seem to become less frequent after she noticed the title of the book (like garlic to a vampire). Until I am ready to move on to a more civilized workplace, I am employing your A-Hole avoidance practices to minimize exposure to her toxic attitude. They are working well and have made coming to work a more tolerable experience. I am also working hard to catch any A-Hole behavior that I may be about to perpetrate against others in the office. The best way I know is to try and stay humble and not let my ego fly out of control. It really is a shame to see how this one person is killing morale and productivity in our office.

 This really could be a great place to work. The problem is that this person is a typical know-it-all who actually does know quite a bit. Her ego is too big to admit when she does not know something and she goes into A-Hole mode to blame other people when things go wrong, or don't go her way.”

 It sounds to me like this manager is handling this quite maturely and wisely – applying many of the tips for people who are trapped with an asshole boss or in a nasty workplace, with the ultimate goal being to get out. I would also love to hear from other people who have used the book as a defensive shield, or in other ways, at work.

Gun Racks, Pick-Up Trucks and Aggression on the Road

The recent supreme court ruling, which affirmed the right to bear arms and that interpreted the second amendment in a very pro-NRA kind of way, reminded me of one of my favorite old studies. In this 1975 study by Turner and his colleagues, they manipulated the situation so that a pick-up truck at a stop light was slow to start moving after the light turned green.  They measured aggression by how quickly and how intensely the driver behind the truck started honking.  Turner and his colleagues varied two things about the pick-up truck: a gun rack with or without a gun, and two different bumper stickers. One said "friend" and the other said "vengeance."  It is an interesting study because many people -- including me -- predict in advance that the gun and vengeance stickers would lead to do less honking, as the impatient driver waiting behind the truck might fear getting shot by the aggressive and armed person.  In fact, Turner and his colleagues found the opposite pattern. The drivers stuck behind the truck were more likely to honk when the driver had a gun, and even more likely to honk when he had both a gun and a vengeance bumper sticker!  One explanation is that aggression breeds aggression.

P.S. There are a lot of studies on horn honking -- people honk more when it is hot out, men honk more than women, both men and women honk more at women, and people in low status cars get honked at more than people in high status cars.

P.P.S. Here is the reference: TURNER, C. W., J. J. LAYTON, and L. S. SIMONS (1975) "Naturalistic studies of aggressive behavior: aggressive stimuli, victim visibility and horn honking." J. of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (June): 1098-1107.

Ten Commandments of Egoless Programming

Check out this list from Coding Horror. With just one or two exceptions, it could just as well be the Ten Commandments for how to be an egoless employee or boss, or even an egoless human being. Certainly, anyone who does work that requires interdependence with others would benefit from following most or all of these rules. I especially like #3:

'No matter how much "karate" you know, someone else will always know more. Such an individual can teach you some new moves if you ask. Seek and accept input from others, especially when you think it's not needed.'

That last sentence is really something. Think of how much human misery would have been averted if more leaders and so-called experts of all stripes had sought input especially when they thought they didn't need it.

Corporate Creativity: Wisdom From The Late Gordon MacKenzie

As I have written here before, my favorite book on corporate creativity is Orbiting the Giant Hairball by the late Gordon MacKenzie. For me, nothing nearly as good has been written since.  I was searching for insights on creativity and came across this old -- but still very fresh -- Fast Company interview with him. Check out the whole thing (and read the book).  But here are a few gems:

'In the mid-1980s, MacKenzie founded an oasis for creativity -- called the Humor Workshop -- just outside the walls of Hallmark headquarters. "I wrote a one-page, handwritten description of the department," MacKenzie recalls. "Without telling my boss, I called his boss, the vice president of the creative division, and we had lunch. By the end of the meal, the VP was telling me, 'We've got to do this!'"

Eventually MacKenzie shifted his orbit and returned to company headquarters, this time with a title of his own invention: Creative Paradox. "My job was to be loyally subversive," he explains.'

That phrase "loyally subversive" is so delightful, so much cognitive complexity in this those two little words. Like this old story about Chuck House at HP.  Or how about this one:

I became a liaison between the chaos of creativity and the discipline of business. I had no job description and a title that made no sense, but people started coming to me with their ideas, and I would listen to those ideas and validate them. When you validate a person, what you're really doing is giving them power -- like a battery charger.

A battery charger!  Another great phrase, and consistent with Rob Cross's research on energizers.

Finally check-out his answer to the interviewer's question:

'What is the biggest obstacle to creativity?

Attachment to outcome. As soon as you become attached to a specific outcome, you feel compelled to control and manipulate what you're doing. And in the process you shut yourself off to other possibilities.

I got a call from someone who wanted me to lead a workshop on creativity. He needed to tell his management exactly what tools people would come away with. I told him I didn't know. I couldn't give him a promise, because then I'd become attached to an outcome -- which would defeat the purpose of any creative workshop.'

This last point is remarkably similar to a point that I heard from Tim Brown, the CEO of IDEO, make just a few months back.

Finally,note that these are arguments about how to spark creativity.  I would be the last person to argue that organizations need to be all about creativity all the time.   Doing routine things well requires an entirely different mindset.

Creativity as a Decision: Wisdom from Robert Sternberg