Dan Erwin

Bob Sutton's new "Good Boss, Bad Boss"

I'm nearly halfway through a galley of Bob Sutton's masterful new book, Good Boss, Bad Boss.  This is going to be a blockbuster.  It's a book we'll all want to devour and use.  I'm already thinking about some bosses who'll want this book and planning it as a gift for them.  These are men  and women who are trying to become better bosses and I know they'll find this very helpful.

You could, I suppose, think of this as a sequel to his last blockbuster, The No Asshole Rule.  But here, he sets out to contrast the differences between the best and worst bosses.   

I really like the way Bob's wife set this up for him.  A boss herself, she wants to know what a great boss looks like.

Some of you might be tempted to say that you know what a good boss is and what he/she would look like.  I'm very, very skeptical of those comments.  It's like saying you know what a good marriage or a good relationship looks like.  I've been around the barn enough times to know that what a good marriage or a good relationship looks like to one person is not what it looks like to another.  Instead a good marriage or a good relationship is good for both parties.  Same with a good boss.  She's a good boss for herself and a good boss for her subordinates.

You'll find a good boss spelled out in detail with plenty of evidence backing up the conclusions, and many highly useful recommendations.

Stay tuned.   I'll be writing about this book on several occasions, teasing you with reasons to add it to your bookshelf and start putting its recommendations to work for yourself.

Good Boss, Bad Boss will be available on September 7.

The Most Valued Career Expertise: BP Says Communication Skills

It was no surprise to learn that Tony Hayward is out as CEO and Bob Dudley is in.  Sure, Dudley has a long history of financial success with BP groups, and he's really smart.  But when the chips are down it's often about communication skills.  Dudley is a master communicator.

He's been interviewed on PBS on numerous occasions.  In every instance, he's warm, relational, supportive, reticent to make promises he can't fulfill, and let's the interviewer know that he sympathizes with all of us over the Gulf disaster.  He puts across the message that BP will do everything to resolve this crisis for all of us, and will do everything possible to work with the US government. 

WSJ interpreted the issue from a different perspective.  The writer concluded that BP needed an American at the head of the company in order to more effectively communicate with the US population and the government. 

That's nonsense.  It wasn't that Tony Hayward was a Brit.  The problem was that he had his foot in his mouth and showed contempt for us in his behaviors. . . again and again.  If you watched David Cameron, the UK"s new PM, you know that he's a master at communicating.  The issue is not about country of origin, but communication skills.

Alumni research from the Stanford Business School found a high correlation between personal success and communication skills.  As a result, in 2007, when Stanford changed it's curriculum, communication became one of the four top competencies in focus.  This reflects the research from the Dallas Federal Bank which reworked a study of the national talent hierarchy in 2004.  Although the findings emphasized the need for technological skills, the best paid workers and the best work opportunities continue to be for those who have both technology expertise as well as people skills.  In still another report from Wharton, research found that "the ability to communicate well and other 'soft skills' are just as important as technological expertise when it comes to selling new ideas to investors or senior management."  In a previous blog, I elaborated on the importance and how-to of communication skills.

Fortunately, there are plenty of opportunities to see Robert Dudley in action.  Here's an interview with Judy Woodruff from The News Hour.  Notice that Dudley is very laid-back in his presentation--a typically analytical speaker.  That ought to be useful to the large number of businesspeople who confuse the need for exaggerated enthusiasm with effective communication.  In a crisis, a person's ability to lay out the situation and its possibilities in simple, lean language can be a plus.  Dudley persuades with a bit of personal vulnerability, directness and honesty.  He's careful to undercommunicate--to say as little as possible and only answer the questions that are asked.  No foot in the mouth.

In today's world the key is to success is technology competency of some sort, AND oral and written skills. 

Matching, Clicking and Self-Promotion

Thanks to some cool research by Mark Snyder at the University of Minnesota, you may never look at vulnerability the same way again.  Snyder, a Minnesota psychologist, has found that the people really good at self-promotion practice the fine art of personal vulnerability. What Snyder found is that the people that really "click" with others are high self-monitors.  They are able to adapt their personalities, behavior and attitudes to fit the people around them.  In short, they pick up subtle social cues and tailor their responses to the other person.  Those that are best at the  process do it without even realizing it.  Think Bill Clinton or Oprah.

The fact of the matter is that the better salespeople understand this process rather well.  It shows up in their interactions and presentations.  Sure, they organize their material to match the client's needs.  But rather than keep their cards close to the vest, they open up and and share their feelings. 

Business Week reported the following: A study conducted by SUNY-Stony Brook social psychologist Arthur Aron and his research team paired individuals who didn't know each other and assigned each a set of cocktail-party-type questions, such as: What did you do over the holidays? The other half were given questions that required more intimate self-revelation, such as: What are your most treasured memories? The pairs who were forced to be more vulnerable in their answers formed incredibly quick, deep connections. One pair even married.

Most people are exceedingly resistant to being vulnerable in any setting.  However, the research is rather clear.  Despite what you might think, vulnerability is a strength.  The more you're able to open up and share your feelings, the more trust and the more likely a connection.  Aside from just working better, vulnerability saves you a lot of time in the workplace.

The article on self-monitoring and vulnerability is here: BusinessWeek.

Quotation of the Week: Treasury Secretary George Schultz

I'm not struggling about my legacy. . . I want my grandchildren to be proud of me.  That's the main thing.

--George Schultz, former Treasury Secretary in the Nixon administration

Schultz' response was part of an interview by Deborah Solomon in the Sunday New York Times Magazine.  The question that generated his response was this: You served as Treasury secretary in the Nixon administration, secretary of state for Ronald Reagan and, between those two posts, you were president for seven years of the Bechtel Group, the controversial engineering company based in San Francisco.  Are you concerned about your legacy?

Reading the interview, I was musing over Schultz' storied life and the obvious happiness with which he views it.  Schultz will be 90 in December and is a contributing member of the Hoover Institute at Stanford. 

Although many of us think that age used to be venerated, I doubt it.  Indeed, even Will Shakespeare spoke disparagingly of age.  Jaques in As You LIke It, spoke of age as "second childishness and mere oblivion.   Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."  Most still think you can't teach an old dog new tricks.  The old are not educable.

It's conventional wisdom, but neuroscience today shows it's all wrong.  In the last ten years research has found that the brain is quite capable of creating new neurons all through life and making new connections.  Yes, some mental processes, like working memory, clearly deteriorate.  If the material is emotionally nuanced, we will retain it.  We can integrate memories from both the left and the right hemisphere.  And the brain compensates for our losses by reorganizing.

When it comes to memories, older people tend to be more positive than younger.  Intriguingly, they bounce back from failure much faster than younger. 

Conversing with a senior exec in one of America's well-known companies about the possibility of some coaching, his response to me was telling: You're old enough to have had a few failures and learned from them.  I can work with you.  (And he did!)

Or, as Daniel Coyle writes in The Talent Code: Why is wisdom most often found in older people?  Because their circuits are fully insulated and instantly available to them; they can do very complicated processing on many levels, which is really what wisdom is.

I'm laughing as write this, waving my middle finger in the air, and enjoying the fact that I'll be 76 years old in a week.  Neuroscience is now shredding the conventional wisdom on aging.

So what's in this for Gen-Y or X or Boomers?  There's a lot to be said for the fun and wisdom of aging.  Though George Schultz sounded serious in the interview, it was obvious that he fully enjoys life.

"One of these senators (Lindsey Graham) is not like the others."

Lindsey Graham's commentary and indictment of both Republican and Democratic practices in the grab for political power is a masterful statement for all Americans.  And this from a South Carolinian! 

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post put it this way: Lindsey Graham is all of 5-foot-7 with his shoes on, but these days he towers above his Senate Republican colleagues.

In his commentary, Graham asked the question directly: Are we taking the language of the Constitution that stood the test of time and basically putting a political standard in the place of a constitutional standard? That's for each senator to ask and answer themselves.

Graham doesn't stand for election again until 2014, but likely there will be a strong primary contender for his seat.

It's amazing to observe what the drive for power does to most (in any field), and how just a few reject those perquisites for integrity.  None of us are angels, but it's thrilling to hear a senator with skin in the game speak up. 

What crossed my mind writing this was my first and obvious experience with the power grab as a college student.  I went to a land-grant college, had to take ROTC, and watched as some of my friendly colleagues who needed the financial support from ROTC, accepted that stipend and responsibility.  (Because of my test scores, I was wined and dined by the Colonel, but couldn't bring myself to that decision.  Always had difficulty with authority.)  I was amazed and even shocked at what those promotions did to some of my friends.  I decided that their friendship was no longer needed.  Don't get me wrong.  I have my own power needs, but I've been aware since then that the struggle for integrity in the face of power is a tough one.  I'd be the last to suggest that I was always successful in winning that struggle.  But it's a worthy struggle.

Dana Milbanks article:  Lindsey Graham stands apart from other Republican senators on Kagan vote.

3 Rules to Keep Your Career Moving Forward

A summer vacation, no matter how brief is always a good to time for a bit of reflection.  Although I change my daily pattern very significantly when I'm up at the lake, a bit of rest always has me reflecting on my career, what I'm doing, how I'm using my time, and what might be more valuable long term.

One subject that always comes up after the first week is how do I keep my career moving forward.  I seem to be able to think big picture far more easily when I'm rested.  If you're like me, here are three suggestions.

1. Expand your options.  A major source of career power is the ability to create further options for yourself.  In a tough business climate like this one, that can be daunting.  But in the worst of situations there's always a light at the end of the tunnel.  Look for it and don't get caught up in the gloom and doom. 
2. Make yourself useful.  There's no reason whatsoever to be limited by your job definition.  That's a death sentence.  When you see something needing doing, especially when it looks interesting, take it on.  And oh god, get over the "asking-permission" business.  Just do it.  If someone of importance doesn't like it, you can always ask for forgiveness.  You'll learn rather quickly, however, that it's rare to have to ask for forgiveness.  Rewards come to the self-starters.
3. Create some personal boundaries.  Even in this economy, you don't have to accept every task that comes to you.  I've had clients wonder how they're ever going to get their work done what with all the extra tasks that come their way as a result of cutbacks.  That's usually a sign that they didn't manage their likes and dislikes with the boss, didn't get her to prioritize or have forgotten how to delegate.  When too many jobs come your way, as politely as possible, get creative and collaborative and get others to help explore how to finish the task without stretching yourself too thin.

Quotation of the Week: Peggy Noonan

Wise men can be wrong, listen close and weigh all data.

--Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal

Noonan's comment is a correction from this morning's article, Youth has outlived its usefulness.  We like youth, she writes.  Indeed, she believes that American politics is desperately in need of adult supervision.  The first time I read a comment like that was when Bush was president.  It was a comment made, in spite of Cheney's presence, about that government and its practices.

Noonan has a point, but it needs a lot more development than she gives it.  She does affirm the nuisance of all the polling, information that means little and lends itself to an infinite number of interpretations.

What she really ought to have written about is the distinction between information and wisdom.  Youth has a lot of information, but a bit of wisdom would be helpful in today's world.  Information is merely about the gathering of facts and data.  Wisdom is about the ability to make sense of them. 

When the issue is important, I spend a great deal of time thinking about the conclusions I've drawn from data.  What other conclusions could be drawn from this data?  What am I missing?  Are there other data?  What data or conclusions disconfirm my thinking?  Noonan is right: weigh all thinking.

Why Make Time for Relationships?

Businesspeople often make the mistake of first thinking about relationships when they have real need.  That might be when an offer is on the negotiating table, when you're facing resistance from other people, teams or divisions over a project, or even when you need better career opportunities.

Why is this a serious mistake?  When career, money, resources, or even project buy-in are at stake, it's liable to be much more difficult to build trust and share information at the time of need--much less access the power or support you need. 

 

One of my client firms has had great success in building a business over the past 20 years by focusing on the development of long-term relationships.  Contrary to many professional-service firms, they're quite willing to share their expertise while the meter is off, providing insight, suggestions and occasionally project goodies.  They're also assertive in their quest to talk to potential customers long before a project is in sight.  In that process of building relationships, they learn as much as possible about that client's contacts, about his/her needs, "anxieties," values and interests.  They've also found that "no strings attached" can pay off in huge dividends.

Furthermore, when a project is in the offing, they usually know about it long before the competition and have a leg up on the proposal and contracting process.  In fact, sometimes they're able to bypass the auction and "dog and pony" shows completely.  They've built a lot of relational power into the situation.

What's true for smart organizations is also true for your career.  It's very important to set aside time every week just to build strategic relationships, especially with those whose cooperation or compliance you'll need.  Just as importantly you'll want relationships with those whose opposition could sabotage your objectives, as well as those who'll need your cooperation or compliance to achieve an objective.  I dealt with these matters in a pevious blog--Who should be in my network?--that you'll find here.

In a cool piece of research, Ballinger and Rockman found that so-called "anchoring events" are much faster routes to understanding and building relationships.  An anchoring event is simply a situation where you find that a supervisor or organization is willing and able to go above and beyond where you expect them to go.  The authors suggest, for example, that the success of mentoring is less about gradual building of trust and relationships and more about rapid building of mutuality and high-quality information exchange.  They also point out that intense socialization programs in the military are critical "not just for the actual preparation (in both physical and task knowledge) but more for the extent to which they contain extreme events" that make for intense relationships and dependencies. 

Years ago when I was working for Carl Wilson, at that time the CIO of Pillsbury, I told him that I was being inundated uncomfortable with technology information, and had no background in the field. He sent me off to a two-day workshop with leaders in technology, paying for both it and my time investment.  I never forgot that he was quite willing to go beyond my expectations of any client and have been able to capitalize on that relationship insight ever since.  What crosses my mind is the recognition that one colleague, manager or client just might be willing to go to jail for me, whereas another would cover his ass and quickly abandon me.  Those are "extreme instances," but I don't have to screw around very long trying to figure out what the relationships will be like if I need power, support or insight.  That knowledge is especially useful for understanding long-term relationships whether with colleagues or clients.  It sets my expectations.  I know what he/she will do or won't do.  It's exceptionally useful information in today's world.

The citation is: Ballinger, Gary and Kevin Rockmann, Chutes Versus Ladders: Anchoring Events and a Punctuated-Equilibrium Perspective on Social Exchange relationships, Academy of Management Review, 2010, Vol. 35, No. 3, 373-391.

Quotation of the Week: Rabbi Ascherman

In the long run, we're going to live here together, or we're going to die here together.

--Rabbi Arik Ascherman, Rabbis for Human Rights

In thursday's column Nicholas Kristof writes about the noble and the ugly in Israel.  Among the noble is Rabbi Arik Ascherman.  Ascherman presides over 20 employees and hundreds of volunteers who work with Rabbis for Human Rights, people who sometimes serve as human shields to protect Palestinians.  That action, of course, may result in getting arrested or being beaten.

A traitor?  Naive?

Kristof compares the organization's activities to the American civil rights history.  Although some Israelis see Ascherman as a traitor and naive, others see him as redeeming in his struggle to build bridges between Jews and Palestinians.

 
I found Kristof's analysis of Israel's democracy fascinating.  In an aside, he points out that Israel tolerates a far greater range of public opinion than America.  Although many in our country are intimidated by diversity of opinion, my experience has been that such diversity harbors highly creative, innovative ideas that lend themselves to productive change. 

Boulder in the 'sixties.

We lived in Boulder, Colorado, in the 'sixties when the world was exploding.  The front pages of every newspaper were filled with articles about Vietnam, civil rights, drug use and the hippies.  Boulder had a reputation as a hotbed of seething unrest.  Just thinking about the experience, I can almost smell the pot (marijuana) while walking through campus.  Gassing, an explosion that tore out the roof of one of the buildings, and a murder on campus were just a few of the unbelievable events that took place.

But we found Boulder in the 'sixties to be a marvelous experience.  Along with those events, it was also the place where police first learned to manage crowds and difficult settings, where city leadership learned to listen beyond the established wisdom and where community services changed for the better.  We learned to talk to and with to every kind of ideology.  At that time the community had every political position under the sun: from Maoist to Fascist (as we used to say). 

A learning laboratory.

We were so enmeshed in the community that we would not have realized how unique it was were it not for the fact that occasionally I was invited to speak at meetings around the state and beyond.  Many people were aghast at the goings-on in Boulder.  I was more curious than aghast.  I took advantage of the situation, and now realize that Boulder in the 'sixties was a learning laboratory.  Obviously, my perspective on student unrest was unique for many of my listeners.  But it provided us with the opportunity to build and enrich our knowledge of the world and human kind.  That's part of the reason that I find the global economy and marketplace so very intriguing.  Rabbi Ascherman's statement is prescient: In the long run, we're going to live here together, or we're going to die here together.  Today it's China and the US.  North and South Korea.  And spies from Russia and the US.  Thankfully, never a dull moment.

Power Corrupts. But Does Powerlessness Also Corrupt?

Power corrupts, but, argues Rosabeth Kanter, so does powerlessness.  We're all familiar with the famous remark of Lord Acton that power corrupts.  Kanter makes a strong and thoughtful case for the corrosive power of powerlessness.

It's especially obvious in the middle ranks, she says.  Often the consequence of slashed budgets is that the burden on the remaining people is increased, but without the needed authority and influence. 

Powerlessness is particularly apparent in the middle ranks. When companies slash midlevel positions, they often increase the burden on the remaining people without increasing their efficacy and influence—a combination likely to arouse risk-averse rigidity. Hemmed in by rules and treated as unimportant, people get even by overcontrolling their own turf, demanding tribute before responding to requests. They vent frustrations on others who are even more powerless. It’s like a cartoon sequence: The boss chastises a worker, who curses his wife, who yells at the child, who kicks the dog.

Her list of results is long, even scary: risk-averse rigidity, overcontrolling responses, resentment, frustration and constriction, even sabotage.  

Sometimes the reframing of conventional wisdom can really get my attention.  This is a case in point.  Her notion deserves both reflection and action.

I'm curious.  What do you think about Kanter's concern?  How have you seen it work?  How have you seen the problem resolved?