|
Last summer, I posted one of my favorite "asshole management
stories" after hearing a funny -- and fascinating -- report from an
executive named Bill about the technique that his colleague, Marge,
uses in meetings. I called this technique "Marge's Asshole Management
Metric." It generated a lot of discussion and some disagreement. I
just heard from Bill, who tells me that they are still using Marge's
method at his company and it continues to be highly effective. In case
you missed it the first time, here is the original post:
Earlier
this week, I was teaching a class on evidence-based management to a group of
electronics executives in the AEA/Stanford
Executive Institute. I talked a bit
about the no asshole rule in class. This provoked a rowdy conversation during
the session, which restarted with a smaller group after the class officially
ended. The best story was told to us by a software executive named Bill (his
real name, but I'll omit other details), who described the asshole management
technique used by Marge (also her real name), his former boss at the company. Bill described how Marge uses a four-point
system (ranging from 0 to 3) to rate the degree to which a person is acting
like an asshole.
Bill
told and showed us how, in the middle of a meeting, Marge would sometimes point
at someone, and hold up three fingers to communicate that (at least for the
moment) he or she was being too nasty and needed to calm down, and how --
because Marge was so well-respected and they all understood the system -- such signals
had an instant and powerful effects.
Well,
since we had this discussion with Bill in Thursday, I've exchanged pretty
detailed e-mails with Marge and Bill, and she has given me permission to share
her system with others. And as you will see, Marge has a very sophisticated
system, and there are times when she believes that being more rather less of an
asshole is necessary. Unfortunately, I think she is right.
In her
own words, this is Marge's scale:
0 = You are a very nice
person, and very passive. No one can say a word against you, and would never
think to call you an asshole.
1 = You are a normal person who can occasionally assert yourself on
an issue you are passionate about, but you handle yourself in a
non-confrontational way in nearly all occasions.
2 = You can consistently assert yourself in a non-confrontational
way and are occasionally an asshole, but you feel horrible about it afterwards,
and you may or may not apologize (but you probably will have to confess your
remorse to someone).
3 = You can consistently be an asshole and you either do not
recognize this or you simply enjoy it.
Bill
added:
Your rating fluctuates and you can use this rating to manage people
to different effect. For example, at [our company] Marge has signaled to me in
meetings that I was meeting a 2.5 or a 3, which indicated to me that I should
tone things down. (I was usually around a 1, for the record, which was
considered acceptable) Others have been labeled a 0.5 or lower, and were told
they needed to manage their average rating up closer to 1.
Marge
and Bill added that she originated this system in her old company where, often,
she had to signal to her people that more nastiness was required to avoid being
trampled by others because it was not a nice place. In Marge's words:
The system originated at another Silicon Valley company that had a far more confrontational and abrasive
culture. Political survival demanded
that people be consistently a 2.0 and sometimes a 2.5. I had a number of 0.5's on my team and we
were all concerned that we were getting battered and beaten by teams that
consisted of 3.0's.
I
couldn't make up stuff this good if I tried.
Four observations:
- This
system fascinates me because it helps me understand why the word
"asshole" rather than the milder "bully" or "jerk" is so important to
use: This is the word that people actually use to think about, talk
about, and in Marge's case, manage this behavior. The other words may
mean nearly the same thing, but simply lack the emotional punch that
goes with it.
- It
shows that the degree to which people are, and need to be, assholes are
heavily determined by the organization they live in. If the culture is
really nasty, you may need to do it to survive, and even if you don't
want to do it, I would add, it is a disease you will probably catch
from your colleagues.
- I
wish that being an asshole was never necessary, but as I discuss in my
chapter on "The Virtues of Assholes," there are times when it is
necessary for survival, and even desirable, at least in the short-term.
- If
you work in a place that is knee-deep in assholes, and you don't want
to turn into one or feel forced to act like one every day, the best
thing you can do for yourself is to get out. Note that Marge is at a
nice place now, and uses her system to help calm people down rather
than to crank them-up. This lesson is consistent with what I've seen
other places, and is one of the main points in my chapter on keeping
the inner jerk that lurks in all of us from rearing its ugly head.
Finally,
I want to thank Marge and Bill for telling me all about this system, letting me
tell you about it, and for writing much of this blog.
Robert Sutton is Professor of Management Science and
Engineering in the Stanford
Engineering School,
where he studies the links between managerial knowledge and organizational
action, innovation, and organizational performance. He has authored several books including most
recently (with Jeffrey Pfeffer) “Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total
Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management” (Harvard Business School
Press, 2006). His next book, “The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized
Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t¸” will be published by Warner in early
2007. He can be reached at
\n
\n
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
This article is posted under the creative commons license.
| Comments () >> |
 |
| Write comment |
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet. |
|