Task 1:
Share a summary of your Work Place Analysis Assignment- To acquaint you with common behavioral analysis tools by using them to break down and view your organization in smaller elements and discover how each element can influence you individually and your organization as a whole.(Please see Attached Work Place Analysis Document -2 File)-as well as THREE takeaways from the readings/videos-Please find attached Documents (try for a minimum 200 words) -Just Summarize what you have learned from readings/Videos and Assignment.(Please refer two examples which are provided by my classmates below for task 1-Please dont copy paste)
Video reference
link
:
Visit Hofstede site
1) Go to this link to compare the U.S. to another country in which you are familiar. For more information about this visit
2) Hofstede’s Model on Cultural Dimensions
3) Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People
4) It’s the Situation, Not the Person
Task 2:
Give comments to the below two summary postings (Use these examples for reference for Task 1)- (100 word minimum)
Post 1:
Hi All,
This week’s readings are more personal to me. I have experienced Cross-Cultural communication being difficult, Misinterpreted, Misunderstood leading to fights or disagreements. I am from india and culturally things we do in india are very different to American culture. I am American citizen now and i am not saying one way is wrong or other way is right. For example, in India, culturally marriages are arrganged. Parents and family members decide whom the daughter/son should marry. But living in 2023, things changed drastically but that was the norm. My daughter being born here, doesnt understand how is it fair for a person getting married do not get a say in her/his own marriage. I understand her point of view but it is the culture. Second thing i want to talk about is how culturally unconsicously it is in our mind that women connected to home and men connected to work like we saw in the video by Mahzarin R. Banaji – “Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People”. Though she has been working all her life, her mind culturally dont think its normal for women working and men at home. It is similar to our culture too. Also, it is very true how children as young as 2/3 years obsorb everything like their mind is a sponge. My daughter heard my husband saying a bad word once and used it at school which opened our eyes how kids just learn everything we say or we do. We were more careful from then on especially around kids. My third takeaway this week is from the article “The Power of Talk” by Deborah Tannen, how linguistic style are relatively different for men and women. Again in India, girls are raised to downplay when boys are raised to talk up their achievements. Like he author mentioned those who are uncomfortable with verbal opposition women or men they run risk of seeming insecure about their ideas and they lack of confidence.
Thanking your
Dhatri Alla.
Post 2:
In this week’s reading, I will be focusing on stereotypes. What is exactly a stereotype and what does it mean to me personally? I found it very interesting to learn about stereotypes in this week’s article. Our reading describes Stereotyping as a type of categorization that structures our awareness and directs how we behave toward racial and ethnic minorities. Stereotypes seldom characterize a specific person’s behavior; instead, they describe the typical for people in that particular group. Similar to other categories, stereotypes can be beneficial or detrimental depending on how they are used. People may understand new situations and react appropriately when stereotypes are used effectively. The takeaway from the stereotype part that was in our reading this week is to learn more about other cultures and individuals to dispel these preconceptions and treat everyone with respect. Another takeaway I have from this week’s reading is a cross-cultural misinterpretation, our reading was also To make sense of perceptions, interpretation is the method by which an individual provides meaning to observations and the connections among them. The article also teaches us how to work through cross-cultural misinterpertation, by determining the actions the others are doing, determining the thoughts that this behavior generates, and considering the cultural beliefs that are established in your heritage that lead to these anticipations and emotions. These are the ways that I have learned from this week’s reading.
Thanks,
Algburi
ANALYSIS ASSIGNMENT 2 – Cultural Dimensions and Perceptions
PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT: To acquaint you with common behavioral analysis tools by using them to break down and view your current organization (or a prior organization) in smaller elements and discover how each element can influence you individually and your organization as a whole.
1.
Workplace Cultural Diagnoses
: The goal of this analysis is to describe your organization (or a prior organization) in terms of Hofstede’s Model on Cultural Dimensions. In other words, I am looking for how you perceive your workplace in terms of five (5) dimensions – PDI, IDV, MAS, UAI and LTO.
a. Before beginning the assignment, be sure to watch the video on the Hofstede dimensions and compare the U.S. to another country in which you are familiar as outlined on the syllabus.
b. Then, score each dimension by circling the appropriate number on the scale. List at least one example that influenced you to score where you did on the scale. Use short descriptive phrases and personal examples of how your comments apply to you.
Power Distance Index (PDI)
Degree of inequality among people considered normal.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
Low
-flatter organizations -supervisors & employees considered equals -tend not to use formal titles for people |
High -centralized companies -strong hierarchies -large gaps in pay, authority and respect |
|
List an example that supports your score: |
Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV)
Degree people prefer to act as individuals or as a group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
|
Low -emphasis on collective good, focus on welfare of the group to which an individual belongs |
High -emphasis on the individual |
|
List an example that supports your score: |
Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS)
How much society values traditional masculine and feminine attributes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
|
Low -emphasize caring for individuals’ health and well-being, quality of life, care for the sick and those lacking in resources to take care of themselves. Feminine values of nurturing others. |
High -emphasize achievement and competitiveness. Masculine values of aggressiveness and winning are important. |
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)
Degree of anxiety that society members feel when in uncertain or unknown situations. Degree of preference for structured over unstructured situations.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
|
Low -informal business attitude -more concern for long-term strategy than what happens on a daily basis. Comfortable with uncertainty. |
High -very formal business conduct – lots of rules & policies. Not comfortable with uncertainty and lack of structure. -sense of nervousness, spurs high levels of emotion & expression |
List an example that supports your score:
Long Term Orientation vs. Short Term Normative Orientation (LTO)
How much society values long-standing vs. short-term traditions and values
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Low
-short term focus, e.g., emphasis on quarterly results. Impatience: desire for immediate feedback.
High
-long term focus. Strong values on traditions and a long-range outlook on the future.
List an example that supports your score:
2.
Psychological Contract
: Based on your understanding of the psychological contract, do the following.
a. Describe in a short paragraph the psychological contract you have with your current organization (or an organization you were affiliated with in the past). For example, is it transactional? Why? Is it relational? Why?
b. List three examples of how your contract has been fulfilled, violated, and/or modified.
3.
Inclusivity, Diversity and Workplace Bias
:
a. Name one bias you have held toward others. How did that affect your behavior?
b. Name one stereotype/bias others have held toward you. Are these stereotypes/biases founded or unfounded? Explain.
c. Based on what you’ve read to date, what is something you could do to make a workplace more inclusive?
2 | Page
By Invitation: Building the civilized workplace 47
By Invitation:
Building the civilized
workplace
Nasty people don’t just make others feel miserable; they create economic
problems for their companies.
Robert Sutton
Lars Dalgaard is CEO and cofounder of SuccessFactors, one of the
world’s fastest-growing software companies—and the fastest with
revenues over $30 million. Dalgaard recently listed some milestones that
his California-based company passed in its first seven years:
• the use of its software by more than two million employees at over
1,200 companies around the world
• the use of its software by employees speaking 18 languages in
156 countries
• growth three times that of the company’s nearest competitor
• enthusiastic recommendations of the product by nearly all customers
• dramatically low employee turnover
• employing no jerks
That’s right—no jerks—although the word SuccessFactors really uses
(except on its Web site) is a mild obscenity that starts with the letter
A and sort of rhymes with “castle.” All the employees SuccessFactors hires
agree in writing to 14 “rules of engagement.” Rule 14 starts out,
“I will be a good person to work with—not territorial, not be a jerk.” One
of Dalgaard’s founding principles is that “our organization will consist only
The McKinsey Quarterly 2007 Number 248
of people who absolutely love what
we do, with a white-hot passion.
We will have utmost respect for
the individual in a collaborative,
egalitarian, and meritocratic
environment—no blind copying, no
politics, no parochialism, no silos,
no games—just being good!”
Dalgaard is emphatic about apply-
ing this rule at SuccessFactors
because part of its mission is to
help companies focus more on
performance and less on politics.
Employees aren’t expected to
be perfect, but when they lose their
cool or belittle colleagues, inad-
vertently or not, they are expected
to repent. Dalgaard himself is
not above the rule—he explained
to me that, given the pressures of
running a rapidly growing busi-
ness, he too occasionally “blows it”
at meetings. At times, he has
apologized to all 400-plus people
in his company, not just to the people at the meeting in question, because
“word about my behavior would get out.”
As Dalgaard suggests, there is a business case against tolerating nasty and
demeaning people. Companies that put up with jerks not only can
have more difficulty recruiting and retaining the best and brightest talent
but are also prone to higher client churn, damaged reputations, and
diminished investor confidence. Innovation and creativity may suffer, and
cooperation could be impaired, both within and outside the organization—
no small matter in an increasingly networked world.
The problem is more widespread than you might think. Research in the
United Kingdom and the United States suggests that jerk-infested
workplaces are common: a 2000 study by Loraleigh Keashly and Karen
Jagatic1 found that 27 percent of the workers in a representative sample
of 700 Michigan residents experienced mistreatment by someone
in the workplace. Some occupations, such as medical ones, are espe-
Article at a glance
It’s a bigger problem than you might think—jerks
and bullies in the workplace. Research shows that
they not only hinder recruiting and retention but
also raise levels of client churn, damage reputations,
and diminish the confidence of investors.
Companies that harbor jerks may also suffer from
reduced levels of creativity and innovation, as well as
impaired or dysfunctional cooperation, within
and outside the organization. That is no small matter
in an increasingly networked world.
The author of this article, a Stanford University
professor, argues that companies can take
specific and interrelated steps to root out jerks and
bullies and build a more civilized workplace.
Related articles
on mckinseyquarterly.com
“The CEO’s role in leading transformation,”
Web exclusive, February 2007
“Organizing for successful change management:
A McKinsey Global Survey,”
Web exclusive, July 2006
“The psychology of change management,”
2003 special edition: Organization
1 Loraleigh Keashly and Karen Jagatic, “The nature, extent, and impact of emotional abuse in the workplace:
Results of a statewide survey,” Academy of Management conference, Toronto, August 8, 2000.
By Invitation: Building the civilized workplace 49
cially bad. A 2003 study2 of 461 nur-
ses found that in the month before
it was conducted, 91 percent had
experienced verbal abuse, defined as
mistreatment that left them feel-
ing attacked, devalued, or humiliated.
Physicians were the most frequent
abusers.
There is good news and bad news
about workplace jerks. The bad news
is that abuse is widespread and the
human and financial toll is high. The
good news is that leaders can take steps to build workplaces where demean-
ing behavior isn’t tolerated and nasty people are shown the door.
How workplace jerks do their dirty work
Researchers who write about psychological abuse in the workplace define it
as “the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior, exclud-
ing physical contact.” At least for me, that definition doesn’t quite capture the
emotional wallop these creeps pack. The workplace jerk definition I use
is this: do people feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittled after
talking to an alleged jerk? In particular, do they feel worse about themselves?
Workplace jerks do their dirty work in all sorts of ways; I’ve listed 12 com-
mon ones—the dirty dozen—to illustrate the range of these subtle
and not-so-subtle moves, which can include physical contact (Exhibit 1).
Researchers who study workplace abuse and bullying have identified
scores of others. I suspect you can add many more that you’ve seen, person-
ally experienced—or committed.
Lists like these are useful but leave a sterilized view of how workplace jerks
act and the damage they inflict. Stories, often painful ones, are necessary
to understand how workplace bullies demean and de-energize people. Con-
sider the story of this victim of multiple humiliations:
“Billy,” he said, standing in the doorway so that everyone in the central area
could see and hear us clearly. “Billy, this is not adequate, really not at all.” As he
spoke he crumpled the papers that he held. My work. One by one he crumpled
the papers, holding them out as if they were something dirty and dropping them
inside my office as everyone watched. Then he said loudly, “Garbage in,
garbage out.” I started to speak, but he cut me off. “You give me the garbage,
2 Laura Sofield and Susan W. Salmond, “Workplace violence: A focus on verbal abuse and intent to leave the
organization,” Orthopaedic Nursing, July–August 2003, Volume 22, Number 4, pp. 274–83.
Q2 2007
Citizen workplace
Exhibit 1 of 2
Glance: There are twelve types of behavior common to workplace jerks.
e x h i b i t 1
The dirty dozen
Personal insults
Invading coworker’s personal territory
Uninvited physical contact
Threats and intimidation, verbal and nonverbal
Sarcastic jokes and teasing used as insult delivery systems
Withering e-mails
Status slaps intended to humiliate victims
Public shaming or status degradation rituals
Rude interruptions
Two-faced attacks
Dirty looks
Treating people as if they were invisible
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The McKinsey Quarterly 2007 Number 250
now you clean it up.” I did. Through the doorway I could see people looking
away because they were embarrassed for me. They didn’t want to see what was
in front of them: a 36-year-old man in a three-piece suit stooping before
his boss to pick up crumpled pieces of paper.3
The damage done
The human damage done by that kind of encounter is well documented—
especially the harm that superiors do to their subordinates. Bennett Tepper
studied abusive supervision in a representative study of 712 employees
in a midwestern city.4 He asked them if their bosses had engaged in abusive
behavior, including ridicule, put-downs, and the silent treatment—
demeaning acts that drive people out of organizations and sap the effec-
tiveness of those who remain. A six-month follow-up found that
employees with abusive supervisors quit their jobs at accelerated rates.
Those still trapped felt less committed to their employers and experi-
enced less satisfaction from work and life, as well as heightened anxiety,
depression, and burnout. Dozens of other studies have uncovered simi-
lar findings; the victims report reduced levels of job satisfaction, productiv-
ity, concentration, and mental and physical health.
Nasty interactions have a far bigger impact on the mood of people
who experience them than positive interactions do. Recent research shows
just how much. Theresa Glomb, Charles Hulin, and Andrew Miner
did a clever study5 in which 41 employees of a manufacturing plant in the
Midwest carried palm-size computers for two to three weeks. At
four random intervals throughout the workday, each employee had to
report any recent interaction with a supervisor or a coworker and whether
it was positive or negative, as well as their current mood. The researchers
found that negative interactions affected the moods of these employees
five times more strongly than positive ones.
All these factors suggest an effect on costs. One reader of a short article
I wrote on workplace jerks6 felt that more companies would be convinced
if they estimated “the total cost of jerks,” or TCJ (Exhibit 2). If you want to
develop a rough estimate of your company’s TCJ, take a look at my list
of possible costs and attach your best monetary estimate to each, as well as
to any other factors you regard as relevant. This exercise can help you face
up to the damage that jerks do to your organization. When I told a
3 From an interview with Harvey Hornstein, author of Brutal Bosses and Their Prey, New York: Riverhead
Press, 1996.
4 Bennett J. Tepper, “Consequences of abusive supervision,” Academy of Management Journal, June 2000,
Volume 43, Number 2, pp. 178–90.
5 Andrew G. Miner, Theresa M. Glomb, and Charles Hulin, “Experience sampling mood and its correlates at
work: Diary studies in work psychology,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
June 2005, Volume 78, Number 2, pp. 171–93.
6 Robert I. Sutton, “Not worth the trouble,” in “Breakthrough ideas for 2004: The HBR list,” Harvard
Business Review, February 2004, Volume 82, Number 2, pp. 19–20.
By Invitation: Building the civilized workplace 51
Silicon Valley executive about the TCJ method, he replied that it was more
than a concept at his company. Management had calculated the extra
costs generated by a star salesperson—the assistants he burned through, the
overtime costs, the legal costs, his anger-management training, and so on
—and found that the extra cost of this one jerk for one year was $160,000.
Finally, if word leaks out that your organization is led by mean-spirited
jerks, the damage to its reputation can drive away potential employees and
shake investor confidence. Neal Patterson, the CEO of Cerner, learned
this lesson in 2001 when he sent an e-mail intended for just the top 400
people in this health care software company. Patterson complained that
few employees were working full 40-hour weeks and that “as managers—
you either do not know what your employees are doing; or you do not care.”
Patterson said that he wanted to see the employee parking lot “substantially
full” from 7:30 AM to 6:30 PM weekdays and “half full” on Saturdays.
If that didn’t happen, he would take harsh measures. “You have two
weeks,” he warned. “Tick, tock.”7 Patterson’s e-mail was leaked on the
Q2 2007
Citizen workplace
Exhibit 2 of 2
Glance: A list of possible costs can help in estimating the “total cost of jerks” to your
organization.
e x h i b i t 2
What is your TCJ?
Source: Robert I. Sutton, The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t, New York:
Warner Business Books, 2007
• Distraction from tasks—more effort devoted to coping with or avoiding
nasty encounters or avoiding blame, less devoted to tasks
• Honesty may not be the best policy—reduced psychological safety and climate of fear
undermine employees’ ability to offer suggestions and learn from failures
• Loss of motivation and energy at work
• Stress-induced psychological and physical illness
• Prolonged bullying turning victims into jerks themselves
• Absenteeism and turnover in response to abusive supervisors or peers
• Hesitation on part of victims and witnesses to cooperate with jerks or tell them bad news
• Retaliation from victims and witnesses
• Humiliation when ‘outed’
• Job loss
• Long-term career damage
• Time spent appeasing, calming, counseling, or disciplining jerks
• Time spent cooling-out victimized employees, as well as customers, contract employees,
suppliers, and other key victimized outsiders
• Time spent reorganizing departments and teams so that jerks do less damage
• Time spent interviewing, recruiting, and training after jerks and their victims depart
• Anger management and other training to reform jerks
• Legal costs for inside and outside counsel
• Settlement fees and successful litigation by victims
• Settlement fees and successful litigation by alleged jerks (eg, wrongful-termination claims)
• Reduced creativity and innovation
• Reduced discretionary effort
• Dysfunctional internal competition
• Impaired cooperation from outside organizations and people
•‘Combat pay’—higher rates charged by outsiders
• Impaired ability to attract the best and brightest
Damage to victims
and witnesses
Possible costs in calculating your TCJ (total cost of jerks)
Woes of
certified jerks
Wicked
consequences for
management
Legal and
human-resource
management costs
When jerks reign:
negative effects on
organizations
7 Edward Wong, “A stinging office memo boomerangs; chief executive is criticized after upbraiding workers
by e-mail,” New York Times, April 5, 2001.
The McKinsey Quarterly 2007 Number 252
Internet, provoking harsh criticism from management experts, including
my Stanford colleague Jeffrey Pfeffer, who described it as “the corporate
equivalent of whips and ropes and chains.” Pfeffer went a bit overboard for
my taste. But investors weren’t pleased either: the company’s stock value
plummeted by 22 percent in three days. Patterson handled the aftermath
well: he sent an apology to his employees and admitted that he wished he
had never sent the e-mail. The share price did bounce back. Patterson learned
the hard way that when CEOs come across as bullies, they can scare their
investors as well as their underlings.
Enforcing the no-jerks rule
Executives who are committed to building a civilized workplace don’t just
take haphazard action against one jerk at a time; they use a set of integrated
work practices to battle the problem.
At the workplaces that enforce the no-jerks rule most vehemently and effect-
ively, an employee’s performance and treatment of others aren’t seen as
separate things. Phrases like “talented jerk,” “brilliant bastard,” or “a bully
and a superstar” are oxymorons. Jerks are dealt with immediately: they
quickly realize (or are told) that they have blown it, apologize, reflect on their
nastiness, ask for forgiveness, and work to change their ways. Repeat
offenders aren’t ignored or forgiven again and again—they change or depart.
Five intertwined practices are useful for enforcing the no-jerks rule.
Make the rule public by what you say and, especially, do
Plante & Moran, a company on Fortune’s “100 Best Places to Work” list
for nine years in a row, proclaims its rule openly: “The goal is a ‘jerk-free’
workforce at this accounting firm,” and “the staff is encouraged to live
by the Golden Rule.” At Barclays Capital, COO Rich Ricci says that “we
have a no-jerk rule around here,” especially in selecting senior executives.
BusinessWeek explains what this means for the employees of Barclays
Capital: “Hotshots who alienate colleagues are told to change or leave.”8
Talking about the rules is just the first step; the real test happens when
someone acts like a jerk. If people don’t feel comfortable blowing the whistle
on the offender, your company will both be seen as hypocritical and fill up
with jerks, so don’t adopt the rule unless you mean it. SuccessFactors shows
how to back talk with action. Consider this post on the company’s public
blog site by company employee Max Goldman:
My own personal experience with [the no-jerks rule] is very simple. Once, my
boss was being a jerk. I told him so. Instead of getting mad, he accepted
8 “Barclays: Anything but stodgy,” BusinessWeek, April 10, 2006.
By Invitation: Building the civilized workplace 53
the comment and we moved on. Later, he thanked me for telling him. My boss
thanked me for calling him a jerk. Let me repeat that. My boss thanked me
for calling him a jerk. Calling the behavior what it was helped everyone work
better together and get more done. Can you do that at your company?
Weave the rule into hiring and firing policies
Consider how the Seattle law firm Perkins Coie, which earned a spot on
Fortune’s “100 Best Places to Work” list in 2007 for the fourth year in a
row, applies the rule during job interviews. Partners Bob Giles and Mike
Reynvaan were once tempted to hire a rainmaker from another firm but
realized that doing so would violate the rule. As they put it, “We looked
at each other and said, ‘What a jerk.’ Only we didn’t use that word.”9
Similarly, Southwest Airlines has always emphasized that people are “hired
and fired for attitude.” Herb Kelleher, the company’s cofounder and former
CEO, shows how this works: “One of our pilot applicants was very nasty to
one of our receptionists, and we immediately rejected him. You can’t treat
people that way and be the kind of leader we want.”10 As Ann Rhoades, a
former Southwest vice president, told me, “We don’t do it to our people;
they don’t deserve it. People who work for us don’t have to take the abuse.”
Teach people how to fight
The no-jerks rule doesn’t mean turning your organization into a paradise
for conflict-averse wimps. People in the best groups and organizations
know how to fight. Intel, the world’s largest semiconductor maker, gives
all full-time employees training in the “constructive confrontation” that
is a hallmark of the company’s culture. Leaders and corporate trainers empha-
size that bad things happen when the bullies win using personal attacks,
disrespect, and intimidation. When that happens, only the loudest and strong-
est voices get heard; there is no diversity of views; communication is poor,
tension high, and productivity low; and people first resign themselves to living
with the nastiness—and then resign from the company.
To paraphrase a primary theme in Karl Weick’s classic book, The Social
Psychology of Organizing,11 this approach means learning to “argue as if
you are right and to listen as if you are wrong.” That is what Intel tries
to teach through lectures, role-playing, and, most essentially, through observ-
ing the way managers and leaders fight—and when. The company’s motto
is “disagree and then commit,” because second-guessing, complaining, and
arguing after a decision is made sap effort and attention and thus make
9 Shirleen Holt, “Giving the goodies: Many employers see advantages in maintaining workplace perks,”
Seattle Times, March 23, 2003.
10 Allan Cohen, James Watkinson, and Jenny Boone, “Southwest Airlines CEO grounded in real world,”
SearchCIO.com, March 28, 2005.
11 Karl Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.
The McKinsey Quarterly 2007 Number 254
it unclear whether the decision went wrong because it was a bad
idea or because it was a good idea implemented with insufficient energy
and commitment.
Apply the rule to customers and clients too
Organizations that are serious about enforcing the no-jerks rule apply it not
just to employees but also to customers, clients, students, and everyone
else who might be encountered at work. They do so because their people
don’t deserve the abuse, customers (or taxpayers) don’t pay to endure or
witness demeaning jerks, and persistent nastiness that is left unchecked can
create a culture of contempt infecting everyone it touches.
The late Joe Gold—the founder of Gold’s Gym, which now has more than
550 locations in 43 countries—applied a variation of the no-jerks rule
to customers. He didn’t mince words: “To keep it simple you run your gym
like you run your house. Keep it clean and in good running order. No
jerks allowed, members pay on time, and if they give you any crap, throw
them out.” Gold applied the rule to customers from the time he opened
his first gym, a block from Muscle Beach, in Venice, California, where early
customers included Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Manage the little moments
Putting the right practices and policies in place is useless if they don’t set the
stage for civilized conversations and interactions. People must treat the
person in front of them, right now, in the right way, and they must feel safe
to point out when their peers and superiors blow it. The power of efforts
to work on “the little moments” can be seen in an organizational change at
the US Department of Veterans Affairs. To reduce the bullying of employees,
psychological abuse, and aggression at 11 sites with more than 7,000 people,
each site appointed an action team of managers and union members that
developed a customized intervention process. But there were key similarities
among all of the sites: employees learned about the damage that aggression
causes, used role-playing exercises to get into the shoes of bullies and victims,
and learned to reflect before and after they interacted with other people.
Action team members and site leaders also made a public commitment to
model civilized behavior themselves. At one site, for example, managers
and employees worked to eliminate seemingly small slights such as glaring,
interruptions, and treating people as if they were invisible—small things
that had escalated into big problems.
The results included less overtime (saving taxpayers’ money) and sick leave,
fewer complaints from employees, and shorter waiting times for the
veterans who were the patients at the 11 sites. A comparison of surveys under-
taken before and after these interventions, which started in mid-2001,
By Invitation: Building the civilized workplace 55
found a substantial decrease, across the 11 sites, in 32 of 60 kinds of
bullying—things like glaring, swearing, the silent treatment, obscene ges-
tures, yelling and shouting, physical threats and assaults, vicious gossip,
and sexist and racist remarks.
Being a jerk is contagious
The most important single principle for building a workplace free of
jerks, or to avoid acting like one yourself, is to view being a jerk as a kind
of contagious disease. Once disdain, anger, and contempt are ignited,
they spread like wildfire. Researcher Elaine Hatfield calls this tendency
“emotional contagion”:12 if you display contempt, others (even spectators)
will respond in much the same way, creating a vicious circle that can turn
everyone in the vicinity into a mean-spirited monster just like you.
Experiments by Leigh Thompson and Cameron Anderson, as they told the
New York Times,13 show that when even compassionate people join a group
with a leader who is “high energy, aggressive, mean, the classic bully type,”
they are “temporarily transformed into carbon copies of the alpha dogs.”
Being around people who look angry makes you feel angry too. Hatfield
and her colleagues sum up this emotional-contagion research with an Arabic
proverb: “A wise man associating with the vicious becomes an idiot.”
A swarm of jerks creates a civility vacuum, sucking the warmth and kindness
out of everyone who enters and replacing them with coldness and contempt.
As we have seen, organizations can screen out and reform these contagious
jerks and, if those efforts fail, expel them before the infection spreads.
But treating nastiness as a contagious disease also suggests some useful self-
management techniques.
Consider some wise advice that I heard from the late Bill Lazier, a success-
ful executive who spent the last 20 years of his career teaching business and
entrepreneurship at Stanford. Bill gave this advice to our students: when
you get a job offer or an invitation to join a team, take a close look at the
people you will work with, successful or not. If your potential colleagues
are self-centered, nasty, narrow minded, or unethical, he warned, you have
little chance of turning them into better human beings or of transforming
the workplace into a healthy one, even in a tiny company. In fact, the odds
are that you will turn into a jerk as well. Q
12 Elaine Hatfield, John T. Cacioppo, and Richard L. Rapson, Emotional Contagion, Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1994.
13 Benedict Carey, “Fear in the workplace: The bullying boss,” New York Times, June 22, 2004.
Robert Sutton, professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University,
is cofounder of its Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. This article is adapted from his book The No
Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t, New York: Warner
Business Books, 2007. Copyright © 2007 McKinsey & Company.
All rights reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
