Rules 1 and 2 explained

The first two rules are more important than people think and are, at least in my mind, less facile and glib than they sound.

Rule 1) Have Fun: It sounds obvious but fun is important. I don't mean fun in the sense of playing Halo on your XBOX. I really mean content. It's important to be content in your career if possible.

But "have fun" is also more expansive than implied in the statement. When people start working an organization for which I am the blowhard, I give them my 13 Rules spiel. With Rule 1, I tell them that it IS important to have fun in the content sense. But it is also important for ME, as the blowhard, to ENSURE that they have an environment where they can be content. If they aren't or can't be content, but are legitimately good and intelligent people, then it's my job to find them a place in my organization where they can be. If they can't do that, then I promise to help them find a job elsewhere in the company or even outside of the company, where they can be content.

Of course, I also have to believe that these are quality people. If they're lamers, then they shouldn't be in the company in the first place.

2) Do good work and make some money. This also sounds facile, but doing good work and making some money are probably important in the private sector. But this is really about being effective. It is my and the employee's job to do everything we can to help them be effective. If I can't setup the environment where it is possible to be effective, then it's first and foremost my fault for their lack of effectiveness.

If I can do that, and they aren't effective, then I have effectively eliminated myself as part of the problem when they aren't effective (Rule 8, There are only bad team leaders). Of course that's easy to say in a black and white statement, and it's never such. But it is important that management is confident that they are NOT the cause when they accuse employees of being ineffective. That just happens so often in corporate America today.

Content and effective. Those are two critical ideas encompassed in Rules 1 and 2. If people are content and effective, you generally have groups of people that can accomplish real things, and build great companies. In that vein, I believe Rules 1, 2, and 13 are just about the most important of all 13. In fact, for really good leaders and employees, they probably obviate the need for the other rules. But that is maybe too subtle in business, when leadership so often lacks that level of nuance.

What are you getting paid for? Cognitive shift for new leaders and managers

Something that I have a hard time teaching to new managers and leaders is getting them to understand one of the most critical changes that you must make when you become the latest promoted blowhard.

You worked your butt off, putting in 80 hour weeks to reach the director/VP/C-level management. But let's start with this important premise: YOU ARE NO LONGER GETTING PAID TO WORK HARD. Don't get me wrong, you may still have to work hard. But it is emphatically NOT what you are getting paid for.

Corollary: You ARE getting paid to make good decisions.

So many new managers just get right back on the treadmill. The visceral and even cerebral assumption that new managers make is that continuing to do what got them promoted will continue to make them successful. So they start running again. It's a bad assumption. They're trying to do it all, instead of trying to get it all done with good decisions and a group of people. That is now what you are paid for.

You've now got to use decision making to get a group of people to get it all done and be effective and content. Those two things are the crux. You're brilliant decisions have to get a group of people to deliver/be effective, while keeping them happy or content. I might even reverse it. Content first, then effective (a la the 13 rules).

The unspoken rule, HAVE SOME RULES

The evolution of the rules started with my first real management and leadership job. I was probably too young, and definitely too inexperienced, but I gave it a shot anyway. The only problem was, there was no framework for how my organization would operate. I'll give you an example. I realized very early on that if there isn't a framework for decision-making, then how could I, the Pointy-Haired-Bosscon (some years later it's Bald-Headed Bosscon in my case) possibly be annoyed at someone who made a bad decision. They probably made the best decision that they could. But with no touchstone, it's a decision made in a vacuum.

In fact, if I haven't set the framework, and the bad decision is made, then it is not only not the decision maker's fault but it is surely my fault that a bad decision was made (see Team Rule 8).

So, to keep this entry short, the number and composition of the rules is probably important, but the very existence of the rules is just as important as the rules themselves. I originally started with 10 rules (The first 9 from below and #13). Now we've got a framework. That framework is as binding upon me as it is on everyone else on the team.

When I start a new management job or hire a new person, every person on the team reads the rules. I require that they look me in the eye and tell me that they understand the rules and that they are O.K. with the rules.

Now, for example, if a team member calls me a jackass in front of a customer (thus violating Team Rule 6), the framework is set. I sit down with the person and say, "You recall that you read, understand, and agreed to the rules. So why the hell did you do that?" Now, let's be careful here. I'm not implying that calling your boss a jackass is a bad thing. Sometimes the boss needs to hear it. I often need to hear it. Rule 6 specifically says that team members CAN challenge the boss. Just do it in private. So I say, "How does calling me a jackass in front of the customer help our team?" Do it in private, convince me, and often you'll find that you were right. I was a jackass. But doing it publicly showed divisiveness within the team, and that's bad for the team (it therefore also violates Team Rule 3).

I have set expectations upfront, and the rules were violated. For the purpose of this exercise I have eliminated myself as the problem (there not being rules about the issue), and can fairly apply correction in saying, "You agreed to the rules, you clearly broke the rules, you're in trouble." Although, I've found that usually noone's in trouble. I just want to be told how and why it won't happen again. I don't enforce the rules so much as reinforce the rules in this manner.

So, have some rules. You are welcome to mine. There are lots of others out there. But remember the existence of the rules is important as the rules themselves.

Sidenote: The scientists and engineers love to point out the recursive nature of Rule 13. Great! Rules 1 and 13 are absolutely the two most important rules on the list.

The 13 Rules

The primary reason that people started asking me to write this blog is because of a set of "rules" that I have developed over the years. I call them "Jason's 13 Rules for Team Leaders and Team Members." The evolution of the rules, according to my...ahem...supporters is as important as the rules themselves. So, what I'm going to do is write a few entries that cover both the rules and how they evolved. First is discussion about the application of the "rules." The rules apply to everyone, including me. In effect, the rules are more of a "Bill of Rights" for team leaders and members. They are a framework for how, as a group, we can interoperate, make decisions, and support each other.

Here are the rules, and after that I'll discuss why the very existence of the rules is a critical organisational leadership and management function. In separate entries, I'll discuss the individual rules, why the order of the rules is important, and the evolution of the rules.

1) Have fun.
2) Do good work. Make some money.
3) Take care of the people who work for you. The Team comes first.
4) Take care of the user/customer.
5) Take care of the people you work for. Rules 3 and 4 will do most of the work on rule 5, but the boss always comes last.
6) It is the team's obligation to challenge its leader. You won't get smacked down, you'll get MORE respect. However, do it appropriately. In private.
7) Once the team lead has made up his mind, even if a team member disagreed before, it is now his/her responsibility to push that decision to the outside world as though it was his or her own.
8) THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A BAD TEAM, ONLY BAD TEAM LEADERS! If the team is bad, it's still the leader's responsibility to make it good.
9) It is the team leader's job to insulate the team from the outside, so that they can do their jobs.
10) Don't ever say, "that's not my job."
11) It is a core component of every leader's job on this team to pass their knowledge on to others in the team. So pass it on...
12) It is a team leader's job to push power and loyalty down, not up.
13) See Rule 1.

MBA, What is It good for?

Some people claim MBA's are worthless, and some overstate their value, putting too much stock in a piece of paper.

My claim today is that the problem is one of expectations both from the MBA-seeking or MBA-owning person and from people hiring or talking to MBA's.

Caveat: I got my MBA at Oregon State University. I admit, I would have preferred to go back to Boston College, but I was working at the Open Source Lab at the time, so my MBA was Faculty/Staff; effectively free.

I learned some interesting things in MBA school. But I learned nothing about leadership, unless you consider "what not to do" a learning experience.

What I learned though, was management mechanics. Nothing about leadership. I learned about marketing mechanics, financial mechanics, accounting and cost accounting, etc. Those are management topics. For this context, I'm defining management as "dealing with complexity." That's what they teach you at business school (B-School, if you want to sound cool). It's NOT leadership.

Those are good mechanics, although certainly more theoretical than operational.

I've talked to scores of other MBA's from higher and lower ranked schools (all the way up to Harvard) who've had the same experience.

Back to the original point: It's not worthless. It's just not what people expect in the business community and it's not what MBA's expect. Both of those communities expect people to come out of school able to manage people, as opposed to the complexities of Cost Accounting (or whatever). What's more is that "B-schools" perpetuate this. Go look at their websites. It's all about "building great leaders" or shaping the business leadership of tomorrow.

But my message:

Hiring managers: Don't expect MBA's to have leadership or organizational management knowledge out of an MBA.

MBA's: Don't expect to be a good organizational manager or leader out of business school. Especially if you don't have prior work-management experience.

Business schools: Either stop pretending to be something you are not, or develop real leadership programs. And group projects don't teach you anything about real teamwork. Blegh.

Fear or like: The dumbest question in business.

"Would you rather be feared or liked?"


I have heard this question asked a number of times in interviews, and I've heard of others being asked the question in interviews. To use hyperbole: It's just about the most stupid question you can be asked.

My experience is that, overwhelmingly, the people who ask that question think that the answer is "Fear."

My advice is that you not work for people who believe fear is a great way to be a bosscon.

You need neither fear nor like to be a great leader/manager. You need respect. If you can't understand the difference cerebrally, then you shouldn't be managing people.

I believe that the people who work in my department respect me. Some may not like me, some may like me. As for friendships, I have some, but I also maintain a healthy distance from people. It's tough, but that's what works for me. The people I drink with on weekends are almost never the people I work with. But even the people who don't like me know that I will be fair and make good hard decisions when I can.

A leader that I was mentoring once called me up on a Saturday morning to ask for my advice. He had been a very social person with his peers before he effectively became their leader/manager. He said, "I feel isolated from my friends, and honestly pretty lonely." I said (with a little snark in my voice), "Good, if you're not feeling at least a little lonely, you're probably not doing it right." Now, I'm joking a little. I know some pretty good bosses who also maintain close friendships with their employees, but for the most part (or most people), a little distance is a good thing.

I myself once had to be party to letting go one of my closest friends, and I found that I couldn't be objective during the whole thing. Over two or three days, I didn't sleep, I ate about 3 bottles of Tums, and I worried myself sick. If you can do it fine, then go for Respect then Like. But respect is the key, not like. And leave fear out of it. No one's performance review should read, "works well when cornered like a rat."

Categories of leadership

Besides defining leadership and management in the general sense, people need to think about categories of leadership and management. Here's what I mean:

• Field leadership: This is basically being a leader in your field as opposed to being an organization leader. For example, many scientists are known for being leaders within their respective area of expertise, and that's what they're good at. This is a very different beast than leading a group of people.
• Organizational leader: Well, that's a little bit defined above, but it's less about being a leader in your field and more about being a leader of people. It's about setting a goal and getting a group of people to not just get there, but want to get there communally.
• Technical management: This is similar to "being a leader in your field" but slightly different. It may be field specific, but it's more about dealing with complexity than advancing the nature of a field (i.e. science). Finance and accounting are good examples of this. They are managers who deal well with the complexities of their field: Logistics, accounting, finance, HR, legal, administrative, whatever.
• Organizational management: These are managers who deal with complexity on a personnel or human level. They're good at making sure a group of people have all the details nailed down. This is different than organizational leader.
  

So again, know yourself. Know which of these you are. I fit best (in order of skill from greatest to least) as "Organizational leader," "Organizational Manager," "Technical Manager," "Leader in a field." Well, I'm not really a leader in my field at all. Bill gates isn't exactly calling me up to ask about technology trends.

It constantly amazes me that people have rarely done the critical thinking about these things, yet are in extraordinary positions of leadership and management. My experience at Oregon State University really woke me up to this. PhD's who are often extraordinary leaders in their fields often get promoted (or apply for) organizational leadership or management jobs and are consistently bad at those jobs! The (wrong) assumption is that you're a leader of some kind, so you can do it. But field leadership often doesn't translate to organizational leadership or management. So you get these brilliant scientists, writers, sociologists and whatever in positions of leadership and these people couldn't get 3 people to figure out how to breath.

We also see it often enough in corporate America. People get promoted into positions of management and leadership because they've done well at something else, and then we fail to train or mentor these people. I was once helping a CIO understand why his best team went to hell in three months. His Team Manager left for another job, and he felt that the Lead Architect was ready to take over, so he made that guy Team Manager. And he didn't understand why his team was operating so poorly. I basically pointed out to him that in one swoop, he eliminated two important positions. He had an inexperienced (read no experience) organizational leader/manager and he no longer had a field-leader in the true sense. It was the CIO's fault for not training the guy on organizational stuff and just assuming that field-leadership is the same! The guy managed not to strangle me for pointing out his problems to him so bluntly.

So do some thinking. Play to your type. I don't go looking for jobs where the primary need for the job is field leadership. I go looking for jobs that really need Organizational Leadership/Management in technology-related areas. You (and your organization) are setting yourself up for failure otherwise.