It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a search or browse one of our posts below.

Busy weekend – too busy to write a new KJR this week. So it’s re-run time once again. I don’t know if this one is timely or relevant, but I like it, which pretty much describes the entire governance process used to select something from the archives for you. – Bob


Evolutionary theory has to account for all the bizarre complexity of the natural world: the tail feathers of peacocks; the mating rituals of praying mantises; the popularity of Beavis and Butthead. One interesting question: Why do prey animals herd?

Herds are easy targets for predators. So why do animals join them?

One ingenious theory has it that even though the herd as a whole makes an easy target, each individual member is less likely to get eaten — they can hide behind the herd. One critter — usually old or infirm — gets eaten and the rest escape. When you’re solitary, your risk goes up.

Predators hunt in packs for entirely different reasons. Human beings, as omnivores, appear to have the instincts of both predators and prey: We hunt in packs, herd when in danger.

Which explains the popularity of “research reports” showing how many of our peers are adopting some technology or other. These reports show us how big our herd is and where it seems to be going. Infused with this knowledge we can stay in the middle of our herd, safely out of trouble.

And so it was that I found myself reading an “executive report” last week with several dozen bar charts. A typical chart segmented respondents into five categories, and showed how many of the twenty or so “yes” responses fell into each one.

Academic journals impose a discipline – peer review – which usually catches egregious statistical nonsense. But while academic publication requires peer review, business publication requires only a printing press.

Which lead to this report’s distribution to a large number of CIOs. I wonder how many of them looked at the bar charts, murmured, “No error bars,” to themselves, and tossed this information-free report into the trash.

We read over and over again about information glut. I sometimes wonder if what we really have is nonsense glut, with no more actual new information each year than a century ago.

Bar charts without error bars — those pesky black lines that show how uncertain we are about each bar’s true value — are only one symptom of the larger epidemic. We’re inundated with nonsense because we not only tolerate it, we embrace it.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a question: faced with a report like this and a critique by one of your analysts pointing out its deficiencies, would you say, “Thanks for the analysis,” as you shred the offending pages, or would you say, “Well, any information is better than none at all.”

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Ignorance is preferable to error,” and as usual, Tom is worth listening to. Next time you’re faced with some analysis or other take the time to read it critically. Look for sample sizes so small that comparisons are meaningless, like the bar charts I’ve been complaining about.

Also look for leading questions, like, “Would you prefer a delicious, flame-broiled hamburger, or a greasy, nasty looking fried chunk of cow?” (If your source has an axe to grind and doesn’t tell you the exact question asked, you can be pretty sure of the phrasing.)

Look for graphs presenting “data” with no hint as to how items were scored. How many graphs have you seen that divide the known universe into quadrants? You know the ones: every company is given a dot, the dots are all over the landscape, the upper right quadrant is “good”, and you have no clue why each dot landed where it did because the two axes both represent matters of opinion (“vendor stability” or “industry presence”).

Readers David Cassell and Tony Olsen, both statisticians, recently acquainted me with two measures, Data Density, and the Data-Ink Ratio, from Edward Tuft’s wonderful book, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information:.

To calculate the Data Density divide the number of data points by the total graph area. You express the result in dpsi (data per square inch.)

You calculate the Data-Ink Ratio by dividing the amount of ink used to display non-redundant data by the total ink used to print the graph. Use care when scraping the ink off the page — one sneeze and you’re out of luck.

Management Speak: We’ve learned our lesson and we’ll never make that mistake again.
Translation: Shut up!  I don’t want to talk about it and I certainly don’t want you to rub my nose in it.
Alternate Translation: We have an entirely different mistake in mind for next time.
Today’s IS Survivalist is “one who should know better by now.”

The early days of 2017 seem like a perfect time to talk about bad leaders and ways to survive them. I’m not exactly sure why this thought came to me, but what the heck — somehow it just feels appropriate.

“Survive,” by the way, doesn’t mean beating bad leaders at their own games. That just turns you into one of them. Survive means maintaining your dignity and professionalism while also succeeding … or at least not failing … in the environment bad leaders create.

As my graduate training was in evolutionary biology, we’ll make this a bestiary — a catalog of unfortunate critters. We’ll start off with …

Howler Monkeys

Howler monkeys are managers who holler a lot. There are two subspecies, Toddlers and Actors.

Toddlers throw tantrums whenever something doesn’t go their way. Why? Because … drumroll … it works. They bellow, and everyone in the vicinity scurries around, doing whatever they can to stop the screaming.

Toddlers learned tantrums work at about the same age they learned to speak. Nothing since then caused them to unlearn the behavior. Actors, in contrast, only pretend to lose their tempers. They learned how well screaming works by watching Toddlers in action, concluding that, as the philosopher said, ’tis better to give than to receive.

Howlers have three goals: To deflect responsibility for whatever happens to have gone wrong; to provoke behavior they can use against you later; and to establish their position in the organizational pecking order … the unofficial organizational chart that describes who kisses who, in what order, and where.

When dealing with a Howler, your worst course of action is to lose your own temper in return. Do this and you lose, because yelling is like the Highlander — there can be only one, and the Howler got there first.

Instead, calmly and deliberately walk away. As you gather your papers and stand up to depart, say something like, “Let me know when you’re ready to have a businesslike conversation and we’ll continue this discussion.”

Unless, that is, you report to the Howler. If you do:

  • Master the art of blandness. That is, ignore the Howler’s volume, tone, and pulsing forehead artery, and pay attention only to the content. Control your own body language, repeating to yourself, over and over, “I’m relaxed, professional, and unimpressed.”

To help you keep your cool, take notes ostentatiously, which emphasizes the close attention you’re paying to the serious issues the Howler is raising with such force and sincerity.

  • Take control at the optimal moment. What follows is for group situations. You’ll need equivalent tactics when you find yourself on the receiving end of one-on-one screaming. To take control:

When, and not until the Howler starts to repeat the same serious and important issues, raise your hand … not in the manner of a child who wants the teacher’s attention, but palm forward, like a crossing guard who needs the pedestrian on the other side of the intersection to stop.

When you have the Howler’s attention, apologize for interrupting, then say something like, “If I understand correctly, we have three issues that need our immediate attention.” Stand up, move to the whiteboard, and write them down from your notes as you list them.

Then continue, “I have suggestions for the first two (if you do) — I think we should xxx. For the last, does anyone else have any thoughts on how we should deal with this?”

  • Document every episode as thoroughly as you can. Don’t plan on doing anything with it. But Howlers are often pretty good at scapegoating too, so you might need documentation if you find yourself on the receiving end of an unearned disciplinary action.
  • Speaking of which, redirect any and all attempts to assign blame by overtly taking it: “What’s our goal right now? If we need someone to take the blame, I’m happy to do this. Now … what do we need to do fix the problem and prevent it from recurring?”

But mostly, leave. Focus your energy on finding a different job with a better manager. Life, not to mention your career, is too short. The longer you live around Howler Monkeys, the more being howled at becomes your normal — you’ll turn into the sort of employee you wouldn’t hire; dispirited, unmotivated, apathetic, and with an ingrained habit of keeping your head down in the Whac-A-Mole game of organizational dynamics.

Or, even worse, you’ll become an Actor — you’ll have learned to lose your temper for fun and profit.

* * *

If this week is an indicator, it appears I’ll need a whole week’s worth of space for each bad leadership critter.

You’re invited to contribute. What I’d like from you are:

  • Species: A type of bad leader or manager, associated with an unpleasant creature, whether alive, extinct, or mythical. I’ll also consider unpleasant ecosystems if you come up with a nasty organization type instead.
  • Root Cause: What you think leads to the character flaws you’re describing.
  • Solution: What, in your personal experience, works to help an employee survive unscathed and without being mutated in the process.
  • Permission: This includes permission to give you credit for the idea, if you’d like that, or instructions not to. It also includes permission to use your ideas intact, or to modify both your thoughts and your writing as I see fit. Please don’t take offense if I do. Even if I like your writing that doesn’t mean it fits KJR. And if I disagree with your thinking … well, my name will be on the final result. I’ll do my best to give proper credit without burdening your good name with my opinions.