History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Abridged and Cross-posted from Blog Them Out of the Stone Age
Over vacation I read a book I bought earlier this year: The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't, by Robert I. Sutton. I'd picked it up strictly on the basis of the eye-catching title, the fact that the author was an apparently well respected professor of management science at Stanford University, and a couple of paragraphs from the introduction:
I first heard of"the no asshole" rule more than fifteen years ago, during a faculty meeting at Stanford University. Our small department was a remarkably supportive and collegial place to work, especially compared to the petty but relentless nastiness that pervades much of academic life. On that particular day, our chairman Warren Hausman was leading a discussion about who we ought to hire as a new faculty member.
One of my colleagues proposed that we hire a renowned researcher from another school, which provoked another to say,"Listen, I don't care if that guy won the Nobel Prize. . . . I just don't want any assholes ruining our group." We all had a good laugh, but then we started talking in earnest about how to keep demeaning and arrogant jerks out of the group. From that moment on, when discussing whether to hire faculty, it was legitimate for any of us to question the decision by asking,"The candidate seems smart, but would this hire violate our no asshole rule?" And it made the department a better place.
I found this passage arresting because it spoke to my own profession, academe. The book as a whole, however, focuses on the business world -- a world in which, to be sure, I was immersed full time for several years between my undergraduate and graduate studies, to say nothing of many part-time jobs during high school and college.
Sutton's basic thesis is that the presence in a given organization of even a few assholes can poison its culture and easily cost the organization several hundred thousand dollars a year: because of employees who get fed up with the asshole and quit, thereby obliging the organization to pay the cost of hiring and training replacements; reduced productivity on the part of employees who remain; the cost of the extra time managers must devote to supervising the asshole, doing damage control, etc.; the cost of dealing with sexual discrimination and harassment complaints; and the cost incurred when assholes damage the culture to the point where employees are no longer willing to"go the extra mile" for the organization -- what Sutton calls"discretionary investment."
The trouble is, most organizations do not really perceive these costs. As Sutton's opening vignette suggests, in academe an asshole is tolerated because she or he is considered a"star" who brings prestige to a given department: the Nobel laureate his department rejected was undoubtedly courted assiduously by many others. In business an asshole is tolerated because she or he generates a lot of revenue. And of course, many assholes of rather ordinary ability are tolerated simply because too many of us are conflict averse and have no idea how to confront an asshole -- particularly since many assholes actually revel in personal conflict.
We know assholes when we see them, but Sutton proposes two useful tests to determine whether someone is acting like an asshole:
Test One: After talking to the alleged asshole, does the"target" feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittled by the person? In particular, does the target feel worse about him or herself?
Test Two: Does the alleged asshole aim his or her venom at people who are less powerful rather than at those who are more powerful?
Nobody likes an asshole. But as Sutton's book documents, too many business organizations lack effective policies for dealing with assholes. (The challenge is especially difficult in academic organizations, where assholes are, for the most part, bomb proof because of the lifetime job security that is tenure.) Yet solutions to the workplace asshole problem do exist. It's a matter of whether an organization is willing to face the problem and take determined steps to address it.
For more on the No Asshole Rule, see this brief article.
Mr. Clayson, I think you are invisible to Mr. Luker now, #12, you know...
Vernon Clayson -
10/17/2007
Sorry to see that you have decided to fold, I half-expected you to tell me that "this house" was a sports metaphor and had I half a brain I would have realized that. It's, like, you know, like, Kobe or D-Wade or another of those thugs saying "not in my house." I dislike saying "you know" and "like" in that fashion, because it makes me sound like an athlete from one of our steller universities. Thanks for the discussion, it was entertaining.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/17/2007
Mr. Clayson, Reread your very first comment. It was rude and off-point. I have nothing more to say to you.
Vernon Clayson -
10/17/2007
Mr. Luker, aren't we all guests and what's "this house" supposed to mean? Am I behind on terms, is "house" now more appropriate than "site" when discussing some topics? I don't think anyone has been rude, I like to think of myself as somewhat of an iconoclast, certainly one without the chip on his shoulder you seem to have and certainly you've had people disagree with you before without you getting all judgmental.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/17/2007
Ms. Schulzkump, Clayson fails on manners and being on topic and you fail on manners and chronology. Both of you are guests here and if you behave rudely (see Clayson's first comment), it is my responsibility to tell you so. This house doesn't belong to you. You've been told. Let that be an end to it.
Sandra Schulzkump -
10/17/2007
Mr. Clayson is correct- we have strayed from the topic of asshole. Does anyone notice how this proved the theory of the asshole? If you go back through the thread you can see/read Mr. Grimsleys list of the most common behavior of assholes...
1. Personal insults
2. Invading one's "personal territory"
3. Uninvited personal contact
4. Threats and intimidation, both verbal and nonverbal**
5. "Sarcastic" jokes and "teasing" used as insult delivery systems*
6. Withering e-mail flames
7. Status slaps intended to humiliate their victims*
8. Public shaming or "status degradation" rituals*
9. Rude interrruptions*
10. Two-faced attacks***
11. Dirty looks
12. Treating people as if they are invisible**
Mr. Lucker was insulting and degrading of the thoughts and opinions of others and the point of the discussion was lost. He proved assholes are disruptive...
I look forward to reading the book.
Sandra Schulzkump -
10/16/2007
Mr. Luker,
I am beginning to find you amusing...
Vernon Clayson -
10/16/2007
For heaven's sake, Ralph, you said vomit first and you have returned to it. Vomit is from the Latin, 60 years ago when studying that quaint language we got a huge kick out of writing or saying things like, "A canis reverto suus vomit", or something close to that, it has been a long time. I have to stop now, this is really away from the main subject of assholes.
Vernon Clayson -
10/16/2007
Mr. Luker, world history is indeed replete with examples of..."tyrants and oppressors" but the worst of them have litte affect on me, I grant there is some greater residual affect on many people, e.g., there are still people around that survived Hitler and Stalin and their cruelty and wars and there are those who survived Mao's Red Guard. The Clintons are students of history, they, especially Hillary, have studied and used the political machinations of "tyrants and oppressors" plus those of lesser bullies in the socialist inclined cultures of Europe, to gain their end. I innocently believed the revolution our pathetic ragtag anarchists wanted in the 60s had died but I was wrong, it has risen from its ashes in the person of Hillary Clinton. She hasn't adapted the baggy clothing and beret of the Russian revolutionaries and Che Guevera types but if it would help gain votes she would. Professor Grimsley would serve us all better to consider this Clinton inevitable phenomenon rather than discussing assholes at such great length, although I repeat myself. I realize he considers himself at the cutting edge of open debate in discussing assholes, it is kind of cute but not serious.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/16/2007
Ms. Schulzkump, You apparently are amused by ignorance. I find it pitiful and in need of correction. Consider yourself corrected.
Sandra Schulzkump -
10/16/2007
Very good Mr. Lacker... VOMIT is a 5 letter word!
I read this article, related articles and ordered the book as a business woman. I replied because Mr Clayson is funny and he is right; scholars discussing assholes is cute...
You couldn't teach either of us anything. Is this what you do while the kids are out at recess?
Ralph E. Luker -
10/16/2007
Ms. Schulzkamp, If a five letter word like "vomit" is "pseudo-intellectual" in your world, we are in kindergarten and I am teaching you and Clayson to grow up.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/16/2007
Mr. Clayson, I am not a supporter of the Clintons. World history, however, is replete with examples, large and small, of tyrrants and oppressors far, far worse than either of the Clintons could be, by any stretch of the imagination. We try to have serious discussion here. If you're historical sense is so impoverished and your domestic political trigger so half-cocked that you think Professor Grimsley's post was an appropriate place to launch into an anti-Clinton rant, you don't belong here.
Sandra Schulzkump -
10/16/2007
Mr. Luker, You might as well have said "your mama" in your original response to Mr. Clayson. Using "vomit" in a psedo intellectual phrase and demanding him to behave or go to the back of the line are examples of #'s 1-9 better suited for your elementary school students. I assume you are, were or consider yourself an educator- if only because you remind me of a kindergarten teacher. You do not need to compare lists with an admninistrator... Your childish defenses against wisdom clearly indicate you would find the definition of asshole by looking in a mirror.
Vernon Clayson -
10/16/2007
But, Mr. Luker, the professor's subject was assholes and the Clintons were the first thing that came to my mind. The world is full of assholes but they aren't the problem that the Clintons are. Most of us want serious minded persons in the White House and while we seldom get them the Clinton's seriousness is only in profiteering and power. OK, I grant that Bill was also in it for the fun and the sex but Hillary craves power like humans crave air. I'm sorry my comments didn't reach the intellectual level you deem necessary, but it is awkward to speak of assholes, only the most daring of professors would undertake the subject.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/16/2007
I thought so. Go to the back of the line. The next time you bother to comment here, read what Professor Grimsely posts, respond to its subject, ignore your political urges, and try to say something intelligent. I know it's hard. Just try.
Vernon Clayson -
10/16/2007
Hillary Clinton is dedicated to government maternalism, note that I used the feminine rather than the usual paternalism, cradle to the grave government care for all of us.
I do realize that her concern is a hoax, she panders to the naive to gain power and the riches that go with high office. The media promotes her, although they know what she is and what she wants, to get the real celebrity, her rogue husband, the silver tongued devil, back in the White House, even in a lesser roll.
Mark Grimsley -
10/15/2007
Ralph-
I think you misunderstood Mr. Clayson. He was merely trying to provide an illustration of behavior #5:
"Sarcastic" jokes and "teasing" used as insult delivery systems
I thought he did a nice job.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/15/2007
Mr. Clayson, Do you vomit in the livingroom of your every host or do you only do it here? Either way, you are a poor excuse of a mother's son to show that she didn't teach you better manners. You are a guest here and will behave yourself or leave. On your way out, can you think of any *possible* definition of "socialist" that would apply to Hillary Clinton? I didn't think so. If you return to this site, do the readings first -- before you embarrass yourself in public.
Vernon Clayson -
10/15/2007
How quaint that scholars debate about assholes, it's almost cute. This in a world where politicians are universally assholes, everyone knows it, tolerates it and pay their way, and the world of Academe is the worst offender because they dare not trivialize their primary breadwinner, the various governments providing grants. Far too many academicians see themselves as the last bastion of civility, withstanding barbarians at the gate, when they are merely players in their small worlds, they have little to no influence otherwise. The views foisted on students, intended to shape culture at the behest of liberals, are soon forgotten. Speaking of assholes, for every Hillary Clinton that rises to prominence with socialist and world views ingrained from contacts with like-minded instructors, there are millions of students who forget that indoctrination in day to day reality.
Mark Grimsley -
10/15/2007
I didn't quite follow Ralph's objections, so I'll have to defer comment until I can bring it into better focus.
The "one asshole" exception is drawn from studies that indicate it actually underscores the organization's refusal to tolerate bad behavior. I thought it was offered slightly tongue in cheek. In his Harvard Business Review article that was the nucleus for the book, he says--specifically with regard to academic institutions that offer tenure--that if you aim at hiring no assholes, one will probably slip through anyway. I think aiming at no assholes is the way to go.
Of course, by "asshole" we are really talking about behavior. All of us behave boorishly from time to time. For most of us it's more or less accidental. What certain calls assholes are people who are essentially bullies on a regular basis. The book offers a "Dirty Dozen" of the most common everyday actions that assholes use. I've asterisked those that, in my opinion, are the most common in academe, using one to three asterisks to indicate frequency.
1. Personal insults
2. Invading one's "personal territory"
3. Uninvited personal contact
4. Threats and intimidation, both verbal and nonverbal**
5. "Sarcastic" jokes and "teasing" used as insult delivery systems*
6. Withering e-mail flames
7. Status slaps intended to humiliate their victims*
8. Public shaming or "status degradation" rituals*
9. Rude interrruptions*
10. Two-faced attacks***
11. Dirty looks
12. Treating people as if they are invisible**
Assholes behave like assholes because it works, either in terms of feeding their psychopathology or because it succeeds in its aim of intimidating, undermining, or demoralizing a colleague. An organizational culture made toxic by assholes is likely to produce a leadership tolerant of assholes. Some may even be assholes themselves.
The solution, therefore, lies in the one portion of my post with which Sherman concurred. Most people are unwilling to confront bullying behavior, particularly when it is not directed at them. In that respect they enable assholes. Indeed, I would say that the "good" colleague who is "too nice" to confront bad behavior, or mentally tries to discount it as no big deal, contributes almost as much toxicity to the organizational culture as the assholes themselves. That has to change. People have to take the time to learn the skills of constructive confrontation, and find the backbone to use them.
Sherman Jay Dorn -
10/14/2007
I've skimmed the book, Ralph, and Mark doesn't mention the "one asshole" exception to the rule: sometimes, having <em>one</em> completely dysfunctional and cruel personal can help put everything else in perspective.
Almost alone, that argument disqualified the book for me as a serious presentation of human relations in employment. If abusive behavior is wrong, why tolerate it at all?
As a member of a unionized faculty, I wonder what would happen if one of the administrators I know and I sat down and tried to list the people we might each describe as assholes by our own definitions. I suspect that the list would overlap to a great degree. That doesn't explain what to do about the problem, and tenure isn't the only issue. After all, there are plenty of administrators who are seriously dysfunctional, where their supervisors in turn know the problems but fail to address them. I suspect it's a matter of the costs of replacing individuals, especially in deanships, until the costs of keeping the person on becomes overwhelming.
Mark G.'s following passage is more to the point: "And of course, many assholes of rather ordinary ability are tolerated simply because too many of us are conflict averse and have no idea how to confront an asshole -- particularly since many assholes actually revel in personal conflict." Amen, unfortunately.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/13/2007
I don't quite know what to make of the "No Asshole Rule", Mark. I'm reminded of the second department chairman for whom I worked. He routinely hired and then demeaned one assistant professor after another, as if that was what was expected of him. Whether we resigned or left because we were denied tenure, most of us left without a job to go to. I have to admit that I was never particularly effective at kissing powerful ass, but I never saw any objection to that process either from the other tenured members of the department or from the administration. It was as if it was necessary in order not to over-tenure the department. And, yet, it left those of us who were driven off thinking that we must be the "assholes" because the tenured faculty saw nothing wrong with the process. I'm reminded here of Mark Bauerlein's warnings about "group think" and the problems with using "collegiality" as a criteria for tenure decisions. The research department that will not consider a Nobel Prize winner for a position simply because he's "an asshole" may be confirming its own mediocrity.