My three favorite Firefox extensions

Here are three Firefox extensions I can’t live without.


IETab takes advantage of the fact that Internet Explorer is available as an ActiveX control, which is available to be embedded in any Windows application, to open certain websites in Firefox using Internet Explorer. Whenever a website comes up complaining that you need to get “Netscape 4.0 or some other modern browser” you can just right click on the tab and it’ll pop up right in Firefox being rendered by Internet Explorer. You can set up a list of websites that always come up in IE tabs:

Screenshot of IETab

This is extremely useful for Microsoft websites, SQL Reporting Services, and other Microsoft stuff that just hasn’t been tested with Firefox (or degrades terribly, like the MSDN site.) You can also toggle a tab back and forth between IE and Firefox which is helpful when you’re developing a website.

Web Developer Extension

Which leads me to Chris Pederick’s Web Developer Extension (click the image to see the whole thing):

It is impossible to imagine developing web software without this. Probably the feature I use the most often is the resize menu, which makes it easy to check how your site will look on smaller screens. You can also use it to quickly turn off JavaScript, Cookies, CSS, etc., to make sure your site will work in these awkward conditions.

I’m constantly finding new features that make my life easier. Just yesterday I wanted to check that some code I was writing would work even if malicious users evaded the maxlength attribute of my <input> tags. It took me about 5 seconds to find the “Forms | Remove Maximum Lengths” command. Tada!


Finally, for general browsing, I installed Adblock. This is a utility that lets you set up regular expressions of URLs that you never want to see.

Now, let me say, I don’t generally mind advertisements on the web and I do understand that this is how sites support themselves. I don’t have some kind of ideological opposition to commerce or advertising. Sometimes ads are the best part of the content: this month’s GQ magazine has 100 pages of full-color, full-page ads before you even get to the first page of quote-unquote “editorial” content. That’s why people buy the magazine. I guess. To see cute models wearing Izod Jeans. Did you even know that Izod made jeans?

Where was I. Oh yeah. I installed Adblock because flashing ads give me headaches.

It turns out this is not an accident. Human eyes and brain has evolved together so that your attention is drawn to things that move. Everything about vision is designed to force you to look at things in the periphery, like lions and snakes and stuff, that might be a threat. Of course, that’s why the ads are blinking.

When you’re trying to read a page with flashing crap in the corners, you can literally get a headache trying to drag your eyes back to the content that’s not flashing. You’re trying to defeat millions of years of evolution and it’s painful. I’m sorry, but if websites and advertisers have so little respect for me that they are willing to subject me to headaches just to sell a few more dancing hamsters, well, to hell with ’em.


David Pogue: “Listen up, LG dudes: I’m sorry, but if your primary control system requires seven warnings in your manual, maybe you should reconsider your system.”

Eric Sink: “Everybody knows how powerful word-of-mouth and buzz can be.  Lots of ink has been spilled about all the nice things that happen when people are talking about your product. But this is a little bit like explaining the nice things that rich people can buy.  It is obvious that good results are good.  We don’t need to be told that.  What we need to know is how to make those good results happen.”

Loved or Feared?

Sean Silverthorne: “Is it better to be loved or feared?”

The annoying thing about everything that comes out of Harvard Business School is that the conclusion is so infuriatingly wishy-washy. “Expanding your self-awareness, situational awareness, and ability to adapt your leadership style increases your overall range of effectiveness as a leader,” they say. What a bold thought.

Superstitious FAQ Writers

Have you noticed that FAQ pages for online services almost never include instructions for how to cancel your account?

It’s like they’re all subject to the same bizarre superstition … if you don’t tell people how to cancel, maybe they’ll lose interest and keep paying you.

A long time ago I wrote an article called Let Me Go Back! The gist of it was that if you want to attract new customers, you have to give them the confidence that there is no risk in signing up or converting from whatever they were using before.

This superstition, the superstition that leaving cancellation instructions off of the website will somehow help your business, is actually probably the result of misapplied scientific method. It’s very likely that somebody did an A-B test and convinced themselves that more people cancel if you tell them how to cancel. You see, that’s a very easy test to do. What’s not easy to test is how many people never sign up in the first place because they’re afraid that canceling is going to be a nightmare.

So what you have here is a somebody doing a cost/benefit analysis where they are measuring the benefit while ignoring the cost.

Here’s what we do at Fog Creek: we’ve always had an unconditional 90 day money back guarantee on everything we sell. I’ve even had people return the movie Aardvark’d because they just didn’t like the movie. Our online, subscription-based service, Copilot, states clearly on the sign-up page that “you may cancel at any time, on the Web, without hassle.”

Since we started the company in 2000, the moneyback guarantee has cost us precisely 2% of revenues, which also includes chargebacks, credit card fraud, and people who accidentally ordered twice. That figure that has remained remarkably stable through the years and which I think is well worth it, but then again, I’m only measuring the cost, because the benefit is too hard to measure!

Library Apps for Macintosh

OK!  Last night I downloaded a couple of Macintosh software packages for library management.

Screenshot of Delicious LibraryThe first one goes by the quirky and charming name Delicious Library; the company is Delicious Monster. Due to its very appealing visual design it seems to be the darling of the Macintosh world. Within a matter of minutes, I was able to scan in five or six books using the built-in video camera on my MacBook Pro.

It quickly connected to, downloaded images, descriptions, prices, etc., and put charming little pictures of the books on a charming simulated wood bookshelf.

Here’s the problem, though: Delicious Library does not have any way to import data from the Library of Congress.

I really want to be able to shelve our books according to their Library of Congress card catalog number. When you do this, books on similar topics tend to wind up near each other on the shelves. This is a very useful feature if you don’t know the exact title you’re looking for, or if you just want to, for example, browse a bunch of books about Ruby to find one you like.

Somebody has gone to a lot of trouble choosing a card catalog number that put similar books next to each other, and I’ve always found that open-shelved libraries with books in order according to some reasonable card catalog system are far superior to libraries with books in order according to acquisition date, size, color, IQ, or IDENTITY column.

Screenshot of BooxterThe second package I checked out was called Booxter.

This does, pretty much, everything that Delicious Library does, in a slightly simpler user interface almost completely devoid of wood paneling. Booxter, on the other hand, does connect to the Library of Congress and import their card catalog numbers, which makes it much more useful for my application. Neither these programs, regrettably, has any way to print out labels to put on the spine so that it would be possible to shelve the books correctly. If I can’t find anything better, I suppose I could export all the data and try to use something like Word’s mail merge feature to print labels, which would be a real hemorrhoid since the person applying the labels would have to figure out which label goes on which book. Printing a spine label at scan time would make for a vastly easier workflow.

I haven’t checked out any of the PC or web-based packages yet; I don’t really care whether the software runs on a Mac or PC.

There’s got to be a way to do this…

Here’s what I want to be able to do.

We’ve got a ton of books in the Fog Creek library, in no particular order, and it’s gotten to the point where it’s actually easier to order a new copy of a book from Amazon than to find a book we already have!

What I’m looking for is software that will let me scan in the barcodes on all these books, you know, with the ISBN numbers, and then it will look them up online somewhere and download card catalog information and the Library of Congress number, and add this information to a database, and print out a little sticker on the spot with a card catalog number that I can put on the spine so that the books can be shelved like in a real library, and found again easily.

Do you know of anything that can do this?


The Identity Management Method

When you’re trying to get a team all working in the same direction, we’ve seen that Command and Control management and Econ 101 management both fail pretty badly in high tech, knowledge- oriented teams.

That leaves a technique that I’m going to have to call The Identity Method. The goal here is to manage by making people identify with the goals you’re trying to achieve. That’s a lot trickier than the other methods, and it requires some serious interpersonal skills to pull off. But if you do it right, it works better than any other method.

The problem with Econ 101 management is that it subverts intrinsic motivation. The Identity Method is a way to create intrinsic motivation.

To be an Identity Method manager, you have to summon all the social skills you have to make your employees identify with the goals of the organization, so that they are highly motivated, then you need to give them the information they need to steer in the right direction.

How do you make people identify with the organization?

It helps if the organizational goals are virtuous, or perceived as virtuous, in some way. Apple creates almost fanatic identification, almost entirely through a narrative that started with a single Superbowl ad in 1984: we are against totalitarianism. Doesn’t seem like a particularly bold position to take, but it worked. Here at Fog Creek, we stand bravely in opposition to killing kittens. Yaaaay!

A method I’m pretty comfortable with is eating together. I’ve always made a point of eating lunch with my coworkers, and at Fog Creek we serve catered lunches for the whole team every day and eat together at one big table. It’s hard to understate what a big impact this has on making the company feel like a family, in the good way, I think. In six years, nobody has ever quit.

I’m probably going to freak out some of our summer interns by admitting this, but one the goals of our internship program is to make people identify as New Yorkers, so they’re more comfortable with the idea of moving here after college and working for us full-time. We do this through a pretty exhausting list of extra-curricular summer activities: two Broadway shows, a trip to the Top of the Rock, a boat ride around Manhattan, a Yankees game, an open house so they can meet more New Yorkers, and a trip to a museum; Michael and I host parties in our apartments, both as a way of welcoming the interns but also as a way for interns to visualize living in an apartment in New York, not just the dorm we stuck them in.

In general, Identity Management requires you to create a cohesive, jelled team that feels like a family, so that people have a sense of loyalty and commitment to their coworkers.

The second part, though, is to give people the information they need to steer the organization in the right direction.

Earlier today Brett came into my office to discuss ship dates for FogBugz 6.0. He was sort of leaning towards April 2007; I was sort of leaning towards December 2006. Of course, if we shipped in April, we would have time to do a lot more polishing, and improve a lot of areas of the product; if we shipped in December, we’d probably have to cut a bunch of nice new features.

What I explained to Brett, though, is that we want to hire six new people in the spring, and the chances that we’ll be able to afford them without FogBugz 6.0 are much smaller. So the way I concluded the meeting with Brett was to make him understand the exact financial motivations I have for shipping earlier, and now that he knows that, I’m confident he’ll make the right decision… not necessarily my decision. Maybe we’ll have a big upswing in sales without FogBugz 6.0, and now that Brett understands the basic financial parameters, he’ll realize that maybe that means we can hold 6.0 for a few more features. The point being that by sharing information, I can get Brett to do the right thing for Fog Creek even if circumstances change. If I tried to push him around by offering him a cash reward for every day before April that he ships, his incentive would be to dump the existing buggy development build on the public tonight. If I tried to push him around using Command and Control management by ordering him to ship bug free code on time, dammit, he might do it, but he’d hate his job and leave.


There are as many different styles of management as there are managers. I’ve identified three major styles: two easy, dysfunctional styles and one hard, functional style, but the truth is that many development shops manage in more of an ad-hoc, “whatever works” way that may change from day to day or person to person.

The Econ 101 Management Method

Joke: A poor Jew lived in the shtetl in 19th century Russia. A Cossack comes up to him on horseback.

“What are you feeding that chicken?” asks the Cossack.

“Just some bread crumbs,” replies the Jew.

“How dare you feed a fine Russian chicken such lowly food!” says the Cossack, and hits the Jew with a stick.

The next day the Cossack comes back. “Now what are you feeding that chicken?” ask the Jew.

“Well, I give him three courses. There’s freshly cut grass, fine sturgeon caviar, and a small bowl of heavy cream sprinkled with imported French chocolate truffles for dessert.”

“Idiot!” says the Cossack, beating the Jew with a stick. “How dare you waste good food on a lowly chicken!”

On the third day, the Cossack again asks, “What are you feeding that chicken?”

“Nothing!” pleads the Jew. “I give him a kopeck and he buys whatever he wants.”

(pause for laughter)


(ba dum dum)

(still no laughter)

(oh well).

I use the term “Econ 101” a little bit tongue-in-cheek. For my non-American readers: most US college departments have a course numbered “101” which is the basic introductory course for any field. Econ 101 management is the style used by people who know just enough economic theory to be dangerous.

The Econ 101 manager assumes that everyone is motivated by money, and that the best way to get people to do what you want them to do is to give them financial rewards and punishments to create incentives.

For example, AOL might pay their call-center people for every customer they persuade not to cancel their subscription.

A software company might give bonuses to programmers who create the fewest bugs.

It works about as well as giving your chickens money to buy their own food.

One big problem is that it replaces intrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic motivation is your own, natural desire to do things well. People usually start out with a lot of intrinsic motivation. They want to do a good job. They want to help people understand that it’s in their best interest to keep paying AOL $24 a month. They want to write less-buggy code.

Extrinsic motivation is a motivation that comes from outside, like when you’re paid to achieve something specific.

Intrinsic motivation is much stronger than extrinsic motivation. People work much harder at things that they actually want to do.  That’s not very controversial.

But when you offer people money to do things that they wanted to do, anyway, they suffer from something called the Overjustification Effect. “I must be writing bug-free code because I like the money I get for it,” they think, and the extrinsic motivation displaces the intrinsic motivation. Since extrinsic motivation is a much weaker effect, the net result is that you’ve actually reduced their desire to do a good job. When you stop paying the bonus, or when they decide they don’t care that much about the money, they no longer think that they care about bug free code.

Another big problem with Econ 101 management is the tendency for people to find local maxima. They’ll find some way to optimize for the specific thing you’re paying them, without actually achieving the thing you really want.

So for example your customer retention specialist, in his desire to earn the bonus associated with maintaining a customer, will drive the customer so crazy that the New York Times will run a big front page story about how nasty your customer “service” is. Although his behavior maximizes the thing you’re paying him for (customer retention) it doesn’t maximize the thing you really care about (profit). And then you try to reward him for the company profit, say, by giving him 13 shares of stock, and you realize that it’s not really something he controls, so it’s a waste of time.

When you use Econ 101 management, you’re encouraging developers to game the system.

Suppose you decide to pay a bonus to the developer with the fewest bugs. Now every time a tester tries to report a bug, it becomes a big argument, and usually the developer convinces the tester that it’s not really a bug. Or the tester agrees to report the bug “informally” to the developer before writing it up in the bug tracking system. And now nobody uses the bug tracking system. The bug count goes way down, but the number of bugs stays the same.

Developers are clever this way. Whatever you try to measure, they’ll find a way to maximize, and you’ll never quite get what you want.

Robert Austin, in his book Measuring and Managing Performance in Organizations, says there are two phases when you introduce new performance metrics. At first, you actually get what you wanted, because nobody has figured out how to cheat. In the second phase, you actually get something worse, as everyone figures out the trick to maximizing the thing that you’re measuring, even at the cost of ruining the company.

Worse, Econ 101 managers think that they can somehow avoid this situation just by tweaking the metrics. Dr. Austin’s conclusion is that you just can’t. It never works. No matter how much you try to adjust the metrics to reflect what you think you want, it always backfires.

The biggest problem with Econ 101 management, though, is that it’s not management at all: it’s really more of an abdication of management. A deliberate refusal to figure out how things can be made better. It’s a sign that management simply doesn’t know how to teach people to do better work, so they force everybody in the system to come up with their own way of doing it.

Instead of training developers on techniques of writing reliable code, you just absolve yourself of responsibility by paying them if they do. Now every developer has to figure it out on their own.

For more mundane tasks, working the counter at Starbucks or answering phone calls at AOL, it’s pretty unlikely that the average worker will figure out a better way of doing things on their own. You can go into any coffee shop in the country and order a short soy caramel latte extra-hot, and you’ll find that you have to keep repeating your order again and again: once to the coffee maker, again to the coffee maker when they forgot what you said, and finally to the cashier so they can figure out what to charge you. That’s the result of nobody telling the workers a better way. Nobody figures it out, except Starbucks, where the standard training involves a complete system of naming, writing things on cups, and calling out orders which insures that customers only have to specify their drink orders once. The system, invented by Starbucks HQ, works great, but workers at the other chains never, ever come up with it on their own.

Your customer service people spend most of the day talking to customers. They don’t have the time, the inclination, or the training to figure out better ways to do things. Nobody in the customer retention crew is going to be able to keep statistics and measure which customer retention techniques work best while pissing off the fewest bloggers. They just don’t care enough, they’re not smart enough, they don’t have enough information, and they are too busy with their real job.

As a manager it’s your job to figure out a system. That’s Why You Get The Big Bucks.

If you read a little bit too much Ayn Rand as a kid, or if you took one semester of Economics, before they explained that utility is not measured in dollars, you may think that setting up simplified bonus schemes and Pay For Performance is a pretty neat way to manage. But it doesn’t work. Start doing your job managing and stop feeding your chickens kopecks.

“Joel!” you yell. “Yesterday you told us that the developers should make all the decisions. Today you’re telling us that the managers should make all the decisions. What’s up with that?”

Mmm, not exactly. Yesterday I told you that your developers, the leaves in the tree, have the most information; micromanagement or Command and Control barking out orders is likely to cause non-optimal results. Today I’m telling you that when you’re creating a system, you can’t abdicate your responsibility to train your people by bribing them. Management, in general, needs to set up the system so that people can get things done, it needs to avoid displacing intrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation, and it won’t get very far using fear and barking out specific orders.

Now that I’ve shot down Command and Control management and Econ 101 management, there’s one more method managers can use to get people moving in the right direction. I call it the Identity method and I’ll talk about it more tomorrow.

The Command and Control Management Method

Frederick the Great [PDF]: “Soldiers should fear their officers more than all the dangers to which they are exposed…. Good will can never induce the common soldier to stand up to such dangers; he will only do so through fear.”

The Command and Control form of management is based on military management. Primarily, the idea is that people do what you tell them to do, and if they don’t, you yell at them until they do, and if they still don’t, you throw them in the brig for a while, and if that doesn’t teach them, you put them in charge of peeling onions on a submarine, sharing two cubit feet of personal space with a lad from a farm who really never quite learned about brushing his teeth.

There are a million great techniques you can use. Rent the movies Biloxi Blues and An Officer and a Gentleman for some ideas.

Some managers use this technique because they actually learned it in the military. Others grew up in authoritarian households or countries and think it’s a natural way to gain compliance. Others just don’t know any better. Hey, it works for the military, it should work for an internet startup!

There are, it turns out, three drawbacks with this method in a high tech team.

First of all, people don’t really like it very much, least of all smarty-pants software developers, who are, actually, pretty smart and are used to thinking they know more than everyone else, for perfectly good reasons, because it happens to be true, and so it really, really bothers them when they’re commanded to do something “because.” But that’s not really a good enough reason to discard this method… we’re trying to be rational here. High tech teams have many goals but making everyone happy is rarely goal number one.

A more practical drawback with Command and Control is that management literally does not have enough time to micromanage at this level, because there simply aren’t enough managers. In the military, it’s possible to give an order simultaneously to a large team of people because it’s common that everyone is doing the same thing. “Clean your guns!” you can say, to a squad of 28, and then go take a brief nap and have a cool iced tea on the Officer’s Club veranda. In software development teams everybody is working on something else, so attempts to micromanage turn into hit and run micromanagement. That’s where you micromanage one developer in a spurt of activity and then suddenly disappear from that developer’s life for a couple of weeks while you run around micromanaging other developers. The problem with hit and run micromanagement is that you don’t stick around long enough to see why your decisions are not working or to correct course. Effectively, all you accomplish is to knock your poor programmers off the train track every once in a while, so they spend the next week finding all their train cars and putting them back on the tracks and lining everything up again, a little bit battered from the experience.

The third drawback is that in a high tech company the individual contributors always have more information than the “leaders,” so they are really in the best position to make decisions. When the boss wanders into an office where two developers have been arguing for two hours about the best way to compress an image, the person with the least information is the boss, so that’s the last person you’d want making a technical decision. I remember when Mike Maples was my great grand-boss, in charge of Microsoft Applications, he was adamant about refusing to take sides on technical issues. Eventually people learned that they shouldn’t come to him to adjudicate. This forced people to debate the issue on the merits and issues were always resolved in favor of the person who was better at arguing, er, I mean, issues were always resolved in the best possible way.

If Command and Control is such a bad way to run a team, why does the military use it?

This was explained to me in NCO school. I was in the Israeli paratroopers in 1986. Probably the worst paratrooper they ever had, now that I think back.

There are several standing orders for soldiers. Number one: if you are in a mine field, freeze. Makes sense, right? It was drilled into you repeatedly during basic training. Every once in a while the instructor would shout out “Mine!” and everybody had to freeze just so you would get in the habit.

Standing order number two: when attacked, run towards your attackers while shooting. The shooting makes them take cover so they can’t fire at you. Running towards them causes you to get closer to them, which makes it easier to aim at them, which makes it easier to kill them. This standing order makes a lot of sense, too.

OK, now for the Interview Question. What do you do if you’re in a minefield, and people start shooting at you?

This is not such a hypothetical situation; it’s a really annoying way to get caught in an ambush.

The correct answer, it turns out, is that you ignore the minefield, and run towards the attackers while shooting.

The rationale behind this is that if you freeze, they’ll pick you off one at a time until you’re all dead, but if you charge, only some of you will die by running over mines, so for the greater good, that’s what you have to do.

The trouble is that no rational soldier would charge under such circumstances. Each individual soldier has an enormous incentive to cheat: freeze in place and let the other, more macho soldiers do the charging. It’s sort of like a Prisoners’ Dilemma.

In life or death situations, the military needs to make sure that they can shout orders and soldiers will obey them even if the orders are suicidal. That means soldiers need to be programmed to be obedient in a way which is not really all that important for, say, a software company.

In other words, the military uses Command and Control because it’s the only way to get 18 year olds to charge through a minefield, not because they think it’s the best management method for every situation.

In particular, in software development teams where good developers can work anywhere they want, playing soldier is going to get pretty tedious and you’re not really going to keep anyone on your team.

Three Management Methods (Introduction)

If you want to lead a team, a company, an army, or a country, the primary problem you face is getting everyone moving in the same direction, which is really just a polite way of saying “getting people to do what you want.”

Think of it this way. As soon as your team consists of more than one person, you’re going to have different people with different agendas. They want different things than you want. If you’re a startup founder, you might want to make a lot of money quickly so you can retire early and spend the next couple of decades going to conferences for women bloggers. So you might spend most of your time driving around Sand Hill Road talking to VCs who might buy the company and flip it to Yahoo!. But Janice the Programmer, one of your employees, doesn’t care about selling out to Yahoo!, because she’s not going to make any money that way. What she cares about is writing code in the latest coolest new programming language, because it’s fun to learn a new thing. Meanwhile your CFO is entirely driven by the need to get out of the same cubicle he has been sharing with the system administrator, Trekkie Monster, and so he’s working up a new budget proposal that shows just how much money you would save by moving to larger office space that’s two minutes from his house, what a coincidence!

The problem of getting people to move in your direction (or, at least, the same direction) is not unique to startups, of course. It’s the same fundamental problem that a political leader faces when they get elected after promising to eliminate waste, corruption, and fraud in government. The mayor wants to make sure that it’s easy to get city approval of a new building project. The city building inspectors want to keep getting the bribes they have grown accustomed to.

And it’s the same problem that a military leader faces. They might want a team of soldiers to charge at the enemy, even when every individual soldier would really just rather cower behind a rock and let the others do the charging.

Here are three common approaches you might take:

  • The Command and Control Method
  • The Econ 101 Method
  • The Identity Method

You will certainly find other methods of management in the wild (there’s the exotic “Devil Wears Prada” Method, the Jihad Method, the Charismatic Cult Method, and the Lurch From One Method To Another Method) but over the next three days, I’m going to examine these three popular methods and explore their pros and cons.