![The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't - Paperback | Diverse Reads](http://diversereads.com/cdn/shop/files/img_8e4a2674-4dea-4758-a7cf-cb9b1a7e9cf4_263x400.jpg?v=1713131487)
The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't
- Description
- Product Details
- About the Author
- Read an Excerpt
- Table of Contents
The definitive guide to working with-and surviving-bullies, creeps, jerks, tyrants, tormentors, despots, backstabbers, egomaniacs, and all the other assholes who do their best to destroy you at work.
ISBN-13: 9780446698207
Media Type: Paperback
Publisher: Grand Central Publishing
Publication Date: 09-01-2010
Pages: 238
Product Dimensions: 6.10(w) x 9.10(h) x 1.30(d)
Robert Sutton is Professor of Management Science and Engineering at the Stanford Engineering School. The No Asshole Rule was a New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller.
Who deserves to be branded as an asshole? Many of us
use the term indiscriminately, applying it to anyone who
annoys us, gets in our way, or happens to be enjoying
greater success than us at the moment. But a precise definition
is useful if you want to implement the no asshole
rule. It can help you distinguish between those colleagues
and customers you simply don't like from those who deserve
the label. It can help you distinguish people who
are having a bad day or a bad moment ("temporary assholes")
from persistently nasty and destructive jerks ("certified
assholes"). And a good definition can help you
explain to others why your coworker, boss, or customer
deserves the label-or come to grips with why others say
you are an asshole (at least behind your back) and why
you might have earned it. Researchers such as Bennett Tepper who write about
psychological abuse in the workplace define it as "the sustained
display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior,
excluding physical contact." That definition is useful as far
as it goes. But it isn't detailed enough for understanding
what assholes do and their effects on others. An experience
I had as a young assistant professor is instructive for
understanding how assholes are defined in this little book.
When I arrived at Stanford as a twenty-nine-year-old researcher,
I was an inexperienced, ineffective, and extremely
nervous teacher. I got poor teaching evaluations in my
first year on the job, and I deserved them. I worked to become
more effective in the classroom and was delighted
to win the best-teacher award in my department (by student
vote) at the graduation ceremony at the end of my
third year at Stanford. But my delight lasted only minutes. It evaporated when
a jealous colleague ran up to me immediately after the
graduating students marched out and gave me a big hug.
She secretly and expertly extracted every ounce of joy I
was experiencing by whispering in my ear in a condescending
tone (while sporting a broad smile for public
consumption), "Well, Bob, now that you have satisfied the
babies here on campus, perhaps you can settle down and
do some real work." This painful memory demonstrates the two tests that I
use for spotting whether a person 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 people who are more powerful? I can assure you that after that interaction with my
colleague-which lasted less than a minute-I felt worse
about myself. I went from feeling the happiest I'd ever
been about my work performance to worrying that my
teaching award would be taken as a sign that I wasn't
serious enough about research (the main standard used
for evaluating Stanford professors). This episode also
demonstrates that although some assholes do their damage
through open rage and arrogance, it isn't always
that way. People who loudly insult and belittle their underlings
and rivals are easier to catch and discipline.
Two-faced backstabbers like my colleague, those who
have enough skill and emotional control to save their
dirty work for moments when they can't get caught, are
tougher to stop-even though they may do as much
damage as a raging maniac. There are many other actions-sociologists call them interaction
moves or simply moves-that assholes use to demean
and deflate their victims. I've listed twelve common
moves, a dirty dozen, to illustrate the range of these subtle
and not subtle behaviors used by assholes. I suspect
that you can add many more moves that you've seen, been
subjected to, or done to others. I hear and read about new
mean-spirited moves nearly every day. Whether we are
talking about personal insults, status slaps (quick moves
that bat down social standing and pride), shaming or "status
degradation" rituals, "jokes" that are insult delivery systems,
or treating people as if they are invisible, these and
hundreds of other moves are similar in that they can leave
targets feeling attacked and diminished, even if only momentarily.
These are the means that assholes use to do
their dirty work. 1. Personal insults The not so sweet thing that my colleague whispered in
my ear also helps demonstrate the difference between a
temporary asshole and a certified asshole. It isn't fair to call
someone a certified asshole based on a single episode like
this one; we can only call the person a temporary asshole.
So while I would describe the colleague in my story as
being a temporary asshole, we would need more information
before labeling her as a certified asshole. Nearly all of
us act like assholes at times; I plead guilty to multiple offenses.
I once became angry with a staff member who I
(wrongly) believed was trying to take an office away from
our group. I sent an insulting e-mail to her and a copy to
her boss, other faculty members, and her subordinates. She
told me, "You made me cry." I later apologized to her. And
although I don't demean one person after another day in
and day out, I was guilty of being a jerk during that episode.
(If you have never acted like an asshole even once in your
life, please contact me immediately. I want to know how
you've accomplished this superhuman feat.) It is far harder to qualify as a certified asshole: a person
needs to display a persistent pattern, to have a history of
episodes that end with one "target" after another feeling belittled,
put down, humiliated, disrespected, oppressed, deenergized,
and generally worse about themselves. Psychologists make the distinction between states (fleeting
feelings, thoughts, and actions) and traits (enduring personality
characteristics) by looking for consistency across places
and times-if someone consistently takes actions that leave
a trail of victims in their wake, they deserve to be branded
as certified assholes. We all have the potential to act like assholes under the
wrong conditions, when we are placed under pressure or,
especially, when our workplace encourages everyone-especially
the "best" and "most powerful" people-to act that
way. Although it is best to use the term sparingly, some people
do deserve to be certified as assholes because they are
consistently nasty across places and times. "Chainsaw" Al
Dunlap is a well-known candidate. The former Sunbeam
CEO who wrote the book Mean Business, Dunlap was notorious
for the verbal abuse he heaped on employees. In John
Byrne's book Chainsaw, a Sunbeam executive described
Dunlap as "like a dog barking at you for hours. . . . He just
yelled, ranted, and raved. He was condescending, belligerent,
and disrespectful." Another candidate is producer Scott Rudin, known as
one of the nastiest Hollywood bosses. The Wall Street Journal
estimated that he went through 250 personal assistants between
2000 and 2005; Rudin claimed his records show only
119 (but admitted this estimate excluded assistants who
lasted less than two weeks). His ex-assistants told the Journal
that Rudin routinely swore and hollered at them-one
said he was fired for bringing Rudin the wrong breakfast
muffin, which Mr. Rudin didn't recall but admitted was "entirely
possible." The online magazine Salon quotes a former
assistant who received a 6:30 A.M. phone call from Rudin
asking him to remind Rudin to send flowers to Anjelica Huston
for her birthday. At 11:00 that same morning, Rudin
called her into his office and screamed, "You asshole! You
forgot to remind me to get flowers for Anjelica Huston's
birthday!" This former assistant added, "And as he slowly
disappears behind his automatic closing door, the last thing
I see is his finger, flipping me off." Nor is such behavior confined to men. According to the
New York Times, Linda Wachner, former CEO of Warnaco, was
infamous for publicly demeaning employees for missing
performance goals or "simply displeasing her." Chris Heyn,
former president of Warnaco's Hathaway shirt division, told
the New York Times, "When you did not make numbers, she
would dress you down and make you feel knee-high, and
it was terrifying." Other former employees reported that
Wachner's attacks were often "personal rather than professional,
and not infrequently laced with crude references to
sex, race, or ethnicity." Famous bosses aren't the only ones who persistently demean
their underlings. Many of the e-mail messages I got
after my Harvard Business Review essay were tales about
bosses who belittled and insulted their underlings day after
day. Take the reader who wrote from Scotland, "A woman
I know had a horrible boss. It was a very small office and
didn't even have a toilet. She became pregnant and consequently
needed the loo a lot. Not only would she have to
go to a neighbouring shop, but the boss felt that the visits
were too frequent and started counting them as her break
time/lunchtime!" A former secretary at a large public utility
told me that she quit her job because her (female) boss
wouldn't stop touching her shoulders and her hair. Take this excerpt from Brutal Bosses and Their Prey of an interview
that Harvey Hornstein did with one 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; 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 thirty-six-year-old man in a three-piece suit stooping
before his boss to pick up crumpled pieces of paper. If these stories are accurate, all these bosses deserved to
be certified as assholes because they were consistently nasty
to the people they worked with, especially their underlings.
This brings us to test two: Does the alleged asshole aim his
or her venom at people who are less powerful rather than at
those people who are more powerful? My colleague's behavior
at the Stanford graduation ceremony qualifies because,
when the episode occurred, this person was more
senior and more powerful than I was. This notion that the way a higher-status person treats a
lower-status person is a good test of character isn't just my
idea. A test reflecting the same spirit was used by Sir Richard
Branson, founder of the Virgin empire, to screen candidates
for a reality television series where he selected "billionaires
in the rough." The Rebel Billionaire was meant to compete
with Donald Trump's wildly successful show The Apprentice.
During the first episode, Branson picked up contestants at
the airport while he was disguised as an arthritic old
driver-then he kicked two of them off the show for treating
him so badly when they believed he was an "irrelevant"
human being. Again, there is a difference between isolated incidents
where people act like assholes versus people who are certified
assholes-who consistently aim their venom at less
powerful people and rarely, if ever, at more powerful people.
John R. Bolton, the controversial U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations, meets the test if the testimony to the U.S.
Congress is correct. President George W. Bush made the
controversial decision to appoint Bolton when he was on
the verge of failing to be confirmed by Congress. Bolton's
reputation for dishing out psychological abuse to colleagues
fueled the media frenzy surrounding his appointment.
Melody Townsel, for example, testified that she experienced
Bolton's nastiness when she worked as a contractor for the
U.S. Agency for International Development in Moscow in
1994. Townsel reported that Bolton turned mean after she
complained about the incompetence of a client that Bolton
(a lawyer) represented. In Townsel's 2005 letter to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, she claimed that "Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase
me through the halls of a Russian hotel-throwing things at
me, shoving threatening letters under my door, and generally,
behaving like a madman" and that "for nearly two
weeks, while I awaited fresh direction . . . John Bolton
hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated
to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of
course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door
and shout threats." Townsel added, "He made unconscionable
comments about my weight, my wardrobe, and
with a couple of team leaders, my sexuality." In other testimony to the committee, former Bolton subordinate
Carl Ford Jr. (a fellow Republican) described him
as a "kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy." In my opinion, if these
reports are true, they indicate that Bolton qualifies as a certified
asshole because his abuse is part of a persistent pattern,
not just something out of character that happened once
or twice because he was having a bad day. I am not alone in this view. The Village Voice published an
article titled "Wanted: Complete Asshole for U.N. Ambassador,"
which concluded that "John Bolton has left a trail of
alienated colleagues and ridiculed ideas." Don't Replace Assholes with Wimps and Polite
Clones It is also important to define the term asshole because this
book is not an argument for recruiting and breeding spineless
wimps. My focus is squarely on screening, reforming,
and getting rid of people who demean and damage others,
especially others with relatively little power. If you want to
learn about the virtues of speaking quietly and the nuances
of workplace etiquette, then read something by Miss Manners.
I am a firm believer in the virtues of conflict, even
noisy arguments. Research on everything from student
groups to top management teams reveals that constructive
arguments over ideas-but not nasty personal arguments-
drives greater performance, especially when teams do nonroutine
work. And, as I show in my book Weird Ideas That
Work, organizations that are too narrow and rigid about
whom they let in the door stifle creativity and become
dreary places populated by dull clones. The right kind of friction can help any organization. To
take a famous example, Intel cofounder and retired CEO
Andy Grove can be a strong-willed and argumentative person.
But Grove is renowned for sticking to the facts and for
inviting anyone-from brand-new Intel engineers to Stanford
students whom he teaches about business strategy to
senior Intel executives-to challenge his ideas. For Grove,
the focus has always been on finding the truth, not on putting
people down. Not only do I despise spineless and obsequious
wimps, but there is good evidence that they
damage organizations. A series of controlled experiments
and field studies in organizations shows that when teams
engage in conflict over ideas in an atmosphere of mutual respect,
they develop better ideas and perform better. That is
why Intel teaches employees how to fight, requiring all new
hires to take classes in "constructive confrontation." These
same studies show, however, that when team members engage
in personal conflict-when they fight out of spite and
anger-their creativity, performance, and job satisfaction
plummet. In other words, when people act like a bunch of
assholes, the whole group suffers. I also want to put in a good word for socially awkward
people, some of whom-through no fault of their own-are
so socially insensitive that they accidentally act like assholes
at times. Certainly, people with high emotional intelligence
who are skilled at taking the perspectives of people they encounter
and at responding to their needs and feelings are
pleasant to be around and well suited for leadership positions.
Yet many extremely valuable employees-as a result of
everything from being raised in dysfunctional families to having
disabilities like Asperger's syndrome, nonverbal learning
disorders, and Tourette's syndrome-act strangely, have poor
social skills, and inadvertently hurt other people's feelings. A few years back, I wrote a book on building creative organizations
called Weird Ideas That Work. As I did the research,
I was struck by how many successful leaders of high-tech
companies and creative organizations like advertising agencies,
graphic design firms, and Hollywood production companies
had learned to ignore job candidates' quirks and
strange mannerisms, to downplay socially inappropriate
remarks, and instead, to focus on what the people could actually
do. I first heard this argument from Nolan Bushnell-
the founder of Atari, which was the first wildly successful
computer gaming company. Bushnell told me that although
he looked for smooth-talking marketing people, when it
came to technical people, he just wanted to see their work
because "the best engineers sometimes come in bodies that
can't talk." Later, I even learned that film students at places
like the University of Southern California believe that
"talent"-especially script writers-who come off as a bit
strange are seen as more creative, so they consciously develop
strange mannerisms and dress in odd ways, a process
they call "working on your quirk." The Evidence Fits Your Experience: Workplaces
Have a Lot of Assholes I don't know of any scholarly studies with titles like "the
prevalence of assholes in the modern organization" or "interpersonal
moves by assholes in the workplace: form and
frequency." Most researchers are too dignified to use this
dirty word in print. But I do know that each of my friends
and acquaintances reports working with at least one "asshole."
And when people hear that I am writing about the
topic, I don't have to ask for stories about these jerks-the
targets seek me out and tell me one asshole story after another. This flood of anguished and amusing anecdotes may reflect
my particular idiosyncrasies. I suspect that I am more
easily offended by personal slights than most people, especially
by people who are rude, nasty, or detached during
service encounters. I am also married to a lawyer, an occupation
that is rightly reputed to have more than its share
of overbearing assholes. And because I have had a longstanding
interest in the topic, I look for information about
nasty people and remember it better than, say, about Good
Samaritans, famous athletes, or unusually smart people. There is also a big pile of scholarly research that reaches
much the same conclusion without using the term "asshole."
It is conducted under banners including bullying, interpersonal
aggression, emotional abuse, abusive supervision,
petty tyranny, and incivility in the workplace. These studies
show that many workplaces are plagued by "interpersonal
moves" that leave people feeling threatened and demeaned,
which are often directed by more powerful people at less
powerful people. • A 2000 study by Loraleigh Keashly and Karen Jagatic
found that 27% of workers in a representative sample
of seven hundred Michigan residents experienced
mistreatment by someone in the workplace, with
approximately one out of six reporting persistent psychological
abuse. • In a 2002 study of workplace aggression and bullying
in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
Keashly and Joel Neuman surveyed nearly five thousand
employees about exposure to sixty "negative
workplace behaviors"; 36% reported "persistent hostility"
from coworkers and supervisors, which meant
"experiencing at least one aggressive behavior at
least weekly for a period of a year." Nearly 20% of
employees in the sample reported being bothered
"moderately" to "a great deal" by abusive and aggressive
behaviors, including yelling, temper tantrums,
put-downs, glaring, exclusion, nasty gossip, and (on
relatively rare occasions) "pushing, shoving, biting,
kicking, and other sexual and nonsexual assaults." • Studies of nurses suggest that they are demeaned at an
especially high rate. A 1997 study of 130 U.S. nurses
published in the Journal of Professional Nursing found that
90% reported being victims of verbal abuse by physicians
during the past year; the average respondent reported
six to twelve incidents of abusive anger, being
ignored, and being treated in a condescending fashion.
Similarly, a 2003 study of 461 nurses published in
Orthopaedic Nursing found that in the past month 91%
had experienced verbal abuse-defined as mistreatment
that left them feeling attacked, devalued, or humiliated.
Physicians were the most frequent source of
such nastiness, but it also came from patients and their
families, fellow nurses, and supervisors. When I was a graduate student at the University of Michigan,
Daniel Denison and I spent a week interviewing and
observing a team of surgical nurses, and we were appalled
by how openly rude and downright abusive the male doctors
were to the (largely) female nurses. Take the surgeon
that we dubbed "Dr. Gooser" after we saw him chasing a
female nurse down the hall while trying to pinch her behind. The nurses we interviewed bitterly complained that it was
useless to report him to administrators because they would
be labeled as troublemakers and be told "he is just joking."
All they could do was avoid him as much as possible.
Christine Pearson and her colleagues have done extensive
research on workplace incivility, a milder form of nastiness
than emotional abuse or bullying. Their survey of 800
employees found that 10% witnessed daily incivility on their
jobs and 20% were direct targets of incivility at least once a
week. Pearson and her colleagues did another study of
workplace incivility among 126 Canadian white-collar workers,
which found that approximately 25% witnessed incivility
of some kind on the job every day and 50% reported
being direct targets of incivility at least once a week. Researchers in Europe are partial to the term bullying
rather than psychological abuse. Charlotte Rayner and her colleagues
reviewed studies of bullying in British workplaces,
and estimated that 30% of British workers experience encounters
with bullies on at least a weekly basis. A British
study of more than five thousand private- and public-sector
employees found that about 10% had been bullied in the
prior six months, and that about 25% had been victims and
nearly 50% had witnessed bullying in the past five years.
Studies in the United Kingdom find that the highest rates of
workplace bullying happen to workers in prisons, schools,
and the postal system but also reveal high rates in a sample
of 594 "junior physicians" (similar to residents in the United
States): 37% reported being bullied in the prior year, and
84% indicated they had witnessed bullying that was aimed
at fellow junior physicians. A host of other studies show that psychological abuse
and bullying are common in other countries, including Austria,
Australia, Canada, Germany, Finland, France, Ireland,
and South Africa. A representative sample of Australian employees,
for example, found that 35% reported being verbally
abused by at least one coworker and 31% reported
being verbally abused by at least one superior. A focused
study of "nasty teasing" in a representative sample of nearly
5,000 Danish employees found that more than 6% were consistently
exposed to this specific brand of workplace bullying.
In the Third European Survey on Working Conditions,
which was based on 21,500 face-to-face interviews with employees
from countries of the European Union, 9% reported
that they were exposed to persistent intimidation and bullying. Much of this nastiness is directed by superiors to their
subordinates (estimates run from 50% to 80%), with somewhat
less between coworkers of roughly the same rank (estimates
run from 20% to 50%), and "upward" nastiness-
where underlings take on their superiors-occurs in less
than 1% of cases. Findings about the proportion of men
versus women involved in this nastiness are mixed, although
it is clear that men and women are victimized at
roughly the same rate. And it is especially clear that the
lion's share of bullying and psychological abuse is within
gender, with men more likely to bully men and women
more likely to bully women. A Web-based survey by the
Workplace Bullying & Trauma Institute, for example, found
that 63% of women were victims of another woman, and
62% of men were victims of another man. The question of whether bullying and abuse tend to be
done more often by men or women remains unclear, with
some of the best U.S. studies (including Keashly and Jagatic's
representative study of Michigan employees) showing
no discernable differences between the sexes, while
European studies suggest that abusers are more likely to be
men. European studies also show that it is common for a
victim to be "mobbed" by multiple people, typically both
men and women. In short, the stereotypical jerk might be a
man, but there are also huge numbers of women in every
country studied who demean, belittle, and de-energize their
peers and underlings. The list of academic writings on bullying, psychological
abuse, mobbing, tyrants, and incivility in the workplace
goes on and on-hundreds of articles and chapters have
been published. Estimates of who is doing what to whom
depend on the population studied and how the particular
type of workplace abuse is defined and measured. But the
evidence is ironclad: there are a lot of assholes out there. The Best Measure of Human Character Diego Rodriguez works at IDEO, a small innovation company
I've studied and worked with for more than a decade.
You will hear more about IDEO in this book because it is
such a civilized place to work. Diego urges organizations to
develop "a shock-proof, bullet-resistant asshole detector." This chapter proposes two steps for detecting assholes: first,
identify people who persistently leave others feeling demeaned
and de-energized; second, look to see if their victims
usually have less power and social standing than their
tormentors. These tests imply an even more fundamental lesson that
runs through this book: the difference between how a person treats
the powerless versus the powerful is as good a measure of human character
as I know. I described how Richard Branson devised
such a test to help him decide which wannabe billionaires
to fire and which to keep on his TV show. I've seen much
the same thing on a smaller scale at Stanford, albeit accidentally.
Several years back, I encountered a perfect illustration
of a senior faculty member who met this asshole test. Approached
for help by a Stanford undergraduate, he at first
brushed aside and refused to assist this student, who was
trapped in bureaucratic red tape. But once this uppity faculty
member learned that the student's parents were powerful
executives and had donated generously to the university,
he was instantly transformed into a helpful and charming
human being. To me, when a person is persistently warm and civilized
toward people who are of unknown or lower status, it
means that he or she is a decent human being-as they say
in Yiddish, a real "mensch," the opposite of a certified asshole.
Small decencies not only make you feel better about
yourself, they can have other rewards as well. The sweet lesson
learned by a former student of mine, Canadian Rhodes
Scholar Charles Galunic, is a case in point. Charlie is now a
management professor at INSEAD business school in France
and is one of the most thoughtful people I've ever met.
Charlie told me a lovely story about something that happened
at a cold and crowded train station in Kingston, Ontario,
when he was traveling to Toronto for his Rhodes
Scholarship interviews. He was sitting and waiting for the
train when he noticed an older couple who were standing
and waiting. Charlie being Charlie, he immediately offered
the two his seat, which they were happy to take. The next
day, Charlie met the couple at a reception in Toronto for the
scholarship finalists, and it turned out that the husband was
a member of the selection committee. Charlie isn't sure if
this small decency helped him win the prestigious scholarship-
but I like to think that it did. I wrote this book to help people build organizations
where menschs like Charlie are routinely hired and celebrated-
and, to steal a phrase from Groucho Marx, create
workplaces where time wounds all heels-or at least reforms
or banishes these creeps. Copyright © 2007 by Robert SuttonRead an Excerpt
What Workplace Assholes Do and Why
You Know So Many
2. Invading one's "personal territory"
3. Uninvited physical 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 interruptions
10. Two-faced attacks
11. Dirty looks
12. Treating people as if they are invisible
Consider some findings:
Introduction 1 Chapter 1 What Workplace Assholes Do and Why You Know So Many 7 Chapter 2 The Damage Done: Why Every Workplace Needs the Rule 27 Chapter 3 How to Implement the Rule, Enforce It, and Keep It Alive 51 Chapter 4 How to Stop Your "Inner Jerk" from Getting Out 93 Chapter 5 When Assholes Reign: Tips for Surviving Nasty People and Workplaces 125 Chapter 6 The Virtues of Assholes 153 Chapter 7 The No Asshole Rule as a Way of Life 177 Epilogue 185 Additional Reading 217 Acknowledgments 221 Index 227Table of Contents