GovernmentExecutive.com

The morning after election day 2009 was probably not a particularly fun one in the White House. As noted in a first rate summary by John F. Harris and Jonathan Martin in Politico, the outcomes of the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races and even the New York City's mayor race didn't really go the President's way. As an historical analysis by Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post points out, it's important to not over interpret the results,  but one thing about the 2009 election results does seem clear. Voters who identify themselves as independents are looking for  leaders who seem to address the issues that are most important to them. 

As an example, since I live in Virginia, I had a pretty direct line of sight into the governor's race here.  The winner, Bob McDonnell, ran a very effective straight down the middle campaign centered on jobs, transportation, taxes and government spending. His opponent, Creigh Deeds, seemed to never get any traction on explaining exactly what his priorities would be if he was governor. (See Dan Balz's post election analysis in the Washington Post for more on this.)

In connecting the dots on the different races, I find myself looking for some common denominator lessons we can learn about effective leadership communications.  After all, that's what a campaign is ultimately about.  In reviewing this week's results, I've come up with four questions that I think leaders need to address either implicitly or explicitly if they hope to win over their followers. These strike me as important questions for any leader - not just political candidates - to address when they're attempting to mobilize people in a challenging situation. Here are the questions:

Who are you?   - As I wrote earlier this week, followers make up stories about leaders.  One of the first jobs of a leader is to define the terms of the story by answering the question, "Who is this guy or gal?"  In Virginia, Bob McDonnell put a lot of time and effort into providing his own answer to that question - a moderate, reasonable guy concerned about the economy and transportation. Creigh Deeds on the other hand spent most of his time and attention trying to define Bob McDonnell and very little time defining himself for the voters. The result was a 18% defeat for Deeds. As a leader, you have to have a story about yourself that connects with people.

So what? - Closely related to the "Who is this guy?" question is the "So what?" question. The leaders who are most successful in mobilizing followers are tuned into the "So what?" question and address that in their messaging.  In a low turnout election, the winners did a better job of answering, "So what?"  For McDonnell in Virginia, it was transportation and jobs. For Christie in New Jersey, it was property taxes and a long term culture of corruption. Simple, focused messages that address a real "So what?" usually win the day.

Do you respect me? - One of the biggest surprises of election day was that New York mayor Mike Bloomberg won by a very thin margin after spending $100 million of his own money against a relatively unknown and underfunded candidate. (Politico has the story.) You could argue that his narrow victory was a message that the voters didn't feel respected by Bloomberg after he had term limits overturned and acted as if he was entitled to the office. People don't want to feel taken for granted. They want to feel respected.   Likewise, the reaction to Jon Corzine's television ads implying that Chris Christie was too fat to be governor probably left a lot of people besides Chris Christie feeling disrespected. 

How does the drama help me? - I'm exposing my mega political junkie mode here, but the outcome of the 23rd congressional district election in New York was pretty interesting to me.  As reported in Politico, this is the one where the nominee of the Republican party was deemed by Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and others to not be conservative enough to bear the mantle. She was forced out and threw her support to the Democrat in the race who eventually won over the conservative third party candidate who assumed full GOP support when the original nominee dropped out. Got all that?  Anyway, I can't help but wonder if the voters in the 23rd, were sending a message that they don't have a lot of time for and interest in the drama.  I think the message for leaders generally might be to focus on the things that really matter to people.   When all the drama is stripped away, you still have to have a good answer to "So what?"

In its almost always interesting series, Sunday's New York Times ran a Corner Office interview with the president of Harvard, Drew Gilpin Faust. I've often thought that because of the range of different stakeholder groups involved that running an academic institution is one of the toughest leadership jobs there is. It was interesting to read what Faust had to say about what she's learned about leading in this type of environment. Most of the points she made apply to leaders in all arenas  whether it's academia, the private sector or government.

Here are some of the takeaways (in bold face quotes) I had from the Faust interview along with some of my thoughts about how they apply to the world beyond the Charles River.

"...people impute all kinds of things to leaders" - Is that ever true.  As an example, I was with a group of sales leaders in a well known company last week and was trying to help them understand how they're perceived by others.  They were all at the district manager level so I asked them this question, "How many of you have ever been in a conversation that goes like this, 'Man, the general managers and vice presidents  just don't get it.  They are so far removed from what we're dealing with, blah, blah, blah and yadda, yadda, yadda.'"  Most people looked a little sheepish because most of them had been in conversations like that.  My next question was, "Do you think it's at all likely that the people who work at levels below yours are having similar conversations about how much the district managers don't get it?"  Yep, that's not just a possibility, it's almost a certainty.  The point is that followers make up stories about their leaders and those stories are usually not particularly helpful. 

The point that Faust makes about people imputing things to leaders is key. When I coach leaders who are taking on highly visible roles, I encourage them to assume that they're starting out at a reputational deficit.  That almost always has nothing to do with them personally. It has everything to do with the role that they're assuming and the stories that people have made up about that role over the years. A lot of the time when you take on a big leadership role you're guilty until proven innocent.  You can counteract that by being proactive. Fortunately, Faust had some good ideas on how to do that.

"... understand(ing) the context in which you are leading" - In her interview, Faust noted that "universities have enormously distributed authority," and that that operating context means she has to spend a ton of time and energy staying connected with different stakeholder groups.  There are a couple of learning points here.  The first is that she's spending time thinking about what's unique about the context she's working in and is trying to adapt her leadership approach to the context rather than the other way around. The other learning point for me is that in an age of rapidly distributed information and ever decreasing cycle times on decision making Faust's notion of distributed authority is a concept that non-academic leaders are dealing with more and more. That puts a premium on staying connected.

"Leadership by walking around - that's a digital space now, it's virtual space" - The old idea of MBWA - management by walking around - in a literal sense is dead. How can you walk around and connect with people when they're not physically there? Leaders have got to use the tools available to monitor the pulse and communicate their message and brand. I've been talking for awhile now about the difference between retail (one to one) and wholesale (one to many) leadership. If, as a leader, you aren't constantly working on and refining your wholesale communication strategy, you are way behind the curve.  If you want an idea of the stakes involved, go back and look at this post from a couple of weeks ago on the exponential growth of social media.

"As a scholar, you don't want to repeat yourself... As a university president, you have to say the same thing over and over." - The same is true for an executive, a community organizer, a candidate or anyone else trying to mobilize a group around a particular set of objectives. Just about the time you find yourself sick of repeating the message one more time is when you're likely starting to break through.  There are at least two things to keep in mind on this front, however. First, is it's about having a focused dialogue (or maybe a better term these days would be multi-logue) rather than a disconnected monologue.  Second, focus and follow through is key. Today's leaders are in an enormous competition for the time and attention of their followers. The only way you're going to get the engagement is if you have something compelling to talk about and stay committed to a long term conversation.

So, this was a little more "think piecey" than I thought it might be at the start.  What do you agree or disagree with in these points?  If you've had a chance to look at the Faust interview, what other takeaways and applications did you have?

The next time you're feeling challenged about how to reach a goal, think of the sailors from the USS Carl Vinson. As reported in the Washington Post,  30 sailors from the Vinson set a goal to make last Sunday's Marine Corps Marathon their first 26.2 mile race.  More and more people are running marathons these days, but not very many have their training space limited to the confines of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. The sailors from the Vinson were inspired by the example set by their former commanding officer, Walter Carter, a recently promoted rear admiral who shared his enthusiasm for running with his crew.  Carter has left the Vinson for his next assignment but came back to DC to run the race with his men. Through his own commitment to fitness and his and camaraderie with his team, Rear Admiral Carter is the embodiment of what a positive leadership footprint looks like.

I'm honored to report that I got a first hand account of how the race turned out for the sailors from the Carl Vinson when I was one of the opening speakers last Sunday for the Navy's annual Flag Officer and Executive Training Symposium at a federal training center in the suburbs of DC.  (This is a week long annual event for the newly promoted admirals and their civilian colleagues in the federal Senior Executive Service. )

The speaker that followed me on Sunday was the head of the Navy's Fitness program. She was there to brief the participants and their spouses on the range of support available to help these leaders stay fit in their very demanding roles. As she wrapped up her remarks, she read from the Post story and asked if Rear Admiral Carter was in the room. He was indeed and reported that all 30 of his sailors had successfully completed the race and that he had finished it in 3 hours and 36 minutes himself.  Bear in mind that this briefing came about six hours following the marathon.  Let it be noted that the admiral did not have the bearing or tone of someone who had just run 26.2 miles in under four hours.  He pretty much looked fresh as a daisy!

There were a number of  things I took away from the Sunday session that I think are worth offering as food for thought for leaders. Let me share three of them here.

Takeaway 1:  There aren't many people who are in more demanding jobs than rear admirals and senior executives in the US Navy. By definition, these are busy people. And yet, the Navy has found that there is a high return on investment in taking these leaders off line for a week to support them in adjusting to their new roles. The Navy is apparently unique among the services in its inclusion of spouses in a program of this nature. They want the life partners of their top leaders to know and understand their spouses' roles.  They also want to let them know how much the Navy appreciates their leaders and their families.    That strikes me as an approach worth emulating for any organization interested in fully supporting its top leadership.

Takeaway 2:  I was really impressed that the third item of a week long agenda was an overview on fitness.  To be fully effective, leaders need to have a fighting chance of showing up at their best. The Navy understands that fitness is the foundation for that and has a team of personal trainers that work with their leaders on exercise planning, nutrition, stress management and a range of other health and wellness opportunities. They take a research based approach to fitness and have found that incorporating simple activities like walking (10,000 paces on the pedometer a day is the goal) has a greater long term positive impact than focused exercise programs (those are still important, by the way).

Takeaway 3:  Leaders set the tone and example. Thirty sailors from the Carl Vinson had the experience of a lifetime in the Marine Corps Marathon because their leader led by example.

Like I said earlier, it was an honor to be a witness to these lessons.The people of the Navy do amazing work. It's easy to see how their commitment to the total development of their leaders makes the difference.

The tough economic environment of the past year and a half has made organizational leadership an even more challenging job than usual. A recent article in HR Executive Online by Lin Grensing-Pophal reports on a somewhat surprising aspect of that leadership challenge.

Drawing on a recent study conducted by Watson-Wyatt and World at Work, Pophal notes that employee engagement levels during the recession have dropped by nine percent since last year. That's not so surprising given everything that's gone on in the past year. The news that leaders should pay extra attention to, however, is that the engagement of top performers is down by a whopping 25 percent.

The combination of economic uncertainty and the need to do more with less can take a toll on everyone. Of course, on both a short and long term basis, leaders need to pay particular attention to the high performers who can deliver results. Pophal offer some good suggestion in her article about how to do that including developmental assignments and flexible work arrangements.

She also mentions connection to the bigger picture as a key way to provide the intrinsic motivation that keeps the best engaged. As I've written here before, Bill Bridges' four P's communications model is one of the best frameworks I know of for making that connection. Like most good leadership tools, it's simple and easy to remember:

• Purpose: why are we here and what difference does that make?
• Picture: what will things look like when we're fully successful?
• Plan: how will we get to that picture of success?
• Part to Play: this is how what you do fits into the plan that creates the picture that fulfills the purpose.

Over the past couple of weeks, I've had the opportunity to speak with leaders from GE Energy, the U.S. Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security, Booz Allen Hamilton and the U.S. Senate. One of the things that all of those leaders have in common is that they're working for organizations that make a difference. I actually think that most of us work for organizations that make a difference. Leaders often overlook the opportunity to connect people with the larger purpose of what their organizations do. If you're a leader who wants to keep your best people engaged, I encourage you to give that some thought. What can you say about how what they're doing makes a difference?

When faced with an intractable or complex problem, it's easy for leaders to get bogged down in the minutiae when trying to come up with a solution.  Another trap is to go binary - it's either this or it's that - too soon in the decision making process.  Rather than opening up options and possibilities, we sometimes try to solve complex problems by settling for the least painful of the most obvious options.

It's at times like this, that's it's helpful to have someone in the room who can step back, get up on the balcony and ask some questions that seem obvious in retrospect but maybe weren't asked because everyone else was too close to the situation at hand.

There was a great example of this in a recent Newsweek article by Holly Bailey and Evan Thomas on Vice President Joe Biden.  Here's an extended excerpt that paints the picture:

"Joe Biden had a question. During a long Sunday meeting with President Obama and top national-security advisers on Sept. 13, the VP interjected, 'Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?' Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. 'And how much will we spend on Pakistan?' Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. 'Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?' The White House Situation Room fell silent. But the questions had their desired effect: those gathered began putting more thought into Pakistan as the key theater in the region."

There are several things I find instructive in this story.  First, Biden is making his point based on facts that may have been lost in the discussion.  Second, he links those facts to a bigger picture.  Third, he uses those facts and that bigger picture to cause his colleagues to pull up and challenge their assumptions.

What obvious questions do you need to ask to help your team challenge their assumptions?  Are you even the best person to ask those questions or is that role better played by designating someone on your team to play the role of devil's advocate?  What are the pros and cons of either approach?

There's an old, old saying that, "A fish rots from the head down."  It dates in English from at least 1674 and has probably hung around all these years because it's true.  The Washington Redskins are one of the latest examples of the truth of this aphorism.

Since the NFL season began, I've thought of writing a post on what can be learned about how not to lead an organization from analyzing the Redskins' owner Dan Snyder.  After Sunday's 14 - 6 loss to the previously winless Kansas City Chiefs that included a safety in the closing minutes, the time finally seems right.  After all, the Redskins have lost to the 1 and 22 Detroit Lions and haven't beaten a team this year with a winning record.  As the Washington Post has reported, the team sues its fans who have fallen on hard times and can't honor their ticket contracts.  They have one of the most bloated payrolls in the NFL and week by week, publicly humiliate their head coach Jim Zorn (a classic example of what I refer to as an NGB - "nice guy, but...") by removing one more aspect of his duties.  (This week it was play calling.)

Seriously, if we can't learn something about how not to lead an organization from watching Dan Snyder then it's probably time to move onto another topic.  What are his secrets for leading a rotten organization?  Here are a few that catch my attention:

Live in the past:  The Redskins haven't won a Super Bowl since  1992 and have made the playoffs only three times in the 10 years that Snyder has owned the team.  And yet, they act as if they're perennial contenders for the Super Bowl.  The first step in dealing with reality is to live in it.

Manage things you don't know about:  By all accounts, Snyder has surrounded himself with front office personnel who are not up to the job of managing the football side of an NFL franchise.  The weak staff gives Snyder the latitude to become personally involved in football decisions that he doesn't have the experience to make.

Squeeze your customers until they bleed:  The Redskins charge a premium price for an inferior product.  They have long term fans whose loyalty and passion for the team dates back longer than the owner has been alive.  When some of those fans fell on hard times and couldn't honor their long term ticket contracts, the Redskins sued them and bankrupted them.  This is from a team who claims to have the longest waiting list for season tickets of any franchise in the NFL.

Chase after shiny objects:  One thing Redskins fans have come to count on is that the off season will bring a high priced player acquisition that will be a "game changer".  This year, it was a $100 million contract for tackle Albert Haynesworth.  In previous years it was Deion Sanders or Bruce Smith or somebody else.  Heck, even bringing back the great Joe Gibbs was part of this pattern.  The acquisitions don't pay off because there is no long term system or plan in place around which the entire team can gel.

Offend and insult people's intelligence:  As society has changed, there has been more and more discomfort and offense taken with the very name, Redskins.  As many commentators have pointed out, it's hard to come up with a team in another sport that is named after an offensive label for an entire ethnic group.  It's gotten to the point where the U.S. Supreme Court may agree to hear a suit from six Native American tribes on the team name. In the face of such criticism, Snyder talks about the honor and tradition of the Redskins. Please. Could it possibly be about the money wrapped up in the trademark?

Hire and fire rapidly:  How many head coaches has the team had since Snyder took over?  Let's see if I can name them all.  Norv, Robiskie (Don't remember him? Look it up.), Schottenheimer, Spurrier, Gibbs, Zorn.  That's six head coaches in 10 years.  How in the world can you build an organization when there is constant churn in the top operational job?

Embarrass your key people in public:  Let's say you're a young quarterback with some potential.  You've shown some promise at the end of the previous season and are learning.  And then in the offseason, your owner and EVP of football operations start publicly wooing number one QB draft picks and some veteran QB's without even talking with you about what they're thinking.  Would you feel supported as a leader of your team?  Would you feel confident in your position?  Would you feel wanted?  No, I didn't think so.  That's what it's been like for Washington QB Jason Campbell this year.   Let's not even get started on how his head coach has been treated.

Accept no accountability:  The silence from Dan Snyder and his EVP of football operations Vinny Cerrato as the team has gotten worse and worse has been deafening.  The two of them are the only constants over the 10 years of Washington's decline.  One might think they have some accountable role in the situation.

Make your organization an extension of your own ego:  This is what it probably all comes down to.  I remember when I was in my last corporate job, it looked like our parent company was probably going to be acquired.  A bunch of us on the senior team were sitting around talking about what was next and one of my colleagues who had been around the block a few times said to us, "Remember, whoever buys us is going to be thinking, 'If you guys are so smart, how come we bought you?'"  That's it in a nutshell with Dan Snyder.  If all of you are so smart, how come I own the team?  Until he gets his ego out of the way, there's no hope for the long suffering fans.

OK, that's my take.  What's yours?  If you follow the NFL, what have I gotten right or wrong here?  What are some of the leadership lessons you've learned along the way by watching someone else and saying, "Wow, I'm never going to do that?"

If you were looking for any news on health care reform, Afghanistan or the President's trip to New Orleans on television yesterday afternoon or most of last evening, you were out of luck. Everything else was pushed aside by the story of the 6 year old balloon boy, Falcon, flying over Colorado in his dad's big helium balloon. Of course, he wasn't actually the balloon boy. Turns out he was the garage boy because when the balloon took off he climbed up into the rafters of his garage and hid in a box. Or, as it may be turning out, (see this update from the New York Times) maybe his dad told him to go hide in the box so they could gin up a media frenzy and regain some of the glory that the whole family was wrapped in when they appeared a few years ago in the reality TV show, Wife Swap.

So, it's not every day that you have the possibility of a six year old flying along at 10,000 feet in a balloon.  I can see why the cable news channels might run that live. But wall to wall for three hours and then for lots and lots of time after the boy was found OK? Why would they do that? Two words - great video. Anytime you've got footage of a giant Jiffy Pop bag sailing across the sky, you've got great video. Let's run it on a continuous loop!

Much as I was after a quick trip to Canada earlier this year, I'm suffering from a case of reimmersion into the American pop news media following a four day trip to London earlier this week. Whether it's the BBC, ITV or even the SkyNews Sports channel, there's one word for the Brits' approach to TV news - sedate. No swooshing graphics, gee whiz maps or sound effects. Just people talking about what's going on. That's talking and not shouting or interrupting. A big part of the Sunday morning news shows there consist of the broadcasters sitting together with stacks of newspapers on the tables and floors, reading and commenting on the news of the week. 

One thing I've noticed about my British friends over the years is that they all seem incredibly well informed about what's going on in the world. They usually have an informed point of view on what's going on in China or Africa or Eastern Europe or just about anywhere. Now I think I understand why. They grew up with print and broadcast media that actually cover those stories and, as such, they developed a knowledge of and curiosity for what's going on in the rest of the world. I'm not saying that there isn't any lowest common denominator media in Britain. It seems like at any given time of day there is a Ricki Lake or Sally Jesse Raphael type talk show on TV. (The most popular of these appears to be a British hybrid of Dr. Phil and Jerry Springer called The Jeremy Kyle Show. Truly awful stuff based on the five minutes I was able to withstand.)  My observation, though, is that thoughtful and serious news coverage and conversation seems to be easier to come by in the UK.

So, what does any of this mean for leaders? I'd relate it to one of the basic laws of computer programming - garbage in, garbage out. We need to be careful and aware of the information diet we're feeding ourselves. The good stuff is out there, we just have to look for it (with the Internet, it's easier than ever). I think the other thing we have to do is watch out for getting sucked into the noise machine. I don't realize how easy it is for that to happen until I'm away from it for awhile and come back to it.  

We've got a lot of serious work to do in the United States. Approaching that work from a thoughtful rather than a frantic state of mind will be an important determinant of how successful we are. If you're a leader who wants to make a difference, please don't let the balloon boy stories bombard your brain. Feed your mind with important and useful things.

British MP's Behaving Badly: When Appearances Trump the Rules

I've been in London this week for a presentation I gave to a group of new executives yesterday. It's been a great trip with a lot of friendly people and fascinating things to see. One of the things I really enjoy when travelling abroad is immersing myself in the local media to learn what the big stories are and how people think about them.

Well, the story that's dominating the UK's headlines and airwaves this week is a controversy over how members of Parliament used their expense accounts for items like housekeeping, gardening and, in one infamous case, the digging of a moat. Sounds sort of outrageous doesn't it?  The back story, as my cab driver explained it to me the other day, is that when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister she wanted to give a pay raise to the MP's but knew that wouldn't fly with the public. So, instead, she adjusted the expense reimbursement schedule for MP's so it was much more liberal and ended up significantly supplementing their incomes.  That was all going along swimmingly for the past 20 years or so until earlier this year when the husband of the Home Secretary watched a couple of porn movies on the family telly and the cable bill was submitted for reimbursement under the MP expense plan. You can probably figure out what happened next.

So, that brought us to this past Monday which was the first day of the new session of Parliament and my last day in London before heading out to the suburbs to give my presentation. I was taking one last walk around the Thames and was crossing Westminster Bridge adjacent to Parliament when I took the following photos with my iPhone. For those of you who didn't have little boys at home in the last 20 years, you're looking at a life size version of that really useful engine, Thomas the Tank Engine.

In case you can't make it out, the passenger car is carrying 3 or 4 people holding prime minister Gordon Brown masks in front of their face. The sign across the top of the car reads, "All Aboard the Gravy Train."  As the Brits might say, "Simply brilliant!"

The story has come back with a vengeance this week because as the MP's returned to Westminster they were presented with letters detailing how much they each need to repay the government for expenses now deemed inappropriate. The PM and the conservative party leader are trying to enforce the repayments but there a lot of members who are pushing back saying that they operated within the existing rules at the time and shouldn't be on the hook for the money. 

With Thomas the Tank Engine, moats and dirty movies on TV, this story has a lot of comic elements but there's a serious lesson in all of this.

What's amazing to me is that many of the MP's are putting a few hundred or a few thousand pounds ahead of their long term credibility, reputation and effectiveness. They are becoming a laughing stock while they argue over expenses that seem hugely inappropriate to the average citizen. And that is what leaders really have to watch out for. It's easy to get into a bubble when you're a leader and pretty soon the abnormal begins to seem normal. One of the executive speakers in the session I spoke to yesterday summed it up really well. There are, he said, rules and there are appearances. There are times when the appearances matter more than the rules. True leaders understand the difference. When the rules you're following wouldn't stand up to a smell test with the average person, it's time to take a step back and upgrade the rules. When it's all said and done, the most valuable currency a leader has is integrity and credibility.  Maintaining that currency requires an understanding that it's more valuable in the long run than currency of the paper sort.

The range of reactions to President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize has been really interesting to observe. Depending on which person or group you've been watching or listening to, you've had the opportunity to witness a full spectrum of emotional reactions from happiness to anger, from satisfaction to surprise. One that I think is out there but perhaps hasn't been commented on so much is resentment.  There are those who resent the award because they say Obama hasn't proven himself yet or that others are more deserving. (Obama himself essentially said as much in his remarks just a few hours after the Peace Prize announcement.)

I think there's another reason that a lot of people resent the Prize going to Obama and it's one that has a lot of parallels in countless organizations around the world. You've probably seen it yourself or have perhaps even been the subject of it. I'm talking about what I call the "smartest kid in the class" syndrome. Whatever you think about Obama, there's not much point in debating that he is one highly intelligent guy and has had a lot of success at a very early age. He's probably the most extreme example I could come up with of the "smartest kid in the class." 

While we may not be around Nobel Prize winners on a regular basis, most of us have had some experience on one side or the other (or both) of this phenomenon.

With this in mind, I came up with some rules of the road for how "the smartest kids" should handle themselves when working with others who might feel intimidated and threatened by their success:

Take Your Foot Off the Gas - "Smart kids" typically see the answer before everyone else which allows them to go faster than everyone else.  If you're a smart kid, it's important to take your foot off the gas to allow everyone to catch up and understand the things that are patently obvious to you. They're not to everyone else.  If you push through on your vision without others feeling comfortable about it, they'll resent it and probably try to sabotage you.

Put Them at Ease - So, if the people around you are uncomfortable, it's in your and everyone else's interest to put them at ease. One of the best ways to do that is to...

Ask What They Think - When the answer is obvious, it's difficult for smart kids to not just give it.  Pretty soon, everyone else starts to get annoyed. (Remember how you felt about the kid that always had his hand up as soon as the teacher asked a question?  The same dynamic applies in groups of adults.)  One of the best ways to avoid blurting out the answer is to get into the habit of first asking others what they think of the situation. Of course, when they share their views, it helps if you actually...

Listen - And by listening, I don't just mean affirmative nods of the head and "uh-hmm's"  while you're waiting to give your answer.  I mean listening for nuance and the information you'll need to ask a second round of questions that will help deepen your understanding of their perceptions, goals, motivations, definition of success, etc. 

Frame Your Solutions as Questions - After you've listened deeply, you should have a better understanding of how to frame your solutions. This is the part where you'll want to avoid saying, "OK, I hear you and here's what I think we should do." If you're working with someone who likely feels threatened by your  talent and intelligence, try framing your solution as a question.  It should sound something like, "I think I understand where you're coming from. What if we tried (insert your solution here)?" This approach gives the other party a greater opportunity to participate in the solution.

Share the Credit - And when it all works out great make sure you spread the credit around.  However,

Pay Attention to The Balance - You want to make sure that you're also making requests of others and not just giving and giving and giving.  People who feel threatened are usually very sensitive to the balance of power.  While giving them the opportunity to participate and asking after their opinion are great strategies for taking the focus off of you and building relationships, you don't want to overdo it.  Sometimes you just have to make the ask, give the answer or push something through.  The trick is finding the right ratio.

OK, I'd love to hear what you think.  Anyone out there ever been labeled the smartest kid in the class?  (I'm thinking there are a lot of you reading right now.)  How have you handled it?  On the flip side, what annoys the heck out of you about the smartest kids?  What should they be doing differently?

In the category of "Man, I wish I'd written that,"  my blogging friend Mike Figliuolo had a great post last week called "Ten Reasons Your Team Hates You."   It was a brilliant piece with so true they might hurt items such as you don't fight for them,  you micromanage, you're a suck up and you're above getting your hands dirty.   It's gotten a lot of well deserved attention, is definitely worth a read and is a post you'll likely want to share with others.

So, it was with Mike's post in the back of my mind that I watched Brett Favre lead the Vikings this week to a 30 - 23 win over his old team, the Packers, on Monday Night Football.  If you follow football at all, you understand why I'm making the connection between Mike's "Why Your Team Hates You" post and Favre. Even non-sports fans are likely aware and completely sick of Favre's multi-year act of will he retire or not retire, who will he play for, when will he play, etc., etc., etc. He's done about as much as he possibly can to make his colleagues skeptical of his motives and intent. And yet, the Vikings at 4 and 0 so far this season seem to be gelling around him. 

If you take the publicity, the uniforms and the bone crunching hits out of the equation,  Favre appears to be successfully doing what you'll likely have to do at least once in your career - stepping in to lead a team that for whatever reason is skeptical of your motives and has their doubts about whether or not you're the right leader. In spite of all the drama baggage he carries with him, Favre is winning the Vikings over. How is doing it? Here are a few things he's doing that I think apply to leaders in fields other than football:

Win:  Winning games - whatever that looks like in your context - can solve a lot of problems. Favre brings the skills and the experience of a winner to the Vikings. He's getting it done.  It's a lot easier for a leader to win the team over win he or she brings the talent and experience needed to help them win.

Spread It Around:  Prior to his Monday night win, Favre had changed his game plan of firing off passes to one that got a lot of other players involved in the game. The Vikings running back, Adrian Peterson, has been a key part of their offense this year. When a leader sets things up so everyone gets to contribute at the full extent of their talent, there's a much better chance of full engagement from the team.

Throw Some Blocks:  On a fairly regular basis, you can see Favre throwing a block downfield to help clear a path for one of his runners. This is his way of counteracting Mike Figliuolo's point about not getting your hands dirty.  By throwing a block, Favre is stepping out of his role to help make his team successful.  Leaders in every field need to look for and act on their own opportunities to "throw a block" for their team.

Keep It Light:  Say what you will about Favre, when he's on the field he looks like he's a lot of fun to play with. He jokes, he jumps around, he bumps his teammates in celebration, he gives noogies. I'm not suggesting that you give noogies to your teammates, but there are ways to keep it light. Look for them. (Just don't go over the line. Michael on The Office offers weekly examples of what over the line looks like.)

Passion:  If you're still playing in the NFL at almost 40 years old, it's safe to say that you have a fair amount of passion for the game.  Favre clearly does. The presence of the leader influences the presence of the team.  Favre's passion is infecting the Vikings in a positive way. Showing your commitment and passion through your words and action is a great way to win over your team. Watch out though.  If passion is all you bring to the table, you're likely to lose them.  Remember the first Favre lesson. It helps to win.