Everyone's talking about President Obama's first 100 days and how he's doing so far. Since Obama is the ultimate case of a leader moving up to the next level, I thought I'd add my assessment by offering a report card on his performance as measured against the Next Level model of executive presence. As outlined in my book, The Next Level: What Insiders Know About Executive Success, and summarized in the table below, executive leadership presence can be broken down into nine behavioral distinctions that leaders need to either pick up or let go of. And those nine distinctions match up with three big categories of executive leadership behaviors: personal presence, team presence and organizational presence.

So, how is the President doing after his first 100 days of leading at the next level? Read on for a point by point breakdown and an overall GPA.

Confidence vs. Doubt: Showing up with the right amount of confidence is the foundation of effective leadership. Especially in tough times, the confident presence of a leader begets confidence in those that he or she leads. With his steady demeanor, optimistic outlook and command of the facts, Obama embodies confidence. The newest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll reflects that sentiment. The percentage of Americans who think the country is on the right track is up 17% since January and 31% since last October. Grade: A

Regular Renewal vs. Running Flat Out: When the pressure is high, leaders need perspective. They get that perspective by regularly taking some time to step back. With his travel itinerary, meeting schedule and the range of issues on his plate, Obama has run the risk of edging toward flat out. That said, he has taken some weekends off, focused on his family and took some time for Sunday afternoon golf while members of his team were handling a swine flu press conference. All in all, it seems like Obama is keeping a pace that works for him. Grade: B+

Custom Fit Communications vs. One Size Fits All: Effective leadership communications is outcome oriented and audience specific. Obama has so many outcomes he's working on that it's sometimes hard to keep track of all of them. He is clearly an articulate and intelligent communicator but I would argue that he doesn't do everything he could to shape his message to the audience. His tone of voice usually stays within a fairly narrow range. When he said he was angry about bonuses for executives in bailed out firms he didn't really sound angry. He could do better here. Grade: B-

Team Reliance vs. Self Reliance: There are two major factors on this distinction. The first is to get a great team in place. The second is to get your ego out of the way and allow the team to do their job. While Obama has had his stumbles (e.g. HHS and Commerce secretary misfires and a slow start from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner), most observers agree he has assembled a first rate team of subordinates. Whether you agree with his positions or not, it's hard to deny that Obama has staked out clear direction on a fairly breathtaking array of issues in just 100 days. A top of mind and incomplete short list includes economic stimulus, banks, autos, Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, energy, carbon emissions, stem cells, interrogation policy and mountain top removal mining. You can't lay that kind of groundwork in 3 and ½ months without relying on a strong team. Grade: B+

Defining What to Do vs. Telling How: Senior leaders need to be the keepers of the what, not the masters of the how. In addition to assembling a strong team, Obama has done a solid job of establishing an agenda. He's recognized that he'll likely never have more momentum than he has now and is taking full advantage of it to put his stakes in the ground. At the same time, the President exhibits a clear sense of doing the things that only he can do given the role that he's in. He's created the bandwidth to do that by allowing his team to determine how to follow through on what he has defined as his agenda. Grade: A-

Accountability vs. Responsibility: This distinction is about having the systems, metrics and processes in place that allow you to be accountable for many results while allowing others to be responsible for the specific implementation. Obama has promised transparency and has taken some interesting first steps in using the internet as a vehicle to promote government accountability. I think this is an area where there is a lot more to do however. As an example, there hasn't really been a clear explanation yet as to how the country will avoid crippling budget deficits in the years to come. Grade: C+

Left and Right vs. Up and Down: To deal with competing agendas and establish support for a common direction, leaders need to work their relationships on the left and the right and not just those up and down the chain of command. Along with this comes a democratic (small d) style of leadership that solicits the input of those who may not agree with you. By all accounts, Obama is taking this approach with both members of Congress as well as representatives from different stakeholder groups. Have we reached a bi-partisan nirvana? No, but he does seem committed to dialogue. Grade: B+

Outside-In vs. Inside-Out: As his recent trips abroad have shown, Obama (with a great big assist from the First Lady) is a rock star around the world. That can't help but be a good thing for the United States. The President has demonstrated the ability to listen to and process the opinions of other leaders. I think the thing to watch on this distinction is for Obama to be more intentional about explaining to his domestic audience what he's trying to accomplish on his international trips. The European and Latin American trips were played in some venues as "apology tours." They weren't really but that theme needs to be better managed by the White House. Grade: B

Big Footprint vs. Small Footprint: It's been awhile (since Reagan?) that we've had a President who understands and leverages the impact of his image and footprint as well as Obama does. As a completely off-the-wall example, one of the analysts on ESPN's coverage of the NFL draft last weekend referred to several polished rookie prospects as "presidential" in their bearing. Do you think you would have heard that used as a complimentary adjective a year ago? I don't remember it that way. Overall, Obama has done a masterful job of establishing leadership presence. Heck, in the WSJ/NBC News poll mentioned earlier 30% of the respondents said that while they don't like Obama's policies, they like him personally. Doing great here - he just needs to watch the grip and grin photo ops with guys like Hugo Chavez. Grade: A-

So, what's Obama's overall Next Level GPA? According to the online grade calculator I used, he comes in at a 3.30 GPA which just clears the threshold for a B+ overall. So, I guess it's safe to put those "My President is an Honor Roll Student" bumper stickers on your cars. Of course, your grading scale may vary from mine. What's your take on Obama's first 100 days?

One of the basics in the senior leader's communications repertoire is the town hall meeting. Sometimes (oftentimes?), these meetings can really run off the rails. When they do, it's usually because the leader comes in without the answers that people care most about. Another classic mistake is to come in with the desired information but to deliver it in a way that shows no connection whatsoever with the people in the audience.

Fortunately for all of us, there aren't many town hall meetings on the subject of what leaders are doing to prevent a global pandemic of influenza. But, that's exactly what three senior leaders took on in front of the White House press corps on Sunday afternoon. To share what the government is doing to deal with the rapidly developing outbreak of a new strain of swine flu, homeland security advisor John Brennan, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control Richard Besser and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano took to the airwaves. By chance, I watched it on CNN as it happened and I have to say it was a best practice example of how to conduct a town hall meeting. (If you missed the briefing, you can watch it here. If you want more information on swine flu and how to stay healthy, visit the CDC website here. In about 20 minutes, these government leaders showed how it should be done when it comes to the what and how of conducting a successful town hall meeting.

Here's what I saw in their briefing and what leaders can learn from their example.

Brennan, Besser and Napolitano each took turns at the press room podium and, collectively demonstrated that it's not just what you say in a town hall, it's also how you say it. Here are some of the things they did in each respect that leaders should keep in mind when they're briefing their own organizations:

What They Said

Clear Definition of the Problem: In simple, easy to understand language, they explained what has happened since the flu outbreak began in Mexico last week and what has been observed thus far with the flu in the United States. Their points were clear, time based, tied to metrics and fact based. By sharing the facts that they had, they demonstrated their respect for the audience's capacity to handle the facts.

What We're Doing to Address the Problem: After defining the problem, they then explained what the government and health care authorities and providers are doing to address it. The three leaders emphasized the coordination and cooperation between public health agencies around the world and throughout the country. They specifically recognized and praised the role of local health care providers for their extra efforts in screening patients for swine flu.

What You Can Do to Help: They made a clear request of average citizens to do common sense things that can help prevent the spread of disease. Frequent hand washing, covering your nose and mouth when you cough or sneeze and staying home when sick were among the actionable, easy to do things that they requested. By clearly making these requests they not only shared information that helped promote their goals, they gave people the knowledge they needed to contribute to the goal.

What Comes Next: Napolitano ended the briefing by formally declaring a public health emergency but made clear that the state of emergency is "standard operating procedure" and compared it to declaring an emergency when a hurricane is threatening the coast. By taking this step, the government is positioning itself to coordinate additional resources and take other steps that could help contain an outbreak. By comparing it to hurricane preparations, Napolitano gave listeners a frame of reference they could understand. This approach can make the unfamiliar feel less threatening and more actionable.

How They Said It

Calm and Steady: In situations like a potential pandemic (or a reorganization or a layoff) that can cause fear and anxiety, you want leaders who project a quiet confidence that suggests they have a plan to address the situation in the best possible way. One of the primary goals in the swine flu briefing was to prevent public panic by demonstrating the situation was being addressed by smart, competent people not just at the podium but throughout the U.S. and the world. By speaking knowledgeably and in a conversational tone, Brennan, Besser and Napolitano did that.

Concerned for People Affected: At the same time, they acknowledged the suffering that the flu has already caused (in Mexico particularly) and expressed their concern and sympathy for those affected. In situations where the technical solution matters a lot, it's easy for leaders to focus on that aspect to the exclusion of the people impact. Napolitano and her colleagues struck a good balance between the two.

Clear, Tight Goals for the Communication: These three covered a lot of important ground in 20 minutes. They had clearly thought about what their most important points were and resisted the urge to freelance the briefing.

Teamwork Based on Role Clarity and Shared Goals: Each of the leaders spoke to their specific areas of expertise and authority. They seamlessly passed the podium from one to the next and in doing so instilled a lot of confidence that there is a team at the top who knows what their roles are, where they intersect and who's responsible for what.

Hope those observations have some practical application for all of you leaders who, while you aren't necessarily dealing with global health (although some of you likely are), you're still communicating with people who need some clear leadership communications.

In the meantime, stay healthy!

In just about every presentation I've given to leaders since last fall, I've recommended that everyone order their own personal copy of Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change by William Bridges. I'll make the same recommendation to you. If you're a leader and you don't have a copy of this book, you need it. After you're done reading this post, get on Amazon and buy it.

Bridges' book is a manual (it even includes checklists) for dealing with the biggest challenge facing leaders today which is moving everyone towards a new reality. One of my favorite lines when I was a manager and remains so today as a coach is that it's important to understand the difference between what should be and what is.

It doesn't take a lot of effort these days to find examples of people that are stuck on what "should be" rather than what is.

For instance, the story that came out this week that executives at Chrysler Financial were considering not taking additional government assistance because doing so would have a negative impact on their compensation is a good example of focusing on what "should be" or what used to be. As another example, I've noticed in the past six months that the New York Times (especially the Sunday edition) has become a chronicle of how people react when their sense is that they "should be" affluent and then realize that they actually aren't. A lot of the recent writing by Times columnist Maureen Dowd reflects that whole vibe.

As another example, how about some of the banks who just months ago needed the TARP money to stay afloat now reporting first quarter profitability and scrambling to get out from under TARP ASAP? Of course, that could have the benefit of getting the government out of their shorts on executive compensation but does anyone really believe that those profits are sustainable over the rest of the year? Credit card company Capital One's report yesterday of a sharp increase in loan delinquencies and a report in the Wall Street Journal this week that student lenders are seeing big jumps in loan defaults seem to be a better reflection of what is than what "should be" in the financial services sector.

What these examples show is the truth of the opening line in Bridges' book, "It isn't the changes that do you in, it's the transitions." Bridges makes the simple point that before anything new can begin, something else has to end and that there is a period between the two when the rules aren't clear and that's called the neutral zone. Sometimes I prefer the term "crazy time" for neutral zone. It's the period where the rules aren't clear and it can get more than a little crazy.

I'd argue that as a society we're in crazy time right now. We know for sure that an era has ended. (At least most of us seem to know that, there are always examples that illustrate people still trying to hang on to what's ended. For instance, I just read that top executives at the New York Times are getting bonuses when the paper just declared a $74 million loss and announced more job cuts.)

What we don't know for sure is what the next phase looks like. That uncertainty about what's next makes crazy time that much more pronounced. Nature abhors a vacuum and people in transition abhor a vacuum of information or clarity. When they don't have a clear picture of the future, they make one up for themselves and it usually isn't very productive. Sometimes it looks like denial (e.g. bonuses and temporary profitability) and sometimes it looks like anger (e.g. last week's tea parties on April 15). Sometimes it looks like depression (e.g. again, see some of Maureen Dowd's columns) and sometimes it looks like bargaining (e.g. any given day's coverage on CNBC). The goal is to get people to acceptance of the new reality. That's the challenge for President Obama and his team and for all leaders in their own organizations.

It's not the change. That's a given. It's the transition and that's the part that requires mindful and intentional leadership. Bridges would define the work as making four things clear:

• What's the purpose of this organization (or this government or this society)?
• What's the picture of how things will be when we're meeting that purpose?
• What's the plan for creating that picture?
• What's the part that each individual or stakeholder group plays in the plan?

How clear are you on any or all of those questions? How clear is your organization? What can you do to raise the level of clarity that will move people through crazy time and onto the new beginning?

Last week, I had the honor of keynoting the annual Executive Fire Officer Program graduate symposium sponsored by the U.S. Fire Administration. One of the things I sometimes do is ask members of my audience what they think about an important question and then share their answers with you. Since I was speaking to an audience of fire department chiefs from across the United States, I thought that this was a perfect group to ask for advice on how to lead in a crisis. Seems like a timely topic. After all, what leader hasn't been doing some crisis management lately?

These folks had some terrific stories and wisdom to share. Some of the highlights include:

What the chief of the Boca Raton, Florida fire department learned from leading the response to the 2001 anthrax attacks on the headquarters of American Media International in his city.

• The relationship between trusting your team and staying calm in a crisis.
• How preparation and risk assessment can get you ready for the unexpected.
• Why it's important to take a step back when a crisis begins.
• How to project confidence in a tough situation.

Let these people know what hit home with you by leaving a comment. Do you have some crisis leadership tips of your own? Share them here so others can learn from your experience.

Looking for some clear lessons in productive ways to receive feedback? Or, conversely, some excellent examples of how not to receive feedback? Well, if you are, there's this TV show that runs on Tuesday nights that is full of examples on both sides of the equation. You may have heard of it. It's something I like to call American Idol.

OK, before you bail on me and think I've become a total pop culture bubblehead, let me explain myself. Yes, I will acknowledge that Idol is one of my guilty pleasures. (After all, man cannot live by the Harvard Business Review alone. ) That said, if you watch it with a bit of a leadership development lens on, you can actually learn a lot about what talented people do or don't do with constructive feedback.

I've identified at least six models for receiving feedback from watching the show. Two of them are worth emulating and four need to be avoided at all cost. Interested in which one might apply to you or some of the people on your team? Read on.

Most informed Idol watchers agree that the contestants this year are probably the most talented group to have appeared in the eight year history of the show. That's good news for viewers. The bad news for six of the seven remaining contestants is that the seventh, Adam Lambert, is just flat out crazy phenomenal. I could write a entire post on what leaders could learn from him about performance - his content, tone of voice and body language are almost always on the mark at a 110% level. (Don't believe me? Go find a clip of his rendition of Born to Be Wild.) Anyway, back to the point of this point which is about how to receive feedback.

Two Ways to Receive Feedback

Appreciate and Accept It: Over the last three weeks of the show, the judges and audience have literally been rapturous over Adam's performances. (How often do you see a standing ovation from Simon Cowell? He gave one to Adam.) When you're as talented and performing as well as Adam is, you're likely to get gushing feedback that doesn't offer a whole lot of constructive criticism. Lambert consistently offers a great model of how to accept adulatory praise. He looks the judge in the eyes (he doesn't engage in the look down at the floor in an "Aw schucks" pose), smiles and says something along the lines of "Thank you. I'm honored. That really means a lot to me." And then, he gets back to work. He doesn't play the diva role. Adam processes what the judges appreciated about his performance and builds on it to perform even better the next time.

Listen and Work With It: So Adam is the genius prodigy this year and then there's everybody else. Two of the remaining contestants, Matt and Kris, are good examples of solid performers who have some great weeks and then some so-so weeks. The great thing about both of these guys is they really seem to listen to the judges critiques and then incorporate what they hear into their work for the upcoming week. Whether it's song choice, stage presence, vocal tonality or some other aspect of the performance, you can see these guys really using the feedback as a platform for trying to be better each week. My prediction is that one of them will make the final three along with Adam and somebody else.

Four Ways Not to Receive Feedback

Resent It: In weeks when his performance doesn't land well (usually when he's trying to perform against his "good guy" image), Anoop Desai sort of glares at the judges as if he really resents what they're saying. Not a great strategy. He loses the audience when he does this as well as the judges. It's totally a body language and facial expression response on his part and people pick up on it. You almost wonder if he's aware that he's doing it. How often have you seen a similar dynamic in the workplace?

Ignore It: Danny Gokey seemed to be an early favorite on the show this year, but I think he's fading because he's not getting that much better. He's always pleasant during the feedback segment, smiling and nodding his head when he gets a critical comment. You can almost see the feedback whizzing right past his ears as he's smiling and nodding his head. It doesn't seem to register. My guess about what's going on is that he's got a strong story about himself called "I'm a great singer," which cancels out his capacity to hear anything at odds with that story.

Don't Care About It: The recently departed (from the show) Megan Joy Corkey was the champ at this. She literally told the judges that she didn't care what they thought about her performance because she was being true to herself (or something to that effect). Apparently the audience thinks that caring matters because she's off the show.

Argue With It: This approach is best exhibited by Lil Rounds. Like Danny Gokey, she seemed to be an early favorite. Her challenge is that she is so committed to her style and apparently so convinced that she's right, that she will not take feedback. Not only does she not take it, she literally argues with it and engages the judges in a debate about why she's doing what she's doing. Again, not a great strategy for learning how to be better.

So, whether or not you're an Idol fan, what would you add to the list of do's and don'ts about receiving feedback? What success stories do you have to share about helping yourself or others to work better with feedback?

And, for all you Idol fans, what do you think? Is Adam the best contestant ever or not?

With so many things in play, it's easy to lose track of all the major issues the Obama White House is dealing with. A couple of weeks ago, the focus was on the global economy and the G20 meeting. A few days earlier it was on establishing a new approach for taking on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Afpak). From the standpoint of media coverage and public attention, a quiet, but key, architect of the new Afpak policy has been Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

As the New York Times has reported, Gates has now worked for eight U.S. presidents, including Obama's immediate predecessor, George W. Bush. Since leaders often have to work with a new boss (is there anyone at GM reading this?), I thought it would be interesting to see what tips can be gleaned from Gates on how to establish yourself quickly with a new boss while making a significant difference in a short amount of time.
Here's a quick take on what I find both admirable and replicable in Gates' approach:

Be There: We can start by amending the famous Woody Allen quote. It's not just that 90 percent of life is showing up. It's also showing up in the right place. When the Obama team came in, Gates intentionally modified a personal travel schedule that had him travelling around the globe 115 days last year to one where his daily travel is primarily limited now to the two mile trip between the Pentagon and the White House. Gates clearly understood that if he was going to influence the President and his team, he had to be engaged with them personally so he could learn their style and points of view. They also had to get to know him and trust him. He invested the time in doing that.

Think Outside In: Unlike some of his predecessors, Gates does not view the Defense Department as the hammer that makes every problem look like a nail. As the article reports, one of the factors that prompted Obama to ask Gates to stay on was a speech Gates gave in 2007 where he said, "One of the most important lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win." Gates has been a key player in ensuring that the new Afpak plan involves not just more troops but more experts from the State Department and other civilian agencies.

Share a Grounded Point of View: In speaking about the Afpak region in congressional testimony recently, Gates got the attention of many experts when he said, "If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose." In saying this he summarized a new consensus that he helped develop inside the White House that the goals need to be realistic. The combination of Gates' sharing his experience in the region along with his low-key demeanor enabled him to influence the president and his colleagues towards a new policy.

Keep Your Ego in Check: Compared to others in the administration, Gates is not someone you see on the news or in social Washington a lot. As the Times article points out, he spends most evenings at home eating carry out food for dinner. His clarity on the results he's trying to achieve and his emphasis on the relationships he's trying to build override any personal impulses to come across like a big shot. Clearly, he is a big shot. It's just that he doesn't feel compelled to remind himself and others of that all the time.

When I look at that list of how Gates is showing up -- being there, thinking beyond his own agenda, sharing a grounded point of view and being low on ego needs -- my thought is, "No wonder this guy has worked for eight different presidents and is already a key player with Obama." Wouldn't any new boss worth his or her salt want people with that kind of approach on their team?

What's been your experience in establishing yourself with a new boss or leadership team? Have you used some of the Gates strategies? What else has worked for you in making this kind of transition?

Government Executive readers who have been around for awhile may remember those two questions from the late Admiral James Stockdale when he participated in the 1992 vice presidential debates with Al Gore and Dan Quayle. They strike me as two good questions to answer as I begin blogging for Government Executive.

I'm a leadership strategist and executive coach who focuses on supporting successful leaders who are charged with getting different results. The change in desired results usually stems from a promotion to a new role or from a big change in the external environment. Either way, different results usually require different actions on the part of leaders. That's where I come in. My job is to help my clients and readers in the public and private sectors to get clear on the results that are expected and what they need to change to achieve them.

My goal in this blog is to provide you with news you can use to be a more effective government executive. I'll usually peg the coaching advice to a lesson that can be learned from a leader in the news. Sometimes the lessons will be from positive examples and other times they won't. Either way, I look forward to hearing your comments and thoughts. In addition to supporting you as a leader, my goal is to start a conversation about leadership from which we can all learn and benefit.