If you skew a little bit "old school," you probably remember a series of TV ads for Dunkin' Donuts that featured a shop manager who wearily woke up at 3:00 am every day with the mordant refrain, "Time to make the donuts." If you're too young to know what I'm talking about, check this out:

My wife recently saw a bumper sticker with the (edited here for public consumption) phrase, "Freakin' Donuts." If you're old enough to remember, then you're in on the joke. Sometimes life can feel like it's just one more day of making the donuts.

I find this happens when you get overly focused on the tasks that stack up in front of you. All those donuts can cause you to lose sight of the bigger purpose and picture. Leaders (and I definitely include myself here), need to pull the lens back on a regular basis and ask themselves, "What really matters to me?" Getting clear on your answers to that question can help you clarify your priorities and even come up with some innovative ways to address them.

So, how did I come up with this point and why am I bringing it up now? Well, it so happens that I'm married to a really excellent coach named Diane who asked me last night to make a list of the things that matter to me. Once we covered the basics (e.g. strong marriage, healthy kids, food and shelter), I moved on to other things that matter to me. Since I'm a leadership coach, one of the obvious answers is leadership. But, if you think about it, good leadership is a means to an end. So, Diane kept asking, "What else matters to you?" Here's my list:

1. Sustainable global economy
2. Justice
3. Basic levels of quality of life for all people
4. Global and national security
5. Innovation and progress
6. Health and wellness
7. Learning and knowledge
8. Happiness
9. Reflection and spiritual development
10. Personal and family sustainability

Admittedly, that is a wide ranging list of things that matter to me. It can easily lead to the question, "How could anyone, unless they were a head of government, work on all of that?" Well, I'm fortunate that my profession of leadership coaching, writing and speaking allows me to support leaders in organizations that are doing great work on many of those issues. When I frame my work in the context of "What am I doing to contribute to the things that matter most to me?," I immediately move past the feeling of just making the daily batch of donuts.

How about you? What matters to you? What's the connection between your daily work and what matters? What about your team? What kinds of conversations are you having about the connection between their work and what matters?

Speaking of conversations, let's start one here. I'd love to see some comments posted on what matters to you and the meaningful work that you and your team are doing about that.

Have you noticed how many books are out there on how to have conversations? There are books on powerful, difficult, crucial and fierce conversations. Who knew there were so many flavors?

Recently, my coaching colleague, Dr. Janice Shack Marquez of the Federal Reserve Board, shared on the Georgetown Leadership Coaching Program listserv a terrific summary that compares three of the well known books on conversations. I liked it so much that I asked Janice if she'd like to run it here. She said yes, so here it is. Thanks Janice!

I work in an organization where it is all about the conversation. As with any organization there are plenty of times when this is a real challenge. We also have our own more specific brand of challenge as well. We have more than 200 Ph.Ds on staff. Individual success as an academic researcher depends, in part, on one's ability to dissect and analyze other's arguments. But we are a policy-making organization and success in developing effective policies relies first on valuing other's opinions and independent professional judgments and then on our ability to work as a team to mold independent viewpoints into coherent, effective policies.

As an executive coach and a leader, I'm always looking for tools to put in my toolkit, so I've been trying to come to an understanding about the distinctions among several excellent books on conversations: Crucial Conversations by Patterson, Grenny, McMillan and Switzler, Fierce Conversations by Scott, and Difficult Conversations by Stone, Patton and Heene and Fisher.

There are strong similarities between Difficult Conversations and Crucial Conversations. Both deal with how to conduct conversations that are high-stakes and emotionally charged. Difficult Conversations comes out of the Harvard Negotiation Project and shares important insights from law, organizational behavior, cognitive, family and social psychology and "dialogue" studies. The interdisciplinary nature of the Harvard Project provides a strong academic foundation for the reader. They break these difficult conversations into their component parts: the conversation about what happened, the conversation about your feelings about what happened, and how the conversation affects our sense of identity. One of the book's strengths is how to prepare well for tough talks in advance. The techniques in the book are geared toward getting people to lower their defenses, creating mutual respect and understanding, increasing emotional safety, and encouraging freedom of expression. The strength of Crucial Conversations is a formula for high-stakes conversations; this can be valuable for those who want or need the structure.

In my view, Fierce Conversations is different from Difficult and Crucial in that it focuses on how to have conversations about things that are important, but that may not have risen to the emotionally-charged level. The book is based on principles developed as part of the author's consulting practice. Its thesis is that relationships, both professional and personal, hinge on how conversations go, and that the best conversations require honesty and a willingness to listen. Of course, this is not a new concept, but the focus of the book is squarely on how to have the conversation that needs to be had, rather than the conversation that is easy in the short run. The book includes tools and assignments designed to help the reader develop the skills to have these robust and honest conversations. Fierce's contribution is that it teaches how to have a conversation so that you can avoid having it escalate to difficult or crucial levels.

When I am working with leaders, I find that Fierce Conversations has broad appeal because it focuses on improving the general quality of conversation, where a quality conversation is one that is held with integrity, honesty and forthrightness. And, of course, these are leadership qualities that transcend the conversation.

As an executive coach and someone who spends a lot of my time trying to figure out how leaders can be more effective, you can imagine how excited I was to learn that there is all kinds of new data out on employee satisfaction in the federal government. The Partnership for Public Service has released the results of its biannual Best Places to Work in the Federal Government report. Being the total leadership geek that I am, it's been a lot of fun for me to get online and sort through the 74 employee survey questions that the study is based upon. What's even more fun for me is the direct comparison between the public and private sectors on 13 benchmark questions from the Best Places to Work studies.

(I know what you're thinking. "Wow, he needs to find a hobby or something." You may be right, but hang with me as I'm getting to the really good stuff.)

Anyway, the question that generated the biggest gap between the public and private sectors was, "How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management on what's going on in your organization?" 48% of Federal employees answered that question positively while the favorable rating with private sector employees was 66%.

That started me wondering which items in the Federal study had lower favorability ratings than that one. It turns out that you can download all the questions from the Office of Personnel Management in an Excel spreadsheet and start sorting to your heart's content. There are 20 questions with less than a 48% positive rating. (The lowest, with a 9% favorable rating, is "How satisfied are you with child care subsidies?") Out of the other 19 lower rated items, I found three that I think can be directly linked back to how leaders spend their personal time and attention. Those three are:

• "In my organization, leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce." (40% favorable)
• "Creativity and innovation are rewarded." (40% favorable)
• "How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders?" (42% favorable)

I'd argue that three out of the four items highlighted here (receiving information, feeling committed and satisfaction with policies and practices) are directly connected to the quality of leadership communications. You could also argue that the fourth item (rewarding innovation) is at least indirectly related to intentional leadership communication.

So, what's the lesson that any leader (public or private sector) should take away from the study? I'd go back to one of my favorite frameworks - Bill Bridges' Four P's Model. Leaders need to be focused on constantly and consistently communicating four things:

• 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: here's what you can do to contribute. What else can you bring to the party?

Think for a moment about how a consistent leadership focus on communicating the Four P's would move the needle on employee knowledge, commitment, innovation and satisfaction. If you're a leader, what can you do this week to communicate the purpose, picture, plan and the part to play? If you're a leader of leaders, what do you and your team need to do to cascade the communication throughout your organization?

Given our current state of affairs, it seems like commitment and innovation have never been more important. What do you want to do about it? What other tactics or strategies would you share to help leaders move the needle?

The level of public discourse and obvious self interest on the part of people in leadership positions can be pretty discouraging. Oftentimes, it seems like the first instinct of leaders under pressure is to call names, deny responsibility and look out only for their self interest. It literally seems childish.

On the other hand, we sometimes have the privilege of seeing leaders in action who demonstrate maturity through reasoned, principled responses and generally acting like grown-ups should act. Over the past week, I've noticed three public sector leaders who have done that. There are some basic principles these leaders demonstrated that I think all leaders should strive to emulate.

Stand Firm, but Don't Overreact: CIA director Leon Panetta had to respond when Speaker of the House Pelosi accused his Agency of having misled her in 2002 briefings on interrogation techniques. Over the course of his long career in public service, Panetta has earned a lot of respect for his ability to work with others, his decision making ability across a range of issues and his capacity to be tough but fair. He showed all of these characteristics in how he responded to Pelosi. He didn't get into a media-driven, public mud wrestling match. Rather he released a memo to CIA employees that said the following: "It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress... Our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [terrorism suspect] Abu Zubaida, describing the 'enhanced techniques that had been employed.' "

That, to me, is a model of how to defend one's team. Clear, concise and issue, not personality, focused. Panetta was firm without overreacting in a way that would have needlessly escalated the media swirl.

Choose Service Over Self-Interest: Last week, Jon Huntsman, the Republican governor of Utah, accepted the President's nomination to be the U.S. Ambassador to China. It's a nomination that has been universally praised because of Huntsman's personal and professional background in China (he has spoken fluent Mandarin Chinese since his days as a Mormon missionary in the region), and his track record as Utah governor. The surprise factor in this nomination is that Huntsman has been considered a front runner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 and had been taking clear steps to set up a campaign.

Huntsman explained his decision to accept by recounting a conversation he had with Obama: "(We) talked a lot about service and in some cases the importance of putting self-interest and politics aside in pursuit of those things that are more important for our nation."

How refreshing is that?

Conduct Civil Discourse: Last weekend, President Obama delivered the commencement address at Notre Dame following several weeks of heated debate and protests over whether or not he should be allowed to speak there given his policies on abortion.

Rather than using the commencement address to defend his policy or just ignore the issue, Obama used the moment to pull the lens back to examine the process of how such issues should be enjoined in a civil society. As the Washington Post reported, "Obama acknowledged that 'no matter how much we want to fudge it ... the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.' But he still implored the University of Notre Dame's graduating class and all in the U.S. to stop "reducing those with differing views to caricature. Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It's a way of life that always has been the Notre Dame tradition."

The emphasis in that last quote is mine. I highlighted it because I think that reductionist approach limits the capacity of people to do good work together. As St. Francis of Assisi said (and Stephen Covey later popularized), we should seek first to understand, then be understood. I appreciated that reminder in Obama's Notre Dame speech.

So, those are three encouraging examples I've seen lately of leaders acting like grown-ups by demonstrating some strong principles. Who or what do you find encouraging these days?

Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band are coming to DC tonight. Unfortunately, I don't have tickets but I do have an iPod full of the Boss's music and great memories of a Springsteen show I saw a few years ago. What is it about Springsteen and the band that inspires such loyalty among their legions of followers? Apart from drifting on rock and roll fantasies, what can leaders learn from the Boss and the heart stopping, house rocking, earth shaking, legendary E Street Band?

In a brief interview with the Washington Post's J. Freedom du Lac (how's that for a very cool name?), E Street guitarist Nils Lofgren provides some insights on the Boss for leaders who want to rock the house.

Keep It Fresh: Lofgren says that Springsteen is surprising the band in the middle of shows by calling out classic cover songs that they haven't worked up ahead of time. As Neils says, "we're playing songs we don't even know how to play, which, I guess is taking improv to new heights." By stretching the band in this way, Springsteen is introducing a fresh element that adds some fun and keeps everyone engaged. What are you doing to keep it fresh for your team?

Experience Matters: Of course, if you're going to play songs you don't know in an arena full of people, it helps if you have some experience. As Lofgren points out, "we've probably got 300 to 400 years onstage" between the different members of the band. As discussed in recent posts, experience and practice leads to world class performance. As a leader, what kind of experience matters most to the results that you and your team are expected to deliver? What are you doing to recruit and develop that experience?

Take a Stand: Springsteen has a history of clearly stating his point of view and writing songs that illustrate where he stands. His fans may not always agree with him on every issue, but most of them appreciate his authenticity. Lofgren talks about this at some length in the interview. As a leader, what matters enough to you to take a stand and stick with it? What are you doing to communicate those principles?

Bring Your Soul: If you've seen Springsteen in concert, you know that he approaches his performance as a spiritual revival. Lofgren argues that "what I think Bruce is doing better than any performer today; he's giving the audience, yes, an escape but also maybe some spiritual hope and confidence that they didn't have when they walked in the doors at 8." The Boss brings his soul to the performance and turns it loose. That's what connects with people. I'm not suggesting that you slide across the floor of your office on your knees at your next staff meeting (although if you do, please send a video), but what are you doing to let your team know what you think is worth being passionate about?

OK, so that's my list. All you hard rocking Springsteen fans out there, what would you add?

Thought I'd start out the week by sharing with you three articles that I'm looking forward to digging into. The first two come from the current issue of The New Yorker. One recaps the famous study on kids who are promised two marshmallows if they can keep themselves from eating the one that's placed in front of them for a short period of time. Researchers are revisiting that study to see what can be learned about teaching self-control. (For an example of how hard it is for a five year old not to gobble up a marshmallow, check out this clip - stay with it through the guy that's talking in the first 30 seconds or so):

I'm not sure if the editors of The New Yorker meant to send a message with their story selection, but later in the same issue is a fascinating article called the "The Death of Kings." It recounts how the overuse of leverage over the past twenty years led to the excessive consumption that has put the global economy where it is today. (I don't want just two marshmallows. I want 20 million marshmallows!). One of the more interesting aspects of the article is the recitation of different epiphanies that Wall Street financiers had that told them things were about to radically change. One that struck me was someone noticing that the $350 million opening ceremony at the Beijing Olympics came just a month before the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

The last article I plan to take a closer look at this weekend is the cover story in this month's issue of The Atlantic. It's called "What Makes Us Happy?" and reviews 72 years of research at Harvard about what leads to and constitutes a long and happy life. Bad news for the makers of Lipitor - the study finds that cholesterol counts at age 50 don't matter so much. What does matter is the quality of one's relationships and the capacity to make "mature adaptations" (e.g. altruism, humor, planning ahead, impulse control and finding healthy outlets for potentially damaging emotions like aggression and lust).

Is it just me, or does everything seem to come back to the marshmallow study?

Readers in the Washington, D.C. area are probably familiar with the annual White House Correspondents Dinner. The latest edition took place last weekend. Often described as DC's version of the senior prom, the dinner is an opportunity for journalists and politicians to dress up, make jokes at each other's expense and to gawk at all of the celebrity guests that are invited by different media organizations. In addition to the biggest celebrity, the President, the guest list included Eva Longoria Parker, Sting, Natalie Portman, Steven Spielberg and Jon Bon Jovi.

No doubt, there were some interesting conversations going on and, as you can see on this You Tube clip, the president delivered a pretty funny stand-up comedy routine:

At the risk of coming across like a complete leadership geek, however, the conversation at the dinner that I would have most loved to be privy to is the one that might have happened when two of the celebrity guests got together to compare notes. Captain Richard Phillips, the freighter captain who was rescued from Somali pirates by Navy SEALS, and Captain "Sully" Sullenberger of US Airways "Miracle on the Hudson" fame were both at the dinner. I have no idea if they spent any time together (I hope they did.), but that would have been one very interesting conversation to listen in on. Wouldn't you love to hear them compare notes on how they led in a crisis and how they've handled the acclaim that has since come their way?

Here's a short list of what I could see them talking about and what we can learn from these two leaders.

Forethought: Both Phillips and Sullenberger performed as they did because of experience and training. While neither of them had been captured by pirates or ditched a jetliner in the Hudson before, they'd both had extensive training and experience that enabled them to respond appropriately in their situations. They both had likely addressed relevant "What if?" scenarios in their minds regularly over the years and, when the real life situations developed, they were able to quickly move to contingency plans. Good leaders always have back up plans in mind.

Responsibility and Decisiveness: When the US Airways jet lost power from the bird strike on its climb out of LaGuardia, the co-pilot was on the controls. At that moment, Sullenberger immediately said, "My aircraft," and took clear accountability for what was about to happen. Likewise, Phillips, as captain of his vessel, offered himself as a bargaining chip to the pirates in what was supposed to be an exchange for a pirate who had been captured by Phillips' crew in the initial attack on the Maersk Alabama. The pirates reneging on the deal was what led to Phillips being held hostage in a lifeboat for five days. Good leaders understand the responsibility that comes with their role and, in a crisis, aren't afraid to make decisions based on that responsibility.

Resourcefulness: Both of these leaders showed great amounts of resourcefulness. In Sullenberger's case, not only did he determine that the Hudson was his only available place to land, he intentionally put the plane down on a section of the river where he knew that tour boats would be close by to help with the rescue. Phillips showed resourcefulness of a different kind. After making an unsuccessful escape attempt by jumping off the lifeboat and swimming away, he was somehow able to keep a dialogue going with the pirates that enabled him to stay alive until the SEALS rescued him. Whether they are looking externally or internally, good leaders stay aware of the resources available to them and use them to full advantage.

Sharing the Credit: Sullenberger and Phillips both became instant heroes. They have both been very careful and intentional, though, to share the credit for their success with their crew mates and their rescuers. For Sullenberger, it was his co-pilot, flight attendants and the tour boat crews. For Phillips, it was his shipmates and the SEALS. Neither captain has given the slightest hint that he thinks it's all about him. Good leaders understand that you don't do it alone.

Dignity: In the midst of White House visits, congressional appearances, special events and all kinds of media attention, both Phillips and Sullenberger have maintained their dignity. My guess is we may see a book from each of them (and good for them if they each write one), but I doubt we're going to see them going over the top to cash in on their fame. They're both good leaders who are in it for the mission, not the glory.

So, that's my take on what these two guys might have talked about on Saturday night. What else inspires you about Sullenberger and Phillips that you would add to the list? What have you learned about leadership from watching them?

In his latest New Yorker article, "How David Beats Goliath," Malcolm Gladwell tells stories of how outmatched underdogs beat their much larger, more experienced competitors. He begins with the story of an inexperienced 12 year old girls basketball team that went all the way to the national championship game by running a relentless full court press every game. He moves onto the story of David slaying Goliath and cites some fascinating research by Harvard political scientist Ivan Arreguin-Toft who studied every war fought in the last 200 years that pitted strong and weak opponents against each other. On the whole, the underdogs won 28% of the time. When they recognized their weaknesses and adapted their strategies to compensate for them they won 64% of the time.

Pretty stunning, huh? Gladwell's article got me thinking about what leaders need to learn from underdogs. Over the past seven months, as the Federal government has taken a much more active role in stimulating the economy, reviving the financial services sector and restructuring the auto industry, we've been regularly reminded of Richard Nixon's observation in 1971 (and Milton Friedman's before that) that, "We are all Keynesians now." As we move through the downturn and into recovery, perhaps leaders need to adopt the mindset of, "We are all underdogs now." With that in mind, here are three success rules of underdogs that can help leaders facing long odds.

Get Real: Underdogs have a much better chance of winning when they honestly self-assess their strengths and weaknesses in the situation. When Arreguin-Toft broke his 200 year study of war down into 50 year increments, he observed that underdogs have been winning at a higher rate in the past 100 years. Why? Because they better understood their weaknesses and adopted insurgency strategies against their much larger and better equipped opponents. Think back to the pre- Petraeus period in Iraq for an example of this.

Go Where They're Not: In their book, Blue Ocean Strategy, Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne offer an underdog's handbook for succeeding by going where the competition isn't. Rather than competing in the red ocean (think of sharks fighting for the same food), they talk about creating blue ocean opportunities. Take online music as an example. It wasn't long ago that the Recording Industry Association of America was filing law suits against 15 year olds for downloading music from free file sharing sites. Enter Steve Jobs and Apple who said, "How about if we create a service where you can download all the songs you want for 99 cents each?" Five billion downloaded songs later, Apple's changed an industry and created two "must have" devices (iPod and iPhone) that have fed off the iTunes model.

Get Over It: Underdogs are innovators. They question the assumptions of the powers-that-be Goliaths. In the words of the famous Apple ad campaign they "Think Different." That can be a really uncomfortable position to be in when Goliath starts pushing back. The girls basketball team mentioned earlier lost the national championship game because they backed off the full court press when the other side complained vociferously and the refs started calling ticky-tack fouls. The conventional wisdom is very strong because it's convention. It's the way everybody does it or thinks about it. The cultural resistance to change can be exceedingly strong. Successful underdogs get over the need to be accepted by the keepers of the conventional wisdom. (Of course, they also pace the work from a change management standpoint, but that's a whole other post in itself.)

So, when you step back and look at what the opportunities are for your organization or where it needs to go, which of these underdog rules apply most to your situation? What underdog rules would you add based on your own experience or observation?

The French have this great line, "Tout est nouveau, vieux nouveau," which more or less translates as "Everything old is new again." A New York Times column by David Brooks, "Genius: The Modern View," sort of proves the wisdom of that line. Brooks summarized the conclusions of two recent books, The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle and Talent Is Overrated by Geoff Colvin to make the point that lots of deliberate practice is what made Mozart one of the all time musical greats and has Tiger Woods on track to be the greatest golfer of all time.

The new research Brooks talks about is interesting but it essentially illustrates something Aristotle said over 2,000 years ago: "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit." If there's one idea that informs the way I think about coaching and performance improvement, that's it. What some of the newer books are adding to the Aristotelian guidance is more detail about how to put the core idea into practice. Brooks does a nice job of breaking the detail down into tangible steps:

1. Look for a strength to build on. (e.g. "natural" technical skills, leadership skills, athletic skills, etc.)
2. Create a picture of best case performance by identifying some role models who have accomplished a lot in the domain of that strength. (e.g. young Tiger had a picture of Jack Nicklaus on his bedroom wall.)
3. Go deep in that strength. Observe, read and think as much as you can about it.
4. Practice that strength in a way that breaks the various components down into highly discrete and identifiable behaviors.
5. Focus on becoming conscious of unconscious behaviors and actions.
6. Find a coach or mentor who can provide the outside-in perspective to reinforce positive behaviors and point out and correct non-productive behaviors.
7. When you've mastered one or more of the behaviors, go back to step 4, identify some additional components and repeat steps 4, 5 and 6.

So, it's that easy, right? Umm, maybe not. In my coaching experience, the difference between leaders who improve by leaps and bounds and those who don't is the clarity of the developmental focus and the willingness and motivation to follow through. The follow through is otherwise known by that nasty word called "practice." The good news is that everyday life presents all kinds of opportunities for intentional practice.

It's what I call the "school of real life." My point as a coach is that your calendar is full of stuff every week that you're going to do anyway. So, if you're going to do all of that stuff anyway, why not approach your calendar with the additional intent of using your daily activities to learn how to be a better leader by practicing one or two specific behaviors (e.g. listening, asking good questions, delegating work to others, showing confidence in presentations, etc.) that could make you a better leader? Life is one big learning opportunity. Why not approach it with some clear intention around continuous improvement?

I'll turn it back to David Brooks for an inspiring conclusion:

"Public discussion is smitten by genetics and what we're "hard-wired" to do. And it's true that genes place a leash on our capacities. But the brain is also phenomenally plastic. We construct ourselves through behavior. As Coyle observes, it's not who you are, it's what you do."