One of the memorable conversations I had when conducting the research for my book, The Next Level, was with Bob Johnson who at the time was a senior vice president for Nextel. Among other good points that he made, Bob said that senior leaders need to think of themselves as ambassadors representing the rest of the leadership team to the entire organization. His point was that the people in the organization who don't regularly deal with senior leaders will form their impressions of the entire leadership team based on their interaction with that one member of the senior team. 

So, with that conversation in mind, I read with interest an interview in the current issue of Newsweek that Jon Meachem conducted with Henry Kissinger and Hilary Clinton on their experiences serving as Secretary of State. If you're a leader or have an interest in foreign policy and how it is shaped and executed, the entire interview is worth your time. I've read through it a couple of times now and have concluded that Kissinger and Clinton offer some practical advice for dealing with some of the challenges facing senior leaders in any field. What follows are direct quotes from the two Secretaries organized under headings that reflect typical leadership priorities or challenges I've seen in working with senior leader clients.  My hope is that there you'll pick up some ideas or perspectives that will be applicable to some of the challenges you'll face in 2010. (My headers are in bold and the Kissinger and Clinton quotes are in italics.)

Building Relationships That Lead to Results -

Clinton:  What I have found hardest to balance is the amount of travel that is expected today. One would think that in an era where communication is instantaneous, you would not have to get on an airplane and go sit in a meeting. But, in fact, it's almost as though people are more desirous of seeing someone in person.

Kissinger: Because they have to have explained to them what is really being thought, which you can't put through cables.

Clinton:  But part of what you can attempt to do when you've developed a relationship is to offer different ways of looking at that national interest, to try to find more common ground. And it's going to be a more likely convergence if the person with whom you're talking feels that they've already developed a personal understanding of you and a personal connection with you. And I've spent, as Henry has, an enormous amount of time just building those relationships. Because it is all about having enough trust between leaders and countries so that misunderstandings don't occur, but also on the margins, there can be a greater appreciation of the other's point of view.

Time Management Triage -

Clinton:  One of the biggest challenges for me personally is to keep trying to present an affirmative agenda, not a reactive one, because you could end up being kind of an inbox secretary of state. You are never off duty. Because you land, you begin to work, and you go the next place and you land and begin to work. When you come back, your inbox is a foot high.

Kissinger: ... there are as many constituencies as there are countries with which we have relationships. So at the end of every day you almost have to make a decision--whom are you going to insult by not dealing with his or her problems?   Because there's no possible way you could get through.   It's a job that requires 24-hour attention.  One of the problems of government is to separate the urgent from the important and make sure you're dealing with the important and don't let the urgent drive out the important.

Balancing the Short and Long Term Perspectives -

Kissinger:  With so many constituencies, to get them to work toward a coherent goal is a huge assignment for the secretary.

Clinton:   ... you try to keep your eye on the long-term trend lines because what is neither urgent nor important today might become one or the other by next year or the year after. And that's a whole different set of skills that is required. I'm always reaching down into the building and saying, "What are we doing on energy security and independence? What are we doing to work with Europe so that they will come up with a common policy through the EU on their own energy needs? What are we doing on food security?"

Managing Your Message -

Clinton:  ... press coverage, with all due respect, often raises fears and anxieties that are not rooted in any decision process. People sit around in capitals all over the world reading tea leaves, trying to make sense of what we're doing. We have to go and meet and talk and listen, and it is a challenge to manage all of the relationships you have to manage when you're on an airplane as much as I am these days. 

Kissinger: When you travel as secretary, one problem you have is that the press comes with you and wants an immediate result because it justifies their trip. And sometimes the best result is that you don't try to get a result but try to get an understanding for the next time you go to them.

Establishing Trust and Effectiveness with Your Boss -

Clinton:   ... the tough decisions end up in the Oval Office.   And you can't just walk in and say to the president, "Here's what I think you should do." It takes a lot of thought and effort. I meet with the president one-on-one once a week.   I'm in other meetings with him with the national-security team. It's a constant conversation...  having the trust and confidence of the president means that you can do the travel, check back in, report back in without worrying that you're not on the same page because you've talked at length about where you're headed before you go.

At this point, Joe Lieberman is starting to remind me of Lucy in the Peanuts comic strip. Remember the long running bit about how she'd promise to hold the football for Charlie Brown so he could kick it and then she'd snatch it away at the last minute leaving him flat on his back? My guess is that's how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his colleagues are feeling about Lieberman right about now. Yay, we have a public option in the health care bill!  No, wait, we don't.  Lieberman is going to filibuster a bill with a public option. That's OK, we can put in a provision to offer Medicare to those 55 and older. Yeah, that'll work. Uh, no apparently not. Lieberman's against it now even though he was for it three months ago. 

Before we go any further, let me say that the point of this post is not to argue the pros and cons of the health care bill.  The question I'm interested in today is how do you work with someone like Joe Lieberman who, just when you think you've got everything lined up, throws a wrench in the gears at the last minute and then does it again (and again and again)? It's a pertinent question, I think, because most people have a Joe Lieberman in their workplace. How do you deal with this kind of person?

I've actually had a number of coaching conversations this year about this topic. Before I get to a list of what might work, here are some things that I'm pretty sure don't work. First, threats usually don't work. Why? Because they usually can't or won't be backed up and your local Joe knows that. Second, anger doesn't usually work. Why? Because a lot of the time Joe is just trying to provoke a response to prove he's a player.  Anger fills that desire beautifully. Finally, ignoring Joe doesn't work. Why?  Because if you ignore Joe, he's going to bide his time and wait until you think you've got it all wrapped up to spring a move that reminds you he's still there.

So, what does seem to work with the Joes of the world?  Here's a short list:

1.   Remember it's not about you. It's about Joe. To deal with him, you're going to need to get over your pity party about how unfair and unreasonable he is and start thinking like Joe.

2.   Assume that you're Joe. As uber coach Tim Gallwey would suggest, as Joe, ask yourself three questions:

• What do I think? 
• How do I feel?
• What do I want?

3.   Give some extra time to thinking about what Joe wants. Here's a big clue. What he wants is a lot more connected to how he feels than to what he thinks. To deal with Joe, you're going to have to accommodate his emotional needs.  Does he feel prideful, wronged, ignored, anxious, vindictive or something else? Whatever it is, his wants and his actions are going to flow from that emotional state. To deal with Joe effectively, you're going to have to get ahead of the curve in making some educated guesses about what he wants.

4.   Make Joe feel loved.  When you get down to it, that's what most everybody wants. (Even Lucy.  Remember her jones for Schroeder?)  How do you make someone feel loved in the workplace? (In ways that won't get you sued?)  You ask them what they think. You bring them in the tent. You include them early and work to incorporate some of their ideas.

5.   Keep your cool. In spite of your best efforts, Joe is still likely to do things that tick you off. When he does, take a deep breath, remember what you're trying to accomplish and resist the urge to go ballistic. That just encourages Joe.

What are your experiences in working with a Joe? What's worked? What mistakes have you made? What's got you stuck?

Some of you, having read the title of this post, are likely asking yourself, "What could possibly be the connection between a Nobel Prize winning economist and a 10 time NBA championship coach?"  Fair question.  I'd just ask that you bear with me for a few paragraphs because I think there is a common lesson to be learned from the life of Paul Samuelson and the career thus far of Phil Jackson.  But first, a bit of background.

Paul Samuelson died over the weekend at the age of 94. To say that he shaped the field of economics in the 20th century and into the 21st is an understatement. As two of his colleagues at MIT once wrote, "he has been more than a role model;  he has been the role."  Samuelson shaped the practice of economics through his book The Foundations of Economic Analysis and made his discipline accessible to millions through his textbook, Economics.  He had a hand in teaching at least seven other Nobel laureates and reached at least four million students around the globe over 60 years (I was one of them.) with his textbook. His theoretical contributions are too numerous to mention here but include the idea of the multiplier effect, the theory of public goods, linear programming and the correspondence principle which shows the link between the behavior of individuals and the stability of the entire economy.  Probably his greatest accomplishment was  developing what he called the neoclassical synthesis. His big idea was that when an economy is near full employment, the forces of supply and demand will create equilibrium. But, when employment falls (as it has so dramatically this year), then government must intervene through spending, tax cuts and lowering interest rates to keep the economy going. Fortunately for the global economy, a lot of finance ministers around the world were schooled in the Samuelson approach and followed his teachings late last year and early this year.  (Check out the New York Times or the Financial Times  for more on Paul Samuelson.)

Phil Jackson, on the other hand, is still very much alive.  He came to mind today when I read a story in the Sports section of the New York Times about how Kurt Rambis, who used to play for Jackson in LA, is working to install the triangle offense in his new job as head coach of the (relatively woeful) Minnesota Timberwolves.  Basketball aficionados know that Jackson first used the triangle with the Michael Jordan-era Chicago Bulls and has since gone on to use it in coaching the Lakers to four championships. Jackson learned the triangle from a veteran coach named Tex Winter who had learned it from a USC and Iowa coach named Sam Barry. The triangle (which is explained in this graphic from the Times) is so simple it's hard. As Rambis said, "It really teaches players how to play. It teaches players how to move without the basketball, how to read defenses, how to play together."

Here's what I think is the thread that ties the Samuelson and Jackson stories together in a inspiring way for leaders. Both of these men became experts in their chosen fields and both benefited from the teachings of others. They both, in turn, dedicated significant portions of their careers to refining what they learned and then passing those lessons on to others. Both Samuelson and Jackson were links in a chain of learning that began several generations before them and now extends to generations beyond their own. 

In the day to day pressure of leadership, it's easy to forget what shaped you as a leader and way too easy to overlook the opportunities you have to shape the next generation of leaders. Those opportunities exist in any field of leadership whether it's economics, sports or anything else you're involved in.

So, as this week begins and 2009 draws to an end, here are a few questions to consider. What valuable knowledge have you learned from others?  What are you doing to build on that knowledge and pass it on?  What difference might that make?

This was a big week for notable speeches. Of course, there was President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo on Thursday. There was also a speech delivered by GE Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt for West Point's Distinguished Leader Series on Wednesday. Both speeches were interesting to me because of the multiple audiences they sought to address and the needles they chose to thread. You can find the text of the Obama speech on the New York Times web site and the text of Immelt's speech on this GE web site. Immelt's speech was entitled, "Renewing American Leadership." Obama's Nobel speech was essentially on the same topic. They're both worth reading if you want to get some insight into how two influential leaders view America's role in the world.
 
Of the two, I thought I'd highlight one section of the Immelt speech in this post. In his remarks to the cadets, Immelt used the second half of his time to identify five leadership traits that he says he is personally working on and that he thinks are important to the success of GE in the future. He said that leaders:

• "Have to be better listeners...
• Must become systems thinkers who are comfortable with ambiguity...
• Must build competency and move with speed...
• Must motivate with vision, but win with execution...
• Must like and respect people..."

That's a pretty interesting list. I was encouraged and a little surprised to see that listening was the first trait he mentioned. Not necessarily what you'd expect from the head of one of the world's largest companies.

If you were creating your own list of the leadership traits that are required for success in the 21st century what would it include? What do you agree or disagree with on Immelt's list? From a development standpoint, can liking and respecting people be coached and taught or do you just have to hire for it?

I'd love to hear what you think on these questions or any better ones you come up with.

Tuesday night in Washington, DC, a memorial service was held for Abe Pollin in the Verizon Center, the arena that transformed a neighborhood and that he built with his own money a little more than 10 years ago.  Washingtonians knew Pollin as an NBA and NHL owner, a real estate magnate and a philanthropist. I never met the man, but have been moved by the many tributes that have been written about him since he died of a debilitating neurological disease just before Thanksgiving.  

His life was what Zorba the Greek referred to as the "full catastrophe." The son of an Ellis Island Russian immigrant, Abe Pollin went on to build a real estate business and sports empire that made him a wealthy man. He was married for 64 years to his wife, Irene, and had just given her a bouquet of flowers for Thanksgiving in the moments before he passed away. Those who knew him tell story after story of his philanthropic work and the connection he made with those he served whether it was starving children in Uganda, low income families in DC that needed a safe and clean place to live, or creating futures for kids by paying for their education. 

At the same time, Pollin suffered setbacks and tragedies in his life. He and his wife lost two children to disease. He had contractual disputes and lawsuits to deal with over the years. He was the NBA owner who fired Michael Jordan as the Wizards' general manager in 2003 when Jordan was still held in the highest regard (Pollin was right on that one.).

His was a life well lived. He had vision. He had drive. He was loyal. He had a heart and acted on it. He was also stubborn and didn't take criticism well. He wasn't perfect, but he was a human being who stuck with it for 85 years and in the process helped a lot of other human beings. I've been thinking about writing about Pollin for the past couple of weeks. What prompted me to go ahead and do it was this column in the Washington Post from Mike Wise. In it, Wise tells the story of Pollin's barber for 40 years, Jose Ayala. The barber told Wise of how, on a Saturday morning 15 years ago, Pollin helped out in the shop by picking up a broom and sweeping the mounds of hair off the floor. The bigger story, though, was how Pollin helped Ayala adopt his son from Venezuela after his wife had had two miscarriages. The barber and his wife had been to the country and met the one week old baby at an adoption agency. Bureaucracy got in the way, however, and they returned to DC without a son. The next Saturday, Ayala told Pollin what had happened and, as Wise recounts, Pollin said, "Listen, you are going to adopt this child and I will help you. Don't worry, I will take care of you. The main thing is you have your son."  From there, Pollin paid for his high end attorneys to run the traps on the adoption process. Today, Jose's son is a 19 year old college lacrosse player.

If you want to understand the heart of a servant leader and how one life can impact thousands of others, read about the life of Abe Pollin. As you read, look past the wealth that Pollin created and look instead at how he paid attention to and acted on what he felt in his heart. No matter the level of financial resources available to us, we all have opportunities to serve others. 

Here are some Abe Pollin articles I recommend:  Maureen Dowd's, Colbert King's, George Solomon's and Peter Perl's Pollin obituary in the Washington Post.

Anyone who's been to one of my presentations or group coaching programs over the past three years knows that I've been a big fan of Tiger Woods (readers of this blog know the same thing through posts like Think Like Tiger,  Who's Your Caddy?  and Tiger's No Good, Horrible Very Bad Weekend). As a matter of fact, I've regularly illustrated two of the most popular leadership tools I've shared with my audiences and clients with examples inspired by Tiger. So, in addition to being one of many disappointed fans, the whole Tiger mess that started on Thanksgiving night is going to compel me to retire some really good stories from my repertoire.

As an example, one of the slides I've used a lot over the past few years is a picture of Tiger watching the flight of a monstrous drive with the question, "What Do You and Tiger Need to Have in Common?" as the headline. In asking my audience members for their top of mind response, I'd usually get some humorous answers like a "Swedish supermodel wife" or "corporate sponsors."  We'd all have a good laugh at answers like that. After the events of the past couple of weeks, I don't think I'd ever get the audience back if I asked that question. Honestly, can you imagine the answers I'd get if I asked it now?

The answer that I used to have in mind when I asked the question was a clear swing thought.  As most golfers know, a swing thought is the mental process you go through before you hit the golf ball.  It's the visualization process that answers two questions:
 
1.    What's the outcome I'm trying to create?
2.    How do I need to show up (or swing in the case of golf) to make that outcome likely?

My point has always been that those questions extend far beyond golf.  They're good questions to get in the habit of asking oneself before starting anything that matters.  Good questions, but not ones that I'll be explaining with Tiger Woods stories for awhile.

So, while acknowledging that the whole story for Tiger has yet to play out, I thought I'd share a few leadership lessons that I've thought about in relation to Tiger over  the past couple of weeks. (The premise here, much like my post a few months ago on the management of the Washington Redskins, is that you learn from examples of bad leadership as well as good. Just never thought I'd be writing one of those kinds of posts about Tiger.)

Swing Thoughts Actually Matter - If you break a swing thought down to answering the questions "What's the outcome I'm trying to create?" and "How do I need to show up to make that outcome likely?", it becomes pretty clear that Tiger hadn't really thought things through in the macro sense. When you look at the time, effort and money he's put into projecting himself as an outstanding athlete who does some pretty outstanding things off the course (e.g. education for kids), it's really hard to square up with how he was showing up in his private life. It looks like there was a big disconnect between the answers to the outcome I'm trying to create and the how I need to show up questions for Tiger. Success in both the short and long runs depends on authentic alignment between those two questions.

Compartmentalization is a Questionable Strategy  - Golf geeks (or Tiger geeks like me) were fascinated to see Tiger lose a Sunday lead and the PGA championship to Y.E. Yang in August and puzzled as to why he never mounted a viable charge against Phil Mickelson to win the Tour Championship in late September. Sure, Tiger was the leading money winner on the Tour in 2009, but it's not like him to lose when he's in the lead or close to the lead in a big tournament.  In retrospect, I wonder a bit if his performance had anything to do with a very complicated personal life. Over the years I've seen a lot of leaders who think they can compartmentalize their work life from their personal life.  It's not usually a successful long term strategy. You have one life. It has to be integrated across different domains to work.

Stage Management is Easier When There's Nothing to Hide  - If there's anything that the Tiger mess points out it's that leaders are always on stage. It's a lot easier to manage that dynamic when you don't have a bunch of stuff to hide. One of the truths of the age of the multi-logue is you're not going to be able to hide it indefinitely. The more visible you are, the more likely it is that the truth will come out.
 
Self-Improvement is a Life Long Process - I mentioned earlier in this post that I had two Tiger Woods stories that I regularly used in my presentations. The second was a point about continuous improvement that was emphasized from this Tiger quote that came from a January 2008 article in Golf Digest.

"The greatest thing about tomorrow is, I will be better than I am today. And that's how I look at my life. I will be better as a golfer, I will be better as a person, I will be better as a father, I will be a better husband, I will be better as a friend. That's the beauty of tomorrow. There is no such thing as a setback. The lessons I learn today I will apply tomorrow, and I will be better."

Redemption is Possible - Personal scandals involving leaders have been around since at least the time of King David and seem to be a dime a dozen these days.  Some of these folks are never heard from again and others go on to make important contributions. (Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton's work through the Clinton Global Initiative is an example.)  Of course, when the scandal is a big one, it will always be a part of the leader's life story no matter what he or she does later. Things can't be the same as they were before,  but it's worth the attempt at redemption. In his "comments on current events"  posted on his web site, Tiger wrote, "I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves.  For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology."  If he meant what he said in his statement Tiger Woods could do a lot of good in the rest of his life. One thing that we all have in common with Tiger is that we're human. We're going to make mistakes. Some are small, some are big and some are whoppers. The questions are what do we learn from them and what do we next. I wish Tiger, and all of us who need redemption, well.

As I write this, I'm thinking back on the serious and crazy events of the last week or so. The first few that come to mind are President Obama's speech on the troop increase in Afghanistan, the White House jobs summit, the White House party crashers and the whole Tiger Woods debacle. If all you focused on was this kind of stuff, a person could get sort of down.

Fortunately, I'm at the annual meeting of the International Coach Federation in Orlando this week and there are  a lot of other things to pay attention to. I just attended what was probably the best session of the conference for me which was a talk on the "Science of Coaching with Positivity" by Barbara Fredrickson who is the Kenan Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of North Carolina. She's also the author of Positivity which I just picked up at the conference book store. It looks like a great book based on a quick scan. You can read more about her work at www.positiveemotions.org.

Fredrickson's research shows that positive emotions are inherently impermanent. That presents a challenge for all of us since her research also shows that in order to show up at our best cognitively, socially, psychologically and physically, we need a ratio of at least three positive inputs for every one negative input. She offers an entire tool kit for building positivity in her book and offers some free tools online at www.positivityratio.com.

For now, here's one thing she shared with us this morning that you can try with someone you care about (e.g. co-worker, teammate, child, life partner). Fredrickson's research shows that gratitude is a game changer in transforming relationships. It turns out, though, that there is a right way and a wrong way to say thanks. Let's start with the wrong way. Don't thank someone for doing something and then immediately start talking about how it benefits you. Instead, when you thank someone put the focus on them and talk about how what they did for you is reflective of the larger qualities that you appreciate in them. The example that Fredrickson gave was a husband who thanked his wife for bringing a lemon square home for him from an office party. He didn't talk about how much he loved lemon squares (even though he did); he talked about how her bringing home the lemon square was an example of how thoughtful she is.

So, in the midst of this crazy and stressful world we live in, I encourage you to look for some opportunities today to spread some positivity. Go find someone who's done something you appreciate and offer them a high quality "thank you."  They'll feel better and so will you.

Cheers.

Regular readers of this blog know that I have some degree of fascination with the auto industry. It might track back to my boyhood love of Hot Wheels, but I think it's mainly that the current state of affairs offers so many opportunities to observe leaders operating in really challenging situations. The latest chapter in the story was the sudden announcement earlier this week that GM CEO Fritz Henderson had resigned. Since Henderson had been scheduled to deliver a speech at an industry conference in LA the day after the announcement was made by his boss, GM Chairman Ed Whitacre, in a hastily called press conference, it's pretty safe to conclude that "resigned" means "fired."

I have to say that I wasn't that surprised. In April of this year, I wondered aloud if Henderson was the right person for the job at GM after his debut appearance on Meet the Press. In his first opportunity to speak to a national audience as CEO, Henderson offered no specifics on either the challenges facing GM or a vision of the company's future. Over seven months later, that was still more or less the case. 

All of this stood in vivid contrast to what Alan Mulally has accomplished as CEO of Ford. Last month Ford, posted a quarterly profit of $1 billion without (other than the Cash for Clunkers program) any assistance from the Federal government. As I outlined in a post in early September, Mulally appears to be leading Ford to success through having a clear plan, aligning the culture of the company with the plan (rather than the other way around) and putting processes in place that encourage focus and consistent follow through. (If you want to see a great example of excellent leadership communications, click through to this video of an interview Mulally did with The New Yorker.)

So, what should Ed Whitacre and the GM board be looking for in their next CEO? I'm sure they're going to get lots of advice on that front from a high end search firm, but here's my 2 cents on the skill sets and experience base needed to lead one of the ultimate turnarounds:

Imagination:  You could argue that many of GM's troubles stem from a failure of imagination. The ability to process and interpret global economic and political forces and extrapolate that data into a vision of how a new GM fits into the future will be key. Doing that will require a leader with the imagination to envision the future.

Communication Skills: The new CEO will need to be "camera ready" from day one. Translating that vision of the future into a viable business model will require the ability to educate and convince a range of stakeholders that should get on board with the new plan. That will require communication skills that convey authenticity and connection to lots of different audiences using lots of different platforms. Of course, communication skills don't flow in just one direction. The new CEO will also need to be very adept at listening with both the ears and the eyes.

Focus on the Few: With all of the issues facing GM, the new CEO will need to be very skilled at prioritizing and focusing the organization on the few (five or less) things that matter most now in positioning  the company for the future.

Decisiveness:  Whitacre has made it clear that he's looking outside the company for GM's next CEO.  That should make it easier for the new leader to come in with an objective eye and make relatively quick decisions about the priorities for the business and the best people to execute on those priorities.

Culture Builder:  In an article he wrote for Fortune magazine, former federal car czar Steve Rattner described the culture at GM as one of "friendly arrogance" in which every decision required a Power Point deck and a committee and where the executives rode private elevators from the parking garage to their locked suite of offices. The new CEO will need to change the culture of the company in significant and highly visible ways for GM to be successful. Doing that will require a talent for creating the right mix of symbolic and substantive changes.

That's a bit of my take on what's needed from the next CEO of GM. If you were the head of their search committee, what would you be looking for?