This is advice I have given to many senior leaders because it shows a sense of humanity and openness, even transparency. It brings people to them because it shows that the senior leader does not have all the answers.

But does this advice apply to less senior leaders, those in middle management and below?

The answer is yes, but!

You admit shortcomings but you do with a sense of confidence. Some might say that confidence and vulnerability do not complement one another. Confidence is about exerting control of the situation; vulnerability is about reacting to the situation. But vulnerability is not weakness; it is an admission of humanity. And for that reason it is applicable to leaders at all levels.

Actors excel at projecting vulnerability. Jack Lemmon once said, “If you really do want to be an actor who can satisfy himself and his audience, you need to be vulnerable. [You must] reach the emotional and intellectual level of ability where you can go out stark naked, emotionally, in front of an audience.”

No one would advise a middle manager to strip during an important meeting, but he or she could lay bare his convictions when it comes to admitting a mistake. And it is in the acknowledgement of error where the sense of vulnerability becomes most important.

By admitting the error and accepting consequences the leader shows strength of character. He or she says I know myself and what I have done. But that’s not the end of the story. The admission must include correction, that is, what you will do to improve the situation.

Caveat: If the decision has harmed someone, you make an apology but follow up with amends, as a means of making it right. That’s why celebrity-style apologies are so meaningless. One, they begin with words like, “if I have offended anyone…” Ridiculous. Of course you have. That’s why you are apologizing. And more damning, they do not include ways they will make amends. The words may sound sincere, but the actions are limited.

There are another practical reasons why leaders need to own up to shortcomings. If you are in the middle, you want to admit it before your boss catches you. You want to get ahead of the news. One, because it is the right thing to do you demonstrate accountability. Two, you can manage the news. And it’s the management that is critical.

A savvy manager will follow the admission with the fix, that is, how he or she will take care of the issue. It is wise to be as specific as possible. That is, define the problem and its consequences. Then, delineate how you will respond with appropriate resources and application of manpower. But finally it is critical to show your boss that you are engaged and will remain so until the situation is resolved.

Such a situation demonstrates a command of the situation, and that is what managers want from their people – the ability to handle the situation. And as history shows admission of error is seldom fatal. It may even lead to future success because it shows you can be trusted to admit you are wrong and even better know how to deal with the situation.

A manager who is unaware of a mistake is worse than one who is aware and afraid to admit it. Vulnerability is the check on the process. It is a reflection of personal humility, an admission that you don’t have all the answers. Those leaders who know this and know how to respond when errors occur are those that others want to give higher level of responsibility.

First posted on Forbes.com 4.23.13

CNN’s senior political analyst David Gergen raised this notion when commenting on President Obama’s re-election. Gergen cited Winston Churchill’s maxim: “In Victory: Magnanimity.”

Not only should that advice serve the Obama Administration well as it seeks to negotiate the myriad of challenges facing it in the coming months, it is good advice for any executive who ends up on the winning side of an argument, particularly if that argument.

And in this regard Churchill is a good role model. No one was more tenacious in conflict – both personal and political — than he was. The quote on magnanimity is excerpted from a broader quote (“In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory. Magnanimity. In Peace. Goodwill.”) that captures the full spectrum of his public as well as private character.

Churchill’s sense of magnanimity was a foundation of his character. He was often gracious to political opponents whom he had bested, notably Neville Chamberlain whom he replaced as Prime Minister in 1940. Churchill gave a moving eulogy at Chamberlain’s funeral.

The lesson for executives is you never know when you will need a friend.  When the winner makes good on the handshake, that is, resolves to work out differences and find ways to cooperate – and indeed collaborate – it is a sign of great strength. It resonates strong character, but it also sends a signal to the team that the past is the past and the future belongs to those who work together. So here are some suggestions for reaching out to those you have bettered.

Compliment the team on its effort. Likely your rival and his team did a good job. Recognize the effort by citing specific positives.

Find ways to collaborate. State that you would like to work together in the future. Look for opportunities to connect on future projects.

Keep your door open. Not every rival is open and ready to work with the winning side. So don’t push it. Make an effort to reach out, but don’t force the issue. Keep an open mind about working together in the future.

These three steps also have relevance when an executive earns a promotion. Getting promoted is step one; step two is succeeding so you will need the support of former rivals to help the organization succeed. So make it known you want to work together. Affirm their value, and don’t be afraid to stroke their egos.

Churchill’s comment about magnanimity is an excerpt from a longer quote that concludes: “In Peace. Goodwill”

No organization can remain healthy for long if its executive team is at odds with one another. And that is why the one who wins should be the first to ensure the peace, that is, be one who seeks harmony as well as one who seeks collaboration.

First posted on Forbes.com 12.17.12

Sometimes it is not simply fatigue but symptom of something deeper. You feel that you are lacking in creativity and as a result you are not challenging yourself or your team to achieve their best. You need help!

This challenge is something thatAlfred Hitchcock faced after the success of his movie North By Northwest. A critical as well as financial success, Hitchcock was searching for his next film. Then he came across a novel inspired by a serial murderer who kept the corpse of his dead mother in her bedroom. Not many in Hollywood were anxious to make the movie.

Perfect for the Master of Suspense, however, and it forms the storyline ofHitch, a movie about the challenges Hitchcock faced when making Psycho.  Creatively Hitch, played by Anthony Hopkins, embraces the challenge of making a horror film without being horrific. So driven was he to make this movie that he mortgages his house to finance the project.

The drama of the movie revolves around the relationship between Hitchcock and his wife Alma Reville portrayed by Helen Mirren. While she never received the acclaim her husband did, she was a true partner – an accomplished writer, script doctor, and experienced film editor. She was also a wife who gave her husband the unconditional love he needed to pursue his career.

The spousal relationship aside Alma is her husband’s business partner and so that sets up a dynamic that is useful to leaders. Let’s consider a few ways you can use your partner.

Rely upon your partner as a sounding board. Every leader needs a “bounce person,” that is, someone you can discuss ideas with in an open and unfiltered way. Too often leaders try this only to find their ideas come back exactly as they verbalized. That’s the downfall of surrounding yourself with yes people. A true bounce person may spin the idea back in another form, or bounce it away entirely.

Use your partner as an advisor. The reason your partner is important is because he or she has good ideas. Sometimes the challenge comes in not listening to them. We become so enamored of our own ideas, as well as our own ways of doing things, that we may get trapped by what we perceive is our own brilliance. This is where the advisor steps in and points out – and sometimes in frank terms – that the leader is being obtuse, bullheaded or arrogant.

Allow your partner to collaborate. This was the real lesson of the Hitchcock-Reville relationship. Her gift of storytelling, as well as her filmic abilities, enabled her to bring out the best in him as well as achieve her own ambitions. Finding a good collaborator often means surrendering ownership of a project so that people can work together outside of the boss-subordinate relationship to achieve a mutual goal that benefits the business. Often the advisor can take the lead, and in the process achieve recognition in his own right.

How to you find such a person? Well, some of us may be fortunate enough to have married one, as Hitchcock did. Alma Reville was an accomplished film editor when they met in London when he was just getting started in his career. Others can find their advisors at work in the form of trusted colleagues.

There is something else to this relationship. It is not a one-way street. You need to support your partner in his or her goals, too. Very often the advisor is subordinate in rank to the leader and so the leader has to find ways that this individual can achieve his or her potential, too. In my experience I have seen CEOs have trusted advisors who are division heads in their own right; other CEOs rely upon their COO if they have one or find one to two other people in staff positions.

Every leader owes it to him or herself to keep challenged, focused, and energized. A good partner can help.

First posted on Forbes.com 3.11.13

This theme that Peggy Drexler, an author and organizational psychologist at Cornell, explores in a recent article for the Wall Street Journal entitled the “The Tyranny of the Queen Bee.” Young women seek the assistance of older women who have risen into ranks of senior management believing that such women can serve as mentors or advisors to help them succeed. In fact, as Drexler notes, just the opposite occurs. “The female boss who not only has zero interest in fostering the careers of women to aim in her footsteps, but who might even actively attempt to cut them off at the pass.”

The term “queen bee syndrome” comes from work done by University of Michiganresearchers in the 1970s on issue of women bosses. According to their work published inPsychology Today in 1974 these women operating in male hierarchies sought to preserve their rare turf by thwarting attempts of other women who sought to rise as they had done. Sadly, as Drexler argues, such bias still exists.

Research that Drexler cites shows that women bosses can also be bullies. According to a 2010 study by the Workplace Bullying Institute “female bullies directed their hostilities toward other women 80% of the time – up 9% since 2007.” By contrast male bullies aimed their abuse at both genders. And a 2011 study of 1000 working women conducted by the American ManagementAssociation, 95% felt they had been “undermined by another woman at some point in their careers.”

This research, as well as Drexler’s conclusions, does not impugn all women executives. Many women in positions of leadership I know go out of their way to help younger women in their organizations. Such women are superb networkers and do a good job of making introductions for their younger female colleagues.

But what if you are a young woman who is feeling dumped on by a female boss. What can you do? Drexler tells the story of one young woman who participated in her research project and felt tempted to backstab the boss who was undermining her. She declined to do so. And that’s a wise move.

A colleague of mine, Barb Allushuski, president of Blue Heron Talent of Ann Arbor, Michigan, agrees. “It is best to call out the offensive behavior and confront the female supervisor relative to the dual standard.” Allushuski adds, “If the female leader becomes defensive, my advice is that the subordinate needs to ask the leader about her own performance very directly.” Ask for specifics about how to improve.  Avoid being confrontational, and accept the feedback graciously. Such behavior demonstrates composure and professionalism.

Adopting another tactic, the subordinate could use a bit of flattery, asking the boss for the “secrets of her success.” That is, work to get the Queen Bee on her side by positioning the boss as the expert from whom the subordinate can learn.

Complaining to human resources should be a last resort, says Allushuski. “One should do this very cautiously and only after the subordinate has tried every possible way to work it out with her leader.” As a “last resort, I would have the subordinate suggest to the supervisor, ‘Perhaps you and I should involve HR and get a third party to help us resolve our differences.’  You might see the leader back down before they head off to HR.”

Allushuski, who had a long career as a senior executive prior to opening her coaching firm, believes the Queen Bee syndrome is rare. “Great leaders, male or female understand that it is a privilege to lead and they behave accordingly, treating all subordinates in a fair, firm and friendly manner.” These leaders, says Allushuski, work hard to remove “obstacles” so their employees can achieve for themselves and their teams.

Queen bees may be with us but that does not mean that women over whom they have authority do not have options. Stand up for what you think is right demonstrates courage as well as savvy. Just the kind of attributes that organizations need in positions of leadership.

First posted on Forbes.com 3.04.13

That was a point that David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times, made on Meet the Press when commenting on Chuck Hagel’s performance in front of a Senate committee that must approve his nomination for Secretary of Defense.

To be fair Hagel’s fellow Republicans view him as a turncoat when as Senator he questioned the surge in Iraq, referred to the influence of the “Jewish lobby” in regards toIsrael, and did not endorse fellow senator  John McCain when he rain for president in 2008.

As Brooks noted, Hagel seemed “ Unprepared even to defend himself look strong. He’s being attacked. His integrity is being attacked. His honesty is being attacked. Hit back. Demand some time, defend yourself. You’ve got to do that because you’ve got to have the confidence of the president when you get the job… You got to have the confidence of the generals in the building.”

Exactly. Leaders need to inspire the trust of those they lead. Politics aside what we can take from Hagel’s bumbling is that when the heat is on, leaders need to radiate calmness, clarity and most of all confidence. Hagel generated none of this. Let’s take them one at a time.

Calmness. When the temperature of the room goes up, the leader needs to be one to cool things done. She does this by remaining calm, speaking quietly, and most importantly focuses on the situation at hand.

Clarity. It is not enough to be calm; a leader must also be clear and coherent. Communications need to be concise as well as direct. A good leader will always check for understanding to make certain that people know what it expected of them and what they must do next.

Confidence. Of the three, confidence is most critical. If you do not believe radiate a sense of self that others want to follow then it will be difficult to lead. Confidence emerges from the inner self. It is rooted in what a leader has accomplished as well as the faith he or she has in his ability to continue to accomplish more.

Be advised that too much confidence is arrogance. No one likes a braggart or one who is so self-absorbed that he is unaware of anyone but himself. In truth that is not confidence; it is hubris.

Make no mistake: leaders are human beings. They can and should feel doubt; that is human nature. The challenge is to sublimate doubt in public and keep such doubts to self and close associates. A truly confident leader is a whole person one who knows his or her limitations yet radiates the composure and presence that followers need to see as well as to feel.

Belief in self is essential to leadership that must be communicated through words and example to others whom you are asked to lead. They are looking to their leader for direction as well as for hope and often inspiration. A leader who shakes in his boots is not someone that others want to follow.

First posted on Forbes.com 2.04.13

That quote comes from military affairs author and expert Roger Cirillo in reference to the difficulties people who advocate change face. Too often organizations remained mired in the status quo not because people do not know any better, but because they are too afraid to rock the boat. And with good reason. It could be career ending so they remain silent.

Unfortunately that silence may preserve a career, but it can be damaging to the organization because when people who have better ideas about how to do things do not feel free to voice them then those in authority have no impetus to change. Things remain as they are and therefore nothing ever changes.

Status quo by itself is not harmful but when it morphs into a kind of permanence then it can be harmful. Management becomes ossified in their roles and employees understand that their role is not to think but to do as they are told. That of course is deadly.

So what can you do about it? Well, the first thing is to look in the mirror.Often we ourselves are the biggest obstacles to change. I remember something that best-selling author and psychiatrist/executive coach Mark Goulston M.D.told me about a question he always asked any senior leader who expressed an interest in making changes. Are you ready to change, too? Mark would ask.

Change is easy if we are not the one altering our thinking or our behaviors. But within organizations no one is exempt from change; everyone must do his or her bit to advance the process.

The second thing is to recognize that if a leader wants to leave the organization in a better place, he or she must do whatever possible to enable the people in it to do their best work. That requires listening to them and enabling them to voice their ideas. Not every suggestion will be feasible or even desired but the secret to create an engaged workplace is to give individuals a voice. Often they have little choice in what they do, but they need to have latitude in how they do it, as long as they perform the work in a timely and responsible manner that complements the workflow of their colleagues.

The third thing to understand is when people at the top are feeling comfortable change is very hard to initiate. This is especially true when those executives are too removed from the action. If they do not make the time to talk to employees doing the work, or if they do not speak to customers then all information they receive is subject to filtering by others who may have an interest in slanting issues to make themselves, rather than the company, look good. In this regard, the real blame lies with those at the top because they are unwilling to discover the truth for themselves instead delegating to others.

“Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change,” Confucius once said. Most of us know plenty of the latter but few if any of the former.

Entrenchment at the top as Roger Cirillo asserts stymies progress but when men and women of good intention and courage refuse to accept the status quo then change can begin occur. It is never easy, but it is possible when you acknowledge the obstacles but refuse to allow them overwhelm you.

First posted on Forbes.com 2.14.13

That question was asked in a September 2012 Washington Post/ABC News poll. And the results were a near tie, with the President and the Governor 46% and 43% respectively. [In November voters gave the President 51% of their votes and 47% to Romney.]

While such questions were designed to inject some humanity (or levity) into the coverage of political campaigns it does address one key question that every leader must face: decisiveness under pressure. Most anyone who works in an organization of more than 10 people knows plenty of people at work with whom they want to socialize but far fewer than they would trust to run the enterprise, particularly if that enterprise were in trouble.

Boards of directors whose job it is to select the next senior leader evaluate talent from a number of different perspectives. Among these factors are competence, — the ability to do the job; and credibility – perception that you can do the job.  But that is not all – and it’s something that emerges from the “boat in a storm” question: confidence – others trust you to do the job, especially in times of crisis.

Confidence, as it relates to maintaining it within and projecting it without, is essential to considering an individual for the top slot, or for grooming to assume that spot one day in the future.

One aspect that is inherent in a self-confident individual is composure. That is, can you keep it together when the going gets rough. An executive who loses his cool or worse his confidence when times are tough is not the person to inspire the faith of subordinates. It does just the opposite; it sends people running, or if they are stuck on the proverbial boat – looking for the lifeboats.

When considering anyone for a senior management position his or her ability to handle the unexpected is critical. So often organizations hire people for the status quo, when you really should be hiring for the status unknown. Toward that end you need people who are reliable in tight situations but you will likely never know that until it may be too late.

So what do to? Consider the attributes necessary for a person in crisis. These include:

Analysis. Most executives are adept at sizing up a situation. In a crisis, you need to do it quickly and efficiently.

Flexibility. Things are changing rapidly and nothing is certain. You need someone who can adapt to change. But even more, likes doing it.

Smarts. When the unexpected happens, you need to look for solutions in unexpected places. That is, look for how you can ability available resources in new and expedient ways to weather the crisis.

Decisiveness. The ability to make a decision and stick to it is essential in crisis.

Composure. A leader’s stomach may be churning but he must look calm and collected. Otherwise people become frightened.

While these attributes are essential, what is more important at the moment is credibility. You instill a degree of confidence in others so they believe in their own power to solve problems and get things done. The leader is not savior per se; he is the enabler. He or she opens the window to possibility that individuals can capitalize upon.

Not every leader will face a serious crisis but it is a reassuring thought that the person at the top of the organization is the one in whom others put their faith.

That thought that crossed my mind as I prepared my keynote address for Catalyst 2013, sponsored by the economic development group, Southwest Michigan First held last month in Kalamazoo.

It is no secret that Michigan, where I make my home, was the state hardest hit by the Great Recession. Worse yet Michigan never recovered from the dot.com bust of 1999. During the first decade of the 21^st century Michigan lost over 200,000 jobs and it was the only state that actually lost population.

Throughout that decade and until two years ago whenever I was speaking out of state, which was nearly all of the time, people who knew I was from Michigan would ask about the state. Invariably these folks had relatives in Michigan, went to university there, or had once lived there themselves. They always wanted to know how bad it was. My stock reply was always it’s worse.

But that was then and this is now. Today the automotive industry’s return to profitability has buoyed the state’s prospects. Unemployment has dropped to 8 percent, down from nearly 15%. Homes are selling again. True enough economic and social problems in Detroit persist but there is renewed investment in the city.

Michiganders feel better about the prospects for their state and in turn for themselves and their families. The population decline is over as people are moving into the state.

So how did this happen? Well, the federal bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler saved those two companies as well as the supplier base. But those were the only two companies that received federal largess. Ford paid its own way forward as did its suppliers. Other businesses in financial services, packaged food, health care, pharmaceutical and life sciences – not to mention small businesses in the service sector — have managed to grow.

In the early 20^th century schools taught the three R’s – reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic. In the early 21^st century we are teaching ourselves three new R’s.

Resilience. The ability to bend with crises and not break is essential. Michiganders are accustomed to boom-bust cycles in the automotive world. I recall a conversation with an auto exec who told me he had weathered seven recessions in his time and always knew the business would come back.

Resolution. When facing a crisis, you have three choices: one, avoid it; two, hide from it; three, solve it. The choice is up to you but you must commit and once you are committed you must resolve to live with the consequences. Businesses that have survived in Michigan are those that have a sense of inner resolution that steels them and enables them to make the tough decisions necessary to keep the business going.

Results. We judge a business on the results it produces. Good results stem from resilience and resolution but also from commitments made to change – to commit to innovation and to invest in people who can create and deliver products and services that others want and need.

Resilience, resolution and results combine to deliver something else: recovery. These factors are not unique to Michigan. Every business that has stood the test of time can boast of the same. The good news for Michigan is that these factors have shaped not just businesses but the mindset of people who have chosen to live here. Their determination has renewed their sense of purpose.

First posted on Forbes.com 2.07.13

Early in the address, he said:

“For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing.”

These words present a key theme of his speech. According to the President, it is the responsibility of government and its leaders to ensure that the principles of freedom enshrined in our Constitution are acted upon today in order to create a better society for America and the world.

Bold statement, you bet. But the juxtaposition of self-evident with self-executing sets forth a challenge that every executive faces. And this is especially true of executives who are leading successful organizations. Too often executives assume that what we have accomplished in the past will enable us to accomplish more in the future.

If that were the case then General Motors would never have gone bankrupt. Hewlett-Packard would not have cycled through more CEOs in thirteen months than most companies experience in a decade. And A&P would be America’s leading supermarket chain.

Success can breed success, but as management strategist and author Jim Collins demonstrated in Good to Great (and in his subsequent volume written with Morten Hansen Great by Choice) too often companies begin to think that things will be better because they have been good in the past. No executive would admit thinking this but too often we see examples of how they act up on it. Notably this occurs when thinking ahead is replaced by thinking only in the present. Specifically companies reduce spending in R&D, people development and infrastructure.

When this occurs companies are risk remaining where they are rather than what they might become. Evidence of the past is not prescription for the future. It falls to leaders to think ahead, act accordingly, and evaluate rigorously. To be fair many companies are rigorous with their operational discipline but overlook the human component. As a hedge here are two questions that can help an executive focus on human capital

Do we have the right people in the right places to succeed?Success emerges from doing things at the right time and having the right people in place to recognize it. Such an advantage, however, is seldom sustainable in an environment that worships the status quo. That means you need to continue to invest in the skills of your people as well as bring in new talent that will enable the organization to meet new challenges.

How will our stakeholders remember us? “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it,” said Warren Buffet. “If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” You can think of reputation as execution and culture over time. That is what you deliver emerges from who you are. If you are vigilant you will continue to deliver the brand promise by ensuring that you hold people accountable for their actions as well as their values. When values are strong people are less tempted to cut corners; when values are nonexistent then people feel free to do whatever works and however expedient. Reputation can suffer.

Inertia is an enemy of progress. It falls to leaders to prod their organizations into actions that are provoked by vision, anchored by mission, and rooted in values. Corporate success is seldom an accident; it emerges from actions that executives take, not assumptions they make.

First posted on Forbes.com 1.24.13

True enough, but it overlooks the good work that the unelected federal officials in government — in Washington and throughout the country — do to keep government operational, even when our elected officials cannot.

I have spent the last month reviewing nominations for Federal News Radio’s Top Leaders in Federal Service awards for Federal News Radio. The documentation process is open-ended, that is, nominators were free to recommend leaders in their department worthy of merit. In an effort to maintain judicial integrity — and preserve the anonymity of nominees — let me share some common themes.

• Not accepting the status quo. Too often in large organizations we focus on restrictions rather than possibilities and, as a result, we hold ourselves from trying new things. Not these leaders. Whether it was designing a new system, developing new methods of training, implementing new processes or engaging with people differently, the nominated leaders refused to stand still. They pushed and prodded, but mostly engaged with their people to effect positive change.
• Working with people. The biggest obstacle in government is bureaucracy. One reason is because few in government service are held accountable. And so, there are many employees who are retired on the job. The leaders nominated refused to accept that outlook and pushed their organizations to achieve. They either instilled or helped to instill a culture where apathy was not accepted and people had to pull their weight or be gone — at least from their department.
• Provide inspiration. All of us like to work for something greater than ourselves and, in this regard, these leaders were setting an example about how to do it. This theme echoed repeatedly in the stories told about the nominated leaders. They each, in his or her own way, stress the commitment of service to the nation. By doing so, they provide inspiration for the teams they lead.

The biggest lesson for me in the exercise was the respect for governance. While our political officials are more engaged in rhetoric, our non-elected representatives are busy doing work, making their agencies work with the people they have and the budgets they manage. It would be easy — and we see it regularly — to be overwhelmed by the bureaucracy and simply quit on the job. The leaders whose applications I reviewed did not. Nor did they tolerate such attitudes within their own people. They let their actions speak for themselves.

Frankly, all the nominations I reviewed were worthy of recognition as “best of the best.” Some nominations were better written than others but all contained what I perceived as sincere admiration for the person being nominated. Skeptics may see some of this as an exercise in job justification. Sure, there could be some of it, but certainly less so than the publicity that public relations firms turn out for the corporate leaders they represent.

Does a nomination or eventual reward make a leader? Of course not. But what I took away from this effort is the fact that our government, despite the unpopularity of Congress, is blessed with men and women of integrity who toil to the best of their ability to make a positive difference.

We see this everyday in business. It’s good to see it in government.

First posted on FederalNews.com 2.28.13