Leaders do not always get to choose the issues they will face. Sometimes they need to put out the fire before they can move forward.

Case in point is David Brandon, newly appointed athletic director for the University of Michigan. In February prior to his taking office, Michigan’s vaunted football program was hit with an NCAA investigation into major violations about excessive practice time that occurred under the watch of head coach, Rich Rodriguez. Michigan held a press conference to address how it would respond to the investigation and Brandon announced his support for the controversial coach. He reiterated that support in late May when the school announced its self-imposed sanctions.

Brandon himself is no stranger to managing tough issues. He served as CEO of Domino’s Pizza from 1999 until March 2010. His management philosophy combines operational discipline with stakeholder collaboration. Domino’s prospered under Brandon’s tenure and he was well-liked by employees. Brandon's roots at Michigan run deep; he played football for legendary coach, Bo Schembechler, and in recent years served as a regent for the university.

The biggest problem facing the football program is really not the NCAA violations; it is the rift over Rodriguez. Since Rodriguez has won only eight games in two years, losing twice to arch-rival Ohio State and missing the bowl season for the past two years, many fans dislike him. Yet Rodriguez’s players, and many students, support him. How Brandon has dealt with the controversy is a lesson in leadership.

Own the problem. Brandon did not become the athletic director to become proctor for the football team, but he is realistic. As he told the media after announcing self-imposed sanctions, there is nothing good about the words investigation and probation. Regarding Michigan’s brand, Brandon says, “I don’t think it’s a black-eye, it’s a bruise.” He also said blame for the excessive practice time was a departmental responsibility, not simply a coaching issue. By addressing the problem head on – and with total transparency -- Brandon will ensure that whatever went on prior to his watch has been stopped, new measures to ensure compliance have been implemented, and the program will survive.

Make decision best for the situation. Rodriguez is a polarizing figure: love him or hate him. Brandon as the athletic director has not allowed himself to become embroiled in partisanship. He leads the entire department, not a fan base. How he treats Rodriguez sets the tone for how he will treat other coaches now and in the future. To date he is taking a measured approach, waiting for NCAA investigations into Rodriguez at Michigan as well as his previous coaching job, West Virginia, to be completed. Since neither academic fraud nor paying players to play at Michigan is suspected, Brandon can take the wait and see approach.

Evaluate later. Accountability is essential to leadership. Brandon will hold Rodriguez more responsible than ever before. If Rodriguez’s on field performance does not improve significantly (and Brandon has wisely not assigned the number of games the team must win), he will be gone. Wins and losses at Michigan are not everything as they are at other schools; integrity is paramount. So Rodriguez must demonstrate that not only can he win, he must do so within the rules.

No athletic director wants to deal with problems from the previous administration, but in the case of Brandon failure to address the problem would only have worsened it. In months and years to come, Brandon will have plenty of time to address key priorities such as maintaining academic and fiscal integrity as well as shepherding in a new era of intercollegiate competition, should the Big Ten conference expand into a mega conference with some fourteen or sixteen teams. How Brandon handles the Rodriguez issue may well set the tone for addressing future challenges.

Posted FastCompany.com 6.01.10

My earliest memories of Memorial Day are of the annual parade in my hometown of Perrysburg, Ohio. It was an opportunity for the community to come together to honor the service of its veterans. And I am old enough to remember when the veterans leading the parade were from World War I, marching as erect as their bent frames would allow.

We kids would get to join in the parade at the tail end and ride all the way to the city's main cemetery about a mile from downtown. By the time we arrived, the excitement and noise of the parade had given way to quiet reverence as the gathers listened to a member of the clergy give a benediction and a speaker or two invoked the memory of the fallen. Not being much for speeches at that age, my buddies and I would wander the cemetery looking at the gravestones of veterans from wars past as far back as the Civil War.

This memory was jogged when I heard an interview on NPR's Talk of the Nation with military historian Victor Davis Hanson recalling the times he had visited battlefields or war memorials. He made the point that it was the sacrifice of men (and now women) on such battlefields in wars at home and abroad who made our lives today possible. We know this cognitively but I doubt we know it at the gut level.

Since only a tiny minority of our population has served in the military, for many of us one of the few connections to the military we have, aside from what we see on television, are memorials to those who sacrificed for our cause. Too often these memorials are part of the scenery, not part of our consciousness.

Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of soldiers who serve do come home but few come home unchanged. For so many years we thought that post-traumatic stress syndrome was something only soldiers in Vietnam suffered. Not true. As Dr. Johathan Shay, a staff psychiatrist at a VA hospital in Boston and MacArthur Fellow, has written so eloquently in his books,every soldier in every war since the Trojan War (and before that too) is subject to it. Homer taught us that men cannot experience suffering such as soldiers experience in war and remain unaltered.

One passage about war that I have often quoted comes from Captain Lionel Ferguson, who served in the British Army during the "Great War." Reflecting years after the Armistice, Captain Ferguson wrote: "For the first time in our lives we [veterans] have known the meaning of 'Hunger,' 'Thirst,' 'Dirt,' 'Death' and other privations. We, I think, have all known the meaning of the word 'Fear' as we have never seen it... We who went through it know that those at home never did realize the work that 'The Solider' was asked to do."
Men and women who serve in war do so as a gift to the rest of us.

Most of us will use that gift as a time for a family get-together or an extra day around the house. Nothing wrong in that but let's remember the reason for this day. It is because others -- from the days of Lexington and Concord through Gettysburg, Chateau-Thierry, Guadalcanal, Normandy, the Ia Drang Valley, Baghdad and now Kandahar -- have put their lives on hold, some permanently, for the freedoms we take for granted.

First posted WashingtonPost.com/On Leadership 5.28.10

Managers focus on operations. Leaders focus on people. The distinction is important to understand in the context of a leader assuming a new role, particularly within an organization in which she may lack experience.

Management is the discipline of getting things done right. Leadership is the art of doing what is right in order to achieve intended goals. Managers with good leadership skills can succeed in new environments because they know how to surround themselves with people who know how to get things done right.

In the corporate world, we are witnessing two examples of outside leaders running businesses in which they had no previous hands-on experience; both are in the automotive industry. The first example is Alan Mulally, who became CEO of Ford Motor Company after a career at Boeing. Ford was in serious trouble when Mulally came aboard in September 2006. The company was in precarious financial shape, its product line was ragged, and morale was dispirited.

Although Mulally was new to the auto industry, he was not new to manufacturing. He was an accomplished manufacturing engineer with experience working on large projects, building teams and working with unions. Mulally knew the virtue of a single focus and with his team developed the One Ford plan. The going was not easy at first, but after three-and-a-half years, Ford is making money, new products are succeeding in the marketplace, and employees are feeling more confident. Ford is now considered one of America's most respected companies, in part because it took no federal dollars!

Across town, Ed Whitacre is serving as the CEO of General Motors. A retired telco executive, Whitacre is a tough, no nonsense guy. He has gutted GM's upper management and promoted middle managers to senior positions. Whitacre's challenge is to smash GM's clubby culture to get it moving in the right direction. To the federal government which appointed him, Whitacre is GM's last best hope for survival, and the executive who can help the company repay its federal debt. Time will tell if Whitacre can do for GM what Mulally has done for Ford.

An executive running an unfamiliar business will experience a learning curve, and in the process he may miss things; subtlety and nuance morph into gray that may hinder informed decision making. Only years of running the business will bring true discernment. But a savvy leader will be a quick study, and with the help of a good team of knowledgeable managers, will make the right choices to lead the business.

Good leaders know from experience what it takes to get a team to pull together for a common goal. They know how to sublimate their ego when necessary and delegate responsibility and authority to others. At the same time, they know when to crack the whip. And for leaders running businesses for which they are inexperienced, they surround themselves with experts who know it inside and out.

Such are the leaders who have what it takes to make a positive difference.

Adapted from piece first posted WashingtonPost.com/On Leadership 5.10.10

Just as companies seek to re-engineer the value propositions of their products, managers should consider doing the same. Companies do it by adjusting the features, benefits and pricing of their offerings; managers do it by re-evaluating the services they offer their employees.

For example, as companies are challenged to do more with less, either in terms of resources or headcount or both, many managers’ spans of control are expanding. Doing more is expected, but it is not always feasible; a manager with five direct reports cannot expect to manage them the same way if he picks up another five, ten or twenty employees. It is not simply a matter of spending less time with each; it is finding ways to maximize his value to them and to the organization. Three questions may help with the re-engineering process.

How can I continue to add value to my team? The answer comes from defining what you do now compared to what you need to next, or may already be doing. With more responsibilities, you need to find ways to delegate others some of what you do. You may also need to eliminate things, e.g., reports, meetings, and travel. You need to distill your new role to its essence and ration it to those who need it most. That is, you pull back from doing and spend more time advising.

What obstacles are holding me back from adding that value? Two big obstacles typically loom. Your boss and your people! You need to confer with your boss and gain agreement about your larger role, and especially how that may affect your relationship with her. There is after all, less of you. Your people need to be preparing to make more decisions and to assume new responsibilities. This is actually a good thing and should free you to be more strategic.

How can I sustain that value over time? The thinking you do to prepare and act now will be essential to the future of your team and your organization. With less of you, everyone gets the opportunity to step up and do more decision-making. For some this begins the leadership development process. For others, it could be a weeding out process, not necessarily from the company but from future leadership. Knowing the capabilities of your team is essential.

One factor that may help a manager seeking to determine his value is personal discipline.Paul Saginaw, the co-founder of the world-renowned community of food-related businesses known as Zingerman’s, once told me he learned to ration his time. As his company grew from a handful of employees to more than five hundred Paul focus his leadership messages where they would have the most effect.

One way Paul did it was to plan what he would say to people if he encountered them during the day. To one, he might talk window merchandise, to another it might be service improvements, and to another it might be business development. The act of planning helped Saginaw not only discipline his time, but also his thinking and his actions.

Re-thinking your value to the enterprise might be the best thing a manager can do in a recession. Return on the investment is critical in times of scarcity and also lays a foundation for times of plenty.


Posted FastCompany.com 5.25.10

Going against your boss's wishes is a risky proposition. It may seem bold and brave, but it can also be naïve and foolhardy. Leadership by nature is a choice; we chose to bring others together for common cause. Leading up is even more person because it may involve rubbing up against the people who sign your paycheck. Therefore you must decide for yourself what to do.

Be aware first and foremost that as an employee you are hired to do a job. Your employer has the right to expect your compliance as well as your commitment. Short of moral transgression, you do what you are told to do. But if you are going to lead up - that is influence action from the middle -- here is what you must consider:

What can I do? Consider what you can do. Sometimes you can oppose those above you without drawing ire. You do it with the strength of your business case. You let the facts speak for themselves; you are seen as a recommender of a course of action rather than an insubordinate employee.

Who will follow me? Leaders need followers so if you are pushing for change, consider who will go along with you. First and foremost you need the support of your senior leaders, if not all of them then most of them. If this is not possible, then you are likely fighting impossible odds.

What are the risks of my actions? Leading up when you are going against the direction of your senior leaders is risky proposition. Senior executives do not like to be challenged, especially by those they outrank. Therefore, you could get bounced. At the same time, your fortitude may impress more senior people and they may want to keep you around. That sad to say is more the stuff of novels than reality.

What you do next is up to you. Most managers never try and lead up. They are content to maintain the status quo. Nothing wrong with this, but understand that if a situation with a superior becomes intolerable to you, then you owe it to yourself and your colleagues, to act. You can seek to change the situation from within, or you can seek to work elsewhere. Moaning and groaning about what should be is a refusal to face reality.

Lest we be too hard on those who choose to abide by the status quo, it is good to recall a story that historian Stephen Ambrose tells in his memoir To America: Personal Reflections of an Historian about working with Dwight Eisenhower on his biography. Eisenhower warned Ambrose to avoid speculating on another person's motivations. Those were known, Eisenhower argued, only to the man himself. The one person whose motives you should know best is your own. So when it comes to leading up and effecting change from the middle, do what you think is best for you and your team.

First posted WashingtonPost.com/On Leadership 4.29.10