http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php ]]> Copyright 2010, John Baldoni John Baldoni en-US SPHPBLOG 0.5.1 http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100725-182632
The late Martin Ritt, an accomplished movie director, once said that he cast the lead roles by seeing if an actor could handle the film's climactic scene. Never was this truer than when he was casting his best-known picture, Norma Rae.

Actress Sally Field then was known more for her light entertainment roles; some doubted she had the grit and gumption to play a union organizer, based on real life character Crystal Lee Sutton.

Ritt had Field do the scene where the character stands up on the shop floor and holds up the sign that says, "union." Field aced the test, earned the role, and won an Academy Award for her performance.

While neither Obama nor Hayward will win prizes for their current performances, President Obama has done a far better job. We have not seen him complain about having to visit the Gulf repeatedly, or complain as Hayward has that he wants to get the crisis over with promptly so he can "get his life back." Neither has the president stooped to starring in a self-serving television commercial.

Leaders seldom get to choose their issues. Few remember that Tony Hayward, who became CEO in the wake of a scandal that forced its previous CEO Lord John Browne to step down, was regarded as one who could clean up BP's shoddy record of environmental and safety violation. Remember the 2005 Texas City refinery fire that killed 15 workers? That was a BP facility. Obviously Hayward has failed the cultural cleanup test.

The crisis in the Gulf is an ecological disaster; it is also a crisis that has ruined the livelihoods of many thousands who earn their living from the sea's bounty or the seashore's tourist appeal. Therefore, President Obama has a unique opportunity to deliver on a simple premise held by Abraham Lincoln who believed that the role of government is to do what the people themselves cannot do. Leveraging that concept, Obama needs to do two things:

One, demonstrate that government can be the operative force for good in the Gulf. It must do more than hold BP accountable -- That's the easy part. It must continue to activate all available resources to stop the leak. But even more importantly it must mobilize every available private and public resource to prevent more shore contamination and clean up soiled wetlands and beaches post-haste. Stopping the spill may be akin to rocket science, but shore clean up is not. We have the technology and manpower to do it; what's lacking is centralized focus and willpower.

Two, change the equation on how we derive our energy. The president can seize the "bully pulpit" to use the crisis to push forward an environmentally responsible, comprehensive energy plan that ensures the safe utilization of coal, oil and natural gas as well as stimulates the development of alternative sources of energy.

Disasters that change natural resources policy have occurred before. Teddy Roosevelt, as author Timothy Egan writes in Big Burn: Teddy Roosevelt and the Fire That Saved America, used a destructive fire that ravaged forests in Washington and Idaho as the catalyst for upgrading the U.S. Forestry Service and protecting national park lands.

History will judge President Obama not by his speeches or his photo ops, but by how well his administration can fulfill Lincoln's mandate to do what the people themselves cannot do.


First posted WashingtonPost.com/On Leadership 6.15.10]]> http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100725-182632 John Baldoni Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:26:32 GMT http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=07&entry=entry100725-182632 http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100722-140520 What are you doing for lunch?

That question resonated with me after I read a delightful piece by Geraldine Fabrikant in The New York Times about five friends who have been having lunch together in New York City for twenty-five years. Through divorce, and death of one of the lunch pals, the quintet has prevailed. No two guys have the same job; each comes from a different field: advertising, media, journalism, film and medicine.

Such get togethers are not unique. My wife belongs to a once a month dinner group of business women; and my good friend Chris Merlo meets once a week for dinner with friends. The unifying theme is community; each of the guys profiled and my wife, a health care executive, and Chris, a business communication writer, enjoy being around people who share similar interests. In years past, I had some regular associations with colleagues, but none currently, and frankly I miss them.

First and foremost such mealtime gatherings are not about networking per se. While work topics may of course arise, the point of getting together is to advance your career. It is to socialize but not simply as friends but as people who value good discussion mixed with their camaraderie. Friends who come together regularly can be straight with each other, which is sometimes not so easy in work or even family situations.

From a leadership point of view, it is an opportunity to recharge yourself without going anywhere. You share ideas with friends and gain new perspectives. And such gatherings can serve such a purpose. So it got me thinking about what's the secret of such groups? Five characteristics come to mind.

Affinity. My late father, a physician, formed a monthly dinner group with fellow doctors. Their dinner topics, planned in advance, were not about medicine but about music and books. Each like my dad was a man of culture and so they got together, in the style of a French salon, to eat and discuss.

Commitment. Join a group and you'd better show up. Of course you will not make all the gatherings but if you say you will join in, do so. Be there. Once you join, your participation is like spice in a stew, necessary; and when absent, it will be missed.

Smarts. You want to be around people who are bright, alive, and have strong opinions.. This certainly hold true for my wife's group. These are smart women who know how the world works and eagerly share their insights and views with their colleagues.

Ego. You want to be around people who have a good sense of themselves. The five profiled in the New York Times are such folks . Not egotistical, but those who are comfortable in their own skins. Arrogance is the sign of an over done ego, but confidence is a reflection of someone who has accomplished something and has something to teach others.

Laughter. If you are going to commit to eat with a group on a regular basis it has to be fun. My friend Chris says his group, which is comprised of men chiefly from an arts background, enjoy each others' stories and jokes.

There is another vital component to such gatherings. It's something my friend Chris refers to as "companionship." Guys or gals or both getting together to share one another's stories, good ones and bad, highlights and low lights. It is the simple act of being together. Not quite family--no real obligations--but friends getting together because they want to. Face to face over a meal. No social media. Just social.

Posted FastCompany.com 6.08.10]]> http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100722-140520 John Baldoni Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:05:20 GMT http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=07&entry=entry100722-140520 http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100719-070602
Wisdom for leaders is not simply a matter of chronology. You have to be paying attention. Warren Bennis, author and former university president, once said that most successful leaders he knows had experienced some moment of great adversity from which they learned. For Bennis, as he wrote in the Harvard Business Review in 2002, a significant personal test of his leadership occurred as a young second lieutenant during the Battle of the Bulge in the Second World War. As a replacement officer he learned to delegate to the sergeant.

Learning from adversity is critical to leadership. Being tested, however, is not an indication of learning. We have seen executives bounce from one organization to another, crisis to crisis, acting the same ways as before and with the same results. Failure. Such executives are the types who are ready to blame others for their mistakes rather than assume responsibility for their own actions. It seems they have learned nothing.

Self awareness is essential to wisdom. Knowing what you do well is one thing, but knowing what you cannot do is sometimes more important. Anne Mulcahy, former CEO of Xerox, learned this the hard way. When she became CEO of Xerox, she knew little about finance. This was a problem since the financial community was urging her to break up the company, something Mulcahy was reluctant to do because as a Xerox lifer she believed the company's culture and people if properly led would survive. In order to make her case she had herself tutored in finance but also leveraged her communication skills to rally the company toward a renewed sense of purpose. The company did downsize but it was not sold piecemeal and it eventually it survived, as Mulcahy thought it would.

There is another issue facing Zuckerberg at Facebook. No doubt he is a talented entrepreneur, but the skills need to build a business are the not the same as those needed to run it. Sergei Brin and Larry Page learned this early on and brought on a skilled manager, Eric Schmidt. One entrepreneur I know possesses strong visionary abilities but prefers to surround himself with executives with strong operational skills. It's a combination that has helped his company prosper.

Good leaders know their strengths and play to them, but they also know their weaknesses. They surround themselves with capable executives who have the skills they lack. This allows the leader to focus on what he or she does best and in the process lead more capably.

Youth does not preclude effective leadership. Our military is led from the front by a very capable core of junior officers. These officers are supported by equally youthful noncommissioned officers. Both may lack the wisdom of years but they make up for it with experience as well as a focus on mission. These men and women have learned to lead through their people, not over them, and in doing so they provide a strong leadership example for the rest of us. We also see examples of selfless leadership in youth in the Peace Corps and City Year programs.

"Life," wrote Soren Kierkegaard. "can only be understood backward, but it must be lived forward." Same holds for leadership. Lead going forward but pay attention to where you have been.

First posted WashingtonPost.com/On Leadership 6.08.10]]> http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100719-070602 John Baldoni Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:06:02 GMT http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=07&entry=entry100719-070602 http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100715-093747
And that is exactly what umpire Jim Joyce did when he returned to the clubhouse and watched the replay of his disputed call at first base for what would have been, and should have been, the 27th and final out of the game between the Detroit Tigers and the Cleveland Indians. "It was the biggest call of my career, and I kicked the (stuff) out of it," Joyce said. "I just cost that kid [Tiger pitcher Armando Galarraga] a perfect game."

Later Joyce went to the Tiger clubhouse and asked to speak to Galarraga. He apologized and gave him a hug. Galarraga was accepting, "He feels really bad, probably worse than me. I give a lot of credit to that guy, to say he's sorry," Galarraga said. "Nobody's perfect."

Perfect games are rare in major league baseball; only twenty have been recorded, curiously two in the past month, but they are infrequent. Perfect games, or even no hitters, have been lost in the late innings countless times, even in the final inning, but not that I can recall has a perfect game been lost due to an umpire's missed call.

What Joyce did will live on in the record books as the perfect game that never was. And it's fair to the pitcher, but what Joyce did was not malicious. He made a call he thought was correct. And while he will be jeered in games to come, let's hope he comes to terms with it. Had he done it on purpose, it would have been fraud. Doing it honestly proved he was human. And acknowledging his error so promptly proved that he may be a better man than an umpire.

The man who was robbed of his place in history, Galarraga, took the blown call in stride. He went back to the mound and promptly got the next batter to ground out to an infielder for the "second" final out. Galarraga got the win and a hug from his catcher but his name will not be in the record books as the owner of a "perfecto." His acceptance of the umpire's apology, however, proves that he too might be a better man than a ballplayer.
Those who hold authority over others would do well to remember this story. When you screw up, admit it. Don't try and bull your way through by pretending nothing happened. Owe up to the mistake and find a way to make amends.

Baseball fans like to say that baseball is like life, only more so. What "more so" means was never more evident than in game where one man, an umpire, proved he was subject to human frailty and another man, a wronged pitcher, accepted that frailty as part of the game. Only it was more than a game that night; it was a moment of grace that should be remembered.


Posted FastCompany.com 6.03.10]]> http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100715-093747 John Baldoni Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:37:47 GMT http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=07&entry=entry100715-093747 http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100709-200423
This point is even more operative in the case of allies, be it a country or a company. "Nations do not mistrust each other because they are armed," said Ronald Reagan. "They are armed because they mistrust each other." Allies come together for mutual interest; they are not friends per se; they do things for one another not because they like or even respect the other but because it is in their best interest. Countries get together for trade or protection; companies come together to share technology or even customer knowledge. Allies trust each other so far as mutual interest makes it viable.

Friends, on the other hand, trust each other because they respect and like one another. A friend, wrote Aristotle, is "a single soul dwelling in two bodies." Friends watch one another's back because they want to, not necessarily because they have to.

But leaders must approach friendship with caution. David McClelland, the pioneering organizational behavior theorist, argued that leaders had three key needs: achievement, power and affiliation. Of the three, the first two (power and achievement) are paramount; the third (affiliation) is less so. And for good reason: friendship can make decision-making difficult.

Leaders represent a collection of individuals, not individuals per se so they must do what the organization needs them to do, not necessary what a friend needs. Case in point is a promotion. A leader may be tempted to put a trusted associate into a position of authority, but if that person is not qualified to hold the position then the leader is not acting responsibly; he is putting self interest ahead of organizational interest.

With that understanding in place it is easy to make the case that leaders can and should disassociate themselves from friends who make ethical transgressions. If the leader does not reprimand that individual, or disassociate from that person, then the leader's own judgment is called into question. We have plenty of such examples of executives looking the other way during the recent financial crisis. Senior leaders who ignore an ethical issue are themselves subject to blame.

Another issue arises, and it comes from the best intentions. Good leaders want their people to succeed and so when a subordinate makes a mistake, a good leader will want to help correct the problem. This is good practice when the mistakes involve business or organizational issues, but not when the mistakes involve ethics. Failure to discipline the subordinate risks making the leader appear complicity and perhaps culpable.

Leadership is a judgment call. Make the right calls most of the time and you are leading effectively. Do it less frequently and you fail to inspire trust. And when that occurs, your leadership is over.

First posted WashingtonPost.com/On Leadership 6.01.10]]> http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100709-200423 John Baldoni Sat, 10 Jul 2010 02:04:23 GMT http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=07&entry=entry100709-200423 http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100706-120750
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
]]> http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100706-120750 John Baldoni Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:07:50 GMT http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=07&entry=entry100706-120750 http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100702-092751
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
]]> http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100702-092751 John Baldoni Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:27:51 GMT http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=07&entry=entry100702-092751 http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100627-105615
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]]> http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100627-105615 John Baldoni Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:56:15 GMT http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=06&entry=entry100627-105615 http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100622-132755
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]]> http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100622-132755 John Baldoni Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:27:55 GMT http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=06&entry=entry100622-132755 http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100617-170910
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
]]> http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100617-170910 John Baldoni Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:09:10 GMT http://www.johnbaldoni.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=06&entry=entry100617-170910