This weekend I had the privilege of facilitating a family meeting in Northern California with a family I have known for over six years, and we had a great time together. I returned home yesterday afternoon, and as part of my recuperation and re-entry into the family process, my family and I watched a movie together last night. For those of you who have been reading for a while, you know of my penchant for animated movies, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that we enjoyed a movie from that genre’ called Ratatouille.

After enjoying the movie together, I found an interesting clip on the special features of the DVD called “A Conversation with Brad Bird and Thomas Keller”. I hit the play button and we watched an interesting interview with Brad Bird, who was the screenwriter and director of the film and a leading animation movie producer for Disney, and Thomas Keller, the famous chef of The French Laundry restaurant in Napa, CA. What followed was a discussion with each of these successful creative entrepreneurs regarding the principles that they believe have led to their success. Some the principles were overtly stated, others are observations I gleaned from the discussion.

Early work experience. Both Mr. Bird and Mr. Keller described a period of time in their childhood and teenage years where they began working in their current area of expertise. Mr. Keller worked in the kitchen of his mother’s restaurant while growing up, and Mr. Bird entered a contest for animation when he was 11 years old. He won the contest, and with it, the opportunity to work alongside the animators at Disney studios.

Mentoring. Both men indicated that a crucial factor in their professional success was the process of being mentored by their elders in the profession. Mr. Bird’s mentoring occurred naturally with his work in the Disney studios, while Mr. Keller took proactive steps to seek out and work under successful artistes in his field, initially in the N.E. United States and then in Paris.

Commitment. Each man both verbalized directly and reported life stories about the level of commitment needed to be successful. Success does not come from a “hobby” approach to one’s profession, and requires the sacrifice of long hours and focus.

Emotional connection with clients. Interesting to me was the common factor of emotional connection cited by both professionals. Getting into the mindset of one’s clients was a key process in their creation of their products. They attempted to visualize and “be with” their clients in the experience of partaking of what they had created. And they wanted their clients to feel the passion and emotion they put into their creations. (Do they teach that in MBA programs?)

Quest for perfection. Mr. Bird and Mr. Keller distinguished between “perfection” and “the quest for perfection.” They gave numerous specific examples in their work where they were “gently demanding” of those with whom they worked. They try not to be purely demanding in an ogre-like manner, but do try to push their colleagues: “That’s great! But if we just …, I think it will be even better.”

Coaching others. Within their own creative processes, it was clear that neither of these pillars within their fields see themselves as an island, or that they had created the success on their own. Rather, they understand the necessity of working with team members collaboratively, and even more so, saw the need and responsibility to coach those with whom they work. Mr. Bird stated that the goal is to “coach those beneath you to bring out their greatness.”

Work with a sense of urgency. Even though both men are artists, they clearly did not espouse a laisse faire approach to the artistic process. They communicated the need to have an atmosphere of urgency within the workplace, and that this aura actually brings energy to the creative process. In fact, at Mr. Keller’s restaurant they have a sign posted in the kitchen which says: “Sense of Urgency.”

Don’t over-control the process. When working collaboratively with a team of professionals who are talented in their own right, it is important for the creative director (or business leader) not to over control the process. Mr. Keller and Mr. Bird cited the need to ask for and listen to the input of their colleagues, realizing that they do not hold the patent on all good ideas.

Find delight in what you do. Finally, (and this was their concluding thought), to be truly successful in what you do, you must enjoy it. You must seek to create a product (or service) that delights you. When you make something that brings you pleasure, then others will find delight in it, as well.

The movie (Ratatouille) itself is fun. But the lessons and hearing the passion in these men’s voices as they share the lessons they have learned is even more valuable. Enjoy and learn!

In my work with people, I often deal with individuals’ reactions to situations as well as communication issues between co-workers and family members. As a result, in the process of working through these issues, people often say to me, “Well, you know, perception is reality.” Sometimes they say this to explain how miscommunication occurred with another person, or why they feel the way they do.

I am not sure of the origin of the phrase, “perception is reality”, (although I would bet it comes from some realm of psychology — and for those who know me, that is not necessarily a positive statement.) And I am unaware if it is being espoused frequently in the media, but I sure seem to being hearing it more and more.

The problem is — it is not true. At least, not always.

There is a verifiable reality that exists. And sometimes our perceptions (or beliefs about the world) do not match reality. In the physical realm, that is the basis for illusionists — they are able to make things appear different than they really are. Also, there are those tricks of nature that our senses can play on us that can lead us to misinterpret what is really happening (having a sense of your body being warm while you are in the beginning stages of hypothermia).

But in day to day life, I see the mismatch between perception and reality more practically. Here are some examples.

Miscommunication.  The classic example is the scenario like this:  “You said ….”  “I did not.  I said ….” “Oh, but I thought you said ….”  “No. What I said (or at least, thought I did) was …”  “But I thought you said …”  If we stick with the perception is reality proposition, this leads to major problems in communication.  This is true for both parties.  For the initial speaker, “what I thought” does not necessarily equal “what I said”.  And “what I said” is not necessarily the same thing as “what I meant”.  Similarly, for the listener, “what I heard you say” may not be the equivalent to “what you said”.  So perception may be perception, but it may not be what actually occurred.

The mismatch between feeling reactions and reality. I often see the disconnect between reality and perception in the area of worrying. Being worried or anxious is essentially a smaller version of being afraid (there is a qualitative difference between being terrified or afraid for one’s safety and being worried or concerned). However, the realm of worry and anxiety have to do with potential events that may happen. They always have to do with the future. The challenge is — not everything people worry about is reality-based. Those who struggle significantly with anxiety can worry daily about their loved ones being killed in a car accident on the way to school or work. Or they can worry about the stock market crashing, losing all of their savings, and winding up being homeless.

[NOTE: One way we can manage our fears and worries is to do a “reality check” — what is the actual likelihood of x event happening today? Has x happened before? How many times? Even if x happens, does that necessarily mean y will happen? And even in the unlikely event that x happens and y also happens, what are all of the circumstances that need to be in place for z then to occur? The chances are incredibly slim. So, how much time and energy do you want to spend worrying about a series of incidents that will probably not happen?]

Misinterpretation of a situation.  Some people make quick judgments.  Sometimes this is to their benefit.  But, in other cases, it can lead to misjudging what is going on in a situation.  In working with kids and teens, I have often seen a scenario where a fairly impulsive student, who also views themselves as the ‘protector’ of others will come into a room and see a couple of guys “scuffling”.  They have each other in headlocks and are throwing one another around the room.  The self-appointed “hero” sees the guys “fighting” and promptly dives in, tackles one of the fighters, taking him to the ground, and yells, “Break it up!” (Frequently someone gets hurt in the process.)  It is then that the hero finds out that the two boys were just “horsing around” and it was a good-natured tussle between two friends.  The two “fighters” wind up being angry at the hero for interfering with their fun and over-reacting to the situation.  Unfortunately, this happens in the adult world as well — where someone misinteprets a situation and reacts inappropriately because of their misperception.  Truly, in these situations, perception is not reality.

Inaccurate beliefs about the way the world is. For instance, in doing career coaching with individuals, many people believe that finding a job that meets their needs and desires should be fairly easy and should happen within a matter of weeks. So they “dive in” looking and applying for jobs.  After several weeks with no job, they begin to become discouraged (our feeling reactions are inter-related with our expectations) and begin to question if they are pursuing the right career direction.  Self-doubt also sets in, wondering if they are capable of finding the type of job they want and whether they are really marketable.  The reality is that finding a job which is a good fit for you takes a lot of time and energy. Usually three to six months, or longer. And this reality is demonstrated time and time again (one of the aspects of “reality” is that it can be verified empirically).

Misattribution of motive. Probably the most damaging form of misperception is the case of attributing a certain motive to someone else’s action, and being quite far off the mark.  This happens in marriages a lot, it seems.  And it can be the result of either an overt action (that is, something you did) or the absence of an action (something you didn’t do but the other person thought you should have).  Let me state something clearly — most of us aren’t fully clear why we do what we do, let alone being able to understand the motives of another.  It is always best to ask (and hopefully, believe) the other person, “Why did you …?”  It can be helpful to start with the phrase, “I’m confused. Can you help me understand why you…?” (It seems to take the accusatory edge off of the interaction.)  There are tons of examples, more than I want to go into (and for fear of incriminating myself).  Let me just suggest: we often get “bent out of shape” with others because we attribute a reason for their action or inaction that is not accurate.

There are other examples of perception not equaling reality, but I think that is enough for now.  Maybe use these ideas to frame your own thoughts when you hear: “Well, you know, perception is reality.”  Maybe.  Maybe not.

I am pleased to share the following article which was published in the business section of today’s Wichita Eagle.  If you want to send others to it at the Eagle, the link is  http://www.kansas.com/business/perspectives/story/209379.html .

Networking Can Maximize the Search for Good Hires

I was talking to a friend who is the vice president for business development at his company. He was looking for a new project manager. “If you hear of anyone who may fit the qualifications, have them contact me,” he said. 

I asked him why couldn’t he find someone through the regular processes — the classifieds or employment Web sites. “Finding good people is tough,” he said. “You get hundreds of resumes from the online sources, but over 50 percent aren’t even close to being qualified. That still leaves 80 to 100 resumes to sift through, call, and take through the process. I don’t have the time, and it is like finding a needle in a haystack. It is easier to find someone through my business relationships.” 

As I work with businesses both locally and nationally, this is an oft-repeated scenario. Business managers are frustrated with the difficulty of locating qualified and quality employees. Interestingly, on the other side, I also see young adults who are having difficulty entering the job market — and they offer similarly negative reports about the application process. 

The hiring and job search system isn’t working well. Why? We have the technology and electronic connectedness to reach out to millions of potential workers across the world. But we do not have the systems in place to process all of the information, and get the right kind of information to help match employers and potential employees. 

“Good” employees — those who work well in a specific business — must not only have the right kind of technical training and expertise, but they also must match the cultural milieu of the company — its communication style, dress code and work ethic. Employers are looking for positive character qualities, as well: a desire to learn, the ability to work well on a team with others, dependability, attention to detail, willingness to follow directions. It is extremely difficult to determine whether an applicant has these qualities through their resume, an interview or a conversation with references. 

Managers often default to the method that has worked in the past: networking. It isn’t perfect, but getting referrals from those who know you and your business is still one of the best ways to find someone who may fit well with your company. Here are some tips on how to maximize your networking in today’s business climate: 

• Don’t wait until you have an open position to let people know you are looking for good people. I have a successful businessman who repeatedly tells me: “If you know of any good people looking for work, send them my way. Give them my cell number and have them call me. We are always looking for good people.” I have done so, and he has hired people I have referred to him. • Talk to (or e-mail) friends and business associates who are well-connected and know a lot of people. Don’t just talk to your normal circle of friends. Include your CPA, financial advisor, insurance agent, pastor and your business associates who are out talking to people a lot. 

• Develop a page on your company’s Web site describing the types of people you are looking for. You can more fully describe the character qualities, types of jobs and training, and your business’ culture and values. Make sure you provide the name, phone number or e-mail of a person to contact for more information. This is not about posting specific jobs; it is a resource to direct friends to. • Create ongoing relationships with trainers and educators. Get to know the faculty at the local colleges. Meet with the instructors at the vocational/technical schools. And be sure to find ways to keep in touch with the career placement counselors at each training institution in your community. 

• In the areas where you will have ongoing staffing needs, create internships or part-time positions for students. The best way to land good talent is to get them while they are being trained.  Finding — and keeping — quality employees will be one of the distinguishing characteristics of successful companies in the decades ahead. Don’t stay stuck in the current nonfunctional system.  

Music, and how it is performed, seems to serve as an interesting analogy to business.

A solo features a single, star performer – and in the true sense of a soloist, they perform totally by themselves (although they may sing while accompanying themselves on an instrument). Truly talented soloists are entertaining and able to maintain the audiences attention. But less than stellar soloists become rather boring and repetitive after a while.

More interesting is a soloist with some back-up musicians. The soloist is still the featured performer and the focus of the performance, but with additional support musicians (piano, guitar, bass, percussion) they become much more versatile, able to pull off different styles of music, and the sound is much more full.

Obviously, groups of musicians can range from two or three to extremely large. Although duets are pleasing and interesting with their dual harmonics, they carry many of the same limitations that soloists do.  Duets obviously have more variety than a single performer but they don’t bring much breadth to the performance.

In Western-based music (remember there are many traditions of music based on different instruments, different rhythms and even differing harmonic scales – African, Oriental, Caribbean, Hawaiian, etc.) the harmonics from a trio (and even more so, a quartet) provide a richer, fuller experience. A vocal group featuring the harmony of three voices, to a traditional soprano / alto / tenor / bass arrangement, gives the listener an amazing variety of sounds and experiences – partly because they can either perform in synchronization rhythmically (that is, they move from one note to the next at the same time) or each part can move independently across the musical piece. Usually this movement is designed to be harmonious, but sometimes there is dissonance (experienced as conflict) as one musician moves from their current note, “through” a transition note, to the note which brings resolution.

In music played by a group, different roles are required. There is the leader who sets the tempo of the music and attempts to keep the group playing together through the song. This musician may or may not be the star performer who plays the dominant instrument or who is the flashy talent that brings the sparkle to the performance (and often is not).

There are obviously secondary players who enrich the overall sound and quality of the music, and many times are “role players” – they are solid in what they do, but they are not star performers. Some support musicians add tremendous value by their versatility – being able to play a number of instruments, filling in where needed.

Another factor is that some musicians’ skill set is best suited for highly structured music (e.g. classical orchestral music) where they are given the exact notes to play, and even instructed how loud to play by the conductor. While other musicians do better with less structure and they are given the ability to improvise within the global structure of the music (e.g. jazz or bluegrass).

And in many performing groups there is a manager – someone who administers the logistics of the group – setting up performances, getting contracts signed and collecting payment, arranging for transportation and lodging – and many times, managing interpersonal conflicts among team members.

More and more, there are technical support members – primarily sound technicians and lighting technicians – who help produce the show and are critical to the success of the performance. Without them, the musicians would not be seen or heard adequately.

I will not insult your intelligence by drawing specific analogies or lessons for business from the roles described. However, I would encourage you to think through your business team. Identify what role(s) you play.  Figure out who keeps the rhythm of the group and helps everyone perform together.  It may be helpful to think about those secondary players who do not receive a lot of attention or accolades, but who really make the rest of the group sound (or look) good. Who helps manage the logistics and / or goes behind the scenes and resolves developing conflicts among team members? Are there group members that don’t perform harmoniously or in rhythm with the rest of the group (they play to their own beat or they don’t want to play the same song as the rest of the group)? If so, what needs to be done? And do you have the right type of musicians, given the type of music your group plays?

Whatever the answers are for your group, I hope you enjoy the music you are playing together and that you are able to create beautiful music together!

I am excited.  I finally have come across an article on leadership that doesn’t expect every leader to “have the intellectual capacity to make sense of unfathomably complex issues, the imaginative powers to paint a vision of the future that generates everyone’s enthusiasm, the operational know-how to translate strategy into concrete plans, and the interpersonal skills to foster commitment to undertakings that could cost people’s jobs should they fail.”  That is, we no longer have to be (or look for) Superman/Superwoman.

In Praise of the Incomplete Leader is a refreshing look at leaders.  It is a collaborative article by Deborah Ancona, Thomas Malone, Wnada Orlikowski and Peter Senge, all of whom are professors at the MIT Sloan School of Management.  The article is in the February 2007 Harvard Business Review and I came upon it while killing some time in the library.

Although the authors propose four key characteristics of leaders, I love their perspective and balance.  “No one person could possibly stay on top of everything. But the myth of the complete leader (and the attendant fear of appearing incompetent) makes many executives try to do just that, exhausting themselves and damaging their organizations in the process.”  Thank you!

Or how about this:  “Only when leaders come to see themselves as incomplete — as having both strengths and weaknesses — will they be able to make up for their missing skills by relying on others.”   The groundedness of their position in reality is wonderfully refreshing.

And I love their differentiation between incomplete leaders and incompetent leaders.  “Incomplete leaders differ from incompetent leaders in that thye understand what they’re good at and what they’re not and have good judgment about how they can work with others to build on their strengths and offset their limitations.”  Which ties into what B. George, P. Sims, A. McLean and D. Mayer state in another HBR article (”Discovering Your Authentic Leadership”) — that their research found self-awareness to be one of the core qualities of good leaders.  In essence, as Ancona et al admit in the incomplete leader article: “No leader is perfect.  The best ones don’t try to be — they concentrate on honing their strengths and find others who can make up for their limitations.”

The four capabilities they propose need to be balanced in a leader are:  sensemaking (making sense of the world around us); relating (building relationships within and across organizations); visioning (creating a compelling picture of the future); and inventing (developing new ways to achieve the vision).  And, rather than being silo-driven in their approach (i.e. that each capability exists by itself), they emphasize the holistic nature of the abilities.  “Sensemaking, relating, visioning, and inventing are interdependent.  Without sensemaking, there’s no common view of reality from which to start.  Without relating, people work in isolation, or, worse, strive toward different aims.  Without visioning, there’s no shared direction.  And without inventing, a vision remains illusory.”

But what I really love is their realistic approach. “No one leader, however, will excel at all four capabilities in equal measure.  Typically, leaders are strong in one or two capabilities. . . Once leaders diagnose their own capabilities, identifying their unique set of strengths and weaknesses, they must search for others who can provide the things they’re missing.”

And I applaud their conclusion:  “It’s time to celebrate the incomplete — that is, human — leader.”   Yes! Let’s be a bit easier on our bosses (and ourselves).

Have a great Labor Day and rest of the week.

Robert Sternberg is one of my favorite authors. He has written a wonderful book entitled, Successful Intelligence. In the January 2007 American Psychologist he summarizes his “systems model of leadership.”

Although he agrees that “the environment strongly influences” the display of leadership, Sternberg clearly believes there are characteristics that set leaders apart from others.

CREATIVITY. Leaders are able to generate ideas and products that are (a) relatively novel; (b) high in quality; and (c) appropriate for the task at hand.

Sternberg then describes different ways creativity is used by leaders:

1. Problem redefinition. 2. Problem analysis. 3. Selling their solution. 4. Recognizing how knowledge can both help and hinder creative thinking. 5. Willingness to take sensible risks. 6. Willingness to surmount obstacles. 7. Belief in one’s ability to accomplish the task at hand. 8. Willingness to tolerate ambiguity. 9. Willingness to find extrinsic rewards for the things one is intrisically motivated to do. 10. Continuing to grow intellectually rather than to stagnate.

SUCCESSFUL INTELLIGENCE

Sternberg defines successful intelligence as: “the skills and dispositions needed to succeed in life, given one’s own conception of success, within one’s sociocultural environment.”

He differentiates successful intelligence from academic intelligence (the ability to learn and perform well in school.) Leaders do need academic intelligence to help them process information and ideas, remember information necessary to make decisions, and to be able to think critically about situations and options. But research has shown that if leaders are too much brighter (in a traditional sense) than the people they lead, the leader may not “connect” with the people and is less effective.

Practical intelligence (another term for successful intelligence) is used to solve everyday problems by applying knowledge gained from experience. It includes the ability to adapt to one’s environment, to shape your environment to fit your needs, or finding a new environment in which to work.

One aspect of practical intelligence is emotional intelligence — which has been shown to be a positive predictor of leadership. (Emotional intelligence includes the ability to get along well with others, to manage your own emotions, and to demonstrate self-discipline.) As I have stated to many young people, academic success doesn’t matter if you can’t get along with others or manage yourself.

WISDOM

To me, this is an interesting concept, because I have not heard much discussion about “wisdom” in our culture. Sternberg defines wisdom as “the use of successful intelligence, creativity, and knowledge as mediated by values to (a) seek to reach a common good, (b) by balancing intrapersonal (one’s own), interpersonal (others’) and extrapersonal (organizational, institutional …) interests, (c) over the short and long term to (d) adapt to, shape, and select environments.”

The key part that Sternberg emphasizes is that wisdom is focused on the common good. He states “wise leaders skillfully balance the interests of all stakeholders, including their own interests, those of their followers, and those of the organization for which they are responsible.” He goes on to say that intelligence, knowledge and creativity do not guarantee wisdom.

Sternberg concludes:

“Truly good leadership is relatively rare because it requires a synthesis of all of the elements described above. . . It is possible that in the past, creativity was an optional feature of leadership. In today’s world, with its staggering rate of change, it is no longer optional. . . A leader lacking in creativity will be unable to deal with novel and difficult situations. . . A leader lacking in academic intelligence will not be able to decide whether his or her ideas are viable, and a leader lacking in practical intelligence will be unable to implement his or her ideas effectively. An unwise leader may succeed in implementing ideas but end up implementing ideas that are contrary to the best interests of the people he or she leads.”

Wow. I like this guy’s ideas.

As I have stated in an earlier post, the January 2007 edition of the American Psychologist reviews the psychological research on leadership.

I would like to share some thoughts from a fascinating article entitled, “The Role of the Situation in Leadership” by Victor Vroom (professor at Yale) & Arthur Jago (professor at the University of Missouri).

The authors start out by curtly stating:

“the term leadership, despite its popularity, is not a scientific term with a formal, standardized definition. . .(and) there are almost a s many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.”

But they do summarize:

“virtually all definitions of leadership share the view that leadership involves the process of influence… There are, in fact, a myriad of processes by which successful influence can occur (including) threats, the promise of rewards, well-reasoned technical arguments, and inspirational appeals… Exhibiting leadership means not only influencing others but also doing so in a manner that enables the organization to attain its goals.”

Vroom & Lago then present their own definition of leadership:

“a process of motivating people to work together collaboratively to accomplish great things.”

Interestingly, they then attempt to debunk the idea that there are great leaders – and this is the reason researchers have not been able to find common traits of good leaders.

The opposite position – that leadership is solely determined by situational factors – has some merit based on the following arguments:

“a) Leaders have very limited power (much less than is attributed to them); b) candidates for a given leadership position will have gone through the same selection screen that will drastically curtail their differences: and c) any remaining differences among people will be overwhelmed by situational demands in the leadership role.”

However, Vroom & Jago argue that we must look at “contingency theories” – that is, looking at “the kinds of persons and behaviors who are effective in different situations.”

[A side note: this reminds me of the research which occurred in psychology regarding counseling and psychotherapy. In the 1960’s & 70’s, researchers were looking for those qualities of therapists or characteristics of therapy that led to positive results for clients. Ultimately, this line of research failed – with the exception of identifying some core therapist behaviors that seem to be helpful – maintaining eye contact,, not being distracted with other things, and responding in ways that make the client feel “heard”. However, in the ‘80’s & 90’s, psychologists asked a different set of questions: What characteristics, behaviors or processes are most impactful in helping xxx types of clients with yyy types of problems? This had led to significant findings in knowing how to better to help individuals with anxiety disorders, depression, eating disorders, obsessive compulsive disorders, anger management problems and so on. The therapist’s behaviors and the processes used in counseling for each specific problem must differ, if they are to be effective.]

Now, one researcher named Fielder has proposed that a person’s leadership style is an enduring characteristic that can’t be changed. Thus, good leadership occurs when a leader is placed in a situation that is favorable to his or her style. If this is not possible, then the next best option is to “engineer the job to fit the manager”.

Vroom & Jago then summarize their research which has specifically looked at the interaction between when& how a leader involves their subordinates in decision-making. They have looked at situational variables and different styles of involvement. It all gets a bit deep (for me, at least) but some major themes they have found are that leaders use decision rules that help them respond to combinations of situations. For example, good leaders allow more participation by group members when the members possess knowledge or expertise in the problem area. Also, their approach to conflict also varies. Good leaders seek less participation from members when commitment to the decision is required and are more participative when the members’ acceptance of a
Decision is voluntary.

Vroom & Jago summarize their article with the following points:

1. Organizational effectiveness is affected by situational factors not under the leader’s control.
2. Situations shape how leaders behave.
3. Situations influence the consequences of leader behavior.

The authors criticize the tendency of writers of popular leadership books to focus on simple maxims (“place your trust in people”, “the customer must come first”) without paying attention to the situational factors in which these behaviors make sense – and when they don’t. They emphasize that:

“Actions must be tailored to fit the demands of each situation. A leadership style that is effective in one situation may prove completely ineffective in a different situation.”

What does all of this mean practically? I believe as leaders in different roles and different types of organizations, we need to begin to ask ourselves some questions:

I am intrigued to try to figure out what behaviors and actions are needed in my current roles of leadership, and I am going to strive to be observant of these issues as I go through my day.

I just received the 2007 January edition of the American Psychologist, which is the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association. This whole edition is dedicated to the topic of leadership. This fact, in and of itself, is amazing.

As Robert Sternberg, one of the foremost research psychologists on leadership states in the foreword:

“The United States became a great nation because of the leadership skills of the Founding Fathers. . . Historically, great nations have risen and later fallen in large part as a result of the success or failure of their leadership.”

“Despite its importance to the United States and the world, leadership has not been a leading topic in the field of psychology. . . leadership is scarcely to be found as a topic of research. . . Even the American Psychological Association has no journal on leadership and no division on leadership.” As a psychologist who works in the area of leadership, these are embarrassing facts to me.

Given that most of you don’t have access to this journal, I would like to share some of the insights of some of the psychologists who have studied leadership.

Warren Bennis, from the University of Southern California, writes the introduction to the whole issue in an essay entitled: “The Challenges of Leadership in the Modern World.” I am going to pull out some of the most interesting (to me) comments he makes. He states:

“[L]eadership always matters, and it has never mattered more than it does now. . . (but) psychology still does not know enough about how they develop and how they recruit and maintain their avid followers.”

“People have tried to understand leadership by attempting a kind of reverse engineering of outstanding public figures. To this day, psychologists have not sorted out which traits define leaders or whether leadership exists outside of specific situations.”

“In talking about leadership, we must ask ourselves, “Leadership for what?” . . . Any person can aspire to lead. But leadership exists only with the consensus of followers . . . (in fact, the only person who practices leadership alone in a room is the psychotic.)”

“Leadership . . . is a tripod – a leader or leaders, followers, and the common goal they want to achieve.”

“One aspect of leadership that is routinely overlooked is the extent to which it is a performance art. . . rhetoric is part of the equation. . . [Leadership also involves] media and communication. Today public leaders rarely, if ever, interact with their followers directly. They are always filtered through the media. . . We must also think about leadership in the context of globalization and instant communication.”

“After studying leadership for six decades, I am struck by how small is the body of knowledge of which I am sure. . .(but) I believe adaptive capacity or resilience is the single most important quality in a leader, or in anyone else for that matter who hopes to lead a healthy, meaningful life.”

“And I believe all exemplary leaders have six competencies:
*they create a sense of mission,
*they motivate others to join them on that mission,
*they create an adaptive social architecture for their followers,
*they generate trust and optimism,
*they develop other leaders, and
*they get results.”

“I am convinced more than ever . . . that the four most important threats facing the world today are:
(a) a nuclear or biological catastrophe, whether deliberate or accidental;
(b) a world-wide epidemic;
(c) tribalism and its cruel offspring, assimilation; and finally,
(d) the leadership of our human institutions.

Without exemplary leadership, solving the first three problems will be impossible.”

Some pretty strong comments at the end.

The remainder of the articles in the journal summarize the research in psychology on various approaches to understanding leadership, including:
*Trait-based perspectives on leadership
*The role of the situation in leadership
*Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building
*A systems model of leadership
*Asking the right questions about leadership

I am going to read through the articles this week and see if there are any valuable thoughts or research findings. If so, I will share them.

Recently, I have been consulting with a variety of executives, family members, and family business owners – all in different circumstances. But I have been seeing a common theme among many of them – struggles in making difficult decisions.

In many of these situations, the individuals (who need to make the decisions) are expending a lot of time and energy worrying, fretting, and going over potential options. However, a key aspect in all of the situations is the fact that all of the individuals actually need additional information before they can really make their decision.

I “preach” repeatedly to my clients – whether they are high school students deciding on where to go to college or business owners making multimillion dollar estate planning decisions – you need data before you make decisions. It is really not a difficult concept to understand, and it is not rocket science (most of what I do in family coaching isn’t!) However, I repeatedly see individuals get “stuck” in the decision-making process, especially when they don’t have all the information they need to make an informed decision.

The “sticking point” often is this – they need to make an important decision, they don’t have all the pertinent information need, and they are not taking steps to get the information they need. I have pondered about this pattern I am seeing and have generated some hypotheses about what seems to be creating the logjam:

1. The fear of finding out information you really don’t want to know. Sometimes the data that will be obtained is potentially problematic – it will create additional challenges in the situation or it may be “bad news”.
2. Preferring not to have the information needed so you don’t have to make the decision (and implement it). Some individuals delay gathering all of the data, so they aren’t forced to make a difficult decision. Others avoid getting the information because making the decision will create a lot of work for them to do.
3. Not taking the time to think through the situation and determine what additional information is needed and where it can be obtained. Sometimes the situation is complex and there are multiple factors intertwined. Untangling the variables and determining the core issues takes time and often requires using a “sounding board” (my role, frequently) to “think through” the problem. Then, when the most critical issues are identified, a plan can be developed to gather the information lacking (for example, legal implications of a decision, or technical information from an expert).

So, if you find yourself “stuck” in making an important decision, go through these common sense steps:

• Identify the key issues that need to be considered in the decision.
• Determine whether or not you have all the needed (or preferred) information regarding these key areas.
• When you need additional data, identify potential sources for the information and assign responsibility to someone to obtain it.
• Set a target date for getting the information and choose an individual who will help you keep accountable in keeping to the time frame.
• Review the new data obtained and develop a plan for “next steps” (getting more or different information, or making the decision).

Then you will be able to “brutally confront reality” as Jim Collins and others have challenged us to do.

This past Sunday, one of the lead articles in Parade magazine (the magazine inserted into millions of Sunday newspapers) was on emotional intelligence. The article was written by Daniel Goleman, who is one of the “founding fathers” of the concept of emotional intelligence and who has written groundbreaking books on the subject (I personally have found Working with Emotional Intelligence to be a helpful, practical guidebook on the subject.)

In my work with successful business families across the country, I have had the opportunity to interview over 60 multimillionaires (usually, their net worth ranges from $20 million to $100 million) by conducting a day long retreat with the business owner and their spouse. And clearly I have found an overlap between the concepts of emotional intelligence and these successful individuals.

“Emotional intelligence” is one of those terms and concepts that many people use, but often don’t know exactly what it is. (Part of this is due to the fact that it is a relatively new construct and different authors and researchers have defined the term in different ways.) However, two of the concepts tied to emotional intelligence are what I want to address.

In the retreat I conduct with financially successful couples, one of the questions I always ask is: “To what do you attribute your business and financial success?” And what is fascinating are the recurring themes that I have heard over and over.

Depending on the person’s worldview, one of the most common answers either is: “We are fortunate to be blessed by God” or “We were in the right place at the right time – it had little to do with me.” Both answers reflect a sense of the world and life being bigger than themselves personally. Yes, they brought some talent, skill, training or other characteristics to the situation, but part of their success had to do with factors outside of their control. (This first reason given is not directly related to emotional intelligence, but is a result of the emotional intelligence concept of “having an accurate view of one’s place in the world” – neither overvaluing oneself, nor undervaluing your significance as an individual.)

Probably the second most common response is, bluntly stated, “perseverance”. These people, who are now multimillionaires, report comments like: “We just kept trying — we never gave up.” “We hung in there through the bad times, and tried to learn from our mistakes.” “We just working our plan.” It is interesting (to me, at least) that many of these individuals had failed in business or financially (by declaring bankruptcy) prior to their current success. But, whether through a personal passion related to the goods or services they provided or just a characterological “bulldoggedness”, they refused to give up.

This concept of perseverance is clearly referred to in the emotional intelligence literature. Often it is described as “self-control”, “managing oneself”, or “self-discipline”. But the construct is clear – a key component of managing oneself emotionally is the ability to get up and go to work when you don’t feel like it, to persevere through difficult times, and to keep on task in spite of weariness and discouragement.

The third most frequent response given by wealthy individuals, regarding the “secret” to their financial success, surprised me somewhat, but it kept recurring across the interviews. They often reported: “We took care of our customers.” “We were committed to giving the best service possible to our clients, even if it cost us extra at the time.” “We were honest and fair in dealing with our customers, our vendors, and our employees.” Essentially, they chose to do what was best for others, even if it was costly to them personally at the time.

In emotional intelligence terms, this is based on the concept of “perspective-taking” and “empathy”. First of all, one has to be able to see a situation from another person’s point of view – to see what they want in the situation (known as perspective taking). Then, one has to be able to put aside your own feelings and desires, and act in a way which is best for another, which is based on empathy – having a sense of how another person is feeling – and choosing to respond to meet their felt needs.

What is fascinating to me is the fact that most of the multimillionaires that I have interviewed have come to the conclusion that a large part of their financial success is really a result of emotional intelligence — specifically, the ability to persevere and demonstrate self-control, and serving others as a core part of their business.

This is in stark contrast to the myriad of books and articles that focus on marketing, leveraging your money, or some specific investment technique. I think the message is: if you want to be financially successful, do what you do well; serve your clients, vendors & employees (rather than cutting corners); and keep at it in spite of the obstacles and challenges you encounter.