Great Leader vs. Great Manager Is There A Difference?

When you are confident that you are a good Manager, does that mean that you are automatically a good Leader? Leadership should not be considered to be the same as management. They are different, yet not in the way most people presuppose. Leadership is not something that requires a specific personality profile, such as one requiring charm or a sense of inquisitiveness. Leadership is not a replacement for management nor is it to be thought of as being even better than management. Leadership and management are two distinctly different systems that must both be alive and complimentary in every successful organization. Management is more about system interactions, processes and accountability that keep the organization running. Leadership is directly responding to change and the use of it applied to improving or supporting others.

The challenge is to combine great leadership with great management, skillfully balancing the two. Do you see your company as being over managed and under led? Are you developing your leadership capacity? Additionally, have you identified someone within your organization as the next leader?

Visionary Leadership - Are you heading to the same place?

Yesterday, my daughter, who is driving with her permit, headed towards a destination she envisioned. She asked me what lane she should be in, and I answered, "The right." I detected a micro-change in her physiology, but said nothing. I then encouraged her to move over one more lane to the right. And she asked, "Why? That one exits and we want to go downtown." It was then I realized we had two different visions of where we were heading. I thought we were going to the middle-school campus and she thought we were heading to the upper school. How often does that happen in your organization--where people are trying to behave in alignment with the vision they have and it is different than yours? Ask questions to find out if you are all operating with the same vision. Assume little.

Michael Sandel - Harvard Professor Teaching Justice

Two summers ago my wife and I attended the Aspen Institutes Ideas Festival with my mother. One of the many great take a ways was a keynote dialogue with Michael Sandel in typical and great Socratic fashion. He opened with the well know Trolley Dilemma.

"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by the mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

A utilitarian view asserts that it is obligatory to flip the switch. According to simple utilitarianism, flipping the switch would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (the other option being no action at all).
While simple utilitarian calculus seeks to justify this course of action, some non-utilitarians may also accept the view. Often the problem is stated with a mad philosopher initiating the dilemma. Opponents might assert that, since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, flipping the switch constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise the mad philosopher would be the sole culprit. Additionally, opponents may point to the incommensurability of human lives.
It might also be justifiable to consider that simply being present in this situation and being able to influence its outcome constitutes an obligation to participate. If this were the case, then deciding to do nothing would be considered an immoral act.
Some critics argue that the actual fact of producing an all inclusive moral theory, capable of addressing with clarity such staged or otherwise very real dilemmas, might not be attainable after all.

And...

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

Resistance to this course of action seems strong; most people who approved of sacrificing one to save five in the first case do not approve in the second sort of case. This has led to attempts to find a relevant moral distinction between the two cases.
One clear distinction is that in the first case, one does not intend harm towards anyone - harming the one is just a side-effect of switching the trolley away from the five. However, in the second case, harming the one is an integral part of the plan to save the five." - Wikipedia

What Michael Sandel is teaching us is the difference between Consequential Morality and Categorical Morality.  Consequential Morality is when the consequences of actions, making morality inseparable from context. i.e. when we are given certain events our circumstances can change how we act - the trolley driver diverting the train to kill one to save five, verses Catagorical Morality is always described as principally being a function of how an act impacts the affected i.e. in the trolley dilemma killing 1 to save 5 is wrong.

The last ski boot I will ever wear!--Innovation stops when the imagination ends

“$1,700 for ski boots! OMFG, that is three times as much as I have ever spent on a pair of boots!” That was my inner monologue after getting fit for the most amazing ski boots I have ever worn. These are not the Lexus of boots, they are the Ferrari! They are high performance and great comfort--a combination you rarely find together. When making a turn, you simply anticipate the direction of the skies, and your legs and feet move in synchronization with the thought. You change course with no effort, no resistance, no delay. You become the boot, the ski, the turn.

These feet have been skiing for 44 of 48 years. They have been in leather-laced boots, rear-entry boots, light-weight boots, pro-form boots (from the days of teaching skiing), and boots that have traveled to ski mountains all around the world. Skiing is part of these feet’s identity and yet for some reason the owner of these feet needed to justify the purchase of such high performance boot to his friend by saying, “These are the last boots I will every wear!”

He said, “Don’t you say that. Take it back! What are you talking about? The last boot you will ever wear….I am going to go out and buy you a new pair of boots if you don’t take it back.” It was clear I hit a nerve. Kayle did not want to believe that our ski years were limited to one last pair of boots. Nor did he think that his friend, me, would start offering statements on the back end of life.

After great discussion, I conceded. It was pretty easy to persuade me. Kayle knows that I find it difficult to work with people who do not have facile minds. He shared a story of a skier that he recently saw wearing laced boots and straight-edged skies. The skier said, “They don’t make skies like this anymore.” Kayle thought, “That’s right! They make them so much better, more responsive, more dynamic and way more forgiving.”

The innovations in ski equipment have been amazing in the past 10 years, and they’re likely to be even greater in the years to come. Innovation stops when the imagination ends. Our minds become rigid when we do not increase the amount and accelerate the pace of change that we can tolerate.

Are you of a mind that this is the last job you will every have? The last upgrade I will ever need on my system? The last technique I will learn to improve my sales? The last business book I will ever read? If so, you better have a great answer! And I’d like to hear what it is, so please share it in the comments of this post.

Don’t let this be the last anything that you will do, own, or be! Keep adapting, keep facile, and be young!

Why Work Sucks! And How to Fix it. Interview with Cali Ressler & Jody Thompson

Cali Ressler & Jody Thompson Interview

Cali and Jody created the Results-Only Work Environment from within the bowels of Corporate America – while juggling families, careers, and all the other demands of life.

Work sucked and the traditional solution--more flexible schedules--wouldn't address the problem. So they set out to fix it. Today, Cali and Jody are leading a global movement to forever change the way we work and live. For everyone.

Gary Cohen: In your book, Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It, you discuss a process you call ROWE. What is ROWE?
Cali & Jody: In our book, Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It, we explain exactly what a Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE) is. It’s an environment where each person is free to do whatever they want whenever they want, as long as the work gets done. It’s a true adult work environment where measurable outcomes are agreed upon and everyone reaches those outcomes how, when, and where it makes most sense.

Gary Cohen: What is it that ROWE is not?
Cali & Jody: ROWE is not telecommuting, flextime, a 4-day workweek, or any other kind of flexibility program. In fact, ROWE is not a program at all. It’s a culture shift in the way we approach work that breaks down the 1950s rules and beliefs that have kept us shackled us for so long.

Gary Cohen: How does it work?
Cali & Jody: Currently, there is a cycle that exists in workplaces that continues to keep everything operating as if it were 1950. The cycle consists of 1) the power of time, 2) the beliefs we have about the way work should happen, and 3) judgment. The ROWE migration process breaks this cycle.

The first step involves identifying the language in the work environment that makes judgments about how people are spending their time. We call this Sludge. Sludge might sound like this: “10:00 and you’re just getting in? I wish I could come in late every day”, “Banker’s hours again? Must be nice”, or “There goes Jill to pick up her sick kid again at daycare – wish I had a kid and could get some time off”. During the ROWE migration process, employees learn about an Environmental Sludge Eradication Strategy that they put into practice that rids the environment of this language. That is the catalyst for rewiring our decades-old beliefs about work.
The migration process is paced appropriately so that the new order emerges gradually and new ways of approaching work continue to evolve.

Gary Cohen: What is the mental model you have for ROWE? And how do you transfer that to others?
Cali & Jodi: The mental model we have for ROWE is based in an adaptive change process. It hits at the heart of what people believe about their co-workers, what constitutes ‘dedication’ to an organization, what ‘hard work’ looks like, and more. ROWE throws out the permission-based, childlike, paternalistic environment that exists in so many organizations today and replaces it with an adult environment that’s all about accountability.

We have a finely-tuned 3-phase process that we bring organizations through if they want to become ROWE-approved. We also conduct speaking engagements around the country at conferences, organizations, and universities for people that just want a dose of ROWE to kickstart their own mindsets.
More about the ROWE migration process can be found at www.culturerx.com or by e-mailing info@culturerx.com.

Gary Cohen: Where did you first introduce this idea?
Jody and Thompson and I created ROWE while we were employees at Best Buy. We first introduced it, on the down-low, to two departments at their corporate headquarters.


Gary Cohen: What was the question you were answering when you decided to lead the change that transpired at Best Buy?
Cali & Jody: When we decided to lead the change at Best Buy, we were answering this question: “What would the perfect work environment be like – where people could live their lives the way they want to and the organization would be getting maximum productivity?”

Gary Cohen: What change were you seeking and what modifications were made to your expectations from your initial idea?
Cali & Jody: With ROWE, we were seeking to create an environment where people could do whatever they want whenever they want, as long as the work gets done. We’ve never made any modifications to that definition because it’s the way things should be! We did, however, create markers to guide people in the right direction – the 13 Guideposts.


Gary Cohen: What successes and failures have you had with ROWE since you started your new organization? What was the context that allowed for the successes and failures? (Continued)

Related Blog Posts:
Why Work Sucks! And How to Fix it. Interview with Cali & Jody - Part I
Why Work Sucks! And How to Fix it. Interview with Cali & Jody - Part 2
10 Questions to ask to begin a Results Oriented Work Environment - Part 3
13 Guide Posts to a Results Oriented Work Environment - Part 4

Trade-off Interview with Kevin Maney - Part II

Part I (click here)

Gary Cohen: Have there been some examples that you have seen that are able to defy the fidelity belly for an extended time?

Kevin Maney: Nobody’s convinced me of one so far. Though, as with any model, there are always examples that don’t fit. I’m sure some exist.

Gary Cohen: Some of your examples in the book seem to be in a retrospective view of how things turned out for certain organizations based on their choice of fidelity or convenience. Did you have a clear sense if those organizations understood these trade-offs before being interviewed by you?

Kevin Maney: Certainly some did. Tiffany understood what it was doing when it pulled back away from moving toward convenience in order to reclaim an exclusive, high-fidelity position. I’m not sure Tesla, for instance, understood that it was creating the first high-fidelity electric car.

Gary Cohen: Kevin, in interviewing leaders for my book Just Ask Leadership I found that many if not most of those I interviewed never released until after the interview that they were spending most of their time asking questions. I am wondering if the same phenomenon happened in doing research for your book. Of the leaders you interviewed for the book how many of them actually carried this idea of trade-offs in their business as clearly as you have illustrated it for the reader?

Kevin Maney: Some of the people who were the early inspirations for the book had long held a version of this model in their heads – though with some variations and different language. Trip Hawkins, the founder of Electronic Arts and Digital Chocolate, articulated this idea to me years ago. Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, had always run his company with a version of the trade-off in his head. I tried to find the common ways these CEOs thought about the trade-off, and pull them together into a single simple construct.

Gary Cohen: For those who found themselves in the fidelity belly, what was their reaction to your questions once they understood your mental model?

Kevin Maney: Jeff Bezos argued with me that the Kindle was not, in 2008, in the fidelity belly. It’s slowly climbing out, but at $300 a pop, I still think the cost makes it too inconvenient for most readers, while the quality of the experience for most readers still doesn’t equal a paper book.

Gary Cohen: What are your top questions you would ask of a leader to understand the trade-off for their business?

Kevin Maney: The first question is, how do you define the market you’re playing in? Then I’d ask who customers would perceive as the high-fidelity player, and who they’d perceive as being the high-convenience player. If you’re not either of those, then where do you fall in relative terms? If you’re dead in the middle, you have a problem.

Related Blog Posts:

1. Trade-Off by Kevin Maney and Intro by Jim Collins - Book Review
2. Strategic Thinking - An Interview with Kevin Maney on the Trade-Off Business Leaders Need to Make

Trade-off by Kevin Maney (Intro by Jim Collins)

Tiffany's Sells Swatches! Extremely unlikely, given their pull-back on $100 charms because they recognized the trade-off they were making in serving that low-cost customer versus serving the elite-quality-oriented customer that they built their reputation on. So says bestselling author Kevin Maney in his recent book Trade-Off: Why Some Things Catch On and Others Don't (Random House) Forward by Jim Collins.

Kevin explains how organizations who excel inherently understand this trade-off. His book will help you get crystal clear about the trade-off that you need to make if you're going to compete in the marketplace and have your product or service catch on. He gives examples of both those who never made the trade-off and shrank into oblivion and those who made the break-out that most organizational leaders envision. This book is not an academic tome; it is alive with wonderful examples that remain with you long after you put it on your bookshelf or archive it on your Kindle.

One of the examples he provides, in fact, is of the development of Kindle. I marvel at the richness of his social network and how it elevates the details and understanding that he draws from these relationships. It provides credibility and insight that many books miss.



Business books often overdo it just to fill pages, where you likely will feel diminishing value after the first three chapters. Not this one. Kevin keeps it interesting from the first page to the last or from the first click to the last. I read all his reviews on Kindle and I thought I would give him a chance to respond to those critics (not that there were many critics) in an upcoming interview on Just Ask Leadership's Blog.

Many academics give you a list of what to do, Kevin gives you a mental model that will help you think about your business and the trade-off the market is wanting you to make to get your products or services to catch on. What is that trade-off for your organization?


Related Blog Posts:

1. Interview with Kevin Maney Author of Trade-Off: Why Some Things Catch On And Others Don't.
2. Trade-off Interview with Kevin Maney - Part II

Check out CO2 Partners' Leadership Style Assessment

Strategic Thinking - An Interview with Kevin Maney on the Trade-Off Business Leaders Need to Make

(Review of Trade-Off) Firstly, Kevin, I want to say how much I enjoyed reading your most recent book, Trade-Off: Why Some Things Catch On and Others Don’t (Random House 2009). What was particularly enjoyable was the way in which you made strategic thinking approachable. Whether you’re a small business owner, nonprofit leader, or running a large corporation, the message is consistent. For those who are not familiar with Kevin Maney he is an author and journalist who has interviewed many of the biggest names in business in a career spanning 25 years.

His most recent book is Trade-Off: Why Some Things Catch On and Others Don't, published in the fall of 2009 by Broadway Books. He writes for Fortune, The Atlantic, Fast Company and other magazines.

Kevin was recruited by Conde Nast Portfolio magazine prior to its launch in 2007, and was a contributing editor there until its demise in April 2009. Kevin was previously technology columnist and senior technology reporter at USA Today. He is the author of the critically-acclaimed The Maverick and His Machine: Thomas Watson Sr. and the Making of IBM, published in 2003 by John Wiley & Sons. Working with Chicago firm VSA Partners, Kevin is currently an historical consultant and collaborator helping IBM plan for its 100-year anniversary in 2011.


He also wrote the 1995 BusinessWeek bestseller Megamedia Shakeout. Kevin is often on television and radio, and has appeared on PBS, NPR, CNBC, and other media outlets. He is a frequent keynote speaker and on-stage interviewer.

Gary Cohen: Kevin, with the flood of books today on the market--I believe the current number is 3,000 new titles per day--what was it that inspired you to write this book and face the daunting competition?

Kevin Maney: I guess I had to feel like I had something constructive to say. There was also a pull to write about the trade-off between fidelity and convenience. I had written a couple of columns exploring the subject while at USA Today. Those columns prompted the most extraordinary email responses I’d ever received for something I’d written. The emails were what first made me feel like I had an interesting concept here.

Gary Cohen: Who do you believe will benefit most from reading your book?

Kevin Maney: I’ve heard from all kinds of people who emailed to say the book helped them – from a real estate agent in the DC area, to an owner of a fitness center, to several engineering students at NYU after I gave a talk, to the head of a division of one of the biggest technology companies.

Gary Cohen: Can you help our readers understand what you are referring to in your book as the "trade-off"? And what is the "fidelity belly"?

Kevin Maney: When buying or using a product or service, people constantly weigh a trade-off between a great experience – which I call fidelity – and great convenience. You’re willing to give up some fidelity for convenience – for instance, you’ll gladly buy MP3 music for your iPod because it’s so convenient even though the sound quality is 10 times worse than music on a CD. And you’ll give up convenience to get a great, high-fidelity experience – which is why you’ll buy $200 tickets to a U2 concert, fight for parking, and all that just to see the band live.

As it turns out, the most compelling products and services are either clearly high fidelity or clearly high convenience. Stuff in the middle is not enough of one or the other to get people excited – this is the fate of the compact disk. In the book, I’ve labeled that zone of so-so fidelity and so-so convenience as the “fidelity belly.” You don’t want to be in the fidelity belly.

Gary Cohen: Many leaders who have been formally trained by schools like Harvard, Northwestern, Stanford and others have studied strategic thinking of Michael Porter, Jim Collins, W. Chan Kim & Renee Maborgne, Kaplan & Norton. How do you see your thinking either aligning or diverging from such notable academics?

Kevin Maney: Jim Collins wrote the foreword to Trade-Off. He’s a good friend, and he’s probably had more influence on my thinking over the past 15 years than anyone. I talked through the book’s concepts with him before writing a word. I also think the book closely aligns with Clay Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma, but from a different perspective. Andy Grove’s strategic inflection point informed some of the ideas in the book, too.

Gary Cohen: Clayton Christensen at Harvard this year gave a speech that I attended where he explained how business schools can go wrong. One of his key points was that when professors provide models, without a clear understanding of the context in which the model is useful or not useful, it can lead to damaging consequences for their organizations. In which context do you see your model most useful and where will it not provide the correct guidance?

Kevin Maney: Judging from the reactions to the book, I’d say that it’s most useful in branding conversations – both consumer brands and business-to-business brands. It’s probably less useful in markets where there’s not a clear range of strong players from high fidelity to high convenience – like in health care or legal services.

Gary Cohen: Have there been some examples that you have seen that are able to defy the fidelity belly for an extended time?

Kevin Maney: .... (Part two of this interview will be continued tomorrw)
Related Blog Posts:

1. Trade-off Interview with Kevin Maney - Part II
2. Trade-Off by Kevin Maney and Intro by Jim Collins - Book Review

Raising Money From Venture Capitalists

Because many of my friends and clients are entrepreneurs, I am often asked, "How do you go about raising money?" Our early funding was entirely government grants that we received in exchange for bringing jobs to the rural communities. When my business partner and I needed to do additional fund raising, we decided to go to the public markets and list on NASDAQ. In doing that we avoided the very challenging effort of going to the VC communitiy.

We went on the road with very skilled fundraisers who did it for a living. We were not left up to our own devices, which may or may not have been a good thing. Today, when asked about how to raise money, I often direct people to David Rose's presentation at TED.

Top 11 Questions to Ask to find Resolution to Conflict

(Previous Blog Post w/ Stewart Levine)
Part II Interview with Stewart Levine, author of Getting to Resolution

Gary Cohen: What are the Top 10 Questions you ask--or suggest to your clients to ask--when needing to find resolution to conflict?

Stewart Levine:

1. What is it, and briefly what's your "story" about it? (how do you talk to yourself about the conflict?)
2. On a scale of 1-5 (1 being slightly agitated, 5 being gripped by emotion) how do you feel about the other people involved and engaging in the dialogue? Are you ready to engage in effective collaborative negotiation? What will enable you to do that?
3. Can you treat the resolution process as an opportunity to listen and learn?
4. Can you participate with open mind and open heart?
5. Can you accept that with trust, good faith, and creativity everyone can win and get what they need?
6. What aspects of the resolution process are you unsure of?
7. Do you need a third party facilitator? Why?
8. Are you willing to have compassion and stand in the shoes of others involved?
9. Are you fully aware of what the conflict is costing you?
10. Are you ready to let go, forgive and make an agreement for the future?
11. What other support will empower you to engage authentically?

Related Blog Post:
Leadership Resolution - Interview with Stewart Levine

See what your leadership style is with CO2 Partners Leadership Style Assessment

Leadership Resolution - Interview with Stewart Levine author of "Getting to Resolution"

I would like to welcome Stewart Levine to our Just Ask Leadership Blog.
Stewart Levine is founder of Resolution Works and author of "Getting To Resolution" Stewart is a creative problem solver. He is widely recognized for creating agreement and empowerment in the most challenging circumstances. He improves productivity while saving the enormous cost of conflict. His innovative work with "Agreements for Results' and his "Resolutionary" conversational models are unique.

Gary Cohen: How did you decide to make conflict resolution your area of expertise?

Stewart Levine: It was what I naturally did in situations. Here’s the opening story from my book:

During my second year of law school I had my first “real” lawyer’s job. I was an intern at a local legal services clinic. On my first day I was handed 25 cases “to work on.” This would be my job for the semester. Three weeks later I asked the managing attorney for more cases. When he asked about the 25 he had given me, I told him that I had resolved them. He was very surprised—and very curious. He asked how I had done it. I told him that I had reviewed the files, spoken to the clients, thought about a fair outcome and what needed to be done, called the attorney or agency on the other side, and reached a satisfactory resolution. I knew nothing about being a lawyer. I had no inclination that the cases were difficult, needed to take a long time, or had to be handled in any particular way. With common sense and a “beginner’s mind,” I found the solution that worked best for all concerned. Simple? It was for me! I spent the next 12 years becoming a “successful” lawyer—and becoming less effective at resolving matters. Then, feeling frustrated, anxious, and fearful, I stopped practicing law. I have been in “recovery” ever since, recovering what I knew about resolution when I started, discovering its component parts and learning how to teach and model it for others. As a young attorney, although I listened politely to more senior lawyers, I was surprised at the coaching I received. Standard practice discouraged communication among the parties in conflict, communication that I had used in my legal services cases, communication essential for efficient resolution. Many lawyers were playing a very different game from the one my natural instincts chose. Since you have spent much of your career helping others resolve or embracing conflict, how has it informed the way you behave in your personal relationships (You know the shoe makers dilemma)? I live my life very congruent with my work…I do walk the talk…and I sleep very well at night!

Gary Cohen: There are many books on the subject of dealing with conflict resolution what was it that you thought was not being offered in those that you have address with your most recent book, Getting to Resolution?

Stewart Levine: I provide a step by step road map…a conversational process people can follow by the numbers.

Gary Cohen: Some businesses today are deciding to merge companies together to survive this economic downturn. In merging companies together there are usually conflicts between cultures. Sometimes as dramatic as when one side of the business is unionized while the other side is not unionized. What would you recommend to resolve such possible cultural and economic conflicts?

Stewart Levine: Dialogue, conversation, giving people on the front line the tools, capacity and responsibility for creating their own solutions.

Business Partners rarely value each other until it is too late. What advise do you have for partnerships to increase their performance and enhance their appreciation of differing perspectives?

Make sure they have clear agreements on the front end, and I do not mean legal agreements.

The best way to prevent conflict is to have a covenantal relationship – meeting of mind and heart.

My agreement model provides the conversational template to do that.

Gary Cohen: What resolution have you been involved in that had the biggest impact for you or your client? And what did you do to accomplish this outcome?

Stewart Levine: Resolution Gives Life Gail Johnson is the executive director of Sierra Adoption, a nonprofit transforming lives of foster children through finding permanent adoptive families. Thousands of children are trapped in the California foster care system, out of reach of adoptive families. More than half of foster youth who come of age without a permanent family are homeless, in prison, or dead within two years. Gail’s success recruiting and preparing families to adopt children with disabilities often ended in the frustration of being told such children were “unadoptable.” Because of Gail’s work, California no longer considers any child unadoptable! In 1999, Sierra was engaged in a federally funded partnership with the Sacramento County agency that was referring children to Sierra. The working relationship had fallen apart. Gail wanted to resolve long- and short-term conflict, get beyond mistrust, and forge a high-performance team. Few believed the partnership could be salvaged, let alone become a high-performance team. Sixteen people were gathered and over twelve hours in two days using the Cycle of Resolution, the conflicts were resolved and a working agreement was structured. That agreement was the foundation for a healthy, productive partnership with a new vision of collaboration. In the first year following the intervention, 109 “unadoptable” children were placed in permanent families.



Gary Cohen: Stuart, you work with a great number of leaders in your work under high stress circumstances. How do you find leaders use questions to demonstrate their leadership? And what kind of questions do they ask?

Stewart Levine: Good leaders take responsibility FIRST…they always ask what they did or did not do to create the particular challenge they face What implications are there for leaders who over use telling verses asking? …they are not leaders… They may get compliance, never inspiration People do not learn to think People resent not having control They do not develop successors, leaders

Gary Cohen: Is there any other insight you would like to share with us?

Stewart Levine: Critical to engage and:
Realize it is a learning process – teaching and learning about each others perspective… Show up…be present to deal with the situation Listen to them Tell YOUR truth (know there are other truths) Allow yourself to be influenced by what you hear

Gary Cohen: What are your Top 10 Questions that you ask or suggest to your clients to ask when needing to find resolution to conflict? (Tomorrow's Blog Post)



Find out what your Leadership Style is with CO2 Partners Leadership Style Assessment!

5 Questions to Build Trust - Leadership Questions

Trust begins with me. Trust begins with each and every one of us. Trust building is everyone’s responsibility. Here are a few key questions in which to start:

1. How am I, as a leader or team member, practicing behaviors that foster, encourage and empower trust?
2. Where am I experiencing areas of fear, vulnerability or doubt? How am I responding to those situations--in trustworthy or trust-breaking ways?
3. Where is trust strong within our team or organization? Where is it weak?
4. What behaviors are we as a team or organization practicing that build trust?
5. What behaviors are we as a team or organization practicing that break trust?

From an interview with Dennis & Michelle Reina

Related blog posts:

1. Building Trust in Your Organization
2. Three Ways to Trust & More
3. 90% of Employees Feel Betrayal Frequently
4. Trust Begins With You! What is Your Trust Score?

Remember to look at CO2 Partners - Leadership Assessment

Building Trust In Your Organization as a Leader

Building Trust in Your Organization - Interview with Dennis & Michelle Reina.
I am excited to welcome Dennis S. Reina and Michelle L. Reina, principals of The Reina Trust Building Institute, who specialize in the development of trust in the workplace. Based on this work, they have developed a model that defines the three types of trust and illustrates factors that contribute to the development of trust in workplace relationships. They are coauthors of Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace and our featured guests this week.


Dennis & Michelle, what is the question you were trying to answer in writing this book?

Business is based on relationships and trust is the foundation of effective relationships. Trust is essential for effective business relationships. Many people talk about the importance of trust, they often speak to the value of it; corporations have trust or some related simile in their mission, value or principles statements. Yet, there is only one way that trust is built or broken--that is by behavior--at the individual, team and organizational levels.

Through pioneering research and practice with clients across North America and other parts of globe for the last 20 years, this book defines the behaviors that build trust, break trust and the steps to rebuild and transform the capacity for trust in workplace relationships at all levels of the organization.

Your title talks about betrayal. Where does that play out in your work with organizations?

There are many challenges to building and maintaining trust in the workplace: Trust is highly complex, emotionally provocative--both in the positive and negative sense and it means different things to different people.

From years of studying the dynamics of trust, we have found that trust and betrayal are natural elements (behaviors) of the human condition (in interpersonal relationships). Trust is built and trust is broken everyday on the job. Betrayal plays out at all levels of the organization--from the blatant to the subtle--the most prevalent in the workplace are the subtle, minor ways that trust is broken.

What are the different ways to betray your coworkers and stakeholders?

First, let us start with what we mean by betrayal. We define betrayal on a continuum from major to minor, intentional and unintentional. While major betrayal decisively breaks trust, most often it is the minor unintentional ways that trust is eroded over time that breaks trust in the workplace--each and every day. Behaviors such as gossip, not showing up to meetings on time, not delivering as promised, shunning, work-arounds, leaving people out of communication that should have been a part of, etc. are examples of minor betrayals. Minor betrayals accumulate over time and become major. Our research shows that 90% of employees experience these types of betrayal frequently.

The net result of these minor betrayals is major--people mentally and emotionally check-out. They may wait it out until the economy improves and walk out the door and the organization loses years of corporate intelligence and experience and its good employees. Or worse yet, they may stay--becoming the “working wounded”--doing as little as they can to get away with--no more, no less.



Trust is often brought up as one of the core competencies that leaders must demonstrate. What is unique about your approach that helps leaders become trustworthy? (Read more tomorrow!)

Upcoming Posts From This Interview:

1. Three Ways to Trust & More
2. 90% of Employees Feel Betrayal Frequently
3. Trust Begins With You! What is Your Trust Score?
4. 5 Questions to Ask to Build Trust
   

Check out CO2 Partners - Leadership Assessment!

Trust Begins with Me! What is your Trust Score?

What has been your favorite assignment in helping an organization to enhance their ability to trust?

We enjoy working with committed leaders over time that recognize the value of trust in workplace relationships and the importance of building trust within their organizations to produce business results. (We don’t just build trust for the sake of building trust. Having more trust can support every key organizational initiative in being successful.) Supporting these aware leaders to build, rebuild and transform trust makes a difference with their employees; between employees and with the customers and stakeholders they serve.

What are the key symptoms that you look for in an organization to know that there is a low level of trust?

We utilize our statistically valid and reliable trust measuring instruments to diagnose the level of trust at the organizational, team and leader levels and pinpoint the key symptoms. Often we get called in to work with a leader and their organization because ‘trust scores’ on their organizational culture or employee satisfaction surveys are low and have been declining over a number of years.

The Reina Trust Building instruments are developed after years of research and are based Reina Trust & Betrayal Model®. The questions on each of the surveys that load to the each of the 16 behaviors that builds Transactional Trust.

I mention again “statistically valid and reliable” trust measuring instruments because it takes years of research to develop a psychometrically sound instrument. As we the recent proliferation of trust books, so are the number of ‘trust surveys’- but they are not rigorous tested or psychometrically sound. Each of our instruments has gone through rigorous psychometric testing and retesting over the last 17 years. Most of our instruments are on their fourth generation of revision.

What personal experience did you have that informed your work in the area of trust?

We teach what we want to learn. Initially, Michelle and I each came to this work from our experiences in our personal lives. For example, I (Dennis) am a survivor of two bouts with cancer, a near death accident, a traumatic injury and shingles and a painful divorce many years ago. I was faced with trust breaking circumstances; I had to learn the hard lessons behind the experiences. In doing so, I was able to reframe the experiences and take responsibility. Much of those experiences have informed our work in building, rebuilding trust and healing and renewal.

Professionally, Michelle and I came to this work because we saw the need early on in our work with leaders and their client organizations. We saw that the success or failure of any key business initiative or change process predicated on the level of trust within the organization- leader with leaders, leader with employees, employees with employees.

How do issues around trust block people asking questions?

Fear: lack of safety, fear of retribution or retaliation. When there is low trust in a relationship or within a team or an organization, people are reluctant to share information, ask questions or take risks because they feel vulnerable. When there is low trust, people contract, withhold thoughts because they do not feel safe. They act in self-serving versus mutually serving ways. Distrust is created on all sides. Distrust creates distrust, which can lead to betrayal. Betrayal creates more betrayal- it is a downward spiral.

What questions do you ask your clients to explore the issue of trust?

What evidence is showing up within your team or organization that give you indications that trust is low or vulnerable?
Where in your team or organization is trust strong? Where is it low or vulnerable?
What is the business case for trust? (Given that trust supports achieving business objectives)
How would having more trust support your team or organization achieving its business goals or initiatives?
What support do you need to build, rebuild or renew trust within you, your team or your organization, board or stakeholders or customers?

Also see the attached Reina Trust Quiz®.

What idea around trust would really surprise people to know?

Some people are surprised when we mention that betrayal is a natural element of the human condition. Because we are human, we all have a shadow side. Given our busy, trying-to-do-more-with-less (usually too much) schedules, workloads and life styles, we trip up, inadvertently causing disappointment, hurt, and pain to others. We betray others and we betray ourselves.
The ‘work’ we each have to do is become more aware of ourselves and others. In doing so, we still may trip up and hurt others; that probably won’t stop. But knowing how to effectively handle our misgivings, and transgressions are essential. Knowing how to rebuild trust again and again and again is essential to building sustainable trust. It is essential to renewing confidence, commitment and energy with those with whom we work and serve and those with whom we live with and love.

Add up all your scores for the above questions to come up with your score of the team ________

SCORING
The highest possible score is fifty, and the lowest would be zero. The higher the score, the greater you perceive your team practices trust building behaviors, and the likelihood the team has effective working relationships.
Your team practices trust-building behaviors…
0 to 10 … Almost never. There is serious room for improvement!
11 to 19 … Occasionally, which damages trust within the team.
20 to 29 … Some of the time, which does not build sustainable trust.
30 to 39 … Frequently, and are most likely have effective working relationships.
40 to 50 … Almost always, and are probably viewed as a highly effective team.
Keep up the good work!

Related blog posts:

1. Building Trust in Your Organization
   
2. Three Ways to Trust & More
3. 90% of Employees Feel Betrayal Frequently
4. 5 Questions to Ask to Build Trust

Leadership Style Assessment - What style are you?

90% of Employees Experience Betrayal Frequently

Interview Part III with our guests Michelle and Dennis Reina from The Reina Trust Building Institute and authors of Trust & Betrayal in the Workplace

Often time’s people believe trust is earned over time. Is this really true? Is there a way to accelerate trust among co-workers?

There are no quick fixes to build trust- but there are quick ways to destroy it. Major intentional betrayals break trust instantaneously. Trust is earned incrementally- step by step and it is reciprocal in nature- you have to give it to get it.

Covey and many others have written on the topic of trust recently. How does your book differ from theirs?
We have been researching and practicing in this field for over 20 years developing a body of work regarding understanding the dynamics of trust, betrayal, healing and transformation in the workplace. When Michelle and I started our doctoral research back in the late 80’s, the topic was not popular.

In 1992, we founded the Reina Trust Building Institute whose mission is to study, develop and live models of trust, healing and renewal in service to the world. Michelle and I have written three books (1999, Jan. 2006, 2010) on trust, betrayal and healing, (our third on rebuilding trust is coming out this year), developed numerous statistically valid and reliable trust measuring instruments (at the individual, leader, team, organizational and customer levels), a Trust Building On-Line platform, numerous Trust Building® resources, workbooks, etc.
Not until 9/11, Enron and of course, the latest economic downfall, has the topic of Trust become popular and in demand- because there is so little of it- at all levels, in all areas of society and the globe. With this popularity, a lot of people have recently jumped on the ‘trust bandwagon’ becoming ‘instant experts’ because they saw the need and an opportunity to make money. (Much like they did in the 80s with the quality movement).

Learning and living Trust Building work is Michelle and my life’s work, purpose and passion. Michelle and I have devoted our lives and are committed to making a contribution to the field and being of service to leaders, their people and their organizations around the world.

There have been numerous books on how to build trust written in the last 4-5 years after both our books had been published. Our book goes where the others do not or are afraid to go- we name the ‘elephant in the room’- betrayal, which these authors are not overtly talking about. Yet people in the workplace are constantly at the effect of betrayal and have to deal with the consequences of.

In our book we also identify the seven steps for healing and help leaders and their employees rebuild trust. We identify the 16 core behaviors that are essential for leaders to practice to build trust and be trustworthy leaders. We name the four core characteristics that transform the level of trust in an organization, so their organizations become a place where employees WANT to work and produce.
What are the different elements of trust that can be built upon?

The three types of Transactional Trust are Contractual

1. - The Trust of Character, Communication
2. - The Trust of Disclosure and Competence Trust
3. - The Trust of Capability.

Each of these types has corresponding behaviors (the sixteen essential behaviors that build trust are as follows).

Contractual - The Trust of Character:

1. Manage expectations
2. Establish boundaries
3. Delegate appropriately
4. Operate with mutually serving intentions
   
5. Keep agreement
6. Be consistent in behavior
   

Communication - The Trust of Disclosure:

1. Share information
2. Tell the truth
3. Admit mistakes
4. Give and receive constructive feedback
5. Maintain confidentiality
6. Speak with good purpose
   

Competence Trust - The Trust of Capability:

1. Acknowledge people’s skills
2. Allow people to make decisions
3. Involve others and seek their input
   
4. Help people learn new skills

What do you find that leaders struggle most with when they are not willing to trust co-workers who are in fact trust worthy?

What you are talking about here is one’s own capacity for trust. If a leader has a low capacity for trust, they may have difficulty trusting another even if this individual is a trustworthy individual, because they have difficulty trusting themselves. You have to give trust to get trust. If a leader has difficulty trusting oneself (giving trust to oneself), he/she may have difficulty giving trust or trusting another.

What steps should a leader take to build a Trusting culture?

Practice the three types of Transactional Trust and the corresponding sixteen Trust Building behaviors. (see above)

What are the derailleurs to trust within an organization?


For fear of repeating myself again: The key deraileurs to trust within an organization are minor betrayals that happen everyday and erode trust over time. They are most insidious because they often do not get addressed; however they are definitely noticed. Behaviors such as gossip, not showing up to meetings on time, not delivering as promised, shunning, work arounds, leaving people out of communication that should have been a part of, etc. are examples of minor betrayals. Minor betrayals accumulate over time and become major. Our research shows that 90% of employees experience these types of betrayal frequently.

What has been your favorite assignment in helping an organization to enhance their ability to trust? (Read response in next blog post)

Related Posts:

1. Building Trust in Your Organization
   
2. Three Ways to Trust & More
3. Trust Begins With You! What is Your Trust Score?
4. 5 Questions to Ask to Build Trust

Leadership Assessment - What type of leader are you?

Three Ways To Trust & Stop Betrayal

(Continued)

This is Part II of an interview with both Michelle and Dennis Rienna based on the research done for their book Trust & Betrayal in the Workplace.

Trust is often brought up as one of the core competencies that leaders must demonstrate. What is unique about your approach that helps leaders become trustworthy?

We define the three types of Transactional Trust® and the 16 behaviors that are essential for a leader's trustworthiness.
The three types of Transactional Trust are:

1. The Trust of Character - Contractual Trust
2. The Trust of Disclosure - Communication Trust
3. The Trust of Capability - Competence Trust

Each of these types has corresponding behaviors.

Thousands of people completed on online values assessment that I created, and Honesty, Love and Trust are consistently the highest ranking values. With people putting Honesty and Trust at the top of their values, why are we having such issues around trust in the workplace?

As mentioned earlier in our interview, there are many challenges to building and maintaining trust in the workplace: Trust is highly complex, emotionally provocative--both in the positive and negative sense and it means different things to different people. Trust is fragile--yet it is taken for granted until it is broken; then people often do not know how to deal with the consequences; they do not know how to effectively rebuild trust.

At the interpersonal level, because trust means different things to different people- there are many disconnects and misunderstandings that take place. People do not fully know or understand the complexity of trust dynamics in interpersonal relations. They are often unaware of the minor, unintentional ways in which they inadvertently break trust. And instead of people dealing directly with these transgressions--they go unaddressed (not unnoticed) and accumulate and become major over time.

At the organizational level, trust is often broken through change. Yet, it is not the change itself that necessarily breaks trust, but how it is managed. Especially during times of transition, people have certain needs: needs for information--What is the direction the organization is heading? They have needs for belonging--What are my new roles and responsibilities? Where will I be working? Will I be working? Will I have a job? They have needs for competence--Will I be able to keep up with that which is expected of me?

There has been much debate recently about whether MBA programs ought help teach values such as trust. Some argue that it may be too late for students to learn values such as trust as an MBA student--that they need to figure this out much earlier, in their homes. Others argue that students ought to sign an ethics oath when they start their MBA program. How do you come out in this discussion? Where do you think developing trust can have the greatest impact in an organization or society?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
MBA Ethics Oath
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

What we know from human development research is that learning to trust (our capacity for trust) starts at day 1 with our caregivers at birth. The first two years of a child’s life are critical to development of strong foundations of trust behavior. Our values are formulating up to around age 11 or so.

That said, in our executive coaching work with leaders, particularly those individuals who have come from rough beginnings-for example: an individual orphaned at an early age, bounced around different abusive foster homes growing up, etc. It is possible for this individual with a low capacity to trust to become a highly trustworthy leader. Yet, it takes a lot of inner work; starting with being aware of one’s own fears, challenges and continually working to overcome them.

Signing an ethics oath may bring to the students attention that trustworthiness is important but it does not insure the individual will be trustworthy in the moment of truth.
Building trust is everyone’s responsibility. In an organization, it starts at the top leadership; but again, trust building behaviors need to be practiced by everyone at all levels to transform the culture or society.


Most books talk about the need for leaders to surround themselves with trustworthy team members. It has always seemed to me that the leader must be the one who trusts their teams first rather than the other way around. Where do you think trust begins?

Again, trust is everyone’s responsibility--while leadership needs to initiate trustworthy behavior--everyone needs to practice it. (see above and below)

Oftentimes people believe trust is earned over time. Is this really true? Is there a way to accelerate trust among coworkers? (Read tomorrows post!)

Other Blog posts that may interest you:

1. Building Trust in Your Organization
   
2. 90% of Employees Feel Betrayal Frequently
3. Trust Begins With You! What is Your Trust Score?
4. 5 Questions to Ask to Build Trust

Leadership Style Assessment - What leadership style are you?

Leadership Movie - Invictus - How To Use Symbols As A Leader

Invictus is one of the best movies I have seen that demonstrates the power of symbols in leadership. Morgan Freeman plays Nelson Mandela. The movie represents Mandela’s use of the country's rugby team as a symbol of solidarity against apartheid. If you lead an organization and want to learn how powerful symbols can be to a culture, this is a must see movie. The movie is named after a poem that Mandela read to give him strength when he was imprisoned:

Invictus
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

--William Ernest Henley

Leadership Accountability - Losing Control of Your Staff?

Author: Gary B Cohen

Reader's Question: I am a sales manager for a business services firm in Minneapolis. I am responsible for all new business revenue for my company and I have 5 sales people that work for me. Of the 5 sales people only one is a star performer. The issue I am having is he breaks all the rules and creates really bad relationships with all the other people in the company. I am on the senior team and the rest of them are angry that this keeps happening. While I don't like to hear the comments from the senior team, I am aware that I cannot make my numbers goals and the company can't make there's for the year without him. What do I do?

Answer: I call this an organizational terrorist! An organizational terrorist is someone who knows what they have on you and they use it to hold you and everyone else in the company hostage to their behavior. I like to take my clients through an exercise of understanding the Goal, Position, and Strategy Questions to determine what actions need to be done.

The first question I ask is, "What is the goal around the problem?" This is to ensure that we are aiming at the right issue. What I invite my clients to do is to first reflect on the organization's overall goal. Then link that to the current situation. This way whatever you do, your strategy will be in total alignment with what is best for the business overall.

In this situation you have identified, the fact that in order to make your business unit's goals and the company's, you need this employee. Oftentimes leaders become so emotionally charged by such situations they act before they consider the goals and objectives of the company or the department. I commend you for your forethought. Typically leaders who do this are considered high in emotional intelligence. This has been shown to be one of the key components in assessing one's chances for long-term success.

The next step is to understand the position you and your company are in. Elevate to the 50,000-foot level to see the whole situation. Go beyond yourself and ask, "How did this begin to happen?" Sometimes we might find the root cause built into the culture of the organization. Is this type of behavior tolerated here?

When Enron's CEO learned that two traders were stealing from the company, he did nothing and then soon after told the traders, "Keep making us money." What they were stealing was minor compared to what they were making the company. He knew that if he took action, he would stop his revenue machine (critical to his end goal). But, by not holding them accountable for the theft, he also implicitly gave permission to others to steal if they were that good at making money for the company. We all know the outcome of this company that lacked a moral compass.

In the case you present, it is apparent that leadership is not prepared to tolerate star employee's behavior. But the star employee isn't the only one responsible for the current situation.

Once you go up to the 50,000-foot level and see if the company has had complicity in the situation, then it is good to come down to the 10,000-foot perspective and see if "you" have complicity in the situation. To be frank, and I hate doing this in a column where I can't ask qualifying questions, but it is hard to imagine that you did not allow this to happen. It doesn't excuse the star behavior's inappropriate behavior, but you might have been able to stop this behavior cold if you addressed it earlier. In your search for solutions, I suggest hiring a mentor or coach to help you set boundaries for your team. Without clear boundaries, you may very well be faced with this issue again.

The third part of our position investigation is to go to ground level – the situation itself. When we find ourselves in this type of situation with an employee we only have two choices, we can either fire or teach. If an employee makes a mistake, it is because we did not teach them correctly or because they are not capable to do the function. Ask three questions to determine what choice to make: Is the employee capable of learning? Does the organization or do I have the time and resources available to train this employee? Is this employee motivated to learn and change? If the answer to any one of these questions is NO, you need to let this person go. As Donald Trump says, "You're fired!"

It is unclear from your description if the employee has the capacity to change behavior, so I will assume that he is rather good at what he does for your organization and likely has the ability to change. It is clear that for your number one producer you should have the resources and time to help him come into alignment with the company. The bigger issue is that of motivation. Oftentimes a terrorist does not feel the threat of what can happen to them if they don't start falling in to line. They have become fat, and happy, and arrogant! This arrogance is what blocks their ability to realize that they need to change. The company, however, has reached a point where it can no longer tolerate this kind of behavior.

Unlike Trump's TV drama, we live in the real world, and just letting him go is not a great first choice given the company's dependence on his revenue. If the consequences of your actions will compromise the strategic direction of the company, I would invite you to consider involving the senior team. Yes, it's your responsibility, but letting this person go will impact many others.

Tell the senior team the steps that you are considering and ask these strategic questions: At what point as an organization are we willing to take a principled stance on the issue over that of revenue? Are we clear what the outcome of this will be to our other employees? Will we need to do cost cutting to compensate for this move? What will the industry see from losing our most talented sales person? Will he go work for our competition? What impact will that have on your company? By working through these strategic issues as an organization and lifting this issue to its proper place--the senior team--you will be aligning everyone to be part of the process and stop complaining about it.

By going through these questions, the conclusion you may arrive at the end of this process is that you use a three-pronged approach to dealing with this situation. Executing three plans simultaneously.

Plan "A" You will need to continue coaching the employee towards the behavior that is in alignment with the firm's values, beliefs, and rules.

Plan "B", at the same time, I would highly recommend moving the rest of the sales team to a higher level to lose your dependence on this terrorist, and operationalize Plan "C" and start the recruiting process for the possible if not probable replacement of the employee.

It is important that the others on the senior team and your sales team know that you are coaching this employee in these areas of behavior and that it is not sitting OK with you. But don't reveal more information than that; it is inappropriate to say more than that in a public setting. This process will build your credibility as a leader and not allow one person's behavior sink the culture the company wants to build.

Leadership - Top 5 Questions Leaders Should Ask Their Team

In our interview with Bill Treasurer earlier this week he offered some insight into what questions leaders should ask their team or organizations:

1. Where are we playing it too safe, as a business, and why?
2. How am I, as the leader, contributing to our playing it too safe as a business?
3. What business situations and/or goals are worthy of the application of peoples’ courage?
4. What would it take for people to be more willing to take risks, make smart mistakes, and be more courageous?
5. What actions can I take, as a leader, to be a better role model of courageous behavior?

Top 10 Questions To Building Courage

In our interview earlier this week with Bill Treasurer he offered these top 10 questions he asks to help an organization build courage:

1. What do we want to become as a business?
2. How can courage be applied to help us get to where we want to be?
3. Where are we playing it too safe, as a business?
4. Where is courage most needed, but often avoided, in our business?
5. Why do people avoid being courageous even though it is needed here?
6. What courageous actions from the past are we most proud of?
7. Where in the past did we fail to act courageously?
8. What are our “pink elephants” – politically sensitive, don’t-go-there areas that need to be acknowledged and addressed?
9. What would it take for people to be more willing to take risks, make smart mistakes, and be more courageous?
10. Once everyone starts behaving more courageously, what do we hope will be different?

Top 6 Ways To Build Courage & 5 Ways to Handle a Down Economy

A continuation of the interview with Bill Treasurer. Bill Treasurer is founder and Chief Encouragement Officer at Giant Leap Consulting (GLC), a courage-building company that exists to help people and organizations live more courageously. Bill is also the author of Courage Goes to Work (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2008), a book about how to inspire more courageous behavior in workplace settings. He has been cited by 100s of newspapers and magazines and has published many other books. Interestingly he was also on the US High Diving Team making over a 1,500 dives at 150 feet. Now that is courage! I asked Bill to be interviewed because of the connection his work has with Just Ask Leadership. It takes a great deal of courage at times to ask certain questions. How you ask, as Bill points out, is just as important.

Gary Cohen: You talk about building courage. How does one do strength building of this mental muscle?

Bill Treasurer: Below are some tips for helping you be more courageous at work:

· Be Mindful of the Risks of Not Risking. The risk of inaction is usually more perilous than the risk of action. As you consider a risk, be sure to be clear about the dangers of not taking the risk too!

· Ask the Holy Question. Here are the four most important words you’ll ever learn in the English language: what do you want? Most people don’t take the time to answer that question with specificity. Those who do, however, are in a much better position to figure out the actions they need to take in order to get what they want!

· Have Something to Prove. Take on challenges that cause you to have to prove yourself to yourself. When the going gets rough, having something to prove can be a source of energy and motivation.

· Make Forward-falling Mistakes. Making no mistakes is just as dangerous as making too many. Have a “mistake ratio” – a good balance between not making enough mistakes and making too many. As long as you’re the mistakes you make are forward-falling, you’re making progress.

· Harness Fear. Fear is a normal, natural, and necessary part of the work experience. While uncomfortable, fear has energy. And that energy can be useful when facing tough challenges. Harness your fear by spending time with it. The more you experience the thing that you’re afraid of, the more desensitized you become to it.

· Jump First. The best way to encourage those around you to be more courageous, is to be more courageous yourself…first! Ask yourself when was the last time you did something courageous that probably left a favorable impression on the people you work with. When did you last Jump First!

Gary Cohen: Leaders often get to a place of comfort where they are simply playing defense and protecting what they already have. How does your book and ideas help these leaders see the issues of playing defense versus staying on offense – with the skills that brought them to their current position?

Bill Treasurer: I emphasize the importance of considering the dangers of playing it too safe. Safety, when it causes an obsession with protectionism, or worse, immobilization, can be a very dangerous thing. Every risk can be divided into two; the risk of action and the risk of inaction. Too often, “safe” leaders make decisions after accounting for one (the risk of action) and not the other. Smart leaders also ask, “What is the risk of not taking the risk?”

Gary Cohen: In today’s economy, defense or survival seems to be the operating mode of many businesses. Do you have some ideas that would help leaders of organizations be more successful in these down cycle times?

Bill Treasurer: Workplace productivity and morale are taking a nosedive in the current economy. According to one recent poll, at least three out of four workers say that productivity is down, mistakes are up, and customer service is taking a major hit. Leaders have a big job to do during a down cycle. Here are some tips:

Be steady. As pressures mount in your own work, take a deep breath and try to be a little more cool, calm, and collected yourself. It may be easier said than done, but it’s a fact that people choose to follow level-headed, even-handed leaders.

Be straight. In good times and bad, workers want—and deserve—the truth. Avoid tiptoeing around tough issues and give it to them straight—no spinning or sugarcoating. And to reign in the predictable and pernicious gossip, hold regular “rumor hunts”—ongoing meetings where employees can air the latest rumors and hear the facts directly from you.

Be focused. Right now it’s easy to give in to distractions—taking your eyes off the ball and letting people and projects fall by the wayside. Don’t. Keep people laser-focused on what needs to be done—key priorities for the foreseeable future—and, at least for now, have daily status calls or check-ins.

Be gutsy. Fear can play to your base nature. Commit to rising above it and elevating yourself and your team. Stop talking to employees about what keeps you awake at night, and start talking to them about what gets you up in the morning.

Be hopeful. If there was ever a need for a can-do spirit, it is now. No downplaying the economy or giving false reassurances, but choosing optimism over pessimism, encouragement over discouragement. Start by walking the talk—making it clear, with words and actions, that as difficult as things are right now, the team is better off dealing with what “is” and facing the challenges head-on with hope and determination.

Gary Cohen: I am wondering in your work with leaders if you see asking questions as a courageous act and if so how?

Bill Treasurer: I am sure that it takes courage to ask leaders some types of questions. That said, I think asking the right questions can provoke courageous behavior. And the questions need to be asked in a way that the leader’s ears can hear. So “how” the question is asked is just as important as what question is asked. If you ask a question because you want to make the leader feel small, or because you want to punish the leader in some way, that spirit will come through and the leader will shut down. Like Oscar Wilde once said, “Whenever there is someone in authority, someone resists authority.” So before asking a hard-hitting question to a leader, check your own motive and intention.

Gary Cohen: Can you share with me an example when the question that was asked was courageous and what took place because of that question?

Bill Treasurer: I once coached a senior executive who had just gotten demoted because his boss felt that he wasn’t acting bold enough. The senior executive explained, “I don’t get it. I do everything the company and my boss wants me to do. I am a good and loyal soldier!”
I asked, “How might it serve you to stop acting like a good soldier and start behaving like a good leader?”

Then he and I talked about the difference between management and leadership, and between loyal compliance and loyal disobedience. We discussed how being a good soldier had, up until this point, defined his career, but how it had now started to become a drag on his leadership potential. He was playing it too safe, under the excuse of being a good solider. He and I set out a plan for him to behave more boldly and more leader-like. Within a year’s time, he not only got promoted, he got a raise as well. More importantly, he had made an important shift from being a safe manager to a bold leader.