I thought I’d share my two favorite quotes from an interview with Anthony Smith, author of The Taboos of Leadership, because they so neatly demonstrate what I see as the three keys to recognizing a leader.

“Have you encountered CEOs who claim they would be doing what they’re doing for no pay because they love it so much?

Absolutely. John Mackey, who founded Whole Foods (WFMI), for example, is so passionate that he told shareholders to pay him one dollar a year and that he’d use his stock options to benefit causes the company was committed to. He’d already made his money; It was no longer an issue. At the peak of his earnings, he requested that he receive no more than 14 times his average worker’s pay. Patagonia’s former CEO Michael Crooke has done somewhat the same thing.

A number of CEOs I’ve worked with might even pay to be able to do what they’re doing because they love it so much. The difference between them and “cause-driven” CEOs is that some of them aren’t willing to go public with this philosophy. Regardless, they continue to draw a paycheck primarily to support their worthwhile causes.”

“Can leadership be taught?

Leadership can only be practiced—it’s the process by which an individual pursues a vision and intentionally seeks to influence others to perform various jobs to their full potential, for as long as possible, to realize that vision. The way people tend to become leaders is that they have successfully practiced leadership over time and done it effectively.

If managers are getting people to do their jobs to their full potential, day in and day out, they are vastly increasing their firm’s probability of creating a successful enterprise. Individuals who can do that, even from the early stages of their careers, are successfully practicing leadership.”

That’s it. Your food for thought on a Friday afternoon, the three basics of leading

• passion—you don’t have to forgo your salary to prove passion, but don’t think that you can fake it for the troops, they aren’t stupid and they’ll always see through you;
• influence—don’t order or force, as my all-time favorite leadership quote says, “To lead the people, walk behind them.” —Lao Tzu; and
• DO—as Eliza Doolittle so eloquently says, “Sing me no song! Read me no rhyme! Don’t waste my time, Show me!…”Show me now!”

I received a very irate email taking me to task for saying (in yesterday’s post), “I think that people still prefer their own comfort zone (whatever that might be) and probably always will—the goal is to expand it, since eliminating it is highly unlikely…” After removing the expletives the gist was that as a person supposedly teaching leadership why was I condoning closed-minded attitudes, even bigotry?

Short answer, I’m not, but I’m a realist.

Long answer, I’ve always believed that it’s great to work for an ideal, but you have to function in the real world and the real world is populated by people and people are a long way from ideal—additionally, my ideal is very likely not your ideal, so who chooses? What I consider close-minded or bigoted is very likely another person’s passionate belief—to me there is no “right.” Even when I’m violently opposed to the thoughts expressed, I remember S.G. Tallentyre’s (not Voltaire) comment, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it.”

Back to practical.

I first wrote about comfort zones in a column I used to write for Microsoft Development Network (msdn) in 1999 (Hiring in Your Comfort Zone) and the idea hasn’t changed a lot.

Our comfort zone is where we all prefer to do things. People want to spend their time with people like themselves. This isn’t about simple labels, such as race, religion or gender, which are more society’s labels. Our own subjective labels have more to do with schools (Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Cal, etc.), specific professions (not fields), companies (think McKinsey), compensation, attitudes, clothes, etc. It’s how we choose to connect, because, true or not, Yale grads believe they have more in common with other Ivy League alums than with Cal or Columbia. Doctors hang out with doctors, usually those with the same, or similar, specialty or employer, but rarely with nurses or radiology techs. We like enough knowledge commonality so we don’t feel ignorant, but can still learn; we like to be with our “equals.”

It all boils down to, “people like me” (PLM).

And that may be fine in our personal life—but not so fine in our professional life, especially not for managers responsible for hiring. The broader the PLM definition the longer it takes to become noticeable, but it’s usually there if you look for it.

The long-term cost to companies is high. This is especially true when there’s a change in management, since the new person’s PLM rarely matches her predecessor’s.

• When the choice is between the best applicant and PLM, PLM usually wins out, slowly lowering the quality of talent.
• PLM homogenizes the staff; reducing diversity of both thinking and thought (methodology and result) and it’s that diversity that supplies strength, creativity and innovation.
• PLM wreaks havoc on retention efforts and often drives out legacy knowledge.
• PLM hiring may affect just one part of a company or create a ripple effect, e.g., lowered innovation slows product development delaying delivery, crimping sales and keeping the company from achieving its revenue goals.

All of this and much more is the product of a PLM mindset and the narrower the mindset the worse the damage.

Back to what I said at the start, I’m a realist and I do not believe that it’s possible to truly eradicate PLM from your MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) more often it’s driven underground making it harder to recognize than when it’s overt.

I do believe that the definition of PLM can be expanded, since MAP is not, or should not be, carved in stone. Rather, like you, it’s vibrant—living, growing, and changing as you live, grow and change.

And, as always, it’s your choice.

Do you watch NCIS (Tuesday on CBS)? It’s one of my favorite shows and last night one thing really cracked me up. Without going into too much detail, there was a crisis and the young FBI agent notified her boss about it by email. It was sensitive, urgent information affecting a critical investigation and she sent an email; needless to say, her boss wasn’t pleased—but it was played for a good laugh.

I’ve written several times, and linked to pertinent articles and research, about the problems inherent communicating by email and now there’s more. A recent NY Times article explains that, “This [email exacerbating misunderstandings] is becoming more apparent with the emergence of social neuroscience, the study of what happens in the brains of people as they interact. New findings have uncovered a design flaw at the interface where the brain encounters a computer screen: there are no online channels for the multiple signals the brain uses to calibrate emotions. Face-to-face interaction, by contrast, is information-rich. We interpret what people say to us not only from their tone and facial expressions, but also from their body language and pacing, as well as their synchronization with what we do and say. Most crucially, the brain’s social circuitry mimics in our neurons what’s happening in the other person’s brain, keeping us on the same wavelength emotionally….In an article to be published next year in the Academy of Management Review, Kristin Byron, an assistant professor of management at Syracuse University’s Whitman School of Management, finds that e-mail generally increases the likelihood of conflict and miscommunication.”

Email can be useful for sharing information, arranging meetings and other one dimensional actions, but beyond that, you’re looking for trouble.

“Consider, too, the “e-mail the guy down the hall” effect: as the use of e-mail increases in an organization, the overall volume of other kinds of communication drops – particularly routine friendly greetings. But lacking these seemingly innocuous interactions, people feel more disconnected from co-workers. This was noted in an article in Organizational Science almost a decade ago, just as e-mail was starting to surge. Saying “Hi,” it turns out, really does matter; it’s social glue. “

What about the rest of the social media world, stuff such as LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, etc.? Professor Clay Shirky, adjunct professor in New York University’s interactive telecommunications program, whose expertise is social computing – software programs through which multiple users interact, ranging from Facebook to Listservs and chat rooms to e-mail says, “social software” like e-mail “is not better than face-to-face contact; it’s only better than nothing.”

Got that? Better than nothing. That’s not saying much for the medium that’s being treated as the solution to your business (and even personal) ills, when, in fact, it might enhance, but it doesn’t replace either in-person visits or phones.

Think about it.

Until a few years ago, I lived in Silicon Valley and still read the local papers. An article in yesterday’s SF Mercury News details the follow-up study by UC Davis on the lack of gender diversity in the executive ranks of high tech companies.

“But most frustrating of all, said Nicole Woolsey Biggart, is that California companies have shown little improvement over the past three years that Davis’ Graduate School of Management has conducted the study.”The numbers are abysmal,” said Biggart, the management school’s dean. “What has absolutely dumbfounded me is we look just like the Industrial Belt. We don’t look any different to me. That is the big shock.”

I’m not quite why it’s a shock. California may be progressive, but it’s still populated by people and people haven’t changed all that much—they’re still more comfortable with people like themselves; the number of women with tech degrees hasn’t changed much—just because you’re an avid user doesn’t mean you want to work under the hood; and social programs that off-load, or at least ease, the life concerns of women (and men, for that matter) haven’t improved—for the most part, safe child and elder-care are still luxuries beyond the means of most workers.

But the really interesting reading is found in the comments that run the gamut from total agreement to complete dissent. If the topic interests you, take the time to read them, not just the article.

As for me, I think that people still prefer their own comfort zone (whatever that might be) and probably always will—the goal is to expand it, since eliminating it is highly unlikely; to be an executive today means having graduated at least ten years ago and been offered the mentoring, grooming, opportunities and promotions all during those ten-plus years, which was/is unlikely given my first point; and the social arrangements in this country are abysmal.

I had a great time with “Jean,” who took me up on my coaching offer (Oct. 15) and also received permission to write about her situation, since I’ve heard similar stories over the years.

She told me about a specific situation within her department and what she was doing to handle it. I asked her if it was working and she said it seemed to be, but that she’d rather solve it using leadership skills instead of just management skills. Jean went on to say that she wanted to be chosen to attend her company’s leadership classes and to do so she had to demonstrate strong leadership potential.

Jean and I had a great discussion (we ran over the hour) about her interest in leadership, her goals, how she communicates with her people, her group’s culture within the overall company culture and what she’s accomplished—solid management, on-time/in-budget projects, low attrition, high morale and strong productivity in her organization.

Apparently the accomplishments aren’t enough for Jean’s boss, who’s been know to skip over DOers in favor of people who “speak leadership,” when describing what they’ve done.

In fairness, and before you get the wrong idea, Jean said that she loves working with him, he’s been a great mentor and promoted her twice. He just has this thing about leadership.

Since, in my opinion, Jean’s already demonstrated her ability to lead, what she needed to learn was how to talk about it. I knew she had read both books and blogs on the subject, so I asked her to choose something and then describe it to me as she would to her boss.

As I listened, the problem was evident. Jean’s description was low on “I,” high on “us.” It was about the challenge and how the team succeeded in overcoming it—exactly the way a good leader talks.

When I mentioned that, Jean laughed and said that speaking “leadership” sounded pretentious to her and that none of the leaders that she’d been around spoke that way, including her boss. She said that although she’d found a lot of the tools she used described in leadership books, she just assumed that they were different when used by a “leader.”

Now, I’m the last person to stomp on common sense (it’s too uncommon), so I suggested to Jean that she walk her boss through the prequel to the event, in other words, how she planned to achieve whatever, since when describing her planning she did use leadership terms.

As for all you bosses who recognize yourselves in the above—stop it! Stop focusing on the talk and check out the walk of your people who DO. Maybe they haven’t learned the language of leadership or maybe, like Jean, they find it pretentious to describe what they do that way, but if you’re desire is to identify those with leadership potential I hope that you’ll start looking for it in what your people DO.

No, it’s not a joke and yes, it is 24 sessions that I’m giving away. This is in response to the phone call I just received asking if I was really serious about the offer I posted earlier today. My caller explained in detail why I couldn’t mean it and asked what the catch was. I think she finally gets it, but just in case anyone else is wondering—no typo, no catch, no joke.

I know a development manager who uses the old chestnut “don’t have time to do it right, but have time to do it over” as the basis for gaming his boss.

Why would any manager in his right mind do this? Why would he intentionally set up his people to fail when, in fact, he has the time to do it right the first time?

To make himself look good.

Here’s a simplified version how it works.

Boss: We need the new version by [valid time frame], can you do it?

Mgr: It’ll be tight, but if everything clicks together we can deliver it.

Mgr to development team: We’ve been asked to have the new version by [time frame minus 30%] I know the schedule is tight, so do it quick and dirty and we’ll fix it later.

[Schedule is met, but product doesn’t work as required]

Mgr: There’s no way we can release the product in this condition, so I went to go to my boss and groveled to get us some more time [the 30% he had deleted] to do the fixes.

Development team goes into crisis mode to clean up all features on which they had cut corners to meet the original schedule.

Boss: Great job, you’re exactly on schedule. I’m surprised because I’d heard you were having problems.

Mgr: Thanks. It was touch and go, but I was able to rally the team and we got it done.

To a boss who isn’t paying attention the manager looks like a hero; to the team he’s a jerk (no “looks like” about it).

Two morals:

• Bosses need to pay attention and walk managers to the door if they can’t be turned around. Employees need to avoid rationalization and vote with their feet when their manager continually plays manipulation games.

Manipulation is part of MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy)™ and MAP can only be encouraged to change externally—actual change is only generated internally.

Ever wanted help putting together a quick, practical plan of attack or evaluating something that you’ve already done? Maybe you just wanted to discuss whether/how leadership skills might be of direct use to you at work or in other areas of your life or how to handle someone whose leadership style made you uncomfortable.

Now’s your chance. In honor of b5Media’s 24-blog Sports Channel launch I’m giving away 24 mini-coaching sessions (by phone) that usually last 20-60 minutes depending on the subject. The offer is open to any person, at any level, who is out there DOING.

Coaches for both teams and individuals are common in all aspects of sports, but other kinds of coaching have really moved into the mainstream in the last few years. You can find coaches for all of your life or a small, specialized piece of it, such as health, fitness and finances. There are executive coaches and functional (sales, marketing, PR, etc.) coaches; I even ran into a gardening coach recently!

Who benefits most from coaching? Anybody with an open, flexible, curious MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy)^TM who wants to grow.

When it comes to business, who should pay for coaching? Many people believe that if it’s for work the company should pay, but that’s not always the wisest guideline. Sure, it’s always nice when your manager sees the value of additional training, but is he doesn’t, that shouldn’t hold you back.

Moreover, the learning opportunity needs to be relevant. Whether you’re in management or not and no matter who’s paying the question you need to answer when thinking about coaching is, “What’s in it for me?” This is definitely a decision that involves good old VSI (vested self-interest). Seems obvious, but you’d be surprised. For example, if you’re in customer service and are offered training/coaching in product support to pave the way for a promotion, but you want to move your career into marketing, how valuable is it, even though the company is paying?

You must be interested in the subject to realize the full value of coaching, or any kind of training. Even when the company pays the cost and it’s done on company time you still need to commit the physical and psychic energy to learn. Who wants to spend that energy on a subject that’s of no interest either now or in the future? When you get right down to it, coaching is about you, so you also want a coach who knows her stuff, is sensitive to your needs and learning style, and with whom you’re comfortable.

Coaching is similar to any other learning tool that enhances your career, opens more opportunities or helps you solve short-term, tactical problems and do a better job. If it pays off for you then it’s worth paying for-and don’t forget that business coaching is tax deductible.

So, if you want to be one of the lucky 24 call me at 866.265.7267 or write miki.saxon@b5media.com. Be sure to include b5media leadership offer in the subject line to avoid my spam filters (the phone number doesn’t have filters:)

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

The point I was trying to make yesterday was lost in the example I used to make it, so I want to clarify.

I said that I had identified three universal functions, lead, manage and sell, that people at all levels DO in the course of daily life and asked readers if they agreed and to add others.

Having done this same exercise when working with clients I expected a different response, but as I said, I chose an example that doesn’t work in writing. Generally, communicate is suggested as an added function, but the focus was more often to disagree with lead and sell, since many staffers felt they couldn’t lead, since they weren’t managers, and the non-salespeople, especially engineers, were adamant that they not only didn’t, but couldn’t, sell.

The point is that these three functions have been swathed in enough mystiques that most people believe that they don’t do them, especially lead and sell, when, in fact, they do them daily.

You sell every time you convince someone to do what you want them to do and you lead every time you take the initiative instead of waiting for someone else to do it.

But people seem hesitant to use the language of sales or leadership to describe what they do unless they’re in that profession or already at a certain level in the organization and that holds them back from growing. We humans have a habit of assigning value to acts based, to some degree, on the language used to describe them.

I’m not suggesting that you use this language for bragging efforts, but you should use it inside your head when you’re analyzing what you did. For instance, if you’re an engineer who, after thoroughly researching the subject, presented a compelling argument to your boss for buying a new piece of software or equipment and it was purchased as a result, then you sold it; the same is true when your idea of a place for lunch or the movie to see is chosen-you sold it. Or as a junior member of a team you take the initiative to research something that you think will contribute to the success of the project, even though it’s not your responsibility, then you’re leading. As to managing, most people realize that to get anything done anywhere in their life requires various management skills, but they’re still hesitant to use the language.

On October third I quoted an interview Steve Roesler had with a long-time CEO who was “…quite adamant about building people through experiences and letting them-and the organization-determine their capabilities as a result.” The CEO said, “I realized early on that I didn’t learn anything about leading until I tried to lead something. Only after I examined what had just happened and my part in it did I learn anything. Books and workshops gave me a way to frame what I had learned as well as some language to go with it.”

And that’s what you want to do. Examine what you DO daily, including the little things, to determine when you led or sold or managed and then use the correct language when thinking about or discussing it.

In today’s world, whether living loud or barely functioning, every person in every country leads, manages, and sells every day of their lives.

And I do mean everyone, from the very top—heads of state, financial barons and CEOs—to the homeless druggies living on skid row.

Look at each from a functional point of view.

Lead means “to go before or with to show the way” and you probably do that at least 50% of the time in your daily life.

Manage means “to be in charge.” You can be in charge of various things at various times, but you are always in charge of yourself.

Sell means “to persuade or induce someone to do something” which is what you do when choosing a movie, putting your kids to bed or convincing your boss about X.

Now let’s look at these three functions from the viewpoint of the homeless druggie, whom we’ll call Sam (short for Samuel/Samantha, the male pronouns are for convenience), since they are most often looked at from the other end.

Sam has a vision of endless free drugs and a haven that supplies all other needs in which to enjoy them. He leads himself in a survival exercise every day of his life, supporting his habit, finding food and shelter, and avoiding the pitfalls and terrors of the street; on some days he hangs with others who decide to invest in his vision and follow his lead. Sam acts as his own logistics/facilities manager; as CFO he is constantly raising funds for his enterprise and he handles all purchasing decisions. He is constantly selling, whether that means convincing passersby to donate to his cause, social services to let him be or the police that he didn’t do whatever.

From watching myself and others and through my reading these three functions, in their broadest sense, seem to embrace everything we humans do.

Should other functions should be added?

What do you think?