I started responding to comments on the changes post last Friday (9/14). Today’s comment came from Miranda, who said, “Another interesting topic might be the definition of success. I know people I think are great leaders, but don’t have a lot of money or glory, which are two things most people in our society today equate with success.”

I think that leading and success only get connected in hindsight.

In the past, I don’t believe that people set out to be leaders. They set out to be managers, engineers, accountants, sales people, moms, dads, researchers, rabbis/ministers/etc., politicians, firemen, actors, etc. Sure, many had dreams of being the best whatever, making it to the top of their world, being recognized by others, etc.

When one did something extraordinary the people around them often hailed them as “leaders” and sometimes the media picked it up and lauded them as “leaders” and so “leader” became part of their official title.

But that was then and this is now.

“Now” started with research, often scholarly, into leading, leaders, leadership and associated terms. Then came the rise of the “leadership industry,” the teaching of leadership skills and enormous social pressure to prove one’s worth by becoming a leader, with the flip side that you were somehow worth less if you didn’t aspire to leadership. Ugh.

Regarding success. Pretty much everyone wants to be successful, but there are two distinct definitions of which you need to stay aware—public and private.

Since time began, public success has involved three things, possessions/money, glory, and power—whether overt or covert. Covert is the hardest to recognize, since the holder may not even be aware of it. Plus, power in itself isn’t good or bad, like many things its use and the reasons for using it are what make it acceptable leadership or an abuse of power—unfortunately, acceptability is subjective, i.e., you agree or not.

Private success sounds simpler, but may not be. It’s whatever makes you happy, which is completely subjective, often changing as you grow and change, so in many ways it’s a moving target and harder to hit.

Problems arise because the two definitions are often at odds and satisfying one means stymieing the other. In that instance I always recommend going with “private,” since being unhappy usually translates to broken relationships and bad health.

After rereading this, I’m not sure I really answered Miranda’s question, but hopefully I stimulated your thinking and provoked some interesting discussions.

In response to the changes post Casey Ross commented, “I agree, Miki. I’ve cut back on the blogs I read b/c I feel like I read the same things on each one of them. Boring! I like the topics you’ve listed. Mix it up. A possible topic…are people born leaders or can people be taught to be leaders?”

Does it really matter?

People say that leaders must have charisma and that you either have it or you don’t, but I’ve known people who changed so basically that they went from none to lots, while the number of people who lost their charisma, usually through their own lousy choices, is legion.

I think anyone can learn leadership skills, but learning isn’t doing.

Paul hit it on the head yesterday when he said, “…leadership is for instances.” I’ll bet that none of the soldiers who, after their official leaders were put out of commission, led their teams to safety because someone had to do it, ever thought about it in terms of leadership, they did what had to be done, but in that moment they were leaders.

I think that leaders come from both nurture and nature. Nurture-wise, people can be raised to believe that they are leaders—of course, you can brainwash any child into believing anything with enough effort. Nature-wise, it takes a strong desire coupled with a passionate belief that one knows better than anyone else how something should be done/thought/taught/whatever.

But even with all that combined, the adjective “leader” is still one conferred by outsiders, no matter if the conferee agrees or not, desires it or not.

What I’m saying here is that so-called leadership skills are useful, if only for leading one’s self, as are most skills that help us live more personally valid lives.

I think spending one’s time and energy trying to become a leader is a waste of effort. That same time and energy would be better spent becoming the best at [you fill in the blank] and if, in the course of doing that you are termed a leader, great, but don’t make that your goal.

Look again at the best definition of leadership (my opinion) ever written:
As for the best leaders,
the people do not notice their existence.
The next best,
the people honor and praise.
The next, the people fear;
and the next, the people hate…
When the best leader’s work is done,
the people say, “We did it ourselves!”
To lead the people, walk behind them.
— Lao Tzu

Notice that it’s not what the leader thinks that matters it’s what he does, but it’s what the people involved think of that person that produces the label.

So, instead of discussing leadership to death

• do your best in every situation;
• show lots of initiative;
• do more than is required of you;
• offer (don’t force) assistance to those around you;
• be the person you would want to follow;
• learn so-called leadership skills just because you enjoy learning them; and
• remember Lao Tzu.

Doing all these may not make you a leader, but they will make you happy because you’ll feel good about yourself—what more can anyone ask?

Continuing with the questions Darlene posed (see 9/14 post) I’m going to lump the next ones together with some brief specific comments and then my heretical overall response at the end.

Darlene asks,

• “Who today would you say is a good leader? Other than the people I know well because I interact with them, but you wouldn’t know them at all. Beyond that, we’re talking people with high profiles, lots of media attention and what day you ask me, since every so often they say or do really unleaderly things.
• Should our president model good/great leadership qualities? Sure, but by whose definitions? On 9/13 36% thought President Bush was doing a good job leading the country, primarily because they agree with what he’s doing, but does that make him a great leader? I remember reading that to properly evaluate a political leader’s actions everyone living during that time must be dead; another said that 100 years had to pass in order to perceive the events with true historical objectivity.
• Should leaders in organizations be leaders or managers or both? Either/neither, but more importantly, they should be secure enough to surround themselves with the best talent available and then let them do what they were hired to do.
• How does someone figure out if they are a leader? The same way one figures out is they are attractive/sexy/funny, by the reactions of others.
• Who decides whether you are a leader?” For better or worse, The Court of Public Opinion, i.e., whatever public is involved,

As to my overall heretical response to these and much of the leadership debate out there—who cares?

Do labels really matter if the person/people in question accomplish what needs to be done? Jose Lopez was upset by an incident that happened when he was on vacation in Mexico; he shared his experience and concern with a friend; they’re conversation morphed into a concrete idea; the idea became reality and is being delivered right now, as I write this, to Ayutla, a village in Mexico.

The men and women who accomplished this didn’t think about who was leading the effort and who was following, they learned about a need and found a way to fill it.

Interestingly, I found out when I called Paul Wright that in addition to being a fire battalion chief in Kent, WA and founder of TAPFIRE, he also teaches leadership, so I asked him if he thought Jose was a “leader.”

Paul said, “Jose is persistent, committed and has leadership qualities, but leadership is for instances. How people react to the things that happen around them—that’s the crux of life”

As well as the crux of leadership. And how you react is dictated by your MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy)™, which is subject to revision, enhancement and change by you, and only you, as opposed to all the outside pressures, demands, requests, wheedling, etc., that happen.

Or, put another way, leadership is about doing and not worrying what public opinion and history may think.

Darlene, who’s running a great series on LinkedIn over at Interview Chatter, left this comment regarding the changes I want to make at Leadership Turn. She brings up some good questions that I want to respond to in full posts, rather than in comments.

“Miki – I like some your ideas and look forward to seeing what you do with them. I also like the idea of discussing ethics and leadership. We need more ethics, but the waters have become muddy over the years. Who today would you say is a good leader? Should our president model good/great leadership qualities? Should leaders in organization be leaders or managers or both? How does someone figure out if they are a leader? Who decides whether you are a leader? Just some questions that are rolling around in my head that may give you some fodder for writing and helping those who may aspire to lead others. Have fun!!”

Let’s start with ethics, “We need more ethics, but the waters have become muddy over the years…”
Actually, I think they’ve always been muddy, situational, fluid and simultaneously contradictory. Look at the definitions from dictionary.com

1. (used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

All of the descriptions use words with no absolute meaning, sticking to my usual example, murder has always been considered wrong, but the definition of murder, even today, keeps changing and often isn’t agreed upon even within the same society, e.g., the pro-choice/anti-abortion war.

Now look at the first four definitions for moral, the usual synonym,

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

Same thing, there are no absolute terms with which to define it.

Perhaps, then, ethics should be defined by current law, but that certainly hasn’t worked. It’s far too easy to adhere to the letter of the law and totally ignore the spirit of it. That keeps you out of jail, but certainly doesn’t make you ethical.

Further, there can be conflicts between personal ethics and law, where adhering to one violates the other. Should law prevail or personal ethics? Whichever you choose, it’s because you agree on a subjective level.

People say that those decisions should be made for “the greater good.” Again, by whose definitions? I’m sure that Hitler believed his actions in “purifying the races” were for the greater good—as he saw it—however I, and a large number of other people don’t agree. But even with this example, that seems so black and white, you’ll find people who still agree with his reasoning and work to carry it forward.

I recently posted about research that shows the wide gap between what we think/say and what we do, so even “more ethics” becomes somewhat problematical.

I realize that none of this is an answer, but that’s because, to me, it’s more quandary than question.

What do you think?

Have you ever tried to quash a rumor or disabuse a friend about a cultural or political myth?

An article detailing fascinating new research shines a light on why it’s so difficult—and why it’s better not to try.

“The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently issued a flier to combat myths about the flu vaccine. It recited various commonly held views and labeled them either “true” or “false.” Among those identified as false were statements such as “The side effects are worse than the flu” and “Only older people need flu vaccine.”

When University of Michigan social psychologist Norbert Schwarz had volunteers read the CDC flier, however, he found that within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual.

Younger people did better at first, but three days later they made as many errors as older people did after 30 minutes. Most troubling was that people of all ages now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC.”

Rumors/myths in the workplace sap productivity, destroy morale, send attrition rates skyrocketing and make it more difficult to attract new talent. They can damage individuals, hurt your stock or scare off investors.

Whether you lead/manage/run a company/department/team this is disquieting information. 40% is not an insignificant number, it’s a number that needs to be addressed.

But there seems to be little that you can do.

“Ruth Mayo, a cognitive social psychologist found that rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth…The psychologist acknowledged that such a statement might not be entirely accurate — issuing a denial or keeping silent are sometimes the only real options.

So is silence the best way to deal with myths? Unfortunately, the answer to that question also seems to be no.

Another recent study found that when accusations or assertions are met with silence, they are more likely to feel true, said Peter Kim, an organizational psychologist at the University of Southern California.”

Not encouraging.

In business, one thing you can do is stop rumors before they start by using extremely open communications.

Don’t duck, don’t play word games and never lie, tell your people what’s going on—before they read it on the Net

Take the following quiz, read my answers and then let’s discuss them.

1. Leaders aren’t always good managers. T F
2. Talented managers are not necessarily leaders. T F
3. Possessing leadership skills makes one a leader. T F
4. Initiative and leadership skills are often confused. T F
5. The best way to succeed in business and/or life is to be a leader. T F

Here are my answers, along with why I think that way. Keep in mind that these are my opinions, based on my life experiences and my MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy)^TM

1. Leaders aren’t always good managers. TRUE
   Leaders are visionaries who inspire others to take action to achieve the goals of that vision. I’ve seen no proof that the ability to inspire action equates to skill at directing people’s efforts to achieve those goals in the most efficient/best ways possible. You see this frequently in the startup world where visionary founders give way to “professional” managers. It’s the reason that so many successful entrepreneurs do multiple startups, they do the visionary part they enjoy and then step aside. There are very few founder-CEOs, such as Larry Ellison, who run large companies, some leave because it’s no longer fun, but many are removed because they can’t manage. Sure, this can change over time as they grow and mature, but there is no guarantee.
2. Talented managers are not necessarily leaders. TRUE
   In the course of my career I’ve known hundreds of good-to-brilliant mangers who not only aren’t leaders, but don’t want to be. They revel in knowing their people, understanding how to motivate each one and helping each of them to reach their full potential, all while moving them forward as a team focused on achieving the company’s goals, but they can’t envision those goals.
3. Possessing leadership skills makes one a leader. FALSE
   There are many people who possess perfect pitch, but that doesn’t make them musicians. Vision, desire, drive and ambition are also needed.
4. Initiative and leadership skills are often confused. TRUE
   Circumstances often force people to take the initiative to go from point A to point B; even without circumstances people often see a need and fill it, but that doesn’t mean that they would do it the next time. However, in the aftermath, they are deemed leaders, often forcing them into a role that’s uncomfortable and undesired.
5. The best way to succeed in business and/or life is to be a leader. FALSE
   The best way to succeed is to identify the things you do well and that make you, by your own definition, happy. Embracing external definitions of success that don’t really match your MAP, or forcing yourself into a role that everyone except you thinks is right not only leads to unhappiness, but to broken health and wrecked relationships.

OK, you have the short version of my reasoning—short because I don’t want to pontificate, I want to discuss/debate/argue this with you. So weigh in here and let’s get a dialog going amongst us all. What do you think?

After years of business scandals and no end in site, ethics are a hot topic. Are ethical values set or fluid? explored the idea that ethics are situational and changing with the times.A new paper from Ann E. Tenbrunsel, University of Notre Dame; Kristina A. Diekmann, University of Utah; Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni, Duke University and Max Bazerman, Harvard Business School, explores another question, does ethical behavior come naturally or do we need to work at walking our ethical talk?

The executive summary of Why We Aren’t as Ethical as We Think We Are: A Temporal Explanation says, “People commonly predict that they will behave more ethically in the future than they actually do. When evaluating past (un)ethical behavior, they also believe they behaved more ethically than they actually did. These misperceptions, both of prediction and of recollection, have important ramifications for the distinction between how ethical we think we are and how ethical we really are, as well as understanding how such misperceptions are perpetuated over time. This paper draws on recent research in psychology and decision-making to gain insight into these forces. It also provides recommendations for reducing them. Key concepts include:

• All individuals have an innate tendency to engage in self-deception around their own ethical behavior.
• Organizations worried about ethics violations should pay attention to understanding these psychological processes at the individual level rather than focus solely on the creation of formal training programs and education around ethics codes.”

Are you really surprised? How often have you accused someone, or been accused yourself, of having “selective memory” when discussing a past event or conversation?

“The main significance of selective memory is its potential to sustain positive self-perceptions in the face of frequent disconfirmation of such perceptions. Notably, this phenomenon appears to be quite adaptive: Greater memory selectivity is related to higher self-esteem, lower social anxiety, and less depression (O’Banion & Arkowitz, 1977; Zuroff, Colussy, & Wielgus, 1983). It seems clear that selective memory can help us to maintain higher self-esteem, and enable us to believe we generally behave in ethical ways over time despite our past behavior that contradicts this self-perception. While convenient for our self-esteem (and even our happiness), the selective memory mechanism represents a barrier to an accurate understanding of our ethical selves and thus impedes our ability to strive for higher levels of ethics in our everyday lives.”

Yup, Jeff Skilling still maintains he did nothing wrong.

But it is their conclusion that should be a waked-up call to all those charged with improving ethics and compliance within a company.

“The current effort to curb unethical behavior “ignores the innate tendency for the individual to engage in self-deception” (p. 224), an error which substantially negates any systematic efforts at the organization level.

This paper was intended to bring the psychological processes of the individual decision-maker to the forefront by examining the self-deception that is inherent in the beliefs about one’s own (un)ethical behavior. Individuals deceive themselves that they are ethical people and the continuation of this belief allows for the perpetuity of unethical behavior. We hope that by examining the interplay of the want/should selves through a temporal lens, we shed light on these false beliefs and break their defeating cycle.”

In other words, it’s not the company-as-an-entity that suffers from ethical problems, it’s the individuals that make up the company and who, as human beings, may be ethics-challenged and that’s what needs to be addressed—now.

Download the PDF, registration is free and it’s worth the effort.

I’ve written several times in the past on the longevity of anything posted on the Net as well as the likelihood of it being seen by the unexpected—recruiters, bosses, spouses, parents, etc.

But the age-old warnings not to mix business and pleasure seem to have gone by the wayside, as has any real meaning for the word “friend.”

It all rose to a new level when using Facebook for business became the topic du jour within some of my business groups.

The interest was confirmed in an August 20 article in Business Week that said, “The number of unique Facebook visitors 35 and older more than doubled in June from a year ago, to 11.5 million, according to market researcher comScore Media Metrix.”

“”The lines between what’s business and what’s personal have blurred,” says Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, 23…but it’s likely Facebook’s new demographic will demand even more ways to differentiate between various levels of “friends.” (Level one: ex-dorm buddies, girlfriends. Level two: sales contacts, fantasy-league teammates. Level three: anyone who signs off on your performance review.)”

On September 17, Business Week’s MediaCentric columnist Jon Fine explored the potential conflicts you have when creating a mashup of the personal and professional, “You didn’t have to explain your more colorful old friends, the ones pursuing batik or semi-pro skateboarding, to your clueless, business-casual office frenemies. Now that social networking has grown up-or grown out, now that Facebook attracts practically everyone-you will.”

As a closet Luddite I don’t do a lot of social media, I’m on LinkedIn because it’s useful and offers a lot of control, but that’s about it. And I don’t accept all the invitations from people I’ve never heard of, who don’t even respond to a reply suggesting we get to know each other. Nor would I have much confidence in a recommendation from someone with thousands of connections. I’m sure they know some of them well enough, but there’s no way to tell if they actually know the person they’ve recommended.

But I’m not hard to reach, that’s why there’s both an email and a toll-free phone number in the right column. Go ahead, contact me and let’s get to know each other.

Finally, lest you think I’m judging all this, I’m not. I can only decide what works for me, not for anybody else. I just think that people need to give more thought, look before they leap, and always remember that there’s no delete key for stuff on the web.

School’s started and this is the year to teach your kids, no matter their age, one of the most important things they need to know for all their life—and it has to do with being “special.”

Here are excerpts from a Wall Street Journal article that illustrates the growing problem of “special.”

“…the culture of praise is reaching deeply into the adult world. Bosses, professors and mates are feeling the need to lavish praise on young adults, particularly twenty-somethings, or else see them wither under an unfamiliar compliment deficit.

Employers are dishing out kudos to workers for little more than showing up. Corporations including Lands’ End and Bank of America are hiring consultants to teach managers how to compliment employees using email, prize packages and public displays of appreciation….

But some researchers suggest that inappropriate kudos are turning too many adults into narcissistic praise-junkies. The upshot: A lot of today’s young adults feel insecure if they’re not regularly complimented….

As he [Bob Nelson, billed as “the Guru of Thank You,”] sees it, those over age 60 tend to like formal awards, presented publicly. But they’re more laid back about needing praise, and more apt to say: “Yes, I get recognition every week. It’s called a paycheck.” Baby boomers, Mr. Nelson finds, often prefer being praised with more self-indulgent treats such as free massages for women and high-tech gadgets for men.

Workers under 40, he says, require far more stroking. They often like “trendy, name-brand merchandise” as rewards, but they also want near-constant feedback. “It’s not enough to give praise only when they’re exceptional, because for years they’ve been getting praise just for showing up,” he says….

So true. At the request of a client, I had the dubious honor of explaining to a 28 year old why he didn’t get a bonus. I started by asking why he thought he deserved one, He said that

• he hadn’t missed a day of work during the year and
• had been on time every day;
• all his assignments were completed on time; and
• he’d done everything exactly as requested.

I spent 20 minutes explaining that 1) the things he listed were his job, what he’d been hired to do and for which, he agreed, he was fairly compensated and 2) the bonus was for people who had

• gone beyond their job description;
• shown imitative; and
• offered help without being asked.

I was lucky, he really listened, actually heard me, not just the words, but the meaning behind them, and understood. He ended our discussion by thanking me and saying that he planned to win a sizable bonus next year.

In the end, ego-stroking may feel good, but it doesn’t lead to happiness, says Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University and narcissism researcher, who has written a book titled Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled — and More Miserable than Ever Before. She would like to declare a moratorium on “meaningless, baseless praise,” which often starts in nursery school. She is unimpressed with self-esteem preschool ditties, such as the one set to the tune of “Frère Jacques”: “I am special/ I am special/ Look at me…”

With older kids-teens, twenties, thirties-start the conversation with this definition from Wikipedia, “Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights, or by agreement through law. It can also refer, in a more casual sense to someone’s belief that he/she is deserving of some particular reward or benefit.[1] It is often used as a negative term in popular parlance (i.e. a ‘sense of entitlement’). The legal term, however, carries no value judgment: it simply denotes a right granted. It was issued in 1965 by President Johnson’s administration. (Note: In 2007, approximately 2/3 of the United States Federal budget consisted of entitlement payments.” )

Help them wrap their minds around the idea that life doesn’t offer entitlements to anyone, then share and discuss the real facts of life:

• They’re special to you, because you’re their parent and you love them.
• They’re special to themselves, because “self” is the only person they will ever truly know or actually have the ability to change.
• They’re not special to others, except as a result of their words, actions and deeds.
• Being special to you and to themselves does not entitle them to special treatment from their teachers, friends, bosses, colleagues, the guy complaining about their loud cell phone conversation at Starbucks or the cop who tickets them for speeding.

• Special isn’t related to self-esteem—self-esteem is grounded in and built from their own efforts and accomplishments.
• Self-esteem entitles them to nothing, but provides the strength to not only survive, but thrive, in today’s world—and tomorrow’s.

With young children you can start now by eliminating empty praise from your home, then teaching them how to recognize it and why to discount it.

Praise what they accomplish and instill in them an appreciation of the real value found in the words, actions, deeds, and contributions, both large and small, that they make in the world.

They may not appreciate your efforts now, but they will be forever grateful as they make their way thought the world as adults.

Contrary to what you might think, writing an interesting blog is hard work, and, as with any work, it’s really difficult to do if you’re not fully engaged and feeling passionate—which I was when I took over Leadership Turn three weeks ago.

But it’s hard to stay that engaged when you start getting the feeling that too much of your subject is just being recycled, in slightly different guise, all around the Net. There are scores of great blogs available that describe what/who is a leader, traits of leadership, how to build leadership skills, etc.

In the time that I’ve been writing Leadership Turn, I found that the posts that created the best dialog have been the ones that were a bit off the beaten path, such as Leaders are recognized by their results and Are ethical values set or fluid? They were also the most interesting and fun to write and the interaction with my readers was the frosting on the cake.

Based on this admittedly small sampling, I want to take Leadership Turn in a new direction. I’m still feeling my way, so I decided to lay out my thoughts and ideas and ask you, my readers, to weigh in with yours, since, in the end, I want Leadership Turn to be a place for you to mull new ideas and voice your opinions on their worth; a place that, hopefully, engenders debate and stirs your passions.

Here are some topical ideas I have

• What makes a great follower? Is there value and power in following?
• What constitutes leadership in a team environment? Is it worth doing with no specific reward?
• Does everybody need to aspire to leading? Are you worth less if in your heart of hearts you don’t want/like to lead?
• Are good managers always leaders? Do they need to be?
• Are leaders good managers?
• Is initiative the same as leadership.
• What’s the difference between leaders and leadership.
• Great managers make decisions first for the sake of the company, second for the sake of their group and third for the sake of themselves, are you willing to do that?
• How do you stay true to yourself and still succeed in today’s business world?
• Corporate culture is defined by the standard nouns of ethics, but the definitions change. How do you identify a culture that is, at the least, synergistic with your own definitions?

I want to add more guest posters from all levels of the operating world, as opposed to academia, consulting and coaching.

I believe that every topic is like a jewel with many facets and that it would be fun to explore some of the more unusual facets together.

What I really want is reader input on whether you like this new direction or you see a better one. What other topics, from mundane to outré, would you like to explore?

I’d prefer passionate debate and outright argument to the tacit agreement of silence.

It’s your choice.