Poking through 14+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

I was reminded of this article after reading one by Wally Bock that I will share tomorrow. I’ve always found it interesting that certain words, such as influence, are assumed positive, while manipulation is negative.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

There is a dangerous assumption out there that ‘leaders’ are chuck full of positive traits and on the side of the angels, but I’m here to tell you that it ain’t necessarily so. Just as leaders come in all shapes, colors and sizes they come with a wide variety of traits, not all of them positive. But it seems as if succession is tough all over.

Italian police have caught the Sicilian Mafia’s number two, the latest in a string of top-level arrests that has given the crime group that once terrified Italy problems with rebuilding its leadership.

The hero CEO who will save the company easily morphs into the imperial CEO. An intelligent, thoughtful opinion piece by Ho Kwon Ping in Singapore considers the dangers of this happening and assumes it will continue in the US—and it probably will.

The leadership of any company is critical to the success of its mission — but no one individual is mission-critical.

Yesterday I wrote Real Leaders are Fair, which means applying rules equally, but that rarely happens, especially when a government is involved and ours is no different. Consider the non-application of a federal law backed by a presidential proclamation that prohibits corrupt foreign officials and their families from receiving American visas. But business interests always seem to trump fairness.

“Of course it’s because of oil,” said John Bennett, the United States ambassador to Equatorial Guinea from 1991 to 1994, adding that Washington has turned a blind eye to the Obiangs’ corruption and repression because of its dependence on the country for natural resources. He noted that officials of Zimbabwe are barred from the United States.

Finally, on a lighter note, I found the answer given by Ask the Coach to this question to be classic.

Q: I am having a difficult time leading my team. The team members will not follow my instructions, which I am sure would make our project much more successful. What am I doing wrong?

A: What you’re doing wrong is very simple: you have simply forgotten that your team is more critical to the success of your project than you are.

Take a moment and read the whole post, I guarantee you’ll like what you learn.

And if you want more of my picks you’ll find them here.

Have you ever wondered how much smarter VCs, money managers, corporate CEOs, and the super wealthy really are? (They’re not.)

What “due diligence” actually involves? (Not what HP did.)

Do they really fall for scams and do stupid stuff like the rest of us? (Absolutely.)

CB Insights recently shared 17 Of The Biggest Startup Frauds Of All Time.

I found it hilarious (I have a warped sense of humor) and well worth reading.

Click the link (or save it for later) and all your questions will be answered.

Image credit: Beatnik Photos

It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies are a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.

It used to be said that a person was “influential” — these days they are “influencers.” Are the terms synonymous? Can they really be used interchangeably? I don’t think so, and plan to enlarge on the differences over the next two days.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

Influence isn’t about your online ranking or the strength of your brand, although they contribute.

Influence is about effect.

The effect your words or actions have on those exposed to them.

Yesterday I linked to an article in which Penelope Trunk said that it’s a bad idea for founders to be of different genders and because of her influence dozens of founders are probably rethinking their startup plans.

There is a common arrogance among influencers to generalize their opinion and present it as fact applicable to all. Typically, the more successful the influencer the greater the arrogance.

But from day one every founder has influence, before success and beyond the expected, so even a casual word can cause trouble.

A founder CEO I know, whose original education years before was engineering, had a habit of occasionally strolling through engineering to see what was going on.

One day he commented that he wouldn’t do a design the way the team was doing it. It was a casual, throw-away comment, one he had forgotten five minutes later, but it devastated the design team.

The CEO had no clue to the havoc he wrought and it took the vp of engineering, who was co-founder, hours to settle them down. He then told the CEO not to talk to the team and banned him from the department.

What those on the receiving end of influencers need to realize is that no matter how brilliant or experienced someone is they are still voicing an opinion.

And as valuable as the opinion may be, it should never be swallowed whole, because opinions are subjective.

They are the product of that individual’s MAP, which itself is a product of upbringing and experience. Even someone else having exactly the same background and experience would not have identical MAP because each person processes differently and has different inherent characteristics.

Influence comes with responsibilities—how well do you handle yours?

Image credit: HikingArtist

It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies are a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.

Considering the accusations/confessions, resignations, terminations, mea culpas, etc., I thought this post from 2009 and its supporting links should be front and center once again, since nothing has changed in the intervening eight years.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Oh goody. Another CEO study. I haven’t seen the study, but David Brooks (NY Times) gives an overview (whatever you do, don’t miss the comments), while Dan McCarthy (Great Leadership laments the fascination with such studies.

I pretty much ignore them, except for their amusement value—sort of like all the food studies that tell us which food that was recommended last year will kill us this year.

Speaking of which, I wish someone would do a study like that on CEOs.

A ranking of CEOs who were lauded for x amount of time before they crashed and burned for the same traits that were their supposed strengths.

And a corollary ranking of all the pundits, gurus and executive coaches who did the lauding and how many have come forward to apologize for mistaking hubris for competence.

Of course, that would be a very long list.

Image credit: Beeeeezzz on flickr

Founders love styling themselves as CEOs.

(I did it too, back when I started RampUp Solutions.)

It says you are in charge; the boss.

Plus, it sounds cool.

As CEO, you are responsible for formulating and articulating the company’s vision to employees, investors and the media.

Heady stuff.

You are also directly responsible for creating a winning culture, developing viable financial plans, instituting a solid hiring process and a wide range of other administrative actions.

No matter what happens—good, bad, or indifferent—you are the person held responsible for everything by the board, investors, employees and media.

As the company grows there are more business and human headaches meaning less time for hands-on creativity.

CEO isn’t a 70, 80 or even 100 hour a week job; it’s a 168 hour, 24/7 job.

It’s not the right job or even a good job for many founders.

Founders need to understand that giving up the CEO role can be the smartest, wisest, and most perceptive decision they will ever make (just ask Brad Feld).

Flickr image credit: TechCocktail

Twice a week Adam Bryant interviews CEOs from a myriad of companies, large and small, across the industry spectrum, for his Corner Office feature in The New York Times.

As with anyone who spends time talking with CEOs about staying competitive the constant theme he’s found boils down to one word—culture.

Now Bryant has distilled the knowledge and insights gathered from hundreds of interviews into a new book, “Quick and Nimble: Lessons From Leading C.E.O.’s on How to Create a Culture of Innovation”

The six key tenets identified should come as no surprise,

• A Simple Plan
• Rules of the Road (corporate values)
• A Little Respect (embedded in the culture)
• It’s About the Team (performance and accountability, trustworthiness and dependability)
• Adult Conversations (frank discussions to work through disagreements and misunderstandings)
• The Hazards of Email (ease of misunderstanding)

Not new and certainly not rocket science, but worth reading (at the very least read the article).

Good information to help you improve nimbleness and innovation in your own organization.

And a great gift if you happen to work for bosses who don’t see the point.

Flickr image credit: Joanna Lee Osborn

Finally!

The news that we’ve all been waiting for—unless you’re a CEO who is paid relative to your counterparts.

According to new research by Charles M. Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, and Craig K. Ferrere, one of its Edgar S. Woolard fellows, the whole idea that a CEO will quit if he isn’t paid more than his peers is, to use a technical term, hogwash.

…contrary to the prevailing line, that chief executives can’t readily transfer their skills from one company to another. In other words, the argument that C.E.O.’s will leave if they aren’t compensated well, perhaps even lavishly, is bogus. (…) “It’s a false paradox,” Mr. Elson said in an interview last week. “The peer group is based on the theory of transferability of talent. But we found that C.E.O. skills are very firm-specific. C.E.O.’s don’t move very often, but when they do, they’re flops.”

Surprise, surprise.

For ‘firm-specific’ read culture and colleagues—the same two things that impact any worker’s success.

Flickr image credit: GDS Infographics (click the graphic to see a large version)

Do you ever see titles like 5 Ways To Commit CEO Career Suicide, but skip the article because you aren’t a CEO and have no intention of ever being one?

You may want to rethink that.

Frequently the advice is just as applicable to other levels including non-management.

The five behaviors mentioned are

1. naiveté,
2. unbridled optimism,
3. arrogance,
4. fear, and
5. disconnect.

As the old saying goes, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, too.

Model any of them, let alone more than one, and you are just as likely to lose your job whether you’re at the top of the org chart or the very bottom.

Flickr image credit:  Rennett Stowe

Today offers up four looks at executives and bosses, the folks we love to hate.

A lot of people claim that the whole idea of income inequality has been blown out of proportion, but, looking at your own paycheck, you have to wonder how/why CEO pay increased 30-40%.

“Bosses won in every area, with dramatic increases in pensions, payoffs and perks – as well as salary.”

One would think that all that money would add up to job insecurity, but apparently not.

“It turns out that many CEOs are feeling insecure about their jobs, too.”

Workers, even those with raises, are insecure, too, and new research out of Harvard says bosses are making it worse.

“…managers at all levels routinely—and unwittingly—undermine the meaningfulness of work for their direct subordinates through everyday words and actions.”

As function-rich mobile phones proliferate the need to understand them increases and the results of ignorance become more pronounced—not to mention embarrassing. File this one under “lessons learned.”

“He said he made sure to turn it off before the concert, not realizing that the alarm clock had accidentally been set and would sound even if the phone was in silent mode.

“I didn’t even know phones came with alarms,” the man said. “

Enjoy!
Flickr image credit: pedroelcarvalho

CEOs are an interesting species of executives.

CEOs are often lauded one quarter for their vision and leadership and derided the next quarter for the same thing.

Some suffer from severe arrogance syndrome, while others have either temporary or chronic foot-in-mouth disease.

But whether world-class geniuses or world-class asses CEOs  are rarely boring.

For those who set their career sights on the corner office, success used to be measured by the size of the company and bigger always equaled better—but in technology that’s changing.

CEOs, especially those of large, public corporations, have one especially cat-like trait—they always land on their feet even when they are fired—as happens more and more frequently these days.

As with everything there is a right way and a wrong way to fire a CEO, with Carol Bartz and Mark Hurd the poster children of the wrong way. So, here’s some good advice on how to do it the right way.

Finally, with the use of social media accelerating, the pros and cons of  CEO blogging have changed markedly from the original debates.

Have a terrific weekend!

Flickr image credit: pedroelcarvalho