"I screwed up" or "Mistakes were made"...Your Choice

The news programs ran the video loops endlessly this morning as President Obama took responsibility for nominating people who hadn't paid their taxes. Most of the commenters seemed genuinely surprised to hear a leader say that he had made a mistake. He went on to say he would take the consequences and act to rectify his mistakes going forward.

I wasn't particularly surprised. Not because of some partisan political position but because I’ve been interviewing a large number of executives over the last few years for my new book and they do the same thing. It may not be common for politicians to fess up but strategic leaders everywhere know it is the only way to handle inevitable mistakes.

Consider the alternatives – the ubiquitous "mistakes were made" or outright denial. In 2007, I blogged about that nasty, weaseling-out phrase and quoted from some of my interviewees on the importance of admitting mistakes. (http://conventionalwisdominstitute.blogspot.com/2007/10/mistakes-were-made.html) No need to comment on denial…

Now, in my new book, Conventional Wisdom: How Today’s Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress, I discuss in detail how even great leaders make big mistakes and, more importantly what they do when the mistake comes to light. These executives all told the same story, summed up in the words of one of them, "When you make a mistake, admit it, get out quickly, and fix it." Sound advice that many would do well to follow whether in public life, managing a department, or trying to lead a decent personal life.

Here is what I concluded in the book:

What Distinguishes Great Leaders?

* How does a leader handle the bad decision? Great leaders acknowledge their mistakes personally. They do not fall back on the passive “mistakes were made” formula. Instead, they say, "I made a mistake." They accept the consequences of that bad decision.

* What does a leader do? Great leaders take personal responsibility, usually without a lot of fanfare. They take the next right action, no matter what others say or do. They move quickly to fix their errors.

* How does a leader show his beliefs? Great leaders act on their beliefs and are courageous role models for their convictions.

* How does a leader use a mistake? Great leaders learn from their mistakes and act differently in the future. They discover the frames [psychological blinders] leading them to the bad decision in the first place. They get more diverse perspectives on their future decisions.

* How does a leader confront his or her frames? Great leaders understand their own perceptions of the situation can cloud their decision making. They seek other opinions. They recognize they are framed, and work to stand outside their own frames and doubt their own infallibility.

* How does a leader help others to admit and correct mistakes? Great leaders understand humans make mistakes. They encourage risk-taking and do not automatically punish mistakes. They make sure people have the opportunity to learn and grow from mistakes and confront their own limiting frames.

How do you stack up on the mistake-o-meter? As difficult as it is, do you admit you screwed up? Do you take full responsibility? Do you find the source of the mistake and correct it?
It's always so much easier to blame someone or something than to stand up and take your lumps. Little kids say, "I’m sorry," and hope that will make everything all better. But it doesn’t. Because the kid doesn’t have any PLAN to get better. As grown ups, as people who need to incorporate sound leadership into our lives, we have an obligation to admit, submit, and fix it.

(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein and Advantage Leadership, Inc.

Read some of the real-life examples of big screw-ups and what strategic leaders did to make it better. Go to http://www.ConventionalWisdomCenter.com and take advantage of special offers to get you copy of Conventional Wisdom: How Today’s Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers. Then send me your feedback to this special address: ConventionWisdom@cs.com

This is the first book to:
* tie the lessons from the U.S. Constitutional framers to contemporary leaders
* reveal new leadership secrets from George Washington)
* show you how to achieve the impossible by unleashing the Madison Factor
* show you how to get spectacular results using the practical strategic approaches used by the framers and modern executives.

One critic raved: "This is not a book; it’s a catalyst for strategic leadership." Get your copy today.

The book will not be available on Amazon until May 25, the anniversary of the beginning of the Constitutional Convention. Get your copy today and take advantage of the prepublication offers. http://www.ConventionalWisdomCenter.com

Read a recent article on the importance of the Mission -- Be Careful What You Ask For: Getting the Mission Wrong
http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tappiaotc/issues/2008-12-03.html

Would George Washington approve of the Super Bowl?

I don’t know about you but I was on the edge of my seat, enjoying my once-a-year treat of ribs, and rooting for the Cardinals while my husband cheered for the Steelers. I was on my feet screaming when Larry Fitzgerald dashed down the field leaving would-be tacklers in his wake. Then I sat stupefied, while my husband whooped as Santonio Holmes sailed through the air, caught the pass, and crashed out of bounds in a jumble with his tacklers. Anxious minutes, seeming like hours, ticked by. Were his toes on the turf of the end zone? Finally, the answer I didn’t want to hear. But it was a great game with lots of drama, some of the commercials were pure delights, and Springsteen is still The Boss.

But I wasn’t that happy at the end of that exciting game and it had nothing to do with who won or lost. (To tell the truth, I didn’t really care.) No, what alarmed me was the number of fouls and the general over-the-top rage and anger that some players displayed. Bad sportsmanship has become such a part of so many sports today that it goes by barely noticed by the bobble heads yammering about the plays and quoting obscure statistics.

But it shouldn’t. Of course, the players are emotional and of course, no one likes to make a mistake, feel a play was poorly called or lose the game. We are humans after all and react in some pretty predictable ways. But feelings, no matter how strong, positive or negative, do NOT have to be acted on; do not have to be translated into action. In fact, the grand-standing dances and gyrations some players insist on have become their ‘trademarks,’ simply fueling the notion that there’s no need to keep a lid on the id.

George Washington exemplified the ability to keep raging emotions in check. He is reported to have had a legendary temper but few people ever saw him let it rip. What was his secret? It started when he was a very young man; younger and less well educated than the professional football players on the field yesterday. He decided to mold his character himself; to set out self-consciously to become a person who was in his words, ‘restrained in tongue and pen.’

He did not simply bite his tongue or go home and throw beer cans at the TV in frustration. He worked to turn himself into a man of high character and self-discipline. Most of the time, he succeeded. This did not turn him into an up-tight party pooper. Not at all. He notes in his diaries his many social events. He loved to dance and drink tea with the ladies. He was a superb athlete and thought to be one of the best horsemen of his day.

But he would have been appalled at the displays of bad sportsmanship at the Super Bowl and most modern sporting events. He knew that it was possible to respond appropriately to adversity and not simply react in the heat of the moment. He faced disasters of greater magnitude than a game and most of the time emerged to demonstrate his strong character.

One of the CEOs I interviewed for my new book told me, “The higher you go, the less you can do. You don’t have a right to scream at people. You don’t have a right to behave badly.” Washington and the best contemporary leaders understand that. Legendary coach John Wooden, often paced the sideline during an exciting game but there were no histrionics, no screaming, no drama. He often carried a roll-up program in one hand and his expression was calm whether his team was winning or losing. One of the few reported times that he lost his equanimity was when he thought the players were not giving the best they were capable of.

Every leader can all learn from Washington and Wooden. We can willingly sacrifice the victory dance if it means leaving the tantrums behind. Now on to Super Bowl XLIV!

(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, author
Conventional Wisdom: How Today’s Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding FathersCheck out the special offers: http://ConventionalWisdomCenter.com

Is George Washington or James Madison one of your peeps?

No, this is not a weird question. If you lead a team at any level of your organization, you should be on the look out for other potential leaders. If you’re a team member at any level of the organization, you should look at your own way of contributing. We have much to learn about successful team leadership and membership from George and Jemmy. Most of twenty executives and CEOs, interviewed for my new book on strategic leadership, chose George as a leader they admired from among the founding generation. Jemmy Madison emerged as an exemplary team member and leader. What can we learn from them?

George Washington --
--- was admired by his troops during the American Revolution, not because he was a nice guy – he was tough, insisted on discipline, and had a legendary temper. He was admired because the troops knew he cared about them, pleaded their case in the Continental Congress, and suffered hardships but never flinched in the face of the enemy.

--- became president in the midst of economic chaos, foreign plots to destroy the U.S., and internal political divisions. No one had ever been president of a republic covering so many people in such a large land mass. He had to invent the precedents from the most mundane to the most consequential.

--- could have been king – there were many who wanted to elect him king for life. Instead, he chose to serve two terms and then retire, just as he had when he resigned his commission at the end of the Revolution.

What does this teach us as leaders of teams from the executive suite to the shop floor?

The leader must:
* care about the team, share their situation, and fight for the team members’ success and recognition

* be creative, inventive, and make decisions based on vision and values

* know when to relinquish power and overcome the push of ego to hang on.

James Madison --
--- was the master of leading from behind, whether engineering the U.S. Constitutional Convention, drafting the outline for the Constitutional debates, or generating consensus behind the scenes.

--- articulated his case clearly and persuasively at every instance whether in the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Constitutional ratifying convention or co-writing the The Federalist.

--- fought to pass the legislation that was necessary to establish the new republic as a strong nation – even when he was not 100% in support of the actions, such as authoring and championing the Bill of Rights or shepherding Alexander Hamilton’s financial plans through a reluctant Congress.

What does this teach us as team members from the executive suite to the shop floor?
* If you don’t take credit for everything, you can achieve more working to get the results the team and its leader need

* Learn to make clear and cogent contributions to every discussion – do your homework and share your insights

* Sometimes you must fight hard to accomplish something you don’t agree with 100% to further the results of the team and its leader.

Washington and Madison had a special relationship that developed over many years. George was the charismatic leader who wanted to build a strong republic. Jemmy was the brilliant thinker and politician who knew how to persuade people of the need for a robust republic and its institutions. They made a strong team to bring about the Constitution and to get the new government established.

But even their team didn’t last forever. As Washington’s first term was ending, his cabinet team that included Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson was breaking down. The enmity that developed between these two titans resulted in the formation of the first political parties in the U.S. – the Federalists led by Hamilton and the Republicans led by Jefferson. Once Madison opted for Jefferson’s team, the Washington-Madison team broke down.

You can learn a lot from Washington and Madison AND modern executives who are strategic leaders…Conventional Wisdom: How Today’s Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers examines how contemporary executives exercise strategic leadership, utilize their own Madison Factor, build effective teams, and deal with mistakes and tough decisions.

Learn more from the Constitutional framers and modern leaders. Get your copy of Conventional Wisdom today using the special pre-publication offer at http://www.conventionalwisdomcenter.com/.

Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, President, Advantage Leadership, Inc. http://www.AdvantageLeadership.com
Author, Conventional Wisdom http://www.conventionalwisdomcenter.com/

It’s opportunity time

When the going gets tough…You know the rest of the cliché…but what does it mean to “get going?” One thing not to do is to spend too much time listening to the same bad news over and over…or spending too much time around the water cooler (or wherever people congregate these days) bemoaning the state of the global economy. This brings on that other cliché, “Misery loves company.” All we do is whip ourselves up into a greater state of panic.

I think there is another cliché that is much more useful. The Chinese ideogram for “Crisis” is made up of those for “Danger” and “Opportunity.” I’m not suggesting living in a dream world and ignoring the danger. I am suggesting that when it comes to macro-economics, we can’t do much so why waste energy and time yammering on about the dire state of things. In fact, successful people have always figured out that the way to deal with a crisis is to look at the “opportunity” side of the equation and put our energies there.

In 1787 in the U.S., the headlines would seem eerily like those in 2009 – Foreclosures ruin families…Inflation rises…Pirates disrupt shipping…violence increases…hostile countries waiting for collapse…congress deadlocked…
Just 4 years after the end of the American Revolution the country was collapsing and Britain, France, and Spain were circling the imminent road kill waiting to seize the tastiest morsels.

Luckily George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin and 51 others decided to commit treason (technically) for the second time. They assembled in Philadelphia for 4 months in that long hot summer and hammered out the new Constitution.

They could have stayed home and watched their families suffer, their businesses fail, and the government flail about. Instead, they looked at the “Opportunity” side of the equation. They seized the opportunity to create a powerful plan for change…to put all of their ideas of republican government to work…to create a large republic from scratch…It hadn’t been done before…They were in new territory…Territory that was ripe with opportunity.

So whether you’re an individual and have just lost your job or an entrepreneur struggling to stay afloat or a large company or institution getting ready to make drastic budget cuts…Stop for a moment. What opportunities are there for you? What are you uniquely qualified to take advantage of? What is being overlooked by all the others who are focused on the danger?

Many years ago I worked for a big corporation that had a major downsizing…The folks who thrived in this crisis were those who took the opportunity to reexamine their lives, their values, and their goals and strike off in new directions. These are the non-victims…The choice is yours. You can take your role model from the framers and embrace opportunity or from those people the media dig up who are circling the drain, hopeless and helpless, and looking for a hand out. You don’t have to participate in the recession…it’s really optional…Opportunity calls.

George Washington: Still a role model

Historical references pop up in the darnedest places. Today’s New York Times (Dec. 31, 2008) profiled the current crises facing Georgia’s president Mikheil Saakashvili and discussed the pressure on him to stand down from some of the power he had accumulated during his tenure.

“Last week, he announced a constitutional amendment that would lessen the president’s power over Parliament. Lately, he said, he is [more] attracted to the model of…George Washington, who, he said, ‘could have been a king, but instead chose to give up power, and become a democracy…It’s something I’m thinking about more and more,’ he said. ‘George Washington.’”

Powerful leaders, whether in government, private industry, or even the nonprofit world, could certainly benefit from thinking more about George Washington and his relation to power and leadership.

For those who may not remember it, George Washington, took on leadership roles from an early age. In the beginning, he wasn’t necessarily very good at it. But he learned from his experiences, from observing both strong and poor leaders, and from wide-ranging reading. He set himself on a self-directed path of improvement, with high standards and clear goals.

By the time he came before the Continental Congress to resign his commission at the end of the American Revolution, he had perfected a leadership style that won loyalty from his troops and admiration from the public. He was not without his critics, of course, who pointed out his all-too-human failings. But when George III heard that Washington had retired from his military command without seizing power in a military coup or allowing himself to be elected king, he remarked that he must be the greatest man in the world.

At the end of his second term as the elected president, not king, he walked away from power again, despite a faction that would have elected him king for life.

Washington presents many object lessons for modern leaders…not the least of which is knowing when to limit one’s own power. Dictators and dictatorial executives and managers are eventually toppled. True leaders know when it’s time to step back or even pass the torch.

Did the founding fathers support smaller government?

Folks often want to find support for their contemporary views by citing our U.S. founding fathers, something like folks quoting from sacred writing. The problem is that the ‘fathers and mothers’ did not share a monolithic point of view as documented in their public and private writings.

I was struck by this recently when I read an otherwise thought-provoking opinion by Carly Fiorina in the Wall Street Journal December 12, 2008. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122904246460000265.html#printMode) It was entitled “Corporate Leadership and the Crisis: CEOs seeking bailouts should be willing to resign.”

Although I agree with much of what Ms. Fiorina said in her article, citing the Founding Fathers as supporting smaller government was off the mark historically.
In fact, the founders and framers of the U.S. Constitution had serious disagreements about the extent of government. And, some of them changed their views over the course of time. For example, when James Madison and Alexander Hamilton allied with others to call the Constitutional Convention of 1787, they both envisioned a strong national government to replace the supreme power of the states under the Articles of Confederation.

A few years after the Revolution, the weak confederation was collapsing under its own weight. Madison's statement on government applies as well today as it did over 200 years ago: "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Madison and Hamilton argued forcefully, writing as Publius in The Federalist, for the supremacy of the new national government. Hamilton would have gone further and abolished the states themselves according to his critics.

By Washington's second term as President, Madison had moved away from his more nationalist stand and allied with Thomas Jefferson to found a political party to tout the need to have more power in the states and to lobby for smaller national government. When Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 election, he proclaimed a second Revolution and tried to undo as much of the Federalists' initiatives as possible.

As the parties morphed, evolved, disappeared, and sprang to life over our history, they all tried to claim the founders and framers as their own. The truth is somewhere else. The tension between the states and the federal government was built into the Constitution because the framers understood they could never get agreement on a perfect system.

The so-called Great Compromise of the convention was about how states would have power in the new system. The fault lines run directly from the convention to the civil war and on into today.

Essentially, we have agreed to disagree, just as the founders and framers did on how much power government should wield at each level, how big government should be, and how the checks and balances of a republican system should work.
Indeed, we are not angles and our system of government reflects accurately on our human nature.

Want to know more about what the founders and framers were really thinking and how it relates to contemporary strategic leadership questions? Conventional Wisdom: How Today’s Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers will be published by TobsusPress at the end of January 2009. Check out the website for pre-publication offers. http://www.advantageleadership.com/conventional-wisdom.html

Who is closer to Jefferson, Obama or McCain?

A friend asked me this question: Who is closer to Thomas Jefferson, Obama or McCain?
A loaded question because I didn't want to favor one candidate or the other publicly.

But the question set me thinking.
Obama certainly has Jefferson's gift of language and eloquence. He shares his cool demeanor and laid-back elegance.

McCain has many positions that are closer to Jefferson such as smaller government and lower taxes. Jefferson hated to give speeches and preferred more intimate settings for discourse much like McCain.

On the other hand, if Jefferson were able to overcome his prejudices, he might enjoy sitting with Obama on his mountain top at Montecello discussing philosophy and ideas. If McCain were at that dinner party, they might swap war stories and Jefferson would recount his narrow escape from the British when they were in hot pursuit.

Of course ahistorical speculation is always fun...
But thinking about Jefferson and his ideas on government got me to thinking about the election of 1800. If you watched the HBO series on John Adams you may remember it was bitter and brutal. In fact, it ranks up there as one of the dirtiest campaigns in our history. We seem to think that we invented dirty tricks in more modern times but human nature being what it is, nasty elections are nothing new.

During George Washington's second term, Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, began to form a faction that he called the Republicans. (Now before you get too confused, this party morphed into the Democratic Republicans and then into the Democratic Party. Today's Republican Party formed in the 1850s to oppose slavery and preserve the union, but that's another story.)

As Jefferson began organizing his party to take on John Adams and his Federalist Party he did it behind the scenes. He paid a journalist to start a newspaper to attack the Federalists (and put him on the State department payroll!) He fired up his buddy James Madison to go after his hated rival Alexander Hamilton and implored him to take out his pen and cut him to shreds.

So the election of 1800 was an unremitting mudslinging bar fight. If we think the media are biased today, go back and read the dueling broadsides, pamphlets and newspapers of 1800. When the dust settled Jefferson and Adams were tied and the whole thing was thrown into the House of Representatives. The House went through many, many ballots when one representative finally threw his vote to Jefferson.

Adams tried to pack the Supreme Court and make other midnight appointments before he lit out for home in the wee hours of the morning rather than have to see the power of the presidency pass to Jefferson.

They remained alienated for many years until a mutual friend got them to make up. For the years they had remaining, they renewed what had been a close friendship during the Revolution. They wrote a wonderful set of letters discussing everything from crop rotation to the fate of the nation. On July 4, exactly 50 years after the Continental Congress passed Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, they both died.

You just can't make this stuff up. History is so much bolder than fiction.

So the answer is a toss up...Both Obama and McCain are Jefferson's heirs because they both share his vision of a republic where everyone is equal and free to pursue life, liberty and happiness. So choose a candidate that fits your notion of what that means and vote...after all, it's citizen involvement that sustains a republic and that's what Jefferson and the rest of the founders wanted for us.