Happy 4th and sorry for the delay in posting this week. A surgical procedure seemed to take over my life for a few days.

I want to share the thoughts of a CEO, one of my former clients of a multi-billion dollar financial institution, Mr. Peter Mattoon.  Early next week, if not before, I will comment on all the activity that last week’s post generated. Thank you for for your thoughtfulness.

CEO Mattoon writes:

I agree with your persistence comment but I actually think everyone misses to target.

My view is that things always go wrong, small and large and the only way to solve for that inevitability to have the right strategy, the right people in the right seats, and ensure each of those person’s knows their role in the process of meeting executing the strategy. Building blocks/interdependence/team culture… whatever you want to call it.

So one, the CEO needs to know the market and the firm’s distinctive competencies vs competitors and how to make that differentiation clear to their target market, aka, buyers.

That same CEO must then be able to attract and retain the people who implement the core components of that strategy.

In this case, it is hard to imagine that a person (Oher’s editorial comment) can consistently attract and retain superior people unless they are all mercenaries (think financial services!!). So the CEO must have some semblance of interpersonal capabilities.

Additionally, I am not great at execution or much of a detail guy. I know this and consequently hired people who “make me whole”; Joe, my COO for example.

Also, the CEO must be able to drive the revenue line. This is not mentioned in the blog.

Last, leading by example is always valued. That is on my mind all the time.

Thoughts?

In a recent op-ed piece, David Brooks cites various research indicating that most CEOs’ success is due to their execution and organizational abilities. These abilities translate into specific skills, such as attention to detail, persistence, efficiency and analytic diligence. Other significant qualities include emotional stability and conscientiousness.

Brooks also states that researchers found that strong ‘people skills’ correlate loosely or NOT AT ALL (my emphasis) with success as a CEO. Those strong people skills include characteristics such as being a good listener, a good team builder, an enthusiastic colleague and a great communicator. Extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experiences also failed to correlate to CEO success.

I have worked with several CEOs, and I don’t necessarily agree that they excel at the first group of skills and are deficient in the second. The CEOs with whom I have worked are an amalgam of traits in both categories. However, the one trait they all have exhibited is that of accomplishment through persistence.

I have also observed that attention to detail, far from being a positive trait, can become an overused negative characteristic. Carried to an extreme, such detail-oriented executives micromanage. Worse still, they can dip down two or three levels in the organization to ask subordinates’ subordinates’ subordinates to drop everything and take on another detailed assignment. Such an action, of course, is more than attention to detail — it is ‘scatter shot’ and disorganized management.

Regardless of the accuracy of the research Brooks cites, it raises provocative questions regarding the type of coaches CEOs and other leaders should choose to help them get the results they want. Should they select a former CEO, who has gotten things done through all that persistence and determination? Or should they work with a behavioral coach who has a clinical background and can pinpoint obstacles that may combine the psychological, operational and interpersonal?

I’m not sure of the answer, and I would love to hear from you coaches who are former CEOs. I know you’re out there! Would you share your stories of successes with clients (and, if you feel comfortable, share your failures as well)? I’d also like to know if you think folks like me, who have clinical backgrounds, provide value when we coach CEOs.

Finally, do you agree that Brooks’ latter bucket of ‘people skills,’ such as extroversion, openness to new experience, and perhaps even emotional intelligence and empathy, are of little value to leaders?

Teresa Rebeck has an established a reputation as a writer, most notably for the long-running television franchise Law and Order, for which she has won a WAG award. She is also a prolific young playwright and a Pulitzer prize finalist. Her new play, Our House, is a caustic satire about the entertainment/news industry and its influence on the dumbing-down and numbing-down of young adults — and, by extension, of society as a whole.

This playwright certainly has tapped into a mounting concern among certain educators, cultural critics and parent groups, who view the current trend of substituting life style information for fact-based news with a marked degree of trepidation. It is an argument positing that the ubiquitous presence of style has overcome substance on our airwaves, with profound negative effects.

Rebeck’s overblown dramatizations of a TV network head and his up-and-coming female anchor are nicely (if a bit expansively) played by the talented Christopher Evan Welsh and Morena Baccarin. The young adults who live in a house that becomes the focus the TV network are a diverse group of males and females, the majority of whom just want to get along. Rebeck seems to imply that this ‘live and let live’ attitude has resulted in the housemates failing to recognize (or flat out ignoring) one member’s pathological behavior. Is Rebeck saying that we are so diluted by the ‘contemporary nothing’ on the cable, news and network airwaves that our powers of observation, along with our critical faculties and our responsibilities to one another, are compromised? Possibly.

Although the play never bored me, and I continually wondered where the show was going (a plus for sure), one concern persisted. There wasn’t a single character with whom I could empathize or identify. Their collective dyspeptic behavior showcased the lengths to which one would go to capture ratings and experience a moment or two of fame. Since all of the characters were unsympathetic and fairly self-involved, it left me wondering — is Rebeck making a statement about all of us?

I hope not!

Many of my colleagues discuss the topic of conflict within the Board term and context of  ‘conflict resolution.’ I prefer the term ‘conflict management.’ Why? Because I see conflict as a constant is our lives, whether it is internal intra-psychic conflict, interpersonal conflict, intra-organizational conflict, or any variant of these. It is ubiquitous!

Before I  jump to recommendations on how to manage conflict, let me state that these recommendations are all based on certain values and principles that guide our consulting and coaching practice. I will write more on these core values shortly.  I credit both Roger Schwarz and Chris Arygris for these guiding principles and values.

Many of these recommendations were initially organized and discussed by my friend and colleague, Ben Dattner.

1.  BE AS HONEST AS POSSIBLE ABOUT WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR YOU AND THE CONFLICTED PARTIES.

If you feel you are not being totally honest with yourself, you probably aren’t. Can someone actually be totally impartial when a situation involves conflict? Only with lots of practice and feedback from others. Adopting this objectivity may be difficult, but in order to move forward and take positive action, there’s often no other choice.

2.  BE OPEN ABOUT YOUR NEEDS AND INTERESTS, AND ASK OTHERS INVOLVED WHAT THEIR NEEDS AND INTERESTS ARE.

Needs and interests are so critical to all of us yet sometimes in the midst of conflict or dilemmas we defensively only focus on our own.

3.  DON’T BE DISINGENUOUS OR TRY TO BLUFF THE OTHER PARTY.

I see this tactic as a lose lose situation. If one loses their credibility by being dishonest or disingenuous one can never really regain it. Probing and inquiring with the other party is the way to go.

4.  LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO FIND WIN-WIN SOLUTIONS.

If you kept focused on needs and interests, your own and others, you will be able to find these solutions.

More on this topic next week.

I love the arts, so please allow me to express myself in this arena as well.

I finally realized why certain reality TV shows are so engrossing.

The directors/writers have cleverly constructed two shows in one — one is the narrative story, which progresses from event to event. But the other (much juicier) show is the personal narrative of “what I am really thinking and feeling” behind the mask of civilized behavior.

This theatrical technique is as old as the hills. I assume the Greeks used it, Shakespeare certainly did (most famously in Hamlet), and in Strange Interlude, so did Eugene O’Neil.

In our society, when others are around, we often judge that we can’t say what’s on our mind or express how we feel about what’s going on in our lives. We edit ourselves. We even deny our actual feelings when perceptive people are direct in asking us about them. (No, I am NOT angry!)

Feelings are as central and as essential as our blood and tissue. But as we grow up, go to school, and are ‘socialized,’ rationality becomes prized above all else. In most social circles, restraint and decorum are not far behind.

Then, low and behold, leave it to the ever-so-polite and often repressed British to invent reality TV shows, where a real-life cast of characters are given an opportunity to scrap their socialized behavior and let their genuine feelings — outrage, hurt, humiliation — ring out.

Our society could use a lot more transparency, and perhaps reality TV shows will foster it. Wouldn’t it be grand if our relationships and interactions were so transparent that reality TV shows faded into pale intimations of real life?

Can everybody learn and grow? At what pace, and at what cost?

The head of IT for a large insurance firm seemed to be floundering after about a year on the job. Following his department’s release of a flawed systems update, the CEO had issued some commands and demands to the entire organization. The IT head followed the CEO’s behavioral example, admonishing his staff that unless certain critical operational system issues were fixed, he would be terminating his own employment.

He followed this stellar example of ineffectual leadership with a few other missteps: Based on hearsay, he registered a complaint with HR about an employee three levels down. He insisted that another employee receive a sub par rating, despite the wishes and judgment if that individual’s direct manager. It certainly seems he needs help, and is in over his head.

When I heard about this, I thought to myself, “This executive certainly could use a coach!”

But then I wondered, is coaching the answer?

It appears this IT head has lost credibility with the executive team by releasing a flawed systems update, and with the HR department by exhibiting a peculiar lack of due process and inappropriately controlling behavior. Has he made so many fundamental mistakes that he is beyond coaching? Maybe, maybe not.

Using 20/20 hindsight, it’s apparent that this executive was a prime candidate for some transition/on board coaching. Some of his thought processes and corresponding behaviors could have been questioned and challenged by a coach.

At this point, it seems that the only way he might receive coaching is by requesting it himself. There is no indication that he will.

Harvard developmental psychologist Robert Keegan, author of In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life, writes persuasively about developmental change. More on this later.

I find it so bracing to read and hear Obama confront tough issues, lay out the facts as he and his staff know them, and open the dialogue with key stakeholders. In an interview with David Leonhardt in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, the President addressed some of the current burning hotplate dilemmas our country is facing. His health care discourse was particularly meaningful to me because I was responsible for health care benefits at Texaco (before Chevron gobbled it up) and wished I could weigh in on the quality and cost of care issues facing the company at that time the way the President is doing now.

Instead of the platitudes we usually hear from politicians, such as “we have the best medical care in all the world,” Obama talked about the power and limitations of patient advocacy and education. (He actually said, “There is always going to be an asymmetry of information between patient and provider.” How about that for a classy sentence?) He spoke of comparative-effectiveness studies which review data to determine which widely-used treatments fail to improve outcomes, and which effective treatments are not used often enough. And he dared to speak honestly of end-of-life care. That’s a real heart-stopper, because it demands that we balance deeply held beliefs that sustaining life is worth any cost with the painful reality that the cost of care during the final phases of life (including costs for the chronically ill) is staggeringly high, perhaps even 80% of the total health care bill.

Obama talked about the personal situation he faced when his grandmother was diagnosed with terminal cancer during his campaign; MD’s gave her at best nine months to live. And they would be an even more difficult nine months because she had recently broken her hip, yet the hip replacement surgery for her hip was itself risky. Did it make sense to perform risky and expensive hip replacement surgery on a woman who already had one foot in the grave? She had the surgery, did fine for two weeks, then her condition deteriorated. Obama said he would have paid privately for the surgery no matter the cost, but wondered whether our current model of paying for surgery for terminally ill patients is sustainable.

Obama posits that these difficult moral issues must be addressed by doctors, scientists and ethicists, and  these guided conversations will not be easy. So, as with so many other issues, he is again showing us all that while certain problems will be difficult to address, difficult is not impossible. As I said, how refreshing and bracing to finally grapple with these tough choices, and to have some real leadership in the process.

A coaching colleague sought my advice for a difficult coaching situation which she was assigned. It appears a highly successful executive has finally insulted enough internal colleagues that management has decided to call for the services of a coach. This behavior has been going on for several years yet because the executive is such a rain maker all were apprehensive of directly addressing the issue and his inner firm behavior.

My colleague mentioned that the HR executive wants to find a way to spin the situation.

As I told my colleague, perhaps the age of spin is on the decline.

What is to spin? There are employment labor laws that protect employees from harassment and abuse.

And often, when these laws are broken, there are damages.

Facing the truth is not easy but avoiding it only goes so far. My colleague when back to the HR executive with this message and the company has decided not to do anything yet.

So much for direct confrontation of their problem.

Although I do focus on “the hardlines,” I will often talk about other aspects of leadership and life as well.   Here is an example.

Leaders, fess up! What are your flaws?

What vulnerabilities do you face, day by day and hour by hour, as you make decisions and take actions to enhance your enterprise? Does your picture of yourself reflect some semblance of objectivity? Have others whose opinions you value pointed out some of your less-than-solid attributes? Or have you asked?

David Brooks, a William F. Buckley protégé and noted conservative pundit, wrote a piece entitled The Art of Growing Up. This June 6^th New York Times article traces the concept of maturity over the course of American history. He notes that Abraham Lincoln was well aware of his depression, which included despondent behaviors, suicidal thoughts, and withdrawals into catatonic isolated states. Brooks points out that Lincoln found a way to control his depression and achieve maturity.

Viewing depression as a weakness and a developmental challenge (frankly, it is neither) reinforces the stigma and ignorance that surrounds it. However, what I found of value is Brooks’ observation that in Lincoln’s day, to achieve maturity was to succeed in the conquest of self. According to conventional thought in mid-19^th century America, human beings were born in sin, infected with dark passions, and subject to satanic temptations. Adulthood was achieved by mastering these impulses. Brooks further states that in the last century, self-mastery has been replaced by self-discovery, and maturity now means serving others.

I find this claim unsubstantiated, and I don’t agree with it. Granted, people who serve others may be mature. But they may be at any developmental stage, and may serve others for all sorts of reasons (college admissions officers? Hello hello!).

However, I do agree with Brooks in one respect. Great leaders are those who have gazed into their own internal abyss, come face to face with their own weaknesses, and eventually found a way to combat and triumph over them.

More than self-awareness, Brooks is probably talking about resilience — the ability to learn from setbacks and trauma, forge ahead with possibilities,  and focus on the future. These qualities are essential for any leader.

So you leaders out there, look inside yourself, admit your weaknesses, and identify the areas you’d like to change. Be courageous — ask your loved ones and top team colleagues to help. And if you’re interested in my weaknesses, let me know. We can swap warts!

I have been working on this blog for a while, and now it’s time to go public.  I hope you like what you read, and I look forward to hearing from you. Let me know if you disagree, think I am way off track, or, better still, share a story, article or thought that reflects your point of view. Enjoy!