~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LEADERSHIP WIRED John C. Maxwell's FREE Semimonthly Newsletter Designed To Maximize Your Leadership Potential. October 2004 - Volume 7, Issue 20 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In This Issue: * Maxwell Moment – Relational Refueling * Leadership@Large – Surveying the Leadership Landscape * Interview – Protecting Values * Quick Quotes – Be Bold ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maxwell Moment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RELATIONAL REFUELING By Dr. John C. Maxwell Leadership requires energy. It doesn't necessarily call for the kind of energy needed to run a marathon or take care of ten 2-year-olds for an hour. But for me, and perhaps for you, leading requires a great deal of mental and emotional vigor. Think about it. If you're a leader, you have to initiate, which means you often have to be the first one to rise and say, "Let's go." You frequently have to say, "Let's go," to people who don't want to go, which means you have to persuade them that they need to follow you. You have to make tough calls that directly affect the lives of other people. You have to solve complex problems. You have to serve as a mediator, negotiator, counselor, encourager, and teacher to the people on your team. And so on. The work of leading is intellectually stimulating and personally fulfilling—if it weren't, who would want to do it? But it can also be incredibly draining, which is why we all need regular refueling. Leaders re-energize in various ways. Some read. Some cook. Some fish. Some play tennis—or racquetball, or basketball or golf. Those activities all have their place. But in my life, I also get a great deal of energy from certain personal relationships. Not all relationships fall into this category, mind you. Some people can literally suck the life right out of you if you're not careful. Sometimes you can avoid such relationships, but many times you can't. That makes energizing relationships even more critical. Do you have people in your life who energize you when the work of leading has sapped your strength and zapped your spirit? If you've never thought of your relationships in that way, perhaps you should start. To help you begin the process, here are eight types of relationships that energize me. 1. My family. Now, I realize that maintaining healthy connections with close relatives also requires a great deal of energy. You cannot expect to be a good spouse or parent if you're not willing to devote a significant amount of time and effort to the relationship. But a strong relationship with a spouse, for example, can also be a tremendous source of energy for a leader. My wife, Margaret, gives me so much in this regard. I can get compliments from a dozen people after a speaking engagement, but if she says, "Great job," it's worth more than all the other comments combined. 2. Creative people. I love being around creative people because it stimulates my thinking and recharges my own creative batteries. I also just enjoy observing how their minds work. 3. Successful people. When I meet such individuals, I often ask them to tell me how they made it to the top. Not surprisingly, their stories are usually punctuated by examples of hardship and adversity. I'm inspired when I hear how people overcome opposition, persevere through challenges and maneuver around obstacles to accomplish their goals. 4. My team. My favorite day of the month is what we call "Presidents' Day." On this day, I sit down with the people who run my three companies and we review what's happening in our organization. I'm always invigorated when I leave these meetings because my team members—those men and women who are really out there doing the job—are making me so much better than I could ever hope to be on my own. 5. Good thinkers. By this, I don't necessarily mean smart people. I'm not real smart, but I love to think. And I love to spend time with people who enjoy the intellectual give and take of a good conversation. Thinking people don't talk about other people. They talk about principles, concepts, and ideas. That energizes me. 6. Interesting people. Let's face it. Some people are interesting, and others are not. A person doesn't have to be rich or powerful to be interesting. A keen mind, an interest in others, and a love of learning all determine whether a person is interesting or not far more than his title or the size of her investment portfolio. 7. Encouragers. When you see these people coming, you automatically know they're going to lift you up. They just can't help it; it's part of their genetic code. Every leader needs a relationship with someone like this. 8. "Fun" people. These folks love life, and their enthusiasm is contagious. I used to do a considerable amount of counseling, and if there's one thing I learned from those interactions, it's that our relationships very often define who we are and what we can become. So if you want to become a more effective leader, foster relationships with people who stimulate your thinking, make you laugh, encourage you, and inspire you. Your energy level depends upon it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Leadership@Large ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CLEAR THINKING The leader who co-piloted a huge turnaround at Continental Airlines is attempting a similar feat at Burger King Corp, the struggling fast-food chain that has had 10 CEOs in 15 years. As Continental's chief operating officer, Greg Brenneman helped reverse the airline's fortunes by "concentrating on boosting revenues, instead of the relentless cost-cutting done under previous management," Associated Press writer John Pain wrote recently. "The company also successfully empowered workers to improve the airline and its customer service." The capacity to generate ideas and "distill very complex problems down to workable solutions" are among the leadership traits former employees cite as key to Brenneman's success at Continental. The fast-food industry obviously isn't the same as the airline business, but that is not expected to hamper Brenneman in his role as CEO of Burger King. "To some degree, if you're a good leader, that's not unique to one particular industry," Richard D. Gritta, a financial and transportation professor at the University of Portland in Oregon, told the AP. It's too soon to say whether Brenneman will succeed at Burger King—he's only been with the company since August. But Frank Blake, an executive vice president at The Home Depot, is confident in his colleague's leadership abilities. "Sometimes we have a tendency to put a lot of flowers around things rather than focus on clarity strategically," said Blake, who has seen Brenneman operate as a member of The Home Depot's board of directors. "I truly believe you know something the best when you can express it the most simply and directly. That's what he does." _________________________________________________________________ LEADERS ON LEADERSHIP One of the best ways to learn about effective leadership is to ask successful leaders to talk about leading. That's what Todd Tobias did as he conducted research for "Put the Moose on the Table: Lessons in Leadership from a CEO's Journey Through Business and Life" (the leadership memoir of his father, Randall Tobias, chairman emeritus of Eli Lilly and Co. and former vice chairman of AT&T). Todd Tobias, who co-authored the book with his father, gleaned a great deal of leadership wisdom from interviews with his father's friends and colleagues. Here are a few brief excerpts. * "I think the key to career success is the same ingredient that drives leadership success: encompassing enthusiasm for new ideas," said Steven C. Beering, M.D., president emeritus of Purdue University. "Great leaders demonstrate that ability, and it becomes contagious." * "Of all the characteristics that are necessary to be an effective leader, the most important one is the ability to learn," said Sidney Taurel, chairman, president and CEO of Eli Lilly. * "Don't try to become a CEO," said Norman R. Augustine, retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp. "Try to do whatever your current job is to the best of your ability, and then you may eventually become a CEO. But if you start out at the beginning saying, 'I want to be a CEO,' you spend so much time looking at the next rung of the ladder [that] you fall off the one you're standing on." * "Leadership begins with the enjoyment of what you are doing," said Dr. Cedric W. Dempsey, president of the National College Athlete Association. "If you don't enjoy it, I think it is very difficult to display the kind of positive leadership people are looking for." Editor's Note: Watch for a review of "Put the Moose on the Table" in an upcoming issue of "Leadership Wired." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Interview ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PROTECTING VALUES Corporate social responsibility is a hot topic these days, and for good reason. It was a decided lack of such responsibility that led to the downfall of companies such as Enron and WorldCom. But large, publicly held businesses aren't the only entities that need to be concerned about being good corporate citizens, says John Copeland, executive in residence at the Donald G. Soderquist Center for Leadership and Ethics in Siloam Springs, Arkansas. Copeland, a lawyer and university professor who most recently served as executive vice president for ethics and compliance at Tyson Foods Inc., maintains that every organization—no matter how big or small—needs a code of conduct and a means for enforcing that code. He also believes that leaders at every level are responsible for modeling corporate values and teaching their people how to practice them as well. We spoke with him recently about corporate social responsibility and why it should be a priority for every business leader. Leadership Wired: How is corporate social responsibility defined today? John Copeland: It's really defined more as corporate citizenship. There are several facets. One is charitable giving, which has been the traditional view of corporate social responsibility: How much do you give, to whom do you give, to what do you give? Another facet is sustainability—how does a corporation interact with the community at large? How does it service communities in which it does business? How does it work with its employees? It really becomes a matter of multiple stakeholders. Those include not only shareholders, but employees, communities that depend upon these companies and then, of course, in the broad sense, the environment in general. A new facet that has come about in recent years because of all the business scandals is corporate governance. How involved are directors in running corporations, especially independent directors? What mechanisms exist within corporations to ensure ethical behavior and proper corporate governance? We've seen a real change in how all of this is being defined. The definition today is broader than it's ever been. LW: What was the definition of corporate social responsibility 20 years ago? Copeland: I would say the predominant view was that there was no such thing as corporate social responsibility. In his writings, Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, has always taken the position that corporate expenditures for good causes amounted to stealing from shareholders. Corporate officers and directors have no right to spend the shareholders' money for good deeds. Only individuals can have social responsibilities. Corporations exist to make money and to maximize shareholder value. Money spent in other ways takes away from those responsibilities. Friedman's view was predominant for a long time. Over time, that has changed. Corporate leaders have recognized that their companies must participate in worthwhile projects, if nothing else from a public relations standpoint. They give to worthy causes to show themselves as being caring and responsible corporations. This has broadened as society and government have required much more of corporations. Because of their power, they have special responsibilities that go along with that—to give back to society, to protect society, and to operate ethically and legally. When they do things that are wrong, their impact is enormous. WorldCom, Enron and the other financial scandals caused an estimated $7 trillion in damages to the U.S. economy and investors. The scandals are examples of companies not being socially responsible and the harm they can do. LW: What effect, if any, have these scandals had on the way business leaders look at corporate social responsibility? Copeland: You have business leaders who say they recognize that more is now required of them, not only legally with the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act [in 2002], but as far as what society expects of them. But even though they say that, they're still sending out some pretty mixed signals. Some business leaders say all of this regulation has gone too far—it's all too costly, and it's all unnecessary. So you certainly have some resistance there. Also, some things simply aren't changing. Executive compensation, to me, is a good measuring device to see how seriously executives are taking the need to be more socially responsible. We're still seeing ridiculous amounts of compensation. There are huge gaps between what the CEO makes vs. the lowest-paid worker, and that sends a message that things really have not changed. I've had my questions about how well the lesson is sinking in at times. My first indication that we might have problems with this was after there had been a number of corporate scandals and the top executives of major corporations got together to discuss how to restore trust in corporate America. They went to Switzerland to hold their meeting—one of the most expensive places in the world. Symbolism is critical, and this is just hypocrisy. LW: What do strong ethics have to do with corporate social responsibility? Can you have one without the other? Copeland: You can't have one without the other. Ethics programs are mandated for publicly held corporations, but even privately held companies need them. In fact, there was one case where the directors in a privately held corporation were hit for a $44-million judgment on the basis that they did not have a sufficient ethics program in place. The judge said, "As directors serving a privately held board, you're responsibility may be even greater than those of a publicly held corporation's directors, because the public has more oversight than what you have here." The ethics department should, to a large extent, serve as the corporate conscience and point out where the company is not living up to its social responsibilities, especially in the area of corporate governance and making sure the mechanisms are in place for people to report suspected wrongdoing. Also, making sure that stakeholders are all being represented, especially the employees of the corporation. Are they being respected? Can they voice complaints? Are they protected when they voice complaints? How does the company respond to a whistleblower? If you don't have a strong ethics program, I seriously doubt that you can be a truly socially responsible corporation. You can talk about it and you can have all sorts of wonderful pronouncements, but if your ethics program is pretty much a sham, there's nothing really to ensure that you're being socially responsible. LW: What about small companies that might not have ethics officers or ethics departments? Copeland: Regardless of the size of your company, you can have code of conduct and someone responsible for enforcing that code. A big part of all of this is having a reporting system where people can call in, remain anonymous if they chose, ask ethics questions, report suspected wrongdoing and have it followed up by an investigation. Even a very small company can do something like that. You can have a strong statement of values, you can deal with reporting suspected wrongdoing and the corrective action that will be taken, and do training in areas where your company is most vulnerable. For example, if you do a lot of government contracting, your code would deal with that particular issue—your relationship with federal officials and state officials. Also, how to avoid violating antitrust laws, treating your employees with respect, following the Golden Rule, and what it means to be respectful of employees and treat them with integrity. It doesn't take a massive document. It takes a document that addresses specific concerns or threats to your company, and a means of reporting those and dealing with those, and being consistent with following your document—it applies to everyone—and constant training reminding your workers: these are our values, here's how to protect and enforce our values with the corporate code. And again, teach people about the values as they relate to your company. Here's our value: We respect every person. How do we prove or follow that value? Well, here it is. You cannot do this to a coworker. You cannot make inappropriate comments to a coworker—here are examples of those that are inappropriate. If you are consistent in following through on that and if your people truly believe in the values, then they'll make decisions in accordance with the values. LW: On a more personal level, I understand that you are an avid fisherman. Over the years, has this hobby taught you anything about leadership and ethics? Copeland: I love to trout fish. As far as leadership lessons, preparation is one. In trout fishing, you really have to prepare, you have to know what you're doing. Patience—that's a large part of it. Then repetition and practice—that's the only way you can really get good at what you do. For example, stressing company values and relaying that to specific situations —you can never have enough training, you can never have enough repetition. You've always got to give people context with examples. One of the things I truly love about trout fishing is that it rewards merit—either you can tie a good fly that looks like something a trout would want, or you can't. Either you can make the proper cast, or you can't. The trout rewards you for doing what's right. Every now and then, you get lucky. But for the most part, it's based on merit, and I like that. In all walks of life these days, there's not enough of that. People should be judged on how well they can do a job. Finally, when I get out and do trout fishing, it's amazing how much clearer things become —problems, issues. You can get away and get some real solitude. Leaders need solitude. I think it's important for leaders to do that and really examine themselves and their actions and relationships with others. - Interview by Lois Flowers, INJOY consulting editor ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quick Quotes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BE BOLD "He was a bold man that first ate an oyster." - Jonathan Swift "There is no strong performance without a little fanaticism in the performer." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "The unforgivable crime is soft hitting. Do not hit at all if it can be avoided; but never hit softly." - Theodore Roosevelt _________________________________________________________________ Leadership Wired is written by Dr. John C. Maxwell and is available via e-mail on a free subscription basis. You can subscribe at: http://www.INJOY.com/Newsletters. Questions about document transmission or editorial comments? Contact mailto:feedback@INJOY.com. Visitors may use the information contained in this e-newsletter by placing the following credit line: "This article is used by permission from Dr. John C. Maxwell's free monthly e-newsletter 'Leadership Wired' available at www.INJOY.com." This information cannot be used for resale in any manner. Copyright (c) 2004, INJOY, Inc.