I have not smoked for many, MANY years but the story makes my point.  Everyone is a leader SOMEWHERE in their lives, and this blog is directed at leaders.  Everyone, young and old, has leadership roles.   Walking your talk applies everywhere.  It is rather fun to reach down into the core elements of leadership that apply EVERYWHERE, to people of all ages, and delves into basic areas of life.

Walking your talk applies to upholding principles, such as always tell the truth even when it is unpleasant, treat everyone with respect, listen to people when they are talking.. I mean really hear what they are saying without our opinion about it.

It also applies to some very basic rules of cleanliness.  If you want a clean work or home environment, you too must wash your hands after going to the restroom and I don’t mean just run your fingertips under the water.  I mean soap and sufficient warm water to remove bacteria.  Not when it is convenient, but every time you use the restroom.

Research in the UK revealed that more than nine in ten mobile phones are coated with some kind of bacteria, including E.coli, which was responsible for a number of deaths in Germany in June last year, and Staphylococcus aureus, one strain of which is better known as MRSA.

I belong to a Rotary club of 500 members, and every time I greet, a role of shaking hands with members coming into the meeting, someone whispers in my ear, “After you are done and before lunch, go wash your hands.”  Last week the greeters were all wearing white gloves!

My mother always used to say, “Cleanliness before Godliness,” whatever that meant, but she ingrained in us an adherence to the basics.  Not so much with smoking, but when it came to cleanliness, she definitely walked her talk, and so did

Personally, I got appointed the babysitter when I was the oldest of 4 children.  It has taken me YEARS of committed introspection into the topic of accountability and what is available out of being accountable, to bring any lightness to this topic.  I did name my company “Accountability Pays,” so I do see a light at the end of the tunnel. Unless we want to suffer the consequences, we are accountable at work and at home, however we define it.

What if we could bring fun, play and ease to the conversations we have about being accountable?  The conversations I’ve usually had were focused on making someone wrong.  And if you’ve gotten to adulthood, you already know how that plays out!  It is not pretty for either party, when being made wrong or making another wrong.  It is the blame game, sound and fury signifying nothing, some version of “If you were different, if you were responsible, if you did things like I do them then all would be fine.”  That conversation does not usually go well UNLESS you are committed to coming out the other side with both people whole and complete, no kidding.  One of my fellow thinkers on this topic said it this way;  “The relationship is committed to workability for everyone.”

If being accountable — all of us being accountable — were fun, playful, easy what would be available?

Some of you think I’ve been smoking some illegal substance.  No, I have not.  What I know from my own experience, and sharing experiences with others, is that when everyone is accountable (clear, focused, results oriented) then the entity (relationship, organization) exudes vitality.

Think about a time when everyone did what they were supposed to do and you experienced what some call “flow.”  Stuff just got done!  People supported the whole with whatever was required, without being asked, even if it didn’t fit neatly into their job description.  Almost every one can think of one experience like that, and it was memorable, but seemingly not repeatable.  Why is that?  What I just described is the experience of being accountable with fun, play, and ease.

Here are a few quick rules that I’ve found work to bring fun, play, ease — and therefore vitality — to conversations for accountability.

1. Don’t make people feel that they are wrong for doing it the way they are currently doing things, even if you don’t think they are right.
2. Engage them in a discussion of what is possible if all pull on the oars of the boat headed in the same direction.
3. ASK for their impression of what could be done, and LISTEN.
4. Assume that if they do not understand you, it is because you did not communicate fully, not because they were stupid/not listening/whatever you made up about them.
5. Remind them of how great it will be when celebration time comes around.
6. Make them feel part of something bigger than themselves, something that is important.
7. Watch them come alive.  Watch them dip into their inner reserves.  Watch them perform beyond your expectations, as a valued and valuable team member.

Why do I say all hell breaks loose?  Because any organization cannot move together in syncopation without clarity of a common future view, and people cannot do their jobs if there isn’t clarity of their required contribution.

When clarity is present, people have the freedom that is created by clear boundaries.  Employees are freed up to do their work, not protect themselves from attacks by others with different expectations.

Clarity is influenced by the amount of confidence one has in one’s opinion, which is all we really have regarding our view of the world.  Research into successful people in the workplace by Dr. Dan Harrison* showed a paradoxical relationship between two independent variables:  confidence in one’s opinions (certainty), and the tendency to reflect on many different viewpoints (open/reflective).

As a leader desiring to provide a clear vision of the future, or clear boundaries around the responsibilities of a particular role you would want enough certainty to have clarity.  Caveat:  an excess of certainty is dogmatic, when others hear the underlying message, “I’m right, I’m right, I’m right, and I am not changing my opinion.  Ever.”

Conversely, too much open/reflective is inconclusive.  The line outside the door of an inconclusive decision maker who is taking input on a decision favors the last guy in line!  Those in between will hear, “that’s a great idea,” “that’s a great idea,” “that’s a great idea too!”

The optimal relationship between these paradoxical positions is high certainty AND high open/reflective; the tendency to explore different viewpoints and formulate conclusions without becoming fixed in one’s opinions.

My friend Mary Lore wrote a book called Managing Thought.  In addition to selling the book, she delivers it for free one page a day.  http://www.managingthought.com.

Managing our thoughts and clarity go hand in hand.  Can you see this connection?  Your thinking clearly precedes providing clarity for anyone else?  Clear thinking comes from managing thoughts by asking the right questions, by engaging in thinking deeply and long-term about the impact of your words, your actions, and the potential responses from others.  For instance, being reactive (what Mary calls the “faithful-dog brain” and our reticular activation system) will focus on making us right.  The problem is, when stuck in that thinking, you risk becoming dogmatic.

*Evaluation of the impact of paradoxical relationships is unique to the Harrison Assessment which is a hiring assessment.  Dr. Harrison is coming to San Diego June 29th and will present a workshop in the morning on this topic.

Different teams require different structures, so for example sales teams require CRM.  That should be obvious, but for some organization it isn’t.  They probably aren’t reading this blog, because they have fallen behind in their technology savvy.

Today there is no excuse for not capturing sales data.  If you experience resistance from your sales management or a sales team member, you may be getting feedback from someone who doesn’t want to be measured, which suggests that person isn’t an ‘A’ player.  Look more deeply.

Senior executive teams need meetings with one another on a regular basis, and I do not mean meetings that get put off when there’s an emergency.  Consider that there are emergencies because you aren’t strategically thinking together regularly.

‘A’ teams need a leader who challenges them to think their best thoughts, be on their best behavior as a leader.  Challenging conversations are a structure.  They need report cards, theirs from you and theirs to you the CEO/President/Founder/Grand Poo-Bah of any title.  They need off-sites for strategic thinking and planning.  Those are structures.

What else do they need as a structure?  Executives need to be able to count on having conversations that matter deeply, whether they ask for them or not, in part because they need to learn how to hold those conversations with those who report to them.  I recently was asked to help a CEO hire a senior executive.  We used the Harrison Assessment to profile the candidate against the expectations of the position.  His results scared the potential employee off.  The CEO’s executive coach said to me, “Probably a good thing.  If the candidate doesn’t want to delve more transparently into himself then he won’t be a good fit for this team.”

If you need support for generating conversations that matter, on this website you can order senior executive team conversation starters.   And if you want to keep and inspire ‘A’ teams with structures, you will look beyond the obvious ones, which you know with your eyes closed.

In speaking about the loss of trust of CEOs with a friend recently he commented, “When the wealth starts to accumulate with male CEOs some strange behavior can surface. What I mean is that they start to get tempted into believing their own headlines and thinking like they are some sort of god.  All the rules and restrictions somehow don’t apply to them.  They get lured into believing they are invincible and that they are ‘the Masters of the Universe.’

“The resulting behavior and superiority complex leaves those around them in a place of distrust. They will only take care of themselves when the pressure of poor performance and job/pay cuts need to happen.  In other words they don’t create a “safe” work environment.

“I have an old saying that leaders who lack character will eventually be humbled and brought down by one of the three G’s:  1) Greed, 2) Glory or 3) Girls.  If you look back on all the CEOs in the ‘Hall of Shame’ one of those three was in play. I have personally witnessed several good CEOs get tempted by one of three G’s and lose the trust of their people and have a big fall. I also believe the higher you climb the more frequently these temptations get put in your path.”

My friend spent years in an HR capacity in large organizations.  I assert that trust is something that occurs in the “in-between,” between two people, or between an organization and it’s customers, its stakeholders, its suppliers, and its employees.  I have pretty good evidence that it takes time to build trust, and trust can be destroyed in an instant with an action, a statement, a change of view.

So as a leader what does it take to foster trust? How can you influence others’ generic views of your position or role?  This is an important dialogue.  I certainly spend considerable time thinking about, writing about, discussing and speaking on this topic.  I don’t have the answer.  I have some thoughts. I welcome yours.

One disturbing finding that led to these conversations is that only 17 percent of the 35-64 year old “informed publics” trust information given by a CEO about his or her company.  This was six-year low.

For better or for worse, my understanding is that, in terms of influence, it only takes about 15% of people agreeing to anything (a philosophy, a code of behavior, a belief) to change the tide and move the masses.  Robert Porter Lynch, who has done considerable research in the area of trust and leaders, posits that trust is the bedrock of democracy, and when our trust is damaged, we are doing damage to the very principles upon which this country is founded.  We are precipitously close to that tipping point.

Since I coach CEOs and their executive teams, I was personally appalled.  But more appalling than the sense that our business leaders have behaved badly and deserve this reputation — some do and most don’t — is my concern that all CEOs have been painted with the same brush as those who deserve to be penalized and put away for a very long time, damaging others’ reputations by association.  There are leaders who do wrong intentionally, and others who are simply careless.  In a Financial Times some months ago, for example, BP’s CEO Tony Hayward admitted that they were not prepared for a category disaster he called “low probability, high risk.” Indeed.

BP, after an estimated $20 bn leak with costs to our environment and the human psyche that are unconscionable and immeasurable finally began looking into their strategy and tools to resolve such risks.  Tony Hayward is not a bad person, but inadequate thinking and planning has exacted an extraordinarily high toll.  Regardless, whether they make a mistake of wrongful thinking, or they are out to get us as was the case with Bernie Madoff, bad decisions of those in power cost us trust in leaders inclusively.

A MUST READ for every executive is Herb Baum’s The Transparent Leader, in which Baum said, “A lot of executives who made headlines (because of a scandal) were just plain white-collar thieves who deserved to do time.  And there were others who were basically good people who made compromises when they shouldn’t have.  They stretched the truth because they thought they had to, and they made some business decisions that were short on integrity. They had risen to leadership positions, but they failed because they didn’t understand how to be open with various constituents and they were unable to build a culture base on trust in the organizations they led.”

Let’s assume leaders should do more to warrant our trust.  BP’s Hayward has admitted the criticism of the oil spill and subsequent inability to stop the damage was ‘entirely fair.”  Ok, it was an event, a mishap.  Let’s look at an ordinary, reoccurring factor.  Who is culpable, for instance, for extraordinarily high CEO wages?   Considerable finger wagging has been going on in the press at CEOs about this.  It isn’t the CEO who sets his or her own salary; it is the board of directors.  Yet they are invisible to the press in these stories.  So often our assumptions lead us to conclusions that malign others without full consideration for the facts.  This disturbs me greatly but I know I have done it, too.  Why is that?

Walking with a friend, I mentioned a situation that was just this kind of wrongful maligning, and she asked me, “How long does it take to find a witch?”  She was alluding to the days in Europe from 1480 to 1700 when legally sanctioned and official witchcraft trials resulted in from 40,000 to 100,000 executions. It was decided someone was a witch, and next thing you know that person was burned at the stake.

While we’ve moved beyond flagrantly burning people at the stake, we still do character assassinations every day, in the form of judgment and gossip.   Some of these finger wagging and witch-hunting and broad-brush painting are projections — making someone else responsible for what we, ourselves, don’t want to be responsible.

I enjoyed a day of creating the space for my entrepreneurial buddies to create their futures. Here we are collaging away.

I enjoyed the preparation and the creative expression of cooking, generating a fun, playful, yet intentional several hours. We collaged, we chatted, we laughed.

We enjoyed the camaraderie, the creative space and yes, the food. We are a small group of women who are expressing our creativity through art and looking forward into our futures together.

We think our marketing is so clever these days. Here these ducks have been drawing a crowd in this hotel lobby twice a day for over 50 years! The ducks come down, the ducks go up.

I watched the parade three times in two days, fascinated as much by the crowd as by the ducks (once I got over the ducks!).

It isn’t so surprising to know that people who aren’t suited to their jobs aren’t going to perform as well as those who sought out work that matched their interests, their desires, their values, who they are. It is surprising, however, that they stay miserable in their jobs, under-performing. Equally surprising to me is the fact that CEOs or senior executives or department, division heads allow/enable/tolerate “B” player behavior.

Why is that? What are they seeing, or not seeing? If you ask an “A” player — someone who performs extraordinary accomplishments on a regular basis — they will tell you it is discouraging to work along side a “B” player. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I didn’t make that up.

In the February 28 Forbes magazine, I in “Ten Tips: Great Restructuring Winners,” talent was one of the ten tips. It said, “Bill Gates once said that a great programmer is worth ten thousand times the price of a good programmer.” In other words, be sure you are garnering talent evolution versus talent deterioration because people are your key leverage point and “B” players hide inside the organization and take up time, energy, resources.

Too often “B” players are tolerated because leaders don’t measure what matters. “A” players LIKE to be measured. If you don’t measure them, they are very likely measuring themselves! “A” players have an internal yardstic against which they perform that “B” players lack.

I like Leonardo da Vinci’s statement on self-mastery. “One can have no smaller or greater mastery than mastery of oneself.”

Ask yourself, are you measuring what matters regarding your own performance? The performance of those who report to you? To really get mileage on the conversation however, I suggest sharing it with others in your workplace. See if, by shining a light on what matters, you will effectively raise the bar on your own performance and those around you.

This video came from a website called “Big Government.” I think my siblings, who were raised with me in the home of my very democrat father, think because I’m a republican I’m anti-social reform. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Oregon I voted Independent because there, Independents could vote in the primary election. Not so California.

Regardless, I am all for social reform and I put money where my mouth is. I pay for it in my volunteering efforts for local not for profits. I pay for it in my voluntary contributions to organizations such as the Salvation Army, which feeds the hunger on Christmas (in my downtown San Diego neighborhood). (The CEO of the Salvation Army is not extracting huge sums of money for his phenomenal work as a CEO. He makes, relatively speaking, a living wage and no more.) Our material contributions to the local Salvation Army store count thousands of dollars this year alone. And yes, I could do more, and I feel that all the time. My own work focus is in generating leaders who are interested in values, integrity, trust… accountability.

Over the years I have stayed away from politics — and certainly have never opined about it — because it’s so confusing and I doubt we’re very well informed as a public, and I certainly know I don’t follow politics like some people follow parties and their stands. However, I’ve paid a lot of attention recently and I think both parties are screwed up and have forgotten who they work for — the American population. I also believe that politics should NOT be a “profession,” which it has sadly become. There is so much posturing and feigning truth I have a hard time believing anyone. With Republicans picking up seats nationally, one would think they would stop bickering and find a platform. But no….

What I do know is that our California state budget is a mess, the San Diego city budget is a mess, and the federal government is throwing money at solving problems that money won’t solve, and that worries me. This is a mess.

What I also know is that the federal government (never mind the political party in charge) has a lousy record of solving our nation’s problems and we certainly have paid a handsome bill for lack of performance. This video is worth a listen regardless of the side of the political fence you sit on. Perhaps it will raise a few questions, which is a good thing. It certainly doesn’t answer any!

So, sticking my toe in the proverbial political waters here, I posit (pontificate, opine) that what we need is more caring, less judging, and more inquiry into what really is occurring in Washingon DC that has long-term implications. Join me in caring and inquiry, will you?