This NYT piece profiles three labor leaders who are women…that’s right, women. And they aren’t the heads of nurses or teachers unions.

Some would argue that this is simply a reflection of the changing demographic – but I think it is more than that.  Today’s labor leaders live in an increasingly complex world, where the old style game of “chicken” that characterized negotiations may no longer be effective.  As states entertain right-to-work policies, governors play hard ball with public employee unions and concessionary contracts become commonplace, the ability for a leader to create communities, build consensus and advance compromise as an acceptable, even successful outcome, has never been greater. 

As I read about these women, there is a notable absence of “scorched earth” in their success stories, and an increased focus on being more broadly relevant to their communities at large – not just their immediate membership.  This is a model that would serve leaders of all kinds well.  Iconic leaders don’t just represent their own company, their own employees, or their own customers – they are the voice of an industry, or of the business at large.   They stimulate conversation on broadly relevant issues.  They lead.

As Governor Christie determined that this was “not his time” to run for President, it occurs to me that when it comes to NJ’s reputation, his short time in the national spotlight was more than enough to reinforce that negative reputation of NJ that is perpetuated through television shows like The Sopranos and Jersey Shore.  Sure, I chuckled when our Governor told people to “Get the Hell off the Beach” when they ignored evacuation orders just hours before Hurricane Irene rolled in.  But I also wince every time he tells a constituent to “Mind Your Own Business” (Even though I’ve also chosen Catholic School for my children.).   And I positively cringe when he talks about his “Jersey Style” Bipartisan Approach – bullying is neither “Jersey Style” nor bipartisan.  Telling the media he wishes they’d take a bat to a certain legislators head isn’t bipartisan.  Makes for great copy.  But not the stuff of great reputations.

No doubt friends and colleagues are going to point out that nearly 50 percent of NJ residents approve of his performance, largely due to his willingness to take on tough issues.  He deserves credit for that.  Even when I agree with him, I disagree with his approach.  But without changing gears into a political debate – my view is that leaders – whether in statehouses, in boardrooms or in classrooms – have a responsibility to elevate the teams they lead.  Straight talk can be an asset – it builds credibility, and making headlines is a sure fire way to remain relevant.  But it’s hard to trust someone who approaches every leadership challenge like a bar room brawl.   And relevance without trust gets you action – just not usually the action you want.  Case in point – NJ’s continued reputational challenges.

Leaders of our states and our country have a solemn responsibility to tend to our reputation.  My view is this: with America’s reputational problems around the world, we need a Commander in Chief who will enhance our reputation, not undermine it.  So on this point, I can agree with Governor Christie.  It’s not his time.

But what really caught my attention was the emphasis on trust…internally…as the foundation of great teams.  At MWW Group, our POV is simple, and straightforward:

TRUST + RELEVANCE = ACTION

Typically, and particularly in our current environment, the discussion of trust centers largely around earning and preserving the trust of your stakeholders – mostly customers, investors and other external constituencies.

The notion that teams can’t function well…that leaders can’t effectively lead…unless there is trust inside the organization is an important one.   Today, we are talking about it as an issue of effectiveness.  But for those thinking beyond the immediate 10 percent unemployment reality, it is also the key to retaining talent.  Great employees have job opportunities in any economy.  And when the power shifts in the talent equation back to the employees, trust will be a key driver of whether your team sticks, or moves on.

How can a leader foster trust internally?

• Tell your own stories….share news (good or bad) before they hear it somewhere else.
• Share the credit…no one wants to worry that their boss (or their boss’ boss) is taking credit for their ideas, their work or their success.
• Review your actions….does what you DO match what you say?  Do you claim to hate internal politics, yet reward the political operatives with plum assignments?  Do employees who challenge conventional wisdom get rewarded?  Or sent to career Siberia?
• Review your policies – do you restrict your team from use of social media, because you are afraid of what they will say?  Do you have overly restrictive policies governing employee’s time?

Trust is a two way street.  You have to give it, to get it.

Believe me, I have a few of those stories myself – a boss who used to make a mess every Friday, then skip out early and leave me to clean it up. The guy who told me straight up that he hadn’t hired me, and was going to make me quit. (Apparently my first job manicure, Ann Taylor suit and earnest expression rubbed him the wrong way.)

Which begs the question, what makes a horrible boss? And is a horrible boss truly a horrible leader, or is there a disconnect between what employees think is important and what leaders think is important?

Check out this piece from Forbes, which describes the Body Language of horrible bosses. Some of these are so obvious, they are funny – like you shouldn’t practice your golf swing while a member of your team is pitching an idea. Or a male boss staring at a female employee’s chest. But there are some occupational hazards of modern day leadership that could put you in the bad boss category:

• Failing to acknowledge people in the hall – Has your organization grown rapidly? Are there interns in the corridor whose name you are embarrassed to admit you don’t know? There is only one boss – it’s easy for people to know your name. Ask for a chart of interns with names and photos. Smile and say hello.

• Multi-tasking – people want your full attention. Yet we live in a world where multi-tasking is a survival skill. E-mail has set expectations that people get instant gratification and response. We want to take notes while someone speaks, maybe on a laptop or an iPad. How is this impacting your effectiveness as a leader?

• Claiming an open door, then “glaring” at someone who stops by without an appointment – your busy day is not their problem. If you are too busy to be interrupted, close your door.

Dream Team CEOs treat government as a line of business.

Entire businesses have been built using government as a key line of business and source of revenue. Highly regulated businesses can tell you in dollars and cents the impact of government on their Company. But the implications here are significant – even if you don’t do business with the government, and even if you aren’t a regulated company, government matters. A lot.

At MWW Group, more than two decades ago, we began advocating a strategy we’ve dubbed Government as a Marketing tool. And it is more relevant than ever today. In order to be viewed as a leader among your peers, to be the kind of company that is trusted, and relevant to your employees, stakeholders, investors and communities, you need to be engaged and active with government leaders and influencers. Not only to advocate for issues that impact your business, but to be a thought leader. An advisor. A go-to resource.

Being among the most admired CEOs requires a great track record, and a solid leadership reputation. And while the first can fuel the second, these two things don’t automatically go together. Government provides an unrivaled bully pulpit for establishing trust and relevance. It is a key part of every company’s “network.”
This is a philosophy that we don’t just preach – we practice it, too. For ourselves and for our clients. Do you?

Which begs the question – is 100 days a meaningful metric, or is it just hype?

I think it depends on how you define success. The idea that 100 Days is the be all and end all – hype. The value of the first 100 days is that it is a “fresh start” period – one where your stakeholders are listening and paying attention – they are looking for direction and guidance. They want to be led. Lead and communicate effectively in the First 100 days, and the job of continual leadership gets much easier.

The First 100 Days can be an effective tool for building reputation and establishing leadership. Here are my 5 Golden Rules for effective 100 days programs, and sustainable leadership.

• Define success…and its interim benchmarks – this is a unique opportunity to change the yardstick by which you will be judged. Set goals, and tell stakeholders what the interim success steps will be. This is a tried and true strategy for IR/financial communications that is equally effective with multi-stakeholder programs.

• Listen Actively – leadership transitions always mean change – whether a moderate evolution or a dramatic revolution. Your stakeholders will be listening to what you say, but more importantly they will be watching what you do. Do you walk your talk? And do you really hear their concerns, suggestions and observations? Seek feedback. Encourage dialogue. Success today requires conversation, not just messaging.

• Establish and articulate priorities – it might be your vision for the Company. But if a leader is new to an organization after an abrupt transition, you may need to use that initial period to learn and formulate a plan. But even if a plan is underway, you can define the process for creating a plan, and articulate big picture goals for the organization. Don’t assume people know what is important….you need to tell them.

• Translate priorities into individual actions – It’s easy to say “We need to be a more customer centric organization.” But what does that mean to individuals in different departments? What do you want them to think about? And what do you want them to DO differently? Be clear about the “how” and the “why” as well as the “what” (the goal).

• Cultivate, recruit and engage your advocates and third party endorsers – To be successful, every leader needs ambassadors and embassies. The time to recruit and cultivate advocates and ambassadors, both within your organization and outside your Company, is now. And don’t confuse “yes men” with advocates. Often the most vocal and effective advocates will be the ones who have questions, or are skeptics…because once they buy in, they really believe. Their questions are good indicators of the issues that others may be thinking but not saying.

Google’s solution? Look inward. Take Google’s famous, analytical, algorithmed expertise inward in an effort to grow better managers, and create a culture that will work for the larger, more mature organization. They’ve identified the 8 qualities they need in their leaders, ranked them and implemented quarterly reviews to see how their managers are performing.

One great take-away – we often give our employees a long list of what is important, with no prioritization….faced with too many things to think about, they become paralyzed. This is why so many culture initiatives suffer from “organ rejection” in the organization. At Google, they were placing the greatest value for leaders on the quality that employees valued the least – technical, code-writing expertise. The moral of that story – even engineers want someone who will talk to them.

But can people be algorithmed? In an engineering-centric organization full of analytical thinkers like Google, the answer may be yes. And I think all leaders appreciate clarity around how they will be judged, and a road map to success. And leadership transitions are a good time to look at culture – you are presented with an opportunity to refresh the organization’s priorities and common goals.

Will it be enough to get Google out-innovating the market again, providing growth in its mature business? If Google had the algorithm for that, we wouldn’t be reading about their leadership initiatives…we’d be reading about their new, game changing innovations.

The answer: my dining room table, when my entire family is asleep. Is this the side effect of leadership? You spend so much time meeting, calling, collaborating…and well, leading, that you don’t have any time to do work?

Last week I had one of those weeks….where I had the proverbial “take a number” line all day, every day….everyone just needed a minute, and I didn’t have one. Calls, meetings, a 24-hour whirlwind trip to visit a client.

It begs the question –are leadership and productivity mutually exclusive?

On balance, I think the answer is no. But last week, it sure felt like it. At least I know I am not alone.

Yet the ultimate leadership metric, the way we judge our CEOs, remains largely correlated to the creation of shareholder value, even if that value comes on the backs of employees, customers and communities.  We claim that we hold leaders accountable for things like citizenship, environmental stewardship and employee satisfaction.  Yet we reward them, and compensate them on something different entirely.

At Davos, global leaders convened to collaborate on some of the world’s biggest problems, with a theme of “Shared Norms for the New Reality.”  One new reality is that as our world changes, how we measure success must change with it.  This is the point made by MWW Group client Kari Stoever of GAIN, whose post on the Huffington Post today challenges leaders to create a new “index” that measures CEO success based on benefits to the people who are their customers, rather than just their shareholders.

How do you think leaders should be judged?  Let the debate begin.

Few would argue that founders care more than the average bear about their Company, its employees, its customers and its future. Transition of leadership from a founder can often cause angst in the marketplace – from Steve Jobs’ illness to the rather public ousting of Seventh Generation’s founder.

Which leads to an interesting case…Google. Larry Schmidt, who oversaw the Google IPO and navigated the early skepticism around search and ad models, is passing the reigns back to one of its founders, Larry Page. Continued day-to-day engagement of the founders is making lots of stakeholders feel comfortable and confident, and many point out that Schmidt has been mentoring Page to prepare him for the top job. All sounds good. Except for one thing – Larry Page has never been a CEO before, much less a public company CEO. Or the CEO of a Company facing competitive pressure like it’s never seen before – from giants like Facebook and Apple.

It is an interesting contrast that questions abound about whether acting CEO Tim Cook has the vision to lead Apple forward if Jobs doesn’t return, while Schmidt prepares to become “schmoozer in chief” claiming that adult supervision is no longer required at Google. (Not sure those would have been my recommended choice of words!)

Seems the “founder” currency is very powerful indeed.