Comments

Unsurprisingly John I agree with you completely.

Whether we are ‘leaders’ or not, to be remembered as someone who helped others reach their potential, is a desirable state.

Recently I went to see my great political hero Tony Benn (aged 83 going on 18) speak at his latest book launch. Tony (as far as I and many others are concerned, the greatest Prime Minister Britain never had) was asked by someone in the audience; “How would you like to be remembered?” Tony responded - 'He encouraged us.'

That's good enough for me John and thanks for a superb post.

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 12, 2008 5:03 PM

Great thought. Focusing leaders on surrounding themselves with people far more capable than them, ultimately making themselves redundant and future-proofing their success in the process. Simple and smart thinking. Thanks for that.

Posted by Matt Jones at November 12, 2008 6:21 PM

Thanks, Trevor. What I didn't mention in the post is that one of the two senior leaders (whose name was Dick) who nurtured so much frontline talent was a fairly quiet fellow who didn't have a light-up-the-room personality and didn't draw much attention to himself. So if you were just focused on HIM you might not have noticed who was coming to life around him. Every team he sponsored or championed produced prime-time leaders. I'm sure anyone reading this thread can think of similar self-effacing leaders in their life ("un-leaders" in some respects) who are known mainly for their fruit. (Sorry - I gotta get off this gardening metaphor.)

Posted by John O'Leary at November 12, 2008 6:24 PM

Love the gardening metaphor John. Three years ago I wrote something called “The Nine Fruits of Leadership” (happy to share that with you) so I can relate to that particular metaphor well. The best leaders I've worked for, or with, have in common the traits of humility (almost to the point of self-deprecation) and unpretentiousness (if there is such a word). Long live front liners and the ‘quiet’ leaders as far as I’m concerned.

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 12, 2008 6:40 PM

it's hard for me to believe copeland can be that magnanimous. two decades ago sting destroyed the band -- copeland's baby -- by leaving. nice sentiment tho if he can take pride in sting's achievements. he's a better man than i.

Posted by Mr. D. at November 12, 2008 7:17 PM

Nice post, John. It makes me think of all the best teachers and managers I've had, plus the greatest coaches in sports. No particular thing about the demeanor of John Wooden or Joe Paterno would blow you away at first . . . but then you look at the huge number of men they've shaped -- not just as ball-players, but as people.

Posted by Tim Walker at November 12, 2008 10:00 PM

Leaders have the ability to enroll. To get people to see the vision like it's their own. Using the musical analogy, when you hear a great tune and know the words you want to sing along.

Posted by Joel Martin at November 12, 2008 11:19 PM

I've always believed that the purpose of leadership is to create more leaders.

Of course, the purpose of rock bands is to break up. Before they've run out of good music, not after.

Posted by Joel D Canfield at November 13, 2008 1:18 AM

The really good moments for a people manager are not just when someone you are helping shines but when that person had no idea they were capable of doing what they have just done. That is amazing.

I recently had a fabulous talent in my team come back from a secondment project where she had basically taken charge of several key meetings. She had done this quite naturally - it was not part of her remit. She came back to her "day job" with the biggest grin I have ever seen and said "I have just had a life changing experience"

That is the reason why management is a special job. This qtrs results are next qtrs recycling but the impact on people lasts a lifetime.

Posted by PaulH at November 13, 2008 3:16 AM

John,

This is a really good way of looking at leadership success. Everyone needs a mentor. Everyone needs to be inspired. And everyone needs to be given opportunities to succeed.

More leaders should think like this and judge their own success (partly) on the fruits of their talent output.

Posted by Simon Cooper at November 13, 2008 3:58 AM

I agree Simon and actually I believe the truly great leaders DO judge their success ‘currency’ on non-financial grounds such as the talent they produce mentor and encourage.

Forgive me for using football (soccer) again to illustrate my point

If you look my greatest leadership icon, Sir Alex Ferguson as an example it is clear from his book ‘Managing My Life’ that Sir Alex is not – and never has been – motivated by money.

We look at his legacy (which is still being developed of course) and it is about producing some of the greatest talent that has ever graced a football (soccer) pitch anywhere in the world. Just look at a mere handful of the many legendary, world class players that Sir Alex has discovered and/or or mentored over the last 23 years; Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, David Beckham, Eric Cantona, Nicky Butt, Gary Neville, Phil Neville, Cristiano Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney ... the list just goes on and on. And all of them have publicly stated what a terrific debt they owe to the great man. Followers are ALWAYS the best judge of leaders.

I’m absolutely certain that Sir Alex enjoys watching these players in action much more than he enjoys looking at his bank balance. I see no reason whatsoever why any leader, at any level, whether it be the head cook in a kitchen, the senior solicitor in a practice, a nurse team leader or the manager of Manchester United Football Club cannot have that same motivation toward producing new talent and having that as the number one item on their ‘to do’ list.

To be inspired ONLY by money is the WORST motivation for any leader in my opinion. I actually don’t believe many of them are motivated by money alone ….

What a sad life that would be anyway …..

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 13, 2008 4:32 AM

While I agree with the overall point about people development, I have my doubts about the example of Sting and Stewart Copeland. There seems to be a degree of historical revisionism going on in Mr. Copeland's comments: at the time, the relationship between all three band members was notoriously volatile. Fist fights, rows, seperate limos, intense jealousy about each others relative input and remuneration, rows about whose songs should appear on the records (and one famous story about a band member stealing and burying a master tape of another's song) - this was hardly a supportive and nurturing environment.

It's good to see that time has given Mr. Copeland a wiser perspective but you could also argue that if you're looking for rock / business parallels, The Police are a textbook example of how not to long-term manage talent within an organisation! Mind you, they're a good example of a team that recognises it's own strengths, comes together for a specific purpose, generally turns the friction and bad times into something good and then disbands shortly before they can kill each other.

Posted by Mark JF at November 13, 2008 4:52 AM

Didn't The Police become one of the biggest concert earners during their comeback tour so somebody somewhere must have buried a few hatchets (and not inbetween the shoulder blades of other band members!).

The Spice Girls got back together for one tour and then split once more and (dare I say it) didn't Hell Freeze Over for another band who split acrimoniously a few years ago?

Some bands have kept going despite major splits and departure. Take Oasis. Liam and Noel are the only original members from the first album, but I took great pride recently when I found out that one of the newer members - Gem Archer - was the same guy that I'd seen on stage with his first band The Edge back in the 1980's. He later asked me to do the cover shot of the band for their first single. I often wondered what had happened to him because he was talented both with the band and on other work from that period (a TV appearance with now actress Jan Graveson springs to mind) Now I know...

Posted by Keith Rickaby at November 13, 2008 7:19 AM

Keith – thanks for providing the opportunity for me to mention the band that will remain nameless that indeed did suggest Hell would freeze over before they got back together. Don’t you just love this extract from a Don Henley CNN interview? – For me its typical, wonderful Henley tongue in cheek cynicism

The full interview is at this link http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/16/don.henley/

CNN: So how are you guys all getting along these days?

HENLEY: The same. (Laughs)

CNN: For better or worse?

HENLEY: All that stuff has been exaggerated. You ask any band if they get along all the time, and they will tell you, "Of course not." But we get along, I'd say, as well as any band does.

There's something we've created called the Eagles that's more important than any one of us individually. And we serve that. You know, we call it "The Mothership." We can all do this, that and the other, but we always come back to the Mothership. It's something that we all built together.

And all this stuff about fighting in the band, and brawling, and fistfights and all that stuff has been grossly exaggerated. When it gets reprinted, and our publicist says, "Well, where'd you get that information," they invariably say, "I read it on the Internet" -- as if the Internet were some source of truth! The Internet is no more accurate than the New York Post, you know.

(Looks straight into the camera lens)

Put that in! (Laughs)

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 13, 2008 8:14 AM

Nearly forgot about this one - the manager of The Edge (as mentioned in last post above) was a guy called Keith Naisbitt. Keith Naisbitt was last heard of in a documentary about three years ago on local TV around Newcastle and was living in LA and looking after various aspects of the careers of artists such as Whitney Houston... His creativity back in the 80's wasn''t just confined to managing The Edge. He was also trying to land an up and coming band to play at the local student's union at Durham University. The band were just breaking through, then they went huge and then broke up. They've also reformed and hit the stage once more. Step forward The Bangles...
Another example of talent seen at an early stage in their career was a chap called Danny Cannon. His first major film (Young Americans) isn't available on DVD over here, but it starred Harvey Keitel and and up and coming actress called Thandie Newton. He then went on to direct Judge Dredd and ended up as Executive Producer (and sometimes director of) a little TV series set in Las Vegas called CSI. His confidence and self-belief at the press conference for Young Americans pointed the way for what was to come later on in his career.

Posted by Keith Rickaby at November 13, 2008 8:16 AM

Thanks, John, for the post. I found your comment about development and promotion real and interesting. There is no doubt, keeping with the fruit analogy, that the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Also, in the same vein, the fruit of love, which is the basis of leadership, is collective. Love is the best gathering force that initiates and implements projects, bringing together important elements such as respect, creativity, openness, passion, rigor, ambition, and thoughtfulness. Where love is lacking there is a lot to be desired. Have you worked on a project where nobody cared? Where ambition was the only driving force? Where apathy was so deep that it's difficult to go into the office?

The leader sets the tone and guides the group. While this is happening, it may appear that all is well and the direction is copasetic; the numbers may even prove so at the moment. But some years later some have argued that if you look at that leader's company and those of his proteges, there is, in fact, much to be desired. In such a case, has the leader not developed his proteges well and promoted unsustainable models over the long haul? Or, is it a matter of the necessity of change? (Disclaimer: What's to come is NOT an indictment of any one man nor of any one company. I am not adept to speak in depth about these things. These are just thoughts from a point of leadership and succession.)

Consider GE, for example. Some point to financial engineering as a big culprit in its steady stock decline over the years as well as the companies of those that have taken on this model. This model appears to have reduced products and expanded paper. Many leaders came out of the mode of Mr. Welsh and have themselves come to lead major companies. Leaders were "popping up like shoots around" him, pointing to the fact that he had "likely done something right." We are sure he did and we have enjoyed reading his books and have learned from them as well. Many thanks!

But why the steady stock decline of these companies over the years? Perhaps as leaders we give what we can give at any particular time. Perhaps what's also important is to be forever open and honest about where we are and quick to change directions once we see things clearer. For this, Paulson can be appreciated. He came out yesterday and said we have made changes to the financial rescue package because "the facts changed and the situation worsened." We can't throw money at bad paper whose worth can’t even be determined. Many have always thought that thought this was ill-conceived. Perhaps this was a bit of election fever to propose such a thing from the start. As Paulson sees it, credit has improved but other industries have worsened.

But what happens when we do not see that our processes or plans are ill-conceived and we continue to develop and promote them? Could it be the toppling or the threat thereof of the leaders' companies and the proteges' companies too? Can the blame be laid at the feet of the leader? Some have remarked that Mr. Welsh's GE and the companies of all his proteges are now in trouble because of a bad business model. Personally, I don’t know. These are just thoughts.

Were these comments suppose to have a musical theme, preferably from bands of the 70s? By the way, I love Sting!

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 13, 2008 8:47 AM

Great points, all.

"The purpose of bands is to break up." I'm going to quote you on that one, Joel. R&R bands have much to teach about "creative destruction" and the virtues of self-annihilation once they've made their contribution. (It's somehow fitting that Shiva - the Destroyer - holds divine status in the Hindu tradition.

"...that person had no idea they were capable of doing what they have just done." Yes, it doesn't get much better than that, PaulH.

Trevor, what a nice surprise to hear a football metaphor from you. Oh, and you're an Eagles fan too?

MarkJF, to be sure, Copeland has come a long way in making peace with his band mate. But it's been my experience that many great bands - especially from the classic rock era - had similar conflicts, creative and personal, that helped fuel their success and eventually blew them apart. (The Police were no more dysfunctional than the Beach Boys, Kinks, Cream, Fleetwood Mac, and - yes - Eagles, for instance. The Who were even worse - but stayed together.) The great bands (and great business teams in general) learn how to capitalize on conflict long enough to put out great product before they separate.

Keith, I believe the $358 million the Police made on their recent 15-month tour was the third-highest in rock history.

Judith, it's a point well-taken that an increase in the quantity of emerging leaders doesn't guarantee an increase in quality, and therefore it's an imprecise measurement.

Posted by John O'Leary at November 13, 2008 3:18 PM

John

I know little or nothing about bands... I was in a couple as a young man but that was mainly a deliberate ploy to "pull chicks". I read Ronnie Woods book and that was fun - Mick was the leader/manager and Keith was the spiritual/tribal elder of the Stones if I got it right??? I am sure there are many valuable lessons to be learned from these successful groups about leadership. Even if I would not suggest some of these types as role models for my kids.

Trevor

You are right many great lessons can be learned about leadership from the sporting fields of our countries. Sir Alex is a good example but in every country there are stand out leaders who have something to teach us all!

John and Trevor... you two got me thinking about what it takes to farm a winning culture within a band a team or an organisation...

How do you develop a winning culture?

Set standards. Model those standards. Hold people to those standards. If people do not want to meet the standards set then simply fire them – that includes customers.

Recognise talent ahead of skills. Talent is the ability to focus above and beyond the others around you. To have fun doing what you are doing and to keep doing it when most others would quit. To enjoy what you are doing even when it is not going that well. To bring passion to what you do. To listen to critical feedback. To learn by watching the best do what they do.

Close the door on the old culture. Develop a new culture rather than change the old one. Be sure this new culture runs on passion, heart, and brainpower. Be sure the new culture is the result of purpose-driven groups. Be sure that the new culture is tribal and thus self-regulating.

Get the best out of people. Be sure to utilise all the talented people on staff and within your customer base. Be sure you encourage all your talented people to set new standards of behaviour and performance. Be sure to reward your talent in line with their achievements. Be sure that your talent rewards system is transparent and equitable.

Richard

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at November 13, 2008 3:35 PM

Thanks, John. Imprecise measurement...yes. There is also perhaps something to be said for the ability to change directions and admit to mistakes. Humility, which requires daily effort on some level or another, seems essential.

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 13, 2008 3:42 PM

I must say, gentlemen, that these sport analogies and the same references are getting a bit old. Perhaps it's because I have been here for a year now and to someone popping in for the first time it's great! Maybe it's just me. (Though, I am a big sports fan who enjoys playing sports too!) Although ideas are forever recycled, as there is nothing new under the sun, perhaps we can begin to be bolder, perhaps create and recycle from another pool of references and varied ideas. Perhaps we can become more relevant now! The discussion feels old. There's a lot happening in the world applicable to this post RIGHT NOW!

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 13, 2008 3:58 PM

What a wonderful way to look at leadership. Too many leaders are defensive and always watching their backs or feel threatened by those they are leading. Leaders should cultivate talent and intelligence around them. That sort of approach always makes someone a better leader.

Posted by Cathy @ RiseSmart at November 13, 2008 5:34 PM

Great John...consider your idea stolen...(with all appropriate acknowledgements of course)...Hope you are well..hoping to make a beantown run to see you and the kids soon...mtn

Posted by mike Neiss at November 13, 2008 5:58 PM

Judith, in thinking more about the quantity/quality thing in growing leaders I can see that on the world stage some unsavory leaders have succeeded in growing a number of unsavory leaders in their image. In the early 1920s a certain Austrian malcontent took over a political party in Munich and inspired a coterie of grotesque individuals who eventually became part of the leadership of a new German state. (I suppose one COULD argue that they weren't "leaders" in one sense of the word - that is, they weren't capable of thinking for themselves.)

Richard, can't argue with your steps for developing a winning culture. By the way, the first leader of the Rolling Stones was the late, great Brian Jones, who put the band together.

Mike, it would be great to see you. (I still owe you $10 by the way. Can you wait another year on that?)

Posted by John O'Leary at November 13, 2008 9:58 PM

It looks like Sting has inspired more than a few artists. I love John Mayer's "Message in a Bottle" cover. The original is, needless to say, awesome! But the single acoustic guitar, slower tempo, and the twist of soul is cool too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmYys-ZjNrg

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 13, 2008 11:45 PM

I love the ideas around rewarding people for development of others.

One of the biggest challenges we have in management as a career is the perception that better is always upwards. That people who stay in a line manager job have somehow failed to progress. In the technical roles this has become less (new career paths for exceptional technical talent) why doesn't apply to managers too?

Many people I know who have remained in this level of management have made a real craft out of people development.

We are just getting used to the idea of paying top technical talent more than their manager. Can we not get used to the idea of paying an exceptional junior manager more than their middle manager?

Perhaps a line manager's pay increase should be linked to a percentage of the pay of all the people they have developed over the years - The more sucessful your protegees are the more you get paid!

Posted by PaulH at November 14, 2008 5:59 AM

John, this post has reminded me of a related point around the leadership of talent. There was a fantastic TV programme on recently documenting the early years of (my hero!) Simon Rattle's incumbency as the conductor of the world renowned Berlin Philharmonic (a job, by the way, that is appointed by the vote of the whole orchestra!).

In it, Rattle reflected on the astonishing paradox that exists for top performing musicians; in order to be accepted at these highest levels, the degree of expertise required is phenomenal, requiring personal dedication and sacrifice. And yet, as members of a 'band' their individual talent is rarely showcased. In the Berlin Phil, they somehow manage to create a collective culture that overcomes that individual desire to be recognised for the immense talent they have developed.

It seems to me that all of the bands cited above have broken up at the point when talented individuals have been unable to see being part of a great group ahead of their own personal ambitions to succeed. Most understandable, and maybe for the best?

Having sung under Simon Rattle's baton, I was given pause for thought about how he manages to deal with those super sensitive artistic egos and to keep alive a tradition of excellence that began in 1882?

My experience of the man is that he is a consummate professional, who knows his musical score intimately. He is always highly enthusiastic about the piece he is conducting, and manages physically to convey that enthusiasm through his rehearsing and conducting. My final memory of his style is that he is most respectful of musicians (even when they deserve a dressing down!) and generates excellence through his aspirations, not his admonitions! Oh, and he is personally most modest.

I don't suppose any of the rock musicians cited above went into their musical careers with leadership aspirations? I am sure they simply loved playing/singing and wanted to make a living at doing it. But once you have a success, unfortunately it needs to be managed or it dies......

Posted by Madeleine at November 14, 2008 7:52 AM

Thank you! Thank you, Madeleine! Thank you! I love this: "My final memory of his style is that he is most respectful of musicians (even when they deserve a dressing down!) and generates excellence through his aspirations, not his admonitions! Oh, and he is personally most modest." What a man, one to emulate! Although I appreciate modesty, one like the great Leonard Bernstein would perhaps be the exact opposite in the modest category. But what an inspiring leader he was! Personality aside, we get it when others care more about themselves than anything. The air around them thins.

I know well about the sensitive ego involved in such creative settings. Since a very early age I have watched the great conductors and singers up close including the conductor Sir Richard Bonynge and his wife, the great Dame Joan Sutherland. They were such renowned figures and such exceptional artists, inspiring countless of other young singers and musicians. They NEVER made the chorus, nor the other lead performers feel less than. The opera was the whole that consisted of many necessary parts.

When I was 15 or so I was in the chorus when Dame Sutherland performed her famous role Norma and her husband conducted. They were perfectionists indeed. But once you have arrived at such a level the great ones realize the difficulty of the journey and that the whole is far greater than any one part no matter how great the part. (I have been up close with Pavarotti as well and he exuded the same likeness.) I had the opportunity to speak with them on several occasions and they always made me feel like I too could achieve such greatness. Great leaders inspire others to believe that anything is possible.

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 14, 2008 8:33 AM

John....consider the 10 bucks your bailout...:)

Posted by mike Neiss at November 14, 2008 12:11 PM

Too funny, Mike! Too funny!

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 14, 2008 12:26 PM

I had the great fortune to be coached by John for several years. I have since retired (which means that I am consulting while I watch my retirement funds fade into oblivion). When I think back about my career, I am somewhat proud of my rise from Jr. Programmer to Sr VP and CIO, I am somewhat proud of turning around a few major projects that had truned into disasters. But the thing that makes me beam is thinking about the people who reported to me that grew and went on to become great successes. Some of them stayed in the company and took on greater responsibilities, some became Sr. VPs, some of them left to take great growth positions in other organizations, some of them left the field altogether to chase ther own dreams, including starting a major ministry in eastern Europe. I take absolutely no credit for their succeess, in fact I give them the credit for mine. But I do take great pride in their success...and maybe I just saw something in them and gave them the space to let it grow. Looking back, there is nothing about my career that means as much to me as that. Thanks John!!!

Posted by Dick at November 14, 2008 8:18 PM

Two thoughts: there is a lot of resonance with Jim Collins' Good to Great here in terms of leader qualities. Second, I suggest that one of the greatest most liberating things a leader can give their team is the confidence, courage, even the incentive, to fail while trying. In too many organisations I have worked for (and with) failure is a black spot, unwelcomed and hastily hidden away. From that culture emerge people who rise to the top by playing the game and working the system, not the best leaders for tomorrow.

Posted by Rob at November 15, 2008 3:28 AM

Well said Rob – I’m with you.

With one or two exceptions – such as surgeons and pilots – I feel comfortable about allowing mistakes because it means the person is growing. I think Tom has said on many occasions that the career of most of the successful leaders contains at least one almighty public screw up.

I’ll join you Rob in raising a glass to celebrate mistakes.

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 15, 2008 3:45 AM

Kampai.

Posted by Rob at November 15, 2008 4:24 AM

Rob - Thank you. Well said, indeed. Failures are future openings. I have had my share of both.

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 15, 2008 9:07 AM

PaulH: here's another twist...I was just talking to someone in a US government agency who said the only way they could get an unproductive manager "out of the way" was to PROMOTE the person to a meaningless "individual contributor" position where they weren't negatively affecting others. (THAT's a good solution.) "Perhaps a line manager's pay increase should be linked to a percentage of the pay of all the people they have developed over the years - The more sucessful your protegees are the more you get paid!" Nicely done. A "network marketing" model for management compensation.

Madeleine: I could do a whole post on your comments! To take one point, I've always preferred the musician who is willing to sacrifice his/her individual glory to contribute to the group and take pride and satisfaction in the team accomplishments first. That's why I celebrate the achievements of the Beatles - the best musical example of "team" in their heyday. But, yes, the centrifugal forces of individual ambition often break up the best of teams in the end. Your question whether there have been rock musicians who began their careers with leadership aspirations is a great one, which I'll have to ponder for awhile.

Judith: I'll have to get myself educated in opera to fully appreciate the lessons it can teach us. Is soap opera close enough?

Mike: thanks for the $10 bailout. I can use it as a loan guarantee.

Dick: we can't go on meeting this way! It's been 2 years since I've heard from you. Anyway, thanks for being the inspiration for this post.

Rob, Trevor, Judith: as Tom has said in every possible way, fail fast, early, and often.

Posted by John O'Leary at November 15, 2008 11:36 AM

John, Tom has usually been there already. But whereas "fail fast, early and often" is a mantra for the individual, to give space and licence for others to fail, knowing that you will take the rap if the failure gets too messy, is where leadership stripes get earned.

Yours from the midst of the broken glass.

Posted by Rob at November 15, 2008 12:28 PM

John - I'd say soap opera was close enough; the plots of both can be way out there. But such is life. There must be something important about managing the implausible, as there seems to be no stopping what appears often like the inevitable. Great leaders, I guess, know how to roll with the times, adjusting whenever necessary.

As I watched the global leaders gather in Washington to address the global financial crisis, a single thought came to mind: I wondered if leadership will come from those who have not yet arisen and if the power to change will come from the masses and not necessarily the world leaders.

Our leaders seem to be quite unsure. Although the young assistant treasury secretary, Neel Kashkari, is very impressive.

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 15, 2008 5:01 PM

I couldn't agree more. It's not always a matter of work with what you have and "make those numbers". The more developed team you have, the better off the manager is. If you work at developing staff into leaders, you end up with sort of "mini-supervisors". Everyone wants to make a contribution. Done right, you "make those numbers" with a lot less effort.

Posted by Andy Uskavitch at November 16, 2008 4:42 PM

I received an email this afternoon which included the introduction and chapter one of Jack Bogle's newest book, Enough. True Measures of Money, Business and Life. (Great title!) I thought the attachments relevant to a comment I made here a few days ago and wanted to share a few excerpts.

Here is the venerable Mr. Bogle:

"In my speech at Georgetown, I noted that during 2006 the financial sector alone accounted for $ 215 billion of the $ 711 billion in earnings of the 500 companies that make up the S & P 500 Stock Index — 30 percent of the total (and perhaps 35 percent, or more, if we included
the earnings of the financial affiliates of large industrial companies, such as General Electric).

"The domination of financial companies in our economy and our stock market has been extraordinary. The earnings of these financial firms alone totaled more than the earnings
of our highly profitable energy and technology companies combined, and about three times the earnings both of our booming health care sector and of our giant industrial firms.

"We have moved to a world where far too many of us seemingly no longer make anything; we're merely trading pieces of paper, swapping stocks and bonds back and forth with one another, and paying our financial croupiers a veritable fortune. In the process, we have inevitably added even more costs by creating ever more complex financial derivatives in which huge and unfathomable risks have been built into the financial system."

For his brilliance, hard work, ethics and thoughtfulness, Mr. Bogle is one who I greatly admire. Are we developing leaders like this anymore? From the inferences in the introduction of his newest book, it took a village to instill such principles. It is not just the leader in the workplace that inspire proteges, but a host of others. How can we return to this sense of collective responsibility that breeds individual accountability?

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 16, 2008 7:30 PM

What a terrific that metric and one that should become a standard, along with decreasing employee churn, in measuring an executives leadership ability and determining annual bonus. This definitely would help separate the leaders from the managers!

Accountability can be a performance and productivity multiplier!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at November 16, 2008 8:26 PM

Hi John,

I found your original article to be very thought provoking and the ensuing discussion has also been very interesting. I have recommended both in our roundup of the best leadership posts and articles.

http://experientiallearningcentre.blogspot.com/

I look forward to your next article here.

Posted by Simon Cooper at November 17, 2008 6:55 AM

Thanks, Simon. Nice website & blog.

Posted by John O'Leary at November 17, 2008 9:36 PM

John - In response to your earlier comment, it is very plausible that leaders (those who set the tone and guide others) and their followers can indeed be horrendous. In fact, history proves this again and again. Business is perhaps no different in this regard, though not with the same gravity. The global financial crisis, however, is proving to be pretty grave. But there is no comparison to such mass atrocities that have occured worldwide by leaders and their followers. By the way, I prefer the lighter theme here.

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 17, 2008 11:09 PM