Dear Sir.
It is absolutely true what You say. Things do not just planning it; but doing. Unfortunately this is understood when one already gained experience through years of struggle against conformism.
Alonso Sarmiento Llamosas
http://alonsosarmiento.googlepages.com

To say that “our way of leading isn’t working” is a very broad statement. I think it can be agreed upon that everyone has their own unique leadership style. To classify all leaders into one category, not taking different industries into consideration, seems quite dangerous. I don’t see how realistic conclusions/recommendations can be made based on a non-realistic generalization. I certainly don’t disagree that more reality-based leaders would be a great step in the right direction for the business world. Those leaders are out there- we just don’t hear about them b/c they aren’t involved in scandals or corruption to land them front and center on every newspaper, website, or newscast. Unfortunately, the “bad” is constantly presented, and almost glamorized at times. There are plenty of great leaders doing the “right” thing. It is just sad that in our society, given the aggressive media, the good guys tend to fly under the radar.

Cy Wakeman's comments and observations about corporate leadership cut through the BS like a scalpel. Her incisive observations and words of guidance have the zing and shine and ring of truth and should be the yardstick by which corporate leaders are measured.

The key phrase that jumps out to me in this great manifesto is "based in reality". I assert that the direction-less relative morality, coupled with Cy's point about the wasted, but politically correct, consultation of opinions retards a leader's ability to pivot quickly in response to dynamic business challenges. Can moral courage and direction be a feature of future leaders if it can't be quantified in a way to reinforce in schools? The most talented student, with creative genius and motiviation, will be set adrift in the dangerous tides of global business without a sail or rudder if no guideline for ethical conduct has been adopted by that student. I think the result of such a future rudder-less business leader is opinion seeking and approval seeking. Reality-based Leadership cannot be practiced by a leader looking for direction.

Where humanity is free to adopt any perspective on their environment, and under the direction of specail interest groups, the call to readily accept reality is meaningless. Considering the reality of contentment among Central American factory workers laboring on products to be exported to the U.S. versus the reality of a Berkshire-Hathaway shareholder's contentment leads to an unquantifiable circular conversation. The common ground between the two should be appreciation for one another's humanity, which is grounded in a moral code. Our society wastes great resources in diligently working to transform religious traditions of morailty into new frameworks that might be palatable to schools. WIth the fear of offending someone lurking as a possibility in our litigous world, I don't have great hope that a generation of confident leaders will emerge according to Cy's Manifesto. Where they do emerge, I don't believe any formal institution can take credit.

Well, does this mean that Leaders can make unilateral decisions (which could be generated for selfish reasons/benefits)? What about the abuse of Power? CNN has a list of top 10 most wanted culprits of the collapse: all CEO/Leaders. I am these people must have followed the above principles.

Well, does this mean that Leaders can make unilateral decisions (which could be generated for selfish reasons/benefits)? What about the abuse of Power? CNN has a list of top 10 most wanted culprits of the collapse: all CEOs/Leaders. I am sure these people must have followed some of the above principles: just taking a wild guess!

I am sure your guess is correct, Chukey.
A certain framework of adopted ideas does not guarantee true, ethical, and responsible leadership. It is dependent on each person who is in a position of power. Cy presents great insight and what seems to be an effective framework for leadership, however, it will most likely be interpreted differently by different people and will produce a wide array of leadership styles. The end result will certainly not be the same across the board. It is impossible to impose a standard "by which to measure corporate leaders". Not all corporations operate in the same way. What works for one industry or company may not work for another.

'Good times' don't last forever....yet, people want to believe they do.

Like the turkey who believes good times are common place until the third week of November, most people expect the good times to roll on. And so, they only see what they are looking for. Even their stockbroker won't tell them that "when in doubt, get out."

Yet, if you understand that there are business cycles, you look for the unexpected and thus see the unexpected when it surfaces....long before others do.

One overlooked resource is the”boat rocker”. This is the gal or guy who is always pushing for a different solution, but can still get successful results even if the final decision doesn’t follow their suggestion.

If you want more of the same, keep listening to the same people. If you want change stop following the same pattern, most importantly in who you listen to. The big key is abandoning your traditional criteria for selecting an leader. On great technique is to go back to the person who you had to talk into your last BAD decision. He or she had an insight that you missed and they are much more likely to have an insight into a better solution to the next problem than the people who agreed with that bad decision.

I think it is time to open a vigorous debate regarding leadership and the mantle of leadership; in other words what the concept of leadership means; and to whom. My sense is the authenticity found in today’s leadership individual and business both in business and in the political sector is lacking in direction and guidance. Presently, we need not tie ourselves – as business individuals or Americans – to an archaic and out-dated philosophy, simply because it is old. I submit we would be as careless to follow in such dismal and sedated footsteps of those individuals; who simply assert and express their values as dogma; but yet, are filled with strategic rhetoric and superfluous twaddle. Instead, of following a dangerous and circular path of insanity; we must regain – and more importantly, undoubtedly respond to those principled individuals and businesses – who seek out a newer transformation; not because it is expedient; but rather, because such underlying principles are never considered as outdated and worn. Thus, I hope I am not alone in demanding that it is necessary to frame and demand passion, motivation and commitment from individuals we trust.

Jeffrey Krasney

I agree that as stakeholders we demand commitment and passion from leaders so that we can trust them. Expectations, from consumers, largely determine the vitality of an economy. If we expect that our business leaders around the world will probably participate in illegal, or suspicious, activity, and that there is risk in investing financial resources, the market consequentially suffers. Sadly, societal trends lead me to believe that voluntary honesty in big business leadership cannot be expected as the norm. Is there any healthy balance to including governmental oversight in private business' leaders' decisions or actions? To many, reality is money - "money talks" - so leaders may read this post and understand that reality based leadership is money based leadership.

I submit Cy’s cries for authentic leadership speaks loudest, as the leaders of today must decrease their fear of failure. I am reminded of a Harvard Business Review article where the author contends (I am paraphrasing), “that leaders need to experiment on a regular basis; fail many times and frequently; but yet nevertheless, learn from each of those mistakes.” I would agree with Dave’s point of view, today’s leaders are straitjacketed by their shareholders, as those same shareholders seek an increase in the companies share price – as the CEO implements the type of risks to appease those same shareholders. Granted, depending upon the industry or business sector, shareholders may be more sensitive or willing to accept experimentation that does not lead to success the first time.

I would proffer to remove the shackles from those leaders, who wish to separate themselves from precedent. Innovation requires to “think outside the box,” “to color outside the lines” to use two poor clichés. Far too often, the leaders of today are oblivious to their own captivity and management’s insistence of straying too far from the status quo. For instance in 1980, it may have been accurate to insist that the only efficient manner in which to engage in word processing was to use your Smith-Corona typewriter. Then along came IBM; or more specifically, Bill Gates – whose internal intuition and belief of the world at that time said “no” – the world does not have to remain, as it is. Instead of choosing to conform to the usual management practice and a lack of inventiveness, Mr. Gates energized the power to seek breakthroughs, by imagining and propelling an alternative.

Thus, I would ask of our leaders in business, public policy and education – a few rhetorical questions – that is, “Why can’t we do better than this?” “What might be the alternatives?” "Is such a contemporaneous belief worth challenging?” Today’s leaders need to seek out contrarian points of view. To excel in the 21st Century, leaders must leave legacy management beliefs by emancipating creativity and enhancing the innovative process. Rather than to continuously slink into the classic response of “that’s the way we do it,” leaders of today also must inherently ask themselves, “Is that the only solution to the problem, at hand;” and let the sparks fly.

Cy, I am on board. The new type of leader is one who continues to seek out new strategic options; that is, different (possibly unconventional) choices to conventional decisions. The new type of leader is one who defends the strategic risk taken, rather than choosing to become frustrated with rigidities, by forfeiting future gains. The bias against new innovation and new ideas requiring a “tipping point” level of certitude, often decays and delays the new reality that would add the most value. Such a scenario may often only need a slight “push” from thought precipice, to implementation.

More often than not, leaders deliberately place themselves on the status quo continuum – often stifling new approaches by choosing to restrict innovation or failing to expand the pie. Shredding the inherent law of dogma, that is, by removing the self-imposed shackles, and by abandoning the incredulity of management orthodoxies is the first step on the path to broadening the scope. Innovation after all embraces new principles; yet, engenders effort with little precedent. Nevertheless, "cutting-edge" qualities ostensibly offers the possibility of change – rather than deep and often surpressed limitations. In other words, purposely exhorting and encouraging qualities that are transcendental, which may present insights that are intensely creative, and deeply empowering that lead to unforeseen as well as astonishing competitive advantages. Granted, such a risk is exacerbated when the future is difficult to predict. Still, proactively investing in or exploring of various alternatives, recreates value and energizes the reality of the situation.

I am often reminded about an anecdote regarding leaders, who see the reality of a situation and choose to reinforce the narrow view; as opposed to those leaders who choose to engage and capitalize on an opportunity, as a result of the particular situation. Of course, there is a difference in mindset and screening criteria (I am paraphrasing), “When you are in a hole – you normally have two options – to keep digging; or get out of the hole.” My advice to the new reality-based leaders is to get out of the hole; and start digging somewhere else. My suspicion is such an understanding will help those new-based reality leaders focus their attention on challenges that offer genuine promise and greater payoffs.

To make reality based leadership more authentic, I believe the trend of government intervention in the private marketplace needs to be curbed significantly. Once leaders are fully exposed to the positive and negative outcomes of their business decisions, leadership roles will be empowered to a greater extent. This means that fair trade and bail out practices should be done away with. Business leaders should not be compelled to act in any way, or to continue business in any way, because the government chooses to be involved. I don't think the government has a good track record of being involved in the US market.