Áine Cain — Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos' mentor used a simple test to figure out who is a true leader

According to the late Bill Campbell, who established a reputation as the "coach" of Silicon Valley, only one thing determines whether or not you're a leader: the opinions of those you're supposed to be leading.…

[Former Apple CEO John] Sculley shared one of the best pieces of advice Campbell ever gave him: "Your title makes you a manager. Your people will decide if you're a leader, and it's up to you to live up to that."...

"Basically, how you make that happen is if you believe that leadership is not about putting greatness into people, leadership is about recognizing that there's a greatness in everyone and your job is to create an environment where that greatness can emerge," [Current Intuit CEO Brad] Smith told Business Insider....

How do political leaders stack up? Polls are one indication, but generally polls don't measure intensity.

Business Insider

Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos' mentor used a simple test to figure out who is a true leader

Áine Cain

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic — What Science Tells Us About Leadership Potential

Although the scientific study of leadership is well established, its key discoveries are unfamiliar to most people, including an alarmingly large proportion of those in charge of evaluating and selecting leaders.

This science-practitioner gap explains our disappointing state of affairs. Leaders should drive employee engagement, yet only 30% of employees are engaged, costing the U.S. economy $550 billion a year in productivity loss. Moreover, a large global survey of employee attitudes toward management suggests that a whopping 82% of people don’t trust their boss. You only need to google “my boss is…” or “my manager is…” and see what the autocomplete text is to get a sense of what most people think of their leaders.

Unsurprisingly, over 50% of employees quit their job because of their managers. As the old saying goes, “people join companies, but quit their bosses.” And the rate of derailment, unethical incidents, and counterproductive work behaviors among leaders is so high that it is hard to be shocked by a leader’s dark side. Research indicates that 30%–60% of leaders act destructively, with an estimated cost of $1–$2.7 million for each failed senior manager.

One of my collateral duties when I was a naval officer was conducting the mandatory interview of enlisted men not "re-upping" at the end of an enlistment contract and submitting a report. The interview always went exactly the same. "Sir, I love the Navy, but I just can't stand the chickenshit any longer."

Harvard Business Review
What Science Tells Us About Leadership Potential
Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic | CEO of Hogan Assessment Systems, a Professor of Business Psychology at University College London, and a faculty member at Columbia University

David Sloan Wilson — Why Groups Fail (Hint: For the Same Reasons that Nations Fail)

To solve the problem of abuse by power-hungry leaders, the first step must be the adoption of a worldview that makes it obvious.

When leadership fails, the whole group is dragged down. An elite may not constitute the operational leadership but rather is the dominant subgroup that selects or controls the leadership of a group.

To solve the problem of abuse by power-hungry leaders, the first step must be the adoption of a worldview that makes it obvious.

One such worldview is evolutionary theory, in particular Multilevel Selection (MLS) theory, which has an extraordinary range of applications in the biological sciences and is only beginning to appear on the radar screen of the human social and behavioral sciences². Evolution is relentlessly relative. It doesn’t matter how well an organism survives and reproduces in absolute terms, only relative to others in its vicinity. Against this background, individuals who strive to maximize their relative standing in a group, even at the expense of the whole group, aren’t surprising. They are at the core of the theory. The main puzzle is to explain how individuals evolve to behave for the good of their group in ways that might decrease their relative advantage within the group.

The solution to that puzzle is a process of selection among groups in a multi-group population. Once again, the logic is relentlessly relative, which means that a group can sabotage a multi-group organization as easily as an individual can sabotage a group. MLS theory doesn’t make everything nice, but it does specify the conditions required for any group to function as a corporate unit (reminder: the word “corporate” is derived from the Latin word for “body”). If the group isn’t organized to prevent disruptive self-serving behaviors from within, then fuggedaboutit.…

The current institutional structure breeds toxic leaders, not by genetic evolution of course, but by the selection of social strategies in behaviorally flexible individuals. The only solution to this problem is a change in the institutional social environment.…

Our psychological immune system evolved in the context of small groups with a relatively even balance of power and did not prepare us for the larger societies that emerged with the advent of agriculture. These societies therefore became despotic, ironically more like chimp societies than small-scale human societies. Fortunately, cultural evolution is a multi-level process, no less than genetic evolution, and the largely cooperative mega-societies of today a product of ten thousand years of cultural group selection, largely but not entirely in the form of warfare4. Once again, MLS theory doesn’t make everything nice. It specifies the conditions under which groups of any size evolve—or fail to evolve—into corporate units. It is up to us as policy selection agents to make things nice with the insights provided by MLS theory.…

A final point is that the relentlessly relative logic of MLS theory is scale-independent. It applies to nations, multinational corporations, and global commons issues such as the climate and world economy, no less than a single business or imaginary groups of four people working on a verbal problem-solving task. Compare Case and Maner’s elegant experiments on why groups fail with Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s big history book on why nations fail. You will see that when it comes to Multilevel Selection, all the world’s a stage.

Must-read. I've just hit the highlights.

Evonomics
Why Groups Fail (Hint: For the Same Reasons that Nations Fail)
David Sloan Wilson | SUNY Distinguished Professor of Biology and Anthropology at Binghamton University and Arne Næss Chair in Global Justice and the Environment at the University of Oslo

See also

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.[1] It claims that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization.[1]
Michels theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise.

Wikipedia

Iron Law of Oligarchy

The Power Elite is a 1956 book by sociologist C. Wright Mills, in which Mills calls attention to the interwoven interests of the leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society and suggests that the ordinary citizen is a relatively powerless subject of manipulation by those entities.

Wikipedia
The Power Elite

The Iron Law of What Again?

Darcy K. Leach

Consortium News (April 2014)

The Iron Law of Oligarchy Returns

Danny Schechter

Evading The Iron Law: Culture And Ritual In Social Movement Organizations

P. Osterman

Evolution Don't Care About Metallic Or Any Other Imagined Peg For Adaptive Rate.

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

Week In FX Asia: India Caught Between Inflation And US Fed

?? What? Surely it's more accurate to say that India is caught between conformity & lack of bold leadership?

Expanding options call for bold exploration? And increasing quality of distributed decision-making?

Not complaints as to why someone or some agency doesn't make life easy for the co-dependent 1% parasitizing the middle-class in given countries?

Life was tough back in the 1920's/1930's, when most countries went back off the intra-nation gold std for good, and instead opted for policy agility, and using their brains more often.

It was also tough in 1944, when the US Gov re-started inter-gov convertibility of $US for gold (can't be smart all the time!), and again in 1971, when the US Gov finally ended inter-gov convertibility of $US for gold.

Listen. Why the hell can't all nations & all citizens go back to the time-honored convertibility of general welfare of the people for Public Initiative, aka FIAT?

Is there any other floating correlate that matters?

Evolution don't care about metallic or any other imagined peg for adaptive rate. Social evolution follows the quality (including tempo) of distributed decision-making. Get over it, Luddites & Libertarians, we're a social species, not independent hermits.

US & EU Both Pledge "1 billion" ($/euro) Loan Guarantees For Ukraine - While Pledging Nothing More For Their Own Electorates

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

Loan Guarantees For Ukraine

This raises two sets of questions, about what we're doing domestically, and why, compared to what we're doing internationally, and why. Initial questions about why domestic US/EU electorates can't guarantee fiat investment in themselves, and instead submit to austerity ... is exceeded only by the sheer number & depth of half-truths, mis-conceptions and outright lies included in this article.

Example? Reduced tariffs go directly back to the exporter? No, that only reduces costs for the importing consumers (maybe only the intermediary merchants), and MAY increase the volume of exports being extracted from the "beneficiary" country. In reality, look for more EU/US firms to set up subsidiaries in the UK, and move yet more jobs from serfs in receiving countries to even lower-paid serfs in sending countries being looted. Can you say "internal devaluation?"

Where have we heard this story before?

Read on, & decide for yourself what these loan guarantees really imply.

There's a theme to the last 40 years? When electorates cede all governance to their merchant classes, they get what they claim was unpredictable ... less innovation, invention & leadership ... and more risk control, "management" and stagnation.

What, exactly, WOULD the Desired Outcome for national policy be, if we bothered to survey our actual citizens? Can we pick some worthwhile goals FOR OURSELVES, and go for them, instead of merely managing existing risks? Forget defense & offense, the best cultural evolution is an active Adaptive Rate?

"The Speed At Which [Teams] Could [Adjust] Would Make Mental Flexibility In Leadership Even More Valuable"

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

[ ... political and other pressures ... resulted in the appointment to high command in ... of so many mediocre and even incompetent [policy leaders, in all categories].

Why on earth isn't that need - to assess and promote policy agility - considered a truism for economic policy today, and all other policy disciplines?

This is a great read. One of my suggestions as required reading, for every highschool freshman in the country.

For comparison, why the hell didn't Obama just instantly fire and/or force the retirement of every single one of the GORBS*, the day after his inauguration, back in 2009, like half the country fully EXPECTED him to do?

* GORBS = Greenspan, Geithner, Orszak, Rubin, Bernanke, Summers

Aimee Groth — Why it’s more demanding to work for a company without a traditional hierarchy

It's more challenging to be creative and innovative — a self-motivated leader — than being a follower. But flat rather than hierarchical may be the future of management.

If it works at work, it will work in other dimensions of life, like politics. Could government flatten to become more innovative, more responsive to challenge, and more agile?

Quartz
Why it’s more demanding to work for a company without a traditional hierarchy
Aimee Groth

FlipChart Rick — Hierarchy Works

There has been a lot of excitement about Zappos new hierarchy free, self-organising, boss-less organisation. The holocracy, as it’s known, is all very zeitgeisty. My Twitter timeline is full of articles about smashing corporate hierarchies and getting rid of executives. Last year, Gary Hamel, described in Fortune magazine as ‘the world’s leading expert on business strategy’, told the CIPD conference that “management is a busted flush” and organisations should be getting rid of their managers. And, of course, everyone knows that Generation Blah don’t like hierarchy. Executives, reporting lines, procedures, organisation charts – all that stuff is just so square, daddio.

 At what looks like the other extreme of management philosophy, Amazon has gone for a neo Taylorist model with high control over workers at all levels in the organisation. It’s not very trendy and, on the whole, my Twitter timeline doesn’t like Amazon.

But, of course, Amazon owns Zappos. Under one corporate roof, what looks like a social experiment is taking place. Two rival philosophies of management are being tested out.

Pieria
Hierarchy Works
FlipChart Rick

The chief difference between hierarchical and consensual organization is selection of leadership. 

Hierarchical organization operates from a chain of command with leadership slot filled from above and preserved by title, rank, and privilege ("perks"). Retention may be ruthlessly based on performance, but the fact remains that the structure is crystalline and rigid.

Consensual organization is based on natural leadership. A leader is one whom others choose to follow owing to superior qualities not restricted to achieving objectives effectively and efficiently in Drucker's Management-by-Objectives style. Deming's Total Quality Management is closer, but it still subordinates people to results and process to structure, whereas they need to be balanced and harmonized for synergy. 

Abraham Maslow's Eupsychian Management and Theory Z (different from Ouchi's theory z and an extension of MacGregor's contrast of theory x and theory y) are much more in the consensual style of creating a holistic culture of success and fulfillment, quantity and quality. Not coincidentally, Maslow was a friend of anthropologists Ruth Benedict and Margaret Meade, and their influence lead him to study tribal culture and incorporate it into an analysis of a psychology of human nature as universal rather than basing a theory on a particular temporal, geographical and cultural subset of humanity. It is therefore no accident that his management ideas are closer to the consensual and incorporate a wider range of quality. See "Abraham Maslow: Father of Enlightened Management" by Edward Hoffman, Training Magazine, September 1988, pages 79-82.

The devil is in the details, however. A theoretical management style must be instantiated in a particular context. Scott Adams has made a lot of people laugh and himself a lot of money by lampooning management by fad, for example.

The challenge is integrating the many facets of organizational structure and management into institutional arrangements and culture through a combination of explicit rules and implicit customs and conventions, which involves integrating the scientific (quantity) and humanistic (quality) approaches. See, for instance, The Capitalist Philosophers: The Geniuses of Modern Business–Their Lives, Times, and Ideas by Andrea Gabor, Times Business (2000) for a summary of the ideas of Frederick Winslow Taylor, Mary Parker Follett, Chester Barnard, Fritz Roethlisberger and Elton Mayo, Robert McNamara, Abraham Maslow and Douglas McGregor, W. Edwards Deming, Herbert A. Simon, Alfred Du Pont Chandler and Alfred Sloan, and Peter F. Drucker.

So Much For France's Leadership

Commentary by Roger Erickson

Don't step in the leadership. I've added some comments below, as [rge:].

France vows massive spending cuts for 2014

'France’s 2014 budget, announced on Wednesday, will involve “unprecedented” cuts in public spending, a move that has been criticized on the far-left for bringing “suffering to the people”, and on the right for being “anti-growth”.

France on Wednesday vowed "unprecedented" cuts in public spending for 2014 – worth 15 billion euros – as Europe’s second largest economy tries to rein in its [fiat] deficit without compromising much-needed [real] growth.

[rge: Hmmm. Seems they really have a nominal credibility issue, right off the fiat.]

But critics on either side of the political spectrum remained sceptical that it would alleviate hardship in France, which is suffering from record-high unemployment, limited investment and low consumer spending.

Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici and Budget Minister Bernard Cazeneuve presented the draft budget to the cabinet, outlining 15 billion euros worth of cuts.

"We prefer to find savings rather than increasing taxes," the ministers said in their introduction to the draft budget.

Some 80 percent of these savings next year will come from cuts in public spending, which will particularly affect the defence, finance and environment ministries.

Only 20 percent of the savings will come from tax increases.'

[rge: Let me paraphrase that. 80% of the blood will be lost from the neck, and only 20% from the wrists ... but NO NEW FOOD OR FLUIDS? Werks fur mi!]

'Unprecedented in French post-war history
State spending, which will reach 57.1 percent of GDP this year, is expected to drop to 56.7 percent in 2014.

The two ministers said its level, excluding debt interest and pension payments, would fall in absolute terms by 1.5 billion euros from 2013 levels – a reduction they described as unprecedented in French post-war history.

Public debt, meanwhile, will reach a record 95.1 percent of GDP in 2014 – far higher than previous government estimates – before falling back again the following year.

The ministers reiterated a pledge that France's public deficit would gradually drop, meeting the 2015 EU-mandated deadline to bring it below three percent.

These decisions are all based on predictions of 0.9 percent economic growth next year and 0.1 percent in 2013, compared to zero growth in 2012.'

[rge: Holding their own Maginot noose themselves, at all costs? Go ahead, pledge that pigs will fly too. Pledge anything you want. Meanwhile, just step aside and get out of the way?]

‘Suffering of the people’
'But critics blasted the budget, saying it would not help French people already seriously battered by the ongoing financial crisis.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, figurehead of the far-left, said the spending cuts just added to previous, huge cuts already implemented by the Socialist government since President François Hollande came to power last year.

"We must end this policy that continuously increases the suffering of the people and leads to economic, social and political disaster," he said in a statement.

Valérie Pécresse of the main opposition right-wing UMP and a former budget minister, said there were no real "savings" in the draft and that spending was being stabilised rather than decreased.

"This budget is an anti spending-power budget and therefore an anti-growth budget," she told France 2 television.

[rge: Ok, sounds like there's one sane logician left in the country. No promises though. Haven't seen HER platform. It might also infer taxes on flying pigs.]

The government, however, said it expected consumers' purchasing power to rebound, with growth of 0.3 percent this year and 0.8 percent in 2014 – compared to a drop of 0.9 percent in 2012.

Hollande said the draft budget – which still needs to be approved by parliament – encouraged "a return to growth and employment." '

[rge: Expected? Did they say expected? Since when did an expectorant promising feeble growth sound acceptable? And a return to whose growth & employment? Bankers? Are they saying that some people's g&e is more equal than others? Finally, they seem to be indicating that success = first 3 winning the race back to the animal farm. Really? The others are ... expendable? ?? Seriously? You call this a social species?]

See even more on this topic here.

Vineet Nayar — The Intention Experiment

A 2007 book, The Intention Experiment, explored the science of intention, drawing on the findings of leading scientists around the world. Author Lynne McTaggart uses cutting-edge research conducted at Princeton, MIT, Stanford, and other universities and laboratories to reveal that intent is capable of profoundly affecting all aspects of our lives. In the book, William A. Tiller, a professor emeritus at Stanford University, argues: "For the last 400 years, an unstated assumption of science is that human intention cannot affect what we call physical reality. Our experimental research of the past decade shows that, for today's world and under the right conditions, this assumption is no longer correct."

This is a key teaching of perennial wisdom, which is now being confirmed by modern science. The teaching is that the "stronger" one's consciousness, the more powerful one's intention. The internal Chinese marial arts are based on "energy work" (qigong, chi kung), a fundamental principle of which is, vital energy (qi, chi) follows intention (yi, i). This is something that those we practice self-cultivation discover in their own experience.

In order to communicate intent to others to get things done as a leader, one must actually have the intention. Intention has to have the concentrated force of one's consciousness behind it. Attention focuses consciousness on a point, and intention propels the energy of one's consciousness. Some people are born with greater capacity in this regard than others, and they are natural leaders. However, it is possible for anyone to progressively master attention and intention by cultivating the potential of attention and intention.

Harvard Business Review | HBR Blog Network
The Power of Intent
Vineet Nayar | Vice Chairman and CEO of HCL Technologies Ltd., an India-based global information technology services company

Which Candidate Has the "Edge" in Misrepresenting the Fiscal "Deficit"

This is truly like an Alice in Wonderland episode. What's even more ironic than a Catch-22? A Deficit-23?

Romney at risk of losing edge on deficit

The Washington Post reports that in the race to better represent "the nation’s gaping budget deficit" ... Romney is in danger of falling behind Obama. That's supposedly the only issue where Obama hasn't been "leading" Romney.

It's a sad day when candidates vie to be most out of paradigm in order to win election to a leadership position.

When supposed leaders have to prove that they're more wrong than the other guy to get elected ... you'd normally want to hedge your bets and look for an exit route. We better hope the USA is resilient enough to survive ignorant leadership and a misinformed electorate. Rome wasn't, but of course that was a long time ago.

Can somebody resurrect the Rhyme of the Ancient Marriner Eccles? Our current electorate & Congress has forgotten it.

Race to the Bottom: Producing Regulators who are Invertebrates, and Triggering Epidemics of Fraud

commentary by Roger Erickson

In a long review article, Bill Black sums up 4 conclusions.

'For the sake of brevity I make four points. 

First, if regulation is determined by the race to the bottom the regulatory leadership will be selected (with a great deal of self-selection plus industry dominance) for their opposition to effective regulation. The leaders will lack a spine. The idea that anti-regulatory invertebrates (think slugs) will successfully go “toe to toe” with a fraudulent CEO is fatuous. Anti-regulators are bred to be lap slugs.

Second, “judgment-led regulation” is a PR phrase – not a positive theory of financial regulation. Honest bank CEOs would not “hate” effective financial regulation. Instead, they would see it as essential to their ability to compete. The true independence of effective regulators (as opposed to the faux independence of inside and outside professionals hired and fired by the CEO) is also invaluable to honest bankers.

Third, the PR phrase appears to be a pretext for further deregulation in the UK designed to achieve greater regulatory laxity in order to “win” the race to the bottom. It is disastrous to remove the regulations that drive dishonest banks CEOs “wild.” In the U.S., for example, the savings and loan underwriting requirement for mortgage lending that the Clinton administration removed was the single most destructive act of deregulation. The rule was a paperwork rule – the category that the anti-regulators love to target. We used it in 1990-1991 to stop S&Ls in Orange County, California (where all good financial frauds originate) to drive liar’s loans out of the industry. The rule was extremely useful in preventing criminogenic environments, bad loans, and in helping to prosecute accounting control fraud.

Fourth, the “old guard” at the regulatory agencies was the solution, not the problem. The S&L “old guard” established systems and professionalism that survived even the appointment of anti-regulatory leaders in 1987. The folks that failed during the current crisis were typically the anti-regulatory leaders of the regulatory agencies appointed to “win” the race to the bottom.'

And then, Bill closes with this zinger.

"The takeaway is that the elite banks demand that their political patrons be total sycophants like London’s mayor, who will celebrate banks committing felonies that aid terrorists as long as the banks are located in the City of London. The elites believe in the divine rights of bankers. Anything less [than] unconditional devotion from their political lackeys represents “demonization” and requires that the politicians be defeated and replaced. Modern [elite] bank CEOs are not tough. They are thin-skinned adolescents who demand veneration."

All good points. What do we do about this state of affairs?

First, interact widely enough to develop your own sense of situational awareness, and consider why an uninformed populace and it's options are soon parted.

Second, decide for yourself if you want to be easily manipulated by propaganda, or select methods that will actually form a more perfect union, and the insanely great capabilities and general welfare of the people that follow such union.

Third, decide for yourself whether we can scale up a larger version of a more perfect union, by practicing less, not more, self-regulation. Does agility vs clumsiness require more or less self-control?

Fourth, if Luddites are standing in the way of our national progress, please make a decision, and make it quickly. Either stand on those Luddites - now - and find a better way .... or get out of the way yourself.

Fifth, please consider if YOU are willing to pander to idiotic, so-called elites defined by their zeal at sequestering resources from their neighbors and country. Do we really need elite hoarders, or elite contributors?

Presidio Graduate School — Free Online Course in Sustainable Leadership

MOOC 1: One Planet Sustainable Leadership

A MOOC is a “Massive Open Online Course” offered free to anyone, anywhere in the world.

Presidio Graduate School is offering this four-part MOOC in support of our mission to provide access to cutting edge theory and practice in the field of Sustainable Leadership. Each session will provide a one-hour highly interactive learning experience—including quizzes, break-out discussions, and videos—in addition to post-session follow-up resources, tools, and models.

This One Planet Sustainable Leadership MOOC is designed to provide an open version of the Sustainable Leadership curriculum in the pioneering courses offered at Presidio Graduate School. Presidio has prepared over 700 MBA/MPA students to take on the challenges that come with building sustainable businesses and organizations.

Professors Cynthia Scott Ph.D. M.P.H. and Tammy Esteves Ph.D. will facilitate this course. They teach and guide student projects in Presidio’s MBA/MPA programs. Both are pioneers in applying behavioral science and collaborative leadership approaches to sustainability challenges. They draw upon a broad background of innovative consulting and thought leadership built from years of teaching in cutting-edge programs.

The course will have four one-week sessions:

• Week 1 Sustainability Leadership-session on 9/25, 1 PM PST; 


• Week 2 Systemic Leadership-session on 10/2, 1 PM PST 


• Week 3 Creating Sustainable Change-session on 10/9, 1 PM PST 
• Week 4 Leaders as Change Makers-session on 10/16, 1 PM PST

This course will provide you with tools and resources to:

• Think Like A Sustainability Leader: Apply sustainability thinking to strategy, brand positioning, product innovation and employee engagement.

• Provide Systemic Leadership: Discover leverage points for change, inside and outside your organization.

• Create Sustainable Change: Predict the stages of individual and organizational change so you can decrease resistance and increase commitment.

• Build Leadership Resilience: Attain personal and organizational resilience to maintain change and harvest innovation.

Download detailed course overview

For more information, contact Ryan Cabinte, Faculty Director, atryan.cabinte@presidioedu.org or 415-655-8956.

Presideo Graduate School — Programs

(h/t Scott Fullwiler via Twitter) 

Davos policymakers playing Global Apocalypse

If the world economy was a video game, the central bankers and politicians have been struggling to master the controls – and remain stuck on the first level.

Read it at The Guardian (UK)
Davos policymakers are playing Global Apocalypse – and running out of lives
by Larry Elliott | Economics editor
(h/t Kevin Fathi via email)