Americas Best Leaders

Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
There may be a dearth of leadership in our national life, but there are still great leaders abroad in the land.

A Vote of No Confidence
More than half of Americans—56 percent—say they're not proud of the country's leaders, according to the second annual poll on leadership conducted for U.S. News and Harvard University's Center for Public Leadership.

The Matter With the Mainstream
Kudos to these men and women who change the world by leading with honor.

How They Were Picked
The honorees were selected by a committee of government, community, and private-sector leaders convened by the center.

Truly Authentic Leadership
If ever there was a time when America needs leaders, it's now.

Teaching the Art of Leading
About the Center for Public Leadership

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/leaders/

America’s Best Leaders
By David Gergen

Posted Sunday, October 22, 2006

Where have all the leaders gone? As Americans survey a landscape that seems uncommonly bleak, a new national survey commissioned for this issue of U.S. News found that two thirds of the public believes the nation is in a leadership crisis, while nearly three quarters worries that unless we find better leaders soon, the nation will begin to decline. Some 9 of every 10 people say political leaders today spend too much time attacking rivals, while 8 of 10 believe that corporate leaders are more concerned with making money than with running their companies well.

There are some glimmers of hope, however. As it did last year, U.S. News teamed with the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government to identify leaders who are making a difference. A national panel sifted through thickets of recommendations and agreed on a small group of men and women who embody the most important traits of leadership. There may be a dearth of leadership in our national life, but as the portraits in this issue attest, there are still great leaders abroad in the land. —David Gergen, cochair, "America's Best Leaders" project

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061022/30opener.htm
A Vote of No Confidence

By Silla Brush

Posted Sunday, October 22, 2006

More than half of Americans—56 percent—say they're not proud of the country's leaders. Two thirds and more say the country is in a leadership crisis. Nearly three quarters say the nation will decline without better leadership.

Those are some pretty scathing numbers, according to the second annual poll on leadership conducted for U.S. News and Harvard University's Center for Public Leadership. And they don't just reflect Americans' disgust with politicians this election season or a knee-jerk reaction to an event. In fact, fewer Americans have confidence in leadership now than they did last year immediately following Hurricane Katrina.

Disillusionment. There is a deep-seated skepticism, a distrust of leaders-whether boardroom chief, university head, or media watchdog. In each of 11 different fields, no more than 40 percent of Americans said they had a great deal of confidence in leaders; the military-despite questions about the war in Iraq-fared best, while the media suffered most. What prompts such apprehension?

Americans seem to have the highest opinion of occupations defined by clear missions, fields in which leaders are charged with completing a specific task-fighting a battle, devising a cure-and cognizant of overstepping their bounds. Andrew Bacevich, an expert on the military at Boston University, says Americans are most fond of the military because they believe it is a highly efficient institution. "If you really scrutinized the military"-something Americans don't do enough, he says, because of national guilt about Vietnam and a lack of media scrutiny-"it's really not all that it's cracked up to be."

Still, where the military fares well, the press, Wall Street, and the presidency are most reviled-perhaps because they lack such clear missions. Frederick Starr, a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins, says those fields are associated with specific personalities and big egos instead of clear missions.

If that's so, then it could explain why Americans have more faith in local governments than in Congress and the executive branch. According to the poll, Americans' confidence in their federal politicians dropped in the past year, but they have the same faith in their local representatives. Eighty-three percent of Americans say corporate leaders are more concerned with the bottom line than with running their companies well, 93 percent say political leaders spend too much time attacking their opponents, and only 39 percent say leaders have high ethical standards. "No-nonsense qualities are revered," says Starr, "and self-indulgent ones despised."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061022/30poll.htm

The Matter With the Mainstream

By Rosabeth Moss Kanter

Posted Sunday, October 22, 2006

Here we celebrate excellence. We bask in the radiance of America's Best Leaders, learning from their inspiring examples. Kudos to these men and women who change the world by leading with honor. They make us proud.

Thank goodness. Otherwise, we would never get relief from the other news about putative leaders: sordid sex scandals, costly wars waged on false pretenses, backdated stock options, or corporate ethics officers arrested for ethical violations (the HP privacy case). Name a big mainstream institution-Congress, the federal government, major corporations, churches, universities-and it's a good bet that at least one of its top executives has recently entered the Hall of Shame.

Perhaps that's why so many of the candidates for Best Leaders 2006 come from outside the establishment. In our selection committee meetings, we shared enthusiasm for social entrepreneurs who create organizations enabling others to serve society. We praised heroes of wars or natural disasters who offer selfless aid and comfort. We lauded physicians and scientists whose actions improve lives. But we struggled to find candidates for best-leader laurels from the traditional large institutions that dominate America, such as government and business.

We rejected household names, because celebrity is not leadership. We steered away from high positions, because command over resources is also not leadership, unless resources are used courageously to improve the state of the world. Thus, we netted few well-known members of the establishment.

So what's the matter with the mainstream?

Leadership was once equated with big responsibilities for the direction of big institutions. Today that connection is lost and even reversed. To be a large company's CEO, for example, is to be suspected of earning too much, promising too much, hiding too much. Only 18 percent of Americans responding to the Edelman Annual Trust Barometer survey find CEOs or CFOs the most credible source of information about companies; 68 percent place more trust in colleagues, family, and friends.

Think about that one for a moment-your neighbor is a better source of business information than the businesses themselves? Unless you live next door to Warren Buffett, that says a great deal about how strongly Americans feel that some corporate executives have joined other establishment bosses in letting us down. Some feel that Internet gossip is more credible than the mainstream media; others assume political candidates lie to gain power.

Ethical lapse. To give the folks at the top of mainstream institutions their due, it is increasingly hard to run a large organization flawlessly, even for the many excellent, ethical CEOs. In recent years, enterprises have become more complex, the world has generated more shocks and surprises, the public has been more polarized, and the Internet has produced more instant watchdogs and attack dogs. Mistakes and problems are inevitable in complex enterprises. Lapses from efficient, rational, law-abiding, or virtuous behavior are a constant danger. Sometimes this occurs because of flawed people, but more often it's because of ambiguous situations that require the juggling of competing demands (pay raises for workers or price cuts for customers?). We shouldn't expect heads of established organizations to be perfect, but we should expect them to catch and correct their mistakes quickly. When fumbles occur, denial is tempting, especially when people are pressured to promise strong results regardless of circumstances.

Establishments create an appetite for power that can become an addiction. Powerful people who are driven to turn their domains into empires begin to feel that they are above the rules, that what applies to ordinary people does not apply to them (they don't even have to stand in line at airports). They think they can use their power to suppress criticism and force their will on others, whether employees, customers, suppliers, regulators, or the public.

The arrogance of success is well known. Imperial presidents, party leaders, and CEOs have always been with us. A few decades ago, I first encountered members of this class as a newly minted professional applying social science skills to business. One imperial chief, the head of the largest subsidiary of a New York conglomerate, was candid about commanding obedience. He asked me to help "whip his management group into shape," which I thought meant team-building around shared goals and which he thought meant public flogging. Napoleonic in his short stature and enormous ego, he frequently told his staff that "business is the last monarchy." (We soon parted company, and he was later ousted by the corporate parent.) Today there is a preference for nice folks at the top (such as American presidents with whom you could drink a beer), but a down-to-earth manner can mask the continuing abuse of power.

The cult of the heroic leader itself plays a role in elevating people beyond what mere mortals can achieve, creating a power addict's high. In the booming 1990s, as in other growth cycles and winning streaks, success was attributed to individuals at the top; they must be geniuses if we're doing so well, the public thought-even if they were merely riding on momentum. Some lionized chiefs suffered from the Curse of the Magazine Cover, coming to believe their exaggerated press (witness the Enron bunch). Proclaimed heroes at their peak, they fell precipitously because sycophants hadn't looked too closely at the basis for their success. Disappointment was inevitable when flaws (and worse) were uncovered in the post-crash, post-9/11, sober 2000s. (Memo to America's Best Leaders: Watch out.)

Role models. We judge leaders not just by their own behavior or the results achieved on their watch but by the culture they shape and the behavior they elicit from others. Michael Dell built a great company and handed the reins to a successor; did his leadership go up in flames when Dell computers caught on fire? Can we still call Steve Jobs a great leader because he was not personally involved in Apple's stock option problem?

Leaders' responsibilities for institutional values go beyond the walls of a single organization. It's not enough for ethical chiefs to run a flawless enterprise while maintaining silence on the problems of the sector as a whole. A recent Public Agenda Foundation survey found that both business leaders and average citizens have experienced a general decline in values, which they feel has contributed to recent scandals. They were particularly angry that some executives enrich themselves while allowing their companies to decline-and that their peers let them get away with it. Where are the courageous voices of enlightened CEOs who run excellent companies offering their solutions to what the public feels are excesses and abuses? We could ask the same question about Congress or the Pentagon or members of political parties who fear losing power if they expose and deal with mistakes by partisan peers.

Great leaders are purpose-centered, not power-hungry. They work for a cause larger than themselves and grander even than the particular organization they head, as America's Best Leaders 2006 demonstrate. Their legitimacy comes not from the power they wield but from what they do for others. They are humble in the face of the magnitude of their tasks, so they temper the inherent self-confidence of accomplished people with glances at the mirror of accountability held up by those they serve. They reinforce confidence in the institution as a whole-by demonstrating that they are accountable to stakeholders, work with them collaboratively, and empower people inside the organization to speak up, speak the truth, and take initiative.

The courage to challenge conventional wisdom, to confront an establishment with its flaws, can change closed empires into collaborative marketplaces of ideas, with all the accompanying messiness of dissent and all the promise of better days ahead. Challenging the status quo is the beginning of leadership.

We should be wary of establishments. But if that's all we conclude, we would miss the opportunity to turn the mainstream into streams of opportunity. The principled, innovative leaders we celebrate as America's Best show that there is more to leadership than high office. Perhaps those at the top can learn a lesson or two from leaders who emerge from the middle. Their values-based leadership can replace any hunger for power with the deeper satisfaction that comes from a lasting legacy of service to the world.

Rosabeth Moss Kanter is the Arbuckle professor at Harvard Business School, author or coauthor of 16 books, including Confidence: How Winning Streaks & Losing Streaks Begin & End, and a member of the Best Leaders selection committee

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061022/30ender.htm


How They Were Picked

Posted Sunday, October 22, 2006

"America's Best Leaders" is a collaboration between U.S.News & World Report and the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. The honorees were selected by a committee of government, community, and private-sector leaders convened by the center. U.S. News does not have a vote.

The panel accepted nominations from a wide range of sources and compiled research on each one. The committee defined a leader simply as a person who "motivates people to work collaboratively to accomplish great things." It selected 20 winners, including some teams, from a field of more than 200. The panelists rated the nominees from to 1 to 5 based on how well they met the following criteria:

Sets Direction (25%)

By building a shared sense of purpose

By setting out to make a positive social impact

By implementing innovative strategies

Achieves Results (50%)

Of significant breadth or depth

That have a positive social impact

That are sustainable

That exceed expectations

Cultivates a Culture of Growth (25%)

By communicating and embodying positive core values

By inspiring others to lead

The panel decided that some of a nominee's primary accomplishments should have occurred within the past 18 months, and that whenever possible, a nominee should still be in his or her position at the time of selection or have left it within the past six months.

The panel also felt that while a leader's work can be global in scope, it should be based in America and that Americans should make up at least part of the leader's audience.


SELECTION COMMITTEE

Co-chairs

Warren Bennis Distinguished professor of business administration, University of Southern California

David Gergen Director, Center for Public Leadership, Harvard University

MEMBERS

Kenneth Adelman Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations

John Alexander President, Center for Creative Leadership

Bruce Avolio Director, Gallup Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska

Barbara Barrett President, Triple Creek Guest Ranch

Richard Darman Partner, the Carlyle Group; chairman of the board, AES Corp.

Beth Dozoretz Vice chair, Center for Public Leadership Advisory Board

Kenneth Duberstein Chairman and CEO, the Duberstein Group

Paul Fireman Former CEO, Reebok

Walter Fluker Executive director, the Leadership Center, Morehouse College

Bill George Former chair and CEO, Medtronic; professor of management practice, Harvard Business School

Alan Gleitsman (deceased) President and CEO, the Gleitsman Foundation

Ronald Heifetz King Hussein Bin Talal lecturer in public leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government

Francis Hesselbein Chair, board of governors, Leader to Leader

Ira Jackson Dean, Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management, Claremont Graduate University

Spencer Johnson Author, Spencer Johnson Partners

Rosabeth Moss Kanter Ernest L. Arbuckle professor of business administration, Harvard Business School

Barbara Kellerman James MacGregor Burns lecturer in public leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government

Rakesh Khurana Associate professor in business administration, Harvard Business School

Rod Kramer William R. Kimball professor of business administration, Stanford University

Tony Mayo Director, Leadership Initiative, Harvard Business School

Georgette Mosbacher CEO, Borghese Worldwide

Larry Moses President, the Wexner Foundation Betsy Myers Executive director, Center for Public Leadership

Nitin Nohria Richard P. Chapman professor of business administration, Harvard University

Kenneth Ruscio President, Washington and Lee University Donna Shalala President, University of Miami


David Shaw Managing partner, Black Point Group

Bill Shore Founder, Share Our Strength

Tom Tierney Chairman and cofounder, the Bridgespan Group

Michael Useem Director, Center for Leadership and Change Management, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania

Ruth Wageman Associate professor, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College

Maggie Williams Partner, Griffin Williams LLC







Truly Authentic Leadership

By Bill George

Posted Sunday, October 22, 2006
If ever there was a time when America needs leaders, it's now. The litany of problems is all too familiar—Iraq, healthcare, schools, energy, the seemingly endless series of corporate scandals. What's nowhere to be found, however—or almost nowhere—is the leadership needed to fix things. The problem isn't the lack of potential leaders, however, but a wrongheaded notion of what exactly a leader is. This misguided notion of leadership often results in the wrong people attaining critical leadership roles. Search committees and voters alike fall into the trap of choosing leaders for their style rather than their substance, for their image instead of their integrity. Given this way of doing business, why should we be surprised when our leaders come up short?

The only valid test of a leader is his or her ability to bring people together to achieve sustainable results over time. There's no such thing as the "One-Minute Leader" because real leadership requires years of development and hard work.

The good news is that there is no shortage of people with the capacity to lead. There are leaders throughout organizations just waiting for the opportunity. In too many organizations, however, people don't feel empowered to take charge, nor are they rewarded for doing so. Young & Rubicam Brand's CEO, Ann Fudge, says, "All of us have the spark of leadership in us, whether it is in business, in government, or as a nonprofit volunteer. The challenge is to understand ourselves well enough to discover where we can use our leadership gifts to serve others."

Greater purpose. The time is ripe to redefine leadership for the 21st century. The military-manufacturing model of leadership that worked so well 50 years ago doesn't get the best out of people today. People are too well informed to adhere to a set of rules or to simply follow a leader over a distant hill. They want to be inspired by a greater purpose. As Fudge concludes, "We're here for something. Life is about giving and living fully."

What, then, is the 21st-century leader all about? It is being authentic, uniquely yourself, the genuine article. Authentic leaders know who they are. They are "good in their skin," so good they don't feel a need to impress or please others. They not only inspire those around them, they bring people together around a shared purpose and a common set of values and motivate them to create value for everyone involved.

"America's Best Leaders" are the best of the new breed of authentic leaders. Reading about them, you will discern a dramatic shift in caliber and character. These men and women have stepped boldly into the nation's leadership vacuum, with a passion to unite others in addressing the toughest problems we face. From Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's thoughtful guidance of the Supreme Court to Eric Lander's towering leadership in the scientific community to Don Berwick's practical approaches to improving healthcare, these leaders have defied convention to lead in their authentic way. In so doing, they have set a new standard for the rest of us.

Authentic leaders know the "true north" of their moral compass and are prepared to stay the course despite challenges and disappointments. They are more concerned about serving others than they are about their own success or recognition. Which is not to say that authentic leaders are perfect. Every leader has weaknesses, and all are subject to human frailties and mistakes. Yet by acknowledging failings and admitting error, they connect with people and empower them to take risks.

How do we recognize authentic leaders? Usually, they demonstrate these five traits:

1. Pursuing their purpose with passion

2. Practicing solid values

3. Leading with their hearts as well as their heads

4. Establishing connected relationships

5. Demonstrating self-discipline

To be effective leaders of people, authentic leaders must first discover the purpose of their leadership. If they don't, they are at the mercy of their egos and narcissistic impulses. To discover their purpose, authentic leaders have to understand themselves and the passions that animate their life stories.

When Wendy Kopp was a senior at Princeton, she was saddened by the inequities in public education. It wasn't fair, she thought, that so many kids were deprived of a sound education. At a national conference she organized on education reform, an idea suddenly came to her: "Why doesn't America have a national teacher corps of recent college graduates who commit two years to teach in public schools?" Her question inspired her to found Teach For America, the most successful secondary educational program of the past 25 years.

After working a hundred hours a week for five years to build Teach For America, Kopp faced a crisis: declining applications for teaching positions, reductions in funding, and a blistering critique of her efforts in the educational journal Phi Beta Kappan. Stung, Kopp considered resigning or even shutting down her organization. Then she refocused on her purpose and redoubled her efforts. A decade later, Teach For America has grown 10-fold, to 4,400 teachers a year.

The values of authentic leaders are shaped by their personal beliefs and developed through introspection, consultation with others, and years of experience. The test of authentic leaders' values is not what they say but how they act under pressure. If leaders aren't true to the values they profess, the trust is broken and not easily regained.

Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen knows about staying true to his values under pressure. Allen built the Coast Guard around values, combined with clear decision rules that enable people to take action without having to check with higher levels of command. When Hurricane Katrina hit, officials at all levels of government argued about who was responsible while the Coast Guard simply swung into action, saving the lives of stranded victims.

Passion and compassion. Leading with heart may sound soft, as if authentic leaders can't make tough choices involving pain and loss; it is anything but. Leading with heart means having passion for your work, compassion for the people you serve, empathy for your teammates, and the courage to make tough calls.

There are few better examples of leading with heart than Marilyn Carlson Nelson. When she took over the Carlson companies from her 84-year-old father, Marilyn inherited a demoralized organization suffering from decades of top-down rule. She immediately set about changing things, expressing empathy for her employees and compassion for her customers. The result: a remarkable turnaround with record levels of growth and new heights in employee and customer satisfaction.

The ability to develop enduring relationships is an essential mark of authentic leaders. Today, people demand personal relationships with their leaders before they'll give themselves fully to their jobs. When A. G. Lafley became CEO of Procter & Gamble, he took over an organization in turmoil. A longtime company veteran, Lafley relied heavily on relationships he had built over 25 years to transform P&G's culture. Through his personal engagement with his employees, Lafley has created one of the great corporate success stories of the 21st century. One of my students who worked for P&G shared a story about Lafley's visit to his country. The student was at his desk when Lafley came down the hall. He shook his hand and asked him about his work. Then Lafley looked him in the eye and said, "The work you are doing is vital to the future of P&G ... ." That's the kind of behavior that empowers people to step up and lead, and it exemplifies the way authentic leaders act.

Authentic leaders also know that competing successfully takes a consistently high level of self-discipline. It would be hard to find someone who illustrates the positive effects of self-discipline better than Warren Buffett. For over 40 years, he has followed a basic set of principles that have made him the most successful investor in America. By avoiding debt and high-risk investments and concentrating on value companies and long-term positions, Buffett has been an absolute model of self-discipline-also reflected in his personal life. Buffett lives in the house he bought in 1956 for $31,500, drives an old car, and washes his meals down with a Cherry Coke at Gorat's, his favorite Omaha steakhouse.

The challenges of leadership are so great these days that many ask whether it's worth taking on a leadership role. This issue of "America's Best Leaders" tells the stories of people who said yes. They are, as Teddy Roosevelt said, "in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood ... who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions ... knows in the end the triumph of high achievement" that can come only by "daring greatly."

No individual achievement can equal the pleasure of leading a group of people to achieve a worthy goal. When you cross the finish line together, there's a deep satisfaction that it was your leadership that made the difference. There's simply nothing that can compare with that.


Bill George, the former chair and CEO of Medtronic, is a professor at Harvard Business School and a member of the Best Leaders selection committee. His new book, True North: Discover Your Authentic Leadership, will be published in March.


Teaching the Art of Leading

Posted Sunday, October 22, 2006

The Center for Public Leadership sponsors courses, publications, and lectures aimed at identifying and teaching a broad range of leadership skills that can be used in a variety of organizations, groups, and communities. Since its founding in 2000, the center has stressed the development of personal as well as technical capabilities.

"Leadership in a time of uncertainty and change is much more than a cognitive exercise," says Betsy Myers, the center's executive director. It's often not enough to learn the tools of business and social science, such as financial and policy analysis. "It's self-understanding and an appreciation for the way their behavior influences others that enable leaders to use the tools to maximum advantage," explains Myers.

CPL offers workshops that help students, scholars, and practitioners explore ways to bring leadership theory and the emotional dimensions of leading to bear on real-world challenges. The center also provides crisis training for public health officials and leadership training for K-12 school superintendents.

Zuckerman Fellows Program: Leadership for the Common Good

The Zuckerman Fellows Program, established through a gift from Mortimer B. Zuckerman, enables students who are already enrolled in, or who have recently graduated from, professional degree programs in medicine, law, or business to pursue an additional degree at one of Harvard's public service schools: the John F. Kennedy School of Government, the Graduate School of Education, or the School of Public Health.

Each year, the Zuckerman Fellowship provides 25 recipients with full tuition plus a $30,000 stipend. Fellows are selected on the basis of their leadership abilities, intellectual and academic achievements, and commitment to public service.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061022/30pick.b.htm