Delta's Drama Kings

Sometimes things aren't what they appear to be.

In an official announcement yesterday, Delta Airlines said that current President Ed Bastian will retain the CFO title, which effectively cancels previous plans to hire a new CFO. That was the official line along with some corporate speak about "seamlessly maintaining relationships and momentum..." Whatever.

Here's another take based on a leadership truth that often gets shoved aside.

According to sources familiar with the situation, Bastian and CEO Richard Anderson have developed a strong personal dislike of one another. No big surprise there, taking into account the original chain of events that led to Anderson's hiring. But since the personal dislike factor can't be applied specifically to a news context it gets dismissed as normal vagaries of the executive suite.

Anyone following this company would be wise to watch closely how this personal riff plays out with personnel and business decisions. We often learn a lot more from human behavior managing a company than events perceived as materially consequential to the business. Then there's the irony, which every rich story contains. CEO Anderson is reportedly more operations inclined while the "brain" and main strategist from the original team, Jim Whitehurst, left the building awhile back. Whitehurst is rumored to be the next CEO of RedHat in Raleigh, N.C., but we can't confirm that to be true. Look for Bastian to leave early next year if things don't improve.

As to rumors of a Northwest merger, well, it doesn't make a lot of business sense. But according to our own stated rule, that probably doesn't mean much in the high stakes deal making world. The board is clearly consolidating its view around what comes next. Guess we'll just have to stay tuned for now.

# # #

Merger of Two Unequal?

A little rationale sense would go a long way in explaining the current carnage at Citigroup and Merrill Lynch. So would some humor. Unfortunately neither is in current supply.

Before we try to insert any, here's an idea: Merge the two unequal on their way down. Or better yet, invite Bank of America to make bids on Merrill and then merge the combined entity with Citigroup. Mother Merrill always wanted to be the world's largest bank so why not give them their chance? If the supermarket approach to banking can really work, then this chain of events would quickly reveal the strategy's viability. Otherwise it's time for an alternative preferably one without interim CEOs or what http://www.breakingviews.com/ calls "need for a plumber." Sorry, but the last time that term was used in such a high profile story was when a few rogues were breaking into Watergate.

What we don't know or can't seem to figure out is why Merrill and Citigroup would act so rashly without a clear successor or even candidates in waiting to take over from O'Neal and Prince, respectively. It's not entirely explainable by lack of succession planning although that's clearly a rationale reason worth reporting.

So is the involvement of former Treasury Secretary, newly installed Chairman Robert Rubin who will now lead an effort to find a new CEO at Citi. There's only one slight problem. He fully endorsed Prince's strategy and doesn't seem to think anything is wrong about the current direction. Okay, fine. But then why push Prince to resign? To satisfy a few investment crazies mad about sub-prime? Aren't boards supposed to stand up to pressure and present continuity vs. desperation?

If anyone thinks Rubin is the type of guy who will roll up his sleeves to get a solution in place, then they need to go back and read Ken Auletta's list of works more closely. But wait. It gets better. According to The Wall Street Journal, the only other person on the Citi board with banking experience is Dick Parsons, current head of Time Warner who used to run a small investment firm earlier in his career. Sorry, but we don't think the Cable Guy qualifies as a handpicker of talent to rescue a structured investment mess. Not to mention the overseer of his own semi-failed strategy. Where's Carl Icahn when you need him?

Meanwhile, the Merrill board is probably letting out some cigar air somewhere praying that they'll stay out of the fray. But that's wishful thinking. Their board is even more in-bred and will have a hard time convincing anyone qualified for the CEO position that they'll step aside for the right person.

Both of these major institutions have dropped the ball. And since it's football and CEO turnover season, it's a safe bet that their fumble will stay live on the ground for awhile.

Perhaps the high heeled boys of Wall Street could take a cue from their burger, fries and shake brethren at McDonald's? Now there's a succession success story. Not even death of a leader could stop this brand from marching onward and upward.

# # #

Merrill Lynch CEO Snooze Fest

In the realm of CEO turnover, the pending dismissal of Merrill Lynch CEO Stanley O'Neal is a real "So What" snooze fest. Here's why:

1.) Nothing will really change from a leadership point of view. ML will get a new guy, maybe BlackRock's Mr. Fink. He'll talk a good game, hire a few new faces, move things around and then proceed to manage the balance sheet like it's the last day of his and the firm's life. But that's about the extent. Leaders don't always translate into leadership. This is proving particularly true on Wall Street these days. If anyone thinks risk as far as the eye can see behavior is going to change, then they're delusional. Case in point: The structured investment vehicle (SIV) bailout and its dwindling list of "debt on top of debt" contributors.

2.) Big banks are all the same. Very little to no differentiation. No real products or services set them apart. Insiders will argue this point vehemently. Here's a test. Go to anyone -- business and/or consumer -- who has an account with Merrill, Bank of America or Citi. Ask them point blank, "what do you get from your bank that you can't get anywhere else?" That's right. NADA, nothing. No wonder O'Neal was interested in Wachovia other than the potential payoff despite the fact he will likely get a similar amount via his separation agreement.

3.) Very little board room or palace intrigue. Unlike the Morgan Stanley drama that played out for months between Purcell, Mack and investors, Merrill Lynch is getting caught relatively flat footed. O'Neal handpicked most of the board, and with the exception of a few lone voices, there's not enough conflict to get any of the usual juices flowing. "Largest ever" loss highly damaging but not all that revealing in a forward looking turnover or succession context. Mainly because the poor judgment was so obvious. About the only thing left worth watching is how high the loss number will go, not who takes the reins.

Looking ahead...How many top people will bail out of Merrill in the coming weeks? That's where the real consequences lie, not how many millions Stanley gets to take home. Someone wake us when this one is over.

# # #

CEO Turnover: From Watch to Oust

Throw out the first ceremonial board pitch. Let the compensation pigskins fly. CEO turnover season is here.

The resignation of Gary Forsee, the now former CEO of Sprint, ushers in that rare time of year when boards conclave to "assess" their CEO leadership. Proxies are being written and rehashed, and for a chosen few, axes are getting polished. If you listen quietly from October to December, that whispering sound is scuttlebutt about who is on the way out and who is on the way in.

Forsee's resignation follows a board decision to put out a public search for new candidates. That's probably not the best way to proceed, but then again, maybe they'll get what they're looking for. No one knows except the board, which now seems to be running the company. That's never good.

Within that same sector, pay careful attention to the line between watch to oust on Ed Zander at Motorola. Different situation than Sprint, but at the core, same dilemma: Can we have trust and confidence that this CEO's leadership will propel the company's growth over the next five years? On the surface, the answer is nearly always no. But it's not the board's role to make snap decisions in a vacuum. They must think outward and long-term vs. inward in their own personal interests.

Other candidates for the Watch to Oust list include: Patricia Russo at Lucent/Alcatel, Stanley O'Neal at Merrill Lynch and Charles Prince at Citigroup. Both O'Neal and Prince have some leadership to do on recent billion dollar losses in the credit markets. Bad risk is bad risk -- we get it. But that shouldn't provide an excuse for poor judgment. They didn't provide accurate pro-active or even reactive guidance, and in Prince's case, simply compounded a string of errors that raise questions of judgment.

And while we love the touch of the Saudi Prince's endorsement of his fellow Prince reported in The Wall Street Journal, it's nearly the equivalent of New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner coming out and saying, "Joe Torre is our man." Be very weary of public endorsements during a crisis. The outcomes are rarely positive.

# # #

FIRST

Okay, so "The Garlington Report" was the first to call the Delta CEO announcement. That's a fact that a few have noticed.

For the record, however, we were factually incorrect on at least one specific: COO Whitehurst will not resign effective immediately. Timing is beside the point as conveyed to Fortune (go to http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/21/magazines/fortune/delta_boyle.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007082117.) Talent at that level rarely hangs around for scraps left after the power gets divvied up.

We could be wrong, but in this case, it's nearly impossible to see how a guy who made over a million dollars with Boston Consulting Group prior to joining Delta would hang around in an unclear position. Particularly after what he was able to accomplish. Listen quietly and you'll probably hear the buzz of recruiters ringing through on his BlackBerry.

High achievers want to achieve; it's not always about money. In fact, when you have that much money, it's about higher levels of success, which can include money but that's rarely the only measure.

Oh, and here's a weird nagging detail: They've given the CFO, Ed Bastian, the additional title of President while the "new guy" becomes CEO. Does that have precedence in major companies?

Someone needs to trace the relationship between Bastian and the head of the pilots union more closely. That may be more revealing than what the creditors' influence indicates.

# # #

Delta to name new CEO later today

ATLANTA (August 21, 2007) -- Delta Airlines will name current board member Richard Anderson CEO in an official company announcement later today, according to undisclosed source close to the company. Ed Bastian, current CFO, will be named president, and current chief operating officer (COO), Jim Whitehurst, will resign effective immediately. Daniel Carp will remain non-executive chairman of the board.

Naming a recently appointed board member raises questions about whether Anderson's candidacy was impartial when he joined the company's board. As The Wall Street Journal first reported earlier this month, Anderson was not present for interviews of internal candidates. This would suggest, at least perceptually, that Anderson was in it for the CEO job all along vs. the organization's long-term strategic interests. The same firm that recruited Anderson, Spencer Stuart, also recruited Carp, whom according to sources, led the search process.

This appointment also means Delta will lose arguably their strongest leadership talent responsible for turning the company around coming out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Whitehurst, a former BCG partner, is widely credited with some of the company's improvements in customer service and execution of the successful international expansion strategy. He is perhaps best known for orchestrating the Velvet Rope Tour, an effort to restore confidence among non-union flight attendants.

# # #

Nardelli Hit Parade

It's hard to recall a more galvanizing executive appointment than Bob Nardelli being named CEO of Cerebrus' Chrysler. No lack of opinions or views. Here's mine: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-08-06-chrysler-bob-nardelli_N.htm

Not many get that level of second chance, particularly after what he left in his wake at Home Depot. The original tag to this story was, "Failing Upward." The best unpublished comments range from "this type of buffoonery is bad for capitalism" to "what's the (betting) 'over under' on his tenure?"

What to watch: Will Nardelli learn from previous mistakes? Or more importantly, hone his leadership skills? One thing is for sure. He's not going to be successful driving his original love, a Dodge Dart. Eeesh!

# # #

Delta Delay

Delta's search for a new CEO represents another delay. But not the type that leaves you in the Crown Room begging for a way out.

The challenge is two-fold: How to find someone to fill the chief post while keeping operations and the business moving continuously forward away from Chapter 11. The company says a decision isn't likely until at least the end of August when the board re-convenes. No lack of opinions out here on what they should or should not do. Some are informed while others, well...

Here's my personal favorite: "It's a cat fight to the finish between Paula Rosput (a current Delta board member and former CEO of Atlanta-based AGL Resources) and Marce Fuller, who used to run Mirant Corp. The fact that one of them (Fuller) is unemployed and the other semi-retired at a Seattle insuror makes it even more intense. Wake us when it's over."

According to an informal poll of search experts, the most likely option will be identifying a strong Chairman/CEO type along the lines of current CEO Gerald Grinstein. This person would then allow the two top internal candidates, Ed Bastian and Jim Whitehurst, to remain in their existing roles. Two other rumored contenders currently fit the bill but only one has experience operating a large airline. Daniel Carp currently serves as non-executive Chairman.

But that's all conventional wisdom. It's difficult to see how the board will just go with what's so obvious. Prior to Grinstein, there was Leo Mullin, the consummate outsider and McKinsey expert who inherited not only a flawed business model but also was forced to manage through 9/11. Some defend Mullin with great gusto, but we're not among them. It's a credibility thing. The last insider was a Delta original, Ron Allen, which, well, it's not worth turning that far back.

It's our view that the "new Delta" needs a fresh new leader, one that can continue the momentum, remain optimistic but accept a reality that no one else seems willing to: Sustained profitability for a large carrier in the current system is dreaming at best, living a lie at worst.

Would anyone like some peanuts? Okay, sorry, snack mix and complimentary beverage?

# # #

Pay to Patter

'Rahodeb' here. Ok, not really. Anyone still scratching their heads after reading the latest on Whole Foods' CEO? We're moving quickly from the issue of pay to patter. Here are some observations for your own edification:

1.) Patter matters. Ironically, digital communication now has a longer shelf life than print. Emails, IMs, Yahoo chat room postings (who has time?), you name it. All subject to ready search and fast distribution.
2.) To update an old saying, it's never the (crime) indiscretion, always the (cover-up) trail. 'Rahodeb' not alone by any stretch. High time flat footed Baby Boomer executives caught up to the realities of new media. Taking this point a step further...
3.) Digital Dumb doesn't provide a free pass to decline participation in the electronic age. Information is moving too fast for some figures, such as New Jersey Gov. Corzine, to start thinking he can claim privilege and everything will go back to the way it was before. Distinctions between official and personal don't wash publicly.

Before the Whole Foods situation explodes into a Paris-like cable news frenzy, here's the key question that their board needs to answer: When the antitrust comments first surfaced, why did the CEO (or did the CEO) fire back on his own blog? Did he know then the extent of what we all know now? And if so, then does that represent an omission that was voluntary or one endorsed by a privileged source such as a lawyer?

Better yet...Take these questions/answers and then measure against the company's stellar performance and cult-like brand status. Then and only then can the "Fire Mackey?" be deliberately answered.

# # #

Founder's Syndrome

Click here for the perfect summer read: http://www.foundread.com/view/curing-the-founders. Okay, maybe not perfect but entirely true. Take it from a founder who learned the hard way.

Inclusive Era Over Before it Started

Before anyone tries to stereotype the latest CEO casualty at Yahoo, they would benefit from taking a step back. Terry Semel's departure falls smack dab in between two widely claimed trends: Founders returning as CEOs -- insert Yang now in the CEO seat at Yahoo, Citrin at Vonage and Dell at well, you know -- and inclusive CEOs, which three Booz Allen consultants report at length in the latest issue of Strategy+Business (see link http://www.strategy-business.com/press/article/07205?gko=04dd3-1876-26242394)

In the Yahoo case, neither trend applies. It's time for the company to move away from its legacy and into areas that help grow and differentiate the business. There's no way a founder or long-time insider can accomplish turnaround on their own. Particularly in entrepreneurial companies, which Yahoo is despite their incredible rise as a brand.

Even Michael Dell, who no one would bet against, has turned outside for a rapid infusion of talent. What's the takeaway here? Performance rules. Always has, always will. Change means real change, not more of the same. Or heaven forbid, a call for "let's return to the basics."

Timeless Classic

Sometimes when you're beginning anew, it helps to consult pages from the past.

Following are excerpts from Stephen Covey's "Seven Habits of Highly Successful People," which was first published in 1989. The excerpts are not only applicable today but also quite telling about how much work remains to be done defining and applying leadership.

In many ways, Covey's original a-ha moments are just now beginning to play out on a wide scale. Leaders, companies and boards, beware. Keep ignoring these basics and be prepared to face the consequences.

"...If I try to use human influence strategies and tactics of how to get other people to do what I want, to work better, to be more motivated, to like me and each other -- while my character is fundamentally flawed, marked by duplicity and insincerity -- then in the long run, I cannot be successful. My duplicity will breed distrust, and everything I do -- even using so called human relations techniques -- will be perceived as manipulative. It simply makes no difference how good the rhetoric is or even how good the intentions are, if there is little or no trust, there is no foundation for permanent success. Only basic goodness gives life to technique.

To focus on technique is like cramming your way through school. You sometimes get by, perhaps even get good grades, but if you don't pay the price day in and day out, you never achieve true mastery of the subjects you study or develop an educated mind...

Many people with secondary greatness, that is, social recognition for their talents, lack primary greatness or goodness in their character. Sooner or later, you'll see this in every long-term relationship they have. It is character that communicates most eloquently. Then there are situations where people have character but lack communication skills and that affects relationships as well. But the effects are secondary.

...What we are communicates far more eloquently than anything we say or do. We all know it. There are people we trust absolutely because we know their character. Whether they're eloquent or not, whether they have human relations techniques or not, we trust them and work successfully with them.

In the words of William George Jordan, "Into the hands of every individual is given marvelous power for good or evil -- the silent, unconscious, unseen influence of his (or her) life. This is simply the constant radiation of what man (or woman) really is, not what he (or she) pretends to be."

Fast forward to today. Try applying this timeless summary to your own behavior and spheres of influence. If that's too difficult, then use these words as criteria to evaluate the next leadership crisis that lands in the news. Chances are the aforementioned qualities will be either on full display or entirely absent.

True or False? Leaders, take the test

Following summarizes the leading true/false rules straight out of the executive leadership lab. From the candidate and search points of view. Ranked in order of most commonly heard, experienced and/or ill conceived.
1) Executive recruiters are my best source of career advice. False. Recruiters work mostly for companies, not individuals. While some do a better job helping individuals than others, their interests are not generally aligned with your own. Personal and professional networks account for more than 60 percent of all new jobs, while recruiters represent six to eight percent. As clear as this to some, actions tend to suggest otherwise. Anyone who says they work the client and talent side equally simply isn't telling the truth.
2) What I've accomplished to date will always apply. True with a caveat. Best summed up by the title of guru coach Marshall Goldsmith's latest book, "What Got You Here Won't Get You There." Everyone has special talents and accomplishments. Key is making sure those apply to potential new positions first, our own egos second. Fundamental rule but grossly overlooked in our transaction heavy culture.
3) What I do or offer matters more than who I am. Increasingly false. Particularly at the CEO and board levels. Character counts. According to another guru, Stephen Covey, nearly three-quarters of all leadership failures can be attributed to character flaws. That percentage is based on empirical research of more than 50,000 subjects cited in "The 8th Habit." Please don't make us cite the page number.
4.) Work with passion is a passing fad. False. Remember the old saying, "do something you love and you'll never have to work a day in your life?" Dreamy yet true over time. All the great ones exemplify work with passion. They don't necessarily love their jobs every day, but they generally do something that they like and/or believe in a majority of the time.
5.) The law of reciprocity applies more than half the time. False. A personal favorite. Taught at ad nauseam in the management schools and seminars, this rule is only true 20 to 30 percent of the time, not 50 percent, the generally cited figure. If you doubt this point, then consult any major figure who has to produce or generate revenue tied to himself or herself. The honest ones will vouch.

The New Economy is Here. Oh, wait, not that New Economy.

There are always more questions than answers for the thoughtfully uncertain. Lately, however, even that truism is out of kilter.

CEOs and boards are under attack. We get it. But why does that mean leaders have to fall back on their heels? Is it because they’re scared, paranoid, beholden to investors or all of the above? The Cs have every right to be scared but running scared is not an option. We desperately need more to step up and act more boldly and broadly. Rolling over isn’t going to cut it nor is "going green," the latest bandwagon movement.

If investors don’t hold under-performing companies accountable, who will? Self-governing boards? Government? Management? Ok, this isn’t a trick question. None of the above. Investors and those who genuinely want to see more value are the only ones with an ability to impact change. Minus a few exceptions, companies and their managers can’t be left to their own devices. And that’s just it. Managers don’t always make leaders despite off-the-shelf training tools and off-site pow-wows.

Is a PEG coming to a company near you? Major private equity groups, or PEGs for short, are scouring the pads for businesses flush with cash flow that they can load up with debt and then turn around and sell. That much we know. What we don’t really know is how they do it entirely. Largely because they’re private. Maybe that’s a good thing? For more on the talent repercussions, please visit http://www.pointofviewllc.com/views_and_news.html.

Recession coming or merely another blip and dip in the gyrating global economy? Who knows. What we do know: The housing industry has a long way to go before hitting complete bottom, consumer spending continues to see-saw and the U.S. personal savings rate is negative. Employment, a lagging indicator, remains strong as does the stock market, a leading indicator. That combo. normally bodes well for growth but evidently not always. Could it be...we're in The New Economy that so many yammered about back during the Bubble?

April Pointe

Language and its ugly step cousin, communication, represent a true Catch 22. Never before have so many waxed on about the importance of these areas. Never before have so many come up short. Sorry, but we have to ask why?

The first reason is obvious. Effective use of language is not openly rewarded in the executive marketplace. It's one of those traits that everyone is supposed to have (insert the term "commodity") but so few do (insert "value.") The only time language and communication are rewarded usually comes at the ninth hour when someone wakes up to realize something has to be done.

The second reason is language and communication aren't taught effectively in schools. Colleges, b-schools, grammar schools, you name it. Few remain in command. When Strunk and White wrote their classics on style and grammar, not even these two masters could have predicted how email and the Internet would demote the value of language.

The next reason, and last one for Pointe purposes, is language and other matters of the executive brain have been largely outsourced to consultants, underpaid writers and other so called literary types called ghost writers, my personal favorite. Even political operatives such as Frank Luntz have emerged as experts. Too bad he couldn't have had more influence with the Bush administration. "Surge" ranks as one of the all-time worst word choices at a most inopportune time. On the other side, "war is lost" may be direct, but it's not what most would call a wise choice of terms.

Leaders, quit ignoring language at your peril. Read, write, listen and/or go to a seminar. Stop and think clearly before the next communication. Get outside help if you must. Your audiences may not clap loudly, but they will welcome continuous improvement.

# # #

Hypocrisy Is Alive and Well

It’s fairly safe to conclude that Don Imus and Steve Heyer aren’t boyhood chums. Imus needs no introduction unless you’ve been under a rock for the past five days.

Steve Heyer is the outgoing CEO of Starwood Hotels. He was forced to resign recently after an anonymous letter was sent to the board accusing him of indiscriminate behavior with female employees.

Moving intros. aside, here’s why these two are worth examining in a leadership context.

Institutions dependent on the almighty dollar – in these cases, boards and advertisers – nearly always come off as hypocritical when controversy surfaces. The normal modus operandi is outrage first, action second. The action, however, nearly always exceeds the crime, particularly when the institution is caught red handed for having it both ways.

Don Imus generates $50 million in revenue for NBC and CBS radio. Yet one slip up, albeit major, now threatens to derail a 35-year career. Largely because, despite how it may seem on the surface, money comes first, principle second. Watching the firestorm erupt, you would have thought Don himself had burned a cross in Al Sharpton’s yard.

This is no defense of what Imus said. It was wrong. What makes it hypocritical is how advertisers are bailing out after benefiting for years off his routine, which featured far raunchier and incendiary comments than “nappy headed hos.”

Turning to another highly charged environment, corporate board rooms, the ouster of Steve Heyer confirmed what his track record had left before. Hard charging, acerbic, controversial and dismissing the status quo.

When an anonymous letter accusing him of misconduct surfaced, Heyer either decided to leave the company or was forced to resign, depending on how you want to read the situation. Perception ruled again with an iron fist. You’re guilty. And away he went.

Simple question: Why would the board hire someone who was essentially thrown out of his previous two jobs and then act surprised when controversy surfaced? Answer: Because when you’re fighting the “war for talent,” you’ll do anything to land a star performer who can generate higher returns, which Heyer did. Again, greed first, principle second.

Imus and Heyer are just part and parcel of this trend, which unfortunately is more of a continuous movie reel than it is an issue anyone is willing to address, much less accept.

# # #

Dig deeper

Two crises, same common thread: Business leadership under attack.

In one corner of the ring punching and jabbing like life depends on it is David Neeleman, CEO of JetBlue Airlines. You would be, too, if your business had completely broken down for the world to see on Lover's Day, or what some have quickly labeled the Valentine's Day Massacre. "We've been JetBlued" has now entered the traveler lexicon. But that's another story.

In the other corner, not really jabbing but taking wide swings is Ken Lewis, CEO, Bank of America, which has been singled out for peddling credit cards to illegal immigrants. The company would tell you otherwise. What made the program highly controversial were 24 percent APR interest rates on cards marketed in Los Angeles' Hispanic community. Whether the immigrants were legal or illegal misses the larger business point.

The easy conclusion to draw here is obvious: CEOs under attack for their company's performance and bad behavior. How each has handled their respective crises, however, bears further examination. So do exploring the sum of their experiences, the forgotten variable often overlooked when reporting about monolithic companies.

Neeleman is a devout Mormon with nine children. His first experience in business was observing his grandfather's convenience store, where if a product sold out, he would run down to the nearest supermarket and buy more of the item in demand. A self described sufferer of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Neeleman dropped out of a college to start a travel agency. He then founded an airline which was subsequently sold to Southwest Airlines whose CEO at the time was Herb Kelleher, an entrepreneurial legend in his own right. According to a previously published profile in Fortune magazine, Neeleman was fired after about five months on the job. By the time he started JetBlue in 1999, it's safe to say that he had experienced just about every up and down (no pun intended) an airline executive could experience.

Now juxtapose this personal history with Ken Lewis, the iron clad CEO of Bank of America, which has witnessed incredible growth under his watch. Lewis joined what was then NCNB in 1969 as a credit analyst and worked his way up to the top job through grit and determination over 30 years. No small feat in its own right.

Ok, interesting personal histories. But what's the point? We are framed by influences, events and experiences that create who we are. Leaders, however, are held to a higher standard. Hence the term, “leadership.” It's their responsibility to help others adapt and respond to change, which often rears its ugly side through crises.

Applying this rule to the Neeleman and Lewis examples, who do you think is more suited to lead?

The short answer is we won't know for awhile. JetBlue has to re-earn the trust and confidence of customers, which is no easy task with or without a "bill or rights." Bank of America seems to have weathered its storm despite not appearing to be forthright and visible on the controversial credit program.

Neeleman has chosen a star-driven public profile, appearing on the David Letterman show and in other countless formats to answer criticism. Other than an op-ed on the Wall Street Journal’s sympathetic editorial page, Lewis has remained relatively tight lipped like a good banker always is taught to be. Different strokes for different folks. Savvy public relations can only provide air cover for so long.

The harder answer to the leadership suitability question generally requires digging deeper beyond the surface, which regrettably, our attention spans do not allow. Whether Neeleman and Lewis meet some unknown threshold may make good news, but it doesn't produce any lasting lesson. A far more productive exercise would be if more business leaders could apply their core values, assuming they have some, to the issues at hand. Then we might get somewhere on the trust and confidence meter.

# # #

In the News

Following is an excerpt from a recent USA Today piece that quotes yours truly. For the full article, please go to http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2007-02-02-comeback-ceos-usat_x.htm. Dell is more about namesakes reclaiming their brand than boomerang CEOs. But why quibble.
===========================================

Dell joins ranks of once-hot trend: Boomerang CEOs

By Del Jones, USA TODAY (All Rights Reserved)

Does Michael Dell signal a new era of the "comeback kid?"

When he was rehired late Wednesday, Dell became the first so-called boomerang CEO to be brought back to rescue a Fortune 500 company since 2005. Dell, 41 and founder of the PC maker (DELL), replaced Kevin Rollins, 54, who was Dell's hand-picked replacement two years ago.

Boomerangs used to be common. From 1999-2003 an average of 10 former CEOs were brought back each year at the largest 1,500 companies, so many that it prompted Ohio State assistant finance professor Rudi Fahlenbrach to co-author a study published last November called "The Market for Comeback CEOs."

But there were no boomerang CEOs at Fortune 500 companies in 2006 and just two in 2005 (at TJX Cos. and First Data (FDC)), says Leslie Gaines-Ross, chief reputation strategist at Weber Shandwick...

Michael Dell is a true comeback kid at one year younger than Steve Jobs when Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 to begin his iPod curtain call and oversee a stock rise approaching 2,000%. Jobs is also an atypical boomerang CEO because most leave again within three years, or just long enough to right the company and line up proper succession planning.

It won't be easy for Michael Dell to mimic Jobs, says Jeremy Garlington, who runs an executive leadership consultancy. Unlike Apple, Dell is in an industry "racing to the bottom of the commodity barrel. No one will bet against Michael Dell, but even he would have to admit that a turnaround could take a long time," Garlington says...

# # #

Earth to Michael Dell and Phil Kent

Ok, one name is quite familiar and speaks for itself. Michael Dell will have his hands full trying to turn Dell Computer around. The Apple Steve Jobs analogy is apt but lacks one key detail: Jobs didn't make it all the way back the first time around. It was only later on a second better timed tour of duty that he got Apple back on track. Does anyone remember John Sculley?

Phil Kent is the CEO of Turner Broadcasting, which runs The Cartoon Network. Their promotional brilliance around a sketch called, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force," (no, we're not making this up) caused quite the terror shock yesterday in Boston. Some light boards featuring the characters were mistaken for bomb devices by local authorities. Springing into action, Kent and Turner issued a long winded statement apologizing for the screw-up, which was obviously bungled by a third-party marketing vendor that no one was managing properly. The vendor's employee mug on cable last night being led out of his residence said it all.

It's an odd situation to say the least, but anyone who recalls the H-P spying case from last year will remember how the same type of vendor arrangement was blamed at the outset. Different issue entirely with thankfully less harmful of an outcome. If Kent is with it, he'll go on "The Comedy Show" with Jon Stewart and the Boston airwaves and take his lumps. No way out of this one without some action, sincerity and self deprecating humor that toes the line. One last question: Did anyone think about picking up the phone and calling the Boston police chief to apologize and lend support? These "devices" were evidently in place for weeks, according to callers to a local radio call-in show. Amazing...

# # #

The HD Roller Coaster

Get ready for a wild ride following last week's abrupt resignation of Bob Nardelli as Chairman and CEO of Home Depot. This one makes no real business sense so chalk it up to the powerful personalities involved. Hard to see how the "new guy" fits over the long term...

Following is an excerpt from last week's mainstream coverage (Atlanta Journal & Constitution, 1/4/07):

Management experts say Nardelli's driven personality overshadowed his accomplishments at Home Depot. Sales doubled under Nardelli, to more than $81.5 billion, and earnings per share rose more than 140 percent.

"At some point, he turned himself into the story, and there's an old rule in crisis situations: You don't let yourself become the story," said Jeremy Garlington, an Atlanta-based executive coach and managing partner of Point of View LLC. "Under Nardelli, Home Depot had record profits and record revenues, but the stock price was stagnant. It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint ... but business often comes down to personalities and relationships, not figures."