'Big Change is Coming' Hint: Hide!

So a friend emails two hours ago and asks, "have you seen this?" It was in reference to the New York Times op-ed by former Goldman Sachs vice president Greg Smith (btw: Goldman has 10,000 other employees holding the same title.) The little shot heard round the media world didn't quite register with my friend who by every admission is a technology guy.

Then yesterday a Tweet trends towards a great tongue-in-cheek summary http://allthingsd.com/20120315/ceo-thompson-tells-yahoos-real-change-is-coming-its-exclusive-internal-memo-time/ of an internal memo sent out by the new Yahoo CEO warning that "big change is coming." It's a relative safe statement to say that not only is that message scary, but that every Yahoo saw it and digested the content from multiple POVs. A few folks in Silicon Valley probably saw the memo, too (facetious.)

What's the point here? Anything resembling news with conflict travels at the speed of light and more of it is coming quickly to replace whatever happened this week. Both the Goldman and Yahoo examples point to many things, but here's the rub from a corporate leadership POV: Stay proactive, act fast and be transparent even when every corporate control or trait you've been taught instructs otherwise. Anything put into writing is fair game in the Internet age. Embrace this truth or forever run scared at your peril. Audiences are selective, critical and ready to pounce on anything that's perceived as fake bake, scary or out of line with pedestrian values. Based on what passes as popular leadership these days, can you blame them?

# # #

Oracle of Omaha: Value or Commodity?

After picking it up in direct and indirect parts through other sources, it's clear that Warren Buffett's three-hour gabfest on CNBC this morning accomplished at least one of two things. First it continued his longly held perceived love affair with hearing himself talk to Rebecca Quick, a former Wall Street Journal print reporter turned broadcasting maven. No one can argue with the Oracle of Omaha's legendary investing record; that speaks for itself and always will. But from a branding perspective, Buffett has grown to resemble an over-exposed talking head. From the public rescue of Goldman Sachs back during the Crash to last year's infusion to Bank of America -- interceded by becoming best known business pals with President Obama, the mystique that gave rise to Buffett's fame now has been eroded. His latest announcement that he's chosen a successor but will not name him or her is downright kooky considering current public profile. Then again when you're rich and don't answer to anyone these things don't matter much. At least he's intellectually honest, which is more than what can be said about leaders in other sectors.

# # #

On-line networking: Friend or foe?

Dear Clients and Colleagues:

By way of personal testimony, I'm going to address a growing issue in the on-line marketplace, or more specifically business networking.

A trusted friend recently introduced a former colleague facing an inflection point. This person wasn't looking for immediate change per se; he wanted an objective framework for asking questions -- in a safe environment. Rather than immediately gather background, I held off looking him up on-line until meeting in person. Granted this modus operandi may be a little different since my business relies more heavily on one-to-one communication and relationship building vs. the one-to-many approach.

We are rapidly moving, okay, have moved into a world where lots of loose connections, or those known as Facebook friends, now rule the roost. The marketplace is largely responsible for this trend so far be it for anyone to become indignant about what amounts to a mostly positive trend when taking into account the trend's overall value.

Back to the previous story. If I had chosen to go on Linked In or Facebook to profile this person, then chances are details would have been gathered in typical form. By the same token the exercise also would have fed natural biases that naturally inform meeting someone for the first time. Flip this example around and several examples leap to mind where a prospective client profiled us and decided what we did wasn't for them -- without having a personal conversation.

Forgive the rapid fire question, but for crying out loud, have we lost that much human capacity that we're going to fear meeting someone new in business so much that we're going to profile inside and out prior to ever laying eyes on that person? Cynics may say yes that's been going on in the on-line dating world so what's the big deal. I am not one of those cynics --at least not on this topic.

Please join in an exercise of creative constraint when it comes to on-line social networking. Meeting new people with a blank slate that removes bias has more potential to open new doors and lead to new places of value, something that is needed right now across all sectors. Key search terms only go so far.

Put the personal back into (social) networking, in other words, or at the very least show profiling restraint so more game changing possibilities can present themselves. The fear of something new can never supercede the need to find something new. Thank you,

JG

Fate or Coincidence?

The death of former Penn State Coach Joe Paterno, or JoePa to die hard fans, has created its share of second guessing surrounding what amounts now to a tainted legacy. Barely noted deep within the obituaries lies an interesting fact that draws parallels with another former coaching legend, Paul "Bear" Bryant, the famed Alabama coach. Both men died shortly after coaching their last game; Bryant's passing came one month after his last game while Paterno died three months after coaching finale. Interestingly enough both icons played the University of Illinois in their final official games. Bryant tends to get a pass but for the record did exhibit rogue behavior by betting on games. Widely known at the time, it wasn't reported at length publicly -- or at least it didn't catch Twitter fire. Different time, different era.

This coincidence points back to history's most famous death pairing when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826, the nation's 50th birthday. On parallel paths their entire lives, Adams gave rise to Jefferson by having him write the Declaration of Independence ("John Adams," David McCullough.) Adams could have done it himself but knew Jefferson was a more eloquent writer and known figure. Adams also is reportedly to have spoken Jefferson's name moments prior to his death. As an aside, both men were widowed and did not remarry.

These iconic examples point back to those that we all have known who have worked in jobs for so long that their personal identities have suffered when the job changed or went away. We all have known examples of retirees who once they hung up the coat were done with working or learning new things. Our message is simple: Don't be one of these people. Pursue a calling, work hard at your job -- whatever it may be -- and be present and available to family and friends. Oh, and keep the faith, too.

If you can think of any other interesting famous death pairings, please leave a comment below. Thanks for reading,

JG

# # #

Yahoo: Nothing ever changes when it comes to brand name executive search

Yahoo's recent CEO appointment, picked nicely from PayPal, and the subsequent decision to revamp the company's board underscores how little things change when it comes to how big companies recruit and select talent.

First, the CEO appointment. This decision was obviously needed following the blow-up of the former CEO, Carol Bartz, who basically told her board to f*&% off. So naturally the board goes and gets what's perceived as a softer spoken yet tough operator with a 'Boston accent' as the WSJ headline read last week. The new office holder pledges very little beyond the basics so not to create undue expectations, which are already through the roof anyway. In his defense, that's exactly how to handle the situation.

Then directly following the appointment it's learned that someone has hired a search firm to help revamp the board since it's reportedly learned that Chairman Cliff Bostock would like to move on. Of course no one talks on the record so this is learned through "people close to the matter" or however it's termed now. This dovetails nicely with the CEO appointment.

Everything looks and appears to be picture perfect, right? Much like HP, a big brand name company has taken what it believes to be the appropriate action to impact change. There's only one slight problem. These moves are precisely the same ones that have always been made in these situations with possibly the exception of remaking a board after a CEO hire (although admittedly that's pretty common too.) Yahoo remains standing without a clear strategic direction and soon there will be a new cast of pending characters to sort out vision and strategy. Whether it's former CEO, Carol Bartz, or one of the four other CEOs over the past five years, putting in similar leaders in the same way will always yield the same thing, which may ultimately resemble the definition of insanity. The succession experts can be heard groaning from a mile away.

Then again if everyone is convinced and compensated to do the same thing over and over then why should anything change?

As a side note of disclosure, I used to work for the search firm named to handle the board revamping. No internal sources even know who is doing the work or aren't willing to confirm the obvious, which further compounds the mystery. When everyone wants to be on the inside and very few are, it's nearly impossible to know precisely what's going on. Hence the palace intrique in major brand name situations, another unchanging paradigm.

Anyone up for doing the same thing over and over in 2012 and getting handsomely rewarded?

# # #

Republican candidates usher in post-branding era

Don't look now but the BCS championship-like race for the Republican presidential nomination is ushering in the post-branding era. What does that mean? The traditional methods of branding, such as communicating a consistent message over time, have been replaced by pressure to get to the core faster than ever before anyone changes their minds. Audiences no longer matter as much as loyal followers, which takes more effort than sending out Tweets every hour. Performance and organization trump buzz for now or at least until buzz forms -- then all bets are off. Here are some other observations along similar lines:

1. Voters aren't as nuanced as the candidates think they are. But they still shop with a value-driven vengeance. It makes less difference whether you're a Tea Partier than it does someone who can hold sway without extremism overcoming sound principles. Rick Santorum's emergence in Iowa as the evangelical darling occurred AFTER caucus goers decided that Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman weren't as appealing. It wasn't sleeveless sweaters that garnered 25 percent of the vote; it was good 'ole fashioned hard work and retail appeal. Think Walmart before they got fancy with the new marketing regime.

2. None of the candidates have captured the essence of the Republican brand, which may be a good thing. Without an anointed presumptive winner in traditional party form no one in the field represents an A-player. The now perceived front runners are old names trying to reinvent themselves into something new. Think of the remaining field as brand extensions, or in the world of laundry detergent, lots of Cheer and generic names vs. the go to Tide. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are hardly new exciting figures in the same image as Barack Obama in 2008. The media love a darling, but to date, no one can or will claim the mantle. This leads to an unfortunate formula: Little differentiation + known quantities = snooze fest.

Here's hoping Monday night's BCS championship game doesn't suffer the same fate!

# # #

Hardly coincidental

The re-ascendancy of Starbuck's CEO Howard Schultz to Fortune magazine's top executive ranking comes as no surprise. His company, or should we say the existing one he was hired into and then proceeded to re-invent, is a household name and just completed a record year of revenues and profits. It seems as though customers are still willing to pay five bucks for a latte even in these "most uncertain times."

What's revealing about the Schultz story, however, isn't so much about dollars and cents although record performance plays a leading role. It's more about Schultz's ability to straddle the growing fence between political crusader, community activist and business steward. These skills have increasingly grown in demand as large companies navigate an era defined by big government, regulation and environmental accountability. Schultz and Starbuck's have been at the forefront of this trend. Their continuing stamp of success reveals a few undeniable truths for leaders and businesses alike, mainly:

1.) Having a point of view about the issues impacting your business matters more than ever. When Congress and the president nearly ground government to a halt last summer over the debt ceiling, Schultz came out swinging, calling for a boycott on contributions to office holders and candidates alike who espoused obstructionist views. This was classic POVing at its highest form. Pro-active, controversial and lone wolf in tone and content. During a time when most companies are playing both sides of the aisle with contributions, Schultz made the calculation that it was in no one's interest to maintain the status quo. He of course didn't have to make this stand but did so because he evidently believed in the action. If more leaders and companies would follow suit maybe more of the "change we believe in" could occur? The recent more reactive response to immigration by Chipotle CEO Monty Moran partially qualifies although admittedly espousing a POV on an issue after an offense can be perceived as spin.

2.) Being willing to take a stand on unpopular but proper business practices, even when it represents great cost, can make a difference over time. This used to be called investing in a business. Despite high costs of doing so, Starbuck's still provides health care coverage to its part-time and full-time employees. Schultz has continually gone on record saying that will never change. The rewards come in the form of employee loyalty and lower turnover, which results in more consistent service, which leads to higher revenues and profits. Again more companies and leaders would be well served to track this line without solely focusing on short-term financials as a primary outcome. Easier said than done. But necessary.

Click here for the original Fortune magazine profile if you didn't already have the pleasure of reading over the holidays: http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/11/17/starbucks-howard-schultz-business-person-year/

Thanks for viewing. Happy New Year,

JG

Coming Home

As we plan to travel for the holidays, a different homecoming theme has emerged in this week's business news.

First, the passing of former HP board chairwoman, Patricia Dunn, whose biggest claim to executive brand fame was allegedly knowing about phone wire tapping of other board members and not properly disclosing the behavior. By the time others, including HP board member Tom Perkins of Kleiner Perkins, got done with the public character assassination, Dunn's reputation resembled mincemeat. She was later exonerated of any legal wrongdoing. Now we learn about her long battle with ovarian cancer, which resulted in the former executive's death. This passing is great reminder of what's important in life vs. business. It's our sincere hope that as publicly reported Dunn died peacefully with love from family, friends and God close by.

The next example is someone who hasn't died but faces a rare terminal illness called PSP or "progressive supranuclear palsy." Famed deal maker Richard Rainwater is battling for his life after a long run of Midas touch business investments and dealings. Fortune has a great profile of both the man and situation http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/11/07/richard-rainwater-psp-fight/; it's why we still turn periodically to magazine journalism. As a personal aside, Rainwater's second wife, Darla Moore, is a legendary philanthropist and public figure in South Carolina. I have seen her modest house in Lake City and can personally attest to the private jet air strip for quick deal making trips.

These two examples may not conjure up visions of sugar plums, but the takeaway is important. Please take stock of health and key relationships this holiday season. Life is too short not to.

# # #

HP: Interim to permanent CEO

Who says rock star CEOs are dead? The expected announcement that former EBay CEO and current H-P board member Meg Whitman will become CEO of Hewlett Packard (HP) underscores how much personal brand power matters in tumultuous crisis situations. Normally when there's turnover and the preceding position holder came from outside the company, Fortune 100 companies will turn to an internal executive candidate. HP, however, has quickly become a poster child of horrible governance, which means they probably felt like they had to go with a known brand name. Insert Whitman who joined the HP board earlier this year.

The real question now becomes whether or not the board considered internal candidates before offering the position to Whitman. It's often perceived as a conflict of interest for a director to join a company board without stating his or her intentions on becoming a company executive. In this case, it would help inform the story if the company were willing to say that they considered internal and external candidates before naming Whitman. Of course they can always say that publicly without really meaning it, which is why more reporting on the process will be necessary. Another easy out is the fact that Whitman is a brand name leader, which provides yet another buffer to a board that clearly has lost track of its own -- and the HP Way.

# # #

HP: Turmoil = Interim CEO or acting director

As presciently forecasted last year -- http://povblogger.blogspot.com/2010/08/h-p-ceo-follies-let-games-begin_09.html, Hewlett Packard remains mired in turmoil. Latest case in point: News that the company's maligned board will replace their third CEO of the last six years. While no one knows publicly yet what the company and its board will do next, it's fairly certain that an interim CEO or board member acting in a similar role will fill the primary leadership position. What's not known, despite reports to the contrary, is who that will be. Here's a dirty little truth that few seem willing to accept: It now doesn't matter who the executive is. Until the board can correct itself (begs the question: Is this even possible?) and find a way forward, no one filling the CEO position can be successful. Classic chicken and egg scenario if there ever was one...Aside from the leadership question, it's always interesting to note that while Leo Apotheker has now failed publicly just as his predecessors did, it's hardly failure of the every day sort. He will walk away with $35 million in severance pay, a princely sum by any measure. Whoever said jobs weren't all about money and prestige never worked at the highest corporate levels.

# # #

When Brian Met Sally; 10 steps to recovery

One of the most powerfully perceived women in business, Sallie Krawcheck, has essentially lost her job for the second time in three years. According to today's Wall Street Journal, Krawcheck has been forced out of her position at Bank of America Corp. (BofA) following a consolidation of power by CEO Brian Moynihan. This follows a similar post at Citigroup where she worked prior to joining BofA. Here's a list of transition recommendations for this high powered brand to consider:

1. Join Obama's Jobs and Competitiveness Council. Bring some diverse truth in love to GE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt. Commiserate with his private/public plight as the council struggles mightily with the issue of the decade. Avoid 10-year later "what are you doing now?" stories at all costs.

2. Go back to the recruiter who helped land the BofA job and beg for payback on other plum assignments. If that doesn't work, call Ken Lewis and ask for a payday loan.

3. Write a real book titled, "Failing UP." Become a guest host on CNBC's Squawk Box. Mend brokenness by confirming everything hosts Joe Kernen and Becky Quick have to say about banking.

4. Join more boards -- Preferably big international banks that have an eye on unseating BofA such as HSBC. Disregard non-compete agreement. Remember success is sweetest form of revenge.

5. Consult friends in private equity, the last bastion where Linked In connections and failing up meet square on to create new career opportunities.

6. Start a powerful yet virtual women's career transition and support group named: "Recovering Divas of Industry." Invite former co-worker Barbara DeSeor and fired Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz to become members. Track down Marcy Fuller, Carly Fiorina and Paula Rosput Reynolds to serve as special advisers.

7. Get out of town. Keeping with international/global re-positioning theme, travel and meet with as many bank CEOs and boards as possible. Leave no stone unturned. See if BofA will grant some severance fly time on one of their corporate jets.

8. Re-discover balance at home. Support husband's dreams following his service raising family and managing household. Attend any and all special functions, events and games at children's schools. (Re-read last year's WSJ special feature on Most Powerful Women, which referenced these points at length.)

9. Wait patiently by phone for recruiters to call with next opportunity. Set PDA on vibrate during day; silent at night. For those sleepless nights consult the book of Psalms.

10. After six months of dust settling, re-emerge as head of a regional bank in U.S. such as Regions or SunTrust. Move their headquarters to Wall Street, merge with Goldman Sachs and then jointly declare that the "era of big bank consolidation is over." Continue on chosen privileged path.

# # #

Two big brand names, one different take

Yesterday's news that Steve Jobs was stepping aside from Apple and today's announcement that Warren Buffett will invest $5 billion in Bank of America provides business leadership pause of the first order.

First, Jobs. Silicon Valley Icon. Successful entrepreneur. Failed CEO then back to a higher degree of success than ever before -- with the same company he founded. Unarguably the vision behind what may be the most successful suite of consumer products that the world has ever seen. Apple is a business case study of the highest order by any measure. The only possible exception may be the company's governance, or lack of clear succession plan. Then again, in reality, it's impossible to think that Apple's board could replace Jobs with anyone without taking a hit so why not kick the can down the road when everything is going well. Classic short-term vs. long-term thinking, which is another issue not worth going into here.

Now let's turn to the man himself. According to separate first-hand accounts from those who have actually worked with Steve Jobs (note to close readers: One was a Point of View LLC client; the other was someone who had close dealings when Jobs was replaced by John Scully as CEO), Jobs is at best a hard charging, take no prisoners, crush the competition business man. At worst, an asshole, according to first-hand impression.

The question then becomes: Does this type of behavior indicate anything relevant to standing as a business leader? Or are these traits simply what's necessary to be effective at a big business level? For comparison purposes, is there any difference between what Jobs demonstrated in one-on-one dealings to create great products vs. what Gen. George Patton (played brilliantly by George C. Scott in "Patton") modeled during World War II?

Oracle of Omaha comes to the rescue again

Buffett's investment in Bank of America Corp. essentially rescues an equity headed into the ditch following questions about the bank's capital reserves. The $5 billion investment, which comes with a guaranteed six percent return, also recalls a scarier time back when the market crashed in 2008 and the Oracle of Omaha came to the side of Goldman Sachs, which at the time was the country's largest still standing investment bank (if those distinctions matter anymore.)

Now, three years later, this gesture is viewed as absolutely necessary in the era of Too Big to Fail or negative reminder of how little banking has progressed since TARP bailouts. The Buffett brand remains directly positioned in the mix.

As a long-time observer and admirer, I'm slowly arriving at a different place when it comes to Warren Buffett's standing as a brand-name leader. It started back when his memoirs were published in 2008, and the Wall Street Journal reported that Buffett opposed some of what eventually was revealed with his own approval. This isn't uncommon but it still created a new perception. Buffett also been very vocal and publicly visible on CNBC almost to the point of calling into question when is it enough? When President Obama sought public approval to help reach a deal that eventually led to the nation's debt being downgraded, he called on Buffett and then proceeded to broadcast to the world what "my friend, Warren Buffett" had said. So much for confidential decorum.

There's a underlying nagging question out of all of this and that is...Do we need to see and hear from our leaders as much as we do now in the 24-7 news culture? Doesn't that take away a certain amount of gravitas or perceived credibility? Has the public/private disclosure balance been forever imbalanced?

Please let us know what you think sometime about these questions in the context of effective leadership. Always reaching for a different view to help sharpen our own. Thanks for reading,

JG

Lost dignity of work

The oldest employment rule in the book is it's better to have a job when looking for another job. No one can argue that truth except of course if you're someone who needs to close one door to open another or you're stuck in the crosswinds of structural change.

Fast forward to the present or wake of the Great Recession. Employers are taking the current employment rule to the streets, according to today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/help-wanted-ads-exclude-the-long-term-jobless.html?ref=business

While not hiring the long-term unemployed is understandable from the employer point of view, especially the point about incompetence, there's something fundamentally wrong about denying someone work simply because he or she doesn't have a current job. This slope started with the advent of credit checks to deny applicants work.

Try going a little deeper here or beyond the surface of basic dollars and cents. Those who haven't worked for a long time generally need or want to even if they have to depend on public assistance. To be denied this desire can lead to mental or emotional problems. Or the loss of basic dignity.

It would serve large employers and their leaders well to evaluate whether the value called the dignity of work still exists in their workplace. Chances are if it doesn't exists then it becomes easier for HR folks and lawyers to list current employment as an essential for consideration.

Let us never forget that there are human beings behind these laws and rules even though it's difficult to recognize at times. Is the dignity of work a leadership responsibility?

# # #

Just do something, please (Part II)

While the last TGR post laid out fallacies of taking a macro-approach to the jobs issue, this installment speaks to why it's nearly impossible to find actionable common sense among leaders in the public square. Following is an anecdote to help explain the case.

A client and friend runs a small business in Decatur, GA. It's a 25+-table restaurant that's been extremely successful for more than 15 years. Family owned and operated, this business represents what traditionally has defined the American Dream. Man/wife find local niche, decide to take risk and then establish customer base highly loyal to the niche. Pricing premium serves as no obstacle due to high quality product and delivery rewarded by customers willing to pay again and again.

This isn't to say that managing the business has been a bowl of cherries. Between trying to remain cash flow positive to keeping uninsured employees from walking out the door, the challenge is palpable -- hourly, daily and weekly. The basic difficulties, combined with personal physical toll, create complexity that the conventional "9 to 5" worker never experiences. Anyone out of the roughly 50 million independent small business or "free agent" workers who own their own companies in the United States is familiar with similar difficulty.

To compound the situation, no special interest or lobby has my friend's back. Plenty of organizations, such as local chambers of commerce and the Small Business Administration (SBA) pay lip service to the plight of small business. At least one political party likes to wax on about how small business creates 70 percent of the nation's jobs. Yet very little empirical evidence ever makes a difference when stacked against a system that's rigged to reward big business, big labor and big government. This reality is showing no signs of hope and change anytime soon. No one currently in the presidential race has the credibility to stand up for small business despite what they may be spinning.

It wasn't always this way. Our nation's founding fathers all worked "in the fields" so to speak. Necessity was the mother of invention. Jefferson and Franklin were land owners who invented everything from the dumb waiters to plows, bifocals, stoves and clocks. Going back to post-World War II, some veterans returned to start general stores, many of which were given rise out of debilitating injuries or chronic illness. The modern day version of this type of entrepreneurship is absent or mediated to appear like it only exists on-line in the technology sector. Today's military veteran returns home with very few benefits, if any, and very little chance at starting a business due to lack of financing and exorbitant costs. There's something fundamentally wrong with this picture -- one that's distorted even more by negative profiles of people outside of large cities depicted as simple minded and intolerant. Recall Joe the Plumber from the 2008 election before the ensuing publicity circus.

Doing something in this context means removing more obstacles for Mom and Pop, identifying with their cause and standing up to take the (country) economy back. This isn't to suggest ignoring the global marketplace; it's more about getting down to the local core where many have re-congregated. That's leadership defined. Too bad no one with the pulpit seems able to make a difference at this level. Herein lies the key to unlocking value and more domestic job creation; not continuing to move the chairs around on the big business tax cut/debt Titanic. Good day,

JG

The Garlington Report (TGR)

Top leadership blogs

Niche bloggers normally bask in obscurity, flourishing in the weeds as they wait to pounce on gaps or scoops otherwise not covered by mainstream media. Until of course they're recognized. Here's our own latest example via blog aggregator/evaluator, The Daily Reviewer. See link for more background: http://thedailyreviewer.com/blog/11830. TGR appears on page five (5.)

Politics vs. performance

One of the nagging headaches with commenting on issues perceived as public policy is how so few are willing to discern substance vs. partisan viewpoint. It nearly always takes gravitas not to sound shrill these days, present company included. This is why reading over today's latest opine from Bill George provides pause. George is arguably the nation's leading "in the lab" expert on business leadership. Not only has he run and led a successful company, Medtronic, George has captured the experience via teachable content approaching on par with Peter Drucker. (Pity those who have to Google Drucker to be informed.)

Here's hoping TGR readers did not miss this substantive call for action from today's DealBook, New York Times: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/obamas-choice-on-jobs-politics-or-policy/?ref=business

# # #

Just do something

When it comes to jobs, has there ever been a time when so few leaders seem able to address much less solve an issue?

Exhibit A is whatever the President's Jobs and Competitiveness Council (JACC or JACK?) is trying to accomplish with their new publicity push, which was kicked off with a media blitz earlier this week. Here's a WSJ op-ed that spells out the perceived mandate: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576380323311523538.html

For those left scratching heads on how the Council formed, consider a refresher course. President Obama appointed General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt in January to head a lofty group whose mandate is to to generate more domestic jobs -- as in work for those in this country vs. everywhere else in the world. That leaves five months from formation to current frame. Hold that thought for later in the post.

Immelt's appointment was widely hailed despite the fact that as CEO of General Electric he has overseen one of the largest destructions of shareholder value in the company's history. Not to mention the additional fact that at the time of Immelt's appointment the company seemed unwilling to admit that they had failed to generate any high paying jobs in this country since the Jack Welch era. Efforts to contact the company directly for comment would be made with more vigor if there were assurance it would yield revelation beyond their standard line about operating as a global company.

Immelt has since teamed up with fellow smooth sailor American Express CEO Ken Chenault to address the situation. Following are some interpretative highlights of their recommendations. (You will need to read the previous WSJ piece to understand the takeaways.)

1.) Process isn't the product. "Ninety-day recommendations" proceeded by more "strategic actions" over the next 90 days translates into a lot of nothing for six months. Combine the lag between official appointments and final recommendations and we may have nearly a year of inaction during a period when economic recovery indicators have softened. Unfortunately those who occupy rarefied leadership air stumble around according to these frames all the time while Main Street burns. Those of us who actually have to work every day know that life doesn't allow extended strategic review. It requires actually doing something. Pity the rafts of PR staff and executive assistants who have to endure this nonsense.

2.) Flawed content. Specific content contained in the recommendations doesn't inspire a lot of hope in something new and better emerging to replace the old hinges. "Rehire more construction workers" and "boost jobs in travel and tourism" sounds like a pre-Digital Age prescription from the Carter or Reagan administration. If the Council and Obama administration are serious about more employment in the construction sector, where's a renewed public/private sector call for a Manhattan project to rebuild national infrastructure? (originally called for by former NYT columnist Bob Herbert.) Or has stimulus money from the Economic Recovery Act already run out? As to tourism jobs, does this mean turn the country into a big Disney World so more will come and spend their higher valued currency? Someone needs to go interview retailers in southern Maine about what they think about French Canadians from Quebec who invade every summer. That might actually yield some better ideas, or at the very least, dislodge tin ear wax at the 50,000-foot leadership level.

3.) Divide extends even further. Combine 1.) and 2.) with lack of entrepreneurial friendly focus, i.e., "hey guys, did anyone mention trying to start or build something new vs. masking the old via 'innovation?'" and you've got more of what got us into this mess. Status quo thinking from those who have felt zero personal pain in the Great Recession. Which in turn has yielded very little if any forward progress. Granted the economy has been on its ass for a few years but still. Left wing NYT columnist Paul Krugman calls the disconnect a "top down disaster," and more recently has compared the current climate to "rule by rentiers," http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/opinion/10krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman, which refers to special interests that reign supreme by pacifying the asset rich vs. serving common Joe and Jane. This is the most glaring issue that the current administration and none of the Republican candidates for president seem able to tackle. It spreads into most sectors, including big banks, which seem immune to change and forever determined to rig the system to their own benefit at the expense of fixing anything, such as the housing mess. Until the disconnect between the have mores and have nots is restored with something of meaningful value, Nighttime in America will remain present for the foreseeable future. That's a damn shame. We're better than this -- or at least better than what our leaders are supposedly doing to lead. Good day,

JG

Editorial note: Despite named subjects, this is not a political message. It's a call for more common sense that must exist somewhere but doesn't seem to make its way to the highest levels of perceived power.

# # #

Rare display

From the New York Times (April 26, 2011:) Sports Tuesday

BEHIND THE DECISION

'The public interest represented by the fans of professional football -- who have a strong investment in the 2011 season -- is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout.'

-- U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson

Leave it to a judge in a labor dispute to give life to a dying cause: The public interest. The above quote leapt off the page the other day mainly because the value is so seemingly fleeting in leadership circles. Whether one side or the other "wins" in the NFL lockout case is beside the point. For a shining moment, the fans' interest was represented in full glory. Other spheres should take note.

# # #

Quote of the year

Intellectual honesty can be difficult to find sometimes when an executive speaks on the public record. In the case of Exxon's Chairman and CEO, Rex Tillerson, honesty last week in the Wall Street Journal ("Exxon tilts to oil again," March 10, 2011) came through with blunt candor. The context was a story describing how when most oil companies are diversifying exploration efforts Exxon has decided to focus on their bread and butter. Here's the quote:

...Rex Tillerson, Exxon's chairman and chief executive, said the company doesn't have a specific preference for producing oil or gas. "There is no bias for us one way or the other. Our bias is to make money."

During a time when big business enjoys low approval, this quote is refreshingly clear. Critics can cry all they want about means to an end in Exxon's case but at least shareholders know job number one. Thanks mainly to a leader who doesn't mince words.

# # #

Welcome to new normal transparency

Are you and your leadership position standing on a "burning platform?" Nokia CEO Stephen Elop has posed that question internally to employees in the following memo published this morning by the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/02/09/full-text-nokia-ceo-stephen-elops-burning-platform-memo/. It lays out a ringing indictment for why the company needs to transform due to an untenable market position. More significantly, it shows how the lines of communication and disclosure have now permanently blurred. "Public" is every time you hit the send button. Ignore this reality at your peril. Or in Nokia's case, to a future potential market advantage.

# # #