It has become much more challenging to lead organizations — from large multinationals to local non-profits — as a result of two growing dynamics: suspicion and transparency. Suspicion has been brought on primarily by the unethical and sometimes illegal behavior of certain leaders; the transparency is the result of the Internet, the proliferation of a wide variety of news outlets, new regulatory requirements, and other information and comment reporting mechanisms. This new reality demands that leaders practice ethical behavior and openly demonstrate that behavior — thereby treating transparency as a leadership opportunity.

A Time of Suspicion

Never before have there been such high levels of suspicion of people in leadership positions. Approval ratings of elected officials have plummeted on all sides of the political spectrum in the United States, if not elsewhere. In June 2009, the editor of the Harvard Business Review wrote that “the public’s trust in business leaders has never been lower”, and cited a statistic that trust levels had dropped from 58% to 38% in one year.

What has happened? Automobile companies and banks receiving government bailout money; financial institutions selling questionable (perhaps fraudulent) investments; elected officials’ dubious relationships with lobbyists; corporate CEOs laying off thousands of workers while increasing their own compensation packages. All this and more have increased the extent to which people are deeply suspicious of people in leadership positions.

Whether these leaders may have brought this upon themselves is not the point in this commentary. That may very well be true; real scandals, many of them criminal, have filled our newspapers in recent years. The point is that the deeds of some leaders have brought upon others a gaze of suspicion that makes effective leadership more difficult. Consider these questions:

• How much harder is it to engage employees when they suspect your motives or question your integrity?
• How much energy is spent validating what in the past was trusted?
• How much more difficult is it for a mid-level manager to gain buy-in for an operational change when her employees are highly suspicious of senior management?
• Can anyone expect employees to work harder for the same or less money when they wonder what senior management is thinking?

The headwinds are strong indeed.

An Age of Transparency

At the same time, it has never been easier for interested people — employees, prospective employees, investors, concerned citizens, voters, community members — to learn more about organizations, their leaders, the impact of their activities (e.g., labor practices, carbon footprint), and other details.

In The Naked Corporation, Don Tapscott and David Ticoll describe the challenges that organizations are facing as a result of the proliferation of information, primarily on the Internet. “Transparency is being done to organizations, whether they like it or not. No firm can safely protect any secret, particularly any that angers stakeholders. Increasingly corporations are naked.” Leaders react to transparency as a threat or respond to it as an opportunity. Some fight it and others cooperate with it. The authors of The Naked Corporation argue organizations will be more successful if they openly align their business with the interests of stakeholders. In other words, use transparency to their advantage.

It is not necessarily a bad thing that so much information is available to so many people. Nor is it wrong that suspicion of leaders has been heightened— as noted above in many cases if we are not suspicious we are probably not paying much attention. It is simply harder to lead effectively as a result.

So What to Do?

Tell the truth to your people and to the marketplace. If they don’t already know the truth they are going to find it out soon anyway. Customers and business partners/vendors know when you slip up. Own it, move on, and they’ll trust you more for it. Certainly organizations will do their best to craft their messages and time their communications to ensure the most positive impact, but disclosure is a given- so be sure what is shared is true. And remember that the very presence of suspicion creates a demand for organizations and leaders with integrity; leaders should consider how they can best satisfy that demand.

In their June 2009 article in the Harvard Business Review, James O’Toole and Warren Bennis argue for organizational “cultures of candor”. Leaders need to make a conscious decision to support transparency and create cultures in which candor is the norm. This may not be easy; they suggest that it is human nature to conceal and hoard information because information is a source of power. [Perhaps that’s true, but it’s also true that real candor feels hard because we’re not accustomed to it.]

Don’t just talk about ethics, model them. If you believe in community service as an organizational value, then organize an event that supports a community in which you work or live. Invite people. I have heard key business contributors share with me about their former bosses, “I never thought of him/her as a particularly ethical person”. Who would want to hear that? Leave no doubt. Ethical behavior alleviates suspicion.

Be visible about your values as an organization. Real values guide behavior. Be willing to talk about them— even better, create opportunities to talk about them. Although talking about values is not nearly as important as modeling them, there is great value in demonstrating a willingness and ability to engage your people on this level.

Drive changes in your organization that promote transparency. Promote the awareness of websites and other media that evaluate your business practices and inform your stakeholders. Also, ensure protection for— in fact, reward— employees who bring ethical concerns to your attention. Hire employees who have demonstrated the ability to raise tough issues. Rushworth Kidder of the Institute for Global Ethics has written about what he calls the current “ethics recession” and argues that the only real solution is the creation of “broad-based, authentic cultures of integrity within our organizations and institutions.” Consider what can be done to promote such a culture in your organization. One place to begin is an ethics audit— a process for assessing the level of ethics within your operations and culture.

Responding to the challenges presented by the current climate of suspicion and transparency requires purposeful behavior and, often, conscious change. To remain successful, leaders must model the ethical behavior that will overcome suspicion. What’s more, they must also demonstrate the willingness to face the new reality of transparency, and embrace it as a means to communicate the integrity and positive direction of their organizations.

A book about women and negotiation caught my attention recently. It is called Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide, by Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever. Ms. Babcock is a professor of economics and Ms. Laschever is a writer, both based in the United States. The book summarizes research conducted by Ms. Babcock and others about women’s general reluctance to negotiate, as well as the challenges faced when they do.

I do not pretend to be an expert in this area of research. Even though I am a lawyer and mediator and I’ve consulted to organizations in the areas of gender balance, women’s leadership and diversity, at the end of the day I am a white American man with my own life experience. With that said, I have read much of the research about how men and women tend to operate differently at times, and my experience is usually consistent with that research.

The Research

The authors of Women Don’t Ask assert that women often get less because they ask for less. Not only do women aim lower, according to the research, but in many cases they don’t ask at all. [In a conversation I recently had with Ms. Laschever, she reminded me that in actuality women negotiate all the time; they just tend not to negotiate on their own behalf.]  Why is that? Because, according to the research, women are less sure of what is negotiable and the parameters of what would constitute a good deal. The research further concludes that, for women, in many cases the social costs of negotiating seem much higher than the benefits. Women might have learned that to ask is to be argumentative, unpleasant or uncooperative, and so they might avoid negotiating.

The authors note in this book that in some contexts women are generally more effective negotiators than men. They generally negotiate well with other women and with men who use a cooperative negotiation style, and in negotiations in which creative problem-solving or moving beyond “fixed pie” solutions are possible. The authors conclude that women have the advantage in these types of negotiations because they require communication, information sharing, trust building- approaches at which women are generally more skilled than men. These win-win negotiations often create better working relationships between parties, making execution easier and contributing to the likelihood of better negotiations in the future.

It is not my intention to argue for or against these conclusions, only to use what is presented to consider what I can do to support people in their own growth and effectiveness. If I take these research findings as true, three questions come forward.

1. Who is responsible for these dynamics?

According to these research findings, social forces (including childhood games, classroom conduct, and family roles) play a major part in the creation of these gender differences. These forces direct and reward women for focusing on others’ needs, rather than their own desires. Social norms that define “appropriate” behavior for women discourage assertive self-interested tactics more commonly used by men in negotiation.

As a man, am I to blame for this? I think not. I do not create social forces- although I certainly have a part in perpetuating them. This may seem obvious, but the responsibility question is important in terms of how willing we are to engage. I believe that all of us- but particularly men- are much more willing to engage in a constructive conversation if we are not being blamed for the existence of the challenge we are addressing.

2.  Who is impacted by this?

The next question that this issue raises for me is who is affected by it. Is this simply something women must manage? No. I am affected by my colleagues’ willingness and ability to negotiate, as well as my client’s negotiation skills. I am affected by the effective negotiation (or lack thereof) of my wife, my sister and mother, and the other women in my personal life. I am impacted by the success and fulfillment enjoyed by my women friends, and by any unhappiness they experience as a result of unpleasant and unproductive negotiations.

This is not “their” issue, it is my issue. As the personal impact of women and negotiation becomes clearer to me, one question jumps forward.

3.  What can I do about it?

I can do my best to promote the type of healthy, productive win-win negotiation that generally suits women’s negotiation style best. Because this type of negotiation creates a positive impact on the parties’ relationship, it is likely to be in my best interest to do that anyway. In doing so, I can make the “women’s style” of negotiation more the norm than the exception. Perhaps if we all did more of this win-win negotiation it would not be referred to as an alternative, “women’s” style.

I can offer support for the women I know as they prepare for important negotiations, whether they be professional or personal. While I do not consider myself to be an expert negotiator, I might be able to provide ideas and suggestions in preparation for negotiation. I could also provide encouragement; if it is true that women back off because they might think that negotiating renders them uncooperative or argumentative, I can remind the women in my life that they are absolutely entitled to go for what they want in their business and personal dealings. I can support them in remembering that.

I could also invite the women in my life to read the new book by Ms. Babcock and Ms. Laschever, entitled Ask for It: How Women Can Use the Power of Negotiation to Get What They Really Want. This book is like a how-to manual that offers women (and men as well) strategies and techniques for negotiating. It helps women (and men) recognize opportunities to negotiate, avoid the real or perceived social costs of asking, and ultimately have more of what they want. The four phases of negotiation are discussed, including: preparation (including deciding what we want and don’t want- challenging personal assumptions in the process), research and discovery (to determine what is possible and realistic), pre-negotiation preparation (which involves deciding how high to aim and creating a strategic plan), and the negotiation itself.  This book is a great resource.

Finally, I can continue to look for opportunities to support my clients, colleagues, friends and family as they identify their focus and take steps to realize their goals. And I can remember that we are all striving to be more effective in our professional and personal lives. For some of us, negotiation is challenging. For others, there are other challenges. We all have barriers. Books like these help identify their causes and offer solutions that will help us have more of what we want- whether it needs to be negotiated or not.

The story is told of a man who finds himself lost in the desert. In his wandering he sees a faint image of someone or something on a distant sand dune. He walks closer and closer and the shape grows to a point where he can clearly see another man walking- carrying a car door. He cannot believe his eyes. When he finally is close enough he shouts, “What are you doing? You’re carrying a car door!”

The man responds, “Yes, I know”.

“Why on earth would you be carrying a car door in the middle of the desert? It’s 125? out here!”.

“Oh, the heat isn’t so bad once you get used to it. And besides, if I begin to feel hot, I just roll down the window.”

When I coach and counsel leaders, I often hear the equivalent of carrying car doors in the desert. People make the best of a bad situation, sometimes even referring to it as personal or organizational “baggage”. On the organizational level, managers may be carrying a poor performer, tolerating an outdated process, or putting up with a perpetually delinquent account. These are the types of burdens that hinder our individual effectiveness and weigh down our business performance. On the personal level, we might also be holding onto a personal limitation of some kind, such as a lack of focus or poor communication practices. And even if we are practiced in downplaying or hiding such challenges to the extent they manifest in our work they too can handicap us.

To unload personal burdens can mean facing unpleasant truths and honestly accepting things about ourselves of which we may be less than proud. Doing this work requires compassion, focus and a willingness to take meaningful action to change what we can. If what needs to be left behind is an organizational challenge or liability, we must be willing to give candid feedback to others about what is not working, as well as give suggestions about what would work more effectively and why. When I consult with my clients about addressing these organizational challenges, I remind them that the unpleasant realities of organizational politics and favoritism must be considered as part of their decision making.

Yes it’s hard; if it were easy we probably would have done it already. But consider the relief in leaving these things behind, and emerging from the desert lighter and freer to put your energy into more effective places. Often when we gain some altitude and perspective we can see more clearly. It is from that vantage point that we can recognize the burden this perpetuates. The process of unloading things that no longer serve us in our lives- and hinder our ability to achieve our professional goals- is a big part of what meaningful leadership development is all about.

With the new year upon us- particularly in challenging economic times- this is an excellent time to pay some attention to what “car doors” we might be carrying around with us. What is no longer serving us that we can unload in order to be more effective? What organizational baggage can we properly identify as no longer useful and resource-draining? I encourage you to have these conversations now- and receive the benefits of greater organizational capacity and personal energy and freedom.

From my point of view, women and men today are more drawn to asking and answering deeper questions about their own purpose, values and vision than they were, say, 20 years ago. Or at least they are more willing to acknowledge the attraction to these meaningful issues more openly than in recent years past. This change of orientation is reflected in many ways, including the best-seller lists, rising interest in yoga, meditation, and spiritual practices, and sometimes even the political dialogue.

Why the shift? I doubt there is a definitive answer to this question- but I do know some of the reasons why we have changed our conversations (both inner and outer). Perhaps it is because of the uncertainty of the working world. Organizations are not “taking care” of their employees the way they once did. The notion of lifetime employment is an older generation’s anachronism. What about layoffs/down-sizing/right-sizing/off-shoring? Whatever one calls it, it results in uncertainty and unease for those who are let go and also those who remain. What about terrorism? Environmental crises? Overpopulation? One could cynically argue that most of what is seen and heard in the news around the world is discouraging, if not worse.

We can no longer rely on any organization or government to support us. Because of the challenges, worries, and threats facing us in the “outside” world, many have turned inward to find solace, clarity, and strength. We feel the pressure to support ourselves.

Leaders in business and other organizations have the responsibility to support not only themselves but others as well. They need to provide guidance and vision, and act with confidence and compassion, which is no small task given the uncertainties which face them. For leaders to hold their ground they need to know what their ground is- they need to be grounded. They need to know where they are headed as people. The Oxford Leadership Academy calls this “finding your personal compass”.

I participated in Oxford’s Self Managing Leadership program last year, and I was so drawn to the work that I have become a Fellow of the academy.

The Self Managing Leadership program provides the opportunity to find one’s place on the compass and to identify one’s direction- in life, and in our work. It is an opportunity to step off the moving sidewalk of our jobs/roles and consider what is important to us and what is needed of us. We can consider what is most relevant for us and give it the attention it demands from us. Doing this is often uncomfortable (as in any meaningful change in patterns and behavior), perhaps challenging, and usually very fulfilling. Most importantly, it is a necessary conversation for us to have in order to more effectively lead ourselves and others in this increasingly challenging world.

I encourage leaders at all levels to take some precious time to discover, clarify and re-commit to their values and purpose- and to translate and apply those inner compass-points toward focused action. Doing so improves our performance as leaders, enhances our own levels of fulfillment and satisfaction, and provides the opportunity to answer some of the most relevant questions of our time.

I invite you to contact me to talk more about this impactful and fulfilling work. You can also explore the Oxford Leadership Academy website- including my profile- at www.oxfordleadership.com

I was recently involved in a very engaging talk with Kenny Moore, author of The CEO and the Monk: One Company’s Journey to Profit and Purpose. He was talking about leadership and the nature of the decisions that leaders make. First line managers/supervisors face problems, and they are challenged to resolve them with solutions. As they move up the ladder of responsibility, however, leaders face dilemmas. Dilemmas are challenges that are complex and usually cannot be resolved as neatly as the problems they once endeavored to resolve. The resolution of dilemmas, then, is movement; movement toward improved effectiveness, even though all of the problems are not resolved.

Does this sound familiar? It does to me and to my clients. Very often, we want to find the solution and we cannot pick it off the solution tree because it’s not there. It’s just not that simple. More accurately, it’s not as simple as we’d like it to be. We have to look somewhere else for it. Some of the best leaders I know recognize that the best decision- the best option- is less than ideal and they accept that as the reality of the situation.

Not only does this type of leadership require acceptance, it also requires courage. David Dotlich, Peter Cairo and Steven Rhinesmith talk about this in their book Head, Heart and Guts: How the World’s Best Companies Develop Complete Leaders. Part of effective leadership is courageously moving forward relying upon decisions that will not satisfy everyone, decisions that are not tidy solutions and might not be popular with all stakeholders.

Managing these challenging dilemmas requires a steady flow of clear communication and healthy relationships, so as to promote alignment with decisions and minimize misunderstanding. It also creates an environment more conducive to promoting more informed decision-making in the future. Staying on top of this communication and tending important relationships can be the most challenging part of the process for many leaders, in my experience.

These are the challenges that many leaders face, and the higher they go in an organization the more challenging the process becomes; decisions and their resolution become more complex, more courage is required to act, and there is more pressure to communicate and nurture relationships more effectively. It is no wonder that leadership can feel so demanding- it is.

Several years ago, I attended a talk by Patch Adams, physician, health care reform activist, and subject of the movie “Patch” starring Robin Williams. What strikes you about Patch is his passion and tirelessness, particularly concerning improving access to health care. But I remember most about that evening is a statement he made about caring.

“We never care”, said Patch. “Caring is an intensely personal action. We never care. I care.” I believe he is right.

I’ve also heard the expression that “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” Although I do not necessarily believe that to be true in all circumstances, I agree with the principle that people generally want to know that you care about them. And that is certainly is true in the context of business leaders.

It may seem foreign to some and quite natural for others, but leaders generally fare much better when they demonstrate caring for their teams. Research has shown the benefits of the ‘affiliative’ leadership style, which features caring relationships between a leader and his/her team members. And numerous authors have written convincingly about the positive impact of trust and caring between leaders and team members in a variety of settings, including performance feedback, challenging assignments, high performance under pressured circumstances.

So whether we can honestly claim that our organization cares about its people (with apologies to Patch Adams), we can always demonstrate that we as individuals care about our employees and team members. Doing so results in a positive impact on our relationships and our team’s performance.