Leaders to Leader

Lessons from the Great American Leaders & How They Apply Now

Archive for the ‘Emotional Balance’ Category

Q & A: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

with one comment

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. - Author - Great! What Makes Leaders Great

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. – Author – Great! What Makes Leaders Great

An Interview With the Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D., Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great

The editors of Majorium Business Press recently had the opportunity to interview Timothy Bednarz about his book: Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2012) to discuss his thoughts on the crisis of leadership being witnessed in America today.

Q: The research presented in Great! focuses upon 160 influential leaders, spanning 235 years. I would like to start our discussion by asking, do you believe leadership has changed over time?

Bednarz: The concept of what constitutes great leadership hasn’t changed over time. When I first started my research, I thought that genuinely great leadership was a thing of the past, but I was surprised to discover there are individuals today who can classified as great leaders.

There is no doubt that individuals are shaped by the times they lived in. However the great leaders rose to the pinnacles of success, while many of their contemporaries failed. What made the difference was the fact they developed the characteristics and leadership dimensions that allowed them to succeed.

Q: So you’re saying leadership hasn’t changed?

Bednarz: No, that’s not quite true. What has undoubtedly changed is the focus on short-term profitability and shareholder value, which often sacrifices a company’s long-term viability. This trend emerged in the mid 1980s after the success of Jack Welch at GE. Many CEOs jumped on the bandwagon and this trend changed the face of corporate leadership ever since. Consequently, this has severely eroded trust and credibility after years of scandals and downsizing that has affected literally millions of people.

Q: What impact has these two factors had on today’s leaders?

Bednarz: The Edelman Trust Barometer, which has evaluated global trust levels for the past 12 years, reported that the current levels of credibility of today’s CEOs has dropped to an all time low of 38%. This reflects a decrease of over 12% in the past twelve months.

Q: What are the implications of this drop in CEO’s credibility?

Bednarz: What is interesting about Edelman’s survey is that it emphasizes that without trust and credibility, a leaders lose their legitimacy to lead. Just because individuals are either appointed or elected to high positions of authority, doesn’t mean they have earned it. They may have the power and authority that comes with their position, but the legitimacy to lead must be granted by others, such as employees, voters, suppliers, communities, investors, and a host of potential constituencies, which leaders serve.

Q: How does this influence the concept of leadership?

Bednarz: Referring back to the idea of the earned right to lead, and from the decrease in credibility, many so-called leaders today have lost their focus on what is true leadership. To go back to your original question; has leadership changed? I firmly believe, great leadership is defined by the ability of an individual to earn the trust, respect and credibility of those that the leader serves. He or she has earned the legitimacy to lead. Every great leader I researched, over 235 years possessed trust, credibility and legitimacy, and 58% of the leaders I survey can be included in this category. All too many today solely focus on the financial performance of their companies and then wonder why they have lost their credibility.

Q: Is focusing on profits and financial performance wrong? After all this seems to be a theme in the current presidential campaign.

Bednarz: There is nothing wrong with being highly concerned about profits, and focusing on financial performance, but it needs to be balanced with the needs of all of one’s key constituencies. Great leaders today have proven this to be possible, without sacrificing financial performance. Jack Welch, whose example many corporate leaders follow, stated after he left GE that it is foolish to only focus on financial performance. It I only one factor to consider.

Q: Can you cite some examples of leaders today who have earned their legitimacy?

Bednarz: Certainly. Fred Smith of FedEx, Herb Kelleher of Southwest Airlines, Howard Schultz of Starbucks and Jeff Bezos of Amazon all come to mind, and there are certainly others.

Q: Based upon your responses and research, how would you define leadership?

Bednarz: That is an interesting question and one that I was seeking to answer, when I first started my research. There is a host of leadership books on the market, with many more written each year, yet, many are very similar, parroting the same information without providing the reader with any new insights or perspectives on the topic of leadership. I believe that to understand the topic of leadership, you need to first understand the leaders who have historically defined it and provided us with effective role models.

After years of study, I have concluded and condensed it into a brief statement; leadership is ultimately an act of faith in other people.

Q: That’s an interesting concept. Isn’t it the role of a leader to lead?

Bednarz: The operative word in your question is “lead.” The role of a leader is to inspire, motivate, influence and guide others. Think about it. In order to inspire, motivate, influence and guide other individuals, one must establish mutual bonds of loyalty, trust, respect and credibility.

Q: Can loyalty, trust, respect and credibility be measured?

Bednarz: You must understand that everything a leader does or says is judged by others and contributes to their credibility and legitimacy or ultimately undermines it. We have an environment that relies on relative rather than absolute truths. Consequently, we often observe so-called leaders making incredulous statements, devoid of any sense of intellectual honesty, and credibility, treating their audience like a bunch of fools, incapable of seeing the truth.

People view many in corporate and governmental positions of power as self-serving, without regard for others and the consequences of their actions. It is little wonder why we have a crisis of leadership. It’s everyone for themselves without regard for those they are appointed to serve. Subsequently, we see a crisis in confidence in these individuals, as noted by Eldeman’s survey.

Q: How would the great leaders that you surveyed respond to this crisis of confidence?

Bednarz: The great leaders I researched developed strong emotional bonds of loyalty, trust, respect and credibility with their employees, investors, suppliers, communities and a host of other constituencies. They were able to balance the needs of each of these groups, without sacrificing the needs of others. They had faith in the people they served, and this is reflected in the wiliness of these constituencies to eagerly believe in them and to loyally follow where they led them.

Q: Beyond the obvious benefits of loyalty, how did the great leaders you researched profit from it?

Bednarz: The emotional bonds forged by the great leaders paid dividends over time. For instance, when George Westinghouse faced financial difficulties during the Financial Panic of 1907, his employees sacrificed for him. They made personal contributions for him to save Westinghouse Electric. In another instance, Fred Smith saw his employees volunteer their time to help handle an onslaught of packages received by FedEx during the UPS strike in 1997. Herb Kelleher at Southwest Airlines has driven these attitudes deep into the company’s culture.

Q: In the introduction to your book you stated, “We stand at a critical moment in history for great leadership. The door of opportunity is wide open for us to those who desire to rise above the fray. History shows that many individuals have assumed the mantle of leadership, often not without experiencing painful failures and stifling adversities. Their actions and examples provide clear pathways to follow. This book is designed to show you the way.” Why do you think today’s leaders should look to examples of great leadership in the past?

Bednarz: America, if not the world is crying out today for ethical and strong leadership, especially since the world appears to be spinning into chaos. History has repeatedly demonstrated that great leaders emerge from difficult times. Many of the leaders focused upon in my book Great! have emerged from similar circumstances, If leaders today follow their examples and diligently study how they did it, there are many lessons that can be transferred into action that are able to transform individuals into great leaders.

Q: If you could condense the message of your book into one or two short sentences for this audience, what would you they be?

Bednarz: Two words: Leadership matters. This is true, whether as a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, or as the president of the local PTA. Great leaders can emerge at any level of an organization, at any time, and in every field. Each has the ability to make a difference in the lives of the people they lead and serve.

Q: Thank you for your time today.

Bednarz: My pleasure.

Read a Free Chapter of Great! What Makes Leaders Great

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. | Author | Publisher | Majorium Business Press
Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Finalist – 2011 Foreword Reviews‘ Book of the Year)
Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | Web| Blog | Catalog |800.654.4935 | 715.342.1018

Copyright © 2013 Timothy F. Bednarz, All Rights Reserved

Advertisements

Have You Earned Permission to Lead?

leave a comment »

legitimacyprincipleschart

The fundamental essence of leadership is legitimacy, whose substance is based upon authority and validity. While authority is conferred, validity is earned through the development of credibility, trust and a balance of emotional standing and connections, with all key constituencies.

Legitimacy is a cornerstone of effective leadership. All of the great leaders have it. However, legitimacy is seldom discussed, if even mentioned in most leadership books. This leads to confusion as to what defines legitimacy. Its definition needs to be clarified and placed within the proper context.

Legitimacy is derived from two separate sources that give leaders permission to lead. The first source is authority or the power granted to leaders by either election, or appointment to an office. In the business setting, this is conferred by the stockholders through the board of directors.

The second source is validity. Validity is not conferred, nor is it automatically achieved once a leader is appointed to a position. It is earned and is a contributing factor to the authority granted to a leader, typically over the span of his or her career. This defines a leader as genuine and authentic in the eyes of all key constituencies.

Both sources of legitimacy compliment each other, but validity provides an enduring, yet fragile acquiescence of all the constituencies that gives a leader the tacit permission to lead. It is built upon three critical factors: trust, credibility and emotional balance. These are the hallmarks of great leaders. Without the presence of these critical factors, the leader’s validity collapses. Once a leader loses his or her validity, the authority to lead is effectively undermined.

“Leadership is a privilege. Those who receive the mantle must also know they can expect an accounting of their stewardships. It is not uncommon for people to forego higher salaries to join an organization with strong, ethical leadership. Most individuals desire leadership they can admire and respect. They want to be in sync with that brand of leader, and will often parallel their own lives after that person…” [1]

[1] Huntsman,Jon M. Winners Never Cheat Even in Difficult Times (Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2009) p 73

Excerpt: Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2011)

Read a Free Chapter

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. | Author | Publisher | Majorium Business Press
Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Finalist – 2011 Foreword Reviews‘ Book of the Year)
Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | Web| Blog | Catalog |800.654.4935 | 715.342.1018

Copyright © 2013 Timothy F. Bednarz, All Rights Reserved

//

Emotional Bonds are a Reflection of a Leader’s Effectiveness

with 15 comments

James Burke – Johnson & Johnson

The research conducted for Great! What Makes Leaders Great revealed that great leaders created emotional balance. This is the development of emotional bonds and standing individual key constituencies. It is important because it reflects leaders’ attention and performance with each group.

It is an outcome of leaders’ actions and performance, and mirrors the overall health and sustainability of the organization. An imbalance pinpoints potential problems and issues that can damage an organization in the future.

While emotional bonds are a reflection of a leader’s effectiveness, they also are the underpinnings of credibility, trust, validity and legitimacy. This is a cyclical relationship since these characteristics must be firmly established before emotional bonds and standing can be formed. Yet, a leader’s emotional standing with key constituencies is essential to foster credibility, trust, validity and legitimacy.

A positive outcome of this relationship is that strong emotional bonds ultimately pay big dividends in the form of loyalty. This is an additional factor, which strengthens a leader’s validity and legitimacy. Research showed that during periods of difficulty, this often meant the difference between success and failure.

Related: Have You Earned Permission to Lead?

A notable example is Fred Smith when FedEx experienced a monumental problem because of a UPS strike. Consequently, FedEx was swamped with 800,000 extra packages a day. His strong emotional standing, which had instilled a robust sense of company loyalty, bore fruit during this crisis.

Thousands of employees voluntarily poured into the hubs a little before midnight to sort the mountain of extra packages. Many had already worked previous shifts and stayed over to help the company overcome the crisis. As a result, FedEx achieved a 2% gain in market share and saw its share price rise by 70% over the subsequent twelve months.

The emphasis of shareholder value over the past decades often created imbalance. An analysis of the financial performance of companies with this focus typically underperformed those companies where the leadership fostered key relationships.

Every one of the leaders included in Portfolio Magazine’s list of the “Worst Performing CEO’s,” who were included in the research, revealed significant emotional imbalances among their constituencies. Jack Welch reinforces this when he stated succinctly in his 2009 Financial Times interview, “Your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.”

Related: If You’re Not Emotionally Committed, You’re Not Going to Have a High Degree of Success

A prime example of emotional balance was demonstrated in 1982, when James Burke, CEO of Johnson & Johnson was confronted with the news of seven poison-related deaths, caused by Tylenol capsules that were laced with cyanide. He looked the facts in the face and immediately understood the gravity of the situation.

Against the vehement opposition from his management team, he decided to go directly to the public. Backed with a $ 50 million product recall, he communicated a strong sense of concern, openness and accountability as he frequently appeared on the major and influential television talk shows of the time.

This contributed to the restoration of public trust and saved the Tylenol brand. Burke was strong, bold and decisive and this built a solid base of trust and confidence. He placed his legitimacy, personal stature and reputation on the line. His proactive communications brought his message to the public, and by doing so, controlled the crisis, accompanying expectations and ultimately protected his company’s image and reputation.

Related: Leadership: The divergent tale of two leaders

A synergetic relationship and a balance between these emotional bonds were observed during the research. Each supports and reinforces the other. If one area fails, it contributes to the failure of the others.

For example, leaders like Al Dunlap (Sunbeam) made profit-enhancing decisions that deeply impacted employees, reduced product quality and squeezed vendors and suppliers. In many instances, these destroyed the emotional bonds with each key constituency, while refocusing on their emotional standing solely with the board and stockholders.

While in the short-term these leaders were hailed as triumphant heroes and celebrated by investors, in the long-term they undermined the cohesiveness of legitimacy, validity and critical emotional bonds.

Ultimately, performance suffered and they lost their emotional standing with the stockholders. Once this occurred, they were removed from their positions, if they didn’t have the foresight to prematurely depart, while leaving a mess for someone else to clean up.

Analysis validates that emotional connections tend to begin early and continue throughout the leader’s career as they develop a personal standing with each group of key constituencies. Early emotional connections are able to develop into stronger bonds of trust. This gives leaders the legitimacy, credibility and trust, which lead to future growth, either in their businesses or in their advancement to more prominent positions.

Many revere the prominence of the great leaders, like Ford, Rockefeller, Morgan, Gates and Buffet, due to their individual reputations and achievements. The research reveals that great leaders are also fallible. They make mistakes and often are subject to criticism, some valid, and some triggered by an opponent’s agenda.

But the analysis of the great leaders demonstrates that if and when they choose to persevere and persist in their efforts, they will ultimately succeed. This is a consequence of the emotional support and emotional standing they took the time to nurture and foster throughout their careers.

Related: Your Commitment to Others Defines You as a Leader

The question is, can leaders be effective without these emotional connections? Analysis illustrates that there are leaders who didn’t make all of the necessary emotional connections. Their effectiveness became diminished by the lack of support on multiple levels.

For instance, profit-centric leaders like Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco International) may have developed strong emotional connections with the stockholders, especially since they delivered the short-term profits being sought after. But, at what price?

Many of these types of leaders do so at the expense of their customers and employees. They reduce quality and dramatically downsize their workforce, only focusing on the bottom line. In the short-term they will likely be successful, but their actions undermine the legitimacy, trust and credibility required to build and manage an enduring, successful corporation.

Ultimately, this results in long-term problems due to the loss of the company’s customer base, along with their most productive employees, both who will vote on this leader’s performance with their feet. These actions place companies in financial jeopardy.

For more information on this topic and to read a free chapter, refer to Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It by Timothy F. Bednarz (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2011).

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. | Author | Publisher | Majorium Business Press
Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Finalist – 2011 Foreword Reviews‘ Book of the Year)
Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | Web| Blog | Catalog |800.654.4935 | 715.342.1018

Copyright © 2012 Timothy F. Bednarz, All Rights Reserved

Your Personal Attitudes Shape Your Environment

with 5 comments

Jack Welch - General Electric

The great leaders were tough-minded individuals. They developed a drive and tenacity that refused to allow them to quit, or to accept defeat. The years they invested in the trenches of frustration, failure and adversity taught them well.

Personal attitudes reflect how individuals choose to interact with their environment. The great leaders’ personal attitudes were instrumental in forming and building essential emotional bonds with key constituencies, and established personal standing among all groups. These began with their discipline, conviction and dedication. It was often reflected in both their outward humanity and humility. Jack Welch observed, “You do have to possess self-confidence and humility at the same time. That combination is called maturity.”[1]

This is in contrast to high levels of hubris displayed by many of the poorer performing executive leaders. Herb Kelleher would state when asked about his position at Southwest Airlines, “Position and title don’t necessarily signify anything. When people ask me what I do, I say I work for Southwest Airlines.”

Many of the great leaders developed a deep sense of humanity and humility because of their perspectives on money and profits. These individuals for the most part viewed profits as a result of their efforts, and not the objective. Money was openly distained by some. Andrew Carnegie (Carnegie Steel) refused to even carry money on his person. Walt Disney (Disney) was indifferent to both money and material comfort. Leo Baekeland (Bakelite), the inventor of plastic, is another example.

“Although he was a scientific genius and made a fortune, he disdained material things and remained a man of simple needs. He was happiest on his boat in old sneakers and white duck pants and shirt. In fact, he wore sneakers when he was formally dressed.”[2]

Additionally, many abhorred financial speculation. They viewed it as an illegitimate means of making money. (John Jacob) “Astor hated gamblers. He never confused gambling, as a mode of money-getting, with actual production. He knew that gambling produces nothing—it merely transfers wealth, changes ownership. And since it involves loss of time and energy, it is a positive waste.”[3]

Rather than believe in money and what it could do them, the great leaders had a deep-seated sense of self-belief. They believed in themselves, their abilities and in their own ideas. Mary Kay Ash (Mary Kay) stated, “Don’t limit yourself. Many people limit themselves to what they think they can do. You can go as far as your mind lets you. What you believe, remember, you can achieve… The greatest pollution problem we face today is negativity. Eliminate the negative attitude and believe you can do anything. Replace ‘if I can, I hope, maybe’ with I can, I will, I must.’”[4]

They had an incorruptible sense of purpose and duty, and were sensitive to their personal power, authority and influence on others. Many of these attitudes stemmed from their personal work ethic and the personal sacrifice they made to achieve their success. Adversity and failure produced humility rather than hubris and arrogance.

A notable example is Willis Carrier (Carrier Corporation). “He was a humble man and never used the letters in front of his name, and I don’t recall anyone calling him “Dr. Carrier” while he was alive. But out of respect to his great legacy, Carrier Corporation refers to him as “Dr. Willis Carrier” even today.”[5]

This sensitivity and humility also fostered deep respect and appreciation for employees’ contributions to their success. Before social responsibility was in vogue, George Westinghouse (Westinghouse Electric), John Patterson (National Cash Register), Milton Hershey (Hershey Foods) and William C. Procter (Procter and Gamble), among others, displayed their appreciation, gratitude and respect by greatly improving working conditions, building employee communities and introducing a host of employee benefit programs well before they were even formulized into law.

The great leaders were tough-minded individuals. They developed a drive and tenacity that refused to allow them to quit, or to accept defeat. The years they invested in the trenches of failure and adversity taught them well.

“Trials, labor, grief are but the fires in our lives, which are necessary to purify and bring out our virtues. In business, sacrifices are demanded of us… All these strengthen judgment… and cultivate resourcefulness.

Sacrifice establishes character… It takes the fire of sacrifice to clarify a man’s mind and heart so that he can establish the worthier ideals for himself.

A man who desires anything must be willing to go the whole way for it, not half way. No man gains anything in the way of power and privileges, who does not pay with a change in habits, thought and action.”[6]

[1] Welch Jack, Get Real, Get Ahead (Business Week, July 23, 2007)

[2] Flynn, Tom, Yonkers, Home of the Plastic Age (younkershistory.org/bake.html) Accessed April 21, 2010

[3] Hubbard, Elbert, Astor, A Famous Businessmen Biography (Zale Tabakman) Accessed January 19, 2010

[4] Ash, Mary Kay, (Mary Kay Inc. Corporate Website, 2010)

[5] Littlehales, Edna M., Uncle Willis the Educator (The Father of Cool, Carrier Company Website, June 14, 2002)

[6] Penney, J.C., Lines of a Layman (Channel Press, Great Neck, NY, 1956)p 118

Excerpt: Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Majorium Business Press, 2011)

If you would like to learn more about how the great American leader’s personal attitudes were instrumental in forming and building essential emotional bonds with key constituencies, through their own inspiring words and stories, refer to Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It. It illustrates how great leaders built great companies, and how you can apply the strategies, concepts and techniques that they pioneered to improve your own leadership skills. Click here to learn more.

Copyright © 2011 Timothy F. Bednarz All Rights Reserved

Written by Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D.

June 9, 2011 at 11:07 am

How Connected Are You?

leave a comment »

Analysis validates that emotional connections with key constituencies tend to begin early and continue throughout the leader’s career as they develop a personal standing with each group. Early emotional connections are able to develop into stronger bonds of trust. This gives leaders the legitimacy, credibility and trust, which lead to future growth, either in their businesses or in their advancement to more prominent positions.

My research revealed that great leaders created emotional balance. This is the development of emotional bonds and standing individual key constituencies. It is important because it reflects leaders’ attention and performance with each group. It is an outcome of leaders’ actions and performance, and mirrors the overall health and sustainability of the organization. An imbalance pinpoints potential problems and issues that can damage an organization in the future.

While emotional bonds are a reflection of a leader’s effectiveness, they also are the underpinnings of credibility, trust, validity and legitimacy. This is a cyclical relationship since these characteristics must be firmly established before emotional bonds and standing can be formed. Yet, a leader’s emotional standing with key constituencies is essential to foster credibility, trust, validity and legitimacy. A positive outcome of this relationship is that strong emotional bonds ultimately pay big dividends in the form of loyalty. This is an additional factor, which strengthens a leader’s validity and legitimacy. Research showed that during periods of difficulty, this often meant the difference between success and failure. A notable example is Fred Smith when FedEx experienced a monumental problem because of a UPS strike. Consequently, FedEx was swamped with 800,000 extra packages a day. His strong emotional standing, which had instilled a robust sense of company loyalty, bore fruit during this crisis. Thousands of employees voluntarily poured into the hubs a little before midnight to sort the mountain of extra packages. Many had already worked previous shifts and stayed over to help the company overcome the crisis. As a result, FedEx achieved a 2% gain in market share and saw its share price rise by 70% over the subsequent twelve months.

The emphasis of shareholder value over the past decades often created imbalance. An analysis of the financial performance of companies with this focus typically underperformed those companies where the leadership fostered key relationships. Every one of the leaders included in Portfolio Magazine’slist of the “Worst Performing CEO’s,” who were included in the research, revealed significant emotional imbalances among their constituencies. Jack Welch reinforces this when he stated succinctly in his 2009 Financial Times interview, “Your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.”[1]

A prime example of emotional balance was demonstrated in 1982, when James Burke, CEO of Johnson & Johnson was confronted with the news of seven poison-related deaths, caused by Tylenol capsules that were laced with cyanide. He looked the facts in the face and immediately understood the gravity of the situation. Against the vehement opposition from his management team, he decided to go directly to the public. Backed with a $ 50 million product recall, he communicated a strong sense of concern, openness and accountability as he frequently appeared on the major and influential television talk shows of the time. This contributed to the restoration of public trust and saved the Tylenol brand. Burke was strong, bold and decisive and this built a solid base of trust and confidence. He placed his legitimacy, personal stature and reputation on the line. His proactive communications brought his message to the public, and by doing so, controlled the crisis, accompanying expectations and ultimately protected his company’s image and reputation.

A synergetic relationship and a balance between these emotional bonds were observed during the research. Each supports and reinforces the other. If one area fails, it contributes to the failure of the others. For example, leaders like Al Dunlap (Sunbeam) made profit-enhancing decisions that deeply impacted employees, reduced product quality and squeezed vendors and suppliers. In many instances, these destroyed the emotional bonds with each key constituency, while refocusing on their emotional standing solely with the board and stockholders. While in the short-term these leaders were hailed as triumphant heroes and celebrated by investors, in the long-term they undermined the cohesiveness of legitimacy, validity and critical emotional bonds. Ultimately, performance suffered and they lost their emotional standing with the stockholders. Once this occurred, they were removed from their positions, if they didn’t have the foresight to prematurely depart, while leaving a mess for someone else to clean up.

[1] Guerrera, Francesco, Welch Condemns Share Price Focus (Financial Times) March 12, 2009

Excerpt: Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Majorium Business Press, 2011)

If you would like to learn more about the great American leaders built emotional bonds and standing with their key constituencies, through their own inspiring words and stories, refer to Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It. It illustrates how great leaders built great companies, and how you can apply the strategies, concepts and techniques that they pioneered to improve your own leadership skills. Click here to learn more.

Copyright © 2011 Timothy F. Bednarz All Rights Reserved

%d bloggers like this: