What Makes a Good Leader?

A new study from the University of Buffalo has shown that, compared to egotistical bosses, humble bosses: 1) lead by example, 2) admit their mistakes and 3) recognize their followers' strengths.

The researchers found that these three behaviors are powerful predictors of company growth. Moreover, humility has also been found to foster more learning-oriented teams, more engaged staff and lower employee turnover.

By humble, I don’t mean insignificant or inferior. I mean being modest and respectful of the people with whom these leaders work.

The kind of leadership we have at Makovsky combines the best of both worlds. It’s leadership that is ethical and humane. Ethical leaders do the right thing, even if it’s inconvenient or unpopular. It’s always been a valued part of the culture of our firm and embodies how we do business.

That’s because power in today’s transparent and open world is not power over something, but power that energizes and connects, like a network. You build your power, not by ordering people around, but by finding areas of common ground and opening up a world of possibilities that can only be unleashed through cooperation and trust.

Lessons Learned: The Komen-Parenthood Affair

Lee Davies, a Group Vice President in Makovsky’s Health Practice, is the guest author of this blog on the recent controversy between Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Planned Parenthood.

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

According to the laws of physics, that’s when energy is created. And there certainly was a lot of energy generated when Susan G. Komen for the Cure notified Planned Parenthood Federation of America that it was withholding $750,000 in planned grant funding for breast cancer screening.

The move apparently stemmed from a change in its grant guidance last October, restricting grants to organizations under federal or state investigation – including Planned Parenthood, which, lightening rod that it is, is perpetually under federal or state investigation.

But politically motivated or not, one thing is for sure: media attention was loud and strong! Rarely do patient advocacy associations take each other on head-to-head – usually these groups take the high road and “play nicely.” So, from a communications perspective, who did what – and how well did they do it?

Planned Parenthood appeared to own this story. They turned a “victim” role into a powerful, proactive advocate voice. Within hours of official notification, they issued a call-to-action to constituents and mobilized a broad and deep communications effort, including an e-mail communiqué from president Cecile Richards; outreach to influential public officials sympathetic to the Planned Parenthood mission (including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who offered to make up part of the funding shortfall); media engagement, especially with high-profile professional women reporters (Barbara Walters, Andrea Mitchell); as well as leveraging the blogosphere and commandeering the social media space. Their multi-pronged campaign achieved critical mass and created an eventual tipping point resulting in Susan G. Komen withdrawing its grant denial.

Susan G. Komen, on the other hand, appeared to let the story spin out of control. They knew they were taking a highly controversial position. Given their potentially inflammatory stance, they could have done more to prepare the market environment to receive potentially difficult news. Moreover, did they have a “crisis” plan in place to address the media storm that immediately swirled? The impact on reputation or “brand equity” cannot be easily determined. According to news reports, daily individual contributions may have actually risen in the days following their announcement – a reflection of the fact that controversy always has two sides. In the long-term, though, Susan G. Komen’s credibility may have been damaged by muddled communications and contradictory actions. Time and a raft of positive communications – especially with Planned Parenthood – will be necessary to counter this.

So what are the key learnings for us, as communicators, when it comes to delivering controversial news?

• Create a receptive environment in advance by engaging with key audiences and explaining your planned actions.

• If possible, deliver messages in a face-to-face environment, and answer questions forthrightly.

• Enlist the support and aid of outside experts who can help deliver the message.

• Develop a strategic plan anticipating media and audience response, and be ready to either pre-empt or react quickly.

• Engage early and often in the social media space. Monitor discussions and anticipate the tipping point.

• If you are the recipient of negative news, assess your position and its impact, and be prepared to mobilize your stakeholders to take a desired action.

Now that the dust may be settling, one thing seems certain: this communications controversy is likely to become a case study in the power of social media, grassroots constituency relations, advocacy relations and public policy development. It is our job to learn from it.

A New, "No Secrets" Environment

More than 50 years ago, public relations pioneer Arthur W. Page, said, “Prove it with action. Public perception of an organization is determined 90 percent by what it does and 10 percent by what it says.” With the advent of the Internet Age, this may be more true today than ever before.

The fact that there are no secrets anymore requires a new mindset. We need to think of ourselves as custodians and role models of the correct behaviors.

If we remember that, in a world where cameras now come standard with cell phones, everyone is watching us — even if we can’t see them — we’re less likely to allow the kinds of lapses in judgment that can undermine relationships … or even kill a company.

It’s all too easy, in a thoughtless moment, for otherwise conscientious, intelligent people to forget that their behaviors are just a mouse click away from exposure.

In a careless gesture, an individual hits the “reply all” button on an email and accidently informs the client that the writer thinks he’s “a jerk.” An unhappy employee tells a friend that she’s being harassed by a supervisor. That friend tells a friend who posts it on an industry bulletin board and the story goes viral. Or let’s say the supervisor’s behavior doesn’t go beyond the employee – until a year later when she quits and tells others at her new company – a competitor. Then it becomes gossip.

How we do something may loom larger than what we produce in today’s open and transparent business environment. Author Dov Seidman calls this “the new frontier of conduct” … and I contend that it is rewriting the stakeholder equation. Exceeding stakeholders’ expectations is only part of the equation. As PR professionals, we also need to cultivate the kind of behavior that enhances trust, rapport and, ultimately, reputation.

Setting Records... and Breaking Them

Big news on CNNMoney.

Recently, Apple nudged out oil giant Exxon Mobil to become the most valuable publicly-traded company in the world.

“The company's stock was up 6.3% to $447.02 a share, one day after Apple reported the best quarterly results in history for a tech company. That spike pushed the company's market value to $419 billion,” Ben Rooney writes.

According to The New York Times, last year Apple earned over $400,000 in profit per employee, more than Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil or Google.

Here’s my personal theory why …

Apple first redefined the consumer’s experience of using a portable audio device in 2001, when it launched the iPod First Generation in 2001. Now it seems like Apple is coming out with new products — and impressive innovations on existing products — just about every “15 minutes.” Steve Jobs’ brilliant engineering, design, branding and marketing teams have redefined the market and given rise to a whole family of products that now includes five or six different varieties of iPods — plus iPhone, iTouch and iPad.

Apple outperforms its competition by outperforming its own past performance. Lesson to be learned.