When faced with seemingly intractable complex problems, most leaders, if they act at all, seek a solution by applying complicated, tedious, timid and incremental actions. More often than not, this approach not only fails to uncover a workable solution, but actually exacerbates the problem. The reality is that the more imponderable a problem seems to be, the more likely that audacious, bold, but simple actions will be the easiest to implement and offer the greatest opportunity for success.

History offers a cadre of individuals who, when faced with a seemingly insurmountable problem, fell upon audacious ideas and actions to achieve success.

• In 218 B.C., Hannibal, a Punic Carthaginian military commander, embarked on an audacious act for which he is  still remembered 2,200 years later. He marched his entire army, including war elephants, from Iberia over what was thought to be the impenetrable Pyrenees and the Alps into northern Italy. This action allowed him to hold the “invincible” Roman Empire at bay and occupy much of Italy for 15 years.
• In 1776 a group of patriots stymied in their efforts to resolve the problem of continued harassment and impositions of British colonial rule had the audacious idea that they could defeat the most powerful nation in the world and start a new country with a republican – as opposed to a monarchical – form of government.
• At the end of World War II, Secretary of State George Marshall had an audacious plan to break the cycle of centuries of constant wars in Europe. Where endless treaties, alliances and conferences failed, the “Marshall Plan” (financed by $15 billion of American aid) created an economic interdependence among the nations of Europe that set the foundation for the European Union of today.
• In 1967, despite the 200-year existence of an effective vaccine, millions across the globe were still dying from the scourge of smallpox. The World Health Organization set upon an audacious goal to immunize every individual in the world. In a short 12 years later, smallpox had vanished from the world.
• In the 1970s, when computers were housed in sterile, warehouse-sized enclosures, Bill Gates had the audacious idea of “a computer for every desktop and every home.” And he called it Microsoft. (The “Micro” being a small computer to run the software his company was developing.)
• At the same time, as the U. S. Post Office struggled to find a way to deliver mail in a week, another individual – Fred Smith – had the audacious idea to deliver mail “overnight”; and he called it Federal Express.
• In 1987, when the insurance industry was burdened under the weight of stagnant institutions, antiquated processes and obsolete products, a group of individuals had the audacious idea to start an entirely new insurance company. That company – LifeUSA – sought to introduce a new type of corporate culture to revolutionize the way companies did business and create a new approach to products. Despite the odds against it, this company quickly became the fastest growing and one of the most successful in the industry.

The point here is that as counter intuitive as it may seem, the best way to overcome difficult challenges and complicated problems is to be audacious, not precautious. While the tendency is to seek a solution to complicated problems with timid tinkering or complicated fixes, real answers are discovered in audacious reinvention, not re-engineering. The core of real problem solving is not found in trying to fix the results of what has gone wrong, but by correcting what it is that caused things to go wrong. The difference between the timid and the audacious is that the former seeks to fix the problem, while the audacious seek to eliminate the causes of the problem. The path to audaciousness is to challenge the way things have been done in order to find ways to do things that should be done.

History Should Teach Us a Few Things 

A real-life example of this type of situation exists now as the country is confronted with three seemingly intractable problems that, if not resolved, could have a dramatic, negative impact on the country. These conundrums are: Social Security, Medicare and our convoluted tax code.

We have witnessed the inability of political leaders to solve the problems inherent in these existing systems. If ever there was a time that called for audacious actions to solve a problem, that time is now. But instead than being audacious, the politicos timidly dance around the edges, offer short-term patches or suggest complicated changes; all of which are designed to respond to the result of the problem, not the problem itself.

Take Social Security, for example. Established in 1935 as a federal program designed to provide a guaranteed lifetime basic income for those in retirement. The concept was and is a good one. But the problem is that the solvency of the current system is at risk because of unfunded promises and assumptions that are no longer valid. Because of this, fixes that only address the result of this problem don’t go to the heart of the issue and only make things worse.

When Social Security was enacted 75 years ago, the life expectancy of the average male in the United States was age 54. This meant that with the initial retirement age set at 65, most of those eligible to receive payments would never collect; and those who did receive payments would do so for a short period of time. That made sense, but today the average American male can anticipate living to age 74 (almost 80 for women) and the life expectancy of a male child born today is well into their 80s. And most people now spend 15 to 20 years in retirement.

Yes, there has been tinkering with the Social Security retirement age, but such provisional tweaking don’t address the fundamental problem of people living remarkably longer. The vast majority of Social Security payments still commence at age 65 (or even younger) and those payments will be made for a lot longer period than initially anticipated. The reality of extended longevity and longer periods in retirement makes a shambles of the original assumptions for the funding of Social Security and are at the core of the system’s problems.

There are other underlying issues as well: At the time Social Security was enacted it excluded more than 50 percent of working males (and 90 percent of working women and minorities). Now the system offers virtually universal coverage along with extended widows and disability benefits. The payroll tax collected to pay for Social Security benefits is capped, so the wealthy pay a smaller percentage of their income for benefits received. Social Security was intended to be a “safety-net” for low income individuals, but there is no “means-testing” as to need; so the wealthy receive the same benefit as the poor.

The takeaway here is that all of these issues have converged into what seems to be a complicated and intractable problem that defies solution. Unfortunately, that is the case when those charged with solving the problem offer only complicated, tedious, timid and incremental actions. If this approach continues, the end result will be a continuing problem for current and future participants, along with the country as a whole. If ever an audacious solution to solving a problem was needed, Social Security fits the bill. So what might that audacious solution be?

Social Security was intended to be an actuarially sound universal insurance program, so let’s be audacious and treat it that way. When an insurance company discovers that it has written a “bad-book” of business it does not continue to add additional policies to the book or go to policyholders and ask them to accept reduced benefits. What the insurance company does is “close the book” and allow the existing liabilities to run-off. Then, using updated assumptions and experience, the company designs a new policy for the market.

When a company takes this action, it still has to take its lumps for the bad business written, and the existing participants will receive the benefits that have been promised, but the ultimate liability (losses) are capped and eventually will disappear naturally as policyholders die. This would be an audacious approach to solving the problems of Social Security, but it would work.

What the government could do is simply “close the book” on the existing Social Security program. Those already receiving Social Security benefits and those 55 and older would remain in the current program, with no change in benefits. Deficits in the funding for the existing program would continue – quite possibly increase – for a period of time, but they would be capped and ultimately disappear as participants die.

At the same time, an entirely new program – based on current assumptions and experience – could be designed and implemented for those under age 55. It could, for example, set the age for receiving benefits at 70 or even 75. The payroll taxes necessary to pay for the benefits of the new program could be applied to total income and not capped at an artificial level. Benefits would be “means-tested” so that a certain level of income or assets, some participants would receive benefits equal to what they put in and no more.

Certainly these ideas may seem extreme, but it is the type of audacious thinking needed to solve real problems. In reality, the ideas suggested are not as radical as them may seem at first glance. The original Social Security plan set the age for receiving benefits at least 10 years beyond what was the current life expectancy; setting receipt of benefits at the current life expectancy is actually a more liberal approach. In addition, a recent survey discovered that over 60 percent of those between the ages of 45 and 60 want and plan to work beyond the “normal” retirement age.

The audacious idea to freeze the current system and reinvent a new system with future benefits based on up to date assumptions and experience would protect the benefits of those currently receiving Social Security and assure future retirees that a viable program will be there when they need it.

Of course you have to be audacious to think that our political leaders have the courage to do what it takes to really solve problems. And that may be the biggest problem of all.

And the Moral of the Story …

When faced with what seems to be an intractable problem, most make the mistake attempting to implement fixes that respond to the results rather than the cause of the problem. Problems can be intimidating, complicated and seemingly insoluble when the approach to solving the problem is a combination of complicated, tedious, timid and incremental fixes. Meeting challenging problems is often best accomplished with audacious reinvention, rather than timorous reengineering.

Often the most significant impediment to solving a complicated problem is an unwillingness to be audacious enough to solve the problem.

Identifying the Malady of Management Malfeasance and put Your Career on a Successful Path

For those who have jobs and are in the midst of building a career, there are usually two issues that are front and center in their thinking: Is my job secure and does the company I work for provide an opportunity for personal growth?

These are good questions and the only way to really find the answers is to constantly asses the cultural environment, viability and potential of the company for which you work. Unfortunately, the answers will not be found in the past or even current performance and reputation of the company, but only by exploring and understanding the very fundamentals of how the company you work for is managed and led. Even if the company has achieved success in the past, if the company now seems to be going down the wrong path, then you should consider seeking your own path.

The good news is that employees themselves are in the best position to determine the future direction of the company and the potential opportunity for their own career growth. The key is to be observant and brutally honest about what is seen and experienced in the workplace.

It all starts and ends with the attitude and philosophy of management. What type of organizational culture is management seeking to build? Do they even care about creating a positive organizational culture? Or is it something to which only lip service is given? The answers to these questions will go a long way toward helping you determine the security of your employment and the potential for your future.

Obviously, the place to start is to determine if the management of a company is ethical. The use of the term “ethical” in this case is not about lying, cheating and stealing. If that is the modus operandi of management then the answer is simple. For the purposes of this piece, ethics refers to the attitude and operating philosophy of management. Do they speak with forked-tongue? Do they talk the talk of good culture, but operate in a closed, self-serving fashion?

A good example of management lacking sound ethics is a management group that incessantly talks about how important the employees are to the success of the company, but when black clouds are sighted on the horizon, the first actions of management are to “downsize” and “outsource.” When challenges arise, managers lacking true ethics quickly herd unsuspecting employees to the twin alters of downsizing and outsourcing, where they are sacrificed to the pagan gods of illusory profits.

If you work for a company where management holds the belief that costs will be reduced and profits increased when important functions (and the people doing them) are outsourced to those with no knowledge of the company and with no concern for its future or the future of its people, then it is reasonable to question your job security and opportunity. And, you should do something about it.

Let’s be honest and acknowledge that there are no requirements for management to be open and all-inclusive in their actions. In fact, in most organizations this type of attitude is accepted and typical. But, that does not make it right or, for that matter, the way to develop long-term success. And, such an attitude does not bode well for job security and opportunity.

Those who build business cultures that generate employee job security and opportunity are those who do the right things that are not required to be done; this is the essence of ethical leadership. They rise above average, commonplace leadership because they know that building healthy organizational culture is crucial to the success of the company and to their own future. That is the type of company that people not only feel comfortable working for, but more importantly one they can be their career futures on.

Of course, it is possible climb the corporate ladder working for a company that does not practice ethical management – many do – but to do so, an individual must be willing to sell their soul to this type of soul-less leadership. That may be okay for awhile, but you really have to ask yourself if you want to live your life that way. And, in all likelihood, your future and that of your company will be put at risk.

Here are a few tips and telltale signs an individual can use to determine if their job is secure and an opportunity for career development present.

Communication – Is the management of the organization open and honest in their communication with all employees? Is information about the company considered the exclusive purview of management? Is information provided on a regular and reliable basis? Are employees constantly caught off guard by the actions of management? Is the dreaded rumor mill the primary source of information for employees?

Trust – Do management actions build an atmosphere of trust? Are management actions – especially as it applies to employees – honest, constant and consistent? Can management pronouncements be taken at face value or do employees feel they have to question and read between the lines to determine what they really mean? Are employees comfortable trusting their future to the actions and interests of management?

Parallel Interests – Do employees believe that management makes an honest effort to align the interests of the company with those of its employees? If the company is successful, do the employees believe they will share in the success their efforts helped to create? Is the success of the organization the success of all or is it management that takes both the credit and the spoils for any success?

Power Sharing – Is power concentrated rather than shared? Is the management group so insecure and controlling that they must actually define themselves as the “leadership team?” Are employees given the responsibility for tasks, but not the tools or authority to achieve them? Do employees come to feel that what they do – unless they fail – is not recognized by management and that they are really powerless to make a difference?

Employee Value – Does management constantly talk about how important employees are but treat them only as pawns? Are employees the last to know and the first to be blamed, downsized or outsourced? Does management speak of respect, but take actions that often denigrate the value and importance of the employee?

And The Moral of the Story …

If you are serious about your job security and your future career, it is incumbent upon you to take control of your future. There is no security in allowing others to control your future. Taking control of your future starts by putting yourself in a place that gives you a future. And that means making a choice about the roads before you.

If you find yourself working for a company infected with the malady of unethical management malfeasance, you know you are in the wrong place. You have two choices. You can give up and give in and place your job security and future in the hands of leaders you neither trust nor respect. Or, you can take control of your own future by finding a place where your efforts are respected and offers the opportunity for you to be what you can be. It may not be easy, but it is always better to fail trying than to fail to try.

(Bob MacDonald is transitioning from his winter hideout in Key West, Fla. to his warm weather enclave (is it spring, yet?) in Minnesota. Hence, a repeat of this blog originally published March 15, 2010.)

I don’t mean to have a closed mind, but hiring a management consultant to tell you how to manage your company is like buying a horsewhip to get more horsepower out of your car. But, you have to give grudging credit to these clowns, because they have figured out a way to get the management of numerous companies to pay billions of dollars for their “advice.” And management consultants have found a willing host in the tissues of corporate management and have taken advantage of it.

The reality is that too many companies are being managed by too many hardcore bureaucrats who have no idea how to effectively lead. It has become an accepted cop-out for these weak managers to hire someone who has never run a company to teach them how to run a company. Talk about the blind leading the blind!

Management consultants have been able to disguise the fact that they bring no real value to an organization. They have accomplished this sleight-of-hand through the creation of a whole new argot of buzzwords which enables them to charge ridiculously excessive fees in order to translate the meaning of this language. We have all heard the words and phrases like “best practices,” “synergy,” “concentric,” “methodologies” and of course the all-time favorite “granular.”

I recently read (well, I didn’t read it, but did see it) a report from one of the leading consulting firms that was titled, “A Multi-granular Linguistic Model for Management Multi-criteria Decision-making.” (I did not make that up!) Need I say more? What incompetent, insecure bureaucratic manager would not be willing to pay millions (of company money) to learn the secrets in a report with such a title?

Big fees are another way management consultants hide their uselessness. Once when I was running Allianz Life we had a decision to make regarding a specific market segment. It was no big deal, but the Lords of Allianz in Germany told me that we should retain McKinsey & Company to provide consulting assistance in making the decision. (At the time, Allianz SE was the single largest customer of McKinsey; paying them scores of millions each year to help them run the company.) We had no interest in bringing McKinsey in, but in order to placate our bureaucratic masters at Allianz SE we agreed to have McKinsey bid on the project. When the bid came in, before sharing it, I asked the executive group what they felt such a service should be worth. The consensus was, being generous, maybe $50,000. The McKinsey bid was $460,000. Only in America could a company have such arrogance. The irony was that Allianz thought it was a good deal and were disappointed when we laughed McKinsey out of the office.

Management consultants have four standard plays – synergy, best practices, downsizing and outsourcing – in their playbooks. They use these strategies and the supposed efficiency and cost cutting they will generate in order to justify their obscene fees.

I was witness to this playbook in action. One of the truly incompetent bureaucratic executives at Allianz of North America paid management consultants literally millions of company dollars in an effort to synergize, downsize and outsource the company to success. In the process, not only were millions of dollars wasted on management consultants, but employee morale was destroyed, efficient operations reduced, marketing became a confused process and expenses actually increased. Later, Allianz had to spend even more money to unwind these misguided efforts. The only winners were the consulting companies. Fortunately, the executive responsible for this waste lost his job and was allowed to “retire.”

I don’t mean to pick on or single out Allianz; they are just one of hundreds of companies that fall prey to the illusionary promises of management consultants. Like other companies infested with a bureaucratic culture of management they are highly susceptible to the illusion of management made simple by tactics.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not against a manager or executive seeking advice and input from others to be successful. It is a sign of a strong leader to be open to input. But it is a cop out to pay millions of dollars to outside gunslingers – who can’t shoot straight themselves – to take the burden of managing off your shoulders. I favor a different approach. Anyone can benefit from having a mentor, but few can benefit from a consultant. There is a difference. The mentor cares about you while the consultant cares about the fee.

A good example of this approach would be to build a board of directors whose members have varied, actual, successful, hands-on experiences managing and leading a company. As directors these individuals care about you and the success of the company. If used properly, they can be an effective sounding-board for you and other executives in the company. (Not to mention at a whole lot less cost than a management consultant!) And, one does not have to be a CEO to benefit from a mentoring system. In fact, the concept of mentoring can be built into the very culture of the company.

The bottom line is that management consulting can be very effective in the leadership of a company, but it should be an internal not external process.

And the Moral of the Story …

If the management of a company believes it needs to bring in management consultants to teach and help them manage the company, then they should not be in charge of managing the company.

When you see a company constantly seeking outside help to run the company and, in the process, paying thousands, if not millions of dollars, to management consultants, then you are looking at a company with a poor internal culture, managed by weak, incompetent bureaucratic executives stumbling down the road to ultimate failure.

(Bob MacDonald is transitioning from his winter hideout in Key West, Fla. to his warm weather enclave (is it spring, yet?) in Minnesota. Hence, a repeat of this blog originally published September 20, 2009) 

On April 19, Al Neuharth died at age 89. He will mostly be remembered as the inspiration and founder of USA TODAY, but he was more than that. Al Neuharth was – for good and bad – a classic business maverick. By definition a “business maverick” is one who learned what they know in one industry and then knowingly go against what they know. Only someone with an insider’s intimate knowledge of a company or industry, an intuitive inquisitiveness to question the system and the courage to challenge it, can bring about real change. The maverick’s value is to be instinctively dissatisfied with what most see as the only way, because they have always done it that way.

It is not easy to be a business maverick. They live in a world where their ideas and actions are, at least initially, greeted by a negative reception that ranges from disregard to disdain. They are chastised and castigated as a heretical turncoat and traitor by those in their industry who believe the way things are being done is the way things should continue to be done. Those most vociferous in ostracizing and denigrating the maverick are those they have worked with or competed against. It has been reported that Ben Bradlee, the former editor of The Washington Post, once referred to Neuharth as a “mountebank.” That is a “polite” way for Bradlee to suggest that Neuharth was nothing more than a fraud, charlatan and huckster. Such aspersions are a way of life for those business mavericks who “go against their own kind.”

A Closer Look at the Man behind the Newspaper

Al Neuharth had all the traits of the typical business maverick: That is one who is often impetuous, impatient, outrageous, abrasive and vain; mixed with a dose of creativity and innovation. The typical business maverick is, in fact, stimulated by the acrimony of controversy and uses the level generated to gauge the impact of their actions. Their attitude seems to be: If others are not threatened by what they are doing, they are not doing enough. The maverick has no problem – and actually seems to relish – picking fights and poking a stick in the eyes of traditionalists who come to loathe them. (Truth is they have to be this way if real change is to come about.)

What ignites the maverick is the belief that a company or industry – one that they know intimately and care about – needs, for its own good, to change. It is the detection of this need to change and a dedication to doing what needs to be done that shields the maverick against the tumult of disparagement heaped upon them by critics who view any change as a threat. For the business maverick, the greatest reward and validation is when those within the industry who have been the most critical begin to imitate and adopt the changes as their own.

Al Neuharth met the definition of a business maverick in all ways. He was a child and product of the newspaper industry, entering it when he was 19. He started a sports newspaper in his native South Dakota which promptly became an entrepreneurial flop. Undaunted, he took a job at the established Miami Herald and diligently worked his way up and around the newspaper business making newspapering his entire life. As he reached the pinnacle of power in the industry he turned against all he had learned and all that was accepted in an effort to bring changes to the industry. Even though the newspaper business still appeared to be healthty and highly profitable.

At a time when all newspapers were local, he wanted to go national. When the industry was black and white, he wanted color. When stories were long, deep and often ponderous, he wanted short, simple and understandable. He believed that reading a newspaper should seem like a conversation, not a lecture. The result was USA TODAY. Derided as shallow, hollow and frivolous, the stalwarts of the newspaper industry mocked USA TODAY as an insignificant interloper and jeeringly referred to it as “McPaper.” (It is ironic that those who most opposed what Neuharth was doing mocked his ideas by comparing USA TODAY with another company that had changed its industry.)

Despite the attacks, resistance and a decade of losses, we know the rest of the story. Not only did USA TODAY attain the highest circulation in the industry (The Wall Street Journal has moved slightly ahead now, but only after another business maverick assumed control.) it also became the most profitable newspaper in the industry. In fact, those who were most critical of Neuharth and his approach were soon forced to pay the highest compliment when they began to fall all over themselves trying to copy his changes. What was first considered heresy has become newspaper doctrine and it is why Al Neuharth will be remembered and celebrated: he was a changer, not the changed.

Your Call to Action

The life of a successful business maverick is exciting, challenging, exhilarating, rewarding, fun and lonely. The business world is designed to seek and welcome conventionality not unorthodoxy, but it is the maverick who is the catalyst for change when change is needed. In the end, the successful maverick does not submit to conformity, but rather forces others to comply. Think of Fred Smith, founder of FedEx, Steve Jobs, the guru of Apple, Bill Gates of Microsoft and Richard Branson of the Virgin empire and Al Neuharth of USA TODAY; they all started as mavericks and ended as legends in the business world.

If you dream of experiencing the excitement and accomplishment of a business maverick, the good news is that it requires no unique talent or skill that you probably don’t already possess. All it takes is to start thinking like a maverick. The first sign of an embryonic maverick is relentless curiosity. The maverick is constantly asking questions and challenging the way things are done with an impatient eye to how they can be done better.

Business mavericks often exhibit other attributes as well:

• The willingness to adopt new perspective whenever possible.
• The openness to try new things or do old things differently.
• The confidence to respectfully resist the opposition of others and act on new ideas to test their value.
• The eagerness to solicit and listen to the ideas of others and learn from their input.
• The tenacity to see your ideas through to conclusion.

Being a business maverick demands an openness and willingness to look at the world in new ways. A lot of people think of new ideas and how they want things to be, but that is not enough. To come to fruition, new ideas need to be nurtured by someone who is willing to resist conformity, go against the grain and stand up to the naysayers. As the longtime management expert Peter Drucker said, “Ideas are cheap and abundant. What is of value is the effective placement of these ideas into situations that develop into action.” And that is the job and value of the business maverick.

And the Moral of the Story …

Many have the dream to be an entrepreneur, but few express the desire to endure the nightmare of being a maverick. One is seen as a “Crown of Glory” while the other is a “Crown of Thorns.” But the truth is that both are needed. Being both an entrepreneur and a maverick might be the best of all worlds, but that is rare. There have been many successful entrepreneurs who were not mavericks and many acclaimed mavericks who were not entrepreneurs. The entrepreneur is needed to make it and the maverick is needed to fix it.

Al Neuharth tried and failed at being an entrepreneur, but he was a great maverick. Like all great business mavericks he understood intimately how the system worked, understood the way the system was working (at least the way people wanted it to work), recognized the system could work in a better way, and he fixed it. All hail the business maverick!

There is an element of effective leadership that few recognize and even fewer understand. Yet it is an aspect of leadership that gives the leader the license to do great things. This component of leadership is an underlying, almost imperceptible, reservoir of power that some leaders are able to accumulate and bank for future use. At the appropriate time, the leader can draw down this power to invest in bringing about real change. This particular power is not bestowed on a leader by title. Rather, it is accumulated over time as the leader builds credibility by exhibiting consistent beliefs, actions and philosophy that followers understand and in which they can have faith.

Absent this crucial power, leaders are left to defend the status quo or, at best, implement incremental changes within an established, business-as-usual system. Only those leaders who earn, recognize and understand this power and – equally as important – are bold enough to use it, can bring about fundamental change. And this ability to bring about real change is what  defines the success of a leader.

A Surprising Paradox about Leadership

There is a quirky irony present in this situation: In order to make effective use of the power to initiate real change, the leader is often required to take actions that are contradictory to the conduct that enables a leader to accumulate power. In other words, the leader seeking to bring about real change draws down all the good will and trust accumulated over time by acting in a certain way and then uses it as power to move in a new direction.

This may seem a bit confusing and paradoxical, but fortunately there are some real-life examples of how some leaders went about building an invisible reservoir of power that they were later able to draw upon to implement what they perceived as necessary change for the greater good.

Lessons from History

Thomas Jefferson was the patriarch of small government. For 30 years, from 1770 to 1800, Jefferson built a consistent, even passionate, record as one who opposed a strong central government. As one of the Founding Fathers he was at the forefront of the battle for individual freedom and liberty that had been suppressed by the government of Great Britain. Initially Jefferson even opposed the ratification of the constitution, because he felt that the government it created was too strong and that it could threaten individual freedom. He reluctantly agreed to ratification only after the Bill of Rights was added. As secretary of state in Washington’s cabinet, he was constantly at odds with Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and other “Federalists” (sometimes including Washington) whom he felt were seeking to expand the scope and size of the federal government beyond what was reasonably needed to keep the country in union.

The election of John Adams as a Federalist to succeed Washington brought about an acrimonious end to a lifelong friendship between Jefferson and Adams. Jefferson opposed virtually every action of Adams to expand the power of the federal government and, in the process, became the head of the Republican faction in the country. There was no question in anyone’s mind as to Jefferson’s position on the size of government; he was against increasing its power. Jefferson played such a prominent role in resisting the growth of the federal government that in 1800 he was nominated and elected (barely) as the first “Republican” president. The only thing that Jefferson’s friends and adversaries agreed on was that as president he would roll back the actions of Adams, Hamilton and other Federalists who had sought to increase the scope and power of the federal government.

And yet, during Jefferson’s eight years as president, not only did he validate most of the actions the Federalists had taken, but expanded the influence of the federal government in a way that would set precedents we still live with today. One example of this was the Louisiana Purchase in 1803; an action that would significantly expand the scope and power of the federal government. Jefferson was acutely aware that neither he as president or even Congress had the constitutional power to enter into such a game-changing purchase. Even though this action went against the very core of Jefferson’s beliefs and the expectations of his “base,” he also recognized that the purchase of Louisiana would enhance the security of the young country by evicting France from North America, prevent Spain from gaining a foothold and it would launch America on the road to becoming a world power; so he just did it. (Jefferson was so concerned about the unconstitutionality of this action he considered the need for a Constitutional amendment to authorize the purchase, but rejected it because it would take too much time and the opportunity would be lost.) Only Jefferson had the power to take this action.

Certainly there were Republicans who were shocked by his apparent change of heart and severely criticized Jefferson, but because he had well-established credentials as one who opposed the expansion of government power, he had the power to take action that expanded the power of government that he felt was for the ultimate good of the country. Likewise, Federalists (who hated Jefferson) were boxed in and forced to support his actions, because it would be seen disingenuous to oppose it.

Civil Rights of the 1960s

Lyndon Johnson was a son of the South. Practicing politics in Texas when racism and segregation was a way of life, Johnson might have been considered one of the last politicians to lead the fight for civil rights. Johnson was added to the Kennedy ticket, because it was the only way an eastern liberal such as Kennedy could have won election. The presence of a tried and true Southerner Johnson on the ticket enabled Kennedy to carry Texas and without that win Kennedy would have lost the election. Although Johnson was not a blatant segregationist in the mold of Alabama Governor George Wallace (“…Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”), he had done nothing to raise the fear of Southerners that he was not “one of them.” All the more surprising, then, that as president he met frequently with civil rights leaders including Martin Luther King, Jr. and took the critical lead in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Certainly the assassination of President Kennedy created emotional momentum to pass the Civil Rights law, but even so, it certainly would not have passed if a bone-deep Southerner such as Johnson had not supported it. Johnson drew down the reserve of power he had built with Southerners over decades to bring about real change. Johnson was the only leader with the power to do that.

Richard Nixon would never be accused of being a “commie-pinko-sympathizer.” Nixon built his entire career as a dogmatic anti-Communist. We won’t go into his tactics here, but it is suffice to say that people knew where Nixon stood when it came to dealing with communists and communist nations. And yet it was the strident anti-communist Nixon who opened the door to China. Can you imagine the howls of protest, conspiracy and recrimination that would have befallen any other president who – almost as a supplicant – took the trip to China to shake the hand, kiss the cheek and toast Chairman Mao? Nixon had the bona-fide credentials of an anti-communist earned over two decades that gave him the power to bring about change that set in motion the ultimate end of the Cold War. Only Nixon had the power to do that.

The Bottom Line for Effective Leadership

The point being made here is that these leaders (and there are others) who understood that power used to achieve what has always been done is a waste of power . . . and that the ultimate value of power is to do what has not been done. Critical to using this power to instigate change is having the courage to stand up to what has been done, when what has been done needs to be changed.

Now we come to today. There is a clear understanding that the financial structure of current entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are fatally flawed. If allowed to continue as constructed today – even with minor tinkering and ticky-tack reforms around the edges – these programs have the potential to bankrupt the country. It is also clear – to friend and foe – that President Obama has built an impeachable record – and has been elected – as a traditional liberal who favors people over corporations and the expansion of government to help those in need; even at the cost of deficit spending and increased debt. This credibility with the average person was clearly on display when Obama won re-election, despite unlimited amounts of money from the wealthy, the travails of a stagnant economy and a government budget system is disarray.

The only leader who has the reserve of power necessary to call for the fundamental changes needed to save these programs and protect the economic well-being of the country is President Obama. There may be talk of a “Grand Bargain,” but that will never come about in today’s political stalemate. What is needed is a “Grand Plan.” President Obama has the opportunity to join the pantheon of those who have proven to be great leaders by using his reserve of power to bring about real change. But to do so he must step up and offer bold plans that will fundamentally change and preserve these entitlement programs. It is an abdication of leadership, when one who has the power to implement change holds back and simply castigates others for their lack of action.

The truth is that the other leaders in Washington do not have the credibility and reservoir of power with the people who will be most affected by reforming the entitlement programs to allow them to implement the needed changes, but President Obama does. If President Obama does not recognize this power or fails to exhibit the courage of Jefferson, Johnson and Nixon to use it, then both he and the country will lose.

And the Moral of the Story …

There is a good lesson to learn here for anyone who seeks to be an effective leader in government or business. As a leader it is critical to be consistent, clear and credible in establishing a deep-seated belief in the minds of your followers that you are committed to their ultimate welfare. When a leader is successful in this effort, they begin to build a unique force of power that can be drawn down at critical and opportune times to bring about real change.

Doing what has been done or expected to be done is not leading, it is herding. True leadership is about the ability to motivate followers to accept what they never thought they would accept and to do what they never thought they would do. This can only happen when the leader has – over time – built up a reservoir of trust from the followers that allows them to believe that no matter what action is taken, no matter how contradictory it may seem, it is being taken with their ultimate best interests in mind. This is the only way for a leader to accumulate the capital needed to implement real change.

There are those who believe that America is moving toward a crisis tipping-point and that the outcome will determine if the country can continue its “exceptionalism” as the dominant economic, military and political leader in the world. There is dread spreading among thinking people that if the country continues on its current trajectory it will, as has every dominant power of the past 5,000 years, recede and slip into the backwaters of failed empires.

Tagged as the primary culprits for the diminishing American power are a paralyzed government, continued deficit spending, an out of control national debt, anti-Christian corroding social mores and godless, socialist-leaning leaders who are unwilling to stand up for what America stands for.

America has always stood strong for the three “Gs”: God, guns and greed. Paramount to this philosophy is individual freedom and particularly the individual’s explicit right to protect themselves against the threats of enemies foreign and domestic. Inherent in the right to individual protection is the freedom to own and if need be, use a gun.

The Founding Fathers believed that the right to “bear arms” was so sacrosanct they made it even more essential than the right of free speech and the right to vote. Soon after the constitution was ratified, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act that put strict controls on free speech and mandated stiff prison stays for those who violated the law. While the right to vote was embedded within the constitution, it was limited to “free white male property owners.” (It should be noted that women were not allowed to vote, but they could own a gun.) Except for making it illegal to sell or provide guns to “native savages” or those of color who happened to be slaves, every single American had an inalienable right to own any number and type of gun they wanted. With this as a guiding philosophy and the effective use of guns, Americans conquered a continent and came to dominate the world.

But now the right of Americans to own and use guns is under a shameful direct frontal assault by the sacrilegious efforts of demagogues who seek to usurp this sacred right granted by our forefathers and inspired by divine deity. In and of itself that is bad enough, but what makes it even worse is that this attack is being led by our very own elected American leaders. The Founding Fathers would regard this type of activity as little more than traitorous treachery designed to weaken the very fiber of America. It is likely not a coincidence that the effort to take guns out of the hands of Americans coincides with the decline of American vibrancy and power at home and in the world.

These rapists of rights may deny that they seek to prohibit or control individual gun ownership, but their actions belie their words. For example, there is an emotional movement afoot to ban the sale of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Falsely portraying assault weapons as nothing more than excessively efficient “killing tools,” these effete snobs of intellectualism strive to ban what is essentially a God-given implement of self-defense. At the same time, they ignore the fact that last year only 358 people were killed by assault weapons equipped with high capacity magazines, while 32,885 people were killed in or by automobiles. The fact that we don’t hear these same nattering nabobs calling for a ban on the sale and ownership of cars should tell you something about their distorted belief in the preservation of the American way; and that the politicians among them are more influenced by the car lobby, than the freedom-loving gun lobbyists.

The first step in this insidious effort to deny Americans the right to own guns comes in the innocuous, seemingly benign form of a “background check.” These haters of American rights tell us they don’t want to ban guns, but to just compile a little background information on those who own them. Don’t be fooled. You need little imagination to know exactly where that will lead to and how the information could be used. As shocking as it might seem, there has even been talk of putting forward a “foreground check” before a person could buy a gun. Under this scheme those who seek to purchase a gun would not only have to disclose to the government their past associations and activities, but also agree to be analyzed by a licensed psychologist (no doubt a bleeding-heart liberal) to determine what the individual might do in the future, if they did own a gun. If this passes, it will surely be an end to America as we know it.

These efforts must be stopped dead in their tracks if individual freedom in America is to be preserved. Fortunately for all freedom loving Americans, WikiLeaks has obtained and released a copy of the background check form the government wants to use to determine a person’s qualification to own a gun. This form is called “The American Freedom to Own and Keep Guns Information Repository.”

To help you understand and make your own decision as to how deviously stealthy this first step in denying Americans their basic right to own and use guns, listed below is a partial list of some of the (up to now secret) questions and information proposed to be asked and gathered.

Select your favorite television show:

• Doomsday Preppers
• American Sniper
• American Guns
• Sons of Guns
• Moonshiners
• Jesse Ventura: Conspiracy Theory
• Sara Palin’s Alaska

If you read, what is your favorite magazine or newspaper?:

• Guns and Ammo
• The New York Times
• Shotgun News
• Time
• Rifle Shooter
• The Wall Street Journal
• Shooting Times

Answer the following as truthfully as you can:

• Do you tend to watch The Military Channel more frequently than CNN?
• Do you believe your best look is camouflage?
• What is the year, make and model of your pick-up truck?
• Have you given your pick-up truck a name? Like “Big Dick,” “Rolling Rage,” or “Balls of Fire”
• Is your rear window gun-rack designed for two or four rifles?
• Does the term “turbocharged hemi” refer to your truck or a painful ailment you have suffered?
• Do you often meet people you know deserve to die?
• Are most people out to get you?
• Do you feel you can never have enough ammo for your gun?
• Do you think gun safes are for sissies?
• Do you own any shirts that have collars, buttons or sleeves?
• Do you consider a “double-wide” to be upscale housing?

These are just a few of the seemingly inoffensive questions asked on this background check form, (If you want to see the entire form go to www.wikileaks.org/guncontrol), but you can see how the compilation of this information in the hands of the government could be dangerous.

Fortunately, there are still some brave souls in America who are willing to stand up and fight for the preservation of the basic American right to own and use a gun (in self-defense). One of these unsung heroes is none other than the National Rifle Association leader, Mr. Wayne LaPierre. Sure, he looks like one of those slimy, prissy, pretty-boy lobbyists and his name sounds like he is some dad-gum foreigner, but he speaks for all Americans when he says, “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Sustaining and spreading the philosophy that America needs more, not less guns, is the best way to combat and defeat the intent of many to eliminate the basic right of all Americans to own guns. The truth is that it is impossible to keep bad people from having guns, so the answer is to make it a requirement that everyone must own and carry a gun. After all, the police can’t be everywhere, but people armed with guns can.

It’s simple logic: If some lunatic was thinking about going into a theater to shoot people, they would hesitate if they knew that everyone in the theater had guns. How many would see schools as an easy target if they knew that all teachers and student hall-monitors were fully armed? And there are other advantages. Road-rage would decline precipitously if the aggressive driver knew that the other driver was also packing heat. Even the term “going postal” at work would become moot if all managers openly carried a loaded side-arm on their hip.

To reduce the risk of innocent victims being injured as the result of a dispute between two individuals, the legality of personal duels should be reinstated. What many do not realize is that at the time of the adoption of the constitution, the “personal duel” was the accepted way to settle a dispute between two individuals. In reality the idea of a duel to the death reduced violence, because one knew that the other person was armed (and might be a better shot) and this encouraged them to work out their differences. The same thing could happen now if duels became legal again. (Plus, usually the only ones injured in a duel were the combatants.)

Above all, those who understand and love the greatness of America should not shirk from the responsibility to stand up for basic individual rights and liberty – especially the right to own a gun. Instead of passively accepting the actions of those who seek to eviscerate these rights, they should stand up and demand greater rights. Nothing would do that more than to require that everyone exercise their right to own a gun.

And the Moral of the Story …

America has marched from colony to super power and guns have been instrumental tools every step of the way. Americans took up arms to gain independence; then demanded and received the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Chastened by the power of British troops to control and confiscate arms in order to subjugate Americans to the will of the English government, the Founding Fathers were determined that never again would any government have such power. This end was accomplished by codifying in the most fundamental document of the country – the constitution – the right of every American to own a gun.

Sure, there is some fallout from this approach, but a mentality of violence, the settling of disputes at the point of a gun, random killings of innocents and even a few mass shootings is a small price to pay for protecting an American’s right to buy, own and use a gun. There are those who say that “times have changed” and the right to buy and own a gun is “outdated.” That’s really a code for saying that liberty is outdated. The important question to ask is: If we let them violate the constitutional right to own a gun, then what right will be next?

Those who care about America and its future should ignore all the random violence caused by guns and the fact that more Americans are killed by guns owned by individuals than any other country in the world. Stand fast! Protect the right of all of us to buy, own and use guns. It is, after all, the American way.

If you have been following the posturing and negotiations (a term used loosely) between President Obama and the leaders of Congress seeking a solution to the budget-busting costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, you can stop following right now and start getting a life: It ain’t gonna happen. And yet, your time and effort won’t be totally wasted since there is a lesson to learn from these shenanigans that can give you a clear advantage over most others in the business world.

Finding a way to maintain the benefits provided to those who depend on these programs for their very life and survival, while, at the same time, reforming the programs in a way that reduces cost and keeps them economically viable is, most assuredly, a complex challenge. So what is the congressional methodology being used to solve to this conundrum? Well, you take those who know the most about these programs – the policy wonks – and lock them in a room with instructions to find a solution, or else.

That sounds fine, but there’s a sticker here and it’s this: Because the experts charged with resolving the problems with these benefit programs are so immersed in the byzantine and excruciating minutia of the plans, they are inclined to dance around the edges of these issues with tweaks, tinkers and minor modifications, rather than take a blank-slate, zero-sum approach that would make it infinitely easier to find a clear and simple solution.

We shouldn’t be surprised, then, when the solutions that waft from their smoke-filled rooms are as predictable as they are lame. The political leaders are now engaged in a heated debate over the value of combining Medicare Part A and B, increasing Medicare co-payments and deductibles, while putting a fixed cap on the total lifetime expenses the participants will pay. When it comes to Social Security, the recommendation so far is to reduce the amount of cost-of-living increases by changing how the cost of living is calculated. None of us may understand all the technical jargon these proposals are wrapped in, but we can understand that none of these actions will solve the fundamental problem of entitlements. Left to their own devices, these politicos will, if anything, make the plans even more complex. But that is what happens when those who know too much don’t know enough to make the complicated simple. If you filed your 1040 with attachments this week, you’ll have a small taste of what I mean.

A Widespread Problem that Creeps and Grows

It is not just the political process that allows politicos and bureaucrats to make a living by taking simple issues and making them complex. Nor are politicians the only ones who believe that the answer to a complex problem is an even more complex solution. This same idiotic philosophy permeates the business world, too.

As much as companies and organizations may talk about the virtue of innovation and change, the reality is that most are hostile to real change. This attitude encourages taking the path of least resistance to change by implementing incremental actions to “fix” the past, rather than seeking simple solutions that converts change into opportunity. The result is increasing complexity in the operations of an organization, when it is simplicity that is most needed.

As frustrating as this may be, it does have a positive side. Anyone can take a simple problem and make it complicated, but those who develop the ability to respond to a complicated problem with a simple solution will have a clear advantage over those mired in complexity. When you come right down to it, success is as simple as that.

If success in business is what you seek, the path will be easier when you focus on knowing more about the solution, than you know about the problem. The reason that Medicare seems like such an intractable problem is because those trying to fix it know more about the problem than they do the solution.

Problem-solving should start with the recognition that complexity is the coward’s way to solve a problem. It takes courage, competency and confidence to be simple. Complexity is the refuge of a weak and insecure mind. There is a culturally embedded philosophy in business – supported by the business schools and hordes of consultants – that welcomes complexity. The convoluted thinking is that making the problem more confusing is a way for the powers to be to seem smarter and better than all the rest. It is an attitude that screams out, “If I understand the problem and you don’t, then I have power over you.” Among the obvious problems that this attitude creates is that when plans, tasks and objectives are perceived as too complicated, paralysis of action sets in; people have a difficult time getting their minds around the problem, identifying a solution and putting it into place.

If you want to be successful as a manager or a leader, you first have to understand that knowing too much about a problem can actually inhibit your ability to find a solution. The key to avoiding complexity and concentrate on simplicity is to start with the solution, not the problem. This may sound too simple to work, but let me give you an example.

Problem-Solving the LifeUSA Way

When my company – LifeUSA – was just starting out, we knew that the only way to compete against the entrenched giants of the insurance industry was to clearly differentiate what we offered. It was difficult to create a distinction from a product standpoint (which we ultimately did), so the focus was on the more obvious – service.

The insurance industry has always had a very complicated administrative and processing system and companies have used this as an excuse for poor service–especially for agents selling the product. At the time LifeUSA was launched, the average time it took for a company to issue a new policy was 48 days. This was frustrating for both the agent and the new policyholder, to say the least. In an effort to differentiate the service of LifeUSA from the other companies, we promised that once the agent had submitted all the application paperwork, the new policy would be issued in 48 hours and if not, we would pay the agent $100. We called this the “48-hour challenge.” This was a simple solution . . . . a simple definition and standard for service that both those in the home office and the field could understand, if not believe was possible. Of course this promised solution drew howls of protest from systems and administrative people and scoffs of disbelief from the field.

Was the legal and administrative task of issuing a new policy complicated? Yes. But LifeUSA did not approach the challenge by attempting to make incremental changes to the existing system, but by focusing on the solution and creating a new system to achieve it. (Something that would also work to solve the problems with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.) Starting with the solution and working back, rather than with the problem and trying to work forward, LifeUSA broke each part of the process down to simple steps, but steps that were simple to do. And then we did them.

The result was a level of service provided by LifeUSA that was unmatched in the industry. And this played a key role in helping LifeUSA achieve unmatched growth as well. The payment of the $100 for failure to meet the 48-hour challenge was a rare occurrence, because home office personnel took pride in meeting the challenge and would go to great effort to avoid missing the benchmark of service.

The LifeUSA 48-hour challenge was an example of how a complicated problem can be made simple. The home office people knew exactly what the standards of good service were and the customers (the agents) knew what to expect. From a management perspective, the results of the 48-hour challenge were a simple way to measure the quality of service being provided.

Some would suggest that it was easy for a new company, with not much business, to offer this service, but very difficult for larger established companies. Not true. LifeUSA was still promising the 48-hour service 15 years later when receiving 5,000 applications a week, just as it had when receiving 50 a week.

The point here is that simple is better. When you focus on the problem, rather than the solution, the whole process becomes complex. The more you know about the problem – as with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – the more difficult it is to focus on and achieve a solution.

And the Moral of the Story …

The world is awash with complexity. For some, complexity is a defense against decisiveness or a disguise for insecurity and incompetence. Others are paralyzed by complexity forced upon them. Anyone has the ability to make simple things complicated, but it takes talent and confidence to make complicated things simple.

The irony is that the more one understands and focuses on the problem, the more difficult it is to find the solution. When it comes to problems, those with the deepest knowledge are inclined to tinker rather than transform. While those who focus on the simplicity of a solution are inclined to change the system to eliminate the problem. Those who succumb to or create complexity may manage the world, but those who neuter complexity with simplicity change the world.

There is a lot of competition on the road to success. The best way to pass by the traffic and achieve success is to differentiate what you offer that others do not. In today’s world, the best way for an individual to differentiate their ability is to take what others see as complicated and make it simple.

An often-heard criticism of many that make it to the top is that they soon forget where they came from and those who helped them achieve success become an afterthought. It is the type of searing censure that can destroy the success that one worked so hard to achieve, because it creates an attitude of disrespect and even loathing from those who were left behind and forgotten. With a nod to the 1989 Oak Ridge Boys song “No Matter How High,” the surefire way to attain and maintain success is to internalize the philosophy that no matter how high you get, you always look up to those below.

Adopting this philosophy as your mantra is not only an indication of integrity, it has a highly pragmatic value as well. There will come a time – no matter how high you might rise in your career – when the support and effort of those below will be needed. Those who have used their talent to help you achieve success, only to be forgotten and ignored, have long memories.

Admittedly, it is not easy to adopt the idea of looking up to those below you, because it is an accepted – indeed encouraged – belief in the business world that one climbs to the top by catering to the interests and egos of those above their station on the corporate ladder. The generally recognized colloquialism for this tactic is “ass kissing.” The idea is that the more anally focused one is on employing this technique, the more likely they are to move up the power ladder. Yet even if one is successful utilizing this strategy, it invariably turns out to be a hollow victory, because this tactic garners only disrespect from those below and often from those above as well.

It is certainly proper to offer deference and respect to those with greater experience and higher rank in the pecking order of an organization – so long as they deserve it. And even if they don’t, it is right to show respect for their position. Those higher up deserve our loyalty, respect and support – until they do something to prove otherwise. But those qualities or attributes are best delivered honestly and openly, not by the phony flattering of “ass kissing.”

Based on the current way of thinking in business, it may seem counterintuitive, but the quickest and most effective way to get to the top and stay there is to look down to move up. And what does that mean? Simple: It means helping those below to be more secure and successful in their jobs.

That’s the exact opposite of what happens in many businesses. Those in the higher levels of the typical corporation are generally concerned about only one thing – their success, not yours. They spend more time “protecting their turf” and “feathering their own nest;” leaving little time or inclination to care about others. If, on the other hand, you can be different and demonstrate that you sincerely care more about the welfare of those below you, than you do for your own success, they will join together to provide a large base of support to push you up. In others words, it will be in their own best interest for you to achieve success because the higher you go the better is is for those below you.

A Lesson from History

One of the great leaders in American history understood this point completely. As Bruce Chadwick wrote in George Washington’s War  “He [Washington] completely understood that the function of a leader was not to make the men under his command care about what happened to him, but what happened to them. His political genius was to understand that the successful leader gains power and status not by assuming their own success, but the success of those who depended on him.”

I was fortunate to discover early in my career that there was a better chance for success when I was willing to look up to those below me. I learned that for my own benefit, my real job – really my only job – was to create an opportunity and environment where others would be free and motivated to do the best job possible. To this end, I made a compact with those who worked for me. My commitment was that if they would work their ass off for me, I would do the same for them. My belief was that that the best way to advance was to use what power I had to make it possible for those who worked for me to concentrate on doing their job.

The agreement with those below me was that they did not have to worry about protecting their ass – that was my job. They didn’t have to worry about the next promotion – I’ll take care of that for them. They didn’t have to plot and feel anxiety about the next raise – I would get them what they deserved. My pledge was that they would not have to fret about working hard, only to have someone else take the credit – they’ll get all they were entitled to. Maybe most important, my assurance to them was that if something goes wrong – I would be willing to stand with them and accept the blame.

My intuitive belief was that those below me could and would do more to help me move up than those above me ever would. Once you understand and accept this philosophy, then you understand that it is in your own best interests to always look up to those below you. If the people who work for you trust you and believe that you genuinely care about their best interests, then not only are they freed up to do the job that needs to be done, but they will reciprocate your efforts for them by pushing you up the ladder ahead of them.

The ultimate validation of the value of looking down to move up came to fruition when I joined with four others to found LifeUSA. I may have been at the top of the organization, but the structure, culture and environment at LifeUSA was to build success from the bottom up, not the top down. All those who worked at LifeUSA were “owners” not employees. Each individual owned the same class of stock as the founders and no one could benefit from the success of the company, unless all benefited. This structure motivated individuals at all levels to make the effort to see the company grow. The leaders of LifeUSA always looked up to those below because we knew that our personal success and that of the company was predicated on their efforts – even more than ours. (This philosophy was even taken to the point that when we built our first corporate headquarters, the founders and top executives were housed on the ground floor and all others were above us.) The end result was that all benefited from the success of the company. By always looking up to those below, the founders of the company achieved more success and reward that we could have imagined (or accomplished on our own) and the others in the company were pleased too, because they shared in the success.

And the Moral of the Story …

Don’t be beguiled by the accepted attitude in the business world that the best way to move up is to kiss-up to those above you. It is what they want you to believe, because it is what keeps them above you. Even if this approach allows you to move up, it is a shallow and insecure victory. The reality is that the real support for your success comes from those below you, not above you. When you understand and accept that, you will find that the best path to the top is to look down, not up.

Visualize the Statue of Liberty. What comes to mind? Is it the crowned head and lighted torch at the top? What few think about or even notice is that the base of the Statue of Liberty is larger than “Lady Liberty” itself.  It is the solid base of support below the statue that has allowed it to endure as a beacon of liberty. Every time you see a statue that pays homage to a heroic figure, you should note that it is a larger base of strength from below that supports the hero on top. Without that, the heroic figure would soon topple.

It is the same in the search for heroic success in business. Most focus only on the crown at the top and give little notice or regard to those below who are needed to provide the base and support for success. One who seeks to make it to the top and stay there should never lose sight of one fact: Strength and sustainability comes from the base, not the top. That is the reason why no matter how high you get you should always look up to those below you.

Let’s face it: Intimidation is a fact of life. It joins death and taxes as one of the few certainties in life. If someone tells you they have never been intimidated by someone or something, they are lying to you because they are too intimidated to admit it.

Like a Stephen King horror story, intimidation comes at us in many forms and faces. As long as intimidation is going to be part of our lives, we might as well learn how to deal with it, resist it, and even use it. The key to doing this is to understand the dynamics of intimidation and the motivation of those who attempt to wield it. If we do, it can never inhibit our actions and control us.

It Comes From Everywhere

Intimidation comes at us from many quarters – parents, teachers, schoolmates and even churches – but the workplace is where we are most likely to be fed a steady diet of The Big I. The typical business environment is an out-and-out incubator for intimidation. The use of power, authority, position and status to intimidate workers into compliance is, at many companies, considered to be one of the most effective of management’s bag of coercive tools. Respect for authority, position and status is fine, but using them to intimidate others into submissive acquiescence is quite another thing.

Intimidation in the workplace can be blunt and blatant or it can be subtle and surreptitious. The question is not whether we will face intimidation – we will – but how we will confront it. Finding the right approach to neutralizing intimidation may at times seem counterintuitive, but it is important to do so. Knowing how to react to what, in essence, is bullying will go a long way toward determining just who or what will control our lives and our careers.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

The natural inclination to workplace intimidation is to be cowed and fearful, but that is the wrong reaction because it fails to differentiate between real fear and the feeling of intimidation. Fear is a natural and primordial reaction that is intended to warn us that the threat of bodily injury, for example, is imminent. For example, when a pack of street thugs hold you at gun point in a dark alley. Intimidation, on the other hand, is a tactic used by a weak management to create an artificial aura of fear that something bad might happen. And the problem is that fear stimulated by workplace intimidation robs its victim employees of their ability to perform at peak levels.

For this reason, intimidation used as a tool of management is counterproductive and destructive. Intimidation cowers the employee in a way that limits their ability to act independently, resulting in wasted time, talent and creative opportunity. The idea that you can command people to do things because they’re afraid of you makes the use of intimidation a pretty tempting commodity for the weak and insecure manager. The problem is that intimidation never gets the best out of people. In fact, this approach is the antithesis of effective leadership and detrimental to any hope of achieving success.

Those who suffer from the application of workplace intimidation become overly fearful of offering their ideas or sharing their concern. (Ever had that feeling?) They are wary of taking the initiative and, accordingly, their doubts become self-fulfilling. Even worse, those who succumb to intimidation become little more than frustrated drones, mindlessly carrying out a sort of genetic blueprint drawn by the intimidating figure from on high. It is sad to see how many people suffer through their entire business career intimidated by the bullying of others, in a way that causes them to fear any attempt to do what they dream to do; and instead are forced to play by the rules of others. In the words of Shakespeare: “Our doubts are traitors that make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.”

When it comes time to face the demons of intimidation – and it will happen – you will be well served by recognizing intimidation for what it is and by exhibiting a confidence that will never allow it to consume you and your career. This may not be easy (actually it is), but it is the only way to avoid the feeling of being chained to an oar of a slave-galley; otherwise known as the corporate world.

Fighting Intimidation with Intimidation

Over 45 years of business experience gave me a front row seat to observe all the tricks and treats of intimidation in business. From that experience, one observation clearly stands out: Those who consistently use their position or power in an organization to intimidate others do so in response to their own inner anxieties of insecurity, weakness and fear of being exposed as incompetent. This type of manager uses intimidation as a defense mechanism and protective moat intended to prevent workers from breaching their wall of insecurity.

So the first step to dealing with intimidation in the workplace is to recognize that it is thrust upon us from a sense of insecurity and weakness, rather than confidence and strength. Once we recognize the purpose of intimidation, we are well on our way to thwarting its impact. This understanding gives us the power to rise above the situation and turn it against the intimidator. Think of it in terms of reverse intimidation. This is the embodiment of the old saying, “Fight fire with fire!” That is, creating a “back-draft” that turns the intimidation back on the intimidator.

Like a mirror used to reflect and increase the power of the sun, intimidation reflected back on intimidator magnifies its impact. The person who consciously uses intimidation in an effort to gain control is like the schoolyard bully. He will keep pushing so long as he thinks he can get away with such action. On the other hand, as soon as the intimidator realizes you will not be intimidated, then the whole relationship will change.

You may be thinking that challenging the intimidator is easy to say, but that it is only Pollyanna and not realistic in the real world. It is true that standing up to the intimidator may, in and of itself, be intimidating and career-threatening, but as long as we hold to this attitude we are, in effect, validating the power of intimidation. It may seem like a risk to stand up to the intimidator, but once we scrunch up the courage to do so, the weakness of the intimidator will be exposed and the power will shift.

There is a revealing scene in the movie Zero Dark Thirty when Maya (Jessica Chastain), who is a junior member of a team of CIA operatives, charged with finding Osama bin Laden, stands up to her boss. Constantly intimidated by reminders of her low position on the team, lack of experience, the power of the system and a “station chief” more concerned with his resume and fear of failure than accomplishing the objective, Maya finally takes a stand. Using his insecurities and ambitions against him, Maya reflects the intimidation back at her boss, and he backs down. From that time forward Maya is treated with respect and her ideas are taken seriously, ultimately resulting in finally tracking down OBL.

This is not to suggest that how we deal with intimidation in the workplace will be as dramatic and impactful, but it will be for us and our future. At the very least, understanding intimidation and the motivation for some to use it will enable us to better deal with it. But we can actually do more than that. We can use the understanding of motivation to intimidate the intimidator; exorcising it from our lives and allowing us the freedom to achieve all that we have the potential to achieve.

And the moral of the story …

Intimidation sucks! It creates an artificial feeling of fear that inhibits its victims from performing to their potential. But intimidation is a cold fact of life – especially in the workplace – that can only be conquered when confronted. The way to neutralize the impact of intimidation is to understand it and recognize why it is being used. When we identify intimidation as a desperate tactic of a weak and insecure manager, it loses its fearsome influence and can, in fact, be used against the intimidator to nullify it.

The truth is that only by understanding intimidation and identifying its purpose and then turning it back on itself, will we be truly free from its impact and influences on our performance. When we conjure up the vision of the business intimidator as nothing more than a schoolyard bully and comprehend that the only way to stop them is to stand up to them, we will have discovered the only antidote to intimidation.

The business world is fixated on power and leadership. For the denizens of the corporate conclave, the endgame is to achieve status as a powerful leader. In pursuit of this aspiration, many become addicted to the supposed performance-enhancing properties of power, because they are led to believe that with power comes coronation as a leader.

It is a false premise.

Leadership is incubated in an atmosphere of trust, not by the acquisition of raw power. No matter how much power one may have in hand, without trust it will in due course be nullified. At the same time, power born of trust will in the long run be magnified. Power is a license to command, but it is trust that bequeaths the power to lead.

A Surefire Political Promise Misfires

There is no better example of this than the 2012 presidential election. By all accounts Mitt Romney should have won; and, if the election had been a poker game, he would have. The cards held by Obama included a stagnant economy, distressfully high unemployment, a government in gridlock, out-of-control deficit spending and a skyrocketing national debt. No president had ever been reelected when the country faced such dreadful economic conditions. Against this, Romney held powerful cards that included a disenchanted populous, a sterling resume of success in both government and business and the unfettered backing of hundreds of millions of dollars from wealthy interests. And yet, Romney lost decisively. The reason for Romney’s loss will be debated for years, but those performing the autopsy can save their time. Romney lost for one simple reason: Trust trumps power.

The majority of American voters simply did not trust Romney. In the end, the people did not believe that Romney had their best interests at heart. And because of this, despite the pain and frustration they were feeling, no power on earth could convince them to vote for him. As a result, the one who seemed to have all the power on his side, ended up powerless. It may seem incongruous – especially to those preoccupied with power – but followers will sacrifice, endure hardship, distress and even the uncertainty of the future for a leader they trust.

American history serves up two validating examples of trust motivating followers to do what they would not do themselves and a willingness to accept uncertainty to follow a leader they trusted. George Washington has the worst won-loss record of any general in the history of America. His troops were asked to endure hardships that would be difficult to imagine: malnutrition, lack of basic fighting equipment, intolerable living conditions, and at times, miserably frigid weather, not to mention the ever-present possibility of maiming and even death on the battlefield. Yet troops willingly endured the unendurable when Washington asked. And there was but one reason for this: These soldiers implicitly trusted that Washington cared about their best interests. This trust allowed them to buy-in to Washington’s vision of freedom, no matter how distant, difficult or improbable it may have seemed at the time.

One hundred and fifty years later, in another time of crisis, a leader – Franklin Roosevelt – emerged to corroborate the power of trust. FDR became president at the very nadir of the deepest financial crisis in the history of the United States; when people were living at the corner of fear and despair. Radical times called for radical actions and Roosevelt was given the license to take on the traditional powers of the system, empowered by only one thing: the trust of the people that he cared for them, while others who had power did not. Despite the fact that the economy remained mired in depression, the people handily reelected Roosevelt three times, because he never lost their trust that he cared about the people first. (Roosevelt’s fourth election in 1944 was driven by the trust the people had in his conduct of the war.)

A Most Underrated Facet of Leadership

Trust is the most underrated aspect of a business or political relationship, even though its presence makes any effort possible, while its absence corrodes any relationship until nothing is possible. For the business leader, the most powerful residue of trust is flexibility. Trust encourages the followers to buy-in to the vision of the leader and to adopt it as their own. The trusted leader has the power to change and maneuver in response to a changing environment just so long as the vision and the actions that spawned trust remain consistent.

Trust creates the opportunity to lead because others will follow when they believe that what is being done is in their own best interests; even if they don’t understand it at the moment. It is trust that pollinates the power of the leader. On the other hand, power without trust constricts power and limits options. If you need an example: Just ask the British in the American Revolution; the Communists in the Soviet Union and the Americans in Viet Nam. Power can command people to do as they are told, but it can never make them want to do it or more importantly, motivate them to do their best. This is left for the leader who has earned the trust of the followers.

Don’t get me wrong, power is important, but it is the subtle understanding of power that creates the powerful leader, not the possession of raw power itself. True leadership comes about when an individual uses the power vested in them to empower others to do what they never thought they could do. The most effective leaders use their power as solution facilitators rather than dictators of decisions. This viewpoint may differ from the old rule of leadership that positioned the leader as an all-powerful deity who rules with an intimidating iron hand. You will be more successful and trusted as a leader if you develop a style of management that provides the tools to others so that they might solve the problems and receive the credit for doing so.

Still, if trust is so important, the important question is this: What is it that engenders trust and makes someone a true leader?

The first step to building trust in any political or business relationship is to recognize that it is a process, not a procedure. Power can be mandated, but trust must be earned. True deep-seated trust cannot be achieved overnight, it must be cultivated and nurtured over time. It cannot be stressed enough that trust is the accumulated residue of transparency, openness, integrity, clarity of expression and – maybe most important – constancy of purpose and actions. Trust is the product of constantly and consistency demonstrating concern for the best interests of the followers. Attempting to lead from the basis of power without simultaneously building trust from those sought to be led is the prescription for both the loss of power and failed leadership.

The Moral of the Story …

Power alone – no matter how overpowering – does not define leadership. Trust bequeaths leadership and leadership based on trust creates power.

There are those – especially in business – who discount the need for trust. It is an attitude of, “Why do I need trust when I have power?” This type of arrogance ultimately brings about the loss of the power that created this attitude. The arrogance of power and the absence of trust breeds suspicion that causes followers to withdraw into a self-preservation cocoon that turns their efforts and interests away from organizational focus to a purely personal focus. And why not? Because that is the attitude they see from those in power. The reality is that a lack of trust for those in power eats away at the very soul of an organization in a way that paralyzes effort and diminishes success; often leading to the loss of power that was so cherished.

For those who seek power and desire to wear the mantle of leadership, the process starts by understanding and respecting that the basis of all real leadership and power is trust.