Now more than ever, people are engaging in “fake talk” rather than talking about what matters most.

Why?

Sometimes we just don’t know what to say or how to say it in a way that helps us get what we really want.

I know there are a lot of books out there that deal with the what and why of interpersonal communications. But this book is truly comprehensive and acts as a how-to guide for holding any difficult conversation.

Here’s some of what Marshall Goldsmith wrote in the foreword of Overcoming Fake Talk:

Nothing about authentic leadership is fake—and that includes all forms of talk and walk, so if you are now a leader—or if you aspire to be a leader, you need to learn how to have REAL conversations. John Stoker’s enlightening and entertaining book, Overcoming Fake Talk, will help you to gain and maintain influence with key stakeholders by holding real conversations that get results.
Marshall Goldsmith
New York Times bestselling author of MOJO and What Got You Here Won’t Get You There

Overcoming Fake Talk has many, many endorsements from a wide range of respected people. Here are some samples:

Overcoming Fake Talk is not only a terrific book title, it should be the mantra of anyone who’s determined to get consistently great results. John Stoker’s book is breakthrough because it so clearly identifies a common problem that few have really talked about and offers principles, practices and skills so necessary for honest, trust-building conversation. If you’re truly interested in respect, relationships, and results, this book is for you.
Stephen M.R. Covey
Bestselling author of The Speed of Trust and Smart Trust

Wow! I just finished reading Fake Talk. I have taught communication skills for over forty years. I wish Fake Talk had been available forty years ago. The book provides the most needed and helpful communication tools in a very effective manner. Stoker teaches true principles for getting Results, Respect, and great Relationships using REAL Conversation.
Brent Peterson
Co-author, Fake Work: Why People Are Working Harder Than Ever but Accomplishing Less, and How to Fix the Problem

I love the title of this book! How often do we get the sense that another person is not speaking their truth? How often do we wear our own political or social masks in the workplace? What a great book to help us stop both of these disingenuous conversations and turn around the opportunities in front of us. This conversation book is truly worth adding to your shelf… and maybe even replacing others. The author knows his material and takes a straight-forward, practical look at the subject. He reframes old notions and applies the principles to anyone, anywhere, in any position. Great questions, great suggestions…that is, if you want to change. Bravo! I will put his ideas to use in my own practice.
Beverly Kaye
Founder, Co-CEO: Career Systems International
Co-author: of Help Them Grow or Watch Them Go: Career Conversations Employees Want

Let’s face it: Whether you are a leader, manager, individual contribution, team member, volunteer, parent, or a partner, you need to be able to talk about what matters most. This is a skill you must have.

My friend John Stoker is a recognized expert in dialogue, conflict resolution and emotional intelligence. He has consulted with the largest corporations to individuals who seek to be more effective with people. 

This book will benefit anyone who wants to create respect, build their relationships, and improve their results.

Because the publisher wants to make a big splash for the official launch, you’ll get a long list of valuable bonus gifts when you order the book today, May 17!

My gifts to you include a free CHANGE-friendly LEADERSHIP self-assessment with a 10-page summary of my best-selling book, CHANGE-friendly LEADERSHIP, a free subscription to my blog, and a chance to win an autographed copy of CHANGE-friendly LEADERSHIP.

In addition, when you buy Overcoming Fake Talk today, DialogueWORKS is offering the following gifts:

• An article on how to increase “Productivity and Profitability”
• “The Lost Chapter” that was omitted because of the length of the book
• REAL Conversation self-assessment to measure your ability to hold REAL conversations
• Two Conversational Recipes-an online solution for “Improving Employee Performance” and “Reducing Emotion”
• A self-directed learning program for crafting a REAL conversation
• A free day of on-location training by the author for any organization that buys 100 books or a two –hour webinar
• Plus many other gifts offered by our partners who are participating in the book launch 

This is a rare opportunity to learn a crucial life skill and get a number of gifts that are worth far more than the cost of the book. Click on this link to read more www.overcomingfaketalkbook.com

March Madness is now over, but its effects linger.

March Madness once referred to the breeding season of the European hare. But as any self-respecting sport fan knows, in the U.S. it refers to the single-elimination college basketball tournament. It’s a time of office betting pools, boundless alumni pride, and a national fervor matched by nothing else.

Call me a fuddy duddy, but March Madness is also a metaphor for a terribly skewed sense of values. And much of it relates to what masquerades as leadership.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m definitely in favor of sports. Participation in athletics was an important part of my own growing up. Although by today’s standards a couple of my high school coaches should have been arrested for child cruelty, most of them were gentlemen who genuinely cared as much about character building as wins and losses. I enjoy watching a good sports contest and I love seeing my grandsons play soccer and baseball. I appreciate the athletic achievements of the three universities that granted me degrees. Go Bears, Cougars, and Boilermakers.

What I don’t like is the hero worship that college and professional sports have become.

Let’s consider the hard facts.

Coach Rick Pitino, whose Louisville Cardinals won this year’s college basketball championship, reportedly makes just shy of $5 million a year. That would likely make him the State of Kentucky’s highest paid public employee – except for University of Kentucky coach John Calipari who makes more than $5.4 million.

But even at that, Pitino wasn’t the highest paid coach in this season’s tournament. Duke’s Mike Krzyzewski made $7.2 million in the 2010 calendar year, and is undoubtedly making more now. I wonder what Louisville’s dean of engineering makes? What about the math department chairman at Duke?

Yes, I know, I know. Good coaches often (though not always) produce lots of wins that bring in lots of revenue that benefits a lot of people. I get that. What I don’t get is the excessive adulation that comes with it. It’s an adulation that can lead to blindness against what really matters.

The recent brouhaha at Rutgers University is a case in point. Mike Rice, the Rutgers basketball coach, was belatedly fired. I say “belatedly” because he wasn’t sacked until his outrageous behavior was caught on video that went viral on ESPN and the Internet. The video showed Rice hitting, shoving and berating his players with insults and slurs. His behavior was apparently already known to university administrators, but they chose to take action only after the school was “embarrassed” when the videotape went public.

Then there’s the beloved Joe Paterno, the late football coach at Penn State. Millions of us admire his great record. Unfortunately, JoPa’s reputation is forever tarnished by his proximity to the terrible Jerry Sandusky scandal. Sandusky’s sins are unspeakable, but for at least a time they were aided and abetted by a culture that seems to value money and hero worship above good leadership.

We really need some serious national dialogue about this out-of-kilter system.

Maybe a good place to start is an honest re-examination of how coaches are compensated. Many coaches receive huge bonuses (often hundreds of thousands of dollars) when their teams are winning. Yet the incentives for nurturing the academic achievement of their players are usually paltry by comparison. In one study of about 50 coaches’ contracts, bonuses for their athletes’ performance on the court or field dwarfed bonuses for classroom performance by a ratio of 11-to-1.

Something’s out of whack when a sports coach is paid 20 to 30 times more than the governor of his state. Something’s especially out of whack when a coach is paid more than $20,000 a day (do the math) while one of his under-educated former players is lucky to make that much in four or five months – if he can get a job at all in a fragile economy where education is more important than ever.

Some people argue that dollars generated by big time college sports justify a different standard, that the participants are really just gladiators in jock straps so we shouldn’t worry about pesky little issues like graduation rates.

There are at least two major holes in that position. First, by definition, the mission of an institution worthy of being called a college or university is to educate students, not just entertain them. Second, there’s the issue of misrepresentation. Many young athletes are recruited with promises of glory and riches. In truth, even in cases of championships, only a very small percentage of athletes ever see a dime’s worth of professional earnings. And for those who do, what do they have when their playing days are cut short by that torn hamstring – a transcript that’s many classes shy of a diploma?

I’m a champion of free enterprise. I have no problem with paying coaches substantial amounts of money if they can help their schools generate huge multiples of revenue to benefit the student bodies at large. Call it return on investment. But here’s my caveat: part of the ROI calculus should include what the coaches do to help student-athletes get an education beyond how to execute a floating jump shot. What a concept.

Graduation rates among college athletes are slowing rising. But they’re still poor. And among African-American student-athletes, the graduation rates are particularly shameful. The University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education did a four-year study of athletes from the schools that comprise the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC. On average, the study shows, barely 50 percent of African-American male student-athletes graduated within six years of entering school.

At institutions that trumpet the virtues of education and self-actualization, this is a failure of leadership. In a country where so much of the public dialogue is about fairness and equality, this represents a failure of leadership. And in an economic system that allegedly pays for performance, this is a failure of leadership.

It’s time we put more serious emphasis on the left side of the hyphen in student-athlete. Maybe the place to begin is with the coaches’ contracts. Pinch their wallets. That should get their attention.

Somebody stop the madness.

Follow Dr. Duncan on Twitter @DoctorDuncan

“Being a leader is like being a lady. If you have to remind people you are, you aren’t.”

That’s my favorite quote from the Iron Lady, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who died this week. She understood that leadership is not about titles or photo ops or posturing. True leadership is about authenticity, standing up for principles even (maybe especially) in the face of strong opposition.

To her fervent admirers, battling Maggie was an iconic national heroine who ended Britain’s post-World War II cycle of decline. Her angry critics saw her as a pugnacious destroyer of industry. But no one doubted her nitty-gritty resolve.

Unfortunately, much of today’s psychobabble about leadership has the wrong focus. A lot of the training and development in our corporations focuses on learning about things. People learn what to think, not how to think. They learn what to do, not how to be. They learn what to achieve, not how to achieve. They learn all about things, but very little about the nature of things.

Popular definitions of leadership also tend to be externalized. Many of the definitions focus on the outer manifestations of leadership – such as vision, judgment, creativity, drive, charisma, podium presence, etc. – rather than getting to the essence of leadership itself.

This external pattern continues at the organizational level. People often receive recognition for their external mastery. Success is often measured in terms of revenue, profit, new product breakthroughs, cost containment, market share, and many other familiar metrics. Clearly there’s value in achieving and measuring external results. But that’s not the real issue. The more relevant issues are (1) “What produces the external results?” and (2) “What enables the sustaining of good external results?”

The answer to the first question is leadership.

The answer to the second question is great leadership, the authentic variety.

Authentic leadership is a product of honesty. Honesty about putting the needs of others ahead of your own. Honesty in communicating information, both positive and negative. Honesty in accepting – welcoming – viewpoints different from yours. Honesty in integrating the values you profess with the behaviors you exhibit (sounds a lot like “integrity,” doesn’t it?).

Authentic leadership is also a product of clarity. Clarity in what you stand for, and what you will not stand for. Clarity in your navigation through the sea of limitless choices, using the “True North” of your values to keep you constantly on the right path and enabling you to make the necessary course corrections when you temporarily stray.

In pre-Revolutionary Russia a priest was confronted by a soldier as he walked down a road. Aiming his rifle at the priest, the soldier demanded: “Who are you? Where are you going? Why are you going there?” Unfazed by the sudden interrogation, the priest replied with a question of his own: “How much do they pay you?” Somewhat surprised, the soldier answered, “Twenty-five kopecks a month.” After a thoughtful pause, the priest said, “I have a proposal for you. I’ll pay you fifty kopecks a month if you’ll stop me here every day and challenge me to respond to those same three questions.”

None of us has a “soldier” confronting us each day with life’s tough questions. But we can honestly ask the questions of ourselves. If we choose to, we can issue our own self-challenges to push ourselves not only to do better, but to be better.

What is authentic leadership? We can take a cue from another Margaret Thatcher quote. On the surface, it seems to be about politics and economics. But it underscores the importance of rejecting the trappings of leadership in favor of self-reliance on principle: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” 

Follow Dr. Duncan on Twitter @DoctorDuncan

About Our Guest: Jim Kouzes is the Dean’s Executive Fellow of Leadership at Santa Clara University and coauthor with Barry Posner of the internationally award-winning and bestselling book, The Leadership Challenge, with more than 2 million copies sold. Jim and Barry have co-authored more than 30 other books, including The Truth About Leadership, Credibility, Encouraging the Heart, and A Leader’s Legacy. The Wall Street Journal named Jim as one of the ten best executive educators in the U.S., and in 2010 he was presented the Thought Leader Award by the Instructional Systems Association and in 2010 through 2012 recognized as one of HR Magazine’s Top 20 Most Influential International Thinkers.     – Doctor Duncan

Most good leaders seem to be good storytellers. Can you share a story that illustrates the value of telling stories?

Stories are a powerful tool for teaching people about what’s important and what’s not, what works and what doesn’t, what is and what could be. Through stories, leaders pass on lessons about shared values and get others to work together.

When he was program director of knowledge management for the World Bank, management author Steve Denning learned firsthand how stories can change the course of an organization. After trying all the more traditional ways of getting people to change their behavior, Steve found that simple stories were the most effective means of communicating the essential messages within the organization.

“Nothing else worked,” Steve said. “Charts left listeners bemused. Prose remained unread. Dialogue was just too laborious and slow. Time after time, when faced with the task of persuading a group of managers or frontline staff in a large organization to get enthusiastic about a major change, I found that storytelling was the only thing that worked.”

How does storytelling affect the “stickiness” of information—in other words, making it memorable?

In a business climate obsessed with PowerPoint presentations, complex graphs and charts, and lengthy reports, storytelling may seem to some like a soft way of getting hard stuff done. It’s anything but that. Steve’s experience with storytelling is, in fact, supported by the data.

Research shows that when leaders want to communicate standards, stories are a much more effective means of communication than are corporate policy statements, data about performance, and even a story plus the data. Information is more quickly and accurately remembered when it is first presented in the form of an example or story.

You’re suggesting that a relevant and well-told story is preferable to charts and graphs?

That’s certainly been Phillip Kane’s experience. Storytelling has been a part of his life since he was a kid. His dad was a great storyteller, and he used stories especially effectively to teach lessons. Phillip has carried the family tradition into his business life at Goodyear.

When Phillip was named to head up a large team with previously poor engagement scores for communication, he needed to find a way to be more proactive about connecting with employees. So he began writing to the team every Friday, telling them stories in “The Week,” essentially a newsletter in the form of stories with life lessons in them. He carried the practice with him when he was appointed president of Wingfoot Commercial Tire Systems, a 2,500-person wholly owned subsidiary of Goodyear.

Storytelling, Phillip says, accomplishes two things. It offers a framework for relating to the message—something that people encounter in their own lives that can bridge to the main point. It also offers him the chance to lead through an example rather than to come across simply as preaching. 

Any other benefits?

Telling stories forces you to pay close attention to what your constituents are doing. Peers generally make better role models for what to do at work than famous people or ones several levels up in the hierarchy. When others hear or read a story about someone with whom they can identify, they are much more likely to see themselves doing the same thing. People seldom tire of hearing stories about themselves and the people they know. These stories get repeated, and the lessons of the stories get spread far and wide.

Stories by their nature are public forms of communication.

Storytelling is how people pass along lessons from generation to generation, culture to culture. Stories aren’t meant to be secret; they’re meant to be told.

Emory University psychology professor Drew Westen argues that “the stories our leaders tell us matter, probably almost as much as the stories our parents tell us as children, because they orient us to what is, what could be, and should be; to the worldviews they hold and to the values they hold sacred.”

Coming up:

   Part 4: Why Leadership Skills Are Vital for Entrepreneurs 

Follow on Twitter @DoctorDuncan

About Our Guest: Jim Kouzes is the Dean’s Executive Fellow of Leadership at Santa Clara University and coauthor with Barry Posner of the internationally award-winning and bestselling book, The Leadership Challenge, with more than 2 million copies sold. Jim and Barry have co-authored more than 30 other books, including The Truth About Leadership, Credibility, Encouraging the Heart, and A Leader’s Legacy. The Wall Street Journal named Jim as one of the ten best executive educators in the U.S., and in 2010 he was presented the Thought Leader Award by the Instructional Systems Association and in 2010 through 2012 recognized as one of HR Magazine’s Top 20 Most Influential International Thinkers.     – Doctor Duncan

To help people clarify their strengths and identify opportunities for improvement, we use 360-degree feedback in our leadership training and coaching. What advice do you have for people who resist participating in such a feedback process?

The truth is that the best leaders are the best learners.  

We find in our research that higher performing leaders more frequently engage in learning activities than do lower performing leaders.

Feedback is at the center of any learning process. Without feedback there is no learning. Thoughtfully studying feedback on your performance is the only way for you to know whether you’re getting close to your goal and whether you’re executing properly. Researchers consistently point out that the development of expertise or mastery requires one to receive constructive, even critical, feedback.

People need to know if they’re making progress toward the goal or simply marking time. People’s motivation to perform a task increases only when they have a challenging goal and receive feedback on their progress. Goals without feedback, or feedback without goals, have little effect on people’s willingness to put extra effort (or motivation) into the task. Just announcing that the idea is to reach the summit is not enough to get people to put forth more effort. They need information on whether they’re still climbing in the right direction, making progress toward the top, or sliding downhill.

With clear goals and detailed feedback, people can become self-correcting and can more easily understand their place in the big picture.

So feedback directly influences the amount of effort a person invests in self-improvement?

Absolutely. For example, consider what happens to your self-confidence without feedback. In a study, people were told that their efforts would be compared with how well hundreds of others had done on the same task. They received praise, criticism, or no feedback on their performance. Those who heard nothing about how well they did suffered as great a blow to their self-confidence as those who were criticized. Only those who received positive feedback improved.

However, our studies on exemplary leadership consistently show that the statement receiving the lowest rating, both from leaders as well as their constituents, is “Asks for feedback on how his/her actions affect other people’s performance.” In other words, the behavior that leaders and their constituents consider to be the weakest is the behavior that most enables leaders to know how they’re doing! You can’t learn very much if you’re unwilling to find out more about the impact of your behavior on the performance of those around you. It’s your responsibility as a leader to keep asking others, “How am I doing?” If you don’t ask, they’re not likely to tell you.

What can be done to create a “feedback-friendly” environment, and what are the characteristics of helpful feedback?

It’s not always easy to get feedback. It’s not generally asked for, and most people aren’t used to providing it. Skills are required to do both. You can increase the likelihood that people will accept honest feedback from you if you make it easier for people to give honest feedback to you.

To be most effective, good feedback needs to be specific, not general; focused on behavior, not on the individual (personality); solicited rather than imposed; timely rather than delayed; and descriptive rather than evaluative. You have to be sincere in your desire to improve yourself, and you have to demonstrate that you are open to knowing how others see you.

Coming up:

   Part 3: Why You Should Hone Your Storytelling Skills
   Part 4: Why Leadership Skills Are Vital for Entrepreneurs 

Follow on Twitter @DoctorDuncan

About Our Guest: Jim Kouzes is the Dean’s Executive Fellow of Leadership at Santa Clara University and coauthor with Barry Posner of the internationally award-winning and bestselling book, The Leadership Challenge, with more than 2 million copies sold. Jim and Barry have co-authored more than 30 other books, including The Truth About Leadership, Credibility, Encouraging the Heart, and A Leader’s Legacy. The Wall Street Journal named Jim as one of the ten best executive educators in the U.S., and in 2010 he was presented the Thought Leader Award by the Instructional Systems Association and in 2010 through 2012 recognized as one of HR Magazine’s Top 20 Most Influential International Thinkers.  – Doctor Duncan

In your practice you often make the point that leadership is a dialogue, not a monologue. How does dialogue inspire a shared vision and enable others to act?

Leadership is a relationship, and strong relationships are built on mutual understanding. You can get to that mutual understanding only through conversation and dialogue. 

This means that you can’t adopt the view that visions come from the top down. You have to start engaging others in a collective dialogue about the future, not delivering a monologue. You can’t mobilize people to willingly travel to places they don’t want to go. No matter how grand the dream of an individual visionary, if others don’t see in it the possibility of realizing their hopes and desires, they won’t follow voluntarily or wholeheartedly.

To become an exemplary leader, you must develop a deep appreciation of the collective hopes, dreams, and aspirations of your constituents. Constituents come to believe in their leaders—to see them as worthy of their trust—when they believe that the leaders have the constituents’ best interests at heart. 

Leaders who are clearly interested only in their own agendas, their own advancement, and their own wellbeing will not be followed willingly. You have to reach out and attend to others, be present with them, and listen to them.

This isn’t just theory. We know from our research that when leaders seek consensus around shared values, constituents are more positive. People who report that their managers engage in dialogue regarding common values feel a significantly stronger sense of personal effectiveness than individuals who feel that they’re wasting energy trying to figure out what they’re supposed to be doing.

What else does good dialogue bring to relationships?

Dialogue also produces clarity. One study, for example, reported 185 different behavioral expectations about the value of “integrity” alone. Even with commonly identified values, there may be little agreement on the meaning of the values statements.

The lesson here is that leaders must engage their constituents in conversation about matters of principle. A common understanding of values emerges from a process, not a pronouncement. 

So dialogue helps produce a sense of community?

Exactly. Exemplary leaders also know that they can’t do it alone. Nothing extraordinary ever happened without the enthusiastic and committed involvement of others. Leadership is not a solo performance. It’s a team effort. Leaders need partners to make extraordinary things happen in organizations. 

Therefore, effective leaders invest in creating trustworthy relationships. They build spirited and cohesive teams, teams that feel like family. They actively involve others in planning and give them the discretion to make their own decisions. Leaders make others feel like owners, not hired hands.

Leaders develop collaborative goals and cooperative relationships with colleagues. They are considerate of the needs and interests of others. They know that these relationships are the keys that unlock support. Leaders bring people together, creating an atmosphere where people understand that they have a shared fate and that they must treat others as they would like to be treated. Mutual respect is what sustains extraordinary group efforts.

Coming up:

   Part 2: Feedback, Learning, Performance, Improvement
   Part 3: Why You Should Hone Your Storytelling Skills
   Part 4: Why Leadership Skills Are Vital for Entrepreneurs 

Follow on Twitter @DoctorDuncan

The fiscal cliff that everyone’s talking about is one of those multi-purpose metaphors. It’s not just about spending, taxes, entitlements, and other pressing economic issues. It also describes the consequences of the combative behavior found in today’s politics, business, media, sports, academe, military, and even religion.  

Ours is a debate society. Radio and television “talk shows” are little more than gladiators with microphones. Apparently loud and obnoxious combine for good ratings.

We vote for political candidates with the hope they will actually work together for the general good, not just with an eye on the next election. But then, long after the votes are in, they continue to campaign and posture ad infinitum. It’s as though nothing is worth saying without benefit of cameras and klieg lights.

Behavior in corporate meeting rooms is often not much better – the same old patterns of competition, one-upmanship, I’m-right-and-you’re-wrong power plays that smother any hope of real collaboration. Oh, I know, civility and even collegial warmth are the superficial norms in many organizational cultures, but the unwritten rules lurking beneath the surface are often more about turf protection and going to the jugular than about honestly seeking the best ideas.

If we’re serious about engaging each other in problem solving, we must revive the lost art of authentic conversation. We must concede that, even when we disagree, each person’s perspective adds to the whole and has the potential to move us closer to a fresh alternative that’s better than anybody’s locked in talking points. Dialogue does not consist of two competing monologues. Genuine dialogue involves the free flow of clear meaning toward a shared purpose in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Grandstanding smothers shared purpose and strangles mutual respect.

A number of thinking and communication errors can send us over a cliff in our relationships, regardless of our venue. Here are three, along with corrective actions.

Allness. This is a dogmatic, unqualified, categorical attitude that we know all there is to know about something. Have you ever met a guy who’s a nut on sports statistics? He knows everything that’s knowable about ice-age batting averages and ancient football scores. If you don’t believe it, just ask him. And if you’re looking for an argument, try contradicting him. He’s never wrong. There’s something about the tone of finality and absoluteness of some people that’s irritating to the point of pain. When they speak it’s almost as though they’re telling you, “What I’m saying is all there is to know about this subject. There’s nothing more.” And this absoluteness is hardly confined to the characters on C-SPAN. Right now in thousands of barber shops and beauty salons the intricate problems of politics, disease, war, economics, climate change, and who’s the top talent on American Idol are being neatly and conclusively solved.

Corrective Action: If you have an intolerance of other viewpoints, you won’t be very popular in many places and you certainly can’t be successful with dialogue. Be wary of building up an “all wall” that separates you from the reality of what you actually know. Look out for those moments when you risk being viewed as too self-assured, just too certain. Self-confidence is wonderful, but make sure you don’t lead with it or you’ll smother dialogue and be offensive to boot. Practice saying four simple words: “I didn’t know that.” It’s amazing how a generous, self-administered dose of genuine humility can cure a conversation – or a relationship – of hostility. Apply the humility early and often.

Inference-Observation Confusion is a pattern of communication mix-up that’s had us all in hot water at one time or another. This occurs when you infer more than you’ve actually seen or heard about a situation. Suppose you arrive at work one morning and see standing alone in your manager’s office a woman you don’t recognize. Answer the following questions by saying “true,” “false,” or “don’t know”:

(a)  You have a new manager.

(b)  A woman you don’t recognize is standing alone in your manager’s office.

(c)  The woman is your manager’s sister, visiting from out of town.

(d)  There is no one in your manager’s office.

(e)  The woman standing in your manager’s office is from the finance department and she’s conducting a surprise audit. 

If you think item (b) is true, item (d) is false, and you don’t know about the others, you get the idea about distinguishing statements based on inferences. But if you think items (a), (c), and (e) are true, consider other possibilities. Suppose the woman is a job applicant who’s arrived early for an interview. Suppose the woman is a homeless lady who’s sneaked into the building and has decided to camp out in your manager’s office. The possibilities beyond what you actually observe are endless. Clearly, items (a), (c), and (e) are based on inferences. You cannot say with a high degree of confidence whether they are true or false.

Corrective Action: Be mindfully aware when you’re inferring as opposed to observing, then calculate the degree of probability that your inferences are correct. Lever Brothers mailed out more than 50 million samples of its new Sunlight dishwashing detergent. Despite the fact that the label stated “Caution: Harmful If Swallowed,” more than 1,000 consumers used the product on salads and in drinks. They incorrectly inferred from the product’s scent, the picture of lemons on the label, and the word “real lemon juice” that it was a food product.  “Read the label carefully” is good advice for our communication as well as for our use of consumer products. The lesson? Don’t jump to conclusions. Beware of inferring too much from what you actually observe. 

Bypassing is a communication misstep that many of us make more or less intentionally. We are bypassing when we listen selectively. For instance, a man’s wife may tell him she has tickets to the symphony the following Thursday night. When Thursday rolls around, however, the husband has scheduled a bowling date which he then claims simply can’t be broken. Since attending the symphony is not his idea of a fun evening, he didn’t really hear his wife tell him about the tickets. Oh, he heard her talking. But because of the subject matter he subconsciously tuned her out and the message was never fully received. Youngsters often fall into the same habit (“Oh, I didn’t hear you tell me that, Mom!”).

Bypassing also occurs when we attribute different meanings to the same word. Remember: meanings reside in people, not in messages or individual words. In my Oklahoma youth the word “puny” was used to denote sickly or weak, as in “The runt in that litter of pigs looks kind of puny.” When I later worked on Wall Street I heard my Eastern-born colleagues use the same word to denote unimportant or unnecessary, as in “That fourth document is puny, so let’s kill it.” Although one might argue that these uses of the word are directionally similar, the differences are certainly ripe for confusion.

Corrective Action: Old-fashioned specificity is the best remedy for bypassing. If you aren’t sure what someone means when he’s talking to you, simply ask for clarification. Paraphrasing the other person’s words can also help: “When you say you’d like the report by the end of the month, is the 31^st okay or do you expect it sooner?” Another way to avoid bypassing is to ask open-ended questions that invite further dialogue: “What have I said that we should talk about more?” “Which points could use more clarity?” “How can we set this up so we both understand each other?” Asked sincerely and with an encouraging tone, such open-ended questions are very important. Close-ended questions such as “Do you understand?” or “Are there any questions?” may be met with silence, especially in a group setting. People sometimes won’t admit their confusion or misunderstanding because they don’t want to appear dense or incompetent.

All this may seem to have a fairly high “oh, duh” factor. Don’t be a know-it-all, don’t jump to conclusions, and don’t play dumb may feel self-evident. But for many people, apparently not. The problem, as Will Rogers reminded us, is that common sense “ain’t all that common.”

A quarter century ago Robert Fulghum’s book All I Ever Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten was wildly popular. Fulghum wrote that the most valuable lessons he’d gleaned from life didn’t come from the graduate school mountain, but from the kindergarten sand pile. Here’s some of what he learned:

• Play fair
• Don’t hit people
• Put things back where you found them
• Clean up your own mess
• Don’t take things that aren’t yours
• Flush
   

It doesn’t require much extrapolation to see how such rules for living apply to Washington’s dysfunctional gladiator culture. Or to the meeting rooms of your business. Or to your own kitchen table. How common is common sense in your world? Be careful not to fall off your own cliff.

First, congratulations on your re-election. Thanks to the ground rules in our wonderful Republic, you are the President of all our people. But 57 million of your fellow citizens voted for your opponent, so there is much work to be done to move the entire country forward, as you say. And it must be done together.

We want you to succeed. Really, we do. We want and need a President who genuinely reaches out to people of every political persuasion in every demographic, as you promised to do in your victory speech.

Americans want and need a leader in the White House, not someone who’s perceived by some (fairly or not) as a celebrity. We want and need a President who inspires people to collaborate for the good of our nation, operating above the name-calling and class warfare that sows acrimony, resentment, and division.

You are gifted with intellect. We like that in our presidents. Please remember that other well-intentioned people have good ideas, too. Using words like “revenge” and saying things like “we won, you lost” drive a wedge between the very people whose cooperation you profess to want and that the country so desperately needs. Forty years ago we had a President who kept an “enemies list.” How’d that work out for him?

Please do not use the word “mandate” in describing your re-election. The only “mandate” that anyone received in this cycle is the charge to collaborate in behalf of all of America. We’re weary of gridlock and partisan posturing. We need real leadership, not more of the same bickering.

You face an immense challenge as you lead our nation for the next four years. Our country is undergoing substantial changes both culturally and economically, and the stress and anxiety these changes prompt have only been amplified by the contentious election campaign we all just endured. Effectively leading others through change – whether you’re the CEO of a company or the President of the United States – is all about turning your good intentions into great results. As you lay out plans for your second term, you might consider these five points:

Validate the Journey. In addition to making a political case for your agenda, you must make a solid psychological case. Democrats in Congress voted for your 2,000-page health care bill before people even had a chance to read it. The resulting firestorm of pushback on ObamaCare should be no surprise. The hundreds of Executive Orders you’ve signed are seen by many as an attempt to skirt the will of the people. Some even use the word tyranny to describe your fondness for the presidential pen. Take the time to make a real case for your position. If your agenda has genuine merit, you should be able to garner support. The American people want to be led, not lectured. And certainly not coerced.

Scan for Speed Bumps. Ideas often fail, not on their relative merits, but on how well resistance is handled. There is plenty of resistance to your agenda, starting with the 57 million people whose vote you did not earn. Then there’s that pesky Republican Congress. You think they resisted you last time? Many of them are thinking “forewarned is forearmed.” Many of the speed bumps you face are of your own making: a crushing deficit, unemployment rates exacerbated by taxes and regulations that stifle job creation, a discredited $800 billion “stimulus” that many see as no more than payoff for your allies. And of course Libya. Don’t expect the Benghazi thing to fade away. You cannot run out the clock. With your re-election, the clock has been reset. Responding honestly (and perhaps embarrassingly and painfully) to the many questions about your administration’s handling of the terrible Benghazi debacle could have a profound effect on your ability to govern credibly.

Chart the Course. Effective leaders appreciate the value of compliance and understand the advantages of commitment. You’ll serve yourself (and us) well if you focus on values like trust, transparency, and empathy. These are not just feel-good terms for a soaring speech. They are absolutely imperative behaviors for anyone who presumes to lead. You will of course never get everyone to adopt your view of how government should and should not work. But neither will you be able to accomplish much beyond photo ops if you merely try to impose your will on people who disagree with you. (See Validate the Journey and Scan for Speed Bumps, above.) 

Build a Coalition. Yes, you still have a Democratic Senate. But you also face a Republican Congress that is likely more cynical than ever about you and your agenda. Not to mention conservative interest groups that spent billions to defeat you, or the tens of millions of voters who cast their ballots for the other guy. Great leaders know that synergy is not created by merely adding things together. Synergy comes from bonding things together differently. If you seriously want to operationalize your campaign slogan of “Forward,” you must compromise. To some in Washington, that may be a dirty word. But it’s an action verb that’s more necessary than ever. (This applies to you, too, Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner.) Compromise does not have to be capitulation. It can and should be decent people finding common ground for the common good. 

Mind the Gap. On the issues of debt, taxes, immigration, and several other matters, our nation is facing a slow-motion train wreck. Solutions require unity. As a seasoned politician and former community organizer, you surely understand that resistance is like a savings bond – it doesn’t go away, it just matures with interest. The authentic leader acts as emotional guide in helping people navigate the white water of disagreement. There’s no doubt our American culture is undergoing change. Please lead in a way that unites rather than divides.

Mr. President, nobody gets a second chance to make a first impression. But you’re getting a second term, albeit by a razor thin margin of the popular vote. You can be a gracious winner and lead with the bipartisan approach you once promised, or you can continue to preside over a nation painfully divided by rancor and disrespect for differing opinions. The choice is yours. Please choose well. 

Rodger Dean Duncan is author of Change-friendly Leadership: How to Transform Good Intentions into Great Performance and was a full-time consultant in two White House administrations.

Follow on Twitter @DoctorDuncan

By Rodger Dean Duncan (this article by Dr. Duncan originally appeared in Fast Company magazine)

You wouldn’t deliberately dilute your own credibility. But it’s possible that some of your innocent behaviors are producing precisely that unintended consequence.

Credibility problems can come in the form of Trust Busters. Let’s consider two of the most common ones, along with their fixes that I call Trust Builders

Trust Buster #1: Double Talk

This takes many forms, all of which damage or destroy trust:

• “Spin”: We communicate with others by sharing our opinions and championing our causes. That’s fair and understandable and a natural part of human interaction. “Spin,” on the other hand, is often used as a pejorative term, and rightfully so. “Spin” usually describes a heavily biased portrayal in one’s own favor of an event, situation, or topic. Although it’s possible to spin information honestly, the term as used here implies disingenuous, deceptive, and even manipulative tactics. An obvious example would be the state-run media in some countries that selectively allow news stories that are favorable to the government while censoring anything deemed critical. A common example closer to home is the blather that tries to pass itself off as helpful information in the annual reports of public companies. When a letter to shareholders begins with “This was a challenging year for our company . . .” it’s a pretty safe bet that what follows is the rhetorical equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig – the company’s performance nose-dived, targets were missed, and it can all be blamed on market conditions and political intrigue beyond the control of management.
   
• Cherry picking: This is a close cousin of spin, and takes the form of selectively presenting facts and quotes to support a particular position. The result is often a false impression. Politicians do it all the time. A member of Congress might highlight a piece of legislation he claims to have co-sponsored. The way he tells the story you’d think he was riding into town on a white horse as the primary champion of the cause. In reality, he fails to mention that the legislation is also co-sponsored by more than a hundred other Congressmen and that his actual involvement amounted to little more than adding his name to the list. In the corporate world, cherry picking often occurs when restructuring is announced, when performance initiatives are rolled out, and when organization charts are reshuffled. Trust suffers.
   
• Euphemisms: These are words designed to deflect attention from something considered distasteful or unpleasant. In some families, nobody ever dies, they “pass away.” In some social circles, nobody is insulted or disrespected, they are “marginalized.” In some companies, people don’t get fired or dismissed, they are “outplaced.” As one writer said, euphemisms are like secret agents on a delicate mission, they are unpleasant truths wearing diplomatic cologne. The trouble with euphemisms is that despite the cologne they still stink. 
   
• Jargon: Much like slang, jargon is terminology that often develops as a kind of short-hand used by members of a group – like computer people talk about RAM, CPU, URLs, and related things. Acronyms – abbreviations formed from initial letters or a term or phrase – are another kind of jargon. These are not inherently a problem, but they tend to fog up communication when used to excess or with people unfamiliar with the code.
   
• Buzzwords: Buzzwords are in a class by themselves. These overused terms are common to corporate, technical, administrative, and political environments, but they’re evident in other places, too. While jargon (ideally) at least has a defined technical meaning, buzzwords are often used primarily to impress with a pretense of knowledge. Instead, they usually result in opaque sentences with mushy meaning.  I saw one organization’s so-called mission statement that read something like this: “In a spirit of continuous improvement, it is our responsibility to provide access to low-risk high-yield benefits to our customers and to administrate economically sound policies while promoting personal growth and fulfillment for our associates.” My ninth grade English teacher would have kicked me out of class for writing a sentence like that. When used sanely, words like leverage, passion, bandwidth, paradigm, empowerment, framework, and space have a welcome place in our language. But when strung together in a cobweb of obfuscation, the result is bewilderment, not communication; suspicion, not trust.
   
• Vague commitments: When a boy picks up your teenage daughter for a date, you’ll likely want some information about what’s on the agenda for the evening – things like where they’re going, who will be there, what the activity will be, and when you can expect your daughter to return home. You want your daughter to have fun and, above all, you want her to be safe. If the guy gives you no more data than “I’ll bring her back,” you’ll have second thoughts about letting your daughter out the front door. In the business world, vague commitments are no less of a trust buster. Some people pay lip service to clarifying expectations, but then they fail to provide specifics on results, deadlines, budgets, or most anything else about performance. It makes no difference whether this failure is inadvertent or by design. The effect is the same: fragile trust.
   

Trust Builder #1: Clear the Fog

Honesty and clarity are the best prevention against double talk. Simply don’t engage in double talk in the first place. Avoid ambiguous or evasive language. Use simple words. Lay out the whole story, warts and all. Billionaire Warren Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, is a model of straight talk in all his business dealings. It’s especially evident in his annual “management letter” to shareholders. Buffett’s phenomenal success is something he gladly shares with his vice chairman Charles Unger, his small staff, and the managers of his various companies. He’s also quick to shoulder responsibility for the negative. He says things like “If Charlie and I fail, we will have no excuses,” and “When Charlie and I make mistakes, they are – in tennis parlance – unforced errors.”  

Clearing the Fog is not complicated:

• To avoid “spin,” be sure that all sides to an issue get a fair hearing. Remember that a pig with a lipstick is still a pig. Play it straight. People appreciate – and trust – plain talk.
   
• Use examples that are plausible, relevant, and real. People trust illustrations that connect to their world.
   
• Use language that stands up straight. Words that lurk behind corners or tip-toe around issues are neither credible nor convincing. Political correctness is a particular offender.
   
• Make specific, realistic commitments. Then honor them.
   

Trust Buster #2: Pulling Rank

Some people try to exert influence by using the power of their position or authority. Maybe their ego gets in the way. Maybe they delight in the role of bully. Maybe they’re impatient and just want others to do things their way. Maybe they simply lack confidence and are reluctant to entertain the views of others. Whatever the reasons, pulling rank is never effective in engaging peoples’ heads, hearts, and hopes. In fact, it does just the reverse.

During my years at Campbell Soup Company I worked for two CEOs – Harold Shaub and Gordon McGovern. They were worlds apart in virtually every aspect of leadership. Harold Shaub was an old school executive whose closest colleagues – even those who had worked with him for more than thirty five years – still called him “Mr.” He clearly preferred surrounding himself with “yes men,” people who blindly followed his orders with no alternatives offered and no questions asked. He seemed to relish the perks of his office, and was none-too-subtle about reminding people that he was the boss. When Shaub retired, he was replaced in the corner office by Gordon McGovern.

Gordon was nearly a direct opposite. He preferred the employee cafeteria over the executive dining room with its silver and china and deferential butlers. Though well-bred and Ivy League educated, Gordon was informal and approachable. He thrived on lively conversation, especially with people who offered opposing views. He was as comfortable chatting with a worker on the plant production line as he was in talking with a member of the board of directors. In fact, because Gordon was so approachable, he got some of his best ideas from people who operated at several rungs lower on the organization chart. He seemed totally blind to the issues of rank. Though this seemed to annoy some of the Harold Shaub holdovers in the executive suite, it endeared Gordon to nearly everyone else in the company. He was, by far, more effective than his predecessor in bringing out the best in others.          

Trust Builder #2: Drop the Pretense

Using one’s higher status to compel obedience or obtain privileges is guaranteed to spawn resentment. When a boss pulls rank, people respond more out of compliance than out of commitment. Besides, pulling rank often comes across not as a sign of strength but as a sign of weakness. Pulling rank looks like a last resort, even when used early. After all, the reasoning goes, why would anyone need to pull rank if his viewpoint could stand on its own merits?

Let’s get real. Even though you may have position, title, a reserved parking space, and maybe a bigger desk lamp than the guy next door, you’re really no smarter than most of the people in your organization. You may have “paid your dues,” to get where you are. But that doesn’t mean you have more brain cells. So drop the pretense. You’re all in this together. And the better you are at exercising influence rather than authority, the better you’ll be at engaging the heads, hearts, and hopes of your colleagues.

Here are five steps to help you Drop the Pretense:

(1)  Question your motives. Are you using your position or authority to browbeat people into doing things your way? Are you trying to stifle open discussion? Are you using the leverage of your position just because you can? Do you somehow feel threatened – for example, by someone who offers a view difference from yours? If the roles were reversed and someone tried to pull rank on you, how would you feel?

(2)  Examine your case. Are there leaks in the case you’re trying to make for adopting your view? Is pulling rank just a way to camouflage those leaks?

(3)  Inspect your language. Are you using words like “It’s my way or the highway . . .” or “Remember that I’m the boss . . .”or “Just do what you’re told . . .” or “I thought you liked working here”? These are blatant examples of pulling rank, with bullying thrown in.

(4)  Consider the desired outcomes. If mutual purpose and mutual respect are what you really want in your relationships, you’ll realize that pulling rank introduces a tone that’s contrary to mutuality.

(5)  Practice your conversation skills. Remember that true dialogue cannot occur in an atmosphere where one person tries to exert power over another.  Beware the temptation to shift gears from collaboration to command-and-control. Listen with empathy. This means listening to understand, not to judge or rebut. Inquire to discover. Advocate with respect. All of these dialogue skills reinforce a “we’re all in this together” tone and diminish the temptation to exercise unrighteous dominion by pulling rank.

At the beginning of each semester, Luke rolls out the curriculum for the entire term. This includes assigning term papers on a wide range of topics. These are not the typical “research” papers. These personal essays are intended to help develop the students’ analytical skills – in short, teach them how to think for themselves.

Because many students are relatively untutored in such skills, there’s a temptation to “borrow” someone else’s thinking. In this Internet age, some ethics deficient websites actually sell and resell term papers to students who are either too timid or too lazy to do their own thinking. It’s easier than ever to take short cuts. But most students who “take short cuts” don’t actually buy someone else’s work. They “borrow” someone else’s work, sometimes in small, addictive doses. A question, of course, is where’s the line between inadvertent plagiarism and deliberate thievery?

Luke uses a high-tech tool called Turnitin (see www.turnitin.com) that quickly identifies plagiarism. This compares student work against three massive, continuously updated databases of content: billions of web pages, plus more than 80,000 major newspapers, periodicals, journals, and books, plus more than 100 million student papers from around the world.

Luke’s students submit their papers electronically. Then, before he even reads them, the papers are instantly analyzed for – shall we say – attribution problems. On Luke’s computer screen appears an “originality report” that highlights matches and shows sources side-by-side. He may see, for example, that a paragraph from a student paper is a 53% match with a Wikipedia article, or a 47% match with an obscure journal, or a 64% match with a paper submitted by another student three years earlier at another university across the country.

Again, Luke is a professor of the fine arts, not a plagiarism cop playing a game of “Gotcha!” In his professor role he can expound with worldclass authority on a wide range of subjects. And, yes, he wants to teach his students about proper source citation in their term papers.

But he believes, and I agree, that his most important job is to mentor his students in the fine art of trust.

He does it by showing them that relying on their own thinking is not only honest, but their own thinking is often better that someone else’s anyway.

He teaches them that “trust” is more than just a word in the school’s honor code.

He teaches them that trust is one of the most important lessons they can ever learn, and the most valuable attribute they can ever cultivate.

He does it by appealing to their heads and hearts and hopes. Then his young charges come to realize that with confidence comes competence, and then competence begets more confidence.  

Yes, trust can be taught.

(Adapted from Change-Friendly Leadership: How to Transform Good Intentions into Great Performance)