Imagine a future without you. How well would your team or organization fare when, for whatever reason, you were gone?

I decided several weeks ago to write this month about Steve Jobs and Apple. Specifically, I have been thinking lately about the importance of talent management and succession planning. With Job's death this past Wednesday, the message becomes all the more compelling.

Steve Jobs was many things: visionary business leader, talented inventor and designer, and brilliant marketing guru who knew intuitively what kinds of products we wanted even before we did. He was, however, such a unique creative genius, that many in the business and technology communities wonder if his particular skill set can ever be replaced. Will Apple without his leadership be the same dynamic growth company that it has been with him at the helm? It will be years before we know the definitive answer to this question, but Jobs worked diligently to ensure that the pieces were in place to extend his legacy of success.

Steve Jobs's handpicked successor as CEO, Tim Cook, has on three occasions starting in 2004 run the company while Jobs was out on medical leave. While Cook is an entirely different personality from Jobs, he has so far received solid marks for his stewardship and leadership skills.

Jobs and Apple's board also put in place measures to retain and develop talented managers, including financial incentives and an annual retreat for the company's "top 100" managers to discuss strategy, product development, and the future of Apple. Jobs established Apple University to generate and teach case studies to junior employees that will promote institutional knowledge. Senior Apple executives facilitate classes that perpetuate Jobs's legacy of creativity, innovation and decision making. The best of many recent articles I have read on succession at Apple is from the October 7 Wall Street Journal.

The October Harvard Business Review is entitled, "The Talent Issue." HBR says, "In tough economic times, most companies cut back on talent development programs and barely consider succession planning. The best companies keep their talent pipelines full no matter what - which may be why they stay on top." While the lessons from Steve Jobs's brilliant run as CEO of Apple are numerous and far reaching, none is more important than the example of his determined effort over many years to ensure that the institution he loved so dearly would continue to thrive and grow without him.

The Importance of a Compelling Central Idea

In the early stages of the Vietnam War, U.S. Navy pilot James Bond Stockdale was shot down over enemy territory and captured. For more than seven years, from 1965 to 1973, Commander (later Admiral) Stockdale was the highest-ranking prisoner- of- war (POW) at the Hoa Lo Camp, otherwise known as the Hanoi Hilton, in the capital city of North Vietnam. He endured torture and deprivation beyond imagination. But James Stockdale also valiantly led his fellow POWs throughout their shared ordeal with great imagination and courage, helping the vast majority of them to survive their time in captivity physically and psychologically intact.

Stockdale used a variety of leadership techniques but, above all else, his team prevailed because he provided them with a common purpose.

Stockdale summarized the essence of his leadership during the time at Hoa Lo: "I distilled one all-purpose idea.… it is a simple idea.… an idea that naturally and spontaneously comes to men under pressure…. You are your brother's keeper."

Unity Over Self

This powerful concept that the well-being of the whole team was more important than the plight of any one individual- described by Stockdale as "Unity over Self"- was the compelling common purpose that allowed a disparate group of individuals to remain a cohesive team in an incredibly challenging environment.

Stockdale confronted mighty obstacles in leading his fellow prisoners.  First, the men were physically separated, with no ability to communicate directly. Stockdale developed a communication strategy involving a wall tap code and other means of secret messaging which allowed him to continually lead and encourage his team despite their isolation.

Next, the team consisted of hundreds of individuals from very diverse backgrounds and experiences. Stockdale recognized and harnessed their diversity by giving them latitude.

Finally, Stockdale's men faced loneliness, deprivation and torture on a daily basis. Stockdale wrote later, "We organized a clandestine society…. with our own laws, traditions, customs, even heroes. [This explains how we could].… order each other into more torture…. refuse to comply with specific demands, [and] intentionally call the bluff of our jailers.…"  Stockdale succeeded in creating a cohesive culture with ironclad and widely-known rules which perpetuated itself and provided motivation and discipline to its members even under the most difficult of circumstances.

Of the 591 Hanoi Hilton POWs who returned safely, almost 80 percent remained in the military, with 24 of them advancing to the rank of general or admiral. A significant number of the returnees became leaders in business, law, government or politics. Fully 96 percent of the former prisoners were free of any symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. James Stockdale's brilliant and inspirational leadership went a long way toward ensuring that the men in his charge would return home to pursue healthy, productive lives.

Relevance to Today's Business Leaders

Why is this amazing story relevant to today's business leaders? Wilson Learning conducted a survey in 2006 of 25,000 workers in finance and high tech who asserted overwhelmingly that they needed a leader who could "convey clearly what the work unit is trying to do." This is an incredibly simple proposition, but many leaders fail the test.

Have you as a leader provided your team with a common purpose? Do team members understand and can they articulate that purpose? What is the central idea that drives your organization forward, through good times and bad? If you are fuzzy on these answers, you can bet your team is confused as well. Now is the time to step up and, with confidence and conviction, "convey clearly what the work unit is trying to do."

The portrait is situated such that Grant looks directly at me- his gaze is intense- while I write. When my attention wanders or my energy wanes, this picture serves as an inspirational reminder that I must forge ahead, for time is precious.

Grant was born in 1822 in Ohio and was a middling student at West Point. He fought bravely in every significant engagement of the Mexican War in the 1840s. After the war he developed an unfortunate fondness for alcohol, left the army, and experienced embarrassing failures as a businessman and farmer. As the contentious issues of slavery and secession came to a boil and war clouds gathered anew, Grant labored as a humble clerk in his father's dry goods store in Galena, Illinois.

With the onset of the Civil War in 1861, Grant returned to his one true calling and the profession at which he came to excel, arguably, beyond any other soldier in American history. He began the war as a regimental commander but was rapidly promoted, ultimately rising to the rank of lieutenant general and appointment by President Abraham Lincoln as general in chief of all U.S. forces. Grant proved a brilliant strategist and a stubborn fighter who won the war by ruthlessly using the superior numbers and material resources of his mighty armies to slowly but relentlessly bludgeon his formidable Southern enemy into submission.

Grant emerged as the great hero of the war and went on to serve two terms as the eighteenth president of the United States. Though he was himself a man of high personal integrity, Grant's administration was riddled with corruption, and his presidency is regarded by most historians as a failure.

In the 1880s, as a result of another unlucky business venture, Grant lost his entire life savings and fell heavily into debt. Friends had encouraged him to write his memoirs, but he was reluctant because he believed that there would be little interest in his story. Finally, for the purpose of taking care of his family he felt compelled to begin writing. The famous novelist and Grant's good friend Mark Twain volunteered to help him in the publication process. The effort to complete his Personal Memoirs became a profound struggle because in the same month he began to write (September 1884) Grant, who was a life-long cigar smoker, was diagnosed with inoperable throat cancer.

Grant now knew that time was truly precious because he was dying. He desired nothing more than to ensure that the person he loved above all others, his wife of thirty-six years, Julia Dent Grant, and their children, would be financially secure when he was gone. He threw himself into his mission with the same powerful determination that won the Civil War, writing mostly in pencil on a pad of paper, fighting incapacitating pain every hour of every day.

Historian Geoffrey Perret writes in his excellent biography, Ulysses S. Grant: Soldier and President, "Part of the secret of his success as a general stood revealed as he bent to his final task, not only in the power of his will but in the clarity of his mind. Drugs did not seem to color his thinking, nor did physical exhaustion, lack of sleep, intense pain, or impending oblivion. He treated all of these as irrelevant or, at most, irritants, and focused tightly on the task at hand." Grant finished the book on July 19, 1885, and three days later he was dead.

The opening words to the preface of the Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant contain a quotation borrowed from a fifteenth-century devotional book, and then Grant's understandably fatalistic observation concerning that quotation: "'Man proposes and God disposes.' There are but few important events in the affairs of men brought about by their own choice."

The Personal Memoirs became a smashing success and to this day are regarded as a classic of American letters. Grant's dying wish came true as his family experienced a financial windfall from sales of the book. Sometimes, even sad stories can have a bittersweet, if not entirely happy ending.

Recently, a number of people in my wider network have either been diagnosed with or died from inoperable cancer. The wife of a former co-worker. The daughter of a close associate. The mother of a dear friend. A respected colleague, father, and friend with whom I worked years ago. Wonderful human beings all. I am continually reminded that life is fragile and fleeting. The flame burns brightly, but all too briefly, and then it goes out.

Wherever you may find yourself in your own journey, if you have a burden to overcome- take it on. If you have a task to complete- get going. If you have someone who needs to know that you love them- tell them. But through it all, don't forget to enjoy the here and the now. Take heed of the beautiful sentiment and powerful truth that is captured in the well-known quotation, "The past is history, the future is a mystery, but today is a gift; that's why they call it the present."

American workers are growing increasingly disenchanted with their jobs, in a way that presents a potentially serious problem as we all strive to compete in a global economy. While most working Americans might say they feel fortunate just to have a job given the current unemployment rate, a 2009 survey of 5000 households by the Conference Board revealed that only 45 percent of Americans are satisfied with their work, which represents the worst result in that category in 22 years of surveys. The recession undoubtedly accounts for some of the unhappiness, but job satisfaction has been in decline for more than twenty years.

The Conference Board highlighted additional troubling numbers: only 51 percent of Americans find their work interesting; 64 percent of workers under age twenty five are unhappy in their jobs; only 43 percent of workers feel secure in their jobs; just 51 percent are satisfied with their boss; and a mere 56 percent are satisfied with their commute to work. Among other issues, weak wage growth and increased health care costs have been concerns over the last two decades. But the drudgery entailed in so many jobs in our modern economy of traveling to and from an office to sit in a cube and stare at a computer screen all day must be a factor as well. One of the study's authors, Lynn Franco, says, "What's really disturbing about growing job dissatisfaction is the way it can play into the competitive nature of the U.S. workforce down the road and on the growth of the U.S. economy- all in a negative way."

Good companies are attempting to address this malady. In a fascinating- albeit painful- experiment in which I personally participated during my years at the Best Buy Company, two courageous innovators named Jody Thompson and Cali Ressler endeavored to introduce the company to a concept they called the "Results- Only Work Environment," or ROWE. The ROWE concept emphasizes a change in focus from hours to outcomes, and allows employees to control when, where, and how long they work, as long as they meet their business objectives.

Jody and Cali faced significant resistance in some corners of the company, mostly because Best Buy proudly nurtured a culture of long hours and hard work in both the store and headquarters environments. Managers feared abuse of the system and doubted that better outcomes might be achieved. I remember one skeptical manager telling an employee who was out of the office that, "You need to ROWE, ROWE, ROWE your ass back to work."

Nevertheless, over time, business results spoke for themselves. Departments at Best Buy that implemented ROWE saw productivity increases that averaged 35 percent, as well as sharp decreases in voluntary turnover rates of as much as 90 percent in some business units. Jody and Cali have now left Best Buy and taken their show on the road via their company, CultureRx, to encourage other organizations to adopt the power of ROWE.

To be sure, some jobs simply cannot be accomplished other than in a specific work location, such as a retail store or manufacturing facility. Many people would be loath to work in a virtual environment because they enjoy the daily personal interaction with their co-workers. Some folks would be distracted at home and need the discipline of an office environment to stay on task.

But the trend toward more flexible hours and working from home is undeniable, and the potential impact of developing a more virtual economy is huge. Last year, according to market research firm Interactive Data Corp., 18.4 million Americans (like me) worked in homebased businesses, and the expectation is for that number to increase by 350,000 per year for the next several years. Further, a study by the Telework Research Network estimates that if everyone who could work from home- approximately 40 percent of the workforce- did so just half the time, the annual impact would be staggering:

• American companies would realize $200 billion in productivity gains.
• Companies would save $190 billion on such things as reduced real estate expenses, electricity bills, absenteeism, and turnover.
• Greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 50 million tons, and 276 million barrels of oil (32 percent of imports from the Middle East) would be saved.
• American business would save a total of $700 billion.

How flexible is your company or organization around work schedules? Does your team feel that they enjoy good work- life balance? Do you as a leader of people focus on the number of hours worked or on good business outcomes? If what matters most in your organization is the perception of grinding out long hours in a traditional office setting, maybe it's time to try a more flexible approach. Your business will be the better for your effort to think and work differently.

A recent run of hilarious television beer commercials features the "Most Interesting Man in the World," who dispenses wisdom on a whole range of subjects in addition to malted beverages. In one spot he provides career advice, looking deeply into the camera and saying, "Find out what it is in life that you don't do well…. and then don't do that thing…. stay thirsty my friends." I take that same concept, but work to spin it into a positive when I tell my two daughters (who like most teenagers have myriad interests but have not yet settled on a specific path) to find out what they love to do in life, and then go do that thing.

In a unique and captivating book called, Shop Class As Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the Value of Work, author Mathew B. Crawford contrasts the "symbolic knowledge work" that predominates in the corporate world of today with the age-old experience of making and fixing things with one's hands. Crawford has a Ph.D. in political philosophy from the University of Chicago and works as a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia. He also follows his bliss as a tinkerer with an intense interest in all things mechanical, and he owns a motorcycle repair shop in Richmond, Virginia.

In Shop Class As Soulcraft, Crawford seeks to restore the honor of the manual trades as a worthy pursuit, even in our high-tech, global economy. Crawford laments that "In the 1990s…. shop class started to become a thing of the past as educators prepared students to become 'knowledge workers.'" The problem with this effort to move people through high school and college and into the cubicle as knowledge workers is that it undervalues labor that involves the manipulation of things rather than ideas.

The typical office worker is overwhelmed with administrative details, budgets, planning meetings, and evaluations that often provide precious little sense of real progress or accomplishment. It is frequently difficult to measure one's individual impact in any tangible way. Crawford contrasts this with an electrician's precise knowledge that the job has been successfully completed when the light switch goes on, or the satisfaction of a skilled mechanic who gets a broken motorcycle to run again .

Crawford emphasizes that the manual trades are different from assembly line work and even many forms of white collar drudgery in that they require careful thinking. He says, "It may be that I am just not well suited to office work. But in this respect I doubt there is anything unusual about me. I offer my own story here not because I think it is extraordinary, but rather because I suspect it is fairly common.… This book grows out of an attempt to understand the greater sense of agency and competence I have always felt doing manual work, compared with other jobs that are officially recognized as 'knowledge work.' Perhaps most surprisingly, I often find manual work more engaging intellectually."

Ultimately, although he does not expressly say it this way, Crawford passionately advocates that each individual must follow his or her bliss, whether as a knowledge worker, a manual laborer, or in some other way.

So many of us "just work for a living." We do our jobs as best we can, and we strive hard to support our families, but we get no particular energy nor do we take any special joy in doing what we do. We fail to follow our true bliss.

I was just such a person for better than twenty years, laboring as an office/cube-dwelling knowledge worker. I was fortunate to be employed by some great organizations, liked my co-workers, and enjoyed certain aspects of my responsibilities. I was thankful to be employed and understood full well how lucky I was- particularly in a tough economy- to have a steady paycheck. But at the end of day, as is true for so many people, mine was "just a job."

In early 2009 I struck off on my own as an entrepreneur, working to build a company that provides leadership training, workshops, and consulting services. I also took time to write a book and a regular business column. Goodness knows I am no mechanic, and I still spend lots of time sitting at a desk looking at a computer screen; nevertheless, with as much certainty as at any point in my life, I am following my bliss. Despite the occasional "entrepreneurial anxiety attack," I am also the happiest I have ever been in my work life. I feel richly blessed for the opportunity and encourage everyone, in whatever form it may take, to follow his or her bliss.

In his book, The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell summarizes, "I always tell my students, go where your body and soul want to go. When you have that feeling, then stay with it, and don't let anyone throw you off." He goes on to say, "I even have a superstition that…. if you do follow your bliss you put yourself on a kind of track that has been there all the while, waiting for you, and the life you ought to be living is the one you are living…. I say follow your bliss and don’t be afraid, and doors will open where you didn't know they were going to be."

The subsequent invasion of Cuba at the infamous Bay of Pigs was a tragic fiasco that historian Theodore Draper later described as "one of those rare events in history- a perfect failure." That perfect failure resulted in significant part because neither President Kennedy nor his advisors had taken the time to develop an effective decision-making process. But Kennedy learned from this painful early setback, and put into place better methodologies that allowed him to save the world from disaster later in his administration during the thirteen tension-filled days known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

A number of serious flaws characterized the decision-making process that led to the Bay of Pigs debacle. First, there never appeared to be any serious consideration of an alternative to invasion. The planning process revolved entirely around the details and timing of the attack, which came to be presumed as inevitable. Second, certain individuals who had serious concerns about the plan either failed to aggressively articulate those concerns, were marginalized for their dissenting views, or they were left out of the deliberations entirely.  Finally, miscommunication and misinformation plagued the process from the very beginning. For example, planners believed the invasion would prompt a massive internal anti-Castro uprising within Cuba, which it did not. Additionally, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff assumed that if the operation failed at the beaches President Kennedy would intervene with U.S. military power, which in reality Kennedy had no intention of ever doing.

In his fine biography entitled An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963, presidential scholar Robert Dallek writes, "[advisor Arthur] Schlesinger asked JFK, 'What do you think about this damned invasion?' Kennedy replied, 'I think about it as little as possible,' implying that it was too painful a subject with too many uncertainties for him to dwell on it. But of course it was at the center of his concerns."

On April 17, 1961, 1,400 Cuban exiles hit the beach at the Bay of Pigs. Lacking additional military support from the U.S. and greatly outmanned and outgunned by Castro's soldiers, all of the invaders were either killed or captured. To his credit, Kennedy fully accepted blame for the tragedy, telling the nation, "I am the responsible officer of the government." Nevertheless, U.S. prestige had been badly damaged and the young, inexperienced president was seen as weak and lacking in resolve, particularly by his adversary Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.

In the spring of 1962 Khrushchev and his military commanders hatched a plan to install forty nuclear warheads, as well as to deploy thousands of support troops and build a Soviet naval base on the island of Cuba. One of his advisors wrote later that the Bay of Pigs "gave Khrushchev and the other leaders the impression that Kennedy was indecisive." Unfortunately for the Soviet premier, Kennedy and team had taken the excruciating lessons of the Bay of Pigs to heart and succeeded in putting a vastly more disciplined decision-making process into place.

Upon learning with certainty of the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba in October 1962, Kennedy formed a team of key advisors called the Executive Committee (ExComm) that met frequently over thirteen days to debate the new challenge.

ExComm and President Kennedy performed in an exemplary way that is instructive to business leaders even today. The team considered a number of options, not just one preordained choice, and finally narrowed the decision to either a military air strike or the more conservative tactic of a naval blockade of Cuba. The team broke into two groups to develop and articulate these two options. Experts were invited to speak up, not just on the topic of their expertise, but on any aspect of the deliberations. Kennedy encouraged dissent and an honest airing of differences of opinion. He sought independent advice on his own outside of his immediate team. ExComm did not focus on hierarchy of rank and members treated each other as equals. Kennedy himself skipped some of the meetings to allow his advisors to brainstorm without him in the room; also, the president did not tip his hand in terms of which way he leaned in the discussion.

In the end, Kennedy opted for the naval blockade and, as the world held its breath, Khrushchev backed down and withdrew his missiles from Cuba. Kennedy's team- and indeed the entire world- had benefited from an open, inclusive, and thorough decision-making process.

Robert Dallek summarizes, "Forty years after the crisis, historians almost uniformly agree that this was the most dangerous moment in the forty-five year Cold War. Moreover…. they generally have high praise for Kennedy's performance. His restraint in resisting a military solution that would almost certainly have triggered a nuclear exchange makes him a model of wise statesmanship in a dire situation…. October 1962 was not only Kennedy's finest hour in the White House; it was also an imperishable example of how one man prevented a catastrophe that may yet afflict the world."

We all know unorthodox or independent-minded people. We may even be such a person ourselves. In a business setting mavericks are fascinating because despite their quirks, they often add enormous value to the enterprises they serve as a result of their unconventional way of seeing the world. In the alternative, mavericks are also sometimes a royal pain in the rear end. Those organizations that learn to cherish the maverick- while simultaneously managing that person- tend to be successful over time because they are open to different approaches and constant change.

Lieutenant Colonel Earl Hancock "Pete" Ellis was arguably the all-time maverick in the United States Marine Corps, a venerable organization with a long history of colorful characters. Few officers had a greater impact on Marine history, but Ellis is largely unknown today.

Pete Ellis served in the Marines from 1900 to 1923, and came to be regarded during the First World War (while working as a staff officer) as a genius at military planning. It was between the World Wars, however, that Ellis made his greatest contribution. In 1920 he authored an eighty-page study called "Advanced Base Operations in Micronesia," which set out "To guide and coordinate training and activities of the Marine Corps in peacetime so as to be ready to execute war plans." The document prophetically anticipated a Japanese attack that would necessitate a need for advance bases to support the American naval fleet. Further, Ellis correctly predicted the Japanese fleet would remain in its home waters until an anticipated meeting engagement with the American fleet. Finally, Japanese aggression would require a response in the form of an amphibious island-hopping campaign in the Central Pacific Ocean, to be carried out by none other than the United States Marine Corps.

"Advanced Base Operations in Micronesia" became the template for the U.S. military campaign in the Pacific during World War II. Many people came to think of Ellis not only as an incredibly farsighted strategist and naval theorist but as "the father of amphibious warfare."

Unfortunately, Pete Ellis did not live long enough to see his ideas come into fruition. Like many mavericks, he possessed a dark side. Ellis was prone to alcoholism and depression, and behaved in occasionally bizarre ways. On one occasion while stationed in the Philippines, after a particularly boring dinner with the post chaplain, an inebriated Ellis shot the dinner plates off the table with his service revolver.

As his career languished because of such incidents, Ellis volunteered in 1923 to go on a secret mission to expose suspected Japanese fortifications in Micronesia, and to gather intelligence for his proposed island-hopping campaign. Ellis failed in his objectives and died a mysterious death on Palau Island, in the Caroline Islands. Some people argued he was murdered as a spy by the Japanese, but the weight of evidence demonstrates that he drank himself to death.

Outrageous behavior aside, Ellis enjoyed the support during the prime of his career of many influential superiors, including Marine Commandant General John A. Lejeune. These officers overlooked Ellis's flaws and encouraged him in his brilliance. When told once that "Colonel Ellis was indisposed," General Lejeune responded, "Ellis drunk is better than anyone else around here sober." While Ellis's superiors undoubtedly should have done more than just cover up his problems and instead reached out to help him, it is nevertheless true that he was purposefully put in position to make a significant contribution despite his many shortcomings.

While dangerous and extreme conduct is never excusable, what about the maverick who is neither dangerous nor extreme but merely different? I have worked in organizations that purported to value the maverick, but then made it incredibly difficult for that person to function and contribute because he or she refused to conform to company culture or "play nice with the other kids."

Sometimes, the boss himself or herself is a maverick- think eBay under Meg Whitman, Apple under Steve Jobs, or Oracle under Larry Ellison. These companies make it easier for mavericks to survive and thrive because unconventional thinking happens from the top on down and is deeply embedded in the genetic makeup. But sometimes, on the other hand, unoriginal approaches at the top lead to unoriginal results throughout the team.

Where does your organization stand with respect to mavericks? Do you value them for their uniqueness and their potential, if given a chance, to contribute at a high level? Do you work to manage their occasionally odd behaviors while simultaneously channeling the good energy? Or do you shut them down and push them out? Or even worse, never hire them in the first place? Organizations with the courage to cherish and the patience to manage their mavericks will realize the benefit of seeing and engaging the world in new and perhaps even prophetic ways.

To this day, nearly five decades later, the hair on my neck still stands up when I consider the words: "And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came and drew nigh to meet David, that David hasted, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine…. And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in the forehead…. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone…. there was no sword in the hand of David…" I have never forgotten the beauty of the language or the power of this story and its timeless lesson that with courage, insight, and perseverance, great odds can be overcome. Underdogs who believe in themselves can triumph in the end, just like the intrepid shepherd boy who became the famous King David.

Stories are one of the oldest and most fundamental forms of human communication. In the distant past, before history could be written down, oral traditions served to pass knowledge, wisdom, and cultural norms from one generation to the next. Today, even as in biblical times, great leaders understand and use the power of stories to teach and inspire their followers.

In her book, Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins, business consultant and author Annette Simmons says, "A story is a narration of events that simulates a visual, sensory, and emotional experience that feels significant for both the listener and the teller. If experience is the best teacher, then story is second-best." Simmons argues that while tools for data gathering and measurement of results have improved significantly, corporate leaders fail to adequately grasp the subjective side of business. She states, "Business success is a function of both facts and feelings."

Harvard Business School professor and leadership expert John Kotter would agree. In a 2006 article from Forbes magazine entitled "The Power of Stories," Kotter writes, "Over the years I have become convinced that we learn best- and change- from hearing stories that strike a chord within us…. As I look around me today, I see that too few business leaders grasp the idea that stories can have a profound effect on people…. Those in leadership positions who fail to grasp or use the power of stories risk failure for their companies and for themselves."

But the best leaders are not only skilled storytellers who comprehend the power of compelling narratives to teach; they also know that their own actions and behaviors can generate stories that may (or may not) serve to create better business outcomes for the organizations that they lead.

Lou Gerstner became CEO of the unwieldy and insular behemoth IBM in 1993. The stories that almost immediately came to be told about him made it apparent to everyone that dramatic change was about to take place. For example, in a culture where meetings consisted of presenting dreary reams of information on endless slides via overhead projector, Gerstner shut the projector off and initiated a conversational dialogue instead. Painful though the transition became, Gerstner is credited with pulling off one of the most dramatic turnarounds in corporate history and saving IBM, in significant part because he appreciated the power of stories to transform a culture.

Annette Simmons reminds us, "Story has the power to fill in between the lines, to breathe feelings of human experience into outcomes, strategic plans, and objective goals so people can see, hear, and feel enough for it to feel real. Once a goal feels real in their imagination, people are much more likely to do what it takes to make it real in the physical world. They not only understand the what, they have a feeling for the how and the why."

Do you as a leader understand the fundamental truth that through stories both individuals and entire teams can comprehend the world more clearly and engage more effectively in achieving the purpose of your organization? Do you use stories as "teachable moments" that can improve understanding, encourage creativity, and increase motivation?

Just as important, what are the stories that are told about you as a leader and about your organization? Are they the stories that you would wish to be shared among your employees, customers, and shareholders? If not, then consider the actions you need to take to generate a better, more positive story. Remember Annette Simmons's insightful words, "As the ambiguity of business and life continues to become more apparent, we will find that our ability to understand subjectivity and to alter subjective feelings will become more important. In other words, whoever tells the best story wins."

One would think that this keen awareness of the criticality of being in the present would enable a golfer to hit a perfect shot every time. But the reality is that "being present," in golf or any other endeavor, is an incredibly difficult thing to accomplish.

I believe that a lack of strong listening skills is a major impediment to productivity in the workplace, as well as to healthy outcomes in all other human interactions. I personally have never learned anything while I was doing the talking. Just as in golf, poor listeners are the ones who are either stewing about what was said five minutes ago, or anticipating their future response to what is being said right now. They are not in the present. They are not truly attentive. Conversely, the best listeners and most effective leaders are those who succeed in being present in the conversation, listening carefully, and learning as a result.

Dan Rosensweig is the president and chief executive of Chegg, a company that rents textbooks online and via mail. In a recent interview he was asked about how he runs meetings. He responded, "Probably the biggest lesson I've learned recently is to be present, because it's so easy to get distracted in the worlds of BlackBerrys, iPhones, Twitter, Facebook and 500 e-mails a day. So with our management team, when we're in a meeting, it starts on time, it ends on time, no technology. It's just, let's stay focused, and we have a much more healthy conversation. It works well in your personal life as well- wherever you are, be all in." But as Rosensweig strongly implies, with the manic pace of today's world, it is a terrific challenge to ever "be all in."

David Rome is a senior fellow at the Garrison Institute, a research and retreat center that applies contemplative methods to addressing social and environmental issues. He is a certified Focusing Trainer and a practicing Buddhist who, along with co-facilitator Hope Martin, teaches a seminar called Deep Listening.

In an article in the July 2010 issue of the periodical Shambhala Sun, Rome and Martin describe the tortured and angry nature of the recent debate on U.S. health care reform. They write, "The health care imbroglio may be an extreme example, but it reflects a larger pathology in our culture, one that is driven by adversarialness on the one hand and disingenuousness on the other. If we are to survive in the twenty-first century we must become better communicators, speaking and listening honestly and compassionately across diversity and difference…. A fruitful place to begin work on shifting our patterns of communication is with the quality of our listening. Just as we now understand the importance of exercise for good health, we need to exercise and strengthen our ability as listeners."

What steps can we take to become better listeners? Paradoxically, Rome and Martin suggest that effective Deep Listening begins with self-awareness. By paying better attention to ourselves we can better communicate with others. They write, "Deep Listening involves listening, from a deep, receptive, and caring place in oneself, to deeper and often subtler levels of meaning and intention in the other person. It is listening that is generous, empathic, supportive, accurate, and trusting. Trust here does not imply agreement, but the trust that whatever others say, regardless of how well or poorly it is said, comes from something true in their experience."

Rome and Martin suggest that "a clouded mirror cannot reflect accurately." In other words, unless and until we are true to ourselves, we cannot genuinely care about and compassionately listen to the concerns of others.

The next time you find yourself in the position of listener, consider your reactions to the situation. Are you able to separate your own selfish interests from those of the speaker? Do you immediately begin to think, How will this affect me? Are you frustrated with the person's speaking style or choice of words? Are you mentally jumping to your own response or even interrupting the speaker so that you can get your way more quickly? We are all guilty of these transgressions from time to time.

Instead of listening poorly, consider an attempt at Deep Listening. Be self aware regarding your own impatience or disagreement and work to overcome it. Give yourself the opportunity and the time to really hear the other person. Provide your open-minded, fully focused attention. Attempt not just to comprehend on a superficial level, but to truly understand the other person's point of view, his/her needs, motives and objectives. In short, be present and all in, right there at that very moment. You will be amazed at how much you will learn and how much progress your organization will make. You will be more happy and satisfied in every other relationship in your life. And, though it may be a long shot, you may even improve in your golf game.

Linda Easley, president and chief executive of the Columbus, Ohio-based retailer The Limited, emphasizes the importance of this principle from the very first days that a person starts a job on her team. When asked recently what she tells new managers who come to work for her she responded, "I tell them: 'Take the first 90 days. The relationships you build in your first few months here are critical to you success. Try not to talk in meetings. I know you're going to want to demonstrate that you're really capable and you deserve to be here by showing your smarts. But if you listen and let the void fill with what's around you, you'll learn a ton.'"

Stephen Sadove, chairman and chief executive of Saks Inc., also spoke recently of the importance of relationships in crafting his successful career. When asked about his most important leadership lessons he says, "I've used opportunities to get involved and develop relationships with a diverse set of people as opposed to the narrow group of people I was dealing with day-to-day, and that made a huge difference. It shaped my philosophy in terms of the importance of relationship-building, and how to run a business." He goes on to say, "I obviously work with business issues, but I try to go out of my way in mentoring, coaching and developing young people. I tend to care a lot about the people and the relationships that they have, how the team is operating, the culture." Sadove concludes, "I've been amazed over the years how relationships that come out of one thing go toward something else. If you give positive vibes, if you show an interest, by and large a lot of people will react."

Indeed, the importance of the tone and example set by top leadership cannot be overstated. But relationships at every level within an organization matter as well. In a well-known Harvard Business Review article entitled "Eight Ways to Build Collaborative Teams," business scholars Lynda Gratton and Tamara Erickson provide practical suggestions for leaders who need to enable complex teams (those that are large, virtual, diverse, and specialized) execute major initiatives within their organizations. Among other recommendations, the authors' research shows that in order to maximize performance:

• Top executives must work to build and maintain social relationships throughout their companies. For example, the Royal Bank of Scotland built a headquarters that features an indoor atrium which purposefully puts employees into close contact with one another on a daily basis, encouraging social interaction and collaboration.

• Top leadership also needs to personally model strong relationships and a cooperative, people-focused culture. Teams are very in tune to the example set from above.

• Team leaders should, if possible, ensure that some members of a new team already know each other. At Nokia, when skills must move from one business unit to another, entire small teams are transferred, rather than shuffling individuals. This ensures cohesion and more open knowledge-sharing.

• Those who lead complex teams should focus first on articulating the task at hand, but as the project goes forward emphasize the importance of relationship-building. If a team knows and trusts one another, when inevitable conflict arises, problems can be much more easily resolved.

Sometimes, relationship-building is incredibly difficult. But those who persevere in developing trust and establishing connections even under challenging circumstances will prevail over time.  In 1998, Gary Loveman moved from a position in academe to take over as chief operating officer of the casino company Harrah's. Insiders resented Loveman and felt that several internal candidates were more deserving of the job. Loveman knew he would have a particularly difficult time with the chief financial officer, whose support and expertise he desperately needed. Loveman worked especially hard to win the favor of this individual, conferring with him frequently, sharing information, and including him in meetings and decision making. At least in part out of his focus on the importance of this key relationship and others, Loveman was named CEO of Harrah's in 2003.

Does your organization promote a culture that values the social side of life, and that emphasizes the quality of daily human interactions? Are relationships important at your company? Do you have at least one good friend in your workplace? Do you as a leader understand the criticality of knowing and trusting your team members? Do you work to build relationships even when it is hard to do? Some might argue that the answers to these questions pertain more to the "soft" side of business and, therefore, are not important. But those leaders and organizations who understand the fundamental truth that trust and relationships matter know better.

In her book, An Honest Day's Work, author Twyla Dell writes, "The heart of motivation is to give people what they really want most from work. The more you are able to provide what they want, the more you should expect what you really want, namely: productivity, quality, and service." How do managers face the understandable difficulty in giving people “what they want” when individual employees are motivated in different ways and by different things? While adequate pay matters- most people are unwilling to work for nothing- it is a mistake to assume that economic gain is the only factor that motivates people to do good work.

Indeed, a significant body of research indicates that what motivates people to do high-quality work revolves much more directly around intrinsic factors, rather than rewards or punishment. Those companies that build a culture in which motivation just naturally happens will outperform those that still rely on an outmoded "carrot- and- stick" approach.

In his seminal 2003 book, The Motivation to Work, scholar Frederick Herzberg (along with co-authors Bernard Mausner and Barbara Bloch Snyderman) makes the simple but compelling point that human beings are motivated from within, not by any policy imposed by their company. Herzberg significantly influenced human resource management by conducting an extensive series of interviews that explored employee attitudes and attempted to get at the question "What motivates employees?"

Herzberg identifies two critical sets of factors that influence motivation. The first set that he calls hygiene factors include basic needs such as working conditions, benefits, job security and company policies. Poor hygiene factors can lead to employee dissatisfaction. Improvement in hygiene factors represents a step in the right direction, but will not in itself inspire motivation.

The second set, called motivation factors, go beyond foundational working conditions and to the heart of what energizes people: a sense of achievement, opportunities to develop, and recognition, all of which lead to improved job satisfaction. Ultimately, argues Herzberg, companies succeed by motivating people through job enrichment rather than reward or pressure.

In his recent bestseller, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, author Dan Pink describes his own list of the key factors that motivate people: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Pink says, "The baseline rewards must be sufficient. That is, the team's basic compensation must be adequate and fair… Your [organization] must be a congenial place to work. And the people on your team must have autonomy, they must have ample opportunity to pursue mastery, and their daily routines must relate to a higher purpose. If these elements are in place, the best strategy is to provide a sense of urgency and significance- and then get out of the talent's way."

During World War II, the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation established what became the first "skunk works" (a project team that is provided great autonomy to work on high priority tasks), to develop the first U.S. jet fighter. The experiment was a great success. The team of 53 engineers and support staff worked in secrecy in a remote location. The culture was characterized by equal treatment, informality, limited bureaucracy, and open and honest exchange of ideas. Leadership guru Warren Bennis describes the lead designer on the project as "a visionary on at least two fronts: designing airplanes and organizing genius. [He] seemed to know intuitively what talented people needed to do their best work, how to motivate them, and how to make sure the desired product was created as quickly and cheaply as possible."

What can your organization do to create an environment in which motivation is the natural outcome of a healthy culture and not a matter of following a rewards and punishment dynamic?

• Ask people what they want. Talk to your folks and listen to what they tell you. Find out what motivates each individual on your team and (within reason) work to meet those needs. Treat people with respect.

• Make sure that your people are paid fairly, especially in comparison to those who are doing similar work in other organizations. If working conditions are not up to an acceptable standard, fix them.

• Encourage an open and vigorous exchange of ideas. Evaluate mistakes honestly to learn from them, without assigning blame.

• If you are considering financial or other extrinsic rewards, know that research indicates (as author Dan Pink reminds us) "Any extrinsic reward should be unexpected and offered only after the task is complete. Holding out a prize at the beginning of a project- and offering it as a contingency- will inevitably focus people's attention on obtaining the reward rather than attacking the problem."

• Appreciate the power of a small gesture of gratitude, such as a handwritten note or a pat on the back. Sometimes the simplest recognition, as long as it's timely, specific and sincere, can have a hugely motivating effect (just ask my friend about the note he received from his boss).

Human beings are complicated, and each of us experiences motivation differently. But we all have a basic and inherent need to feel that we have control of our lives, that we are learning and growing, and that our work has a larger meaning beyond a mere paycheck. Organizations that recognize these fundamental truths will do well on the shoulders of a highly motivated workforce.

In his bestselling book, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk, author Peter L. Bernstein tells us, "The word 'risk' derives from the early Italian risicare, which means 'to dare.' In this sense, risk is a choice, rather than a fate. The actions we dare to take, which depend on how free we are to make choices, are what the story of risk is all about. And that story helps define what it means to be a human being."

Bernstein further explains that "When the growth of trade transformed the principles of gambling into the creation of wealth, the inevitable result was capitalism, the epitome of risk-taking." But he argues capitalism could only flourish with the development of two new concepts: bookkeeping, which allowed for the quantification and tracking of business results, and forecasting, which is a "...challenging activity that links risk-taking with direct payoffs." Indeed, in Bernstein's view, "The successful business executive is a forecaster first; purchasing, producing, marketing, pricing, and organizing all follow." In other words, the best business leaders are those that are especially adept at properly assessing risk.

Nevertheless, obstacles come in many forms, even for the most skillful forecasters. In a classic Harvard Business Review article from 1998 entitled, "The Hidden Traps in Decision Making," scholars John S. Hammond, Ralph L. Keeney, and Howard Raiffa describe three common traps that impact the quality of our assessments and predictions about uncertain events.

First, leaders succumb to the "overconfidence trap." Human beings are generally not very good at estimating the outcome of uncertain events, yet we have a strong tendency to overestimate our own abilities. This phenomenon is nicely summarized by Stanford professor James G. March in his book, A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen, March says, "Decision makers tend to exaggerate their control over their environment, overweighting the impacts of their actions and underweighting the impact of other factors, including chance. They believe things happen because of their intentions and their skills… more than because of contributions from the environment. This tendency is accentuated by success. As a result… there is a strong tendency to treat uncertainty as something to be removed rather than estimated."

The second pitfall is the "prudence trap," which describes the very natural human tendency to be overcautious when faced with a risky and important decision. The HBR article cites the example of a Big Three U.S. automaker that, in anticipation of extremely high sales volume, collected forecasts from various departments that each overestimated the number of cars that should be produced, "just to be on the safe side." The cumulative effect of the prudence trap for this organization was gross overproduction and excess inventory that eventually had to be sold at reduced prices.

The final obstacle is the "recallability trap," which results from our strong tendency to recall and be overly influenced by dramatic events from our past in making predictions about the future. The HBR article says, "We all, for example, exaggerate the probability of rare but catastrophic occurrences such as plane crashes because they get disproportionate attention in the media."

We also tend to possess a skewed memory about the frequency of various events. Professor March explains, "Decision makers tend to overlook important information about the base rates of events. Even though the greatest hitters in history were successful only about 40 percent of the time in their best seasons, there is a tendency to expect great baseball hitters to hit whenever they bat, because hitting is what is prototypical of great hitters. Similarly, although great designers produce exceptional designs only a few times in a lifetime, every failure of a great designer to produce a great design is experienced as surprise."

What can you do as a business leader to improve your ability to properly assess risk?

• Ability to overcome obstacles starts with the recognition that obstacles exist. Simple awareness of such tendencies as the overconfidence, prudence and recallability traps in all of us, including capable and experienced leaders, represents the first step. Recognizing that you might fall prey to these pitfalls in your decision making goes a long way toward enabling you to consciously avoid them.

• Challenge your own assumptions, especially when you feel confident that you are right. Ask yourself which incidents from your past are influencing your present decision. Seek information and input from many sources, especially when a high-risk decision is at stake. Ask peers and subordinates for their estimates and challenge them as well.

• Use facts in making your assessments. Don't rely on stories or anecdotes, but use hard data.

• When confronted with information that puts into question or even directly contradicts your own point of view, be open to the new input. Analyze your options honestly and with a willingness to be proven wrong.

With these simple steps, the probability that you will become a more skilled business forecaster is high. Your odds will never be perfect, but with hard work and sensitivity to obstacles, I predict great things for you and your team.

I have two wonderful teenage daughters. They are not perfect- nor, as they would be quick to point out, is their dad- but on the whole they are bright, energetic, industrious and competent, as are their many friends (with just a few exceptions). Unlike Socrates, I do not despair for a future that rests in the hands of the next generation. But I do know that my daughters have had a profoundly different life experience from me. As young people come into the workforce in increasing numbers, smart business leaders must learn to be generationally savvy in order to tap this vast potential and succeed over the long run.

While experts disagree on the exact cutoff of dates, generally, the different generational divides in America are defined as follows: Traditionalist were born before 1946; Baby Boomers were born from 1946 through 1964; Generation X (almost 50 million people) was born from 1965 through 1981; and Generation Y, or Millennials (more than 75 million people), were born from 1982 through 2000.

The Boomers (my cohort), almost 80 million strong, have dominated and held on to power in corporate America for much of recent history but, as Bob Dylan tells us, "the times they are a-changin.'" Forty percent of Boomers are currently eligible for retirement, and 77 million will retire from the workforce in the next 20 years. While some aging employees may continue to work either by choice or necessity, as consultant and author Sarah Sladek says, "It's going to be the largest turnover in human capital in human history, and many organizations are simply ill-prepared."

Savvy companies must come to grips with this pending reality, and determine the steps they will take to hire, train, lead, retain and market to the 125 million restless and ambitious members of Gens X and Y.

What are the qualities that characterize this younger generation of workers? The Xers are independent and don't want the boss looking over their shoulder. They want to be challenged by interesting work, enjoy opportunities to learn and grow on the job, and establish meaningful relationships with co-workers. They like to have fun, to be evaluated using clear metrics, and to be rewarded for achieving their goals. They appreciate flexibility, and will remain loyal to an employer as long as the employer acknowledges their contribution.

Millennials are confident high achievers, who also want to find meaning, flexibility, and strong relationships in their work. They have never known a world without the wonders of technology, and tend to communicate digitally rather than face-to-face. Their parents have been very involved in their lives- a recent survey by Michigan State found that 26 percent of employers said a parent had lobbied for a job in behalf of their Millennial child, while 31 percent said a parent had submitted a resume in behalf of a child.

Some critics call the Millennials "Slackers," and suggest they have been coddled by their parents, leading to a sense of entitlement. No doubt, the Millennials want to get ahead (and quickly), but a recent survey of the other generations found that only 7 percent felt the Millennials were prepared to succeed in today's workplace. Nevertheless, Millennials are talented, well-educated, and eager to make their mark on the world.

Given these general tendencies, what can employers do? Cargill has acknowledged the desire of Gens X and Y to learn and be challenged by creating a talent development program that rotates younger workers through a series of jobs during their first year, giving them exposure to different areas of the company.

At Best Buy, where one-sixth of the workforce is between 16 and 19 years old, employees have an opportunity to invest a portion of their paycheck into social causes that are important to them. Best Buy also encourages digital connectivity through its in-house social networking platform known as "Blue Shirt Nation." Employees are encouraged to submit questions and ideas to anyone in the company, all the way up to the CEO.

The accounting firm Deloitte has created a Mass Career Customization (MCC) program in response to employees clamoring for better work-life balance. With MCC, workers are allowed to focus not just on career goals, but life goals as well, and to pursue lateral as well as upward mobility. This represents a shift from the traditional "up-or-out" model, and encourages employees to find meaning in their work in balance with healthy personal lives.

And what of the Boomers? We are not done yet. Interestingly, data suggests that Boomers and Yers (who sandwich the significantly less numerous Gen Xers) share some important traits in common. A recent Harvard Business Review article states, "Both Boomers and Gen Ys want to contribute to society through their labor; seek flexible working arrangements; value social connections at work and loyalty to a company; and prize other rewards of employment over monetary compensation."

So, apparently, despite our very different life experiences, we Boomers share more in common with our Millennial children than meets the eye. The employers that are generationally savvy understand this reality and will succeed over the long haul by creating work environments that are fun, flexible and challenging to workers of every age group.

Meade and his counterpart, the extremely capable Robert E. Lee, commanding general of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, were locked in mortal combat. Several weeks earlier Lee had begun an invasion of Northern territory and the two mighty armies had met accidentally, but with unspeakable fury, at the little crossroads borough of Gettysburg in south central Pennsylvania. By the end of the second day, after much desperate fighting, the armies lay in stalemate, watching each other warily across contested ground like two wounded but still very dangerous animals.

General Meade had established his headquarters in a tiny white farmhouse owned by the widow Lydia Leister. Earlier on July 2 he had wired his superiors in Washington D.C. to let them know it was his intention to "remain in my present position tomorrow…" Nevertheless, that night he gathered his top generals (eleven in all) to listen to their assessment of the situation. They assembled in a room no larger than twelve by twelve feet, illuminated by a single candle, and which was soon filled with a thick cloud of cigar smoke.

The discussion began informally, and turned to the issues of the dire condition of the army and the lack of supplies. Meade was quiet, offering only an occasional comment, and intent on hearing what his team had to say before offering his own judgment. Finally, with Meade's concurrence, his chief of staff proposed that the group vote on three critical questions: 1. Should the army remain in its present position? 2. If the army remains, should it attack or await the enemy's attack? 3. If the decision is to await attack, how long should it wait? After much give and take, the generals voted unanimously to stay in their present position, await attack, and to wait for not much longer than a day.

One of the participants, General John Gibbon, wrote afterward, "I recollect there was great good feeling amongst the Corp Commanders at their agreeing so unanimously, and Gen. Meade announced, in a decided manner, 'Such then is the decision.'" The generals left the meeting clear in the understanding of their mission and united in their common purpose to defeat the enemy the next day, which they succeeded in doing. This stroke of genius- attaining clarity and consensus during a critical phase of the fight- on the part of George Meade may have (more than anything else he did over the three days) won the Battle of Gettysburg for the North.

What can modern-day business leaders learn from the historical example of Meade's collaborative decision making? First, Meade recognized the criticality of pulling his team together for a face-to-face consultation. Sometimes, there is simply no substitute for a meeting in person, and skilled leaders understand precisely when there is a need to bring everyone into the same room. Ironically, Meade's adversary General Lee did not gather his commanding generals together for a war council at any point during the battle, and a serious lack of coordination resulted.

Next, Meade initiated a process that was perceived by all of the participants as fair. While it is true that Meade had already indicated to higher command his preference for remaining in place, he did not disclose his point of view to those reporting to him. Instead, he remained quiet and listened respectfully with genuine interest to what the others had to say. Each person had a chance to weigh in to the discussion and to vote on a particular outcome. When the members of a team feel that they have been given ample opportunity to express their points of view and to influence their leader, even if they disagree with the final decision, they are much more inclined to buy into the ultimate direction.

Finally, Meade's council of war provided absolute clarity to every individual involved as to what was expected of him for the next day. The fact that the decisions made were unanimous helped in achieving this effect but, even if there had been disagreement, the rationale for the chosen decision was clear and unambiguous.

On the morning of July 3, after the famous meeting but before the decisive combat that would bring victory to his forces, Meade penned a hurried letter to his wife: "Dearest love, All well and going on well with the Army. We had a great fight yesterday, the enemy attacking and we completely repulsing them- both armies shattered…. Army in fine spirits and every one determined to do or die." This determination to defeat the Confederate enemy at all costs was in large part achieved as a result of George Meade's intuitive comprehension of the importance of effective collaboration when making a critical decision.

A recent New York Times front page story is entitled, "Hooked on Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price: Constant Use Takes a Toll on Concentration and Family Life." The article highlights the challenges faced by Kord Campbell, founder of an Internet start-up company. Campbell is so addicted to e-mail and the Internet that, "Even after he unplugs, he craves the stimulation he gets from his electronic gadgets. He forgets things like dinner plans, and he has trouble focusing on his family. His wife, Brenda, complains, 'It seems like he can no longer be fully in the moment.'"

Kord Campbell's saga- cautionary tale though it is- sounds familiar to most of us. Perhaps uncomfortably familiar. How much time do you spend sifting through and responding to e-mail on a daily basis? How much time surfing the web? How much do you love video games? Are you at a loss without your laptop, iPhone, or Blackberry? When was the last time you spent several hours, uninterrupted, working on a critical issue or problem?

In this age of astounding technical wizardry, smart business people still recognize that excessive devotion to our electronic lifelines can be a distraction and siphon time from more important matters. Though our ability to communicate has been vastly enhanced in recent times, our ability to focus has not. Awareness of this conundrum is key to enabling us to step back and carry out a very important leadership responsibility: taking time to concentrate.

Entrepreneur magazine published a piece in March 2010 called, "E-mail Is Making You Stupid." Business reporter Joe Robinson tells us that the average office worker checks e-mail 50 times and sends 77 instant messages daily. The typical employee loses more than two hours per day in productivity as a result of electronic interruptions. Computer chip maker Intel generated an estimate of how much money large companies lose annually from distractions caused by excessive e-mails: $2 billion. And the situation is not getting better. The E-Policy Institute warns that e-mail volume is growing by a rate of 66% per year. This electronic deluge not only costs companies dearly in productivity, it creates incredible stress, decreases job satisfaction, and diminishes creativity.

In his book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, technology author Nicholas Carr argues that the very way we think and experience the world has been dramatically altered by the Internet. Studies demonstrate that extended use of the Internet quickly and significantly alters the brain's neural pathways, creating a tendency to skim rather than read closely, become easily distracted, and learn only superficially. Research also demonstrates that people who read linear text- as in a book- comprehend and remember more than those who read text with numerous links- as on the Internet. Carr says, "Once I was a scuba diver in a sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski."

Some people claim to be able to manage myriad electronic inputs and remain highly productive because they are "multitaskers." Unfortunately, their imagined ability is a myth. Joe Robinson says, "The cult of multitasking would have us believe that compulsive message checking is the behavior of an always-on, hyper-productive worker. But it's not. It's the sign of a distracted employee who misguidedly believes he can do multiple tasks at one time. Science disagrees. People may be able to chew gum and walk at the same time, but they can't do two or more thinking tasks simultaneously."

Critics point to studies that suggest that some cognitive tasks, like visual perception and sustained attention, actually improve as a result of using screen-based technologies. Many scientists, however, suggest that more brain activity is not necessarily better brain activity. Developmental psychologist Patricia Greenfield asserts, "every medium develops some cognitive skills at the expense of others." She acknowledges that use of the Web has led to the "widespread development of visual-spatial skills," but simultaneously we have lost "deep processing" capabilities that are foundational to "mindful knowledge acquisition, inductive analysis, critical thinking, imagination, and reflection."
Some companies understand the new reality and are fighting back. Intel has implemented "Quiet Time" at two of its locations. During designated Quiet Time, no one is allowed to engage in messaging or phone contact. Employees are expected to concentrate and work quietly on their own. Companies such as Deloitte & Touche and U.S. Cellular have mandated restricted e-mail use and encouraged face-to-face meetings. They have also tried such ideas as "no e-mail Friday."

What can individuals do to carve out time to concentrate and get work done?

• Check e-mail only a few times daily, rather than continuously; let people know that you will check messages at 8 a.m., noon, and 4 p.m.
• Whenever possible, meet face-to-face or talk by phone as the preferred mode of communication.
• Prioritize your tasks for the day, and set aside time to focus quietly on those issues; don't simply respond to whatever is in front of you.
• Don't send an e-mail unless absolutely necessary, and resist the temptation to copy people that have no "need to know."
• Work offsite from time to time if your employer and work situation allows it.

Recognition of the potential adverse effects of the electronic bombardment that we all weather on a daily basis is the first step in dealing with the problem. Consciously and consistently creating time to focus and concentrate is the solution.