What’s an email of dread? It’s when you send an email about a person to someone else, but you accidentally send it to the person you were writing about? Sorta like what happened to me today! Here’s the scoop. I gave a personality assessment to the small staff of a client last week in preparation for a staff development session last Friday. By coincidence, my friend Sophie (names changed to protect the innocent) was telling me that her friend Charlotte recently started dating a man, we’ll call him James, who was to be in the session. Since I just received this James’ assessment results I sent them to my friend…or so I thought. Instead, I hit reply to James: “Hey, check out Charlotte’s new boyfriend’s results. Don’t share J.” I did not even realize my mistake until this morning when I received an email from my client explaining to me why James was not in attendance for our Friday session. As I realized what I had done a feeling of dread washed over and consumed me. Embarrassment. Chagrin. My ego quickly jumped into action trying to make excuses to explain away my behavior but failed. My mood today started great but was quickly hijacked. “OMG! What should I do about this?” I panicked. Here’s what I did:

1. I owned my behavior and told my ego to chill. “This is real. It’s on me. I did this.”
2. I wanted to call James immediately but first I needed to collect my thoughts. I called Sophie. Of course, she never received the email. I explained the situation. This helped me get my bearings.
3. As soon as I was clear, I called the James and apologized. I described what I did (which he already knew, obviously) and explained why it was wrong of me. Fortunately, there was nothing demeaning or negative in my email (but that’s not always the case with emails of dread). It’s important to address the other person’s concerns—it truly must be about them in such cases. James’ concern was who I intended to send it to and why I intended to send it. In this case, fortunately, both were benign reasons. My breech was that I should have asked him if I could share that information first. But many emails of dread are not as tidy.
4. I reiterated my apology and James graciously accepted. I still felt like there was more I should do but there is a point when an apology gets creepy (“Please, I’d like it if you accepted my house as atonement.”)
5. I apologized to my client. While I didn’t wrong her directly, my actions created collateral damage for her. Part of cleaning up spilled milk is to also look for splashes that may not be at the point of impact.
6. I committed to learn from my mistake—what other errant emails might I potentially send and how can avoid even worse follies in the future?
7. Do something productive (like write a blog entry). It’s been very difficult to get back on track with my day. Everybody on the planet must think I’m a bad person and every person I interact with for the next week will look upon me with scorn…”Shun…Shun.”

Here’s what I did not to do:

1. Excuse my behavior. Blame someone else. Ignore the situation entirely hoping nobody would notice.
2. Neither did I confess my sins to the world, crawl repentantly on my knees until they bled or tattoo a scarlet letter to my forehead. We have to forgive ourselves.
3. Quit. Correcting a mistake with a mistake is no correction at all.

The email of dread is just one of the follies we can commit. Unlike the many mistakes we make that go beyond our notice, however, they give us a chance to account for ourselves and become better for it. But Damn, I wish it never happened in the first place! What’s your “Email of Dread” experience?

Positive Leadership will present a pre-conference workshop at the 2010 Community Leadership Association annual conference: Blazing the Trail for Tomorrow’s Leaders Today.

The session takes place on Thursday, April 22nd and all attendees are invited to sign up.

Positive Leadership (PL) is a curriculum solution for community leadership programs across the country. Here are some of the benefits that program directors may be interesting in knowing:

• Implement a coherent leadership curriculum seamlessly into your existing program. The concepts of PL fit beautifully with topic sessions you already present: education, arts, business, city governance, etc.
• Your participants will not have seen this model before because it is currently exclusive to community leadership programs. PL provides your program with a unique offering they could not get anywhere else. This will help you add value to your prospective participants.
• PL is inclusive of participants from business, government, education, non-profit, ministry, etc. Unlike most leadership models/books that are written for business, PL is about community leadership and applies to all contexts equally.
• You will be provided with all the necessary materials to easily adapt into your program, including curriculum, implementation guidebook, PowerPoints, discussion guides and full support from the author.
• Pricing structure scales to the size of your program and is less than the cost of buying a typical leadership book for each participant.

Positive Leadership has been piloted for several years to ensure positive impact. It is currently used in several community leadership programs around the country. By attending this session you will leave with everything you need to know about implementing this model.

Feedback from community leadership staff:

“The Positive Leadership Model has been an excellent curriculum for us to use here at Leadership Tulsa. One of its key strengths is that it has universal application to many leadership situations including corporate, governmental and volunteer. Also, it offers a fresh perspective that is not duplicated by other training programs that people encounter in corporate or university settings. Most importantly, we are able to use it as a jumping off place for deep conversations that help draw our participants together in shared understanding and reflection.” Wendy Thomas, Executive Director, Leadership Tulsa

“Leadership Saint Paul has used the Positive Leadership model developed by Adam Seaman for two years. Our program has improved because of this added dimension of self reflection on leadership styles. Some participants have even brought this exciting content into their own organization to share with their teams. I highly recommend the Positive Leadership for your community leadership program!” Bev Fritz, Director Leadership Saint Paul (Minnesota).

Feedback from program participants:

• I have personally used some of the activities in my home with my sister and husband. This model is really a way to understand and live your personal and professional lives.
• I found the readings to be interesting, well documented and thought provoking.
• I gained something from every chapter. My two favorite chapters were resilience and gratitude.
• The model offered insightful and valuable ways to imagine all kinds of things as “leaderly”. In other words, it allowed me to imagine myself as a leader even if I’m not actively taking traditional leadership roles.
• All aspects of the model were relevant in some way – in life and for leadership roles.
• They are so relevant to one’s professional life.
• The things learned could be applied to all aspects of life – not just work.
• This was a really strong part of the program and I feel like I really walked away with something tangible to which I will refer. Very appropriate, motivational, informative with meat!
• It provided a structure for some serious introspection. It also provides an impetus for starting great discussions with my peers in my own organization. We have talked about how we can improve our leadership.
• It makes “leadership” and its components more tangible. So often we all hear, “I don’t know what makes a good leader, but I know one when I see one”.

I thought was a moving portrayal of Sponsorship. It’s the actor Joseph Fiennes (brother of actor Ralph Fiennes). He’s giving a speech after a visit to Angola. It’s just 4 and 1/2 minutes, but here’s an example of someone using his social force to bring attention to an issue that’s important to him.

I like using video clips of other people to illustrate what the capacities look like. It’s one thing to read about it in my chapters. I also realize that many of you need more than “theory.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX1EggUHfSc

I believe you will find this a worthwhile investment of your time if you would take just a few minutes to watch the YouTube clip I provide below.

A little background first. In 1969, the United States Senate Subcommittee on Communications conducted hearings on the future funding of PBS. President Nixon wanted to cut the proposed $20 million grant in half. Senator John Pastori is the chair of this subcommittee. His goal was to support Nixon’s position and you will see from the first moments of the clip his seemingly annoyed, antagonistic stance. In Pastori’s mind it was a done deal and the hearing was just a formality before lowering the axe.

I want you to notice how his demeanor changed. But more importantly, I’d like you to observe the power of Fred Rogers’ authenticity (yes, Mr. Rogers) in the face of opposition. Imagine how you would feel sitting in Mr. Rogers’ chair. Imagine what it would be like to be in Senator Pastori’s chair too.

We think charisma, eloquence, bravado are persuasive. Perhaps that’s true. But watch authenticity in action!

After watching the video, consider the following:

• Does one need to have authority in order to conduct social force?
• Can an upstart child psychologist have more social force than the President of the United States?
• I want feedback on this. If this video/topic resonates with you say why. If you disagree, express it. What thoughts have you had on authenticity in your own life?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEuEUQIP3Q

*I first experienced this video as a result of attending an Egonomics seminar and want to give credit to the folks at Marcum/Smith for introducing me to it. www.marcumsmith.com

In this beginning of a new year, indeed a new decade, people view it as a time to wipe the slate clean and declare resolutions. Another example of goal setting behavior is the plentitude of strategic plans.

Through my coaching and consulting work I have worked with many individuals and groups in the formulation of plans—work I’ve come to love and loathe. My favorite aspect of planning is that it engages the best parts of people. As we think about the future we seek to correct past errors and consider what “getting things right” looks like. Looking forward provides people with hope and positive ambition. Truly, I’ve learned that what people aspire to be is responsible, effective and noble.

My least favorite part of planning is what experience has taught me: plans fail. Not all the time, but most of the time. That doesn’t sound very positive, I realize. Yet, the reality must be addressed. Well meaning plans take a back seat to present urgencies and ingrained habits. As Eisenhower once observed “Plans are useless but planning is essential.” His statement preserves the value of planning even if the plans themselves do not work out. Plans provide a glimpse of what we want and they pull us forward, even if they aren’t fully implemented.

Here are two big reasons plans fail and what can be done to improve the chance for success:

1. Plans demand more time and energy. When I start strategic planning with leadership teams, the first thing I say is “be prepared to add a part time job on top of your full time job. If you do not, then this plan will fail.” It’s not a threat so much as a promise. Every plan calls for new initiatives, things that have not yet been done but need to be. The problem is that we already have full plates of demands and responsibilities. I know a woman, who, whenever she buys something new (clothing, books) she has to get rid of something she already owns. Apply this same principle to your plans. For every initiative you add, remove an inferior initiative already on your plate. For example, if you plan to exercise for an hour a day, then commit to cancelling an activity that you already spend an hour doing. I once read that Proctor and Gamble would identify their lowest performing product line and replace it with a newer, promising one—even if that lowest performing one was profitable. The idea is to channel existing resources into potentially higher yielding pursuits.

2. Plans are often inauthentic from the start. Many plans are born of “shoulds” and “oughts” instead of following the beat of one’s own drummer. I recently read research about 2 types of goals: “self-concordant” vs. “introjected.” (by Kennon M. Sheldon at University of Missouri-Columbia). Self-concordant goals are those that are inspired by a person’s deep and true personal interests. Contrast that with introjected goals, which are external “shoulds” that we have internalized. Understanding these two types of goals helps you discern between goals are truly aligned with your deep desires and interests from those that you weren’t truly committed to from the beginning. It’s often hard to determine, for example, if the goal of “getting fit” is something you truly want for yourself or if you have internalized society’s pressure to look a certain way. There is a big difference in how one engages a goal that is self-concordant vs. one that is introjected. Self-concordant individuals were shown to be more positive, self-actualized, open, engaged and resilient in the face of obstacles. While these 2 types of goals seem to more about individuals, I believe these concepts also apply to teams and organizations. In the language of Positive Leadership, self-concordant goals are those that are consistent with a clear and authentic purpose (Capacity #2). Sheldon describes three abilities to help people be more self-concordant

1. Ability to distinguish between enduring values and interests from momentary whims.
2. Ability to distinguish things that are truly “me” from those that are “not me”—or goals represent one’s internal interests and values from goals that represent others’ interests and values.
3. Ability to distinguish the “what” of goals from the “why” of goals and focus more on the “why.”

The first challenge describes the problem of human bandwidth. It would be great if we worked that same as a car’s gas gauge. We could see how much fuel we currently have, compare that with the distance we need to travel and determine if we have enough to get us there. Unfortunately, we are not designed that way. It is difficult for us to know how much time, energy and creativity we have (the fuel) and it is often difficult to gauge the distance we must travel because achievements do not come in the form of mile markers (the destination).

The second challenge is one of will. Some goals are consistent with our internal values and longings and they provide wind to our sails. Others are not consistent and may actually be opposed to what we truly want to accomplish. Those require us to tack back and forth against the current. Yes, we are able to “buckle down” and do the things that we must. But we all have our breaking points where we’ve had enough of doing things because we have to or somebody said that we must. Goals that truly reflect our purpose and passions have a much greater chance for success and provide deeper satisfaction.