Tom Gray works with us on using technology strategically. We are often approached by individuals and companies that have a “new idea.” More often than not, they are using new technology in old ways. These new ideas turn out, at best, to be incremental improvements.

“If I was in high school or college right now, I’d be starting as many new internet companies as I could in search of the next Facebook,” commented Tom.

I agreed. The cost of entry is low, and younger entrepreneurs are more likely to use new technology in new ways. Because they have less experience, they also tend to have fewer boundaries and expectations about what can and can’t be done.

Of course you don’t have to be a young entrepreneur to think that way. I believe some of the best leadership is about attempting what hasn’t been done before. Managers can handle the incremental improvements; leaders are those who can take people to new places that they hadn’t even thought about going.

Is it possible too read too much? Yes, if reading prevents you from thinking.

Passive reading can be a substitute for the harder work of thinking and learning. We fool ourselves if we think a large input of ideas will necessarily benefit us. Until we digest those ideas and ultimately apply them, then reading is of little value.

Abraham Lincoln was a leader known for deep reflection. His law partner and biographer William Herndon said that “Lincoln read less and thought more than any man in his sphere in American.”

When Lincoln was President there was far less published than there is today; still, he could have chosen to be a voracious reader. His strength wasn’t in the limits of his reading but the depth of his thinking.

What can you eliminate in your schedule today that will enable you to do more thinking?

Thoureau said “Don’t read the Times; read the eternities.”

He knew the value of timeless truths. (And I recognize the phrase “timeless truths” is redundant–all truths are timeless, but we need to be remnded of that sometimes).  Circumstances change but truths endure. In an age of management philosophy du jour, make sure the underlying principles of your work as a leader are sound.

I had lunch with the mayor of a major city yesterday. He is a democrat. He is also innovative, charming and erudite.

He said he targeted getting big companies into his city because he believed they could be generous donors to worthwhile causes and charities.

“Mayor,” I said, “that sounds like a Republican sentiment.”

“That’s why my party calls me a bad Democrat,” he replied with a grin.

When it is good to be bad? This is an example. In the current two party political spectrum bad democrats and bad republicans often end up as centrists, or social liberals and fiscal conservatives or visa versa.

Frankly, I like these mold-breaking departures. I’m tired of both parties, and I belong to one of ‘em.

In leadership, it is easy to fall into a category that can trap you as well as define you. The Mayor is, in my opinion, an excellent leader because he refuses to let that happen. He is also a world-class consensus builder who has brought people of different views and beliefs together to do great things for the community.

Too bad he isn’t running for president.

Thanks to my friend Joe Scarlett for sending the following:

During this political season let’s be reminded of these wise words:

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

Who said it? Abraham Lincoln

We often use “voice” to refer to a leader’s message and style. Today I’m referring literally to your voice as used in your ability to speak.

One of my dearest friends has lost his voice. He is a professional speaker in the advanced stages of cancer and side-effects from the disease have left him unable to speak above a whisper. It is possible the condition is permanent.

He continues to make some appearances. He informs groups in advance about his condition, but they often choose to bring him in anyway and play videos of his past presentations, allowing some time at the end for some whispered wisdom.

His take? “Whispering makes people listen better. It has been a blessing. I wish I had realized this sooner.”

I know he wishes he had his old voice back, but he doesn’t. Instead he’s resolved to make the most of the voice he has left.

He inspires me.

Now that it appears Obama has locked up the democratic nomination, it is important to give careful consideration to his qualifications, not just his ideas (and the same is true for McCain).

Although a political activist prior, he was first elected to public office in 1996. From first elected office to president in 12 years? Doesn’t seem right to me. Think about it. (I’m sure some of my readers will be able to enlighten my about other recent presidents who have had less experience when elected. Feel free to let me know.)

Obama is eloquent, I’ll give him that. He is woefully informed on business and international policy (my opinion, but made after carefully considering his positions). In a perfect world a president should have both style and substance; in an imperfect world, I’ll take substance over style any day.

“Motivational speaker” is often used negatively when substance is perceived to be lacking, regardless of style. Charisma can be used for good or bad. Focusing only on speaking ability and charisma is a poor way to elect a leader.

At the end of the day, you might still like what Obama stands for and more importantly, what you think he can do if elected president. I’ve got no quibble. Disagreement is part of the political process. But whenever it comes time to vote or support any leader, consider the substance of his or her experience and not just the style of his or her communication skills. Experience is important.

Improvement without change? It doesn’t happen.

Not all change is an improvement, but all improvement requires change. I’ve been involved in an effort to improve some significant processes within an organization. Most everyone want to improve the processes; few are willing to actually change them.

Recently someone threw up the old “change for the sake of change is not good leadership.” That’s true, but not always relevant. Often that phrase is a crutch for people unwilling to change or who are only willing to look at the downside risks.

It reminds me of the old adage “everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.”

Everybody wants their team, company, family, organization, etc. to get better–just don’t ask them to change anything.

Improvement without change is a myth, and one of the hardest jobs of leadership is dealing with those unwilling to accept it.

My friend John Maxwell has another excellent book just out called Leadership Gold. In it he contradicts a popular leadership myth: if it is lonely at the top, you’re not doing it right.

Effective leaders should be surrounding themselves with good people and building strong relationships. While there are decisions that ultimately the leader must make and make alone, he or she should never isolate nor burn relational bridges.

What’s the point of rising to the top if you can’t take good people with you? And why labor alone when there is so much talent available, willing and able to help?

It shouldn’t be lonely at the top.

James Cagney never said “You dirty rat” in any of his films. Nor did Humphrey Bogart say “Play it again, Sam” in the movie Casablanca.

The Caesar salad isn’t named after Julius Caesar. It was named for its creator, Caesar Gardini who first prepared it in his restaurant in Mexico.

The cashew isn’t technically a nut (ever see a cashew shell?). It is classified as the seed of a fruit called the cashew apple. And speaking of seeds, that what a coffee bean really is–not a bean, a seed.

These entertaining facts point to a bigger question: how much of the important things we believe to be true really aren’t? I’ve read–and been unable to source–that 15% of what we are certain happened didn’t; that we’re recalling events incorrectly. While this might explain a few disagreements with your spouse, it should also be reason to pause next time you feel like forcefully advancing your point about what really happened (even if 15% may not be completely accurate).

I’m not advocating a life spent waffling. I am suggesting that we’d all be well served to dig a little deeper into our beliefs and opinions. Obviously much if not most of what we believe is well-founded and true, but the minority of our beliefs that are erroneous can be potentially ruinous to decision-making, relationships and even effective leadership.

We live in the age of easy answers. As much as I love the convenience of the internet, I remind myself that just because it appears on the web doesn’t make it true. Cads and liars can use the net just as easily as you and me.