February, 2005, Volume 9, Number 5

CONTENTS

Confessing Error:  Can a Leader Admit Confusion and Still Lead? 

Global Governance: The View from the 2005 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland 

Creativity and Conviction:  Wharton Leadership Conference in Philadelphia on June 9, 2005

Ethics, Integrity, and Character:  The Leadership Excellence Summit in Annapolis on July 27-29, 2005

Leadership in the Information Age:  The U.S. Naval Academy Leadership Conference on January 26-28, 2005


CONFESSING ERROR:  Can a Leader Admit Confusion and Still Lead?

By Kim Marshall

“[C]onfusion is not a weakness to be ashamed of but a regular and inevitable condition of leadership,” say Barry Jentz and Jerry Murphy in this intriguing article in the new issue of the journal, Phi Delta Kappan.  They describe a five-step process for taking advantage of “Oh, no!” moments to “embrace confusion,” open up better lines of communication, test old assumptions and values against changing realities, and develop more creative approaches to problem solving.  

The authors present a case study of a school leader hit with unexpectedly low test scores (25 percent of eighth graders are non-readers!), followed by demands from parents and community groups to do something and defensive reactions from teachers who are not about to be blamed for poor student achievement. Like others in this kind of predicament, the leader feels under tremendous pressure to act and churns with the following thoughts and emotions: 

            • Shame and loss of face: “I’ll look like a fool!”

            • Panic and loss of control: “I’ve let this get out of hand!”

            • Incompetence and incapacitation: “I don’t know what I’m doing!”

            • Shame: “I’m at a loss here. I’m not fit to lead.” 

The last thing the leader is inclined to do is admit confusion, which seems like weakness. 

Looking at this situation from the point of view of the school leader’s subordinates, the last thing they want is a boss who: 

            • Instinctively blames circumstances or other people when things go wrong;

            • Claims to be open to input but sees feedback as criticism and doesn’t listen;

            • Hates uncertainty and opts for action even when totally confused;

            • Believes that anything less than take-charge decision making is weak;

            • Habitually resorts to the “art of the bluff” to avoid looking stupid. 

Yet when leaders are disoriented and confused by developments that just don’t make sense and have no idea what to do, these tendencies often take hold. After all, leaders are supposed to know what to do! In a crisis, they tend to deny their confusion and reflexively and unilaterally impose quick fixes to solve the problem. These kind of shoot-from-the-hip decisions, say Jentz and Murphy, “rarely address underlying causes. More often, they lead to bad decision making, undermine crucial communication with colleagues and subordinates, and make managers seem distant and out of touch. In the long run, managers who hide their confusion also damage their organizations’ ability to learn from experience and grow.”  

How can a leader get out of this box? Jentz and Murphy suggest a five-step process for turning confusion into a resource, maintaining your authority, avoiding premature closure, and enlisting your team in finding the best way to move forward: 

Step 1 – Embrace your confusion. “When confronted with disorienting problems,” they write, “you need to do the one thing you least want to do – acknowledge to yourself that you are confused and that you see this condition as a weakness… You might take a deep breath and say to yourself, ‘I’m confused and that makes me feel weak.’ Paradoxically, fully embracing where you start will not lead you to wallow in your confusion, but rather frees you to move beyond your inner conflict.” Doing this is difficult, and Jentz and Murphy recommend developing a personal mantra for crisis moments, for example, “Leadership is not about pretending to have all the answers but about having the courage to search with others to discover solutions.”  

Step 2 – Assert your need to make sense. Sit down with your colleagues and say something like, “This new information just doesn’t make sense to me. Before I can make a decision, I need help in understanding this situation and our options for dealing with it.” It’s critically important to ‘fess up to your confusion: “Unless you unambiguously assert, with conviction and without apology, your sense of being confused, others will fulfill your worst expectations – concluding that you are weak – and they will be less willing to engage in a shared process of interpersonal learning.” If the leader is faking confidence and competence as the ship goes down, the crew will be in no mood to admit their own distress and find new ways to plug the leaks. 

Step 3 – Structure the interaction. “Without skipping a beat,” say Jentz and Murphy, “you must next provide a structure for the search for new bearings that both asserts your authority and creates the conditions for others to join you.” The leader needs to state the purpose for the joint inquiry, lay out specific steps to fulfill that purpose, provide a timetable, and identify the criteria and methods by which decisions will be made. These actions show team members that although you have admitted you are confused, you are not incapacitated; you may not know what course to take, but you know the next step, you are “asking for directions” (difficult for some guys!) but you are still in charge of a process that will produce a clear outcome, and you give suggestions about the type of data you need to clarify and resolve the problem. 

Jentz and Murphy illustrate this point with another case study of a leader in a pickle. The alarm sounds in a nuclear power plant, signaling that something is seriously wrong. The manager makes an educated guess about what the problem might be, but then a team member reports a piece of data from the reactor that doesn’t fit the manager’s hypothesis – in fact, it’s the exact opposite of what it should be. The manager is stunned and sits starting at the console as the team anxiously awaits a decision. Following Step 3, here is what the manager might say: “Listen up! We’ve got two minutes, and then you’ll get my decision. Between then and now, I’m going to talk about what’s got me confused, and you are going to give me new information, feedback, or explanations for what is going on.” 

Step 4 – Listen reflectively and learn. As your team begins to respond with data, ideas, and push-back, the leader needs to shift gears and engage in what Thomas Gordon called “active listening” – putting yourself in other people’s shoes and, with an open mind, really listening to what they are saying (often reflecting it back to be sure you have heard it accurately). For example:  

“You seem to be saying that x caused y. Do I have that right?”  

“You’re torn between two explanations. On one hand, you think x accounts for z; on the other hand, you think y does?”  

“So you’re angry because I am saying one thing and yet doing quite another?”  

Reflective listening doesn’t come naturally and takes lots of practice, like hitting a backhand in a fast-paced tennis game.  

The opposite of active listening is what bad listeners do all the time: reflexive responding. This happens when people immediately judge the worth of what was said and say whether they agree or disagree. “This typically leads to a confrontation, not a joint inquiry” say Jentz and Murphy. “Indeed, our habit of responding in kind is such a powerful force that it has a name: the Norm of Reciprocity. (‘If you don’t listen to me, I’ll be damned if I’ll listen to you.’)” 

Step 5 – Openly process your effort to make sense. Having heard what your colleagues have to say (some of which may be puzzling and upsetting), it’s important to think through your responses out loud. This works much better than what we usually do, which is think it through silently and then announce our decision. Here are some examples of open processing:  

“That’s news to me. I haven’t heard that before.”  

“That really throws me. How did you get to that from what you were saying?”  

“That helps me a lot by pointing out x.”

“When you find the courage to externalize your intellectual process,” say Jentz and Murphy, “you invite others to engage in interpersonal learning. Working together, you can discover the limitations of one another’s thinking – limitations that you cannot know as long as you process privately.” 

Returning to the case of the bad test scores, here is how these five steps might be applied. The leader meets privately with all parties (administrators, teachers, union representatives, board members) and asserts his or confusion about the test scores. Listening reflectively to accusations, explanations, and demands from all sides (More phonics! Remedial reading for all students! A “shape up” memo to teachers!), he or she argues that they should not take action until they understand the mystery of such low scores. He or she uses a similar approach with parents, media, and community leaders (although with them he is not quite as open about his confusion). The leader then sets up a committee to analyze student achievement data and evaluate competing explanations for the results. The group is confused at first; none of their assumptions or preconceptions seem to explain the low test scores. Having admitted their confusion, members of the group keep working and finally figure out that:  

Most of the non-reading eighth graders entered the district after third grade, missing the district’s exemplary phonics program. 

The non-readers all come from a particularly impoverished neighborhood. 

As students moved from one grade to another, remedial services were totally uncoordinated and these students fell through the cracks.

Based on this deeper and more nuanced understanding of the problem, the team implements a series of targeted programs that brings about significant gains in student achievement the following year. 

Jentz and Murphy conclude with a broader message for leaders: “In the 21^st century, as rapid change makes confusion a defining characteristic of management, the competence of managers will be measured not only by what they know but increasingly by how they behave when they lose their sense of direction and become confused. Organizational cultures that cling to the ideal of an all-knowing, omni-competent executive will pay a high cost in time, resources, and progress, and will be sending the message to managers that it is better to hide their confusion than to address it openly and constructively… Managers can be confused yet still be able to exercise competent leadership by structuring a process of reflective inquiry and action.”  

Note:  Kim Marshall, a former school principal in Boston and the author of several books and many articles on teaching and education, is a consultant on leadership and education.  Presently he is a leadership coach to 15 new principals in New York City, working for the urban principal training non-profit, New Leaders for New Schools; and he publishes the Marshall Memo, from which this article is drawn.  Kim can be reached at kim.marshall8@verizon.net.   The article by Barry Jentz and Jerry Murphy is entitled “Embracing Confusion: What Leaders Do When They Don’t Know What to Do” and can be found in Phi Delta Kappan, January, 2005, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 358-366.
 

Global Governance: The View from the 2005 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland 

The establishment of good governance is crucial for companies as well as countries, and it must become a major priority. Recognizing this reality, CEOs and political leaders at the World Economic Forum held last month in Davos, Switzerland, paid considerable attention to this issue. Michael Useem, who moderated a workshop on the subject at the Forum, provides an inside view of the discussion.  This article is adapted from the February 23-March 8, 2005 issue of Knowledge@Wharton.

“Taking Responsibility for Tough Choices” served as the organizing theme for the 2005 annual meeting of the World Economic Forum held at the end of January in Davos, Switzerland. A first step for making tough choices, according to many of the nearly 3,000 attending the forum, is the establishment of good governance. 

Malaysia's deputy prime minister Najib Razak suggested that national growth required “good governance” based on “un-corruptible leaders.” Pakistan's prime minister Shaukat Aziz observed that the effective distribution of development aid depended upon “good governance.” Former U.S. president Bill Clinton noted that peace came to North Ireland once the conflicting parties embraced the requisites of good governance, including “shared decision making” and “shared responsibilities.”  

Corporate Disclosure

Good rules of the game are essential for companies too, according to many who spoke at a packed session in Davos on “Corporate Disclosure.” But while the new rules imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 on U.S.-listed companies are generally viewed as useful, downsides have been felt as well. 

On the affirmative side, one session participant reported that he had witnessed a “tremendous amount of behavioral change” among firms in the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley. A culture of personal responsibility, he said, has been driven far more deeply in many firms. Executives are consequently more certain of their own results, and equity investors are more confident in what executives report. 

An institutional investor said he welcomed, in particular, the greater discipline that Sarbanes-Oxley has forced on financial reporting, resulting in more consistency and greater transparency in areas ranging from pension assets to acquisition accounting. Another participant reminded the audience that as investors become more confident in a company's reported earnings, they will pay higher multiples for the company's stock. In the final analysis, observed a third participant, “there can't be any substitute for honesty in auditing and governance.”

Other participants cautioned, however, that the focus on regulatory compliance may have come at a significant price. Companies are devoting too much time to Sarbanes-Oxley, complained several, and too little to growth. Still others warned of a chilling effect on business innovation. An institutional investor confirmed that in the wake of Enron's and WorldCom's collapses, his investment firm has become very sensitive to reputational risk. If even a hint of scandal is in the air, he said, his firm now sells “instantly” and asks questions later. 

Regulators and prosecutors are usurping the role of non-executive directors in monitoring companies, complained one participant, and she urged that directors reassert their rightful role. To that end, another participant urged that governing boards redouble their efforts to 1) master the complexity of their companies' operations, 2) smoke out creativity in reporting, 3) reduce their coziness with management, and 4) understand the tough choices that executives must make. But others felt that the power pendulum has already been swinging the other way. “Responsibility is being shifted back to the board,” concluded one participant, “where it already belonged.” 

With the U.S. leading the way in governance reform with Sarbanes-Oxley, a non-U.S. participant observed that his country has a bad habit of adopting American regulation and then making it more draconian. Still, despite the evident downsides, many saw the cross-national transfer of corporate disclosure practices as a move in the right direction. In the end, it should help spread consistent governance practices around the world, making for greater harmonization in standards and a more global equity market.    

A More Demanding Boardroom

A number of practical steps for improving company governance in any national setting emerged from a workshop on “A More Demanding Boardroom.” The workshop focused on the intensifying demands on governing boards to take greater responsibility for tough decisions. “Stung by scandal,” stated the session's call, “corporate boards face pressure from shareholders and governments to become more involved in the day-to-day management of companies.”

A panel of 17 discussion leaders and several dozen other participants — from countries ranging from Belgium and Germany to Kuwait and Mexico — developed a set of guidelines for improving governance in light of investor and regulator pressure. The discussion leaders included: Robert W. Alspaugh, International CEO, KPMG; Matthew W. Barrett, chairman, Barclays Bank Plc; Clemens Börsig, member of the board, Deutsche Bank AG; Michael D. Capellas, president and CEO, MCI, Inc.; John Evans, general secretary, Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD; Mark Foster, group CEO, Accenture; Orit Gadiesh, chairman, Bain & Co., Inc.; Robert R. Glauber, chairman and CEO, NASD; Oswald J. Grübel, CEO, Credit Suisse Group; Reuel J. Khoza, chairman, Eskom; Rakesh Khurana, professor, Harvard Business School; Wayne W. Murdy, chairman and CEO, Newmont Mining Corp.; John A. Quelch, senior associate dean, International Development, Harvard Business School; Paul C. Reilly, chairman and CEO, Korn/Ferry International; Thomas A. Russo, vice-chairman, Lehman Brothers; Laura D. Tyson, dean, London Business School; Lutgart Van den Berghe, director, Belgian Directors' Institute, and Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School; and Daniel Vasella, chairman and CEO, Novartis International.

The discussion leaders first identified four areas of concerted action for the board, and groups of 10 to 15 leaders and participants then identified a host of steps for good governance within each of the four: 1) setting company strategy, 2) overseeing compliance and risk, 3) structuring the board, and 4) planning executive succession.

Setting Company Strategy: Non-executive directors cannot be expected to fully appreciate their company's strategy, but they must understand the principles underlying its business model. To build their understanding, directors should ask eight questions of management:

1. How does the company make money?

2. Where does its cash flow come from, and where is it going?

3. How is the firm faring against its competitors?

4. If the firm is doing far better or far worse than its competitors, why is that?

5. Does the company have in place a CEO succession plan?

6. How is the company going to grow, what rate is expected, and can the company afford to grow that quickly?

7. Is the firm living within its means?

8. How well does bad news reach the board, and what can be done to improve its upward flow? 

The discussion group concluded that if the non-executive directors did not fully comprehend management's answer to the eight questions, the questions should all be asked again. If the directors still do not understand the answers, they should then get off the board. 

Overseeing Compliance and Risk: The accounting problems that brought down Enron and WorldCom, and recent settlements holding their directors personally liable for the failures, have intensified the need for directors to be particularly vigilant in the areas of compliance and risk. 

For the moment, only small adjustments can be expected in the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Companies should learn to use the act's provisions to advantage, especially Section 404, which requires companies to assess and guarantee their internal controls over financial reporting. By driving the Sarbanes-Oxley principles deeply into all aspects of a firm's operations, more reliable results and fewer surprises should result. 

The personal liability that directors face in board service is increasingly of concern, and companies should directly address this issue if they are to attract the quality directors they need. But the liability question also requires special attention once directors are on board. If directors are preoccupied with minimizing personal risk and protecting their own assets against shareholder litigation, they may come to focus too much on private concerns and too little on shareholder returns.  

Four steps are required for effective director oversight of compliance and risk:

1. Directors should become more deeply engaged with company plans and executive decisions.

2. The audit committee should shoulder full responsibility for overseeing audit issues so that the remainder of the board can devote its time to other pressing issues.

3. The board should consider creating an “operating exposure committee” that would focus on what could go wrong, thereby relieving the audit committee and the full board of this essential but burdensome task.

4. The board should insist on high ethical standards throughout the company so that employees at all levels will recognize and root out malfeasance.  

Structuring the Board:  The proper composition and organization of the board have become more vital in an era of greater board responsibility and engagement. To that end, the board should conduct an annual evaluation of its own performance and compensation.

In selecting new directors to join the board, the nominations committee will want to ensure that the new directors are highly competent, work well with one another and the chief executive, and bring functional, gender, and international diversity to the boardroom. Non-executive directors should come with no conflicts of interest, either evident or perceived.

 Critical devices for ensuring a well structured board include:

• Informational updates to the board, both during and between board meetings
• Involvement of directors in educational programs on corporate governance
• Formal evaluation of the board chair with feedback for improvement  
• A written charter with explicit expectations set forward for directors and executives, and a formal delegation of authority to management.

Planning Executive Succession: The most important single decision taken by the board is the selection of the chief executive. To ensure that the right replacement is ready when the time comes, the board should:

• Initiate succession planning at the first board meeting after a new CEO is appointed
• Include an updating of succession planning at every board meeting
• Establish clear metrics of executive performance
• Evaluate executives one and two levels below the CEO.

Whether directors should be directly involved in hiring and promotion decisions for the executive layers below the top tier remained an open question. 

Taking Responsibility

While these four arenas of change are creating a more demanding boardroom, they also are making it more challenging for directors to serve on boards. One of the workshop discussion leaders, Matthew Barrett, chair of the British bank Barclays, told a Wall Street Journal writer in Davos that he had turned away some 10 invitations to consider joining boards during the past year. And of those that he would consider, due diligence has become essential. “I will go through a degree of risk analysis,” he said, “that I wouldn't have gone through in the past.” Another discussion leader, MCI chief executive Michael Capellas, confirmed to the reporter that he no longer serves on the boards of any publicly-traded companies other than his own. 

For those who do serve on the more demanding boards of our era, a key question is now: “How can board members and chief executives strike the proper balance between lack of involvement and micromanagement?” While the precise point of proper balance varies from company to company, it has become incumbent upon more empowered directors to know when to stop. 

Much is yet to be done in refining the essence of good governance, but improvements should be a worldwide priority for both companies and countries, said many in Davos. At a “town hall” meeting during the World Economic Forum, a thousand participants named six action priorities for the coming year: poverty, climate change, education, equitable globalization, the Middle East — and “good global governance.” 

Victor Yushchenko, president of Ukraine, received a standing ovation when he appeared in Davos to seek world support for his democratic reforms and entry into the European Union. And for that, he said, he wants to make public operations transparent, stabilize tax collection, separate business from politics, privatize state industry, and build a culture attractive to international investors. In other words, good governance is the essential prerequisite. 

Note:  Information on the World Economic Forum can be found at World Economic Forum, and Michael Useem can be reached at useem@wharton.upenn.edu.
 

Creativity and Conviction:  Wharton Leadership Conference in Philadelphia on June 9, 2005 

The ninth Annual Wharton Leadership Conference in Philadelphia will be held on June 9, 2005.  It is an intense one-day exchange on how great leadership is developed and applied in the private, public, or non-profit sectors.  It is focused on how leaders inspire and turn obstacles into opportunity, both requiring great creativity and conviction.  Confirmed speakers include:  

Ariel Group, a training and consulting firm that applies techniques from the performing arts to help develop leadership presence, with a focus on communication skills, team building, change management, and leadership development; author of Leadership Presence.

Peter Cappelli, Professor of Management and Director of the Center for Human Resources at the Wharton School, and author of The New Deal at Work.

Maria Bartiromo, host of CNBC's “The Wall Street Journal Report with Maria Bartiromo” and “Closing Bell with Maria Bartiromo,” and frequent contributor to NBC's “Today Show” and other programs; author of Use the News: How to Separate the Noise from Investment Nuggets and Make Money in Any Economy.  

Marshall Goldsmith, an executive coach for leaders and management teams; provides leadership developmental programs for executives, leaders, and human resource professionals; co-author or co-editor of The Leader of the Future, Global Leadership, The Change Champion's Fieldguide, Partnering, and Coaching for Leadership. 

Ronald Heifetz, Co-Director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School and Director of its Leadership Education Project; author of Leadership Without Easy Answers and co-author of Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading.  

Peter Hillary, a world adventurer who had twice reached the summit of Mt. Everest (most recently in 2002 for a National Geographic documentary) and forged a new route across Antarctica to the South Pole; author of five books including In the Ghost Country: A Lifetime Spent on the Edge.  

Todd S. Thomson, Chairman and CEO of Wealth Management Sector (Smith Barney, Equity Research, and the Private Bank), Citigroup, and former CFO of Citigroup; previously held senior positions at GE Capital, Barents Group, and Bain & Company.  

 

Patricia Woertz, Executive Vice President of ChevronTexaco Corporation; responsible for directing the company's worldwide refining, marketing, lubricants, and supply and trading businesses.

Michael Useem, Professor of Management and Director of the Center for Leadership and Change at the Wharton School; author of The Leadership Moment, Leading Up, and Upward Bound.

Note:  Information on the conference is available by clicking here and online registration here.  An early-bird registration discount is available through March 31.
 

Ethics, integrity, and character:  The Leadership Excellence Summit in Annapolis on July 27-29, 2005 

The Conference Board in association with The United States Naval Academy Foundation is presenting a conference on Ethics, Integrity & Character: Identifying & Developing Your Next Generation of Leaders at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland on July 27-29, 2005.  

The conference hosts senior executives from companies that have demonstrated superior leadership capabilities and talent, and senior officers of the U.S. Armed Forces.  This summit brings corporate and military thought leaders together to study the ways in which they develop leaders, the impact those leaders have had on their businesses and operations, and to exchange thoughts on how best practices from both sides can be implemented in the other.   

Conference issues include:  

• Transformational Leadership: The Rebirth of Integrity and Character
• Building 21st Century Senior Leaders
• A Leader’s Emotional Impact on Others: Genuineness, Authenticity, Credibility and Trustworthiness
• Battle-Tested:  Combat Leadership Principles for Business
• Globalization/Internationalization of Leadership Concepts, Constructs, and Development Methods
• Demonstrating ROI on Your Leadership Development Initiatives

Confirmed speakers include:  

John Furcon, Regional Practice Leader, Mellon Human Resources & Investor Solutions

General Charles C. Krulak, USMC (Ret.), Chief Administrative Officer, MBNA America, N.A.

Dan Nelson, Vice President, ExxonMobil

Vice Admiral Rodney T. Rempt, Superintendent, United States Naval Academy

Ed Ruggero, Author of nine books, including Combat Jump: The Young Men Who Led that Assault Into Fortress Europe, July 1943, Co-Author, U.S. Army Field Manual Army Leadership.  Leader, Normandy Leadership Experience

Kathy Smith, Senior Vice President, Talent Management and Organizational Capability, Marriott International

J. Ronald Terwilliger, CEO & National Managing Partner, Trammell Crow Residential

Leo V. Williams III, CEO, Medifast

Note:  For information and online registration for the conference are available here.  Additional information can be obtained by contacting  Gregg Mauro at gmauro@academyleadership.com, or 202-337-3287. 
 

Leadership in the Information Age:  The U.S. Naval Academy Leadership Conference on January 26-28, 2005 

By Chris Maxwell 

As the unpredictability of the war in Iraq has forced military decision-making downward in the ranks, young officers who have grown up with the Internet have created new ways to rapidly share information and advice online among themselves.  The U.S. Army is now coming to support their websites and underwriting their operational costs.    

New developments such as these were the driving force behind the U.S. Naval Academy’s decision to focus its annual student conference in January, 2005, on the impact of information technology on decision-making and leadership in both military and civilian arenas.  The Naval Academy organized the conference, “Leadership in the Information Age,” for undergraduates from the U.S. service academies, the Royal Australian Naval College, the Royal Military College of Canada, and sixteen U.S. universities. 

Louis J. Freeh, Director of the FBI from 1993-2001, focused on two attributes he identified as especially critical for leaders in the information age: credibility and visibility.  Freeh reminded participants that they needed to establish credibility by knowing and understanding the work done by those they manage, and visibility by frequently meeting with them.  Freeh emphasized that although information technology facilitates rapid communication, it simply cannot replace face-to-face contact between leaders and followers.   

Colonel Arthur Athens, a professor at the Naval Academy, suggested that with 24/7 Internet access, leaders could easily become “roadkill on the information highway” if they don’t take the time to establish personal connections with those who report to them.  Yael Guez, a Wharton School undergraduate, took special note of what she had heard from another of the speakers, “People want to know that you care before they care what you know.”   

Warren McFarlan, an emeritus professor at the Harvard Business School, stressed the opportunities that technology are opening for the coming generation, and concluded that “you live by the willingness to innovate.”  Noting the transformational impact that information technology has had on business services and products, McFarlan warned that significant differences in national investment in technology are already having far-reaching impact.  He predicted, for example, that Chinese will soon be the predominant language of the internet. 

The conference speakers suggested that the bedrock principles of leadership – character, integrity, expertise, and honesty – have not changed in the era of information technology.  What has changed is widespread access to information and the capacity to communicate more quickly with more people.  At the same time, this has increased the need to establish and maintain strong personal connections.  A key challenge is finding the right combination of high-tech and high-touch. 

Note:  Chris Maxwell, Associate Director of the Wharton Undergraduate Leadership Program, can be contacted at maxwellc@wharton.upenn.edu. 

Copyright 1996-2005, Wharton Center for Leadership and Change Management
 University of Pennsylvania.