The gift of a three handled loving cup, a tyg, started a quest for knowledge that I have not finished. The Arctic Club (now the Explorers Club) presented the tyg to Amos Bonsall in 1907.  He was the last surviving member of the second Grinnell expedition of 1853-1855 led by Dr. E. K. Kane in search of Sir John Franklin. In the mid-nineteenth century Arctic explorers were like space explorers 100 years later. Daring, adventurous, and willing to endure hardships, understanding the adventures before them were dangerous.

Bonsall’s daughters donated relics from his Arctic expedition to the U. S. National Museum. Today the National Museum of American History preserves some of these relics. It was my good fortune to examine several of these artifacts as I continue my study of Amos Bonsall.

My take-away for today: Perseverance. How hard it is to continue on toward an objective when it seems the environment is against you? Only a few years ago many were questioning the iPad, why would anyone want one? Today I held objects from an adventure 150 years ago, an adventure from which not all crew members returned. Disease, numbing cold, hunger. A ship trapped in ice. I held a rifle and a knife, tools for food and protection. And I held medals awarded to Americans by a British queen who honored the exploration. Amos Bonsall persevered. He pushed through. He helped others survive. In spite of great odds. When the challenge before you seems insurmountable, perhaps it is time to dig deeper, to try to beat the odds, to be sustained by thinking of those who have persevered. 

I stood in a grocery line yesterday with just a few items. No lane was open for 12 items or less. I asked a cashier and a lane was opened. A young woman and I moved to the new lane. “Actually I don’t mind standing, “ she said. “Three years ago I was in an accident. I was told I would never walk again. Here I am.” She paid for her items and walked out the door. 

Image, © John Ballard, 2012

When we list leadership characteristics, compassion is probably not first on the list, or even on the list, but perhaps it should be. Emma Seppala has an excellent article on compassion in the May/June issue of the Observer, a publication of the Association for Psychological Science.  The implications for our leaders, organizations, the workplace, and ourselves are significant.

Seppala defines compassion as “the emotional response when perceiving suffering and involves an authentic desire to help” (p. 20). She cites U.S. Department of Labor statistics that reported over 25% of us did volunteer work last year. One of the keys to true compassion is that it is motivated out of a desire to help others, not self-interest. Apparently we have a natural instinct to help others. Even so, being compassionate is good for us. Seppala discusses research that suggests:

• Compassion is pleasurable and buffers the negative effects of stress.
• Being compassionate “leads to greater psychological well-being”.
• “Giving to others  . . . increases well-being above and beyond what we experience when we spend money on ourselves” (p.22).
• That happiness from giving is greater than happiness from receiving is not culture specific but “true across the world”.
• People with eudaimonic well-being (lives of meaning and purpose) have lower levels of inflammation that happy people who just live “the good life”.
• Compassionate people are less likely to be preoccupied with self, lowering the likelihood of significant anxiety and/or depression.
• Strong connections with others tends to increase our recovery from disease and even our longevity. 
• “Compassion is contagious” (p. 24).

Seppala concludes her article with two implications for the workplace, above and beyond personal psychological and physical well-being. 

(1) The importance of compassionate leaders. Research on ethical leadership by Vianello, Galliani, and Haidt demonstrated “self-sacrificing” leaders were more influential and created more committed and compassionate workplaces. Self-sacrificing leaders put values and beliefs above personal interests. Ray Williams has suggested compassionate leaders are transparent leaders, flexible and adaptable, “willing to set aside rules, regulations and traditions for the greater good”, are mindful of “the effect their words and actions have on others.”

(2) Training can increase compassion and altruistic behavior. Perhaps in the billions we spend annually for training, there is room for compassion.

My take-away:  So much in life seems to come back to just being nice and doing good. Service above self. Servant leadership. In the words of Bono, “we have to carry each other, carry each other.”

Seppala, E. (2013). The compassionate mind. Observer, 26 (5), 20-25.

Vianello, M., Galliani, E. M., & Haidt, J. (2010). Elevation at work: The organizational effects of leaders’ moral excellence. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 390–411.

Williams, R. B. (2012). Why we need kind and compassionate leaders. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201208/why-we-need-kind-and-compassionate-leaders 

The image of Habitat for Humanity volunteers is a work of the U.S. Federal Government and is in the public domain, free to use and share.

“Whoever wants to understand much must play much.”  Gottfried Benn

How do you define play? Do you take time to play? Is play part of your worklife? Ronit Kark (2011) quoted Stuart Brown (2009): “ . . . play is a catalyst. The beneficial effects of getting just a little true play can spread through our lives, usually making us more productive and happier in everything we do.”

Kark suggested play activities (such as outdoor programs, role playing, simulations, strategy games, etc.) improve an organization’s leadership development efforts. So what characterizes play in leadership development? (From my reading of Kark’s article).

(1) Play is separate from work. It involves different purposes and processes. Play is often more fun, enjoyable.

(2) Play occurs in a psychologically, socially safe environment. A person, a leader, may be able to try different behaviors, even take on different identities, and not be as concerned about how one is perceived. For example, “It’s only a game.”

(3) Play usually occurs in groups. Play can be a form of social learning, exploring relationships, collaboration, understanding others. Example: learning to share, learning to trust. Play may improve team functioning, help teams overcome obstacles to working together.

(4) Play is creative. Kark suggested team creativity improves because “managers who have experienced play in leadership development processes can use a more playful orientation in their teams’ meetings and capitalize on this playful mode to build a safer environment for team members to interact” (p. 519). The result is more creativity, flexibility in thinking, better problem solving.

My thoughts: 

(1) If you enjoy doing a learning activity, you will learn more. In the classroom I look for fun ways to learn new material. Play can be a good way to learn and retain. 

(2) Play does give you the opportunity to experiment with different behaviors. Self-reflection is good. Feedback from a trained observer is better. 

(3) There are probably large individual differences here. Some people never develop an aptitude for play. It was not part of their childhood development nor a significant part of their adulthood. They may view play in leadership or team development as a waste of time. 

(4) Many factors may affect the quality of the outcomes from the play activity: the culture of the organization (is trust a core value?), the ability and knowledge of the facilitator(s) (are they simply following a learned procedure or do they have knowledge-based insights into the process), what is the perceived reward for participation in such activities.

Play activities may have a place in leadership development. To quote Stuart Brown: “Play energizes us and enlivens us. It eases our burdens. It renews our natural sense of optimism and opens us up to new possibilities.”

Kark, R. (2011). Games managers play: Play as a form of leadership development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10 (3), 507-527. 

Image from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luigimengato/5019419437/in/photostream/
Used with permission: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

More from the files of the Dr. Juran "An Immigrant's Gift" Archival Project, research and dissemination of information from the interviews conducted about Joseph Juran for the PBS Special, An Immigrant's Gift.

Charles Zeynel is President and CEO of ZAG International. He met Joseph Juran when Zeynel was quality director at Union Carbide. He took a quality seminar with Dr. Juran. He was interviewed for An Immigrant's Gift on October 29, 1991, in Atlanta, Georgia.  

Here Zeynel talks about impressions of Dr. Juran.

CHARLES ZEYNEL:  . . . (Juran had) a much more general 
approach -- what I would call a more of a user-friendly approach. It wasn't geared to just one facet of quality  . . . It was much more attractive to those of 
us who were in what I would call general management. And 
it gave us things that we could apply very 
easily, across the whole spectrum, rather than just focusing in on production or one side of the business. 

My first impression was what a 
quiet, unassuming man. . . I was expecting a giant, in terms of stature and I think just 
presence, and just saw a very, very meek and unassuming 
person. 

Q: How have continued exposures to Dr. Juran altered 
your first impression? 

ZEYNEL: He speaks his mind. He's not that meek and 
unassuming when he has something to say. That's really, I 
think, the main thing that struck me. 

Q: What happens in rooms of executives when (Dr. Juran) walks 
into those rooms? 

ZEYNEL: Well, the limited experience that I've had, 
typically, you take him in the room where you've got the 
CEO or the president or senior corporations. Most 
corporations who are used to having their own way, and used to, frankly, running their meetings where everyone hangs on 
their word. You see a transformation.  Typically, they become almost child-like. It's like being 
back in school. The professor's walked in and they're back in 
their seats. And so you do see a transformation. But what I 
think (I am) really seeing is a tremendous amount of respect for his knowledge and his reputation.  

My take-away: French and Raven (1959) described five bases of power: legitimate, reward, coercive, referent, and expert. We may not have legitimate power that comes with a formal position in an organization. Lacking legitimate power, we might be more limited in being able to reward or coerce another substantially, although an occasional "well done" or "nice working with you" can be a good reward. And not everyone has the personality that provides a basis for referent power. But everyone has the potential for expert power. I once had a boss who told me, "If you want to be an expert, just know your job better than anybody else." Great advice. Joseph Juran had abundant expert power. While he may have appeared unassuming, through his expert knowledge he towered above many others, a true giant of quality. 


French, J., & Raven, B. H. (1959). Studies of social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Interesting, “heavy”, but important article from leadership scholars at Auckland University Business School in New Zealand. Published in Advances in Developing Human Resources, Kennedy, Carroll, and Francoeur (2013) described current leadership development predominantly as skills-based training. We tend to focus on training behaviors we associate with leaders. That may be fine in structured, less fluid environments but many organizations are changing. Environments are becoming more uncertain. Leadership needs to emerge across organizations. Leadership is increasingly collective, shared, relational.

Kennedy et al. suggest leadership development requires less training and evaluation of individual skills and greater attention to mindset, where mindset addresses underlying assumptions about how the social world is perceived and acted upon.

From this perspective, they suggest leadership development should:

• Question and unsettle established patterns
• Test assumptions and thought processes 
• Develop practices attune to a “complex, indeterminate, and relational world”

Leadership development methods that emphasize action learning and self-reflection would seem consistent with this perspective.

To some degree I think Kennedy, Carroll, and Francoeur are building on the work of David Day. Day makes a very important distinction between leader development and leadership development. Leader development grows human capital. Leadership development grows social capital. Day differentiated as follows:

Orientation toward human capital [leader development] emphasizes the development of individual capabilities such as those related to self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-motivation that serve as the foundation of intrapersonal competence. Orientation toward social capital [leadership development] emphasizes the development of reciprocal obligations and commitments built on a foundation of mutual trust and respect; it rests on a foundation of interpersonal competence, but ultimately, it requires enactment. Leadership is developed through the enactment of leadership. (p. 605)

Perhaps this is at the heart of Kennedy et al.’s argument. We have traditionally emphasized leader development (behavioral skills). Now our organizations need leadership development (new and varied mindsets to deal with our fluid and complex world).

As I stated in an earlier blog: "Organizations can easily confuse leader development with leadership development (see Day, 2000). Leader development focuses more on the individual, trying to develop skills and competencies to lead. On the other hand, leadership development seeks to grow leadership throughout an organization developing relationships among leaders, understanding followership, to insure leaders are on the same page, not at cross-purposes. And when this happens, magic happens." 

Day, D.V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-613.

Kennedy, F., Carroll, B., & Francoeur, J. Mindset not skill set: evaluating in new paradigms of leadership development.  Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15 (1), 10-26. 

Image of Auckland from http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesclay/4161292580/in/photostream/
Permission from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en

Sports Illustrated, April 29, featured a good article about Gregg Popovich, Coach of the San Antonio Spurs. Two-time NBA Coach of the Year, Popovich has led the Spurs to four NBA championships. He has the longest tenure of any NBA coach.

Jack McCallum’s article, “Pop Art”, is great reading for NBA sports fans but also leaders and those who want to learn more about leadership. Much has been written about Pop’s intellectually curiosity, embrace of diversity, sophistication, and people skills. He loves fine wines. He reads great books. And he encourages others to read great books. Reading is one key to developing as a leader.

Others (e.g., Baldoni, Eggers via Joey Burton) have commented on leadership lessons from Gregg Popovich. In the SI article, Pop talks about the importance of relationships, of having fun, but here I focus on his SI comments about discipline:

Popovich:  “The only reason the word military is used to describe what goes on around here is because I went to the Academy [United States Air Force Academy near Colorado Springs, Colorado]. But the correct word is discipline. And there are disciplined people in Google, in IBM, and the McDonald’s down the street. Yes, we are disciplined with what we do.”

Discipline is not a word we see often these days in leadership/management/business books and periodicals. Yet, I think Popovich is correct. Perhaps it is too easy to associate discipline with automatons, mindless obedience to regimented procedures.

Henri Fayol, the great French industrialist, was first to describe the functions of management (planning, organizing, directing, controlling, coordinating). He also detailed 14 management principles, one being Discipline.

Fayol:  “General opinion is deeply convinced that discipline is absolutely essential for the smooth running of business and that without discipline no enterprise could prosper . . . Discipline, being the outcome of different varying agreements, naturally appears under the most diverse forms; obligations of obedience, application, energy, behavior, vary, in effect, from one firm to another, from one group of employees to another, from one time to another.”

We live in different times but these words still have meaning. “Obligations to obedience” – know the plan, stick to the plan, do your part. “Application” – “Do or do not, there is no try” (Yoda, Jedi Master, nailed that one). “Energy” – Manage your effort, sustain so that you have endurance, take care of yourself (exercise, etc.). “Behavior” – Know your role, your position, be professional.

When Steve Kerr was pulled out of Spurs’ player rotation, he sat on the floor and not the bench. Kerr told SI that Pop pulled him aside and said, “Your body language is terrible. I know you’re not playing, but you’re a pro who’s always handled himself well, and now you’re not. It doesn’t look right, and I need you on the bench.” Kerr understood, knew Pop was right, and returned to the bench.

Fayol understood the relationship between leaders and discipline. He wrote, “The state of discipline of any group of people depends essentially on the worthiness of its leaders. . . discipline is what leaders make it.”  My guess is that if Henri Fayol were alive today, he and Gregg Popovich could have a very interesting conversation – and would enjoy a great French wine. 


Fayol, H. (1949).  General and industrial management (C. Storrs, Trans.). London: Pitman. (Original work published 1916)

McCallum, J. (2013, April 29). Pop art. Sports Illustrated, 118 (18), 60-67.

Image of Gregg Popovich and Tony Parker by Tagio Hammil. http://www.flickr.com/photos/24121734@N05/5430678290/
Permission: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en

What is it that leaders do? What are their behaviors? Gary Yukl is a prominent leadership scholar. In 2002 he along with Angela Gordon and Tom Taber published the results of their analyses of over 50 years of leadership research. They classified leader behaviors into three areas: task, relations, and change.  They listed specific behaviors in each area. 

In November 2012 Yukl updated this taxonomy of leader behaviors as follows:

• Task-oriented (clarifying, planning, monitoring operations, problem solving)
• Relations-oriented (supporting, developing, recognizing, empowering)
• Change-oriented (advocating, envisioning, encouraging innovation, facilitating collective learning)
• External (networking, external monitoring, representing)

Yukl discussed each behavior (e.g., clarifying, planning, etc.). The article was published in the Academy of Management Perspectives, a journal designed to be read by executives and others who are not management scholars.  I recommend the article to anyone interested in reading about these behaviors.

My thoughts:  I consider most “leadership” research to be “management style” research. Most leadership studies are studying managers. I see leadership as the ability to influence an individual or group to go beyond the requirements of the job at hand, to go beyond required compliance. Leadership is an influence process that usually involves some measure of inspiring others. This is tough to measure.

But what we have learned about “leadership,” that is “management style,” is important. Yukl’s first two categories have dominated theory and research. Are you people-oriented or task-oriented? Or do you adjust your style to accommodate the situation? Individual differences are important here. Some task-oriented managers would find it very difficult to be people-oriented and vice versa. Other managers can easily move from one style to the other as the situation requires.

The fourth category, external, reminds me of the work of Henry Mintzberg, who has written about the roles managers play, and the research of Fred Luthans. Luthans found networking the most frequent activity of those who were successful in getting promotions. Whether these behaviors are more leadership or management style, I am not sure.

However the third category of behaviors, change-oriented, may be a key to leadership. John Kotter thinks so. He wrote, “The fundamental purpose of leadership is to produce meaningful change . . .” (1999, p. 11)  Change can be tough. Being able to influence others to go above and beyond to make change happen probably does require real leadership. 


Kotter, J. P. (1999). Leadership at the turn of the century. In John P.Kotter on What Leaders Really Do. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 

Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R.M., & Rosenkrantz, S. A. (1988). Real Managers. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.  

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work.   New York: Harper & Row. 

Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26 (4), 66-85.

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9 (1), 15-32.

Image by opensourceway from http://www.flickr.com/photos/opensourceway/5161094177/
Permission: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en