On Leadership Panelists

State dinners are less "symbolic signaling" than "political greasing." Sure, they indicate who is important - those invited are on the A-List of Washington's socialite "plum book" - and what is important - cellist Pablo Casals for the Kennedys and Country & Western music for the Bushes.

Beyond that, however, relationships are heightened and debts are deepened by State Dinner invitations. That's more critical, since personal relationships are central to achieving results in politics, as in most endeavors of life. House Speaker Sam Rayburn once quipped that anyone who couldn't size up another person in five minutes "doesn't belong in my profession." That clueless fellow probably doesn't belong in many other professions, either.

That's why Shakespeare's Henry Vth - who learned how to size people up from the master, Falstaff, while hanging around the Eastcheap Tavern - became a far more successful ruler than was his father, a cold calculating type who lacked such guidance and experience.

I've long wondered why the Protocol Office fills so many precious seats with top State and Defense Department officials. They're all fine folks, dedicated and able. But a president doesn't need to woo them. After all, they work for him.

Rather, he needs to fill those most sought-after seats with folks who can help him a lot, but aren't on his payroll - above all, members of Congress, governors, pundits and journalists, and lots and lots of big-time campaign financiers. They're the ones who provide the milk of American politics.

Around this core group - those the president needs to get his next monument built for a successful administration - I'd sprinkle a (very) few Cabinet officers and several stars from sports and movies, television and literature, to give the evening the glitter it deserves. It's still the best ticket in town.

The impact of the state dinner will be measured (with great difficulty) by the impression it leaves with the guest of honor. In almost every case, that impression will be a positive one, and it should leave the honoree with a more favorable view of both the president and of the country. That it will have a major substantive effect on policy is doubtful, but it should make future communication easier.

The internal pressure on the honoree to say nice things is profound; look at the way in which President Obama is felt to have spoken about China in too accommodating a fashion in Asia last week, under circumstances less honorific than a state dinner in the White House.

This is a real opportunity for the president to strengthen a vitally important relationship with India.

Certainly the symbolic gestures of leadership are important. A big part of any leader's job is the diplomacy he or she exercises in engaging with various stakeholders, the goal being to understand the stakeholder's wants, needs and agenda. Diplomacy is an art, which is where symbolic gestures come in to play.

On the global stage of diplomacy, symbolic gestures are even more important and less forgiving. They indicate not only an art of leadership but a respect for and understanding of cultures. Even more importantly they indicate a level of empathy and caring about the stakeholder's wants, needs, and expectations. Great leaders understand the art of diplomacy and use it more naturally and effectively than others.

In the 21st century, with the command-and-control style of leadership gone, diplomatic leadership defines the better leaders, and symbolic gestures are a part of that. However, the 21st century brings with it a new twist.

Our younger generations want to know who is invited to the leader's casual, private dinner. They are continually on a quest for authenticity. They want to know that the symbolic gestures at the comparable State Dinners of any leader align with the values demonstrated at the casual, private dinner.

For any leaders, there's the rub. If public and private behavior don't align: game over, if not now, then sometime later. If they do align, and align naturally, the followers will trust, respect, and follow more easily, even when not inclined to agree.

In general, for anyone in a leadership position, what is often called "symbolic conduct" is very important. In addition to the signals surrounding a state dinner, there is also behavior at meetings: where does the leader sit; does he or she listen as well as talk; does the leader take phone calls or give his/her full attention; does he/she drum fingers or riffle through papers or consult the Blackberry overtly or covertly?

In the case of Pres. Obama, however, he has already passed the "symbolic conduct" test. All who are not totally brainwashed can see he has an excellent grasp of symbolic conduct, and in fact seems to have completely internalized its essentials. He rarely sends out the wrong signals and, when he does, he is quick to correct -- as in the case of the arrest of Henry Lewis Gates this past summer; or his condescending "you're likable enough" remark and gesture to Hillary Clinton during one presidential debate for the presidential debate.

If anything, the Obama presidency has been so focused on symbolic conduct that sometimes symbols have become, or seemed to become, a substitute for policy. Does he bow to foreign leaders and, if so, how much? Does he travel to all the right spots, and if so, for what reason(s)? If I were advising the president, I would stress that symbolic conduct can only go so far, that he should not spend much time thinking or worrying about it, and that instead he has to emphasize his concern with substance above all else.

When he announces his policy on Afghanistan, he needs to go to extra lengths to explain why he took so much time, the consequences of a wrong strategic choice and on what rationale he based his final decision. In so doing, he should emphasize the difference from Bush-era "shoot first" policies.

Put differently, given the current emphasis in the blogosphere on the hermeneutics of symbolic conduct, the American and the world public need to be reminded that, at the end of the day, it is substance and not symbolism which makes the crucial difference.

Leadership is about achieving real results with and through others. State dinners can help to bring people together but they tend to be more social occasions and are more about show than substance. The real work is done in private meetings that precede and coincide with official state visits.

Last Thursday, November 19, marked the 146th anniversary of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

In late November, 1863, Abraham Lincoln resumed his seat on the dais at Gettysburg's new soldiers' cemetery after making the few "brief remarks" he'd been invited to deliver. The president turned to Marshal Ward Lamon, his friend and bodyguard, and said, "Lamon, that speech won't scour," which is what one said about a plow that wouldn't shed mud and was thus useless. It was clear that the Tycoon, as Lincoln's young aides called him, didn't think he'd accomplished much.

In spite of Sarah Palin's prominence as best-selling author, Hillary Clinton's stature as Secretary of State, and 51% of the workforce now being female, we still face a crisis in women's leadership, according to The White House Project's just-published study, Benchmarking Women's Leadership.

The majority of Americans are comfortable with women leading in all sectors, but the reality is women hold only 18% of leadership positions across the 10 sectors we examined, including politics, business, law, sports, academia, journalism, religion, film/TV, nonprofit, and military.

In politics, for example, women have lost ground in the last decade as elected statewide executive officials and have made only incremental gains in Congress, where they currently comprise 17% of leadership. On a global scale, the U.S. ranks a dismal 71st out of 189 countries, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in terms of women in legislatures, trailing behind nations such as Pakistan, Cuba, and United Arab Emirates.

At Fortune 500 companies, women hold only 15% of board seats, 16% of corporate officer positions, and a mere 3% of CEO positions, while women of color make up only 3% of board officers and 1.7% of corporate officer positions.

Even in sectors that have traditionally welcomed women - such as the nonprofit field - the numbers reflect the same disparity. Women comprise 75% of nonprofit employees, but hold only 26% of leadership positions. Women nonprofit CEO's make only 74% of what their male counterparts earn.

The list goes on: from sports and military to religion and journalism, women are underrepresented in the halls of power and underpaid when they get there. So why does this matter, particularly when our nation faces such trying economic times?

As our Benchmarks report illustrates, the rose-colored lens through which we have examined gender in the workforce clouds this grim reality: women - and particularly women of color -- are far from achieving parity in the arenas in which their participation and inclusion matters most: positions of leadership. And contrary to the popular talking points of today, the cultural ideal for women has not shifted to an all-encompassing and gender-neutral space, but remains firmly embedded in models of wifedom and motherhood. If anything, there is evidence that this cultural ideal is becoming further entrenched as the economy triggers anxieties about gender roles within both the public and private spheres.

I have been an advocate for women's issues for over 30 years. From the feminist and civil rights movements of the 1960s and 70s to today's "post-modern" struggles for equality, I have learned three important things: increasing numbers and changing culture are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing vehicles; action must be taken from the top down and the bottom up; and instituting change cannot be limited to one sector, but must be tackled in every sphere.

When we set out to write The Benchmarks Report, we were determined not only to puncture the conventional wisdom that women are leading in record numbers, but to poll experts in each sector and determine what steps need to be taken to achieve a critical mass of women leaders across the board. Here are our recommendations for closing the leadership gap:

• Work to achieve a critical mass of women in leadership roles in every sector. A critical mass of one-third or more women in leadership positions is essential for implementing and maintaining the changes recommended in this report.

• Use financial resources strategically. In choosing which firms to hire or which non-profits to fund, look through a gender lens, considering the representation of women, and women of color, on the board and in top leadership.

• Amplify women's voices in the public arena. Prominently include women leaders in public forums and media so that they in particular--and women in general--are recognized as role models and considered for boards and other top-level positions.

• Collect and analyze the data. Surprisingly little information exists regarding the representation of women, and particularly women of color, in positions of leadership in individual organizations. Regular tracking and reviewing of the numbers - including the wage gap --- are essential for setting benchmarks and monitoring progress.

• Maintain accountability through setting targets. If you lead an organization, set specific goals for including women in leadership. Create a timeline to achieve targets and impose actual consequences for failure to meet these targets.

• Improve flexibility in workplace structures. For women and men alike, increased flexibility--and a recognition of the need for work-life balance--promotes career satisfaction and job retention.

Nothing has surprised me more in working to advance women's leadership than women's own measurement of personal success and the routes they must navigate to get there. As a young woman in a major financial firm told me, "They watch you here, and if you are perceived to be too involved with your children, you are not seen as a good candidate for leadership. If you are not involved enough, you are seen as a bad mother and not to be trusted." I was shocked to hear that an older woman pulled her aside after the meeting and remarked, "There are lots of children you can love; go find them. But if you want to succeed here, don't have children of your own."

Unfortunately, that naysayer seems to be right. Perhaps that's why so many executive women who have been on the leadership track have chosen to never marry or have children (52% and 61%, respectively, according to a UCLA-Korn Ferry study; for executive men, 5% and 3%, respectively). The sacrifices women must make to ascend the leadership ranks are still disproportionate to those made by their male peers. Numbers like this show that the lack of flexibility and childcare in the U.S. is not improving fast enough to allow the numbers of women stuck in the pipeline to really ascend. Instead, they remain in lower positions or opt-out completely from the workforce. In either case, the pool of ideas, talent, and experience among our decision makers shrinks.

Over the long term, I am optimistic about making change. Three polls conducted over five years as part of our Benchmarks report revealed that 90 percent of Americans are comfortable with women leading across the ten sectors profiled, from business and politics to film and journalism. As a 2008 Pew Research Center study found, the public thinks that women - even more than men - have what it takes to be leaders in today's world, scoring women higher than men in five of eight character traits they value highly in their leaders. The recent report from Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress, "A Woman's Nation," shows that, by and large, everyone believes that the inclusion of women at all levels, from government to business to our faith communities, is good for our economy and our country.

The acceleration in moving women into leadership will only occur if there is a thoughtful, creative, and committed approach to doing so. We must promote a national dialogue that sees women not as competitors for male jobs, but as allies in building a stronger economy and better institutions.

Most importantly, we need a cultural shift that values the unique leadership traits and diverse perspectives that both genders - men and women -- bring to the table, and a commitment to having them work side-by-side to tackle the challenges we collectively face. These are difficult times, indeed. Yet history has taught us that these are the moments which are ripe for greatness, if we dare to imagine and embrace a new way.

Corporations contribute to society by producing goods and services that improve the quality of life and providing employment with fair wages and decent working conditions. Some companies do even more by educating its workforce and encouraging employees to contribute to their communities through philanthropy and volunteer activities.

However, the practice of direct corporate philanthropy raises questions. Would the funds that go to philanthropy be better spent as venture capital to create new products and jobs? Employment is certainly one of our highest priorities as a nation.

Who decides about the philanthropy? Would the shareholders agree this is where there money should go? Shouldn't they have a say about which charities they want to support? Republicans often argue that taxes should be cut because "you are a better judge than the government of where to spend your money." This is arguable in the case of government that spends money on education, national defense, homeland security, and health. But it is harder to refute in the case of corporate giving.

Does the philanthropy promote the company? Can it be shown to be good public relations? Or is it mostly public relations for the CEO? Like advertising and promotion of sporting and cultural events, there is a good argument that philanthropy is good for business. However, in support of the public good, there is no question that the greatest corporate contributions are employment and good products.

Corporate philanthropy can be extremely relevant when it is strategic. While it is fine for corporate philanthropy to align with short-term marketing objectives, which makes such philanthropy more likely to be sustainable over time, it is most strategic when it meets the long-term needs of its philanthropic partners. Best is when it helps to build capacity so that effective organizations can grow to scale and have a management core that is as strong as its programming. As is the case with most leadership challenges, marshaling support in corporate philanthropy for investments that may not pay off until the long-term is the toughest task of all, but also promises the greatest return on investment.

As a director on the board of Timberland I've seen what corporate philanthropy can accomplish in building the capacity of high-performing organizations like City Year, and also in leading on issues like climate change and reducing the carbon footprint. And as the founder of a nonprofit anti-hunger organization, Share Our Strength, I've seen what partners as diverse as American Express, ConAgra Foods, C&S Wholesale Grocers and many others can accomplish when they are willing to go beyond the desire for short-term publicity and engage in the hard work of understanding a partner's needs, as well as clearly identifying their own, so that a mutually beneficial relationship can be attained.

If you poll big-city mayors around the United States, they would overwhelmingly support the notion that corporate philanthropy is as relevant today as it was a century ago. However, they are also likely to note that this philanthropy has evolved as the needs of the cities have changed and the profile of the corporate leader has changed.

Decades ago a corporate leader was likely to be someone who was rooted in the community of the company for many years. Today heads of corporations may or may not have long-standing personal ties to a community, but they do have strong interests in assuring that the area in which their company resides is a thriving one.

Corporate philanthropy manifests itself in many ways. A type of general philanthropy is a donation to arts institutions. Such donations are made for the general well being of the community, the corporation acting as a civic-minded citizen. Another type of philanthropy is more strategic, with contributions being made to further the specific business interest of the corporation.

The philanthropy that has served cities well in recent years is that which helps bring together disparate groups to address a common problem for the community. Government agencies, community organizations, local charities sometimes operate within silos of interests. It often takes an entity with a broader view of the community to serve as the catalyst to bring these groups together to pursue change that will benefit the whole. Corporate philanthropy can and has played that role.

In analyzing business's desired role in society, it is best to think of the corporation as citizen.

One of the obligations of corporate citizenship---as is the case for private citizens with means---is to provide philanthropic support for important "social goods" where neither the market nor the government do an adequate job. Indeed, corporate citizenship is a much better concept for evaluating business's activities in society than the much narrow and somewhat misleading phrase "corporate social responsibility."

Corporate citizenship has three elements.

First, it involves high economic performance----the sustained, durable provision of outstanding goods and services which benefits shareholders and other stakeholders (creditors, employees, retirees, customers, suppliers, communities etc.) over time. The enormous good done by the fundamental business activity on durable basis---creating the goods and services that make the economy work and grow---is a core characteristic of good citizenship. In this connection, even large corporations are turning to forms of social entrepreneurship, if by that we mean using markets to address social problems such as climate change, water shortages, and health care devices. Such efforts can be straight up market activities.

Second, citizenship involves robust adherence to the spirit and letter of the formal rules, legal and financial, in all jurisdictions where the corporation does business. Significant time, effort and resources---and substantial leadership and management---are required to do this well in the face of multiple laws (federal and state in the U.S.; local or pan-European in the E.U.; and provincial and local in China) of often uncertain meaning. But such good faith adherence to the rules of the game is essential for the high integrity of a corporation---and for the values of honesty, fairness, trustworthiness and reliability its employees---upon which the corporation builds the trust so essential to its long-term health.

Third, citizenship involves taking appropriate public-spirited actions beyond what the law requires that are in the enlightened self-interest of the company.

--The company can take "ethical" actions, such as creating a "no-bribes" policy or an environmental building standard or a practice of ensuring no child or prison labor is used by third parties in emerging markets. Such voluntary actions that affect the corporation and its employees fall under the rubric of corporate social responsibility, a term that usually, and wrongly, does not include economic performance or robust adherence to the letter and spirit of the formal rules.

--The company can work with others on new laws or regulations when the problem truly involves a "social good," but the cost for a single company acting alone is uncompetitive and the need for collective action is necessary for societal strength and, ultimately, good business conditions. For example, many corporations today are involved in climate change, health-care reform or financial services regulation, although some, not surprisingly, are taking a more narrow, short-term and self-interested view than others.

--Finally, there is the vital role of philanthropy. It does not involve voluntary commitments of action by the corporation or its employees. Nor does it involve corporate efforts to address social goods and to balance public and private interests in enacting laws or regulations. Rather, philanthropy addresses important social needs that neither market nor law reach---or reach effectively. Education in science and engineering (especially for women and minorities) is a favorite of major industrial corporations faced with declining numbers of U.S. students, while targeted programs aimed at under-served high schools in our inner cities is another. Local environmental projects, health care in rural America or Africa, training on governance or anti-corruption or environmental protection---all these issues and many more involve corporations, like citizens, donating funds to not-for-profit third parties who in turn address these crucial issues.

In this period of economic turmoil and dislocation, with cut-backs in government spending and reductions in foundation endowments and outlays, the need for corporate philanthropy has never been greater. Such philanthropic expenditures are usually a tiny percentage of a corporation's costs, but they remain vital, especially now.