<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>PostLeadership</title>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/</link>
<ttl>15</ttl>
<description>Real-time ideas from Jena McGregor for leading in a changing world</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2011</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:12:49 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=4.2-en</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 


<item>
<title>Walker won this battle, but is he winning the war?</title>
<description>There&apos;s little question that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has won this battle in the war over public sector union collective bargaining rights that is now spreading to other states. Republicans on Thursday outmaneuvered their Democratic opponents, ending three weeks of heated protests and the out-of-state flight of Democratic senators who aimed to avoid a vote on the bill. By eliminating spending language in the bill, however, Republicans were ultimately able to pass it without Democrats present. But while Walker may have won round one, he&apos;s lost a few things in the process. To start, he&apos;s left an army of his own employees--state workers--apoplectically angry. Not only have they made concessions over their health insurance and retirement benefits, they&apos;ve now been stripped of their long-standing rights to collectively bargain.</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/walker-won-this-battle-but-is-he-winning-the-war.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/walker-won-this-battle-but-is-he-winning-the-war.html</guid>
<category>Government leadership</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:12:49 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Lead Reads: Why a bigger network isn&apos;t necessarily better</title>
<description>It&apos;s not what you know, it&apos;s who you know. But this age-old truism about networking and getting ahead apparently needs an update, according to an intriguing post over at The Harvard Business Review&apos;s blog. It is who you know, as long as they don&apos;t know the same people you know. An explanation. University of Virginia management professor Rob Cross, who studies the social networks leaders and organizations build, writes that the secret to your network has never been how big it is. Rather, contrary to what you might think, people who perform better tend to have more connections to people who are not very well connected. As Cross writes, &quot;people with ties to the less-connected are more likely to hear about ideas that haven&apos;t gotten exposure elsewhere.&quot; The more your network connects you into lots of different groups of people, in other words, the more of a chance you have</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/lead-reads-why-a-bigger-network-isnt-better.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/lead-reads-why-a-bigger-network-isnt-better.html</guid>
<category></category>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:01:18 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Should NPR&apos;s Vivian Schiller have been asked to resign?</title>
<description>NPR was roundly criticized for acting too hastily in its firing of commentator Juan Williams in October. And now, just one day after a sting video by conservative activist James O&apos;Keefe surfaced, catching an NPR fundraising executive calling tea party members racist and xenophobic on film, the network has asked for the resignation of NPR&apos;s CEO too. So did the network act too quickly this time? First, let&apos;s consider the case of Ron Schiller, the fundraising executive who made comments about the tea party and NPR&apos;s funding. Had Schiller not already been planning to leave NPR for the Aspen Institute, his comments as depicted in the video were unprofessional at best and damaging to NPR at worst, and certainly potential grounds for dismissal. Although set up as part of an undercover operation, Schiller made remarks that had no place in any business meeting, much less one involving a news organization</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/should-npr-vivian-schiller-have-been-asked-to-resign.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/should-npr-vivian-schiller-have-been-asked-to-resign.html</guid>
<category>Public leadership</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:23:44 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Ohio State&apos;s Tressel: The danger of sticking by your stars</title>
<description>For anyone who pays attention to leadership issues, there are a number of concerning things about the news that Ohio State University head football coach Jim Tressel is being suspended for two games and fined $250,000. For one, Tressel did not share information he received in an email about a potential NCAA violation for months with Ohio State higher-ups, despite wording in his contract that required him to do so. All coaches know, as one ESPN analyst put it, that not sharing such information is a &quot;cardinal sin&quot; in the eyes of the NCAA. In addition, there was Tressel&apos;s comment that &quot;I don&apos;t think less of myself in this moment,&quot; despite this being a news conference announcing he would be suspended for two games and fined $250,000 of his estimated (and comfortable) $3.5 million salary, while the offending players--who sold memorabilia to a tattoo parlor owner--have to sit out the</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/ohio-state-tressel-the-danger-of-sticking-by-your-stars.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/ohio-state-tressel-the-danger-of-sticking-by-your-stars.html</guid>
<category>Sports leadership</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:15:51 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Bigger bonuses for departing Hill staffers </title>
<description>If you had money left over in your budget at the end of the year and could use it to pay a little extra to your staff who&apos;d toiled long hours on a major recent project, would you do it? Many people would probably say yes. And if they work in many arenas, doing so would probably be called good leadership. Rewarding the people who had worked the most hours, gotten the least amount of thanks and done all of the grunt work for middling pay--rather than the people in charge--would likely be seen as enlightened management. But not, apparently, in government. The Wall Street Journal has a report out that examines the extra pay staffers were given as end-of-the-year &quot;bonuses&quot; by outgoing Congress members. One of the most-read articles on the site as of Tuesday morning, the story is drumming up debate over whether the extra cash should have</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/bigger-bonuses-for-departing-hill-staffers.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/bigger-bonuses-for-departing-hill-staffers.html</guid>
<category>Federal government leadership</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 11:05:18 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Is Gray&apos;s investigation independent enough?</title>
<description>On Sunday, District of Columbia mayor Vincent Gray acknowledged &quot;missteps&quot; in the vetting process for administration jobs. This follows accusations by former mayoral candidate Sulaimon Brown that he was offered a city job in exchange for making attacks on their then-opponent, former mayor Adrian Fenty, during the campaign. Gray then did what countless leaders before him have done when they find themselves or their organizations in the midst of a scandal or controversy: He launched an investigation. The Post is reporting that Gray will ask city attorney general Irvin B. Nathan, who was appointed by Gray and is waiting to be confirmed, to lead the investigation.</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/is-grays-investigation-independent-enough.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/is-grays-investigation-independent-enough.html</guid>
<category>Bad leadership</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:58:41 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>NFL lockout? In this union fight, no sympathy for the owners</title>
<description>The debate between governors and public sector employee unions in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states may be foremost in many politicians&apos; minds, but the union fight that matters most to many Americans is going on in the NFL. The National Football League&apos;s owners and players have their horns locked in a battle over whether or not to extend its own collective bargaining agreement in order to avert a work stoppage. But while both may be union conflicts, these are two very different struggles. For painfully obvious reasons, of course: Comparing a teacher&apos;s $42,000 salary with an NFL player&apos;s average $1.9 million gold mine is downright silly, for one. And the NFL owners are hardly trying to take away the players&apos; right to strike or collectively bargain (though if that ever happened, that&apos;s a brawl I&apos;d pay to see).</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/nfl-lockout-this-union-fight-no-sympathy-for-the-owners.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/nfl-lockout-this-union-fight-no-sympathy-for-the-owners.html</guid>
<category>Sports leadership</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:31:20 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Gingrich: Will he or won&apos;t he?</title>
<description>The long-running question of whether or not former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich is going to run for president is about to be answered. Maybe. After a confusing couple days of news, in which the permanently potential candidate&apos;s adviser, Joe Gaylord, said Gingrich would be announcing an exploratory committee at an event on Thursday, and then was refuted by his own spokesperson, who said he would not be doing so after all, Gingrich is expected to make an announcement Thursday. While he apparently will not be setting up a committee, which would make him a legal candidate, he is expected to say Thursday at a public event in Georgia that he will be starting to raise funds to begin a &quot;serious exploratory phase&quot; to run for president. Um, okay. Apparently this is not just another example of Gingrich&apos;s indecisiveness--or flirtations with the media, if you choose to look at it</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/gingrich-will-he-or-wont-he.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/gingrich-will-he-or-wont-he.html</guid>
<category>Government leadership</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:45:01 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>A big fish&apos;s big wake: What Rajat Gupta&apos;s insider trading charges mean for McKinsey </title>
<description>Of all the fish the SEC has caught in the vast insider trading probe it has been pursuing for many months now--or perhaps, some are saying, that have been hooked by accusations of securities law violations ever--none may be bigger than Rajat Gupta. The SEC alleged Tuesday that the former head of the elite consulting firm McKinsey provided non-public information to a hedge fund manager about two of the major companies--Goldman Sachs and Procter &amp; Gamble--where he worked as a director after his time at McKinsey. The hedge fund founder, Raj Rajaratnam, allegedly traded on the news soon after speaking with Gupta. Gupta also sits on the boards of American Airlines parent AMR Corp., Genpact and Harman International. He is the chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce, and even played adviser to Kofi Annan on implementing management reforms at the United Nations. (Gupta&apos;s lawyer, Gary Naftalis, calls the charges</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/rajat-gupta-insider-trading-means-for-mckinsey.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/rajat-gupta-insider-trading-means-for-mckinsey.html</guid>
<category>Bad leadership</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:09:35 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Dior to fire John Galliano over anti-Semitic remarks</title>
<description>A star has fallen. The iconic fashion house of Christian Dior has begun procedures to dismiss John Galliano, its provocative and famous chief designer who has now allegedly taken provocation too far. The flamboyant designer was filmed appearing to ridicule a group of bar patrons with outrageously anti-Semitic remarks. The video surfaced Monday, just days after another couple accused the designer of making similar comments, which Galliano&apos;s lawyer has denied.</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/christian-dior-fires-chief-designer-over-anti-semitic-remarks.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/03/christian-dior-fires-chief-designer-over-anti-semitic-remarks.html</guid>
<category>Bad leadership</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 12:11:21 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>What is it about Chris Christie? The benefits of creating a common foe</title>
<description>What is it about Chris Christie? The New Jersey governor is everywhere these days. At the American Enterprise Institute. On Face the Nation. On the cover of the Sunday New York Times Magazine. The sharp-talking former prosecutor is known for being blunt; for having a &quot;who cares what they think&quot; swagger and saying what others won&apos;t. Much of his appeal is undoubtedly due to his plain-spoken style, which gives him the rare ability to make complex and dull topics like pensions and budget deficits not only simple but captivating.</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/02/what-is-it-about-chris-christie.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/02/what-is-it-about-chris-christie.html</guid>
<category>Change management</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:38:50 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>The dangerous cult of the star coach</title>
<description>It&apos;s getting close to March Madness, but more and more of the drama this college basketball season is happening off the court, not on. For what may be the first time ever, according to ESPN analysts, the NCAA itself has suspended a head coach for alleged recruiting violations. The University of Connecticut men&apos;s basketball head coach Jim Calhoun was cited earlier this week for failing to create an &quot;atmosphere of compliance&quot; in his program and was suspended for three conference games during next year&apos;s season. The investigations followed a Yahoo Sports story in 2009 that alleged that a former team manager helped guide recruit Nate Miles to Connecticut, giving him such things as lodging, transportation and meals.</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/02/the-dangerous-cult-of-the-star-coach.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/02/the-dangerous-cult-of-the-star-coach.html</guid>
<category>Sports leadership</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:13:16 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Apple&apos;s elephant in the room</title>
<description>Apple investors apparently aren&apos;t too concerned about who will follow in Steve Jobs&apos; footsteps. Investors of the Cupertino, Calif. technology company rejected a shareholder proposal from a union pension fund that would force Apple to unveil more details about its succession plan. And other than a brief comment from one investor wishing him well, the topic of Mr. Jobs&apos; health and who would succeed him reportedly never came up at the company&apos;s annual meeting.</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/02/apple-the-elephant-in-the-room.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/02/apple-the-elephant-in-the-room.html</guid>
<category>CEO watch</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:35:38 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Thune: What good is a Senate record?</title>
<description>John Thune has decided not to run for president in 2012, and he may have just ended his chances at running in 2016 or beyond, too. That was the analysis from the Post&apos;s Dan Balz Tuesday, who explored how Senators who stay too long in the upper chamber hurt their chances at higher office. Historical precedent shows that only two senators in the modern era have reached the highest office directly from the Senate--John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama--and they were not insiders but relative newcomers. We apparently don&apos;t like our presidents to be senators first. This is because, Balz reports Ted Kennedy said, their votes hamstring them. When Obama considered waiting to run another election year, Kennedy urged him not to. Staying too long in the Senate and having a track record--gasp!--&quot;finishes you as a national political leader in this country,&quot; Kennedy reportedly said. &quot;You just can&apos;t do it.</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/02/thune-the-value-of-a-senate-record.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/02/thune-the-value-of-a-senate-record.html</guid>
<category>Federal government leadership</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:34:47 -0500</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Ending the stalemate in Wisconsin</title>
<description>There is a certified stalemate in Wisconsin. Governor Scott Walker, who is trying to effectively end collective bargaining rights for most public sector workers in Wisconsin, has said he will not compromise. The Democratic state senators who fled the state to avoid a vote on the controversial bill have said they won&apos;t return, even if other key votes are held. Union leaders may have agreed to give up plenty in the way of pension and benefit costs for their members, but they refuse to negotiate on collective bargaining rights. And if this keeps up, somebody is going to lose. Walker could manage to pass his budget, ending most collective bargaining rights in the process, but he&apos;s likely to make some enemies along the way, both among union voters and the many working-class and middle-class voters who benefit from their power. The Democratic senators could defeat the controversial bill, but they&apos;re</description>
<link>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/02/ending-the-stalemate-wisconsin.html?wprss=leadershippost_leadership</link>
<guid>http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/post_leadership/2011/02/ending-the-stalemate-wisconsin.html</guid>
<category>Bad leadership</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:33:47 -0500</pubDate>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>