Studies over the past few years have shown that trust can grow quickly among people from different backgrounds, given the right circumstances. As I've written before, high levels of trust is one of the cornerstones of great organizations. These new studies provide insights into exactly what kind of communication accelerates the growth of trust.
A New York Times article details this research. When two strangers are brought together for four, hour-long sessions and engaged in trust-building exercises, the results can be surprisingly long-lasting. In the first hour-long exercise, people share their responses to a list of questions, ranging from "would you like to be famous? In what way?" to "If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?"
In the second hour-long meeting, one pair competes against another in a series of games. In the third hour-long session, they talk about whether they are proud of their heritage and family background. Finally, in the fourth session, members of each pair take turns leading the other through a maze while blindfolded.
This research has fascinating implications for trust-building exercises in an organization. Our firm will often facilitate exercises with team members in which we ask them to talk about their proudest moment, or their scariest moment, and what they like most about the team, and what they like least. A second exercise consists of games in which teams compete against each other to fill a trash can with ping-pong balls and other silly tasks. A third session focuses on creating a shared vision of team success. And a fourth session often consists of trust-building exercises, such as leading a blindfolded partner through an obstacle course set up in the office.
These may seem trivial. But the research has shown the results to be long-lasting. These kinds of exercises create relationships "as close as any relationship the person has," said Art Aron, a social psychologist at Stony Brook University who developed the program described in The Times article ("Tolerance Over Race Can Spread, Studies Find"). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/07race.html?scp=3&sq=racial%20tolerance&st=cse

I've studied the leadership styles of America's presidents for the past 15 years. I particularly pay attention to the types of people that presidents like to have around them. It says a lot about a man’s (or a woman’s) character to know whether they encourage a difference of opinion, or whether they like to be surrounded by "yes" men. It’s a tipoff to whether a president has an open, curious mind, capable of learning and adapting, or whether a president is essentially intolerant of dissent.
Nixon and Reagan were famous for surrounding themselves with people who thought like they did. George Herbert Walker Bush, in contrast, invited a variety of opinion. Clinton is famous for changing his mind frequently - and being too undisciplined.
Reading The Sunday New York Times this week, I'm remembering the old McCain, the pre-campaign McCain who was always up for a good intellectual fight. Maureen Dowd's column asks pointedly, where did that McCain disappear to? I also remember the current President Bush in his Texas days, when he was seen as a uniter, not a divider. How did Texas George transmogrify into Guantanamo George? (For that matter, how did he wind up with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney?)
Obama is keenly aware of his place in history.  He's run a very disciplined campaign, a campaign that thinks strategically, looks at every option carefully, makes tough choices, and then executes. We need the same in the White House. We need to see the same Obama that we've come to admire during the campaign. The next few weeks will be interesting to watch as President Obama begins to assemble his team. It will tell us a lot about what we can expect over the next four years.

Watching the baseball playoffs makes me think back to the times when I played on teams in school. In particular, it makes me think about what coaches do to help their teams win. If your coach was any good, he or she did all of the things listed below:

• Make sure you know the rules of play
  
• Get you in shape
• Drill you on plays
• Figure out your strengths
• Define your role
• Challenge you to improve
  
• Boost your confidence
• Build team camaraderie
• Help you win during the game
• Think long-term about the team's needs

A leader-coach does all these things. I want to focus on two here: Drilling you on plays and helping you win during the game.
When your actions affect hundreds of people, you need to be drilled in advance so you’re prepared to do the right thing: how to communicate, who needs to be in the loop, what pitfalls to avoid, how to detect early signs of trouble. A leader-coach will take his or her team through simulations and exercises designed to get you prepared. At HSBC Bank, for example, managers are drilled on how to handle cross-border disputes. At Sprint, IT managers are drilled on crisis management. It’s easy to see how this investment can pay off. At Sprint, dozens of network problems are headed off each day because their teams are prepared.
Leader-coaches also help you win while you’re playing the game. They provide real-time feedback as you’re handling an issue, offering support and giving useful insights. Their doors are open, they keep their heads, they offer perspective. I’ll never forget how one of my first bosses helped me deal with deadline pressure. “Look,” he said with a grin. “The beauty of the business is that everyone forgets what you did after 24 hours. So if you screw up, you can make it right in a hurry."

 

In his book "Good to Great," Jim Collins tells the following story: In the 1970s and 1980s, Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank had similar revenues and profit margins. Bank of America was led by a strong, egotistic CEO who, by dint of his personality and commanding nature, had assembled a passive team of "yes" men.
Wells Fargo, on the other hand, had assembled one of the most dynamic management teams in the industry. At Wells Fargo, people posed tough questions to one another and weren't afraid to challenge the status quo. They felt free to challenge each other's thinking. Their relationships were founded on mutual trust rather than mutual fear.
In the early 1980s, banking deregulation took place, triggering a revolution in the industry. The industry's traditional profit margins were threatened. Wells Fargo's management team saw the changes coming and focused on cutting costs. They recognized that banking was becoming a commodity business, with thinner profit margins than before. “Run it like you own it,” became their mantra.
In contrast, BofA reacted slowly. The country club culture prevailed. No one challenged the status quo. The result? Over a fifteen-year-period, from 1983 to 1998, Wells Fargo’s stock outperformed BofA’s by 500 percent.
That story comes to mind as I contemplate the new financial landscape. Wells Fargo's takeover of Wachovia gives it the most branches of any bank in the United States. BofA's takeover of Merrill Lynch makes it the largest brokerage in the world. BofA becomes the number one underwriter of global high yield debt.  Wells is positioned to get new deposits. Both will see their shares purchased by the U.S. government under Treasury Secretary Paulson's bailout plan.
So which bank will emerge the better? I'd bet on Wells Fargo. In this climate, I'd rather be the country's largest commercial bank than the world's largest holder of high yield debt. Stay tuned!

I worked last week with a group of scientists and clinicians. Their mission is to understand, prevent and treat autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. The goal of this day-long meeting was to figure out what the faculty could do to best achieve their mission.
One scientist talked about specialization. "We are very specialized in our individual research," she said. "That's how we win our grants and get money. And we are becoming increasingly specialized.  It's like the expanding universe. All our stars are flying farther apart from each other."
"That's very true," said another scientist. "Yet to be effective in solving this very complex puzzle, we need to get closer to each other. We need to build understanding of what each of us is learning. Bridging that gap is our biggest challenge."
Another person jumped in. "In my last project, we put together an inter-disciplinary team. We met twice each week as a team. At first I hated having so many meetings. But that project yielded surprising and important breakthroughs in understanding how our immune system affects early childhood development. Communication was key to our success."
"That's right," another person said. "The breakthroughs occur when we understand what happens at three levels - behavior, development, and biology. We need to bridge those gaps."
"But that's a huge leap," another person said. "Each of those is a different world with a different history and protocols and language. How can we possibly do that?"
People make the same leap when they become leaders, I said. When people are promoted into leadership roles, they have to rethink how they add value. The biggest leap is understanding the importance of communication. Those who succeed as leaders build good systems of communication. They make sure there's enough communication so that everyone understands how they can best work together and achieve the organization's goals.
"So who is responsible for that here?" someone asked.
"Good question," I said. "What do you think?"
"I guess we all are."
"So how can you build systems of communication?" I asked.
People started to toss out ideas. Within an hour, we had identified five new strategies to build communication. The faculty agreed to try all of them. They also agreed to meet each quarter to assess how well they were communicating. I was happy. They were making the leap.