Last night I watched Senator Orrin Hatch grill the Acting Director of the IRS, Steven Miller. During the testimony Senator Hatch claimed that Miller had “lied by omission.” This was in reference to how Miller had left out critical and pertinent information that would have helped clarify what actually happened inside the IRS. Miller insisted he had not lied, but Hatch pushed back and articulated why he thought Miller had lied by omitting information.

This got me wondering if I had ever lied or deceived by omission. How about you?

Ethical Principle. One of our Company’s ethical principles is “we are always truthful.” When I speak with team members about this principle I ask, “How many of you have raised teenagers?” I then remind the group about how often teenagers are masters at omitting information when questioned so they can later say, “I didn’t lie.” Usually everyone nods and smiles at this point.

When you withhold or “omit” relevant information, you aren’t being truthful. So the ultimate, ethical question is “how do I know which information is relevant and which isn’t?” And the answer is, “you know.”

How to Spot a Liar. This week I read an interesting Harvard Business Review article by Carmen Nobel called “How to Spot a Liar.” This article, in which Nobel summarizes the findings of Deepak Malhotra, Lyn M. Van Swol, and Michael T. Braun, explores the “linguistic differences between lies, deception by omission, and truths.” This study interested me because it focused mostly on how people communicate during negotiations.

This research intrigues experts because it looks carefully at the communication differences between lying and “deception by omission” rather than just the difference between lying and truth-telling. They define deception by omission as “the willful avoidance of divulging important information, either by changing the subject or by saying as little as possible.”

The Ultimatum Game. To arrive at their findings, the researchers used a game played by econometric researchers called the Ultimatum Game. This simple game is between two people, the giver and the receiver. One party (giver) is given money to split with the other (receiver). The giver knows the total quantity of money and the receiver doesn’t. The giver decides and tells the receiver how much the receiver will get. The receiver can then accept or reject the proposal. If they reject, neither party gets anything. Thus the giver needs to guess how much to give the receiver to satisfy them.

For this particular deception experiment the researchers modified the game in three ways. First, the givers were promised that the researchers wouldn’t tell receivers how much money the giver started with ($30) and the giver was under no obligation to share this information. Second, if the receiver rejected the proposal they would receive a guaranteed payment of $7.50 and the giver nothing. Third, they would allow a two-minute conversation (videotaped) in which the receiver could ask the giver questions. It was this video-taped conversation that gave researchers insight into whether or not givers lied, deceived, or told the truth.

When they studied the film they looked for evidence of “strategic cues” and “nonstrategic cues”. Strategic cues are methods by which a liar intentionally tries to reduce the receiver’s feelings that they are being deceived. Nonstrategic cues are generally emotional and the giver may be unaware they are doing it. They discovered these four things:

1. 70% of the givers were honest and either told the receiver about the pot amount or split equally.
2. Strategic cues-
   • a. Liars usually used more words during the two-minute interaction in a likely attempt to win over the receiver. (I picture a fast-talking used car salesman.) They called this “the Pinocchio effect” because the number of words grew as the lie grew.
   • b. Givers who engaged in deception, on the other hand, used very few words and shorter sentences than the truth-tellers.
3. Nonstrategic cues-
   • a. Liars used more swear words than truth tellers, especially when they were challenged. This is likely because when the brain is working so hard at lying it has a hard time regulating one’s behavior.
   • b. Liars used more third person pronouns. This may be a psychological way for the person to distance him/herself from the lie.
4. On average receivers believed liars more than those who deceived by omission. Thus, omission is a very poor deception or lying strategy!

Personal Note. A few years ago I learned a valuable communication lesson myself. At that time, and now sometimes, I have a habit of saying “honestly” when I respond to a question to which I am unsure of the answer. During a consulting sales presentation to a prospective client (after we had built some rapport) the client smiled and said, “Since you qualify some answers with ‘honestly’ does that mean your other answers are not honest?” Although it was handled in an amusing way that day, it is feedback I have always remembered. I was pleased I was very transparent during that discussion; however, I became acutely aware of how important words are during negotiations.

There are some good lessons here about how we communicate and how others might perceive you. While I’m hopeful that lying is not one of your communication strategies, I’ll bet you have practiced deception by omission at least once. Now you know what to look for before you ever have to face Senator Hatch.

Several years ago I heard a speech I still think about, so it must have been a good one. I thought about it again recently when I had a discussion with someone about “benchmarking” – which is when an organization changes its practices to better mirror those of top performers. As the discussion progressed, I asked them if they had ever heard of “positive deviance.” They hadn’t. So I told them this story.

NH Charitable Foundation and Jerry Sternin. Five or six years ago when I attended the annual meeting of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation they had Jerry Sternin, who has since passed away, as a guest speaker. He started his talk that night, as he often did, by saying, “You cannot think your way into a new way of acting, you have to act your way into a new way of thinking.” He then told us how important it was for organizational and community leaders to understand “positive deviance” because it is the best way for groups of people to learn how they can change. It is especially effective when there are problems that people care about and are motivated to improve.

They use the words “positive deviance” to describe the highest performers who excel, stand-out, and deviate most from average performers. The word “deviance” in this case comes from studying standard deviations and looking for the performers who reside in the highest or most “positive” deviance from the norm.

Sternin’s Example – Malnourished Children in Vietnam. Jerry told us about when he and his wife, Monique, were asked to help Vietnam solve a large and worsening nourishment problem for the village children. The Sternins were affiliated with the Save the Children Fund at the time. Vietnam had tried many different ways to get food distributed to the villages, but the children’s health still declined. They needed help and Jerry thought they could use positive deviance to solve the problem.

Four Ds of Positive Deviance. He used this Vietnamese story to teach us about using the 4Ds of positive deviance.

1. Define problem. The problem was that more than 60% (I believe) of the village children were malnourished and the percentage was worsening. The political leaders cared about it because these children were the country’s future workforce. The parents cared about it because they wanted healthy children.
2. Determine if positive deviance exists. Sternin started their work at the village level, where he met and engaged village leaders. He assumed there were also several healthy children in the village, so he asked the leaders if they knew who these children were. They did.
3. Discover practices that help the positive deviants excel. Sternin met with the families of the very healthy children. His team discovered that the mothers of these children followed a very different meal preparation process. The norm in these villages was that the moms would go out into the rice patties and harvest rice, boil it, dump the water, and feed the children good portions of rice generally two times a day. However, the moms of the healthy kids also caught shrimp in the rice patties and cooked the shrimp in the water with the rice. They also added sweet potato greens to the same water. The rice absorbed additional vitamins and nutrients during this process. These moms also fed their children several, smaller quantity meals each day.
4. Develop other people’s habits so they can replicate the outcomes of the positive deviants. Sternin and his team taught the village leaders how to teach the families to follow these other practices in meal preparation. The result was a rapid improvement in child nourishment in the selected villages.

Sternin described how positive deviance was being used in several other industries including hospitals, where they were working on reducing the spread of infectious diseases in some hospitals. You can read a more in-depth description in this Fast Company article.

I have been involved with groups of people who have used various forms of this process since and it can be very effective. The key is to clarify the problem, make sure the group of people wants to change, and then guide them to learn how to change. If you find yourself in this kind of leadership situation, I suggest starting with the 4 Ds of positive deviance – you might just find nourishment among the deviants.

I recently attended the Masters Golf tournament for the first time – it was on my bucket list. The Masters is played every year at the same course - Augusta National, which is in Georgia. Augusta

National and The Masters is for golfers what Jerusalem is for Christians, Jews, and Muslims – a holy place. And, like Jerusalem, it is a place where humans have sought perfection at the expense of others. I wondered as I walked around those hallowed grounds whether it was right for me to admire a place developed by leadership I couldn’t admire.

First, My Experience. I was lucky to be there on a beautiful day and I got to see the fun Par-3 tournament. I have hundreds of pictures of golfers and especially like this one of Arnold Palmer and Tom Watson after Arnold autographed a flag for Tom. I followed Tiger and Fred Couples around the back-9 as they practiced for the tournament. I was able to look at the greens and see how difficult they are. The grass is perfect, the azaleas beautiful, the food inexpensive, and the amenities for spectators nearly perfect. So, I can see why everyone says that as golf courses go, Augusta National is nearly perfect.

Four Examples of Questionable Leadership. Augusta National was developed by Cliff Roberts and Bobby Jones and opened in 1932. Bobby Jones, a name familiar to golfers, was the greatest golfer of that era and grew up near Augusta. He was loved by everyone and having his name associated with the course contributed significantly to its quick rise in popularity. However, Cliff Roberts ran the whole operation and controlled everything and ruled with an iron fist from 1934 to 1976. From a book called The Masters by Curt Sampson, here is a partial list of questionable practices under Cliff Robert’s leadership:

1. Roberts did not pay small local contractors in the 1930s for construction cost overruns. Roberts told the rich, northern charter members that he thought the locals would not legally pursue them because the contractors would not want to affect their positive personal relationships with the revered Bobby Jones. From those early days until his death he treated the average Augusta citizens with contempt.
2. Roberts insisted for most of his reign that all the caddies be black and that members could only be white and male. He once said, “As long as I'm alive, all the golfers will be white and all the caddies will be black." The first black member, Ron Townsend, wasn’t admitted until 1990. Only in 2012 did women finally make it when former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and financier, Darla Moore, were invited to join.
3. Roberts required concession workers to cut holes in their pockets to discourage them from stealing sandwich concession money. There were numerous published examples of how he cruelly treated workers
4. If Roberts didn’t like certain golfers, he would make them feel unwelcome. He often confronted golfers for very modest breaches of protocol and demand they write letters of apology or they wouldn’t be invited back. The list of professional golfers who have felt his wrath is long.

Cliff Roberts had an individual vision of perfection and he did everything in his power to achieve it. Apparently he had hundreds of male golfers who either agreed with his vision or ignored their reservations just to become or stay a member. Thus, his coercive leadership style went unchecked. I suppose he had control right up to his end when he committed suicide on the banks of the par-3 course at Augusta National in 1977.

A Wonderful Example of a Pursuit of Perfection. This week my friend Bob Devantery introduced me to the work of Harvey Fite. Fite was a sculptor and artist who bought an old quarry in Saugerties, NY in the 1930s. His goal was to personally sculpt the whole quarry into a piece of art. He spent 37 years building terraces, alleys, ramps, steps and pools. Fite estimated it would take him 40 years and so he named it Opus 40. (This is Bob’s picture of Opus 40.) Unfortunately Fite died 37 years into the project from a fall in the quarry.

No doubt both Roberts and Fite were motivated by their pursuit of perfection. Since Fite worked independently on his pursuit, his final product is arguably one of the most perfect rock quarries in existence. But, although Roberts created nearly a perfect golf course, the final product is so tarnished with human rights stains, it can never be perfect.

And the leadership lesson for me is to always question a leader whose personal pursuit of perfection pushes followers from the fairway into the unethical rough – for once you are in this rough there can be no perfection.

If you are from the greater Boston area, you won’t forget the Boston Marathon massacre for the rest of your life. We all know people who were there and many of us know people who were killed or injured. As I look back on this time, there are three management and leadership lessons I will remember.

Lesson 1 – Importance of Planning. Before I write about leadership, a quick note about planning, which is primarily a management rather than leadership activity. I think the response to the Boylston Street explosions and subsequent search and capture of the suspects is a noteworthy example of why planning is such an important activity. Deservedly, a great deal has been reported positively about how well emergency responders, police, and the FBI handled the events following the explosions. This happened largely because these groups were trained to respond and many logistical details were planned and written down in advance.

Of course there were hundreds of variables that entered this situation that weren’t planned for, but they did plan in advance who would handle the hundreds of decisions related to the unknown variables. And, after the dust settles they will sit down again and explore what worked and what didn’t and they will be better prepared should another tragic event happen.

Lesson 2 – Helpers are Leaders. We have seen and read about how in the seconds following the explosion, a group of fellow human beings surged into the exploded area to help victims. I’m sure it inspired you as much as it did me when you watched it. What is notable is that there were a few people who fearlessly began the surge and others followed. These first helpers showed others, who might have hesitated at first, that it was okay to go in.

These helpers are great examples of “servant leaders.” They clearly demonstrated two aspects of servant leadership that have been described by Robert Greenleaf – they put service before self-interest and they nourished others and helped them become whole.

As Jen Daysa, our church’s Director of Youth & Family Ministries, reminded me on Sunday, when parents try to talk with their children about these events, they often go back to good old Fred Rogers. Rogers said, “"When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’ To this day, especially in times of ‘disaster,’ I remember my mother's words and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers – so many caring people in this world."

In addition to the first helpers, there were hundreds of other caring people – runners who continued on to the hospitals to give blood, hospital personnel who went in and helped without being paged, and even runners who gave their medals to runners who didn’t finish.

Lesson 3 – When Helpers Inspire Others. Speaking of caring people, here’s one story that really inspires me that you might have missed during the Marathon news eclipse. Cameron Lyle is a senior track shot-putter from the University of New Hampshire. He has just donated his bone marrow to help a cancer patient, who would have only six months to live without a transplant.

Lyle chose to help because his marrow is rare and there are no other donors with such a perfect match. Two things are really inspiring about Lyle’s decision. First, he is giving-up competing in his last two championship meets of his career. And, second, he doesn’t know the patient. Lyle’s decision is inspiring others to now donate bone marrow. That’s leadership.

Please feel free to share other lessons from this week by commenting on this Blog post.

I think that a positive attitude comes when we are happy, when we are having fun, and when we laugh at ourselves and the situations we find ourselves in. As Jimmy Buffet reminds us,

“It’s these changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes
Nothing remains quite the same
With all of our running and all of our cunning
If we couldn’t laugh we would all go insane.”

In Part I of this Blog post I wrote about the importance of positive attitude and how to recognize the symptoms of negative attitude. Let’s explore how someone can try to change negative attitude.

Changes in Attitude. John Maxwell says, “The key to having a good attitude is the willingness to change.” Whether you need to change your own attitude or help another change his or hers, here are eight choices you can make.

1. Evaluate your present attitude – understand what causes your negative feelings and recognize the feelings in advance so you can manage your attitude.
2. Realize that faith is stronger than fear – often negative attitudes come from fear of change. If we believe things will work out and be good in the end, we can reduce our negative attitude.
3. Internalize your purpose – You can get at your purpose by following these three (3) steps daily:
   • (a) Write down your goals for the day
   • (b) Share your objectives with an encouraging friend, colleague, or team leader
   • (c) Take action on your objectives and share results with the friend, colleague, or leader. This builds-in a natural level of accountability.
4. Have the desire to change – I think this is the toughest one; people have to want to change. If you are not changing, explore the reasons. Create your own ways to get out of the rut. As Mark Twain once wrote, “Take your mind out every now and then and dance on it. It is getting all caked up.”
5. Live one day at a time – Stop thinking about what happened yesterday. Don’t worry about tomorrow, it isn’t here yet. Focus on today’s goals and the successes that come with their achievements.
6. Change your thought patterns – Maxwell says, “We can control our thoughts. Our feelings (and attitude) come from our thoughts. Thus, we can control our feelings by learning to change our thoughts.” There are some very good resources on line to help you do this.
7. Develop good habits – An attitude comes from a habit of thought. Bad attitude comes from bad habits of thought. Here are steps for you to change your bad habits:
   • (a) List your bad habits
   • (b) What was the original cause of the habit?
   • (c) What do you do that supports the habit?
   • (d) Determine a positive habit to replace the bad one
   • (e) Think about the good habit, its benefits and results.
   • (f) Take actions to further develop the new habit.
   • (g) Act daily on the new habit to reinforce it.
   • (h) Reward yourself my noting one benefit of the new habit.
8. Choose your attitude – In the fun book called FISH , which gives us four tips on raising morale, they remind us to “choose your attitude” every day. In the video, which I have seen many times at employee functions, team members at Pike Place Fish Market talk about starting the day with a positive attitude. I recommend turning-on your positive, work attitude “light switch” before you arrive at work. If you have any challenges in your private life, turn them off before you arrive.

The most important job of a leader is to manage the attitude temperature of both ourselves and our teams. If you can’t help a person change their attitude, then it’s our job to move them off the bus, free them to their future, and make sure we don’t all go insane.