January 15, 2009 marks the date of one of the most famous disaster aversions in history. US Air Flight 1549 made an emergency landing in the Hudson River approximately 6 minutes after take-off and saved 155 people.

Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullivan might not look like the typical corporate leader, but the skills he demonstrated that day provide a key lesson for all leaders.

Imagine, you were Captain Sullivan, when you recognized that you were in serious trouble over one of the most populated areas in the world. What questions might have been running through your mind?

• How many lives are at stake? The families that would be affected.
• How will my family be affected?
• How can this be happening to me? I can’t believe that a flock of birds has taken out my entire engine system?
• When do we land? Which airport?
• What are the rest of the crew doing? Are they looking after the passengers?
• What am I going to do? Can I do what needs to be done? Was I trained for this?
• How fast? How slow? What rate of descent? Nose up or down?
• What happens if I screw up and everyone dies?

The list is virtually endless.

But Captain Sullivan was able to successfully ditch the plane and everyone survived. In under 3 minutes — the time between the bird strike and the landing — Captain Sullivan needed to process an untold number of variables and outside influences and make the decisions that ultimately saved lives.

That’s leadership.

My Perspective: When we are faced with a leadership decision, it is imperative that we focus on the issues that are critical and block out the noise that is constantly crashing the decision-making process.

Captain Sullivan made very few critical decisions that day. He quickly evaluated and decided which option to pursue for landing. He focused on the key issues that were his responsibility for landing the plane. And he cleared everything else from his mind so he could focus on the decisions that were critical.

How often do we as leaders get so caught up in the non-essential chatter that surrounds decision-making that we get distracted from the core elements that we must focus on.

Captain Sullivan was calm, clear and focused on his task.

Blocking out the noise can only happen when we have clarity on what we stand for and where we are going as an organization. The tough decisions of leadership can only be made when we have clarity around our values and the purpose of the organization.

Leaders need to develop the ability to filter out the chatter and focus on the critical elements.

Recently I was working with a client and was reminded just how destructive email can be when used incorrectly.

Like many companies, their standard form of communication is email. They are spread across Canada and internationally. People work together who never meet, and the default form of communication for all issues is email.

The problem is that people will often say things by email they would never say to your face. People use email to avoid dealing with conflict — it’s easier to fire off an email than deal with the issue head-on. Plus, there is always a record — the ultimate “cover your ass”.

Too often emails don’t get at the substance of the issue — or important elements do not get addressed because they rightly should not be put on paper. Words on paper can often be misunderstood by the recipient, causing escalation when none is needed.

My Perspective: Leaders build rapport based on emotional connections. If you really want to build relationships — you won’t do it unless you create an emotional connection with people — and that requires individualized interactions.

Here are a few thoughts to keep in mind the next time you think about sending an email when a phone call might work better.

1. When you speak to someone personally, you have the opportunity to build rapport with your colleagues. The emotional context of the conversation is much easier to communicate. Too often the tone of an email is misunderstood. On the phone you have the modulation of your voice and it’s easier to communicate the feelings behind the words.
2. The phone allows you to listen and build on their contribution more efficiently.
3. If you misspeak, you have the opportunity to immediately address the situation. It doesn’t create an opportunity for the recipient to fester and contemplate their response. Although email does offer time for reflection, it too often is used to launch a counter-attack.
4. Email prolongs discussion. I am sure we have all experienced entire conversations played out via email, with the entire company copied, looking for input from anyone and listening to no one.
5. It’s not always what you say, but how you say it. Electronic communication removes the emotion and personality and we are left with the stark words. This is especially problematic when people are trying to resolve problems or communicate the subtleties of thought or emotion.

I agree that email has an important role in communicating — as do Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and a host of other electronic channels. They have fundamentally changed how we communicate. They may deepen and broaden and existing relationship — but they cannot, on their own, create a deep relationship with a real emotional connection.

The digital channels cannot replace the live emotional connection we can create face to face or on the phone. That’s hard to replicate electronically.

Often if you ask a colleague who is having some difficulties with another colleague if they have picked up the phone — too often the response is “no”.

So the next time you are preparing to dash off an email — ask yourself, could this situation be better served through a phone call (or even a face to face). Then pick up the phone and build a relationship.

When discussing leadership, we often hear words like teamwork and collaboration. People tend to shy away from words like conflict and disagreement. But are these bad?

Strong leaders encourage disagreement, because it ensures that everyone on the team is using their full potential to ensure decisions are bullet-proofed.

We are all trained from an early age to defer to authority. however, people who are closer to the issue or opportunity often have a different, more informed, perspective than more senior people.

My Perspective: If you are always getting agreement to your thoughts and ideas, then your people aren’t contributing their own valued ideas. As a leader you need to ensure that your team feels safe disagreeing and challenging your thinking. If your team automatically defers to the boss, then you and the team will miss out on critical input and thinking.

Make it easy for people to speak up with a dissenting opinion in a safe environment. Actively ask for their input — and then ask again to demonstrate you are serious about hearing their thoughts. Disagreeing with the boss requires courage, so recognize people when they voice a dissenting opinion and challenge your thinking with good ideas of their own.

When discussing projects, share your  comments as initial thoughts as opposed to formed ideas, then ask for input in developing the ideas further. This will encourage people to build on the thinking versus just agree.

Make sure that you don’t react negatively if someone disagrees, even if you think it is a bad idea. This will just shut people down in the future. It’s much better to allow the group to determine that the idea doesn’t make sense based on evaluation — and better ideas that come forward.

Lastly, never confuse dissent or disagreement with disrespect. Disrespect doesn’t belong in any discussion.

Recently I executed an employee engagement survey across a client organization. When I compared the senior executive team with the blended front-line results I discovered a very troubling outcome.

The senior executives were almost unanimous in the belief that they had done an excellent job of communicating the core values of the organization — yet results from the front-line indicated exactly the opposite.

Even worse, some of the comments indicated that the values the front-line were observing were inconsistent with the “advertised” values.

Too many organizations believe that the values are clear in their organization. However, all too often, the values that are communicated are coming via actions rather than words — or the actions speak louder than the words.

Here are few questions to ask yourself.

• Have you crystallized your values and written them down?
• Does everyone at the senior level of the organization agree and commit to live by these values?
• Did you involve your employees? Were they involved in establishing the organizational values? Do they feel ownership?
• Did you solicit buy-in across the organization and give them an opportunity to discuss them and what they mean in their daily lives?
• Do you regularly communicate the values? Do you explain your decisions in the context of your values so everyone understand how the values come to life?
• Do you live your values? Actions speak louder than words — are your values being demonstrated on a daily basis in your decision-making?

My Perspective: If you don’t have clearly defined core values, this is a missed opportunity to influence and engage employees. Too often organizations have a communications plan — but it doesn’t do a very good job of communicating internally.

Having a clear set of values also let’s people know what kind of organization is being built and they have an opportunity to decide whether they want to belong to that kind of organization. And in return, you have the evaluate people for a good fit with your team.

Clarity is key.

Are you finding that you are not hearing the fresh ideas and new thinking in your organization that you would like. Are you often faced with sitting through presentations that sound like the same ideas rehashed again and again.

Well maybe you are burying good ideas under a bad process.

Before you hear their ideas — are your teams spending time getting them “right”? Are they vetted, reviewed, revised and debated around in circles until all the edginess and excitement has been “fine-tuned” right out of existence.

Imagine if ideas for the iPhone had been fine-tuned to death before they were presented to the boss. Of if space travel had been fine-tuned before making the suggestion to president Kennedy?

My Perspective: As a leader it is your job to foster an environment where good ideas become great — not where good ideas get ground down into mundane ideas.

Instead of insisting that ideas are thoroughly vetted before your hear them, instead find ways to be part of idea generation sessions where you have the opportunity to hear raw, unfiltered ideas that need championing, not fine-tuning.

Skip the fancy presentations, remove the filters, roll up your sleeves and create idea incubation sessions where people present raw ideas and concepts that aren’t well thought out, but still hold the promise of greatness. Then embrace some of these ideas and help them grow with your support.

Just think, one of those ideas might turn into the next Google, Zappos or iPhone.

Just imagine