These days, NASA’s recommended astronaut attribute list includes:
• Ability to relate to others with sensitivity, regard, and empathy
• Adaptability, flexibility, and fairness
• A sense of humor
• Ability to form stable and quality interpersonal relationships

Roach continues, “Today’s space agency does not want guts and swagger…The right stuff is no longer bravado, aggressiveness and virility.”

It’s ironic that the change in what NASA is looking for parallels what we now look for throughout many societies, including our own. We look for the above attributes in our families. We seek them in our corporations.

Why is this so? Did our society change, causing us to change along with it? Or did we as individuals change, promoting new attitudes that society is simply reflecting?

It’s hard to know, because we both influence and are influenced by our society. But what we do know is that when personal attributes and society are compatible – when personal attributes match how society has evolved – individuals and their society exist in harmony.

In today’s world, the new attributes of the astronauts, like the attributes that make our families and organizations strong, are the ones that appear to fit the needs of our society.

So was that “right stuff” behavior ever really the right stuff?

Maybe it was for a previous time. But those behaviors are simply the wrong ones for every facet of today’s society. They are not only outdated, but counter-evolutionary and therefore Neanderthal.

Guts and swagger still has its place. But it’s nice to know we have all evolved to an era where quality relationships, empathy, humor and fairness are the new norm.

They received the Nobel Prize for their efforts to create economic and social development programs in poverty-stricken Bangladesh. Yunus inspired the effort to give small “micro-loans” to the poor, requiring neither collateral nor legal guarantee of repayment. Yunus and Grameen Bank believed that every individual has the potential and right to a decent life, and that giving a little help was what was needed to change the lives of the poor. They demonstrated that even the poorest of the poor can bring about their own development.

What started with a $20 loan has to date given out over $8 billion in US dollars and helped more than 80,000 villages. The loans have financed everything from growing vegetables for sale to helping someone buy a mobile phone who in turn sells phone time to others. Even these very small types of businesses bring both income and dignity. Over 18,000 beggars who received these loans have left begging. The loan recovery rate is 96.55 percent.

There is much to be learned from what these humanitarians did and how they did it. The most obvious lesson is what can happen when we give people a chance. Even larger, that each of us can achieve remarkable things from a tiny beginning.

There are two aspects of this work that I am moved to highlight. People who receive loans participate in intensive dialogue in their villages regarding what principles should be applied to qualify for a loan. Recipients are asked to make continuous strides to implement the “16 Decisions” that sprang from these dialogues. You can find the “16 Decisions” at www.grameen-info.org. I found two of them to be particularly striking:

Decision 12: “We shall not inflict injustice on anyone, neither shall we allow anyone to do so.”

Decision 14: “We shall always be ready to help each other. If anyone is in difficulty, we shall all help him or her.”

Imagine going to your bank for a loan and, as a condition of the loan, being asked to seek justice for all and to pledge to help your neighbor!

When I told Dr. Yunus that I felt that the entire world would benefit if we embraced these principles, he modestly commented that it was a part of their culture. However, would we not benefit as a community and a country if we could make these principles part of the way we live

Some people in our country feel strongly that we should not help the other guy, that it’s not our collective responsibility to help when someone is experiencing hard times. Some go so far as to decry this kind of help as socialism, which they see as a bad and even fearsome thing.

The indigent in Bangladesh may be poor financially, but they are rich in terms of holding beliefs that could save not just a village but the entire world.

Extremes. We have learned over the course of centuries that the “middle way” or moderation is the surest path to enlightenment. If extreme behavior is promoted by a self-help leader, as was the case with the sweat-lodge and “rebirthing” rituals – don’t walk: RUN away at warp speed.

Separation. Beware if you are asked to separate yourself from family and friends. If this is required, it is to make you more dependent on the purveyors. An attempt is being made to rip you away from your base of support and to shield you from constructive questioning.

Attack. You do not deserve to be attacked, either psychologically or physically. Attack is designed to strip away the self-esteem you currently possess. The goal is to make you vulnerable to attempts to reconstitute your esteem based on others’ terms – with little influence from your instinctive values.

Conforming. Your individually is your most precious gift. If you are asked to “become one” with others, it is an attempt to subjugate those aspects of yourself that make you different and to dissolve your protective coating. The best self-help guides help you become the best person you can be without losing your individuality.

Mind Control. Don’t let anyone tell you what to think. You need to reason for yourself based on evidence, logic, and the experience you have acquired over a lifetime.

*For more examples of self-help gone awry, go to “Self-Help Doesn’t Help – And Often Hurts”, by Steve Salerno, WSJ 10.23.09 and his book SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless.

Society suffers when business practices are geared to maximize profit at the expense of what’s best for the rest of us.  However, savvy leaders find ways to benefit both their enterprise and society at large.

Here’s one example. McDonald’s Jim Skinner, named 2009 CEO of the Year by a diverse committee of CEOs, heads a company emblematic of the very eating habits that have led the world down a fat-lined, slippery path toward higher and higher levels of obesity.

McDonald’s has long been a symbol for all that is bad about American eating habits. In fact, the company’s ubiquity is considered by some to be a major factor in America’s out-of-control obesity epidemic.

Many CEOs would have concluded that doing something about this was too much of a business risk since, after all, they were selling a lot of darn hamburgers. Skinner, on the other hand, changed the menu. By adding low fat items such as fruit, vegetables, and chicken, he found that – among other things – same store sales increased dramatically. Even more impressive: McDonald’s was one of only two DJIA stocks posting a gain at the end of 2008.

Sure, you can argue about the merits of McDonald’s and even their motivation. But this is still a prime example of how you can adjust your business to serve society better – and get rewarded not just psychically but in real dollars. That’s an order any smart leader would be wise to serve up.

The fact that Lafley will remain as Chairman may make the transition less of an issue in that what is expected of McDonald may only change incrementally from his former role as COO. In fact, as is true with many COO-CEO relationships, this change may free McDonald to be an even stronger executor, unfettered by being closely second-guessed by the CEO.

Being a strong executor is not so bad, since a vision without execution is fantasy and P&G will need to deliver more than ever. On the other hand, becoming CEO changes people. There is nothing like looking above you and seeing only space to spread your wings, or looking around and feeling a higher sense of accountability and authority. How the role transforms McDonald remains to be seen.

At the same time, the transition may free Lafley from the encumbrance of the day-to-day so that he can fully concentrate on the future. This is also important to P&G right now, as long as Lafley truly lets go of the CEO reins.

As many former CEOs have told me, letting go of that top leadership role is typically pretty hard. Kudos to Lafley if he can resist the temptation to hang on to CEO functions.

This is a good start in changing a culture.  Clearly there has been a problem of intransigence within GM, and the culture is a prime culprit. I particularly applaud Fritz’s desire for a culture where people are not afraid to tell the truth. (See the Winter 2004 WBW & Associates, LLC Newsletter, A Culture That Encourages the Disclosure of “Bad News”.)

What else will Fritz need to do? After giving people every opportunity to change, he will need to weed out those employees who remain recalcitrant. When done well and for good reason, this will send a message that he is serious about change. This would also be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of employees who want to get on board with new ways of thinking and who want their co-workers to join them. The auto industry has not found it easy to take this kind of action in the past. Employees know that GM not only has a burning platform but that it is being consumed by fire.

This action needs to be preceded by clarifying exactly what the desired new behaviors look like and how they apply to different jobs. The new behaviors and performance expectations need to be clearly communicated.

What else must Fritz do? Among other things, he must remember that it is not just people who create a culture, but also the systems and processes that influence behavior. Mapping out these processes and systems—and viewing them like General Patton reviewed war plans—is a necessity.

Fritz must also personally demonstrate his own willingness to be challenged. In fact, when he himself takes a risk and screws up, this actually gives him an opportunity to acknowledge it to employees and then to indicate what he has learned from the mistake. When a good effort by an employee fails, the criterion for determining whether the employee is a good performer is not so much the mistake, but the employee being able to demonstrate what he or she has learned from the mistake. Actions like these will reinforce that GM is serious about the new culture they are trying to create.

Failure will occur. It may be a new car design with no takers or some other real doozey of a misstep. How GM handles these inevitable bumps in the road will send a message regarding the culture they are creating far more than mere words about it.

So far, Fritz seems to be asking the right questions and he sounds like the right person for the role. This is an uphill battle for GM, but not an impossible one to win.