"Speaking Truth to Power" was the headline of a cover story in the Economist marking the occasion of the death of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the former Soviet dissident and Nobel laureate. In his books, Solzhenitsyn chronicled the horrors of Stalinist repression, revealing the hypocrisies of the Soviet system that subjugated people to party. His defiant stand earned him exile but honor and dignity in the West.

The headline serves not only as a fitting epitaph for a dissident, but also as inspiration for those who aspire to lead. We often equate leadership with power, but it's not always the case that they are connected. Indeed, it may be true that those in senior positions have power, but they may not be leaders. Conversely those without power are true leaders.

How can this be? Those in power who put themselves before others are acting in their own self-interest while those without power who put others before themselves are acting for the good of the group. There's a degree of altruism in authentic leadership, and while it's difficult to practice, it does give genuine spine to an organization. Here are three ways to implement real leadership:

Report bad news. A 2006 study by Vital Smarts/Concours Group showed that one key reason that projects failed was that people failed to speak up when they saw things go wrong. Sometimes people are afraid to speak up because the failure may make them or their boss look bad. Yet this is exactly the time to report mistakes so that they can be corrected.

Stick up for your team. One reason bosses get no respect is because they fail to show respect for their people. Such bosses take credit for team success and affix blame to hide their own shortcomings. The boss who lauds his team in front of his superiors is a boss that employees love working for. And when the boss takes the heat for things gone wrong, they like him even more.

Create a righteous culture. Doing the right thing can be difficult; we all suffer temptations from fools and ourselves. But if the boss holds himself accountable and expects the same of others, acting with integrity becomes less of a chore and more of an aspiration. This is not simply about ethics; it also involves treating colleagues with respect and honoring their points of view, especially when they conflict with your own. People want to do the right thing but even more so when others are doing the same.

These three suggestions should not override diplomacy. That is, there are times to speak up and times to remain silent. You don't need to challenge the boss or the boss's boss every time you disagree. That kind of constant criticism will marginalize you and diminish your influence. People will assume you're a crank and dismiss you. Then when you have a real issue, you'll be ignored as the team's contrarian, the one no one pays attention to.

Make no mistake, leadership is not sainthood. Leaders have faults first and foremost because they are human. But genuine leaders acknowledge their faults and seek to do better. Their self-awareness is painfully real; they know their personal shortcomings. Over time, their example sets the standards for others to follow.

He has been indicted for perjury, sentenced to jail for not keeping the court informed of his whereabouts, charged with assaulting a police officer. Who is this miscreant?

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

His bad behavior has led to calls for his resignation. Detroit's city council and Michigan's governor are evaluating ways to remove him from office. But Kwame's not budging.

Kilpatrick claims that he is on an "assignment from God" and he will never "quit" the people of Detroit. The truth of the former may be debated; the truth of the latter is laughable. Kwame quit on the people when his ethical lapses prevented him from serving as an effective leader. By remaining in office, Kilpatrick serves as the archetype of a "me first" leader.

Sadly, such leaders are not restricted to just politics; we find them in corporate America, and not simply in boardrooms and along "mahogany row," but in cubicles and shop floors too. Wherever there are employees to be managed, there could be a me first manager. You can spot them by looking for these three traits:

He is quick to take credit. The me firster shows up front-and-center when things are going well. If the team does an outstanding job, he makes certain that the boss knows the good work was a result of his direction.

He is quick to dole out blame. Conversely, when things go sour, a me firster proactively points fingers instead of seeking solutions. He needs to find a scapegoat for what went wrong so as not to risk his position or career development.

He is adept at avoiding blame and consequences. In addition to pointing fingers, a me firster excels at escaping blame by becoming invisible when crises occur. He waits out the fire, and returns only when the heat is off. Outsiders will wonder why senior management doesn't catch on to such behavior. Refer back to the first trait: he's skilled at taking credit for his team's work and sometimes he'll get management buy-in.

The me firster lives to protect and serve his own interests, often at the expense of others. He also possesses another trait, a sixth sense for cozying up to powerful people in the organization, not out of respect such individuals, but as a means of currying favor. Even those in highest levels of the organization, who may not have a boss, will do this by surrounding themselves with yes people.

Getting rid of me firsters isn't easy. In developing countries, such leaders are typically overthrown by a coup, only to be replaced by another in the same mold, sometimes by a former yes person. In the corporate world, they continue to float along, often right up until retirement, making life miserable for others.

Tell me about your first-hand experience with a me first manager.

"Most new leaders advance in their careers due their proficiency with technical skills, but they don't necessarily have the leadership abilities needed for success in their higher-level positions," says Steve Cohen, senior vice president with Right Management. Bingo, Steve!

Time and again, I have witnessed talented and productive employees move into management not only without the necessary training, but also without a real desire to manage others. This phenomenon is particularly acute among employees with technical skills such as design, engineering or science. It also appears in high-producing sales people who can make more selling than they do managing.

Moving into management is a huge leap of faith. First, for many employees, it means giving up what they really love doing. That's why they're considered promotable in the first place, because they're good at their jobs. But too frequently managers-to-be are not asked if they really want to move up, and worse they're not prepared to manage others.

So before you consider promoting a competent employee ask three questions:

Why does this person want to manage? Technically competent employees typically enjoy their jobs. Many want to continue being designers, engineers and scientists; management to them is administrative, not something worthy of their skill set. Ask the prospective manager if he actually wants to manage and, if so, why? More money and prestige may be incentives but they aren't enough to sustain a career.

What additional contributions can this person make as a manager? Employees who are contributing at a high level are hard to find. Sometimes organizations forget that promoting the high-level performer into management means she will not be doing her old job. On the other hand, other organizations will prevent a good employee from advancing because she is too productive. For employees who do not want to advance, the answer is to leave them be; for those who want to advance, organizations need to find ways to let them grow and develop. Otherwise they will leave to work for another company.

How will we support this new manager? If a new study by Right Management is any indication, the answer is, "not well." Just three in 10 new managers receive coaching, even less than the 35% that senior leaders (including CEOs) receive. Coaching is not the only solution; support can come in the form of professional development via executive education courses. In-company mentoring is another solution. Regardless, the newly promoted manager needs some help, sooner than later.

Some employees have the gumption (as well as the self-knowledge) to say no to the promotion. They know that they enjoy pursuing their chosen passion rather than becoming a manager. On the other hand, those who do want to manage eventually discover one of the hidden pleasures of management: leading a team for results. Those who succeed in this endeavor are called leaders!

If you are a manager responsible for the fate of a superstar performer whom no one on your team can stand, look at what the Boston Red Sox did and smile.

The Red Sox just traded Manny Ramirez -- arguably the best player on their team, one of the best of his era – because despite his production, Ramirez had become a disruptive force. He was complaining publicly, putting in substandard effort, and getting into physical altercations with other players and staff members. As reported by the Providence Journal, General Manager Theo Epstein was asked by other players to get rid of Ramirez.

So Epstein, essentially, fired him. Well, he traded him and some prospects for Jason Bay, a journeyman player with more potential than proven results. It took guts for Epstein to trade Ramirez. He did something that managers seldom do: put the team ahead of the stars. Sacrificed tangibles (results) for sake of intangibles (chemistry). If you are pondering the future of a troublesome superstar on your team, here are three questions to ask?

What does the star contribute? It's fairly easy to tote up a superstar’s productivity; usually it's quantifiable. If she's a top salesperson, she makes the numbers and more. She may be loved by her customers, too. If she is an engineer, she may be making contributions in terms of efficiency, or even coming up with ways of doing things better. Stars produce in measurable ways.

What's the cost of that contribution? Now comes the difficult part, assessing what it takes to keep this person on board. It's difficult because, unlike what a star produces, the havoc he wreaks is harder to quantify. He may drive people to leave the company, hurting retention costs. He may alienate other stakeholders, customers, vendors or even board members. Troublesome stars damage your reputation and business in hard to measure ways.

Who can replace that contribution? This question is seldom easy to answer. For example, it's not easy to make a one-to-one replacement for a productive salesperson, talented engineer, or gifted designer. Often, the replacement is simply what you get rid of. If you subtract the cost for damages – poor morale, lowered team productivity, and toxic atmosphere, you can make the case for replacing this individual.

Usually, even if getting rid of the troublesome star is the right thing to do, managers tolerate the him because he generates the numbers, the measurable stuff. That makes the manager look good, at least on paper. In turn, the star is protected by higher-ups who don’t have to put up with the persona, just celebrate the results. So even if the manager, at the behest of co-workers wants to dump the star, he can't.

Still, as proven by the Boston Red Sox, some managers can send a star performer packing and be cheered for it.

Barack Obama is back from a semi-world tour that took him from Afghanistan and Iraq to the capitals of Europe, with stops in Israel and Palestine in between. By most accounts, he pulled it off with few gaffes, but some political reporters and pundits are wondering if Obama looked, in the words of NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, “too presidential.” That is, was Obama presumptuously acting like the president before he was elected?

The pundits may debate, but ultimately the voters get to decide that question. But if Obama were acting presumptuous, it raises a curious point about leadership presence. As someone who coaches presence, I spend more time urging executives to turn up their presence than turn it down. But as the Obama situation shows, we must consider the other side of the equation: when is too much presence a bad thing? Here are some things to consider.

Be confident but not arrogant. We want to believe in our leaders; their sense of self forms the foundation of how they connect to others. But when confidence is so overpowering that it tends to outshine all other aspects of leadership, we call it arrogance. The confidence and brio that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld demonstrated after the successful invasion of Iraq gave way to arrogance and hubris as his team’s mismanagement of the war cost so many lives and so much treasure.

Stay above the fray. Senior leaders can stand above the fray or step into the muck. Do the former. Genuine leaders can be fighters but shouldn't be combative; being quarrelsome and quirky is more suited to transactional law rather than transformational leadership. Holding back also affirms the leadership character as one who can hold her emotions in check and more importantly demonstrate real control.

Be mindful of how others perceive you. Ronald Reagan, the modern-era president with the most presence, once said that he was always cognizant of how he looked to others. As a film actor, he knew how he looked from every angle. Taking that position to a metaphorical level, leaders need to consider how they are coming across to others. You need always to be mindful of how your words are playing; how you are coming across to people.

Leadership presence is the projection of character. But it is critical to keep in mind that such presence should not overwhelm everyone else. You can be fully present without dominating the stage. [If you have any doubts, watch how kids or animals on stage take over a live theatrical production.]

While it may seem contrarian, there is an element of humility in leadership presence. Humility is that grace note of leadership that affirms a leader’s humanity; it says that you don’t have all the answers. While we accuse leaders of having too much presence (read: ego), rarely do we say that leaders have too much humility. Pity, because an ounce of humility will ward off many pounds of arrogance.

Bosses who push their people hard often provide what is to them a good excuse: no one works harder than they do. That’s what Anthony Weiner, congressman from New York City and a future candidate for mayor, told the New York Times. Because the boss works 24/7, everyone else must do the same. Well, not quite. Bosses have privileges that employees do not enjoy – higher salaries, more perks, and, if you’re a congressman, more publicity. Everyone slaves so the boss shines.

Demanding bosses often view themselves as fair. After all, Weiner says, “When you grow up in Brooklyn… sometimes arguing is the sport.” It may be so in the borough but it is not so in the office. Acting as if the world – i.e., your employees – owe you allegiance because you are their boss is not management; it’s tyranny. So how can you deal with such a boss? In a word, carefully. Make that two words. Very carefully. Here are some suggestions.

Toe the line. You signed on; do the work. You will soon anticipate the bosses demands and be able to satisfy them before he asks. Will you get blindsided? Of course. Expect it. Demanding bosses care little about their employees’ feelings; they seek only credit for themselves. Most importantly, never take anything the boss says personally. Even if he says personal things about you; ignore him. Bosses such as that have the emotional maturity of adolescents. Don’t get onto the playground with them.

Act the part. Pay allegiance to the boss. Play up to his needs; make him feel secure and wanted. In fact, most hard chargers are very insecure; that’s why they work so hard. They are afraid if they ease up for one moment, they will lose their place in the long, long climb to the top. So do what they ask.

Find the exit. Working for a successful boss can be a career booster. In fact Weiner has a track record of helping ex-employees get good jobs. So start looking and when you find something better act quickly. Don’t look back because one thing is for certain. The situation with the demanding boss will not improve.

Weiner flushes through staff like water through a broken pipe. According to the Times, he leads the New York delegation in staff turnover and has had three chiefs of staff in the past 18 months. A staffer from another congressman’s office commented, “You never know who’s there because they aren’t there long enough to remember their names.” That is costly to the taxpayers not to mention the psyches of his burned out staffers.

As a politician, Weiner may say that he’s working on behalf of his New York constituents. As an employer, he serves as poster boy for micromanagement gone awry. His style may work in the legislature, but as my colleague, Scott Eblin pointed out in his blog, unless Weiner changes his style he will have little chance (if elected) of being an effective mayor.

Carlos Gomez, the rookie centerfielder for the Minnesota Twins, scooped up the ball and threw so hard to second base that the throw ended up being fielded in the dugout by Ron Gardenhire, his manager. So what did Gardenhire do when the rookie returned to the dugout? He asked him to autograph the ball. Gomez “is a kid who plays with a lot of emotion,” Gardenhire told the New York Times, “If I kick him there, I might lose him for the rest of the game." Gomez appreciated his manager's gesture, but "knew what he did wrong, and it didn’t affect him the rest of the game." Indeed not. Gomez later homered.

Pick your moments! That's what good coaches do when they want to correct a player’s mistake. It is also good advice for anyone in a leadership position. Flying off at the handle when someone makes a mistake might be theatrical but it's not really practical. It may make the manager feel good to vent, but the effect on the employee may be counter-productive. So the next time your employee makes a mistake, consider three things:

Why did the mistake occur? New employees often make mistakes because they don't know better; veterans make mistakes because they're not paying attention. Neither is acceptable. Managers need to make certain their employees know their jobs and keep work relevant for others so that they maintain focus.

How can the employee correct the mistake? If the employee knows he's made a mistake, just let it sink in. If the manager shows he's upset, the opportunity to teach is lost. If the employee doesn't know he's made a mistake, then let him know sooner than later. Have discussions with the employee about what went wrong and how he will correct things the next time.

How can you turn this mistake into a learning lesson? Sweeping the mistake under the rug increases the likelihood it will happen again; shining light on the problem may illuminate new solutions. One mistake can open the door to dialogue. Invite the employee to discuss her needs for more development. Perhaps she can design an improvement plan. Also, the manager may need to become more involved in the employee’s development, either personally or by assigning another employee to help.

Let’s be realistic. When things go wrong, the manager is responsible regardless of why the mistake happened. So when the mistake occurs, it's understandable he might be upset. Showing emotion is acceptable. In fact it can be used to make a point. Employees need to know that mistakes can be tolerated but must be fixed; failure to acknowledge them will lead to mediocrity.

Waiting for the heat of the moment to pass allows for reflection, giving the employee time to consider what he's done and how he can make it better. The manager demonstrates trust and that trust gives the employee the confidence to know he can succeed next time.

One of the toughest things to teach leaders is how to lead when the context and variables are constantly changing. One man who is helping leaders make better decisions is Don Vandergriff, a retired Army major, lecturer and author. Vandergriff has developed the Adaptive Leader Methodology (ALM) that helps individuals learn to lead in situations of escalating complexity.

The principles of ALM are universal and applicable to anyone who must manage and lead others. As Vandergriff explained to me, ALM immerses students in “complex scenario, and facilitate(s) them as they attempt to solve it.” As Vandergriff sees it, ALM “places people in roles of responsibility so they understand the context their unit or organization operates in… In ALM, they are placed two or three levels higher [than their ranks] in many of the scenarios.”

ALM is uniquely suited to teach military officers how to lead in “asymmetrical warfare,” where the unknown variables outweigh the known ones. “Instead of repeating a given scenario, you continue on and do a different one, with different conditions.” As Vandergriff explains, “By varying the scenarios, the conditions, and then… giving a good "reflection" session from peers, the teacher, and [observers], the learning process becomes continuous.”

This is break from the Army’s traditional approach to education which emphasizes competency. A shortcoming of that model is boredom and barriers. Says Vandergriff, “Good and great students got bored very easy. Plus, they did not discover their unit's place in the larger picture because they were only allowed to go as high as that unit in their learning environments.”

A twenty-four year veteran of the Army and Marines, Vandergriff taught ROTC at Georgetown University and routinely received top marks for his instruction. Today his students are lieutenants and captains in the field leading combat troops. Lessons they learned from ALM are “what prepared them (the most) for what they face now.” Specifically, ALM provides a tool kit approach that fosters innovative thinking, new approaches to problem-solving and rapid decision-making, Vangergriff’s influence extends beyond the Army; he has taught Marines, Navy SEALs as well as units in the British and French military.

Vandergriff also teaches in the corporate and public sectors, applying the same principles. Part of his instruction includes tactical decision games that can be very challenging. Participants “were frustrated, confused and challenged. As they day went on, they got into it, and then remarked at the end of the day and follow-on emails, how much that made them better leaders. When developing adaptability, you want to put your students in uncomfortable situations doing scenarios they are not familiar with," he says.

“The number one objective in my developing leaders is strength of character,” says Vandergriff. “I believe in what I am doing… What keeps me going is a belief in what I am doing is right. I was raised to see a problem, fix it.” That's good advice for anyone leading in a complex environment. Leaders lead by doing, and so often they must do the fixing and solving so that the organization can move forward.

Last spring Brett Favre pulled the plug on his pro football career, saying that he didn’t have the heart to play any longer. This July he's had a change of heart. This is not the first time Favre has changed his mind about retirement. But what's different this time is that his team, the Green Bay Packers, don't want him back.

For the Packers organization, the saga is bigger than just one player, Favre. It's a succession planning story. Succession planning is not about individuals leaving; it's about organizations preparing for the future. Effective leaders eventually will need to be replaced. And so Favre’s “un- retirement” raises questions about when a leader should leave and why. Here are some questions for the organization to consider:

What does the leader contribute to the organization? Good leaders who have led for a long time have a presence that is tangible but not necessarily measurable. Organizations value them not because of what they do but because of their ability to mobilize others to action. Removing that person from the organization will create a leadership vacuum in terms of authority, initiative and presence. Organizations need to understand the effect that their leaders have.

Who can replace the leader? Good leaders are hard to replace, but too many organizations make the mistake of trying to fit an exact replica into the slot. Successful organizations find the right person for the job, not the person that most closely resembles the previous leader. You're not finding someone to lead yesterday’s team; you're hiring someone to lead tomorrow’s team. That may require a completely different set of talents and skills.

How can the organization prepare the incoming leader? The organization needs to think about what it needs its leader to do and help her achieve it. For example, if the organization needs to focus on execution, it needs to be willing to invest in operational aspects of the business. On the other hand, if growth is a priority, investments in product development and marketing are essential. However, these directions must be jointly decided. So often new leaders fail because their goals do not match organization goals; synchronicity is essential to success.

Without question, Favre was the most exciting quarterback of his generation; his gift for spontaneity made him a play maker who could tangle a defense in knots and help his team score. But when he retired, the Packers planned for his absence by grooming a successor and installing a new offense. The team had already executed on its succession plan.

Even with great leaders, it seems, it's not what you have done in the past that matters most; it's what you will do in the present and future that makes a difference.

One of the emotional impacts of navigating a tough economy is fear. We speak of courage as a virtue, but seldom do we spend enough time considering the flip side of courage, fear! Of course it's there, lurking, but how should we deal with it? Specifically, should manager show fear? If so, what happens when they do?

Questions such as these haunt the workplace as declining revenues dictate cutbacks in resources and manpower. Whenever someone is let go, at least ten other people wonder if they may be next. The sense of unease that creates makes people distracted from their work and productivity suffers. Worse, they may dread coming to work for fear of getting the news that today is their last day. As the fear percolates throughout the workplace, what can managers do to address it? Here are some suggestions.

Acknowledge fear. Fear is not something that you sweep under the rug, especially in tough times. When people ask about their jobs, or the status of the team, be straight with them. Give them as much information as you can. Dismissing their concerns only heightens the sense of uncertainty.

Focus on the work. Managers are not therapists; they are hired to get work done. Focusing on the work helps you find relief from outside pressure. The manager needs to keep engaged in the work flow by monitoring what is happening as well as what isn't happening. She needs to find ways to keep people engaged.

Find hope. Tough times require hope, but it can be difficult to find. Finding satisfaction in work may help some people; others will need more uplifting. Managers can do this by celebrating results in meetings or even springing for lunch, either on site or off. Most important, managers need to set the emotional by and remain upbeat, at least about the work. If the manager mopes, the team will lose heart.

Above all, the leader can't show fear. She may feel fear, but the leader can't reveal its effects. Her job is to serve as the team's bulwark. She must be the proverbial shoulder upon which they can lean. Why? Because it's the job of the leader to address adversity. Stalwart behavior in times of crisis is essential. If the leader falls apart, people will lose their sense of faith in the organization, and that's deadly to team performance.

When the leader carries herself with a firm focus on the task as well as consideration for others, she inspires others to follow her example. She does not remove the fear, but she enables others to concentrate on what they can control rather than what they can't control – their immediate fate.

How well are bosses you know coping with fear?