So if you know an organization that needs a keynote speaker, moderator, or brainstorming facilitator on the topics of leadership, resilience, or social innovation, please pass along my name. My work is focused on making the world a better place. I hope that this effort helps amplify the positive energy while supporting those who need it most in the aftermath of this tragedy.

The week began with the terror of a bombing. It is ending with the chaos of a high-caliber manhunt.

Has the whole world gone mad?

The speculation has already begun: Two men on Russian or Chechen heritage. Are they disaffected individuals similar to Columbine? Or is this part of an international terror Web? There will be a lot more of this.

I think that it is time to ask ourselves some deeper questions: What societal stresses might connect the incidents from Boston to Newtown to Aurora and beyond? We seem to have entered into an arms race with our fellow citizens — is there any way that this can end well? We are awash in violent images on television, in movies, and in video games — is there any way that this can end well? We have embraced an economic system that has created great wealth for some yet great uncertainty for most — is there any way that this can end well? We have cut budgets for education, mental health, and other human services — is there any way that this can end well? We have tolerated toxic discourse among our public officials as the new normal — is there any way that this can end well?

It has been easy — at least on the surface — to retreat behind our screens and earbuds to a place that seems safe and orderly. It has allowed us to pretend that the growing chaos was somewhere else. No, my friends, it is right here. It is us. It is each of us who has tolerated this. That means it is me, too.

I do not have the answers to all of the questions that are flooding my brain this awful morning.

Messages have been popping in on my phone and Facebook non-stop. My first replies were a simple “all is well here.” Actually, it isn’t. We’re safe — but if this is the world we’ve created, all is definitely not well.

Peace and love to you, my friends.

When bad things happen, writers write. Writing a post for HBR.org helped me process the tragic events of the day and, I hope, help others appreciate the role of leaders in the midst of crisis. I invite you to join the conversation and share your thoughts.

“It is in difficult times like these that we are hungriest for leadership, for people who can restore order, find the perpetrators, organize the aftermath, and help us find meaning and common purpose. People are wounded, whether physically or emotionally. Even those who only watched the events on television can feel the effects. Leaders, too, are affected — they’re only human. But leadership moments come unexpectedly for each of us.”

My deepest sympathies go out to those who lost someone in the bombing. So, too, go my sincerest thanks to those who rose to the challenge and helped the injured and frightened. I wish a speedy recovery to all of those who suffered injuries. We are resilient. We are strong.

I’ve been reading a lot about development in brain science lately. It is in preparation for a white paper on how our increasing understanding of neuroscience and psychology can inform the work of leaders. On the reading list have been Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow; David Eagleman’s Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain; Srini Pillay’s Your Brain and Business: The Neuroscience of Great Leaders; Maria Konnikova’s Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes; and Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald’s Blindspots: Hidden Biases of Good People.

While there have been many revelations, I’ll save those for the white paper. What I want to share is how the latest in science is confirming some of those old bromides that are often met with a roll of the eyes. Here’s a sample:

Take a walk to clear your head. Konnikova reveals that spending as little as 10 minutes observing nature can help relax and focus the mind. Pillay cites research showing that physical movement can affect thinking: Getting into a box-like structure and then stepping out actually improves your ability to get creative and think out of the box.

You win some, you lose some. Kahneman demonstrates that with decisions you face repeatedly, you get better outcomes when you approach them as a portfolio rather than individually. Focusing on wins and losses one at a time induces risk aversion and risk taking at just the wrong times. “Thinking like a trader,” that is accepting some losses as inevitable and measuring overall performance, stimulates better decision making.

Don’t judge a book by its cover. Our brains are full of hidden biases and stereotypes. Banaji and Greenwald show that it is possible both to default to those stereotypes even while denying their validity. The mind is a natural categorization machine and once a attributes are assigned to a category, they are difficult to remove. The author’s cite several instances where an implicit association test showed, for example, black people having more negative views of blacks than they do of whites, or gays having more negative associations with gay than straight. It takes work, not simply will, to overcome these innate biases.

Let me with that for a bit. Konnikova also discusses the power of contemplation. The brain between our ears is the ultimate supercomputer; sometimes we need to pause in feeding it to let it sort through information, find patterns, and focus. She notes Sherlock Holme’s description of a particularly thorny conundrum as a “three pipe problem.” While you may or may not want to indulge in tobacco, it really does pay to put down your smart phone to just sit and reflect.

I can’t decide…flip a coin. We all wrestle with decisions, particularly where data doesn’t point a clear pathway. One job candidate has better credentials but another overflows with innovative ideas and great questions. Which to choose? According to David Eagleman, a simple coin flip may help. When you flip the coin, pay close attention to your reaction: If you are relieved at the side that lands up, you are likely confirming what your unconscious mind was trying to tell you. If you long for a do-over, your inner mind wants to steer you toward the choice.

Leaders would do well to set aside the latest CEO memoir and pick up a neuroscience journal. It turns out that some tried and true wisdom is indeed tried and true.

In my view, this is both a giant leap forward and a nod to a historic norm that held until economist Milton Friedman and his brethren came to the fore.

In my most recent post for HBR.org, I explore the question of whether corporate social responsibility is primarily about what or why. I had an exchange with a serial tech entrepreneur/CEO who spoke of his migration from not caring about why to seeing motive as a primary concern. In his view, doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do sends a quite different message than simply doing because it is in the company’s self-interest at the time.

I agree and think that it is one of the major leadership challenges of our time. I invite you to read the full post and contribute your thoughts to the discussion.

This is the time of year when many of us look back on the year to assess what went well, what didn’t, and what we’d wish we’d done differently. It is particularly poignant this year with the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut that was a grim reminder that none of us knows how many days we have in this life. For those of us not directly touched by this or other dramatic event, there is still reason to reflect on the impact our lives make.

I recently came across an interesting article about mentorship — and the supposed death of those relationships between those later in their careers with those on the way up. The author, Maynard Webb, is a Silicon Valley veteran and I have to say that as a semi-grey hair I was pleased to see concern coming from the epicenter of young blood and start ups.

In the Fast Company article, Webb lays out a number of reasons for the decline of mentoring: shorter tenure at companies at all levels, the radical thinning of middle management, the fear of older workers that they’ll be eliminated by lower paid young hot shots, declining formal mentoring programs in hyper-lean organizations, and more work performed remotely. He might also have added technology changes that can make older workers feel out of touch (or afraid to perceived as such).

It is a sad picture. The transfer of knowledge from one generation to the next is one of the fundamental elements of social cohesion and the accumulation of valuable institutional knowledge. Mentorship is inseparable from leadership.

I currently have informal mentoring relationships with three people. Two are former students from the exec ed program in which I teach. The other is a recent grad school grad referred by a friend of her dad. In each of these relationships, I learn a great deal and am honored to be able to pass along a bit of what I have learned. The time involved is a treat, not a chore.

Webb offers a number of suggestions for both individuals and companies that are worth a read. I’d like to pass along one that I’ve recently started at the suggestion of a coach: keeping an impact list that chronicles my impact on the lives of others.

The impact list is not meant to be an exercise in self-congratulation. Instead, its purpose is to capture that which can easily be forgotten in our fast-paced lives: The introduction of one person to another that leads to an opportunity. Advice to someone wrestling with a tough decision.  An informational interview. An on-line exchange about an article. It is not a vast volume of prose; just a few words to capture what happened. For me, the greatest benefit of the impact list is reminding me how many opportunities I have to make an impact — positive or negative — on the people that I encounter every day. Also on the list are notes about the people who have made an impact on me.

Not everyone is a mentor but everyone, for better or worse, is a role model. Try keeping an impact list for a week or two. I think you’ll be surprised by what you see — and what you learn. I predict that it just may inspire you to seek out more chances to mentor.

These may the hallmark of the successful executive or superb manager, but they are not by themselves any indication that one is a leader. Only demonstrating leadership — making a lasting, positive impact on people — that makes one a leader. It is not a matter of role or rank, it is a matter of behavior. We do ourselves a collective disservice by handing the mantel out casually.

In my most recent post for HBR.org I examine the downfall of two noted tech executives: Steven Sinofsky of Microsoft and Scott Forstall of Apple.  Each was put into the category of “brilliant leaders” by The New York Times yet there is scant evidence that they even came close to true leadership.

I invite you to read the post and share your thoughts.

Then came  super storm Sandy. Now everybody gets it. While it is difficult to pin any one weather event on climate change, Sandy demonstrated the destructive power of extreme weather events that are predicted to result from climate change. Our cities simply aren’t designed or built to handle them well.

Leaders must approach such situations with a new mindset and skill set. They must begin with an assumption of ambiguity and disruption, not certainty and predictability. They must be as ready to deal with emotions as facts. They must grasp complex relationships and interdependencies. I’ve written about both Pillar Trends (identifiable mega-system challenges: climate change, urbanization, aging of the developed world, and exponential increases in computing power) as well as how leaders can approach them at the RoseMont Institute.

Read my post on Leadership and Sandy.

Read a paper on the Pillar Trends and their impact on leadership.

Please share your thoughts on these important topics.

On the ride home, I traded the jolt for a Volt…a Chevy Volt which I had the chance to test drive from Camden to Boston. Having moderated multiple panels on clean transportation, I was a bit embarrassed that I had never driven an electric vehicle. When this chance arose, I jumped at it.

The Volt looks like a conventional sports sedan from the outside. It tries for an aggressive stance but no one is going to mistake it for a Ferrari. Inside, the cabin was roomy and comfortable. I had plenty of room for my 6’3″ frame and never felt cramped during the three-hour drive. The back hatch opened quite wide making it easy to get luggage in and out — and a week’s worth of luggage for two fit without the need for grease or a wedge.

A highlight of the Volt is its Hollywood-ready dashboard. It is colorful and there are multiple views for everything from navigation to fuel consumption. I could have amused myself for a couple of hours without ever turning on the engine. All of this flash does require a bit of an orientation. Otherwise it would be far too easy to get confused on the road (which I did more than once). The navigation system features real time traffic updates although I found it difficult to check out multiple route options while driving. I guess that is why Dunkin’ Donuts shops have parking lots:)

The panel behind the steering column features a spinning ball that indicates the efficiency of acceleration and braking. I found myself mesmerized by it — actively working to optimize the mileage. If that was what the engineers had in mind, they succeeded.

The performance met my expectations. The Volt handled well on the highway as well as on back roads. The fuel consumption indicators led me to keep my speed in check so I did not work it too hard. There was a bit of hesitation on steep hills though this was expected. Perhaps Chevy ought to work on those expectations; why was I anticipating an somewhat underpowered vehicle? My regular ride is a VW Rabbit with a manual transmission so I am accustomed to a fair amount of zip.

I see the Volt as a car you buy to use a lot in town or the ‘burbs, not for long drives, because only then does the battery system make sense. If you keep your daily driving under 30 or so miles, you can rely mainly on electric power and save a ton of money and fuel. How that affects your carbon footprint, of course, depends on how your electricity is generated. If you drive more than that, the long charge time (10 or so hours) will mean that you are using gas a lot of the time.

One other concern was the low clearance on the Volt. This was an attempt to create a sports car profile — there is a “sport” driving mode option — but in snowy New England, being low to the road can mean that you get stuck in the snow.

Overall, I found the Volt satisfying if not exhilarating. Much more so if they can get production to the point where it sells for $25,000 instead of $40,000. The next vehicle in my house will run on alternative fuel. We’ll definitely look at the Volt when it comes time for a purchase.

Thanks to Scotty Reiss at www.shebuyscars.com for the chance to give the Volt a run.

This post originally appeared on HBR.org

The rambunctious, topsy-turvy U.S. Presidential campaign took its latest turn on Tuesday night. From jobs to gas prices to world events, central to the arguments advanced by both candidates was the idea of exerting control. Governor Romney, in particular, has criticized President Obama for “leading from behind” rather than using U.S. power to direct the evolution of events such as the Arab Spring. Early in his term, President Obama pledged to bring the unemployment rate to below 8%. Mitt Romney has promised to create 12 million jobs if elected. Should we take either candidate at his literal word?

While charges and counter-charges elicit cheers or jeers from supporters of the respective candidates, they are spun from the same non-partisan myth of leader control.

We live our lives enmeshed in complex adaptive systems. Our economy is just one example. Two fundamental properties of complex adaptive systems are that no single person or entity can exercise control over them and that their reaction to stimuli are largely unpredictable. Witness the self-immolation of a fruit vendor in Tunisia that set off revolutions that toppled governments across the Middle East. The previous president, George W. Bush, predicted that victory in Iraq would usher in friendly democracies across the region. No one predicted that a single merchant would be the match that lit the fire rather than the shock and awe of the U.S. military. Once alight, no one could write the script for where movement would go. Yet we readily expect our leaders to assert control and assure outcomes.

Our thirst for leader control arises from a need to believe that someone has a firm hand on the tiller. We usually know that it isn’t us and so we look to someone in whom we perceive greater wisdom or power. The adulation of the master-of-the-universe CEO springs from the same well.

Politicians are not elected based on pledges to try really, really hard; candidates triumph through bold promises to deliver whatever it is voters seek: I will create millions of jobs. I will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I will tame the deficit without cutting key programs or raising taxes. We believe that if we grant them the authority, they will exert benign control. This in the face of ample evidence that luck plays at least as big a role in success as anything the leader might do. We followers love to have a hero out front. We look for someone we think can make sense of a complex and confusing world.

When the news is good, leaders are more than happy to take the credit. When the Berlin Wall fell, President Reagan was happy if we believed that he personally shoved it over. CEOs are photographed for magazine covers, and collect big bonuses, based on the increased shareholder value attributed to them.

President Obama has learned (as have all past Presidents, no doubt) that that there is only so much that even the President can do to control a complex adaptive system. Admitting as much has his critics declaring him weak. Obama discovered that he couldn’t control the economy as both stimuli and monetary policy moves failed to reduce the unemployment rate below 8% until just recently.

In making definitive pronouncements about future outcomes, Mitt Romney is making the same mistake that Obama did about unemployment. We watched him do it on Tuesday night. One example was his pledge to lower gasoline prices. Oil and gas are global commodities. U.S. policy has some influence on prices, but global supply and demand, including disruptions such as Hurricane Isaac wrought in the Gulf of Mexico this year are far more consequential to price fluctuation.

Politicians are not alone in over-estimating their control. In his book, Searching for a Corporate Savior: The Irrational Quest for Charismatic CEOs, Harvard Business School’s Rakesh Khurana showed that a company’s success or failure is dependent less upon the characteristics of the CEO than on general industry or economic trends. The same is likely true of whoever occupies the White House. What is required is someone who can navigate adeptly through the twists and turns of turbulent times; a leader who can make the most of what is thrown at him.

A basic truth about leading in complexity is that you always control less than you think and you can always influence far more than you realize. Trying to exercise control over what you do not have power over only leads to wasted effort, frustration, and failure.

So what is a leader to do? Here are a few observations:

• The first thing is to back away from omnipotence. Admit that there are limits to your power and control. Speak of how you are working to create conditions for success without guaranteeing it when it is beyond your control. CEOs who are rethinking providing analysts with quarterly earning guidance are taking a step in this direction.
• Second, set expectations — but with room to revise. If Obama had said about unemployment that his goal was to get it below 8%, that if conditions improved faster than expected he’d shoot for 7.5%, but that if there were unexpected turns in the economy we might have to accept 8.5%, he would have left himself space to maneuver.
• Third, delegate responsibility where appropriate and then be ready to share the credit. Among the more grating statements of CEOs and politicians are those that refer to “I” when it clearly is a case of “we.” A leader needs the energy, commitment, and cooperation of followers. You get that when you give people responsibility to achieve a shared goal and are ready to spread the accolades. Remember the inspirational St. Crispin’s Day speech from Henry V: “We few, we happy few, band of brothers…” Think of Churchill’s famous words from World War II, “This is our finest hour.” Not I, but we.

Listen to the debates and remember: leaders who fail to understand the bounds of what they control do so at their peril — and sometimes ours.