A recent New York Times article referenced a 2006 study of almost 3,000 nurses who had breast cancer. The study found that women without close friends were four times more likely to die from their disease than women with 10 or more friends.

I find that both astonishing and obvious.

Friends connect us to something greater than ourselves. Friends weave us into the fabric of our communities and our companies. Friends strengthen us and give us a reason to try.

Without friends it's often hard to see that we can make a difference. Without friends we forget that each of us matters. Without friends emptiness engulfs us.

There was a time when friendship at work was considered inappropriate. Today we understand that friendship at work increases our productivity and our job satisfaction. Which is a pretty good reason for leaders to think about it. But certainly, not the best reason.

I read a lot of books. Many of them on the topic of leadership. Over the past few years I've become increasingly disturbed by a theme rampant in many of the most popular books on leadership. That theme is, essentially:

Everyone can be a leader.

In one sense, perhaps that's true. But it's true in the same sense that everyone can play baseball. Most of us CAN dust off the 'ole mitt and play some right field during the softball game at the company picnic. Certainly, that's one level of playing baseball. But to play the game well, to play baseball at a professional level is something else altogether. So with respect to the authors and pundits I referred to previously, the real truth is:

Everyone can be a leader if you're willing to settle for ridiculously, pathetically, disastrously poor performance.

Not everyone can be a professional baseball player. Not everyone has the aptitude to be a good accountant. Not everyone is wired to be a molecular biologist. Not everyone has what it takes to be a great teacher or a great nurse. So why do very smart people suggest that "anyone can be a great leader"? It just makes no sense. Great leadership isn't magic, but great leadership does demand talent, knowledge and habits that most people just don't have.

Here's the truth: Some people can lead, some can't.

My first response to the economic downturn was to tighten down our expenses. Probably the same response you had when things started going south. My second response was to figure out how to provide more value to our current clients. I talked about that quite a bit in our eBook, Kicking the Recession's Butt. My third response may seen a little counterintuitive:

I'm going to fire some clients.

When times are good, we can afford to accommodate client requests that are a little outside the scope of our engagement. When our revenue and margins are high, it's a little easier to over invest in a relationship or to be a little more flexible in our billing. But when times are tough, we need to evaluate our client relationships as carefully as we evaluate our employee relationships and our overhead costs. Here are some questions we need to ask about every customer and client:

Is this someone who truly recognizes the value we deliver?

Do the relationship style or operating procedures of the client make it difficult for our staff to deliver our best work?

These are just a few of the questions we need to ask. Not all clients are good clients. Not all good clients remain good clients forever. I appreciate every client I have ever had. I really do. But when an objective evaluation reveals problems, we need to address those problems – sometimes by firing the client.

I grew up playing baseball. Loving baseball. Eating, sleeping and dreaming baseball. So opening day is a big deal for me. On opening day, the manager of the Kansas City Royals, Trey Hillman, screwed up big time. The Royals lost the game, probably because of Hillman's brain freeze. I won't bore you with the details, but trust me, 100 out of 100 people who knew ANYTHING about baseball would have played it differently.

But that's not the problem.

The problem is that Trey Hillman wouldn't say, "I was wrong." When he was asked about his questionable decision, he got testy and more or less refused to answer. He could have said a lot of things that would have been OK. Things like:

"As it turns out, I wish I would have done something else."

"I really screwed the pooch on that one."

"I had a gut feeling - must have been the burritos."

Really. Almost any form of "I was wrong" would have been cool. But, apparently Trey Hillman couldn't be wrong. Even when the whole world could see he WAS wrong.

My point is: If you can't say, "I was wrong", you can't lead. Oh, you might keep your job for awhile, but you can't lead because no one will follow. They see you. They see you're human. They see your mistakes. So when you refuse to admit those mistakes, people think you're a liar. And people don't follow liars. End of story. End of rant.

America's favorite philosopher, Tom Morris, wrote a book some time ago entitled, The Stoic Art of Living. In that book, Tom draws on the ancient wisdom of Lucius Annaeus Seneca. Seneca seems to agree with my idea that leaders should get a tatoo that reads: Clarify. Amplify. Repeat. He did, however, say it a little more eloquently:

"Whatever is good for us should be discussed often and frequently brought to mind, so that it may be not just familiar to us, but also ready for use. Remember, also that in this way what is clear often becomes clearer."

The Number One Thing must always be made clearer. For the leader, that job is never done. It might seem like it's done. But it's not.

I suggested that you always do the number one thing. If you're a leader, your number one thing is always this:

Make sure everyone knows THEIR number one thing.

When people in your organization (and mine) don't know what to do, what do they end up doing? Usually, not much. If there are multiple options, the process often grinds to a halt. So what's a leader to do?

Clarify. Amplify. Repeat.

Something else happens, too. Sometimes people are busy. Really busy. Looking worried and carrying clipboards. But if they're not doing the number one thing, they might as well take a nap. Activity and productivity are not the same. Great leaders are constantly helping their people develop and maintain a ferocious focus on their number one thing. Maybe this should be a tatoo for leaders:

Clarify. Amplify. Repeat.

You definitely don't have time to do everything you could do at work. You probably don't even have time to do everything you should do. In an article in Inc. magazine, Jim Collins said it this way:

"Work is infinite and time is finite."

That is a wonderfully simple way to embrace reality. So, if you can't do everything, what should you do? That's easy:

Do the Number One Thing.

What's that, you ask? It's the activity that will have the greatest impact on your success (or, at times, your survival). Before you make another phone call, glance at your email, or walk down the hall to visit with an associate – ask yourself:

What's the best use of my time right now? What's the number one thing? What activity will have the greatest impact on our success?

And please. Don't. Do. Anything. Else.

Public Philosopher and all-around great guy, Tom Morris, posted a thought provoking article entitled Dr. Frankenstein, CEO. In the article he references literature such as Frankenstein, Beowulf and Moby Dick in an effort to underscore the importance of the humanities in our culture and to our leaders. It's compelling.

After I read the article, I couldn't help but wonder: Are the concepts Tom references powerful enough to defeat the greed that has propelled some much of the disasters we're experiencing?

My first reaction to that question was despair. It seemed unlikely that anything could defeat the greed. But then I had another thought: Perhaps it depends how habitual, how deeply ingrained and how acceptable the greed is in our culture and environment. Maybe if we instill ethical values early and often, maybe if we react decisively to the most minor infraction and maybe if we study the classics as Tom suggests – then just maybe we can begin to alter the equation.

Leaders must set the ethical parameters, but everyone in the organization has an obligation to perform in an ethical manner and to call BS on anyone who acts in opposition to what's right.

The April issue of Inc. has an interview with Jim Collins of Good to Great fame. When Good to Great was published some years ago I thought it was one of the most important and thoughtful business books of our time. I still believe that. Collins' Hedgehog Concept helped us define our business in a way that has been productive and fun.

But that doesn't mean that Collins is right about everything. One of the principles Collins espouses is, First Who ... Then What. He revisits that principle briefly in the Inc. interview. As I understand it, Collins suggests that we not worry about things like what we're going to sell or how we're going to sell it or what our business model or strategy might be or how we intend to differentiate our companies. Just gather up some spiffy folks and let them figure it all out.

Couple of problems with that. Great people want to be part of something meaningful. First Who doesn't leave much room for an inspiring vision (something else Collins doesn't have much use for). But even more importantly, First Who doesn't address the absolute requirement of talent. That's a problem because great achievement starts with great ability – in fact, great achievement DEMANDS great ability. Apparently, in the world of Jim Collins, great people are equally great at everything they do. That's not what I observe in the world.

Great leaders and great managers match the talent of the individual with the task at hand – that's how they create outstanding results. If you don't know what results you intend to create (the What in Collins' vernacular) you can't possibly select the optimal talent for the task. And you won't get optimal results.

I know it's heresy to challenge Jim Collins, but I'll bet he doesn't mind.

Most of claim we're willing to see the truth. But exposing the truth, especially the unpleasant truth, takes courage and commitment. It requires a rigorous and relentless process of evaluation and accountability. Which is sometimes contentious and often uncomfortable.

To be completely honest, conflict is uncomfortable for me. But when I give in to my desire for harmony, I do a serious disservice to our company. In his book, The Five Temptations of a CEO, Patrick Lencioni asks these questions:

"Do you prefer your meetings to be pleasant and enjoyable?"

"Do you get uncomfortable at meetings if your direct reports argue?"

"Do you often make peace or try to reconcile direct reports who are at odds with one another?"

I'm so busted. But I'm getting better. Lencioni is right. We need productive conflict. We need people to disagree and challenge each other openly. We need a systematic process to seek the truth.

In a previous post I suggested you gather the troops and ask the question: What used to be true in our business but no longer is? Here are some thought-starters:

Is there more or less aggregated power surrounding our business?

Is there an emerging channel or technology that could threaten our revenue stream?

These are just a few of the critical questions we all need to ask of ourselves.

Some years ago, Art Garfunkel sang a Bruce Johnston song with these lyrics:

"Reality, it's not for me and it makes me laugh ..."

Sometimes, reality just isn't that much fun. But confronting reality is the ante for just surviving in business. In fact, Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan wrote an entire book about Confronting Reality. In that book they said:

"To confront reality is to recognize the world as it is, not as you wish it to be, and have the courage to do what must be done,not what you'd like to do."

Doesn't sound that hard. But it is. To illustrate, get your key people together and ask them this question: What used to be true in our business, but no longer is?

NOTE: I wrote this post over a year ago. It seems even more relevant now than it did then.