Often, in a given project team or network, one sees leadership roles shifting among various members at various times. Attempts to fit these into traditional views of "leader" and "follower" don't quite work. It's more like Twitter: the "leader" has "followers" - but the "followers" are empowered to alter the relationship unilaterally, and the "leader" must continually earn the consent of the "followers."

I would suggest two approaches to begin the leadership journey in earnest. First would be to ask oneself, in every interaction with others over the course of a single day: How can you best serve this person? Another approach would be to attempt, over the course of a single day, to reframe your declarative statements into questions. The thoughtful use of questions can be transformational. In my experience, most people find these exercises more challenging - and more rewarding - than they would have imagined.

In a time when our nation is engaged in multiple, long-term wars, it's critical that "the military" not become an abstraction to the vast majority of Americans who are not participants.

California is, in many respects, best understood as a nation-state. In the environmental-energy realm, California possesses far-reaching legal authorities that other states do not.

Presidential leadership is best evaluated not on the basis of one's agreement with the policies, but on their effectiveness in using their powers to transform the nation and our understanding of ourselves.

Effective leaders at a high level tend to be skilled actors. Franklin Roosevelt is said to have to quipped, on being introduced to Orson Welles, that they were the two greatest actors in America. The story may be apocryphal, but the message rings true.

Effective leadership relationships at a high level include the insertion of a degree of distance from those being served. That may be part of what President Ronald Reagan referred to when he mused that he didn't see how anyone could be president who wasn't an actor.