The 5 Most Generous On Wall Street

As part of our series on generosity in business, we’re looking at some of the financial wizards who are using their skills and assets to give back to society in the most impressive and inspiring ways.

Generosity is an emerging market. Social-good philanthropy is forging into territories once the domain of conventional charities and donor-grantee philanthropy. This month, the Co.Exist / Catchafire Generosity Series singles out an elite group who’ve pivoted from exceptional success in the financial sector to launching world-changing social giving initiatives.

But, even for these wealthy donors, being generous is more complicated than you might think.

Rather than being inspirational, giving of this magnitude can generate rip tides of envy. Could the astronomical wealth and mammoth institutional resources behind these ventures overshadow their missions? Avoiding that is the first challenge. Remember, positive impact matters more than who’s giving and how much.

As Warren Buffet puts it, “the most precious asset a person can give is time.” To Buffet, gifts of time and talents to help others “often prove far more valuable than money.” A struggling child, he suggests, “befriended and nurtured by a caring mentor, receives a gift whose value far exceeds what can be bestowed by a check.”

How can this serve as a model for emulation? To be optimally leveraged, we need to better understand generosity. Generosity is commonly defined as “liberality in spirit or act, especially in giving” and a “willingness to share with others.” Its etymology is linked with nobility, nearly every world religion vaunts its moral virtue and, as any child can tell you, it’s better to give than to receive.

But generous behavior isn’t itself an accurate indicator of true generosity. People donate time, service, knowledge, and money for lots of reasons–exhibitionism, social pressure, to be influential, in control, or feel powerful, guilt, conformity, moral posturing, selfgratification, tax advantages, even disguised hostility. While, to varying degrees, these are legitimate catalysts to giving, they have little to do with actual generosity or altruism.

Social scientists explain generosity as “prosocial behavior”–actions that benefit others learned through role models in the home or school. But the underlying psychology–how our capacity for giving develops and functions–is more complex. Why is this important to know? Because true generosity isn’t just about generous acts. It means being generous knowledgeably and thoughtfully–understanding generosity inside and out.

Taking generosity from blueprint to delivery can get deformed or derailed by any number of under-the-radar obstructions. Hard to see, looking at the members of this list (see below). They epitomize mission-aligned giving. They also present an opportunity to study, by contrast, some problematic giving types, whose generosity is mitigated by ulterior motives.

Knowing the signs of the wrong kind of generosity can help you spot them, in others or even in yourself, in advance. Important? Very. The social good sector–and generosity in particular–pivots on the human element. In a successful giving venture, psychology is a critical factor equal to any. Punt it aside, and you’re handicapped.

Here’s the short list:

  • 5-Alarm: Generosity catalyzed by catastrophe. Natural disasters, 9/11, and other social trauma generate outpourings of mass-empathy. Active interest can exceed the news cycle but eventually subsides once a semblance of ‘normalcy’ has returned.
  • Mother Teresa: These givers’ generosity is boundless. Their need to help others seems insatiable.
  • Guilty: Its familiar face leaves the recipient feeling guilty for accepting the giver’s munificence. A sense of ingratitude is baked-in; no amount of thankfulness can fully acknowledge the sacrifice made in having given so much. The underbelly is the guilt driving the giver: his generosity is an imperative of tithing or expiation, an attempt at compensating for something forever owed. This substructure is often invisible, as many appear to give quietly, anonymously, or selflessly.
  • Investment: Generosity (actually pseudo-generosity) delivered with an unspoken expectation for a return. It’s not tangible ROI like admiration or bragging rights; the giver’s generosity is an esoteric hedge. Potential returns could be an internal “get-out-jail-free card,” to feel deserving of respect or love, enhanced self worth, or delivering a model of how he hopes to be treated.
  • Little Big Man: The giver dreads being “too much.” The ramifications of too muchness are presumed dire. The solution? Divestiture and redistribution. The quotient deemed dangerously over the line is reducible to safe levels with a noble bonus: giving to others.
  • Pollination: Scattering small seeds of generosity to multiple recipients. Each parcel is too insignificant for sustainable positive impact but sufficient in the aggregate to create the appearance of great magnanimity (distinct from potentially useful micro-giving, a variation of strategically thoughtful micro-lending).
  • Tyrant: Generosity delivered with militaristic precision and vice-grip control. All effective philanthropy requires structure and regulation. But this is stiflingly hyper-codified. The consequent, inappropriate focus is on giver, contract and performance. The recipients’ needs are eclipsed.
  • Atlas: Generosity borne of a sense of over-responsibility. Usually derivative of a childhood devoted to emotionally subsidizing a weak, sick, or immature parent. A deep reservoir of resentment flows under the generosity.
  • Bling: The charitable gesture is really camouflaged boastfulness. Generous acts are a contrivance for trumpeting and memorializing the giver’s resources and generosity. Strip Mall: Unrelenting and over-abundant generosity. The giver can never give enough (and may never stop) irrespective of how much the recipients need.
  • Trojan Horse: Largesse with a hidden time-deferred agenda. The recipient doesn’t learn of the contingent expectations bundled into the ostensible gift until after the fact. Tony Soprano: As in, “it would be a cryin’ shame if you didn’t accept this gift.”
  • Jackass: Wasteful, mind-bogglingly ludicrous pseudo-charitability (as one of many Technicolor examples, see Leona Helmsley’s bequeathing her multimillion dollar fortune to her dog).
  • Carrot on a Stick: Keeps the recipient hopeful but perpetually suspended in need. The promised generosity comes tantalizingly close to fulfillment, or is sparingly apportioned over time. But is always attached to a string. (Similarly: “YoYo”: generosity serially offered and retracted).
  • Madoff: Fraudulent generosity. Can involve the giving of stolen or misappropriated assets. Can also be a deceptive practice: generosity as red-herring, straw entity, or disguise for intentional malice or, purely psychologically, as a veil for hatred, envy, or rage. Hostility and sadism are parts of the human condition. Social imperatives to conceal them are embedded in language: the German word “gift” means ‘poison’ in English.

I’ve given these psychological categories cheeky names to help explain them. But the issues are serious. In each, beneath the generous act, the giver’s internal conflicts and self interests dominate. Concern for the other is subordinate and functional. That’s a fundamental perversion of accepted generosity best practices. Is there a fix? Can these archetypes be avoided?

Yes. Harnessing generosity’s full potential as an enterprise tool requires understanding both its negatives and positives. That these mental systems exist and can intrude in our daily affairs isn’t a dismal forecast for future giving. People are dazzlingly resilient and adaptable. These psychological mechanisms, and others too, start as ingenious coping responses–giving instead of receiving in a formative zero-sum environment where giving and receiving wasn’t feasible.

Generosity isn’t limited to giving. It also involves being accepting, emotionally charitable toward ourselves and others.

The capacity for empathy–a leap of imagination to understanding the experience of another based on one’s self–is a cornerstone of generosity, and a remarkable trait of our humanity. It’s present in varying degrees in nearly everyone. Being truly generous is to be humane.

The Most Generous on Wall Street is different from the other groups we have featured in the Generosity Series thus far. They are very modest about sharing their experiences with philanthropy, so much so that many prominent figures have declined their nominations to avoid the public attention this series would bring for the reason that philanthropy is a very personal matter. But here are a few who are comfortable sharing how they’re using their success in the financial markets to give back.

Come back every Monday for the next five weeks to read about a new honoree who uses their success off of Wall Street, influence in the world of finance, or post career life to make the world a better place. We’ve gathered in depth profiles that get to the heart of who these people are, their philosophies on giving, why they are generous and how they are using their time and talents (not just their bank accounts) for good.

CEO and co-founder of Abacus Portfolios.
Abacus is a B-Corp that invests in socially responsible and sustainable investment portfolios, it’s also the largest investment advisor to invest in microfinance equity funds. An active Acumen Partner, Kessel’s generosity stretches over the global and is linked to his ability to bridge the worlds of finance and spirituality.

Former CEO and Chairman of UBS AG Global Asset Management
Alexander is the first woman to head a major research department, first woman to oversee a trading floor and the first to head a large asset management company. Alexander is the former CEO and Chairman of UBS AG Global Asset Management and a dedicated leader with the Acumen Fund. She served as the Fund’s Board Chair for nine years and remains actively involved in their social impact investing efforts.

Former chairman of CCMP
Walker is the former chairman of CCMP (the successor of JPMorgan Partners) and a dedicated philanthropist whose philosophy on giving is very much tied to his practical spirituality. Known for integrating business strategies with the nonprofit world, his influence has reached renowned charitable initiatives.

Pershing Square Capital Management
Ackman is the entrepreneur behind the activist hedge fund Pershing Square Capital Management. In 2006, he amplified his philanthropic efforts by starting the Pershing Square Foundation to support innovation in economic development, education, human rights, healthcare, and arts and urban development.

Former Vice Chairman, Goldman Sach
Kaplan, the former Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs, is now a professor of Management Practice at Harvard Business School, and a co-chair at the early stage global venture philanthropy firm, Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation.

The Corporate Shrink

(issue 108, page 103)

This is my 35th and final “Corporate Shrink” column. Your questions over the past three years have touched on the widest range of issues: difficult bosses, dysfunctional teams, competitiveness, greed, sex, death, even (perhaps most controversial of all) the use of perfume in the workplace.

My brief answers couldn’t possibly have done justice to such complex matters. While I’d like to believe I’ve been helpful, each question would have been best addressed in a thoughtful conversation–the sort I worry is happening all too rarely in business today. So for my parting shot, I’d like to talk a bit about…conversations.

The ability to converse should be a basic building block of organizations. Healthy conversations allow leaders to lead, followers to respond, negotiators to make deals, salespeople to sell, and researchers to develop ideas. How many meetings have you attended, after all, where the first comment afterward was a judgment on the quality of the conversation? A “good meeting” usually means one in which people felt genuinely engaged, where they learned or accomplished something.

Yet large companies so often operate in ways that thwart good conversations. There are formal processes for everything, with well-intentioned manuals, training programs, hierarchies, and corporate jargon that mostly keep employees from really communicating. We typically assess a colleague’s work, for example, via online surveys, psychological tests, and language that strenuously shuns direct criticism. Anything to avoid taking a colleague aside and telling him what he’s doing wrong.

The best managers know that the discomfort involved in such honest conversation is well worth the resulting satisfaction. Even the well-intentioned, though, face hurdles. One is technology. I love my BlackBerry, but it is too often a substitute for talking. And the rate at which we gather and exchange information long ago outstripped our capacity to talk to each other about it, much less understand it all. At the same time, the explosion in executive coaching, while reflecting leaders’ hunger for conversations about emotionally meaningful topics, poses yet another danger: It brilliantly circumvents the stigma of seeking psychological help, yet it also risks entering emotional territory that should be explored by clinicians trained in the talking cure.

At their core, most of the letters you’ve sent me have concerned the same problem: how to talk with complicated, difficult colleagues. There’s no magic formula for that. But the surest path to a good conversation, I think, is to trust your own curiosity. If you’re having trouble connecting with someone, ask questions until you understand him. If what you’re hearing doesn’t make sense, keep talking until it does. When in doubt, step back, look the other person in the eye, and ask directly, “What just happened here?” Or, “What are we really talking about?”

On the other hand, the hardest part of any conversation is knowing when to keep our mouths shut. The more you know and learn about the other person as a human being, the better the conversation. And the more you can listen without passing reflexive moral judgment on what you’re hearing, or without prematurely going into action mode, the more meaningful the interaction will be.

Thanks for your support over these past three years. Stay curious about your work and never be satisfied by pat answers. The working world is filled with irrationality and emotionality. If you can accept and understand that–and acknowledge your own contributions, however human and imperfect–you and those around you should be happier and more effective. A good conversation is the best place to start.

Dr. Kerry J. Sulkowicz, a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and founder of The Boswell Group LLC, advises executives on leadership, management, and governance. Send him your questions about the psychology of business (

The Corporate Shrink

As high and fast as I’ve made it up the corporate ladder, I dread going to work. I’m two levels below the CEO, and my immediate boss can’t stand me. Even though she’d never admit it, I can tell she’s envious of my relationships with clients and colleagues. What should I do? (issue 107, page 109)

If it’s any consolation, your situation is not so uncommon. Envy is rarely discussed in corporate circles, but it arises wherever there’s competition and hierarchy – basically, everywhere – and can cause untold misery.

First, a warning: Whenever I hear someone say her boss envies her, I wonder whether there’s some projection going on. Could it be that you’re actually jealous of your boss’s power and success?

But your boss’s envy may well be real; I certainly see it in my consulting work all the time. In the same way that parents can be jealous of their children (think of the dad who envies his son’s athletic prowess), bosses can wish they had some of their subordinates’ talent or energy. That can lead them to act destructively. Even if your boss won’t cop to this motivation, it’s hard to camouflage such powerful emotions.

Be sensitive to your boss’s envy, and don’t rub her nose in your accomplishments, which will only make matters worse. Try bringing her into your network and sharing some contacts. Your success and hers don’t have to be a zero-sum game.

Dr. Kerry J. Sulkowicz, a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and founder of The Boswell Group LLC, advises executives on leadership, management, and governance. Send him your questions about the psychology of business (

The Corporate Shrink

I am one of several independent contractors who do long-term consulting for a company. I’m a very competitive person, and when our contracts come up for renewal, I tend to do whatever it takes to win–but that bites me in the backside when the other consultants see me as a threat. What is your advice? (issue 106, page 105)

As a consultant myself, I can relate to the pressure you feel to sell extensions of your engagements. This doesn’t present a conflict when a client genuinely needs your services, as they often do. On the other hand, there are situations in which the company really should be able to handle your role internally. If that’s the case, you should let the weaning begin.

I admire your competitiveness, but if you truly do “whatever it takes to win,” there’s good reason for rivals to look askance. It’s one thing to assertively pitch a client to renew your contract and another to actively muscle other contractors out of the way. If you’re doing the latter, I can’t blame them for trying to block your path. Sell yourself on your merits rather than by tearing down or interfering with your competitors. There might be room for everybody–and even if there isn’t, dialing down your competitiveness could help preserve your reputation and relationships.

Dr. Kerry J. Sulkowicz, a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and founder of The Boswell Group LLC, advises executives on leadership, management, and governance. Send him your questions about the psychology of business (

The Corporate Shrink

I’ve been working with my boss for 14 years, and sleeping with him for 7. Recently he stopped wanting sex, although he still wants to see me. I know he’s involved with two younger women who don’t work in the office. I like my job and he pays me well, but being exposed to his personal activities is disturbing. Should I quit my job and leave town? (issue 105, page 99)

That’s like asking if you should tidy up your room on the Titanic before it sinks. A better question is this: Why did you get and stay involved with your boss in the first place? Don’t assume you know the answer. It’s a complex question – possibly with deep psychological underpinnings – that deserves thorough exploration. I’m concerned about your potential for self-sacrificing, even self-destructive, behavior and your apparent lack of self-awareness about it.

Granted, you were both willing participants, but as the boss, this guy clearly had the upper hand in the relationship. He sounds exploitative, and he doesn’t seem to have much compunction about letting you in on his other affairs.

Severing your ties to him now is only the beginning. I’d recommend that you get yourself to a good psychotherapist who can talk you out of this mess, then guide you to an understanding of what led you into it in the first place. Leaving your job sounds inevitable, although skipping town may only prove a doomed attempt to meet an emotional problem with a geographic solution. Gaining some insight might help you move on without having to move away.

Dr. Kerry J. Sulkowicz, a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and founder of The Boswell Group LLC, advises executives on leadership, management, and governance. Send him your questions about the psychology of business (

The Corporate Shrink

We’re in a conundrum that so many early-stage companies face: No one will invest unless we have customers, but customers want to see that we have enough resources. This catch-22 has been going on for a year; we’ve even attempted to offer customers stock–to no avail. How do we communicate confidence in our venture? (issue 104, page 108)

Well, nothing breeds success like success – but that doesn’t exactly help, eh? Assuming you have a good product or service to sell – you do, right? – then it’s time to reevaluate your pitch in the cold, hard light of day.

First, consider the possibility that you’re sending mixed messages. Your questions suggest that your management team itself might lack confidence in the soundness of the venture. If so, that’s something you could be transmitting inadvertently to customers. Authenticity is hard to fake. Perhaps you need to fix something about your offering before you can make it sound more compelling.

Alternatively, you could be coming on too strong. That’s perfectly understandable; it can be a way of overcompensating for the very real uncertainty that surrounds an early-stage company. But if you aren’t acknowledging even a modicum of doubt, then potential buyers might sense an attempt to cover something up.

Worse yet, your team’s neediness could be fueling a vicious circle of fear and desperation. Customers and investors pick up subliminally on your edgy cues and back off–which sparks even greater internal panic. Stop the cycle before it wreaks more damage: Take a step back, see if any of these symptoms resonate, and take the necessary medicine.

My boss and I used to be on the same floor, allowing us to work very closely and bounce ideas off each other every day. He was promoted and moved to a new building five miles away. I got his old job, but I’m now his only direct report not located in his building. How do I maintain our relationship?

Congrats on your promotion! Now you need to come to terms with the prospect of getting by on your own. I suspect that’s part of the package. Yours isn’t an uncommon problem. You thrived in your previous working relationship, but your promotion means taking on more responsibility and mentoring subordinates the way your boss did you. Remember, it’s not the five miles that matter: Your role in the organization is more important than physical proximity in determining your level of interaction. And while his other direct reports may run into him more often, you have the benefit of greater independence.

Here’s the important psychological point: Success, in this case promotion, frequently brings with it some sort of loss–of secure relationships and of comfortable work demands. The sooner you reconcile the loss of the old, the more you’ll flourish in the new.

Dr. Kerry J. Sulkowicz, a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and founder of The Boswell Group LLC, advises executives on leadership, management, and governance. Send him your questions about the psychology of business (

The Corporate Shrink

I’m worried about keeping up with all of the advances in technology and the effects of globalization. Should I be? (issue 103, page 140)

Yes, no, and maybe. There’s no question that we live in a rapidly changing world without the predictability that midcareer executives from prior generations enjoyed. But you can control something: yourself and your personality. So I’m hedging my answer.

First, the yes. You should worry in the sense that it pays to put in the effort to follow as closely as you can what’s happening around you. I’m convinced that in the future, the most successful among us will be those who understand that they are citizens of the world. Keeping up with the effects of globalization takes both openness and work–openness to learning, reading, and seeing the world, and work to adapt to the competitive, intellectual, and cultural shifts before they bite you in the rear.

Now, the no. If you’re an engaged manager or leader, the technology will find you. What interests me is how the pace of technological development has long outstripped our human capacity to use that technology, including our brains’ ability to process information and to do actual work. That’s why we’re so overwhelmed by those hundreds of emails on our handhelds. Being realistic and discriminatory about which new technology to employ may be a more important skill than embracing it all.

Finally, the maybe. By the time we’re midcareer, our personalities are largely set. The biggest variable in all this change is you, especially your personal flexibility and your open-mindedness to listening and learning. These qualities are hard to teach and even harder to acquire as we age. But for an ambitious, driven executive, they’ll make or break your career. I’ll go even further: With rapid globalization and technological innovation, the more you can tolerate or even enjoy ambiguity, uncertainty, and change, the more successful you’ll be.

Dr. Kerry J. Sulkowicz, a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and founder of The Boswell Group LLC, advises executives on leadership, management, and governance. Send him your questions about the psychology of business (

The Corporate Shrink

I’m new to cold-calling at a financial-services firm. From a psychological perspective, what’s the most effective etiquette for a successful cold call? (issue 102, page 104)

If one size really fit all, then cold-calling would be easy. But it’s not enough just to be polite. The best etiquette strategy is one that adjusts on the fly, based on careful listening and empathizing with the other person.

You know, as I do, what the alternative sounds like. The cold-call recipient feels like he’s talking to a dispassionate automaton replaying a script (which he often is). So what to do? Pay attention. If the person you’re pitching sounds rushed, acknowledge that and cut to the chase. Otherwise, you’ll come across as clingy and annoy your potential customer. If your target seems more formal, address him or her by Mr. or Ms. (There’s no quicker way for a telephone rep to turn me off than by addressing me as if we’re old buddies.) Most of all, try not to take it too personally when your cold call gets the cold shoulder. It comes with the territory.

I’m finishing my MBA but struggling financially until I get my first job. I have aging parents and an unsatisfying personal life. I’ve tried to solve my problems by applying for jobs, but I still feel terribly isolated. Any advice on how I can cope with this?

If it’s any consolation, you’re not alone. Lots of people experience feelings of isolation at different times, and it can be painful. This is clearly a tough time, filled with uncertainty about your future, torn between feelings of responsibility for your parents, and your commitment to improve your own life. And not having someone to share your voyage with makes it all the more difficult.

Time and perseverance will undoubtedly help on the work front, but ultimately that may be the easy part. Caring for elderly parent–and dealing with your guilt if and when you choose not to–is more complicated. Consider the possibility that unresolved anger from childhood might interfere with your freedom to be responsive to their needs now. And given all that’s on your plate, it might help if someone else, like a sibling, could look after your parents until you’re on more solid ground.

Your unsatisfying personal life might be the most complex part of all. There’s no rational reason why you should be alone. But we know that being successful, or even being highly responsible, doesn’t guarantee intimacy. For some, it comes effortlessly. For others, emotional blocks can make intimacy feel unattainable or dangerous.

Although these issues probably aren’t helping matters, don’t assume that they’re the cause of your unhappiness. It may be that your inner emotional life will improve once your external circumstances stabilize. But if you still feel isolated, you might benefit from speaking with a qualified psychotherapist who can help you figure out why you haven’t found a partner to help you through life’s rough patches.

Dr. Kerry J. Sulkowicz, a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and founder of The Boswell Group LLC, advises executives on leadership, management, and governance. Send him your questions about the psychology of business (

The Corporate Shrink

Our charismatic and talented CEO, whom we all thought would lead us well into our uncertain future, just announced he’s resigning to work for the competition. How do we cope? (issue 101, page 107)

When a beloved CEO leaves precipitously, he bursts the shared illusion that you’ll have him forever. We tend to idealize good leaders, blinding us to the fact that they’re in it not only for us but for themselves, too. When he quits to take a bigger job, your initial (and understandable) shock gives way to a mix of betrayal, anger, sadness, loss, uncertainty, and disorientation. You might be surprised, though, by how quickly these feelings pass.

Think of this as a chance to take a hard look at your organization, including your own role in it. Ask yourself what problems and opportunities may have been concealed by your idealization of the CEO.

Undoubtedly, there will be speculation about why he left, which can take the form of collective self-doubt. Was it solely to further his own career, or did he know something you didn’t? Presumably there will be an interim boss in place while the company searches for a new one. Both the temporary CEO and the successor should pay close attention to the aftereffects, traumatic or not, of the former boss’s exit. That said, no one, not even the top dog, is indispensable, and most organizations are more resilient than their employees think. Some do even better under new leadership.

The bottom line? Pay attention to your feelings and don’t sweep them under the rug. Make sure you don’t turn your anger at the old CEO against others in the company. In the end, you’ll come to remember that being a CEO is just a job. He was your boss, not your daddy.

Dr. Kerry J. Sulkowicz, a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and founder of The Boswell Group LLC, advises executives on leadership, management, and governance. Send him your questions about the psychology of business (

The Corporate Shrink

I’m the sole woman on a five-person sales team. We get along very well, but the guys occasionally go to a strip club. They invite me along, but of course I always decline. Is there anything else I should do? (issue 100, page 105)

Men! Well, asking them to consider after-hours activities that are a bit more inclusive wouldn’t be a bad start. If their G-string galas offend you, it’s certainly your prerogative to speak up. If their behavior doesn’t bother you, and you’re comfortable being part of what sounds like an effective team, I’d leave well enough alone. But if you’re feeling left out of essential conversations, or if you think they view you in the same shallow way as they do strippers, then you and the guys should have a good heart-to-heart.

If you go this route, be careful how you put it. The success of your team depends in part on the soundness of your interpersonal connections. Explain that you’re not passing judgment on your colleagues’ right to visit these establishments–but that it makes you uncomfortable being invited to something they know you’ll turn down.

Of course, that raises the question of why they’re inviting you in the first place. My bet is that your male colleagues treat you like one of the guys most of the time, but on their nights out they’re trying to get a rise out of you. Also, some men patronize strip clubs as a way of dealing with their anxiety about intimate relationships, including with each other. If you really want to shake up the guys, you might lay out the theory that they’re inviting you to cut the latent homosexual tension between them. Or better yet, insist that on their next night out you all go see male strippers.

Dr. Kerry J. Sulkowicz, a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and founder of The Boswell Group LLC, advises executives on leadership, management, and governance. Send him your questions about the psychology of business (