Character: the heart of leadership

IMG_20140913_100308071_HDRIt’s been a couple weeks since my last post — a combination of travel, training programs and just plain “being overwhelmingly busy” have kept my blogging at bay.

I read an article at that served as a good reminder to people who are fascinated by “leadership” topics and themes.  It was a good reminder that effective leadership (as an action) can be demonstrated by everyone regardless of their position or title. Further, effective leadership is built on strong character.  People, as followers, typically don’t respond well to leaders with significant character deficiencies or those who’s emotions can easily and frequently override their “higher judgement”.

Consider this quote from the article:

The high character associated with true leadership can be demonstrated and lived anywhere in an organization or community; it’s not about rank or title. People can lead by example very powerfully at the lowest levels of an organization when they demonstrate true excellence in how they answer a phone, relay messages, or interact with every person who seeks their assistance. People can lead from the middle when they build strong, resilient work teams with healthy cultures and excellent performance.

Naturally, people in higher positions are under constant and persistent pressure to derive greater efficiency and effectiveness from their teams and that pressure can take a toll on the best and strongest folks. It then becomes the responsibility of that leader to know when he or she needs a break to regroup.

The author of the source article summed it up nicely:

People called to lead from the top have a different level of responsibility, and it’s definitely not for everyone. They need to embody both high rank and high character. The most effective people who hold high ranks in organizations are often compulsive. They have to be. They are driven every day in every room to make their people and organizations more and more effective. It takes a lot of energy and focus, and it’s not a job for everybody.

Scout helping old ladyI see great examples of “grace under pressure” in the workplace from many different leaders and persons with “higher-up titles”.  They are faced with disappointing results, time pressures, and demands to make improvements, but they are able to work with their subordinates to reassure, coach and redirect efforts without belittling or ridiculing failed efforts, mistakes, missteps or lackluster performance.

Character is the heart of the matter.  Strong leaders with strong character understand that it’s fine to be angry over poor results, but the anger is directed at outcomes, not people. Even when people are clearly to blame, folks with strong character can discern the right path to motivate change by encouraging, educating or even inductive reasoning to help the affected individual or team by “drawing out” from them the realization of what went wrong and how to correct the direction for better outcomes.

I’ve also seen leaders fly off the handle with emotional outbursts. Thankfully, it’s rare, but it can happen. Its understandable when we recognize the immense pressure and long hours spent to try to achieve the nearly impossible results needed to satisfy the greater organization. In some cases, the leader is able to regroup, reconcile and recapture the respect of their followers, but sometimes that leader resorts to a path of bullying and blustery speech to intimidate followers into hasty and urgent action.  Such sort term tactics may get a quick turnaround, but are unsustainable in the long term.

Ready for the hike bsa 1911 handbookCharacter is “who we are” at the DNA level, not simply how we act when under pressure. Character defines how we respond when we know we were wrong and how we share success with the team for good outcomes.

One leadership model (developed by the US Army) is referred to as the BE-KNOW-DO approach. It starts by defining the individual’s character (BE = who am I, how do I react, what are my values as expressed in seven main areas of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage) and builds on that core.  The “KNOW” aspect is understanding what must be done and having a game plan to derive an outcome using available resources.  The “DO” portion is simply taking action with urgency — initiating instead of responding.

When our leaders (by title or by virtue of influence) have got the right focus on areas like loyalty, respect, integrity and personal courage, its easy to follow them.  When character is compromised, it’s very difficult to follow (especially for a sustained period of time).





Is Curiosity a Key Leadership Trait?

20170228_134806[1]I was flying home from a series of business meetings this past Friday and was unable to get a new post up on the site until today.

While I’m reading “Leading Change” by John Kotter for an upcoming collaboration meeting (and finding some strong, foundational reminders), my attention was caught on something else.

A recent article published at, titled; “What Happens When Leaders Lack Curiosity?” was stuck in the forefront of my mind.

Typically, most leadership articles cite the common traits or virtues of:

  • integrity (conforming, consistently to a set of rules)
  • vision (imagining and defining a preferred future state)
  • urgency/passion (harnessed drive to push for action and to resist passivity)
  • political savvy (to navigate among existing team’s concerns and overlaps)

While there’s no dispute that a leader may need to exhibit or hone many different skills, talents and competencies I had never heard of curiosity being part of that mix.

The co-authors make many great points about the upside of curious leaders and the downside of those who lack curiosity:

Curious leaders are:

  • Ready for the hike bsa 1911 handbookmore open to new experiences (challenge the norm)
  • tend to exhibit less prejudgement when confronted with problems 
  • accept people with a greater range of diversity in thought, action, biases
  • more likely to be tolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty
  • less pressured by sub-optimal conditions (it’s a challenge not a setback)
  • more likely to consider a greater range of possible answers to a question, solutions to a challenge
  • more likely to accept mistakes as part of the learning process without feeling motivated to place blame or assign fault
  • often insatiably hungry to learn more, explore further, and challenge the norm to find a best possible solution
  • typically avid readers and researchers — seeking new tactics, products, technology, etc.

Un-curious leaders are more likely to:

  • create homogeneous teams
  • embrace safe, conservative approaches
  • replicate their past ideas, teams, solutions by mold or pattern form
  • have a high need for closure, often leading to micro-managing others’ efforts
  • shun ambiguity and uncertainty in favor of predictable processes
  • seek to validate their conclusions
  • preserve the core while avoiding genuine innovation
  • resist change
  • seek, reinforce and embrace conformity

The article wraps up by offering five behavioral characteristics that signal curiosity in leaders:

  1. Generating original ideas from their teams
  2. Questioning their own assumptions and practices
  3. Admitting their own mistakes, and turning them into valuable lessons
  4. Being more interested in asking questions (and listening) than in giving answers (and talking)
  5. Being energized, rather than intimidated, by complexity

I found the discussion of curiosity refreshing and unexpected. There are, perhaps, additional descriptors of highly effective leaders that we’ve overlooked in the past.

What do you think?

  • Does a strong leader need to be curious?
  • Could curiosity be a “bad thing” in some situations or scenarios?
  • Will curiosity become more important as we head towards a greater reliance on Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics in business settings?

Servant Leadership in the 21st Century: Waxing or Waning?

Since I’m on a personal vacation day today I thought I would simply reblog or repost an article I’ve written in the past comparing servant leadership to other leadership models in response to a Forbes article. The Forbes article simply asked why isn’t servant leadership more prevalent today? And that got me wondering about other models that might be more prevalent in business in lieu of servant leadership. Hope you enjoy the article and are not distracted by the overt Boy Scout references within the article.

Troop 113's Blog

A recent Forbes article (click here) asked the question “Why Isn’t Servant Leadership More Prevalent?

After providing a brief definition for context, the author points out many positive benefits for both the team of followers and the leader who chooses the path of “servant leadership”:

  1. Ready for the hike bsa 1911 handbookresearch suggests that servant leaders are not only more highly regarded than others by their employees and not only feel better about themselves at the end of the day but are more productive as well (Adam Grant, “Give and Take”)
  2. Servant leadership is designed to empower direct reports to succeed and to become servants to each other
  3. this model, when consistently applied, should also generate leadership qualities in those being led
  4. the establishment of genuine “community” within the workplace
  5. for Christians, it may be a reflection of obedience to instructions provided in Mark 10:42-45

The list of positive outcomes from consistent…

View original post 1,423 more words

How to Think Like A Leader (repost)

Some time ago, I found a really great article by Jack and Suzy Welch on Linked In.  It was short, to the point and powerful.  It’s one of the first emails I shared on a Friday afternoon with my work buddies.  Here’s the post… (by Jack and Suzy Welch)

Big Money Quotes throughout;

“Too often, people who are promoted to their first leadership position miss the point. And that failure probably trips up careers more than any other reason.

Being a leader changes everything. Before you are a leader, success is all about you. It’s about your performance. Your contributions. It’s about raising your hand, getting called on, and delivering the right answer.

Sandy Hook Trip 146.JPGWhen you become a leader, success is all about growing others [to do the things listed above]. It’s about making the people who work for you smarter, bigger, and bolder. Nothing you do anymore as an individual matters except how you nurture and support your team and help its members increase their self-confidence. Yes, you will get your share of attention from up above—but only inasmuch as your team wins. Put another way: Your success as a leader will come not from what you do but from the reflected glory of your team.

Now, that’s a big transition—and no question, it’s hard. Being a leader basically requires a whole new mindset. You’re no longer constantly thinking “How can I stand out?” but “How can I help my people do their jobs better?” … the good news is that you’ve been promoted because someone above you believes you have the stuff to make the leap from star player to successful coach.

What does that leap actually involve? First and foremost, you need to actively mentor your people. Exude positive energy about life and the work that you are doing together, show optimism about the future, and care. Care passionately about each person’s progress. Give your people feedback—not just at yearend and midyear performance reviews but after meetings, presentations, or visits to clients. Make every significant event a teaching moment. Discuss what you like about what they are doing and ways that they can improve. Your energy will energize those around you.

And there’s no need for sugarcoating. Use total candor, which happens, incidentally, to be one of the defining characteristics of effective leaders.

Through it all, never forget—you’re a leader now. It’s not about you anymore. It’s about them.

Gives me goosebumps and chills each time I read it. (Yeah, I’m weird that way, what can I say!)

Have a GREAT (and Safe!) weekend.


Traversing Your Career Path

As a follow up to my prior IRMI (International Risk Management Institute, Inc.) article titled “Insurance Loss Control and the Hippocratic Oath“, I’ve got a new one out on the IRMI site titled; “Traversing Your Career Path: Apprentice, Journeyman, or Master” that looks at where we’re at on our career paths, and the relationship between technical skills, professional competencies (aka “soft skills”) and time in position.

(This was originally posted to my colleagues on 2/17/2017 by email, and now I’ve added it to this blog site).


A Tale of Two Leaders

Key Question: “Do you clean the campsite on behalf of your team to win the honorific pennant for your unit flag, or let them fail inspection and then coach them to clean up after themselves?” Each tactic produces a different outcome – each with gains and losses for you as leader.  Please bear with me while I explain…

imgp6808My family has a history of involvement in scouting and outdoor adventure programs. These programs are built to be planned and actively led by the youth participants with minimal direction from the adults (who are there in case of genuine emergency).

There’s likely no surprise that giving the controls of planning and executing a camping trip to a group of 11 year old boys can lead to a certain degree of risk and resultant chaos.

Obviously, it would be much “neater” if the adults planned and executed the program so the boys could simply show up and have fun.  Certainly, it could produce more quantifiable results that parents would love, too – more skills mastered in less time, clean(er) uniforms at the end of trips, balanced meals that were filling and thrifty, and a minimum of unplanned hiccups like someone forgetting to pack a tent on a rainy night.

So the central question is that of goals and outcomes – is the point of the camping program to successfully and efficiently conclude a series of trips planned by adults with a minimum of fuss, OR is the point for the boys to take responsibility, share leadership, own accountability for their decisions and make sure everyone has the right equipment and enough to eat at meal time?

The first scenario makes a picture perfect scouting outfit, but the second, by allowing the team members to commit mistakes and own the comeback/correction, builds a stronger team that can function independently of the adults and yield stronger individual leaders, capable of processing change, and cranking out innovative ideas because they “own the experience.”

Of course, it’s risky letting the team make mistakes and having them own the responsibility of self-correcting along the way.

2012 Delmont Trip 013.JPG

During my son’s first camp out with their scouting unit, a group of boys actually forgot to pack their patrol (team) tent.  Upon arrival at the campground, the boys were initially panicked and unsure what to do.  The adults reminded them of their emergency survival training, and then produced a pair of tarps.  The boys created an improvised shelter and survived the trip only a little worse for wear.  Oh, they never forgot to pack their tent after that trip, either.  It was a valuable learning lesson for them – they realized that they could improvise if needed, but proper planning assures a better outcome.  Had the adults simply packed the tent for them (and the adults had, indeed, recognized the error prior to leaving on the trip!), the boys wouldn’t have learned as much, wouldn’t have grown as much.

As business leaders coaching and mentoring our teams, are we willing to let them make mistakes in order for them to grow stronger through the corrective actions needed to overcome the mistake?  Or do we cover for them out of sheer expediency of getting the project done with fewer hiccups?

IMGP5238.JPGDuring a week-long expedition to summer camp, the boys are responsible to keep the campsite clean.  This includes picking up trash, cleaning and sanitizing the latrine properly and assuring that flags are properly displayed.  Duty rosters are created to assign responsibilities and training is conducted to show younger boys what to do and how to do it.  This is all led by scouts who’ve been through the process on prior summer camp outings. Passing the daily site inspection earns the unit a special honorific – a pennant to display on their troop flag.

Inevitably, on the first morning of the week, the campsite is a mess. Routines have not been established and the boys are distracted by the novelty of a week away from home.

Some scoutmasters will take time to clean the camp properly after breakfast while the boys are attending classroom exercises in order to be sure that the site inspection goes smoothly and the unit is eligible for special awards.

Some scoutmasters will let the site inspection fail miserably, and then take time to get the boys focused on setting priorities more emphatically and mastering the details of both training the younger boys and assuring that the site is prepped prior to leaving for classes each morning.

Both scoutmasters have the best of intentions, and one assures a smooth week (including winning the pennant for their troop flag for perfect site inspections), but the other sees failure as a mechanism for personal growth and is willing to sacrifice the bragging rights in order to see his team grow.

Which sort of leader do you want to be? One known for his/her team’s winning streak of consistent success (assured by your ever-present orchestration), or one who is willing to let the team fail, own their mistakes and grow stronger through the process of re-grouping and making a coordinated “comeback”?  Are these two outcomes mutually exclusive, or can both be achieved simultaneously?