Elements of Leaders of Character: Attributes, Practices, and Principles

SECTION 1

Leaders, Leadership, Character, Character-Based Leadership, and Leaders of Character

CHAPTER 1

Elements of Leaders of Character

Our world is changing at breakneck speed, and while much of our daily lives is becoming more and more about automation, autonomy, convenience, speed, and technology, one thing has not, and never will change: humans are social beings who need to interact socially with others. In this rampant change, it seems that many of the old-timey traditional family, hard work, self-supporting, and faith or virtue-based values that once helped guide civilized society’s culture made way for a more relaxed, casual, and (many believe) much less wholesome and robust culture. This new culture has advanced society in many ways, but it has had some detrimental effects as well.

The culture of any society (as well as countries, communities, groups, organizations, and even families) is determined by the kind of people who make up the society. Therefore, in response to some of the detrimental cultural trends, there is an emerging (or reemerging) focus and concern on identifying the kind of people who positively advance society, discovering what it is about them that makes them the kind of people they are, and then introducing those attributes, practices, and principles back into the population in the hopes of developing more of that kind of person. This concern is not only for the betterment of society itself, but perhaps even the very future of civilized society because the most important factor in the rise and decline of societies is the character of the people who form that society. The strategy is this: a person’s character defines the kind of person he or she is, so improve the character of the people in a society and thereby improve society. This focus is also bringing attention to the absolutely critical role character plays in every aspect of a person’s life.

One example of the new focus is the discussion taking place on teaching character development in school (elementary, high school, and college) in conjunction with the traditional subjects and skills. The reality is becoming clearer that the abysmal educational dropout rate and resultant decimating social problems are much more about the character of the students, friends, and parents than they are about anything to do with the schools. The new thinking is to focus on developing the character of the kids in school so that they will become better students and the kind of people who understand the value of education and the incredibly positive impact education has on their lives, community, and country. Develop the character of the people, and all of society’s problems will begin to decrease.

Great idea!

Thankfully, there are already some great role models that we can learn about character from because it defines who they are and what they do. These role models are leaders of character, the subject of this book.

Elements of Leaders of Character—attributes, practices, and principles of leaders who value strong, positive, virtuous character—is a leadership book, but more specifically it is a leader development book. It is a textbook that serves as an introduction to the subjects of leaders of character and character-based leadership. Most importantly, it is a book about self-improvement through character development.

The primary goal of Elements of Leaders of Character is to promote development of more leaders of character by detailing the adoptable and developable elements (attributes, practices, and principles) that exemplify this kind of leader. This book is a comprehensive illustration and discussion of many of the components of leaders who value their good solid character and live their lives accordingly.

The elements are the basic foundational aspects of leaders of character. They include

Attributes: characteristics, descriptions, traits, ingredients, components

Practices: behaviors, actions, skills, habits, activities

Principles: beliefs, qualities, ideals, standards, values

Leaders of character are leaders who lead for the right reasons. They are people who place the highest value on good, strong, positive character because they fully know the impact of their character on their leadership and their lives. Leaders of character genuinely care about becoming better people and leaders in order to make a positive impact on the world. People, especially groups of people, naturally want and need someone to lead, to set a direction to head or an example to follow. A leader’s character is what determines his or her direction or example.

It will become obvious in the following pages that teaching or learning leadership is difficult because of the abstractness and ambiguity of the act or skill of leadership. Leadership cannot be learned from a single book. However, learning how to become a person of character is not as difficult since our character is comprised of a multitude of malleable and dynamic elements that can be intentionally positively developed.

So let’s begin with some good, clear descriptions to develop a common understanding.

CHAPTER 2

Leader and Leadership—Superstars

Leadership is like a rock star these days; it is everywhere. Leadership books, classes, conferences, consultants, DVDs, gurus, seminars, speakers, and workshops abound the land, and the words leader and leadership are used extensively in abundant and assorted contexts and connotations. These days we all know leadership is important, and everyone probably has an idea of what it is, but it is still a safe bet that if we asked a hundred people to define leader and leadership, a hundred different variations and definitions would likely result. So, with such widespread notoriety, how could there be such confusion over superstar words and concepts as popular as leader and leadership?

There is no single answer to the question, but the authors of the book Made to Stick,¹ Chip and Dan Heath, introduced a concept they called semantic stretch that diagnoses one part of the problem in the lack of a general clarity of what leadership really is. Semantic stretch is the phenomenon where words and concepts and their true meaning become diluted and changed through overuse and/or consistent misuse. For example, the Heaths researched the historical use of the words unique and unusual by newspaper reporters and found that the use of unique has significantly increased and the use of unusual has decreased because unique has more emotional kick in a news story. Something that is unique is much more interesting than something that is unusual. The result is the meaning of the word unique has lost much of its clarity through the overuse and misuse. The same phenomenon has engulfed leader and leadership as well, causing some of the lack of clarity or misunderstanding of what they really are.

The issue driving the overuse and misuse of the words leader and leadership is that the words add clout, credibility, or authority to whatever they are attached to. News reporters and writers regularly use both words because they automatically increase credibility of any news report or story. When inserted into the title of a book, program, or article, these words increase significance and clout automatically (regardless of the content). When leader is used to describe a person or a job, that person instantly becomes more of an authority and more credible (regardless of their true credibility). Writers, reporters, and even higher education and industry have all contributed to the confusion and semantic stretch of the words because leader and leadership are regularly used in place of

•   manager and management in business;

•   officer/commander and command in the military and military education;

•   principal/administrator and administration in education;

•   pastor or church management in theology; and

•   politician and governing/government management in the context of politics.

Truthfully, all of the jobs and activities listed above are actually managers and management. Therefore, in deciphering leadership, we will proceed by comparing it to generic management, keeping in mind that we are talking about all of them. Comparing and contrasting management and leadership is a great way to clear up some of the confusion over leadership and illustrate exactly what it is and what it is not. Most people have some understanding of what management is; therefore, it makes a good comparative example.

CHAPTER 3

Management vs. Leadership

Leadership is often thought of as a business function because many people think leadership and management are the same thing. This belief was so widespread in the past that many university leadership programs were developed and housed in the business school and leadership classes were taught by business management professors. This business school mixing of management and leadership only added to the confusion of understanding leadership and furthered the semantic stretch of the words leader and leadership. Now that it is widely understood that leadership is not the domain of business or management but is instead a social science inclusive to everyone from every walk of life, university leadership programs are scattered throughout the campus. However, the mingling of management and leadership is still widespread, and they are synergistic functions, so comparing and contrasting the two offers a great way to illustrate leadership.

The similarity between management and leadership that drives the intertwining of the words is they both involve an interaction between people: superiors and subordinates in management; leaders and followers in leadership. Furthering the similarity, there can also be a social aspect to management and a management aspect to leadership. However, the two are separate and independent actions or functions wherein management is mostly a business function or process, and leadership is mostly a personal interaction. The leader and manager can certainly be the same person, but the manager in a business is not necessarily the leader, and the leader is not necessarily the manager. In fact, in many real-life workplace or organizational settings, the manager and the true leader are two different people.

Management is about doing; leadership is about being.

One issue clouding the difference between management and leadership is that much of what is said and written about leadership is penned by successful veteran managers (or management teachers, professors, consultants, etc.) who view leadership through a business management lens or paradigm. Management and leadership certainly do become increasingly intertwined over a successful long career with increasing levels of responsibility and authority, so it is easy to understand how the two functions meld together at some level in a successful manager’s career. When managers reach executive level positions, they are very far removed from actual production so they must work through many other people to get things done. Since they spend their days working through and with people, leadership skills become increasingly valuable and intertwined with their success. Therefore, successful senior managers are likely to argue that management and leadership are the same thing.

Fittingly, for managers ambitious to enter higher levels of management, there could be no better guide and teacher than someone with lots of experience and success in high-level management; however, introductory-level learners (the majority of us) need a less complex and intertwined-with-management view of leadership. Additionally, exceptionally experienced people with vast knowledge in any area tend to have a very difficult time explaining concepts on an introductory level (the smartest and most experienced people often make the worst teachers). Leadership and management to a manager with thirty years of experience are vastly different than to a twenty-year-old college student. Early on, both management and leadership are much less complicated and significantly less intertwined.

Leadership to a young person is very different and far from management than it is to a seasoned manager or leader who may not see the difference at all anymore.

A common textbook definition of management is reaching the goals and objectives of the organization by using assets and resources effectively and efficiently. Assets and resources include capital, equipment, raw materials, and employees. Managers are empowered (and paid) to decide how to best use the assets and resources at their disposal to reach their goals and objectives. To accomplish this, managers must have almost total control and authority over the business processes, including employees, in order to get the most out of the assets and resources. In other words, management is about control. Leadership, on the other hand, is not about control at all. It is more about empowering others and soliciting their free will and inner drive or spirit. Leadership is more about people, where management is more about processes, resources, and objectives. The following quote alludes to leadership’s higher order contribution.

Leadership is the art of accomplishing more than the science of management says is possible.

—General Colin Powell, American statesman and retired four-star Army general

Leadership empowers people’s free will to do more than management control can.

The following observations from Warren Bennis, one of the pioneers of modern leadership thought, shed more light on differences between managers and leaders:

The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it. …

The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why. …

The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective. …

The manager has his eye on the bottom line; the leader has his eye on the horizon. …

Leaders are people who do the right thing; managers are people who do things right. …

—Warren G. Bennis, pioneer in the contemporary field of leadership studies

Management also differs from leadership in that it is quantifiable and measureable where leadership is not so much. Managers rely heavily upon metrics to make decisions and determine how and where to use resources, people, and assets. Progress is tracked, and success or failure is determined by the numbers (profits, productivity, costs, return, etc.). Quantification also means employees are retained (or not) based on whether they benefit the organization more than they cost, and a manager’s competency is evaluated on their numbers—when the head office calls to check on things, they are not calling to check on the manager’s health, they are calling to check on the numbers. Conversely, little about leadership can be measured, gauged, charted, or judged. In fact, the effects of leadership may never even be seen since there are no metrics with which to benchmark it.

Both management and leadership are ultimately about a person having some kind of power over, upon, or with others. The definition of power in this context is the capacity to exert influence over others. Managers are assigned power from their bosses, whereas leaders are given power by the people they influence. A manager’s power is based mostly on the authority of his or her position or job title; a leader’s power comes mostly from the kind of leader and person he or she is. Manager’s primary powers include

•   legitimate power (based on title, position, or rank);

•   reward power (ability to provide rewards or payment);

•   punishment power (ability to penalize);

•   informational power (ability to control information or knowledge that subordinates deem valuable); and

•   coercive power (ability to make or force others to do something, even against their own will).

These managerial powers, while significant when in place, are very short-lived and completely dissipate as soon as the manager’s authority vanishes. A manager has little power over subordinates outside of the official workplace.

A leader’s primary powers include

•   referent power (derived from personal relationships, trustworthiness, and character);

•   leadership power (derived from stepping up when leadership is needed);