Leadership Character Is More Important Than You May Think
A leader’s prior neural programming drives complex choices and organization culture
Welcome to the Gazebo! I am honored that you stopped by and promise to make each edition as valuable as possible.
In This Edition - Character As A Key Leadership Trait
Leaders may be asked to deal with problems that have competing interests, fuzzy information, high risk, combined with a short timeframe, and their choices will determine the future direction of their organization. It turns out that the solutions arrived at by the decision maker will be based on the experience and character of the executive, which puts their character front and center when evaluating potential leaders. In this article we look at the impact of leadership character on an organization and its culture through a decision-making impact perspective.
We are in an election year, which means a constant bombardment of ads, media posts, articles that promote one candidate over another. Campaigns look to gain any little edge they can so they will often promote some minor point as having major consequences when in reality, it barely moves the dial. I’m more interested in how a leader is going to make future choices and how those choices will make my future better. I couldn’t care less about what they had for breakfast or the type of car that they drive.
One leadership trait that should move the dial on everything, for all of us, is the personal character of the leader in question. Just as parents are the character models for their children, organization leaders are the character models for the culture of their organization and those they lead. Not paying close attention to the character of a potential leader is extremely short-sighted. This edition looks at how leadership character can make or break an organization.
Image created by Ed Paulson using Copilot for Windows.
Workers watch their leaders for acceptable behavior cues. Should a leader be highly deliberative, detail oriented, and risk averse, he should not be surprised when he gets exactly that behavior from his workers. Should the leader play it loose with the rules, then she should expect the same from her workers. Enron is a good example of an organization that lost it all due to integrity issues that permeated the entire organization. Leadership character matters.
Easy decisions are just that, easy, and as such can be successfully made by less experienced worker, usually guided by an existing policy or procedure. More complicated decisions require a higher level of critical thinking. The analysis may involve data collection and evaluation by experienced workers who will make recommendations for the next “best” actions. When problems are so complex that no additional data collection, expert interviews, or discussion will offer a clear “best” path forward, they are ambiguous. Ambiguous problems are best solved by highly experienced workers who use prior experience, personality traits, and intuition to determine a solution. Basically, they come up with an educated guess.
In my “Getting Through” book I talk a lot about different types of decision-making situations and offer an approach for matching the right person to the right task using the right communication support network. Book details are at the end of this post.
To summarize: Easy problems do not, and arguably should not, require the attention of executive leaders. More complicated problems should be escalated to more experienced personnel who will follow their own processes to find a solution. Ambiguous problems, however, continue to be escalated. This is why so many of the problems that wind up on the executive’s desk are ill-defined, with competing interests, and no clear solution path. On top of that, these problems often have far-reaching consequences, so it is important that they be made effectively. Recall from earlier that ambiguous problems are solved based on the education, experience, and character of the decision maker. This is where executive personal background and character matter.
We have many sayings that speak to the present in terms of the past. “Those who ignore history, are destined to repeat it.” “A leopard doesn’t change its spots.” “A zebra doesn’t change its stripes.” Implicit in all of these sayings is a colloquial, and arguably, life truth. Past choices and decisions are a solid starting place for determining how a person will act in the future. Why? Their past actions are a window into their natural neural programming.
Image created by Ed Paulson using Copilot for Windows
Remember that prior experiences and education develop, through neuroplasticity, the neural connections that guide us while navigating situations today. Our prior programming is our natural inclination (System 1 for those of you who have read me for a while) and unless we consciously override it by a conscious alternate choice (by System 2) then that is the natural direction where the solution will head. (See my December 19, 2023 edition for the details on System 1 and 2 concepts, and the work of Nobel Lauriat Daniel Kahneman.)
I am not saying that people cannot change, because I believe they can. But not everyone has the same level of personal awareness, openness, and reflection to own their past mistakes and take steps to ensure they do not repeat them. This is where a deliberative interview process, talking to references, and asking them to interact in mock scenarios will give you a better sense of their most likely future actions.
We empower our leaders to make choices on our behalf, either through our vote or by our continued employment. When selecting leaders, we should look beyond the hype and instead look at how they have acted in the past. Then ask yourself how this person would act when faced with a similar situation. If your answer pleases you, then you may have found the right person. But if there is even a shred of doubt, step back and try to objectively determine if this person is the right one for you. Leadership mistakes are costly, and it is better to take your time in the hiring than spend years undoing damage that could have been anticipated from a more objective historical review.
Assuming that a person has changed without taking the time to “trust but verify” is setting yourself up for frustration and disappointment that can have disastrous future consequences for organizations and countries.
#leadership, #culture, #integrity, #Enron, #hiring
I Invite You To Subscribe To My Newsletter
It would mean the world to me if you would subscribe to my newsletter. Knowing that you are out there reading my work is the fuel that keeps me looking for the next interesting topic.
Don’t miss out on something helpful to you simply because you forgot to visit my newsletter site. Your information will never be shared and will only be used for us to communicate with each other.
Inviting others to join us here is always appreciated!
DON’T MISS THE NEXT EDITION OF THE BIZDOCTOR’S GAZEBO – SUBSCRIBE!
START A CONVERSATION (Subscribers only. Subscribe to comment. It’s Free!)
FOR SUBSTACKERS – RECOMMEND THIS NEWSLETTER TO OTHERS
LEARN MORE ABOUT BUSINESS COMMUNICATION FROM MY “GETTING THROUGH” BOOK
New! Listen to Ed Paulson explain his latest book “Getting Through.”
(Short 3 minute YouTube Video)
To become a better communicator, check out my recently published book “Getting Through: A Systematic Approach To Being Understood” (ISBN: 9798987950807) available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and other retailers. It is only 130 pages long and can be read in just a few hours. Those few hours will change the way you communicate long into the future.
Getting Through: A Systematic Approach To Being Understood (ISBN: 9798987950807)
Copyright © 2024 by Ed Paulson. All Rights Reserved.