The unit changed rapidly and radically, and not for the better. We had enjoyed a command climate that fostered innovation, with a focus on mission accomplishment. Our leadership encouraged trying new things, adapting to different and challenging conditions. The previous commander willingly accepted the risk associated with attempting to find a better way of doing things. Now we had a new commander. Failure meant censure. Perfection was the new standard. Individuals did not matter. Learning was not encouraged or tolerated. Learning means that you might still be doing something incorrectly. Any imperfection must be stamped out and the perpetrator punished as an example for the rest. Daily haranguing became the norm. Berating was the new standard for interaction between leaders and the led. We morphed from a unit that trained and excelled into a grim organization focused on survival. A unit takes on the persona of the commander. It is an old Army maxim and is quite true. Any organization takes on the personality of the leader. Throughout my military career, I served in many different units at all levels, leading diverse organizations and units. I observed many unit transformations after changes of command and leadership. Sometimes it went very well. Other times, the resulting chaos was painful to watch and excruciating to participate in. A caustic command climate can render what was an effective and growing organization impotent and deathly. This happens at all levels and all types of organization; civilian as well as military, which is why character matters when considering someone for a leadership position.
When considering someone for high office, must take stock of their character as the organization they lead will take on their character. If they are given to prevarication, bullying, dissembling, or bombast, their organization will soon take on those particular traits. It is inevitable. Negative leaders produce negative groups. If, however, they exhibit more positive traits, then they bend the organization in a more positive direction. If they hold honesty, frankness, justice, and hard work in high esteem, then their leadership is a positive transformative force. Leaders influence and manage out of their own perceived strengths; avoiding those things they consider weaknesses. This is why we must carefully consider the personal traits of potential leaders.
Do we want our organization, or in the case of national office, country to look like the individual clamoring for our support. As the next election cycle spins up, we must expend time and effort considering what direction we want our country to move. In some ways, character counts more than positions on “hot-button” issues. National policy emerges from the crucible of competing interests. The framers of the constitution crafted a system that moves in halting fits and starts; one in which various voices influence the shape of national policy. National leaders exert influence over policy, but their character exerts a more pernicious influence over the atmosphere of government and the quality of our nation. They may embrace our particular issue, especially if we lift up one issue as paramount in our political worldview, but you and I ought to be more concerned with the character of the government they will craft. They will lead and govern in the same fashion they live their lives.
Of course, some will say, “Well, they all lie.” We usually speak these words when seeking to defend a particularly notorious leader that embraces our particular issue or issues. We say this in order to alleviate the burden of evaluation and difficult choices. Our chosen leader or candidate has articulated support for issues we consider important, yet prior bad acts raise valid fitness questions. We mouth these words to comfort and deflect. Modern media and lengthy election cycles enable effective character evaluation. We do not seek perfection or we could not consider anyone; however, those seeking great responsibility must display great capability. All of us fail. We must treat each other, and this includes those seeking high office, graciously. But a pattern of misbehavior in daily life, business practices, or lower office ought to preclude a candidate from serious consideration. We do need to develop and enforce some puritanical litmus test, but instead, search a candidate’s personal record for those indicators that speak to the quality of their leadership. Will they influence their organization for good or ill? If their past record demonstrates a proclivity toward negative behaviors, then the chances are that they will not alter their practices and their impact will be negative. In the next few months we must take stock of a persons character, as well as their stated platform if we desire a good outcome.
Integrity and honor create an individual worthy of the mantle of leadership. A thoughtful man or woman of high moral fiber will seek the best path, the just resolution to an intractable problem, and the most equitable solution to a Gordian knot and then pursue it to an appropriate end. All of this, while surrounding themselves with high-quality individuals for wise counsel and support. A person of questionable character may give lip service to a worthy cause in order to secure my support. A person of courage and honor will labor and sacrifice to take the higher path, all the while shaping and influencing our nation for the better. Character counts and we must be wise, independent, and strong enough to reject those whose character flaws will move our nation away from goodness.
No comments:
Post a Comment