The Four Factors of Effective Leadership

When no one is looking

One of the four factors of effective leadership is integrity and an important element of integrity is character. I like the definition that character is who you are when no one is looking.

If you doubt the importance of a leader's character and integrity, and many do, just take a few moments to examine the fallout from New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's recent involvement with prostitutes.

It is important to consider who you really are when no one is looking because, at some point, people might be looking. Right now, people are examining who Eliot Spitzer was when he thought no one was looking and what they are finding is undermining his ability to lead.

One helpful guide for making ethical decisions is the newspaper test. Before doing anything that might be unethical ask yourself a simple question. "Would I want anyone to read about this in tomorrow's newspaper?" If the answer is no, then don't do it. This isn't just a hypothetical exercise, as Spitzer's situation demonstrates, it is quite possible that your actions will actually end up in the newspaper or on a blog or on Youtube or on the local news.

Additionally, Spitzer's actions are especially damaging because, as Attorney General of New York, he built a reputation for integrity. Ironically, he was responsible for exposing prostitution rings during his tenure. 

Furthermore, as a father of three young girls, I was saddened when I learned that Spitzer also has three daughters. Regardless of the political ramifications, this revelation will have a terrible impact on his family, especially on his girls and their relationship with their father and other men in the future. His actions also send a terrible message to girls everywhere about the value of women and the way they should be treated in our society.

Lest this seem like a partisan attack on a Democratic Governor, it is important to note that many Democrats have criticized Spitzer's actions. Moreover, the Republicans are no strangers to sexual impropriety, as the recent actions of Republican Senators David Vitter and Larry Craig clearly demonstrate.

Finders Keepers

What would you do if you found $1 million on the street?

Joey Coyle, an unemployed meth addict from South Philly, got a chance to answer that question in the early 1980's after he found $1.2 million that fell out of a Purolator armored truck. Mark Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down, tells Joey's amazing story in Finders Keepers.

What caught my attention was Bowden's question toward the end of the book.

"Who among us, no matter how virtuous our intentions, could withstand a truly spectacular unsolicited temptation?" In other words, what would you do? Would you have responded differently?

It is easy to say that we would return incorrect change to the clerk at Starbucks or return someone's wallet with $5 inside. But what about a truly spectacular temptation? A little extra change or a few dollars won't transform our lives, but how would we respond to a temptation that would turn our world upside-down? That is more difficult.

Similarly, few of us would go out of our way to shoplift, mug someone or rob a bank. It is easy to say no to those activities. However, what would we do if an unsolicited temptation presented itself? What if it just showed up at our door? That is a tough question.

It is probably impossible to answer these questions abstractly. We don't know what we would do until we are presented with the opportunity.

However, I do have a suggestion. I think that we respond to spectacular once-in-a-lifetime temptation the same way that we do with the more mundane everyday kind. I think we respond to big temptations the same way we respond to small ones. I think we would follow the same path that we'd already established.

This is very important. Little temptations might seem insignificant, but they are not. Our response to little temptations sets the foundation for our response to larger temptations. In other words, there is no such thing as a little temptation, since it is an opportunity to establish our character and to determine our integrity. What you have done in the past and what you do in the present determines what you will do in the future. 

As Bowden explains, at the time of the story, most people seemed to think that they would keep the money, just like Joey did. Few people felt that he had done anything wrong. "The crime fell into a morally gray area, perhaps into that small space reserved for the larceny in everyone's soul." This is probably true and shows Bowden's understanding of human nature. However, great leaders recognize that they can't be like "most people," at least not in this respect. Effective leadership requires that we avoid reserving even a "small space" for larceny in our soul. 

Integrity and Leadership

Stosh has a thought-provoking blog post about integrity and leadership. Here's an excerpt.

"Not everyone who has integrity is a leader.  Many people conduct themselves in a manner that is above reproach, but do so privately, not intending to have influence on others as a consequence of their integrity, or perhaps seeking to influence only those closest to them.  It is a kind of leadership by example, but it is passive, not expansive.

Leadership, then, not only embraces integrity, but also compels others to live according to shared ideals.  It is intentional.  It seeks an audience, even a spotlight.  Here the example of the individual leader can be broadcast, modeled, developed, even prized."

This is an important distinction. In The Four Factors, I argue that leadership starts from the Inside-Out. Internal effectiveness is a prerequisite for interpersonal success. For example, as it relates to integrity, personal trustworthiness is a prerequisite for trusting relationships.

As Stosh explains, integrity is necessary but not sufficient. People need to see our integrity before they can be influenced by it. How could you "broadcast" your integrity? What could you do to make your integrity more "expansive?"

How do you want to go out?

I've been thinking about starting this blog for a long time. I guess I just needed something to get me going. When I started my first blog, a movie provided the initial inspiration. It is the same for the second one as well.

I'm watching The Kingdom starring Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, which follows the FBI's investigation of a terrorist attack on American families living in Saudi Arabia. The decision to send an American team was not popular with the politicians in Washington and the FBI director was receiving strong pressure and threats. Here is his response to the threat of losing his job:

"Once we clued in to the fact that life is finite, the thought of losing it didn't scare us anymore. The end comes no matter what. The only thing that matters is how do you want to go out? On your feet or on your knees?"

That's good stuff. Each day leaders are faced with temptations to do what is easiest instead of doing what is right. If they succumb, these small failures eventually erode their will and their strength. They think that by giving in they extend their reign or their reach, but that is because they are asking the wrong questions. How can I look good? How can I win favor?

Instead, they should be asking "How do I want to go out, on my feet or on my knees?"

Next time you are faced with a decision to either give in to what you know is wrong or stand up for what is right, next time you are tempted to sacrifice your integrity, ask yourself that question, "How do I want to go out?"