Leadership

The first thing one has to ask is, What is a leader supposed to do? Any leader has a series of practical problems that obtrude and that circumstances generate, and that I would call the tactical level. Beyond that, he has the task of taking his society from where it is to where it has never been. That’s the challenge of leadership, to build arising circumstances into a vision of the future.

With respect to the first task, it depends partly on the domestic structure of the society and partly on a certain tactical skill.

With respect to the leadership part, the qualities most needed are character and courage. Character because the decisions that are really tough are 51-49. The obvious decisions get made in the course of bureaucratic consideration. But when you have a very close call, it means that you have decided to go on one road rather than another. So you need moral strength to make a decision on which, by definition, you can almost not have a majority because you’re dealing with unfamiliar terrain. And you need courage to walk alone part of the way. Now, of course you will say, “How about intelligence?” I would say you need a minimum of intelligence to understand the issues. You can always hire intelligent people, but you cannot hire character.

The public does not in the long run respect leaders who mirror its own insecurities or see only the symptoms of crises rather than the long-term trends. The role of the leader is to assume the burden of acting on the basis of a confidence in his own assessment of the direction of events and how they can be influenced. Failing that, crises will multiply, which is another way of saying that a leader has lost control over events. Napoleon turned out to be the precursor of a strange modern phenomenon - the political figure who desperately seeks to determine what the public wants, yet ends up rejected and perhaps even despised by it.

Bismarck did not lack the confidence to act on his own judgments. He brilliantly analyzed the underlying reality and Prussia’s opportunity. He built so well that the Germany he created survived defeat in two world wars, two foreign occupations, and two generations as a divided country. Where Bismarck failed was in having doomed his society to a style of policy which could only have been carried on had a great man emerged in every generation. This is rarely the case, and the institutions of imperial Germany militated against it. In this sense, Bismarck sowed the seeds not only of his country’s achievements, but of its 20th-century tragedies. “No one eats with impunity from the tree of immortality,” wrote Bismarck’s friend von Roon about him.

Statesmanship requires above all a sense of nuance and proportion, the ability to perceive the essential among a mass of apparent facts, and an intuition as to which of many equally plausible hypotheses about the future is likely to prove true. And authority is essential — the strength to take charge of a consequence of events and to impose some direction. Occasionally an outsider may provide perspective; almost never does he have enough knowledge to advise soundly on tactical moves. Before I served as a consultant to Kennedy, I had believed, like most academicians, that the process of decision-making was largely intellectual and that all one had to do was to walk into the President’s office and convince him of the correctness of one’s views. This perspective I soon realized is as dangerously immature as it is widely held. To be sure, in our system the President has the authority to make final decisions; he has larger scope for discretion than the chief executive of any other large country — including probably even the Soviet Union. But a President’s schedule is so hectic that he has little time for abstract reflection. Almost all of his callers are supplicants or advocates, and most of their cases are extremely plausible — which is what got them into the Oval Office in the first place. As a result, one of the President’s most difficult tasks is to choose among endless arguments that sound equally convincing.

The complexity of modern government makes large bureaucracies essential; but the need for innovation also creates the imperative to define purposes that go beyond administrative norms. Ultimately there is no purely organizational answer; it is above all a problem of leadership. Organizational remedies cannot by themselves remove the bias for waiting for crises and for the avoidance of long-term planning. We set ourselves the task of making a conscious effort to shape the international environment according to a conception of American purposes rather than to wait for events to impose the need for decision.

A company’s culture is shaped by a lot of things, but this is one one the most important - you have to convey your priorities clearly and repeatedly. In my experience, it’s what separates great managers from the rest. If leaders don’t articulate their priorities clearly, then the people around them don’t know what their own priorities should be. Time and energy and capital get wasted. People in your organization suffer unnecessary anxiety because they don’t know what they should be focused on. Inefficiency sets in, frustration builds up, morale sinks.

You can do a lot for the morale of the people around you just by taking the guesswork out of the day-to-day life. A CEO must provide the company and its senior team with a road map. A lot of work is complex and require intense amounts of focus and energy, but this kind of messaging is fairly simple: This is where we want to be. This is how we’re going to get there. Once those things are laid out simply, so many decisions become easier to make, and the overall anxiety of an entire organization is lowered.

Người ta có câu “anh hùng tương tích”, tức là anh hùng thì hiểu lòng nhau, quý mến nhau. Lưu Bị võ kém Quan Trương, mưu thua Gia Cát. Tống Giang võ kém Lâm Xung, mưu thua Ngô Dụng. Vậy tại sao những người giỏi võ, giỏi mưu hơn lại cam chịu ở dưới trướng họ? Bởi vì anh hùng không phải chỉ là biết võ biết mưu. Anh hùng là ở cốt cách, khí phách, ý chí. Những võ tướng tài giỏi, những hảo hán Lương Sơn đâu có đời nào lại chịu nghe một kẻ nhu nhược chỉ huy. Đừng nói là những tay hảo hán, mà ngay cả người bình thường, gặp kẻ nhu nhược đớn hèn chỉ huy, phỏng có ai chịu tuân theo mệnh lệnh.

Cốt cách anh hùng đấy, nói thì trừu tượng, nhưng nó cũng có những biểu hiện rất cụ thể mà cả ở Lưu Bị và Tống Giang đều thấy rõ, đó là không ngại khó, không ngại khổ, không sợ nguy hiểm; gặp nghịch cảnh vẫn hiên ngang, gặp cường địch vẫn bình thản. Đó là những tính cách mà tất cả đàn ông trên đời đều phải học tập.

To be a leader, you must accept other people becoming rich because you are governing well. I once told that to the party secretary of Shenzhen. I said: “If you want to succeed as a leader, then don’t think of yourself. Create a system where the others can make money and become rich. And you will remain an honest official and relatively poor.” I don’t know whether he followed my advice.

He asked how I had stayed in power for so long, winning successive elections. Because, I replied, people knew I did not lie and was sincere in advancing their interests. Ordinary people could not follow the intricacies of an economic or a political problem so they learnt whom to trust. To win such trust, I never said anything which I did not believe in, and people slowly recognized that I was honest and sincere. This was my most powerful asset. It was also US President Reagan’s strength. He had good speechwriters. He worked on their drafts, using their ideas but putting them into his own words. He did not allow himself to be “voiced over” by his speechwriters, so when he delivered a speech, he came across as a man of sincerity and conviction.

There is also a very special role for a leader in this process. When followers identify with a we, they almost invariably take on a notion of what we should or should not do. It is natural for followers, or potential followers, to define this notion of what they should or should not do in personal terms. For them, the leader serves as a role model — someone who sets the standards, who is the ideal, who is the focus of attention and the topic of gossip. Sometimes, the leader is even the protagonist in the creation myth of the group of we, as in the stories told in most firms about their founding.

People take stock in their groups’ leader; the leader’s actions symbolize for them what they should or should not do. The leader is the archetypal “one of us.”

But where do these constructions of boundaries, content, and prototypes come from? By now, we have already begun to answer that question. They come from the leaders themselves. Indeed, precisely because social category definitions constitute such a powerful social force, then anyone who is interested in shaping the world — political actors, social movement activists, and so on — needs to be interested in defining categories. Our third rule of effective leadership, then, is that leaders need to be skilled entrepreneurs of identity. Their craft lies in telling us who we are and in representing their ideas as the embodiment of who we are and what we want to be. If they succeed, our energy becomes their tool and our efforts constitute their power.

Vision is the key to understanding leadership, and real leaders have never lost the childlike ability to dream dreams… Vision is the blazing campfire around which people will gather. It provides light, energy, warmth and unity.

But on its own, vision is of little use. Many people have a clear and powerful sense of the future, but this alone does not make them leaders. After all, having visions can also be a sign of lunacy. People only become leaders, then, when their vision is accepted by others.

A person with no constituents is not a leader, and people will not follow until they accept a vision as their own. Leaders cannot command commitment only inspire it. Leaders have to enlist others in a common vision.

Even though their success is likely to have come about through their willingness to learn about the group, and to represent it, the experience of success can change them. They begin to think that they are above the group, that they know more than the group, that they can simply tell group members what to do. In effect, although their experience gives the lie to the myth of heroic leadership, ultimately this myth — and the publicity that attends it — is something that they come to believe in. And as they do, they succumb to hubris and become distanced from the rank-and-file group members. For leaders, this is the kiss of death.

Lieutenant, you may be starving, but you must never show hunger; you always eat last. You may be freezing or near heat exhaustion, but you must never show that you are cold or hot. You may be terrified, but you must never show fear. You are the leader and the troops will reflect your emotions. They must believe that no matter how bad things look, you can make them better.

Leadership means reaching the souls of your troops, instilling a sense of commitment and purpose in the face of challenges so severe that they cannot be put into words.

If your message is one of despair, then you should not be a leader. You must give people hope, hope of improving their conditions. There are of course moments when you feel very down, either because you’re physically down or emotionally down. I think when you’re in that condition, the first thing you do is to get a good night’s sleep, then get a swim or chase a ball.

Kissinger has said, over and over again, that one of the worst conditions that can befall a political leader is to become “prisoner of the past,” to be overly worried about repeating mistakes. Statesmen must refuse, as Kissinger has refused, to accept the proposition that the consequences of any previous action, no matter how horrific, should restrict their room to maneuver in the future.

I made a conscious decision to show resolve, not doubt, in public. I wanted the American people to understand that I believed wholeheartedly in our cause. The last thing they needed to hear was the commander in chief whining about how conflicted he felt. IfI had concerns about the direction of the war, I needed to make changes in the policy, not wallow in public.

I don’t know if I’m scarred emotionally I would say it. But I would say this, that if you are in high office you have an obligation to the public and to your subordinates not to exhibit whatever doubts you have. Because the most important quality you can impart is confidence that the problem is solvable. If the man who is in charge shows uncertainty then all of his subordinates and all of those whose future depends on them will also panic or withdraw into a shell.

For Moore, an adaptive commander must:

exhibit his determination to prevail no matter what the odds or how desperate the situation… and display the will to win by his actions, his words, his tone of voice on the radio and face to face, his appearance, his demeanor, his countenance, the look in his eyes. He must remain calm and cool. No fear. He must ignore the noise, dust, smoke, explosions, screams of the wounded, the yells, the dead lying around him. That is all normal!

He must never give off any hint or evidence that he is uncertain about a positive outcome, even in the most desperate of situations.

Again, the principle which must be driven into you own head an the heads of your men is: Three strikes and you’re not out!

There is always one more thing you can do to influence any situation in your favor.

Making the decision to meet a crisis is far more difficult than the test itself. One of the most trying experience an individual can go through is the period of doubt, of soul-searching, to determine whether to fight the battle or to fly from it. It is in such a period that almost unbearable tensions build up, tensions that can be relieved only by taking action, one way or another. And significantly, it is this period of crisis conduct that separates the leaders from the followers. A leader is one who has the emotional, mental, and physical strength to withstand the pressures and tensions, created by necessary doubts and then, at the critical moment, to make a choice and to act decisively. The men who fail are those who are so overcome by doubts that they either crack under the strain or flee to avoid meeting the problem at all.

I can’t help but wonder why leaders are so often hesitant to lead. I guess it takes a lot of conviction and trusting your gut to get ahead of your peers, your staff and your employees while they are still squabbling about which path to take, and set unhesitating, unequivocal course whose rightness or wrongness will not be known for years. Such a decision really test the mettle of the leader. By contrast, it doesn’t take much self-confidence to downsize a company — after all, how can you go wrong by shuttering factories and laying people off if the benefits of such actions are going to show up in tomorrow’s bottom line and will be applauded by the financial community?

When the leader succeeds, it will be because he has learned two basic lessons: Men are complex, and men are different. Human beings respond not only to the traditional carrot and stick used by the driver of a donkey but also to ambition, patriotism, love of the good and the beautiful, boredom, self-doubt, and many more dimensions and patterns of thought and feeling that make them men. But the strength and importance of these interests are not the same for every worker, nor is the degree to which they can be satisfied in his job.

The ‘people’ are not very just, they forgive the victor, but always make scapegoats for their own leaders who are not victorious.

In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. In other words, when you can do a great job, you get promoted. And that process repeats itself until finally you end up in a job you can’t handle.

I’d like to paraphrase it as “in every organization everyone rises to the level at which they become paralyzed with fear.”

The essence of leadership is being aware of your fear (and seeing it in the people you wish to lead). No, it won’t go away, but awareness is they key to making progress.

LKY does not see how it is possible to rule very wisely if one does not rule very firmly. Strong leaders make hard decisions that stick. Weak leaders make bad situations worse by deciding poorly or not deciding at all.

American idealism, the underlying cause of the national debate on both sides of the argument, is, of course, a symptom of America’s strength — an expression of faith that our society is eternally able to renew itself, transcend history, and reshape reality. But we must take care that rebellion against the very concept of limits does not become the permanent feature of the American response to international politics. For the recognition of some constraints is an attribute, perhaps the price, of maturing in societies as well as in people. The test of a society is not the denial but the proper understanding of its constraints. Mediocre societies and statesmen limit themselves to the easily attainable. Great societies and statesmen strive at the outer reaches of their possibilities. But the denial of any limits leads to exhaustion or disaster.

Về trình độ hiểu biết: Người thủ lĩnh chính trị nhất thiết phải là người thông minh, hiểu biết sâu rộng các lĩnh vực; có tư duy khoa học; nắm vững được quy luật phát triển theo hướng vận động của quá trình chính trị; có khả năng dự đoán được tình hình; làm chủ được khoa học và công nghệ lãnh đạo, quản lý.

Về năng lực tổ chức: thủ lĩnh chính trị là người có khả năng về công tác tổ chức, nghĩa là biết đề ra mục tiêu đúng; phân công nhiệm vụ đúng chức năng cho cấp dưới và cho từng người; biết tổ chức thực hiện nhiệm vụ chính trị; có khả năng động viên, cổ vũ, khích lệ mọi người hoạt động; có khả năng kiểm soát, kiểm tra công việc.

Về đạo đức, tác phong: thủ lĩnh chính trị phải là người có tính trung thực, công bằng không tham lam, vụ lợi; cởi mở và cương quyết; có lối sống giản dị; có khả năng giao tiếp và có quan hệ tốt với mọi người; biết lắng nghe ý kiến của người khác; có lòng tin vào chính bản thân mình; có khả năng tự kiểm tra bản thân, khả năng giữ gìn và bảo vệ ý kiến của mình; có lòng say mê công việc và lòng tin vào cấp dưới.

Về khả năng làm việc: có sức khoẻ tốt, khả năng làm việc với cường độ cao, có khả năng giải quyết vấn đề một cách sáng tạo, những lúc phong trào lầm vào khó khăn, thủ lĩnh chính trị có thể đưa ra được những quyết định sáng suốt; nhạy cảm và năng động; biết cảm nhận cái mới và đấu tranh vì cái mới.

Everything that is done in a crisis is observed by someone - whether members of your family, colleagues at work, or a larger group such as the employees and shareholders of a corporation, the American people, or even people across the globe. As such, a leader’s words and actions need to be well calibrated.

When something completely out of the norm occurs, the last thing a leader should do is panic or, perhaps more to the point, give the appearance of panic. Besides being unhelpful to decision-making, it reduces confidence in those looking to you for reassurance and a sense that there will be a path forward.

The secret to successful leadership and management is not really a secret: It’s picking the right people. The well-known phrase “Personnel is policy” is accurate. Leadership depends on the human element more than any other. In fact, I would venture to say there is no more important priority for someone in authority than personally selecting those tasked with carrying out their guidance.

Things will go wrong, and people want somebody to blame. Tag, you’re it. It’s not actually that hard to accept the blame, especially if people kind of realize that it wasn’t all your fault. Which brings us to the best way of taking the blame: do it for another guy. You’ll feel good for taking the fall, he’ll feel good about not getting blamed, and the guy who lost his whole 36GB porn collection because of your incompetence will grudgingly admit that you at least didn’t try to weasel out of it. Then make the developer who really screwed up know in private that he screwed up. Not just so he can avoid it in the future, but so that he knows he owes you one. And, perhaps even more importantly, he’s also likely the person who can fix it. Because, let’s face it, it sure ain’t you.

Taking the blame is also why you get to be manager in the first place. It’s part of what makes people trust you, and allow you the potential glory, because you’re the one who gets to say “I screwed up”. And if you’ve followed the previous rules, you’ll be pretty good at saying that by now.

It is such a tonic for a youngster to feel that he has a mentor whom he can trust and who has his interest at heart. There is more of a natural bond between players than there is between the coaching staff and the players. Some of this is because of the normal organizational gap the exists between an employee and a manager. The other is because of age difference. For example, towards the end of my time at United it would have been much easier for James Wilson to identify with Patrice Evra than with me, since I was old enough to be his grandfather. There is a lot to be said for either picking, or being lucky enough to land, the right mentor. The best ones can change your life.

You don’t get the best out of people by hitting them with an iron rod. You do so by gaining their respect, getting them accustomed to triumphs and convincing them that they are capable of improving their performance. I cannot think of any manager who succeeded for any length of time by presiding over a reign of terror. It turns out that the two most powerful words in the English language are, “Well done”. Much of leadership is about extracting that extra 5 per cent of performance that individuals did not know they possessed.

Some managers try to be popular with the players and become one of the boys. It never works. As a leader, you don’t need to be loved, though it is useful, on occasion, to be feared. But, most of all, you need to be respected. There are just some natural boundaries, and when those get crossed it makes life harder.

It is vital to keep some sort of distance. This could be expressed in small but significant ways. For example, I generally rode at the front of the team bus. The players understood the distance, and at the end of the season when they had their parties, I was never invited. I wasn’t offended by this. It was the right thing for them to do. With one exception in Aberdeen, I never attended any of the players’ weddings. There was a line that they were not prepared to cross and they respected my position. It also makes things easier because, as manager, you can’t be sentimental about them.

There was always the temptation when things weren’t going well to change or to leap to a new lily pad. That doesn’t work. Sometimes, if we lost some games, we’d hear that the players thought that our training should be more light-hearted; that our results would improve if, instead of concentrating our training sessions around technical skills, we played mock games. I always refused to bow to those suggestions.

While I was always fixated on both physical and mental freshness, I was careful never to say to a player, “You look tired,” even if I thought that he did. I knew that if I uttered the phrase he would immediately feel tired. Instead I’s say to him, “You’re so strong, nobody is ever going to be able to keep up with you.”

Authority, and the exercise of control, rests on possessing the confidence of those who provide it. No leader stands a chance if the people he is supposedly managing sense that his hold on his job is tenuous. In football the providers of this authority are the club owners. If they are unequivocal about their confidence in - and support of - the manager, they make his job a lot easier.

Men like Bobby Brown perhaps lacked the confidence required to stick to decisions. Others are in a perpetual quest of the last possible morsel of information, using that as an excuse not to make a decision. When you are in the football world, and I suspect in almost every other setting, you have to make decisions with the information at your disposal, rather than what you wish you might have. I never had a problem reaching a decision based on imperfect information. That’s just the way the world works.

The statesman’s responsibility is to struggle against transitoriness and not to insist that he be paid in the coin of eternity. He may know that history is the foe of permanence; but no leader is entitled to resignation. He owes it to his people to strive, to create, and to resist the decay that besets all human institutions.

To adopt authority is to learn that power requires concern and competence — and that it comes at a genuine cost. Someone newly promoted to a management position soon learns that managers are frequently more stressed by their multiple subordinates than subordinates are stressed by their single manager. Such experience moderates what might otherwise become romantic but dangerous fantasies about the attractiveness of power, and helps quell the desire for its infinite extension.

Settling is no fun. It’s a malignant habit, a slippery slope that takes you to mediocrity. Managers settle all the time. They don’t really have a choice because there are too many competing priorities.

The art of leadership is understanding what you can’t compromise on.

When you identify the discomfort, you’ve found the place where a leader is needed.

The production of so much research often adds simply another burden to already overworked officials. It tends to divert attention from the act of judgment on which policy ultimately depends to the assembly of facts which is relatively the easiest step in policy formation. Few if any of the recent crises of US policy have been caused by the unavailability of data. Our policy makers do not lack advice; they are in many respects overwhelmed by it. They do lack criteria on which to base judgments. In the absence of commonly understood and meaningful standards, all advice tends to become equivalent and every problem turns into a special case.

The essence of good administration is coordination among the specialized functions of a bureaucracy. The task of statesmanship is to impose purpose on routine. A good administrator possesses judgment; a great statesman is distinguished by vision. Administration is concerned with execution; policy making must also address itself to developing a sense of direction.

The interplay between leaders and their publics in a democracy is always complex. A leader who confines himself to the experience of his people in a period of upheaval purchases temporary popularity at the price of condemnation by posterity, whose claims he is neglecting. A leader who gets too far ahead of his society will be come irrelevant. A great leader must be an educator, bridging the gap between his visions and the familiar. But he must also be willing to walk alone to enable his society to follow the path he has selected.

In contrast, great statesmen, the ones who will truly make a difference, never let themselves become paralyzed by a “pre-vision of catastrophes.” They are agile, thriving on “perpetual creation, on a constant redefinition of goals.”

Kissinger taught that there was no such thin as stasis in international affairs: great states are always either gaining or losing influence, which means that the balance of power has to be constantly tested through gesture and deed. He warned policy makers and defense intellectuals to watch out for the “causal principle.” Let antiquarians concern themselves with why the current crisis had come about. Statesmen have to respond to the crisis and not obsess over its root causes. Their responsibility is to the future, not to the past.

Hunter-gatherer men are entirely different from primates such as chimpanzees or gorillas, because ordinary men’s status does not depend on violence. Individual apes and other primates become alpha by soundly defeating the prior alpha in a physical fight. Among mobile hunter-gatherers who follow social norms, by contrast, there are no fights and no equivalent of being an alpha male.

To the extent that there is leadership in hunter-gatherer bands, such as in taking initiative for group decisions, prestige is the important criterion. People compete for influence mostly by producing good arguments, creating good plans, being the best mediators, telling the best stories, or seeing the future most convincingly. A person who is skilled in these ways might be recognized as a leader or headman, but that role would be earned by his or her being wise and persuasive rather than assertive, pushy, or a good wrestler. Although leaders can be admired and respected, they cannot enforce their ideas, nor can they use their position to take anything from other members of the band. An inability to dictate to others means that, among mobile hunter-gatherers, there is no alpha position.

Your job as a leader is to inspire and to galvanize, not to share your distraught thoughts. You make your people dispirited if you do so.

A corporate leader does not have to persuade his workers to follow him. There is a hierarchy in a corporation, and he drives his policies through the organization. His job is to satisfy his customers and his shareholders. A political leader, however, must paint his vision of their future to his people, then translate that vision into policies which he must convince the people are worth supporting, and finally galvanize them to help him in their implementation.

The test of leadership lies not merely in echoing fears and doubts, especially when these fears and doubts, however real, are capable of solution and of being rendered irrational and unfounded. As leaders of our various communities, we recognize the existence of these anxieties, but we have to take the lead in exorcising them. We cannot afford to passively let things drift. We have to take the lead in public thinking. After having drawn attention to the interests of our communities that require special protection, we must formulate solutions which will safeguard these interests and advance the common good.

Leaders are not necessarily popular. For soldiers, the choice between popularity and effectiveness is ultimately no choice at all. Soldiers want to win; their survival depends on it. They will accept, and even take pride in, the quirks and shortcomings of a leader if they believe he can produce success.

The leader has to be practical and a realist, yet must talk the language of the visionary and the idealist.

The leader personifies the certitude of the creed and the defiance and the grandeur of power. He articulates and justifies the resentment damned up in the souls of the frustrated. He kindles the vision of a breathtaking future so as to justify the sacrifice of a transitory present. He stages a world of make-believe so indispensable for the realization of self-sacrifice and united action.

What people don’t get is that a world leader is a label that is earned. Not awarded. The country that earns it shows that it can consistently take on the responsibility of looking after the benefit of other countries, not just its own.

Leaders need to be respected, not loved.

Farsighted statesmen understand that they have a pair of essential tasks. The first is to preserve their society by manipulating circumstances rather than being overwhelmed by them. The second is to temper vision with wariness, entertaining a sense of limits. Such leaders assume responsibility not only for the best but also for the worst outcomes. They tend to be conscious of the many great hopes that have failed, the countless good intentions that could not be realized, the stubborn persistence in human affairs of selfishness and power-hunger and violence. In that definition of leadership, statesmen are inclined to erect hedges against the possibility that even the most well-made plans might prove abortive, or that the most eloquent formulation might hide ulterior motives. They tend to be suspicious of those who personalize policy, for history teaches the fragility of structures dependent largely on single personalities. Ambitious but not revolutionary, they work within what they perceive as the grain of history, moving their societies forward while viewing their political institutions and fundamental values as an inheritance to be transmitted to future generations (albeit with modifications that sustain their essence).

Gone were the hesitations of the previous week, the attempts to shift the potential blame for dangerous consequences. The most important role of a leader is to take on his shoulder the burden of ambiguity inherent in difficult choices. That accomplished, his subordinates have criteria and can turn to implementation.

In this manner he performed the one function that a leader cannot delegate: He took on his shoulders the full responsibility.

I’m not sure I’d chalk that up to charisma. Part of the CEO’s job is to cajole and beg and plead and threaten at times — to do whatever is necessary to get people to see things in a bigger and more profound way than they have, and to do better work than they thought they could do.

When they dod their best and you don’t think it’s enough, you tell them straight: “This isn’t good enough. I know you can do better. You need to do better. Now go do better.”

The 2 highest levels of influence are achieved when (1) people follow you because of what you’ve done for them and (2) people follow you because of who you are. In other words, the highest levels of influence are reached when generosity and trustworthiness surround your behavior.

While it’s easy to see why we want credit for successes for which we labored, claiming the credit will never win you friends. It will also diminish your influence quicker than just about any other action.

What is the worst quality in a leader? Ask the followers and they would tell you it is the quality of taking credit when things go well and dishing out blame when things go wrong. Few postures send a clearer “It’s all about me” message.

Just as humility seems to be at the epicenter of leadership effectiveness, arrogance is commonly at the root of a leader’s undoing. Arrogance takes many forms. The most rudimentary is the self-centered focus that fosters a belief that I am central to the viability of the organization, the department or the team. When arrogance blossoms into hubris, a sense of entitlement results. “This place can’t function without me, and I deserve special perks.”

Integrity (is truthful, is trustworthy, has character, has convictions)
Competence (is capable, is productive, is efficient)
Leadership (is inspiring, is decisive, provides direction)

It’s this very quality — the ability to bring out the best in the people around you — which makes a leader truly inspiring.

The lesson for all leaders is this: earning credibility is a retail activity, a factory floor activity, a person-to-person activity. Credibility is gained in small quantities through physical presence. Leaders have to be physically present, they have to be visible, and they have to get close to their constituents to earn their respect and trust.

People willingly follow your advice and recommendations only when they trust you have their best interests at heart.

All people want to believe that they can influence other people and influence life’s events. It gives them a sense of order and stability in their own lives. In fact, you can’t lead until you feel you can adequately cope with the events, situations, and people that you confront.

The truth is that you either lead by example or you don’t lead at all.

Compassion means “to suffer together.” Only those who have suffered with their constituents can genuinely uplift others. Only those who have felt the pain of loss and yearning for fulfillment can truly inspire. The increase in cynicism over the last several years is due in part to the perception that those in senior leadership positions have not suffered with their constituents.

If converting and enlisting everyone were the criterion of success, it would be said that there have never been any leaders. No one has ever enlisted 100% of the potential constituents in anything.

The qualities of a statesman, who is a skilled and principled political leader, can vary depending on the specific context and challenges they face. However, some of the most important qualities commonly associated with statesmanship include:

Integrity: Statesmen are guided by strong ethical principles and moral values. They act with honesty, transparency, and a commitment to the greater good rather than personal gain. Integrity is crucial for building trust and credibility with both the public and fellow leaders.
Vision: A statesman possesses a clear and inspiring vision for the future. They have a deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing their nation or community, and they can articulate a long-term vision that guides their policies and decision-making.
Wisdom: Statesmen exhibit wisdom by drawing upon their knowledge, experience, and judgment to make sound decisions. They consider both short-term and long-term consequences, anticipate potential risks, and balance competing interests for the benefit of the broader society.
Diplomacy and Negotiation Skills: Statesmen are skilled diplomats and negotiators. They have the ability to build and maintain strong relationships with both domestic and international counterparts. They seek diplomatic solutions to conflicts, engage in constructive dialogue, and find common ground to advance their nation’s interests.
Empathy and Compassion: A statesman demonstrates empathy and compassion towards the needs and aspirations of the people they serve. They have a genuine concern for the well-being of their constituents and strive to address social, economic, and humanitarian issues with fairness and equity.
Strategic Thinking: Statesmen possess strategic thinking capabilities. They can assess complex situations, identify key priorities, and develop effective plans and policies. They anticipate challenges, adapt to changing circumstances, and make decisions that align with their long-term vision.
Effective Communication: Statesmen are skilled communicators who can articulate their ideas clearly and persuasively. They inspire and mobilize others through their words, rallying support for their vision and policies. They also actively listen and engage with diverse perspectives.
Collaboration and Consensus Building: Statesmen understand the importance of collaboration and consensus building. They seek to bridge divides, forge partnerships, and build coalitions to achieve common goals. They value inclusivity and work towards finding common ground amidst differing viewpoints.
Resilience and Perseverance: Statesmen display resilience in the face of challenges and setbacks. They are determined and persistent in pursuing their vision, even in the midst of adversity. They inspire confidence and motivate others to overcome obstacles and work towards positive change.
Commitment to Public Service: A statesman is deeply committed to serving the public and advancing the interests of their nation or community. They prioritize the common good over personal or partisan interests. They demonstrate selflessness, dedicating their talents and efforts to improving society as a whole.

Strategic Thinking: Tywin Lannister was known for his strategic mindset and long-term planning. He understood the importance of making calculated moves to secure his family’s power and influence. This lesson highlights the value of thinking ahead, considering the consequences of actions, and developing a clear plan.
Ruthlessness and Determination: Tywin Lannister was a ruthless and determined leader who did not shy away from making difficult decisions or taking drastic measures to achieve his goals. While his methods were often controversial, this lesson emphasizes the importance of resolve and determination in pursuing objectives.
Focus on Legacy: Tywin Lannister was deeply concerned with preserving and strengthening the reputation and legacy of his family. He believed in the importance of building a lasting legacy and ensuring the prosperity of his house. This lesson underscores the significance of considering the long-term impact of one’s actions and decisions.
Political Savvy: Tywin Lannister was a skilled politician who understood the dynamics of power and how to navigate complex political landscapes. He knew how to forge alliances, manipulate situations, and influence others to further his interests. This lesson emphasizes the value of political astuteness and adaptability.
Familial Loyalty: Despite his flaws, Tywin Lannister demonstrated a strong sense of loyalty and devotion to his family. He was willing to go to great lengths to protect and advance the interests of House Lannister. This lesson highlights the importance of loyalty and support within family or close-knit groups.
Pragmatism: Tywin Lannister was known for his practicality and willingness to set aside personal emotions or ideals in favor of pragmatic decisions. He understood the importance of making choices based on what would benefit his family the most. This lesson underscores the value of pragmatism and the ability to set aside personal biases for the greater good.

Nevertheless, the lack of personal connections between the rank and file and their commander would lead to complaints about Xu’s leadership style when operations did not go as expected.

They look grand; they buy friends of sorts, it is true, but over time they add to the strain on the state’s finances. There was a reason Deng pruned the PRC’s foreign aid budget: every little bit helps, and his stance was China first. Xi Jinping has reversed that policy. The reversal brings China to a position of leadership, but leadership can be an expensive pastime.

That China and the US would find a way to come together was inevitable given the necessities of the time. It would have happened sooner or later whatever the leadership in either country. That it took place with such decisiveness and proceeded without so few detours is a tribute to the leadership that brought it about. Leaders cannot create the context in which they operate. Their distinctive contribution consists in operating at the limit of what the given situation permits. If they exceed these limits, they crash; if they fall short of what is necessary, their policies stagnate. If they build soundly, they may create a new set of relationships that sustain itself over a historical period because all parties consider it in their own interest.

The difference between great and ordinary leaders is less formal intellect than insight and courage. The great man understands the essence of a problem; the ordinary leader grasps only the symptoms. The great man focuses on the relationship of events to each other; the ordinary leader sees only a series of seemingly disconnected events. The great man has a vision of the future that enables him to put obstacles in perspective; the ordinary leader turns pebbles in the road into boulders.

The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.

Muốn trị thiên hạ, thì trước hết phải chính danh đã. Có chính danh thì mọi người mới chịu ở địa vị thật của mình trong xã hội mà không xáo lộn trật tự của xã hội.

Some of the youngest members, out of pique or arrogance, used to squabble over minor issues. It was Uncle Ho who arbitrated such conflicts. He sought to inculcate in everyone a few essential principles: to combat pride, egoism and egocentrism, indiscipline, anarchism, and to reinforce unity and the need to place the interests of the revolution above all else. He often advised us: “If you are incapable of maintaining solidarity in this little group, how will you able to talk of unifying the masses to combat the colonialists and save the nation after you return to your country?”

Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters.

This is the best thing you’re ever going to learn in SEAL training. When you’re a leader, people are going to mimic your behavior, at a minimum. It’s a guarantee. So here’s the key piece of advice: “Calm is contagious.”

The role of the CEO is to enable people to excel.

As a human, you’re the leader of the pack and you’re telling the dogs how they should behave. Following your orders is their passion. And they like it.

Unfortunately, that’s how humans are built, too. People want to have somebody tell them what to do. It’s in our kernel. Any social animal has to be that way.

It doesn’t mean you’re subservient. It just means that you are likely to go along with others when they tell you what to do.

Then there are people with individual ideas, folks who have convictions in certain areas to the degree that they say, “No, I won’t go along.” And these people become leaders. It’s easy to become a leader. (It has to be. I became a one, right?) Then, other people who don’t have convictions in those areas are more than happy to let these leaders make their decisions for them and tell them what to do.

The main reason for his success is a quality often overlooked in the corporate world: a willingness to repeat himself. He spent 50 years of his life saying the same things over and over again. “He never deviated from his message. Being a great leader is often less a matter of eloquence and more a matter of repetition and consistency.”

Instead, Bower sold his shares back to the firm at book value. In doing son, he demonstrated precisely the kind of allegiance to the cause he expected of anyone wishing to be successful at McKinsey: He forsook considerable riches for the good of the institution, in the process giving young consultants the ability to buy their way into the partnership without mortgaging their houses to do so. His McKinsey would be self-perpetuating, and he gave up a fortune to make it so. But he also sent the message that working for McKinsey was like joining a special order of men willing to put the higher cause of the firm ahead of self-interest.

Bower’s view of McDonald seems myopic in retrospect, another piece of evidence that he was losing sight of the plot in his final years. In reality, Bower was merely fighting the fight that all great leaders eventually must, which is the decline of one’s own relevance.

As CEO of Apple and Pixar, he saw his job as “number one, recruit; number two, set an overall direction; and number three, inspire and cajole and persuade.” He said, “You’re not grabbing the pencil out of the 25-year-old’s hand to do it better than they are. If you’re smart, you’re hiring 25-year-olds who are smarter than you.”

Wise statesmen know they will be measured by the historical process they set in motion, not by the debating points they score.

The common perception is that accountability is related to negative consequences, the fallout from circumstances that go awry. But accountability also encompasses the positive consequences. When a project comes through and accomplishes its objectives, as its manager you are the first and most prominent to receive accolades.

Finally, I decided that Shell had the best system of them all, and the government switched from 40 attributes to 3, which they called “helicopter qualities,” which they have implemented and they are able to judge their executives worldwide and grade them for helicopter qualities. What are they? Powers of analysis; logical grasp of the facts; concentration on the basic points, extracting the principles. You score high marks in mathematics, you’ve got it. But that’s not enough. There are brilliant mathematicians but they make poor executives. They must have a sense of reality of what is possible. But if you are just realistic, you become pedestrian, plebeian, you will fail. Therefore you must be able to soar above the reality and say, “This is also possible” — a sense of imagination.

Then Shell has evolved certain other attributes — leadership and dynamism — a natural ability that drives a person on and drives the people around him to make the effort.

The main ingredient of stardom is the rest of the team.