Integrity Based Leadership

My columns for the past year have revolved around the definition
and conduct of leadership. There is no greater title, there is no greater honor
than to accept the trust of others and be defined as their leader.

Leadership is the process of creating vision, communicating that
vision to others and motivating them to act on that vision. If vision is
inconsistent or dramatically changes, followers are confused as to what actions
to take and eventually become disillusioned with the leader.

Consider this when you vote: there is no value more important
than trust. Can you trust the leader to act on his or her stated vision? After
all, leaders expect their followers to physically act on that vision. Followers
inherently trust that if they stand up and commit actions to support the
leader’s idea or vision, when the going gets tough they will not stand alone. What
if the leader’s positions change?

Constantly altering or changing a proclaimed idea or vision is
not an acceptable method of leadership. Undependable leadership is most
noticeable in athletics or the military services. When a leader is selected,
teammates must trust that the leader will follow through and be consistent on
their idea or command. The results in athletic competition or on the
battlefield are immediately known. Unfortunately, erratic or popularity-based
leadership in the military can cost lives.

Leaders must have the personal integrity to stand by and for
stated beliefs. In political discourse, commitment to an idea or position is
often eliminated to captivate popularity. We know in our personal system of
values this is not acceptable. But the political culture seems to have a moral
exemption. If a business makes a false claim or tells a lie in advertisement,
that company can be sued or held legally liable by the justice system. The
political process is replete with absolute false statements that in a business
context would be defined as criminal. There is an amazing lack of
accountability.

Core values of integrity based leadership seldom change. It is
quite possible, however, that circumstance can change in the presence of new
information. In those situations we want leaders to reconsider their position. But
followers recognize weakness of character and inconsistency when the sole
pursuit of popularity alters positions. 

However disturbing, some followers with a deep and overriding
emotional and personal attachment are unconcerned with a leader’s migrating
character of conviction amidst the short-term perspective of an election. It is
as if a personal and self-ascribed political label is at stake. The psychological
definition is "group think." Members of the group individually
realize that there is a lack of integrity. They assume everyone else in the
group is aware and condones the actions thus implying that the group rationally
justifies the end with the means. They capitulate for the moment but return to
their personal moral core many months later.

Leaders of course must compromise—it is a statesmen act of
governing. But vacillating leaders do not survive if they compromise with
everyone in the room. The process of saying anything to anyone to gain
popularity eventually erodes the trust of a broad base constituency and
dramatically affects the ability to govern. Followers eventually become
suspicious and will not publicly support a position that they believe will
immediately change based on the political convenience of the day.

Excellent leadership is evaluated much the same as a parent,
coach, business vendor or a trusted friend—a compilation of many years of
service. Even if one disagrees with a philosophical opponent there is respect
and admiration for a consistent solid core. Consistency and the integrity of
position, even in opposition, become apparent. Leadership core values are
publicly tested when an ally deviates from reason and says something reprehensible.
Does he or she rise to a higher and personal moral ground or divert the issue
in word games?

Words and deeds are always interpreted by followers although not
publicly discussed. Inherent in the role of follower is action based on the
trust of a personal commitment of the leader to act on what they stand for, how
their positions evolve or how those positions are abandoned.

As you vote, interpret that vote as a ballot of trust: "I
trust you to do what you say you're going to do." Do that for the greater
good and for the community. It is what a citizen does. That is in no way naïve.
I realize how vulnerable and eventually disheartened we can become when we
place our trust in someone's position only to see it abandoned the next
week.  However I believe that educated
people make decisions based on intellect rather than emotion. They choose
wisely. What other course can we choose but to expect the people for whom we
vote to honor our personal integrity and trust.