By Kevin Meyer
I wasn't planning on wading into this whole Representative Anthony Weiner fiasco but the rationalization by his apologists has just gone too far. Luckily the brighter of his own party are beginning to realize that this isn't just a minor issue. I'm not being partisan – I'd make these exact same comments if the shoe was on the other foot – like it was for Congressman Christopher Lee a few months ago. At least that photo was above the waist – and he still resigned just a few hours after his failure was revealed.
Many people are saying that a person's sex life isn't the business of anyone else. Perhaps – but things change when you become a leader. At that point people are trusting you to make decisions for them, and decisions are based on character. Every guy deals with the constant struggle between the little head and the big head and the vast majority of us know which one to ultimately listen to. This isn't about Americans being too puritanical or about diving into someone's private life. It is about character.
There are even a few folks that are rationalizing the lying. For days Weiner flat out lied to his constituents, to the press, to his peers, and to the rest of us. Lying of any sort is a fireable offense in pretty much any organization, but some say lying is ok in this situation. Seriously? That's what put me over the edge. Where exactly does "this situation" end and others begin? Understanding that there is no such boundary requires character. Character creates trust. And that's the foundation of real leadership.
Character is not divisible. Thought patterns in the brain are not divisible. You cannot say a person has a high level of character in one area and forgive a lack of character in another. You cannot say a person can make great decisions in one aspect of life and be a complete idiot in another. It's the same brain. The differences are made consciously, and the fact that there are differences points directly at a lack of character. That's especially true when it wasn't one lapse of judgement but many. And we probably don't know everything yet.
Just a few days ago I wrote about Ohio State's fallen football coach, Jim Tressel. A great man and a great coach in many respects – except that he ignored serious ethical violations by his team. Since he's responsible for his team and knew of those violations, he also owned that ethical lapse. Because of that ethical lapse, a lack of character, we cannot consider him a great leader.
Bill George, the former CEO of Medtronic and currently a professor at Harvard Business School, also dove into Weinergate this week. He hits it on the head with how it relates to value-centered leadership:
Leading is high stress work. There is no way to avoid the constant challenges of being responsible for people, organizations, outcomes, and uncertainties in the environment. Leaders who move up have greater freedom to control their destinies, but also experience increased pressure and seduction.
Leaders can avoid these pitfalls by devoting themselves to personal development that cultivates their inner compass, or True North. This requires reframing their leadership from being heroes to being servants of the people they lead. This process requires thought and introspection because many people get into leadership roles in response to their ego needs. It enables them to transition from seeking external gratification to finding internal satisfaction by making meaningful contributions through their leadership.
Lean leaders understand the concept of True North, and most of us also embrace servant leadership. That's character, ethics, and humility. Knowing that you serve, not that you are served. That's especially true in politics where a politician is directly responsible to his constituents and to his peers.
Congressman Weiner may excite a lot of people, may have many great ideas, and probably would have had a great future. But he doesn't have a solid, fundamental character. Because of that he doesn't deserve the trust of his constituents, peers, and the rest of the public. And that's why he is not and should not be a leader.
Tim Bolson says
Bingo Kevin. Right on the money.
Ron Pereira says
Can a “leader” make a serious mistake and recover? Or once they make a serious mistake are they done forever?
I am a huge Ohio State fan. I grew up in a small farm town in Ohio watching the Buckeyes play EVERY weekend of my young life… so the Jim Tressel story deeply saddens me.
Yes, he made a MONSTER mistake. He lied. There is no defending it and most authentic Ohio State fans (i.e. Chris Spielman) recognize this.
But what if Tressel eventually comes forward with authentic contrition and attempts to make it right by sharing his story of how things went wrong in hopes of helping others? Not to save his career… but to be a leader again.
If he did something like this would the public forgive him? Some never will because they hate Ohio State… but those indifferent to Ohio State… would they?
Time will tell I guess.
Jim Fernandez says
I think it is important not to dwell so much on the mistakes our leaders make, but on their conduct in the dealing with their mistakes.
Can we follow a leader who makes mistakes or has weaknesses? Yes, I think we can. When a leader’s weakness is exposed it becomes an opportunity for that leader to show leadership. At that moment he has the opportunity to show us, to teach us, what we should do when we are faced with the challenge of facing our shortcomings, and our mistakes. However, when a leader tries to cover up his weakness, lie about his weakness or blame others for his weakness, then he demonstrates that he does not have the character to be a leader.
Kevin Meyer says
I think there’s a big difference between “a mistake” and “an ongoing multitude of mistakes.” Sure everyone makes a mistake here and there, and as Jim pointed out we demonstrate leadership by how we recognize and deal with the mistake. But both Tressel and Weiner knew they were doing something wrong, continued to do it, did it more and more often, and then covered it up. Is that recoverable? I don’t know – and I almost doubt it. It points to a core character flow that perhaps could be glossed over but probably not truly changed – especially at their age.
The larger damage is due to the fact that a leader did it. Leaders set examples. Tressel and Weiner have just told a generation of kids and young adults that this is acceptable behavior. The adults that condone and apologize for this behavior are reinforcing this perception. That’s incredibly dangerous and damaging to the future. If real consequences are levied, swiftly and solidly, then perhaps it can be mitigated.
Bill Waddell says
We live in the most forgiving country on earth, but neither Tressel nor Weiner will, or should, get forgiveness just for the asking. Respect is earned and they both have to start the job of earning it all over again. They have to demonstrate humility and willingness to pay a price for their actions.
Is Weiner willing to go back to square one, run for New York City Council again and prove to his constituents that he is deserving of their trust? Is Tressel willing to go back to a Youngstown State level school and prove he can win without cheating?
I suspect both have become too used to life at the top and will expect another chance without having to pay much of a price for their actions. That suspicion on my part is based on the arrogance that were at the root of their actions, and their blatant lies to avoid responsibility. If that turns out to be the case, neither deserves forgiveness, respect or another chance.
James says
Anyone interested in systemic reasons for why leaders behave in certain ways, maybe the power they wield? the constant exposure in the press? the way our political systems function?
Or are lean advocates now all saying problems in organisations rest entirely with the individual?
Bill Waddell says
James,
People like Congressman Weiner and Jim Tressel are exceptions. The majority of leaders do not violate the trust given them. The same is true with business. The number of ethical, compassionate leaders far outweighs the number of scoundrels.
I don’t buy anyone crying “the devil made me do it”. Individuals – all of them but especially those in leadership roles – are accountable for their own actions and behavior.
LITNE says
Weiner will end up with a talk show on a cable news channel, like Elliot Spitzer has. Tressel will end up doing color commentary on ESPN 2 half-time reports during the college game of the week. Both will be wealthy, neither will be truly punished, and their sins will be forgotten by most. An old bit of wisdom claims that we get the leaders we deserve So what did we do to deserve the Spitzers, Weiners, Tressels (& Rodriguezes), Clintons, and others who have so blatantly abused the trust placed upon them?
Jim Fernandez says
LITNE
”
So what did we do to deserve the Spitzers, Weiners, Tressels (& Rodriguezes), Clintons, and others who have so blatantly abused the trust placed upon them?”
We allowed our culture, over time, to accept a lower and lower moral standard. Too much of “I can do anything I want as long as it does not hurt anyone else”. And not enough of “I won’t accept that because it’s morally wrong”.
Mark Graban says
“Congressman Weiner may excite a lot of people”?
It’s more like a lot of people excited him….
Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
James says
Bill,
I am not sure how uncommon it is, I live in the UK and one of our MP’s has just been arrested for assaulting a woman, many MP’s have also been fiddling their expenses etc. As for business leaders if I hear a FTSE 100 manager ask again “how much head count will I reduce” I may well answer “just yours”.
My point is not that character is not important, but I can go to plenty of other blogs of various political persuasions and see plenty of character analysis. Just like I can go to plenty of “proper” business blogs to see analyses of the charachter and style of CEO’s
What I would like to see is some systemic and institutional analysis and the impacts this can have on individual behaviour and I kind of expect lean blogs to do this reflexively.
Eric Kahn says
Before we give Tressel a pass and suggest he could prove to be a great leader after being caught, maybe we should instead revel in the fact that there are still people like Joe Paterno out there. Paterno takes a ridiculously small salary for his skills, donates most of it back to the school, has one of the highest athlete graduation rates in the Big 10, and has never been involved in recruiting violations. Yet he is the winningest coach in College football. That’s leadership in a nutshell. Doing the right things all the time.
Jim Fernandez says
James:
What does this mean? (In simple terms) “What I would like to see is some systemic and institutional analysis and the impacts this can have on individual behaviour”
George says
Jim,
It sounds to me like it means it must be the system’s fault, or how can we blame the leaders’ failure on the system.
The company I work for has a consultant that has mentioned in several meetings (training sessions) that when someone does something they shouldn’t have, or not done something they should have, it’s the system’s fault. I don’t buy it and it seems to me that it removes all accountability of a person’s actions. We’re currently experiencing the fruits of that thinking…barely still in business.
Leaders need to be accountable to their behavior.
James says
Hi Jim,
The classic example would be the famous Stanford Prison Experiment where a group of college students chosen for their normalness and well balanced psychological profiles were divided into prisoners and guards and placed in a replica prison, it only took a few days before abuse started.
So for instance in the UK expenses scandal where almost all MPs were fiddling their expenses, some to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds, you could say all politicians are corrupt, or you could say the process lacked transparency, it certainly wasn’t customer focused (us!), it had a culture of secrecy etc. I tend to think that if we made changes to how MPs register and account for their expenses it would change their behaviour.
Lean practitioners believe that we reward and punish people in our organisations arbitrarily because 90% of issues in organisations are systemic and that it is the processes, roles we assign etc which gives rise to poor service and products, conflicts etc. This why leaving aside the staggering stupidity of a man in the public eye doing what he did, I am curious about what if any systemic effects, might also be contributing factors, and lean people are the experts in analysing systemic problems.
If you are interested in all of this, psychologists call systems thinking situationism http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/ and I discuss a lot of this on my website http://www.everlearn.co.uk (its being rebuilt and won’t be back up until the end of next week, but it will have a blog)
Hope this has been somewhat helpful
Publius says
“Mustrust all those in whom the urge to punish is great.”
Christian Paulsen says
James,
Thank you for publicly taking a clear stand on this Leadership issue. Regardless of politics, leaders must have character if they are to be trusted and they must be trusted to be fully effective.
“I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” This quote is credited to George Washington, who had many lofty titles yet wanted to be known for his honesty. Apparently Honest Abe was concerned about character as well.
Here’s a post on character and leadership: http://wp.me/pZiRD-bd
Thanks for sharing.
Chris