Some Thoughts on Leadership and Why It’s Lacking

Here are some thoughts about leadership derived from my work with fellow professors and researchers Alan Rowe and Warren Bennis.  You can find more about the LSI and leadership types here and in The Secret Handshake where you’ll also find the inventory.

When we define leadership in static ways with little or no regard to the context in which it’s operating, we often follow the wrong people or the right people doing the wrong thing.


The Leadership Style Inventory (LSI) developed by Rowe, Reardon, and Bennis (1995) identifies four basic styles: commanding, logical, inspirational, and supportive. One of its major strengths is recognition of the complexity behind leader behavior.  Contrary to the common view that the best leaders are decisive, when the going gets tough a combination of styles may prove best.  The LSI assesses four styles suited to different types of problems.

The commanding style, most closely aligned with decisiveness, focuses on performance and has a short-term goal orientation. Commanders are results oriented. They can be very effective when goal achievement is the primary focus. They learn better by their own successes and failures than by input from others.

The logical style pertains to leaders who insist on assessing alternatives. They look to long-term goals, use analysis and questioning, and learn by reasoning things through. They are particularly effective when the goal is strategy development.

The inspirational style is characteristic of those who are able to develop meaningful visions of the future by focusing on radically new ideas; they learn by experimentation. They show a high level of concern for assuring cohesiveness of members of the organization and encouraging others to follow the vision. They are inquisitive, curious, and satisfied by finding novel solutions.

Those leaders who are more concerned with consensus score high in the supportive dimension. They emphasize openness and operate more as facilitators than directors. They learn by observing outcomes and how others react to their decisions.

Most leaders do not possess a single style, but a combination. These combinations indicate which styles leaders are predisposed to use.

American business executives tend to score high on the commanding style and low on supportive. Research using the LSI provided the following means for American executives: commanding, 86; logical, 80; inspirational, 81; supportive, 53. The means provide an indication of style predispositions. Such style patterns, however, are not necessarily static. It is possible, even preferable, for leaders to develop the capacity to adapt their styles to the demands of situations, especially when their organizations are undergoing disruption or radical change.

So, what does this mean for any leader?  It means that he or she needs to be careful not to be a one-trick pony when it comes to leadership. Political leadership is not the same as business or military leadership.  And none of them are all about appearing decisive.

Leadership is responsive to the situation at hand.  Commanding leaders are often inclined to act quickly and if there is a fire in the building, that kind of leadership is desirable.  But when there are long-term relationships to consider as well as maintenance of change, the commander often falls short.




Posted in Leadership, Managing Your Boss | Leave a comment

Why Donald Trump Isn’t a Good Negotiator

Countless times we’ve read and heard that President Trump is an exceptional negotiator. The truth is that he lacks key skills, first among them persuasion. Coercion may bring about a “win,” but if there will be future dealings with the same “loser” (using the president’s terminology), next time he or she just might be more prepared and certainly more determined to avoid the previous outcome.

Truly effective negotiators rely on persuasion, not coercion. Yes, there is a gray area between the two. As a rule, however, persuasion is done WITH someone, not TO someone. It avoids manipulation and coercion, because substantive argument is its backbone. Persuasion requires learning to manage negotiations to a preferred outcome, also beneficial to the other side, rather than bullying them into submission.

That’s why a skilled negotiator understands how words and actions shape perceptions that stand in the way of alliances. Such negotiators are always asking questions. They don’t let the past determine their present nor are they ruled by routine. They’re alert to what has remained the same and what has changed. They don’t assume they know the priorities of the other side. When in doubt, they ask.

Astute negotiators never prepare for a totally competitive or totally cooperative negotiation. Preparing for only one type causes novice negotiators to be thrown off when confronting the other. Many negotiators have given away the store because they prepared for resistance and instead met cooperation. Others have done so or walked away with nothing because they expected cooperation and found themselves facing hard-nosed tactics.

Expert negotiators do their homework. They use others’ predictability to inform their own choices — while trying to avoid giving their counterparts a similar advantage. This requires not being in a rut –perhaps relying solely on power or focusing on personal “wins” instead of what would bring about desirable outcomes for both sides.

Contrary to popular lingo on the topic, negotiation is not a macho, bring-it-on, make-my-day activity. That doesn’t mean it’s easy. In fact, the tougher negotiations are those that involve finding ways to encourage resistant others to hear you out and move in your direction. Often that means moving on some issues in their direction.

We’ve heard a lot about Trump not having enough “wins” and Republicans needing a “win” on healthcare, but little about what it would take for a good outcome that benefits the American people who need it most. Skilled negotiators don’t lose often, but they don’t win simply to win.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How to “Stun” Speechless an F.B.I. Director — James Comey Testimony Takeaways

One of the main takeaways from former F.B.I. Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee this week is that timing, if not everything, is indeed crucial to the interpretation of events.

When President Donald Trump pressured Comey to drop the F.B.I. investigation of Gen. Michael Flynn’s connections with Russia, and when he asked for Comey’s personal loyalty, the then F.B.I. head failed to inform the president that such requests are wrong – especially in private.

The Justice Department has specific guidelines developed to avoid the extensive influence exerted by late Director J. Edgar Hoover over several U.S. presidents.  These guidelines pertain specifically to appropriate communication:

The relevant guidelines from a May 11, 2009 Attorney General memorandum read as follows:

 The Assistant Attorneys General, the United States Attorneys, and the heads of the investigative agencies in the Department have the primary responsibility to initiate and supervise investigations and cases. These officials, like their superiors and their subordinates, must be insulated from influences that should not affect decisions in particular criminal or civil cases. As the Supreme Court said long ago with respect to United States Attorneys, so it is true of all those who exercise the Department’s investigatory and prosecutorial powers: they are representatives “not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” — Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

Following this establishment of priorities are specific instructions for communications with the president:

In order to ensure the President’s ability to perform his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” the Justice Department will advise the White House concerning pending or contemplated criminal or civil investigations or cases when – but only when – it is important for the performance of the President’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement perspective.

As James Comey made clear in his testimony, he was aware of these requirements and others in the memorandum.

Yet, he did not tell the president that their private meetings were wrong – to say nothing of the subject matter. His admission to such inaction being “slightly cowardly” does not alter that fact that such meetings occurred – more than once.  (His understated phraseology reminds me of his “mildly nauseous” description of how he feels when thinking about his Trump-favorable influence on the 2016 election.)

It’s interesting to note, too, that Comey had harsh words for former AG Loretta Lynch given her having met with former President Clinton, but considers his own inappropriate meetings with a sitting president, one potentially under investigation, minor and defensible misjudgments.

That brings us to the issue of timing as it relates to blame. What if Comey’s “stunned” responses had been leaked right after they’d occurred rather than after Trump’s dismissal of him?  Certainly he would have been criticized for speaking privately to the president. His leadership and integrity might well have been questioned.  At this point in time, however, a lot of water has gone over the dam. Within the context of his firing, his being “defamed” by Trump, referred to by the president as a “nut job,” and his willingness to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the impact of his inaction – to his benefit — has been muted.

At the very least, though, when the Director of the F.B.I. is asked by a president to do something wrong — yet he replies, “We’ll see what we can do” — there should be less fawning by senators regarding the quality of his judgment.

It’s hard not to wonder if a President Hillary Clinton would have received the F.B.I. Director’s patience and willingness to violate DOJ established protocol even for less egregious actions than those attributed to Trump by Comey.

Would the F.B.I. director have contacted the attorney general and advised him to help the president understand how her relationship with the F.B.I. should be conducted – a courtesy Comey extended to President Trump?  Or would he have cut Clinton no slack, and made sure she paid a high price for such behavior?  You don’t need to be a genius to answer that question?

Is Comey a hero or perhaps a villain?  Is he a patriot hampered by attacks of questionable judgment? Or did he purposely help Donald Trump win and then realize he’d backed the wrong horse?

History may reveal the answer sooner rather than later.  At least we now know that the president asked a top Justice Dept. official for favors and loyalty, fired him when he appeared to refuse, flouted well-established procedures, and lied repeatedly.

Investigations are underway that may lead to criminal charges of people in the president’s inner circle – perhaps the president himself. Whether Comey’s testimony helps him pay his dues for admitted errors remains to be seen.  But at least someone in a position to know has placed Americans on official notice that their president can’t be trusted.






Posted in Politics | 1 Comment

Failed NATO Speech by President Trump — A Lesson on Poor Leadership

True leadership is in large part about communication.  Today, we saw President Trump speak to the NATO leaders.  Instead of speaking of their collective moral goals and rather than bind them as one in ending terrorism around the world, he scolded them for not paying their bills.

While world leaders waited for the president to endorse Article 5, stating that an attack on any member is an attack on all, he instead jested that he hadn’t asked how much the NATO building addition was costing.

There is a time and place for airing differences, for risking pettiness to make a point, and this president has no sense of that.  Attempting to humiliate heads of state from around the world at a public ceremony is the height of ignorance when it comes to communication and persuasion timing.

If his goal was to let people back home know he is insisting that NATO members pay the “massive” amounts they owe, it was the wrong venue for doing so.  His demeanor and words drew snickers from some leaders, frowns from others and likely disdain from most.

It’s difficult not to ask, “Who the heck does he think he is?”  And, no doubt, the leaders assembled were asking themselves that question.  President Trump chose a ceremony aimed, in part, at the dedication of a 9/11 statue to verbally slap leaders from around the world about paying bills.  It was wrong.  It was cheap. More importantly, it achieved nothing except growing animus.

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment

When Moral People Understand Politics

I wrote THE SECRET HANDSHAKE and IT’S ALL POLITICS because there is no such thing as an effective business, nonprofit, or government manager or leader who doesn’t know the ins and outs of politics.  Politics, especially the interpersonal dynamics behind-the-scenes, is a part of how things get done in every organization.

My first book was about persuasion, as was much of my early research.  But aptly choosing persuasion strategies depends on understanding the political culture in which those strategies may be applied.

Power is not as important as a significant knowledge of politics. The former does not last without the latter.  No one is above politics.  We are immersed in it.  Those who overestimate their political acumen pay a price.  Sometimes it takes a while.  But it’s inevitable.

It’s important to encourage people of high moral character to learn about politics so that those at the other end of the continuum don’t come out ahead.  Aristotle believed people could only defend themselves from sophistry if they understood the ways in which they might be duped.  Nothing has changed in that regard.

Posted in Persuasion, Politics | Leave a comment

How Well Do You Handle Your Choice Points in Conversation?

What were President Trump’s goals when he shared “highly classified” information with Russian officials?  It’s difficult to be sure.  We do know that what he said in the Oval Office resulted in a firestorm of criticism.  Was he “shooting from the hip,” trying to impress, or purposely giving away secrets?

As a rule, we don’t sufficiently consider the communication competence of presidential candidates.  Being a businessman was touted as a positive attribute during Trump’s presidential run.  But there are many failed businessmen and businesswomen.  Certainly we don’t need slick communicator presidents, but high on our list of important characteristics should be how well a candidate thinks on his or her feet — recognizes and effectively utilizes conversational choice points or turns at talk.

In the course of conversation, each statement or nonverbal expression one person makes is influenced by the anticipated and previous contributions of one or more others. Effective communicators know this.  They don’t simply talk.  They don’t just react.

Early on, especially in conversations that could have serious personal or professional consequences, it’s important to know where you want to go, topics you’d like to avoid, tone or “attitude” stances that facilitate as well as those that hinder, and potential obstacles that you’ll need to go around, over or work through.  At each choice point, opportunity exists to locate or retain a constructive path.

How do you handle your choice points?  Do you simply let conversations happen to you rather than guiding them away from disappointing or disastrous outcomes?

Conversations are the building blocks of relationships.  Relationships are the building blocks of most careers.  When we abdicate our responsibility in communication, we put our personal and professional futures in jeopardy.  Elect people to power who have no sense of this responsibility and we put all of us at risk.

Posted in Choice Points, Confrontation, Uncategorized | Leave a comment


THE SECRET HANDSHAKE has been on a number of bestseller lists since its publication. Now, especially with all that is going on with regard to politics around the world, it’s available in audio.

Whether business, government or nonprofit politics, THE SECRET HANDSHAKE is a guide to navigating the subtle and often behind-the-scenes actions that influence your effectiveness and career.

Are you a purist who believes politics is a distraction or a street fighter who sees it as important — not only to getting things done but to protecting yourself from those who would hinder your progress or even derail your career?

What kind of political culture surrounds you at work, in the PTA or as a scout leader? Even church choirs have political cultures.  Is your environment minimally political or pathological?  To survive or thrive, you need to know.

Here’s the audible version.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment