Loving the study of leadership in the Civil War, I ran across Michael Hyatt’s excellent blog. Add it to your must read RSS reader. He recently posted the following analysis of Little Mac (see some of my reflections on George McClellan here).
Five Characteristics of Weak Leaders–Michael Hyatt
Sometimes you learn from positive role models. Often you learn from negative ones. This is one of the reasons I love to read history—you inevitably get both.
For the last week or so, I have been reading Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It is a page-turning account of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency and his political genius.
At the beginning of Lincoln’s first term, he appointed each of his former Republican rivals—those who had run against him for his party’s nomination—to cabinet posts. The narrative demonstrates his amazing ability to tap into a broad array of perspectives and create alignment among those who often disagreed violently with one another.
Unfortunately, Lincoln’s leadership was not perfect. He occasionally selected men for public service who were unworthy of his trust. One such individual was General George B. McClellan, commander of the “Army of the Potomac” and, eventually, first general-in-chief of the Union Army.
General McClellan had significant character flaws that I believe serve as warning signs to anyone in leadership. Ultimately, these cost him dearly: He lost Lincoln’s confidence, his job, and a run for the White House (against Lincoln). Worse, they prolonged the Civil War and cost the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers on both sides of the conflict.
Here are the five flaws I jotted down as I read the book:
- Hesitating to take definitive action. McClellan was constantly preparing. According to him, the Army was never quite ready. The troops just needed a little more training. In his procrastination, he refused to engage the enemy, even when he clearly had the advantage. He could just not bring himself to launch an attack. When Lincoln finally relieved him of his duties, he famously said, “If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.”
- Complaining about a lack of resources. He constantly complained about the lack of available resources. He didn’t have enough men. His men weren’t paid enough. They didn’t have enough heavy artillery. And on and on he went. The truth is that, as a leader, you never have enough resources. You could always use more of one thing or another. But the successful leaders figure out how to get the job done with the resources they have.
- Refusing to take responsibility. McClellan was constantly blaming everyone else for his mistakes and for his refusal to act. He even blamed the President. Every time he suffered a defeat or a setback, someone or something was to blame. He was a master finger-pointer. Great leaders don’t do this. They are accountable for the results and accept full responsibility for the outcomes.
- Abusing the privileges of leadership. While his troops were struggling in almost unbearable conditions, McClellan lived in near-royal splendor. He spent almost every evening entertaining guests with elaborate dinners and parties. He insisted on the best clothes and accommodations. His lifestyle stood in distinct contrast to General Ulysses S. Grant, his eventual successor, who often traveled with only a toothbrush.
- Engaging in acts of insubordination. McClellan openly and continually criticized the President, his boss. He was passive-aggressive. Even when Lincoln gave him a direct order, he found a way to avoid obeying it. In his arrogance, he always knew better than the President and had a ready excuse to rationalize his lack of follow-through.
President Lincoln had the patience of Job. He gave General McClellan numerous opportunities to correct his behavior and redeem himself. But in the end, McClellan either could not or would not do so. He left the President no choice but to relieve him of his duties.
These same character flaws afflict many leaders today. The best safeguard is self-awareness.
Question: Do you see any of these flaws in your own leadership? What can you do to correct them now—while you still have time?
Nelson Searcy of Smartleadership. com argues that the best leaders rely on invitation, not intimidation. In building movements of evangelism and discipleship, we constantly rely on other people to join us and assist us in reaching the world through the military of the world. Searcy suggests the following process of invitation. I’ve found his principles critical to the building of staff and volunteer teams.
Invest
Effective leaders constantly seek to add value to the lives of those around them. Those whom you have invested in are most likely to join you in achieving your goals. Many leaders have faced rejection because they invited before they invested. Invest first by depositing help and hope into the lives of others.
Engage
You must touch the heart before you ask for a hand. Engaging people means that you must know the people around you—know what motivates them, what moves them. That means you have to spend time with others. When you challenge others to join you, discover and then ignite their passions. Such invitations are sure to be accepted.
Invite
Of course, no one will join you unless you ASK them. The consequences of not asking far outweigh the risk of rejection. But when you ask, personalize your invitation. Make sure it shares your vision, explains the unique contribution that the other person will make and asks for a specific commitment. Cranfield and Hanson argue that “you must know what you want, believe it is worthy, believe you can get it, be passionate about it, take action in the face of fear, learn from experience and be perceived as determined to get it.”
Empower
Once the invitation is accepted, you must empower the person to do his or her part. The foundation of empowerment is knowledge—knowing everything necessary for making the vision a reality. Leaders ensure others learn what they need. They channel information, training, resources, etc. to others. Our expectations are often not met because we fail to empower the other person to succeed.
Insure
Empowering doesn’t mean relinquishing the right to follow- up. What gets measured gets done. People want to give and to receive feedback. The cause is central and people want to make progress. Follow- up and adjust.
C.S. Lewis wrote the following letter to the mother of an American nine-year old who feared he loved Aslan more than Jesus.
“Laurence can’t really love Aslan more than Jesus, even if he feels that’s what he is doing. For the things he loves Aslan for doing or saying are simply the things Jesus really did and said. So that when Laurence thinks he is loving Aslan, he is really loving Jesus: and perhaps loving Him more than he ever did before.”
I assume all of you have seen The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe by now. If not, I hope you’ll see it soon. If you’ve seen it, you certainly noticed its Christian vision–a vision that as Lewis said “pushed itself in of its own accord.”
I thought I’d comment briefly on four theological realities that Lewis’s book embodies and espouses. Ryken and Mead’s A Reader’s Guide: Through the Wardrobe highlights these four as a reflection of Lewis’s worldview–or as Lewis would have termed it, “the habitual furniture of his mind.”
I would argue that the same furniture ought to make up our own system of beliefs and values as Christ-followers.
First, Ryken and Mead argue that the most important theological fact about Lewis’s novel is its christological focus. The figure of Aslan dominates our experience of the book and movie. The redemptive acts of Aslan, coupled with his coming back to life after an atoning death, symbolically render the story of Christ’s passion and resurrection. The story is told with both theological precision and with the continuous dependence on the Gospel accounts of the life and death of Jesus.
Our worldview–the furniture of our minds–ought also to have a christological focal point. As many argue, we must continually preach the gospel to ourselves.
The second overarching theological reality of Lewis’s book is the great spiritual conflict between good and evil. Lewis claimed that in a Christian worldview of the world “there is no neutral ground in the universe: every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counterclaimed by Satan.” Aslan claims Narnia; his claim is countered by the White Witch. This conflict between good and evil and the story of evil–its self-destructiveness and its ability to infect a whole society should help fill out our worldview as well.
Third, The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe teaches that there is a possibility of goodness in the universe, in human society and in individuals. We see it primarily in Aslan, but we also see it in memorable pictures of good persons in their best moments. While Edmund’s betrayal reflects a universal condition, Lewis wants us to believe that under Aslan’s influence we can make a difference. Our world view must contain a similar hope of making a difference in our world.
Fourth, the book also gives us glimpses of the eschaton–the final end with its accompanying destruction of evil and triumph of good. The turning of statues back into people, a gigantic and decisive last battle, coronations at a great hall, living in great joy and remembering “life in this world . . . only as one remembers a dream” all have the eschatological feel of John’s Revelation about them. Lewis wants us to know the hope that Christ brings, even as we battle on.
You can impress people from afar, but you impact them from up close. Leaders get involved in the lives of the people they lead— particularly those who themselves are in the process of becoming leaders. You can’t model from a distance. Modeling is life on life. Modeling says, “Come do this with me.” Modeling lets people see your mistakes up close and how you handle pressure.
Because this is true, we can’t truly impact large numbers of people. Your extended relationships may be numerous, but you model for just a few. Know who they are and be intentional about it. Be real and be yourself while also being the best model of Christianity that you can.
You reproduce who you are.
The principle of mirror leadership is very sobering. Mirror leadership means that after about 36 months of leadership, the people around you reflect very closely who you are.
Look closely and learn from who you attract, and the people who stay with you under your modeling, equipping and developing. When good people leave you, find out why. Your skills and personality may determine who you attract, but your character, integrity, and lifestyle will determine who you keep over the long haul.
Our lifestyle influences others.
In many arenas of life, it is your skills that earn you the right to influence others. But as Christian leaders it is first our character – our lifestyle that earns us that right. What we do when no one is looking is as important as our level of competency. Competency is critical, but it’s not the whole picture.
Modeling integrity over the long haul is what really makes a difference. We are about changed lives, changed by the power of God. Although this can happen in a moment, for most it’s a process, and a slow one at that. People aren’t projects and they don’t fit into formulas or timetables. Meaning is found over the course of a journey. We need more than “party manners.” One can behave for a short period of time. What counts is your ability to live well over the long haul. —based on article by Dan Reiland
I am cast upon a horrible, desolate island, void of all hope of recovery. I am singled out and separated, as it were, from all the world, to be miserable. — Daniel Defoe
