Traits of a Successful Leader & What Leadership Looks Like
05/22/2025
Leadership takes on many different forms but one commonality that separates leaders from managers is an ability to envision a desired outcome and correctly develop a plan to realize that outcome. Effective leaders then look for innovative ways to improve those outcomes as the plan is put into action. The leader understands the relative strengths and weaknesses of their workers and puts their personnel in situations where they can succeed. Change is a part of every project since plans rarely survive implementation. A successful leader knows when to modify the plan and when it’s necessary to modify the personnel to achieve the goals. The successful leader will surround themselves with personnel capable of independent thought, who are experts in their field of endeavor and can advise the leader on ways to improve their plans. These leaders are not intimidated by intelligence in others, they utilize that intelligence to grow and improve their organization. To be a successful manager, on the other hand, it is important to take the tools at hand to efficiently implement the directives of the leader or maintain consistent, even growth. Where the leader determines the direction of the business or the direction of a country the manager keeps the distractions from derailing the plan. In this way, the leader becomes the disruptor, particularly when a dramatic change is required to save the business or country. The manager is concerned with keeping the train on time and on course whether it’s headed for disaster or success. Managers look for smoothness, consistency, and most importantly, no surprises. So when a manager-style leader is hired as CEO, Governor, or President you continue with the Status Quo, no big changes will occur, what has happened before will continue plus you are indicating profits and expenses are likely acceptable. Those are the qualities that make a good manager. When managers do things well they are often heralded as great leaders precisely because they keep things safe and seemingly predictable. Innovations make things change and change is uncomfortable for many people which is why manager style leaders do not make good heads of corporations and similarly heads of State.
In Politics, just as in Business, there is an innate desire to maintain the status quo and avoid disruption. Disruption is bad for business because results are unpredictable and investors have a low tolerance for risk in business and politics. Business leaders are answerable to the investors who want to understand how their money is being used and they want assurances they’ll get a certain return on their investment. Business leaders who can thread the needle, making necessary changes while maintaining the appearance of low risk are highly valued individuals and a rare commodity. Unless a business is clearly in trouble investors don’t want to see any disruptions or dramatic changes. Similarly in politics, voters want predictability unless a case can be made that we must implement change or face emanate disaster. President Obama is the perfect example of this concept with his Hope and Change campaign. He convinced voters the country was on the precipice of a disaster and we needed new hope and a new change in attitude to pull back from disaster even though there was no impending disaster. The tendency for a Board of Directors is to hire or elect a “Proven Leader”, someone who isn’t known as a change agent, and who manages without causing undue turmoil, consequently, we put safe managers in positions of control like the Bush’s, Clinton, Obama, and Biden. These five “leaders” presented themselves as safe candidates who understood the people instead of the process. They depended on the results of polls and major donors to create a safe image and were unconcerned about innovating or improving how the country functioned. They were the perfect managers and their tenure resulted in the overall unremarkable results we experienced. George W Bush did manage a successful recovery from the “Black Swan Event” which was the attack on 9/11/2001 and he kept us from a major recession, but otherwise, he managed to maintain the status quo of the country. During Bill Clinton’s term, it has been argued that he was responsible for the major dot-com investment boom but there is a stronger argument he merely oversaw the efforts of private industry making significant technological breakthroughs and managed to not quelch it, the results would have been the same whether it happened during George Bush’s tenure or Barack Obama’s tenure. Although Obama advertised what a change agent he was, (Hope and Change), a review of the market performance and jobs market showed a loss in private industry jobs and an increase in government jobs otherwise our lives were no better off. These five “Proven Leaders” have done exactly what was expected of them as mostly good managers, so the country continued inexorably on its path to mediocrity. It is the role of a leader to recognize when the excellence of new programs or initiatives deteriorates to become commonplace. When they fail to recognize this complacency sets in and results deteriorate.
Meanwhile, great leaders don’t require the affirmation of others because they understand what their objective is and what it takes to accomplish that objective. In business, the objective would be to improve operational efficiency for increased profits whether that reduces bloated staff or heightens employee motivation but in government, since it doesn’t create value, the objective becomes to enhance the service motivation to help others and improve the lives of their constituents, to follow existing laws and cut fraud and waste. The challenge for the leaders in government, as well as business, comes down to how they deal with the sycophants, influencers, and “hangers-on”. These are the individuals most likely to spread discourse among the “rank and file” when changes are made. What might ordinarily be an uneventful transition these individuals are the ones to disrupt the process if they believe their ideas are not heard. A classic example played out in the “public square” during President Trump’s first administration when Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a highly regarded Director of European Affairs at the NSC, decided his advice concerning Ukraine was not being properly considered by the President. He had been advising Obama through his reports but apparently, Trump came to different conclusions than Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and he made comments contravening Vindman’s stated positions. Vindman then felt justified in reporting Trump had made an inappropriate request of Volodymyr Zelensky during a secure phone conversation. A completely appropriate request based on the specific situation and one that legal counsel reviewed and agreed with. When efforts by Vindman to raise the concern with his superiors in the NSC and White House were unsuccessful he continued filing objections ultimately leading to a Whistleblower status. Failing to recognize and disarm someone who believed they were negatively impacted by the changes initiated resulted in significant disruption of the business at hand. It is impossible for leaders to know who will ultimately become a Vindman but being aware of potential disruptions of this magnitude will make the process smoother. Typically, organizations and businesses that exhibit a fast-paced response and aggressive view of markets won’t easily accommodate the sycophants and influencers’ mindset. These leaders are focused on innovation and anyone who comes up with an improvement over current processes and can implement them effectively are the “darlings” of the business. In this scenario it is not just the ideas but the actions that create improvement. For these leaders, the greatest challenge comes from building these influencers and sycophants into productive team members because if they are ignored they will become the group that disrupts a smooth transitional process and undermines effective ideas. Recognition of this human characteristic is critical and great leaders are the ones who can challenge these people to find ways to make good ideas better. In business, in politics, and life in general you can look at a challenge and see an insurmountable problem, or as Chuck Yeager said, here is an opportunity. Too many of us see a difficult situation and say “it can’t be done”. The opportunity for a leader, in this situation, is turning these individuals into innovators who find ways to make your solution successful. Leaders are never satisfied with the status quo, they recognize business organizations or political administrations require innovative individuals who can seamlessly step in and continue to improve on their vision. The influencers have the potential to become the next great leader with the proper instruction and motivation. But it requires they, not someone else, define who they are and what they’re capable of. Our country was created on this principle and it became the most successful country in history because our founding fathers did not let anyone define who they were or what they were capable of. Great Leaders embrace this concept wholeheartedly.
Leadership is not always confined to the immediate company in the business environment. It requires the individual to incorporate responses of various local governments, cultures, societal norms, and even countries in the case of international operations. Effective leaders will not limit themselves in pursuit of their objective to just conventional resources, they must be familiar with, not only their own personnel but in the case of interstate or international businesses, with how opponents or allies respond culturally and socially, if appropriate, to varying conditions. Over the course of the last 2 months, we have witnessed an amazing display of both leadership and gamesmanship with the culmination of President Trump’s Middle East journey. Beginning with the “Liberation Day” April 02, 2025, when Trump initiated his first foreign policy gambit by announcing a remarkable increase in Tariffs against some 170 separate countries. By understanding how certain countries would respond to such an affront he tailored the responses depending on the level of difficulty returning a positive response to the US. The trade agreement with the UK was worked on mostly out of the public view until the moment of finalization in contrast to no negotiations with China until more trade deals were released to the public. China talks were likely stonewalled knowing they would attempt to dictate the terms of the trade deal and we needed them to know there were viable alternatives to trading with them. The predictable responses of the countries accustomed to dictating their terms to any treaty or negotiations was the declaration that Trump was acting like a dictator and he didn’t know what he was doing when he began dictating our terms in contravention to the manner in which they were used to doing business.
Locally, markets responded negatively because opponents claimed, without evidence to back it up, prices would increase sharply, store shelves would be empty, and we’d be reduced to third-world status as inflation and unemployment would rise. There was no end to the “smart” business leaders and economists who said this would tax us to death. Michael Bennet, Jason Crow, John Hickenlooper, and Jared Polis all sent out X notes warning about the new taxes and questioning whether Trump voters really voted for this dictatorial behavior. For those who recognized the negotiation tactic for what it was the simple answer was Yes we voted for this and the doomsday scenario was only the manner these representatives used to manipulate us into believing we would suffer. It is exceedingly tiresome listening to representatives who either do not know better themselves or think we believe they are so trustworthy they can tell us anything. After all the developing scandals being revealed from an open administration it is apparent we need to believe our “lying” eyes because it turns out our vision is really good and we can trust what we see right before us. We are witnessing an amazing time in history with the deconstruction of layers built on layers of deceit being pulled back and the established relations with allies and opponents being rebuilt with a solid foundation. To be certain it is fragile and will still require maintenance from men of integrity who are willing to look out for the common man.
Leaders are often confused with managers but the leaders will show a level of vision most good managers fail to realize. Likewise, good leaders often make terrible managers since they are so involved with their vision and where the country is headed they fail to take into account the individuals who make it happen. It is rare to find leaders who can effectively manage an organization at the same time. In politics, two such individuals in recent history are Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. Both of these individuals missed important opportunities during their tenure but on the whole, the results have and will speak for themselves. Thanks for taking the time to read this and reflect on the ideas presented. I have no doubt it will raise controversy but that makes each of us better for having engaged in friendly discourse and debate.
