tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/57 2009-11-06T16:06:11Z Steven Pearlstein and Raju Narisetti join executives, leadership experts and national leaders to explore how leadership is shaping the news. Join the conversation at On Leadership. Movable Type 4.2-en tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14996 2009-11-06T15:52:58Z 2009-11-06T15:57:59Z

Military leaders face the challenge of deploying and bringing home fighters who are still decent human beings.

Joanne B. Ciulla the public holds military leaders and members of the armed services in high esteem as altruistic servants of American ideals. Yet, we have to be careful that in honoring those who engage in the business of war, we do not lose sight of the problems with war. We do not yet know what made Nidal Malik Hassan snap, but this horror and other cases of violence, depression, and suicide among soldiers at home and abroad remind us of war's voracity. It not only consumes soldiers' lives, but it seeks to consume their humanity. Soldiers fight the war without and the war within. Military leaders face the challenge of deploying and bringing home fighters who are still decent human beings. ]]> tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14987 2009-11-06T10:39:59Z 2009-11-06T14:17:16Z

The Army is a solid institution, composed of leaders who care about their people. But this shooting provides yet another example of an institution, and more specifically, a support system under stress.

Lt. Col. Todd Henshaw (Ret.) awful conditions and treatment of soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center several years ago, the fratricide at a mental-health facility in Iraq several months ago, and now, a mental-health professional has turned a gun on those that he would heal. The Army has tried recently to talk more openly about mental health problems, specifically post -traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but there is still an embedded culture that dishonors those who seek help. Despite the many overtures by leaders and medical-service providers, soldiers are still reluctant to admit what might be seen as a failure to deal with the rigors of soldiering and military life. It's a difficult problem, and one the the Army has been trying to resolve through education. The Army is a solid institution, composed of leaders who care about their people. But this shooting provides yet another example of an institution, and more specifically, a support system under stress. As the deployments continue, we will see more responses to the associated stress by soldiers and support systems, and will continue to learn the cost borne by our soldiers and their families. Todd Henshaw wrote earlier this week about why Americans trust military leaders. ]]> tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14989 2009-11-06T13:00:34Z 2009-11-06T14:16:33Z

While he was himself visibly shaken by the shootings, the Fort Hood commandar, Lt. Gen. Bob Cone, sought to provide a calming influence to the community.

Col. Charles D. Allen 13 killed, 30 injured" is a headline military members are used to hearing from Iraq and Afghanistan. Acts of violence and death are supposed to happen "over there," not here in United States and especially not at an Army post. Like the many Americans, I watched the news as events unfolded at Fort Hood. I have many colleagues and former students with their families stationed there. So what does the story of Fort Hood have to do with leadership? In the time of confusion and crisis, the new commander, Lieutenant General Bob Cone, spoke to the press so that he could communicate to his soldiers, civilians, and families. While he was himself visibly shaken by the shootings, Lt. Gen. Cone sought to provide a calming influence to the community. He laid out the facts as he knew them. He was empathetic to those whose loved ones were dead or injured. He acknowledged the critical role that police and other military members provided as first responders to the crisis. He was there in body and spirit. He had the implicit trust of the community that he would do whatever he could to protect and defend its members. Lt. Gen. Cone did what we needed and expected--he called upon to lead, and he lead! Col. Charles Allen wrote earlier this week about how past acts of violence among military personnel have affected public trust in the military. ]]> tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14955 2009-11-05T18:43:01Z 2009-11-06T14:54:23Z

The trust the American people place in its military is as fragile as it is precious.

Col. Charles D. Allen UPDATE: Read Col. Allen's commentary on the Fort Hood tragedy. As an African-American youth growing up in Cleveland, Ohio, my first exposure to the U.S. military was during the Hough riots of 1966, when a National Guard soldier was stationed on my block and an armored troop carrier was positioned in the vacant lot next to our apartment building. The next time was during the Glenville riots of 1968. In both cases, I viewed the Army as protecting my family from the civil unrest that was rampant across the United States and which found its way to my town. I was not aware of the social turmoil that spawned the riots but was more concerned for the safety of those I loved during those weeks of violence. In my young eyes, the military was the protector in a society gone mad. It was two years later when that image of protector was shattered. On Monday, May 4, 1970, I was a high school freshman, sitting in an English class, when the news broke of the National Guard firing on college students at the nearby Kent State University. You may remember the Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young chorus, "Four Dead in Ohio"-- I certainly do. The protectors were thrust off the pedestal upon which I had placed them and that positive image was shattered. Each year, I tell these stories to our new students at the U.S. Army War College. They have experienced tremendous appreciation and support from the American public and its elected representatives. Our officers are uniformly grateful for that support. As the Harvard study suggests, the respect the military has engendered has been extremely positive relative to the other institutions in our society. Lest we get too smug and full of ourselves, there are two things that our military must always remember: who we are and who we serve. The two stories I related above show how the trust the American people place in its military is as fragile as it is precious. Our oath of commission has us swear to "protect and defend" and to "bear true faith and allegiance." I took this oath in June 1974 at the base of the statue of George Washington at West Point. I had faith then and do now that our military will earn that trust by continuing to be an institution of people who willingly place the good of our society above personal interests. This is what the American people expect of our military leaders and its service members. It would be a mistake to take the respect that our citizens currently have for the military for granted. Trust and respect for the military hinges on the extent to which we remain worthy of it, and that is no secret. ]]> tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14929 2009-11-04T19:45:21Z 2009-11-05T16:57:39Z

In an age when problems can rapidly deteriorate into crises, military leaders know how to assess a problem, lay out a strategy and tactics and deliver.

Deborah Ancona Let's be clear that even though support for our military leadership has grown, support for leaders in general is quite low. As is true in tough times, people crave leadership but right now they are disappointed in the talent pool. Who wouldn't be when some of our most trusted leaders have been found lying, cheating, and looking out for their own interests? In the recent past we have been spectators to stormy soap operas and Greek tragedies playing out on the leadership stage. Enter John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Hamid Karzai, and those Wall Street executives who take millions in bonuses while unemployment soars. It makes Marie Antoinette's famous "Let them eat cake" seem like a mild disconnect with the populace. Even our charismatic President seems caught up in a web of partisan politics and lobbyist demands. So what do military leaders bring to this dismal stage? First, in an age when problems can rapidly deteriorate into crises, military leaders bring action. They know how to assess a problem, lay out a strategy and tactics, and then deliver. When others seem steeped in a quagmire of inertia--Where is that banking regulation that is supposedly on its way?--military leaders are marching into battle. They act. Second, it is the nature of the military, especially in an all-volunteer service such as ours, that people in it make a commitment to others. Servicemen and women literally give their lives to protect each other and us. Perhaps leaders from other sectors need to think about that. When in the midst of ego enhancing maneuvers and serving the highest bidders, perhaps other leaders can ask how would this look on the battlefield? Where is the accountability and responsibility to others? Third, military leaders know how to learn. They have elite schools, ROTC, and leadership development (in the classroom and on the job) for all. There is a thorough debrief after each operation and military historians look for lessons learned over time. These organizational processes mean that what is learned in one battle can get transferred to the next. The problems we face right now; wars, a fragile economy, global warming, starvation, and political unrest, are large and they are scary. People are looking for people who are competent and trustworthy. They seek leaders who can paint an accurate picture of the world as it is now and how it can be - leaders with the ability to assess, decide and act in a way that can mobilize many. And while the military is not perfect, and some of what they do does not transfer to other contexts, the notions of action, serving others, and continuous learning are good lessons to learn. tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14906 2009-11-04T14:07:56Z 2009-11-04T14:16:47Z

Too much admiration for military leaders leads to the misperception that because they perform nobly on the battlefield, they must be good at overall strategy.

Ken Adelman Taming of the Shrew," who should have been a member of this year's Nobel Peace committee (where intentions trumped accomplishments as the prime criteria). 2. And that personal success best be based on performance -- ""Who does more than his captain in war becomes his captain's captain." ("Antony & Cleopatra") - and not on smooth talk or lofty promises. Come to think of it, this hard-knock, no b.s., direct approach of the military evokes such admiration in America today precisely because it's so lacking in other realms of American contemporary life. ]]> tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14881 2009-11-03T19:26:12Z 2009-11-03T19:30:57Z

Sometimes the judgment of military leaders has proved better than that of their civilian bosses -- but not always.

Michael Maccoby There are good reasons to have confidence in the competence and integrity of our military leaders. They selflessly risk their lives to protect our nation. They embrace a patriotic culture of duty, loyalty, and honor, and they accept civilian command. But this trust in military leaders as defenders of the republic is not the same as trusting their strategic judgment. Sometimes, as when General Eric Shinseki told Congress that winning the Iraq war would be much more costly than the Bush administration stated, their judgment has proved better than that of their civilian bosses. But throughout our history, military leaders have used their prestige to push questionable strategies. If a poll had been taken in 1864 before Sherman took Atlanta, the public would have expressed more confidence in General George B. McClellan who wanted to bring the Civil War to a draw than in Abraham Lincoln who wanted to win it. Harry Truman had to fire General Douglas MacArthur because he wanted to expand the Korean war. After the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, John F. Kennedy learned he could not rubber-stamp military strategy. Lyndon Johnson was misled by General William Westmoreland, who assured him we could win the Viet Nam war with half-a-million troops. Some military leaders who retire, leave the military culture and are hired by defense contractors become business leaders. We should keep in mind Dwight Eisenhower's warning about the power of the military-industrial complex that keeps on demanding more expensive hardware, even when civilian leaders at the DOD believe it is not needed. Our nation's well-being depends on leaders in government, business, education, and the press, as well as the military who are able to earn the public trust. The others won't do so by copying the military but only by demonstrating the value they uniquely contribute to the common good. tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14868 2009-11-03T16:31:05Z 2009-11-03T16:38:56Z

In the military, leadership development is not viewed merely as an expense to be justified and contained, or reserved for a few "high potentials."

George Reed The United States military has been successful in replicating a type of leadership that has consistently served the nation well. In most cases military leaders lead by example and balance a sincere care for their people with an unrelenting drive to accomplish assigned missions. We admire their courage, discipline, competence, and sacrifice. When I think of the most noble and selfless people I have ever known, my mind always turns to the soldiers I served with. Our military wields awesome destructive power, yet its leaders willingly submit to civilian control and dominance. That is a key reason why the American people have had little reason to fear their own military. We sometimes take for granted how remarkable it is that a large, standing military so assiduously avoids engagement in partisan politics. That is certainly not the case in many other countries, and that kind of ethos doesn't happen by accident. Military personnel actually express disdain for those in uniform that are "too political" and former military officials who engage in politics or other endeavors after leaving uniformed service often see some of their public luster diminished. While public service as an elected official is an honorable endeavor, we also react negatively to the seemingly shameless self-promotion inherent in elections and the fractious nature of party politics that too often appears to put self-interest above the public good. Wealth may be an important measure for Wall Street, and power courses through the offices of elected officials, but the faith and confidence of the people is the currency that counts for the American military. That faith and confidence is derived from acts of selfless service in defense of the principles of the Constitution. When military leadership reflects the best of American values, public confidence rises, and when the military fails to achieve the public's high expectations, confidence will most assuredly fall. It would be a mistake to attempt to apply military templates of leadership wholesale to other sectors and vice versa. Context does matter in leadership, and the military differs in many important ways from any other sector. There are, however, some lessons that can be learned across contexts, and here are a few. In the military, leadership development is not viewed merely as an expense to be justified and contained. It is viewed as an essential investment in its people and the long-term health of the institution. The military provides leader development and learning opportunities at every level, and not just to a few "high potentials." The concept of leadership, and dedication to developing the next generation of stewards of the profession, are deeply embedded notions in military culture. The military has a common language and set of expectations for its leaders, expressed in regulations and field manuals, and those expectations are driven by an extensive, and admittedly expensive, network of schools and courses that are tied to selection for promotion and key assignments. The military view of leadership places a premium on competence and a form of high-accountability influence that is at its best when the team and the mission take first priority--when the leaders set not only the standards, but the example as well. tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14867 2009-11-03T15:12:36Z 2009-11-03T16:39:51Z

We know that the Wall Street barons and the polarizing politicians and the shouting cable pundits do not represent the best of this nation.

Yash Gupta recent death of Walter Cronkite, the CBS anchorman known as "the most trusted man in America," provided a stark reminder of the low esteem in which many members of the media are held these days. Is it any wonder that the average American perceives a lack of leadership within our country's foremost institutions? He looks at our society and sees a circus. He feels he has been left alone to deal with his worries about his job and his house and how he's going to send his children to college. The military, on the other hand, continues to be an object of national respect. We turn to the members of the armed forces for leadership because we view them as our protectors. They defend our freedom, and they produce results. In fulfilling their duties, they endure both physical and psychological hardship, often in the face of death. We hail them for their uncommon vigilance and bravery. Our military also has been the source of some of the greatest American leaders, from Washington to Eisenhower to Powell. All of these former generals were able to make the transition to the political arena because of their training and experience, and because the public admired and trusted them to such a great degree. Men and women such as these teach us the important lessons of sacrifice, working for the greater good, and working for a long-term goal. We know that the Wall Street barons and the polarizing politicians and the shouting cable pundits do not represent the best of this nation. For that, we can look to the men and women in uniform who put themselves in harm's way -- every day, all over the world -- for the benefit and safety of other people. ]]> tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14866 2009-11-03T15:04:31Z 2009-11-03T15:17:42Z

Military leaders are much more willing than business leaders to publicly admit when things have gone wrong.

Jeffrey Pfeffer military leaders earn more confidence, admiration, and respect from the public. It is not just that military leaders engage in activities that provide service for the common good rather than just personal enrichment, as is the case for many business leaders. Military leaders are also much more willing to publicly admit when things have gone wrong and operate in a system that encourages reflection, truth-telling, and learning. People who told Ken Lay that there might be accounting problems in Enron were accused of being disloyal. Not as extreme an example as you might think--my own reward for questioning the value of business education was to be told I was "spitting in the soup." Organizations enforce conformity and for the most part organizational leaders seem to prefer hearing lies that reinforce their impression that everything is all right rather than the truth about what is working and what isn't. The public intuitively knows that if you are going to fix problems, you need to understand, as completely as possible, what they are. The military has after-action reviews built into their management processes. Military leaders writing in military publications debate and question the wisdom of decisions and seek to learn from the experience that accumulates through action. Military leaders, concerned for the welfare of the people they lead, try to do their best and when they make mistakes, which are inevitable in human action, they don't dodge responsibility. All of these behaviors separate them from way too many corporate leaders who avoid responsibility--note the use of the passive voice in statements such as "mistakes were made"--fail to tell the truth or seek it, and in general display behavior that is more self-protective than it is oriented to helping their organizations or their people. There are many fairly simple lessons that corporate leaders could learn from emulating military leadership practices. Let's hope that learning starts soon, because public opinion of business and business leaders appears to be low and falling. ]]> tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14865 2009-11-03T14:55:00Z 2009-11-03T15:18:20Z

My four months in Officer Candidate School in 1944 was superior to all the corporate management training programs I've observed and consulted for over the last 25 years.

Warren Bennis National Leadership Index since its inception in 2005, I have two interpretations of the "high level of trust in military." The first and perhaps most important is the quality of leadership development programs, especially in the three largest military academies, which provide the best leadership development programs in the country. By far. Their four years of training places leadership as central to their curriculum. My first-hand experience, which lasted only four months, not the four years of the military academies, took place in late 1944 at Fort Benning, Georgia, at the Officer Candidate School for the infantry. Even that four-month program was superior to all the corporate management training programs I've observed and consulted for over the last 25 years. As to the second reason, I pose the question: compared to what? For almost every institution, over the past five years, confidence, including medicine, has declined. The 2009 survey suggests that with the finding, "87% of Americans professed confidence that with the right leaders, the nation's problems can be solved." So it isn't only because the military has the most effective leadership development programs. It's got more to do with its comparison to the parlous leadership defects -- take Wall Street as an example -- so visible in most of the other institutions surveyed.]]> tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14862 2009-11-03T14:36:54Z 2009-11-03T14:45:43Z

Many baby boomers remember, hopefully with a certain degree of shame, our inability to separate our distaste for the Vietnam conflict with our distrust in military personnel and their leaders.

Gail S. Williams the high level of trust in military leaders to two major factors. The first being that it would be less than fully patriotic to distrust our military leadership. I believe many baby boomers remember, hopefully with a certain degree of shame, our inability to separate our distrust in our elected leaders and our distaste for the Vietnam conflict with our distrust in military personnel and their leaders. After initially supporting the Vietnam war, in good measure because my parents did, I came to dislike the conflict. Over time, I aligned with demonstrators who were peaceful and non-violent. I think back in horror as I remember the dreadful treatment our returning soldiers -- the names they were called and the fact that some were spat upon. Our soldiers, in that conflict and in today's conflicts, demonstrate their love for our country and the democratic principles we hold so dear, that they risk their lives. I, for one, tire of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the long term detrimental effect they will have on our country and economy, and the many people who fight on our behalf. But I can easily separate those feelings from my unwavering respect for our men and women in uniform. This may appear to be optimism to some. To me it is an entirely different intellectual and emotional response. The second reason I postulate for the higher trust in military leadership is that many more families are directly impacted by the wars than they are by their elected officials because they have family members or friends in service. What is at stake for them is so much more personal and significant. Of course we want to trust our military leadership because the lives of so many Americans under their command are on the line. As I ponder the last part of this week's question, I am challenged to offer any answer other than the following: Elected officials must stop squabbling and posturing and work together for a common goal -- a goal that our citizens consider to be in the best interest of our country and themselves. Business leaders lack credibility for so many reasons, including exorbitant salaries and bonuses, even when their firms sought bailout funds from the federal government. Where to start with the media? Yes, there are responsible media personnel, yet in my opinion they are rare. I imagine doing thorough research and avoiding inappropriate sensationalism is harder to avoid during these belt-tightening times. Still, too many do what sells and that erodes my trust. I demonstrate my lack of trust by carefully choosing who I read and listen to and will continue to do so. ]]> tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14861 2009-11-03T14:19:58Z 2009-11-03T14:45:10Z

Beneath all that body armor and chest-thumping machismo that defines our culture's Rambo image of the modern warrior lies the essence of what makes a soldier fight in combat: Love.

Scott Snook high levels of trust and confidence in our military leaders. But for me, it ultimately boils down to one word: Love. This might surprise many who've haven't served in uniform. But behind those steely eyes, beneath all that body armor and chest-thumping machismo that defines our culture's Rambo image of the modern warrior lies the essence of what makes a soldier fight in combat, love. Oh, she may join up or reenlist for love of country or mom's apple pie, but when it comes to the fundamental motivating value behind military leadership, it's a deep abiding love and respect for one's comrades that matters most. In 1948, sociologists Edward Shils and Morris Janowitz published a classic study titled, "Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II." In an attempt to understand why the German army fought so stubbornly to the bitter end, Shils and Janowitz uncovered one of the fundamental truths of military leadership: A soldier continued to fight well beyond the point when the battle or war was lost "as long as the group possessed leadership with which he could identify himself, and as long as he gave affection to and received affection from the other members of his squad or platoon." The giving and receiving of affection, not only philia or brotherly love, but also the deeper and more profound agape or selfless love lies at the heart of military leadership. It also helps explain our current love affair with military leaders. Long before Shils and Janowitz, the Apostle John said it best: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Whatever your political affiliation or personal opinion of war, how can one not respect a profession whose leadership draws its ultimate sustenance and authority from such a love? If love can be the touchstone of leadership in a profession as violent as the military, then why not elsewhere? A personal postcript from the author: My wife Kathi and I served for over twenty years in uniform. and our oldest son Sean is currently serving in southern Afghanistan (Infantry officer in the 82d Airborne Division). This YouTube video, "Afghanistan: First 30 Days," is Sean's impression of life on a Forward Operating Base. Our second son, Kyle, is currently serving as an Infantry officer in the 101st Airborne Division, our daughter Megan is currently a junior at West Point, and our fourth child Robby plans to attend West Point in June. ]]> tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14852 2009-11-03T05:43:13Z 2009-11-03T12:05:06Z

What if executives at AIG, Bank of America, and General Motors saluted the flag and vowed to uphold our most basic American values?

Coro Fellows Emily Sage Sipchen Own It! In today's world, questioning the military brass would be treacherous. Many Americans see these leaders as the rare people who serve the public unmotivated by self-interest and take ownership of their behavior. Following another year of high profile political and business scandals involving bribery, prostitution, and graft, it seems natural that Americans would flock to support those that offer honest and steady leadership in the face of an unpopular and difficult situation. Perhaps leaders in other sectors could adopt the military's approach toward accountability. Following the highly embarrassing Abu Ghraib scandal, the military held hearings and punished those involved. As Iraq spiraled into complete chaos, the military responded by executing a response that significantly reduced violence. As the situation in Afghanistan worsens, the military is asking for support and explaining the war's direness, rather than covering it up. Meanwhile, in the world of American business and politics, governors sell senate seats, senators sleep with staff members, and business executives lobby for bailouts. It's no wonder that in this world of "it's not my fault," the military's sense of ownership and accountability has earned high marks from a fed-up society. -- Sean Holiday Not Another Vietnam When my dad came home from Vietnam in 1968, he was warned to change out of his uniform as soon as he could get his hands on civilian clothes. The wildly happy crowds that greeted soldiers returning from World War II had been replaced by angry protesters who asked him how many babies he had killed. Dad couldn't even get a civilian job until he took his military service off of his resume. An entire generation of Vietnam vets received the same treatment; the military and its leaders haven't always enjoyed such high confidence ratings. Today, we understand that the military doesn't choose to go to war--politicians do--and we as a people generally support our military whether or not we agree with the decisions that come out of Washington. I believe that sentiment carries over to our military leaders, especially since they usually stay out of the mainstream media and concentrate on doing their jobs. They appear to be above the partisan squabbles that characterize Washington politics and the unfettered greed people associate with Wall Street. I believe military leaders are popular because soldiers are popular, which is a good lesson for leaders in other sectors. The National Leadership Index 2009 cites military leaders as having the highest confidence rating of any sector, beating out leaders in medicine, government, business, and education. I wonder if the people who took that poll could name our top military leaders and point to specific examples that led them to have so much confidence in those men and women. The confidence we have in leaders can stem from our perception of the people who work under them. Think about it this way: would you rather buy a drink for a junior executive at Goldman Sachs or a private in the Army? In any case, the military enjoys a distinct advantage over other sectors: our disrespectful treatment of Vietnam vets and our desire to make sure that never happens again. -- Liz Willis Truthiness It's strange that an institution as rigid and clandestine as the military can inspire more trust than any other sector in society. Maybe we're just out of touch with reality. After all, the situation in Afghanistan, marred by the resurgence of the Taliban and a dubious presidential election, appears to be deteriorating. Meanwhile, Iraq, still teetering on the verge of stability, can't seem to control violence that has killed hundreds of civilians over the past month. Yet, our confidence in military leadership is up? In reality, it's no coincidence that the increase in confidence coincides with leadership changes in Washington. The 2009 National Leadership Index survey showed that Americans value trustworthiness more than any other quality in a leader. The previous administration's military officials had a talent for deliberately shrouding failures, exaggerating successes, and feigning optimism. On the other hand, Obama's top general in Afghanistan has openly disagreed with other top officials on the US strategy for the country. After 8 years of misdirection from military officials, this seems like open, honest discourse from military leadership. Simply put, our confidence in our military leadership is up because we've perceived an increase in their honesty. Unfortunately, it's not something we see everyday. Between the Madoffs, Sanfords, and Blagojeviches of our era, we've become resigned to dishonesty from our leadership. In fact, the way we've come to respond to dishonest leadership now seems predictable: they make a mistake, then lie, and we turn our collective indignation into one month of public outrage before moving onto the next villain. Our military brass, in spite of their issues, has this one right: a little truth goes a long way. -- Lanre Akinsiku ]]> tag:views.washingtonpost.com,2009:/leadership/panelists//58.14856 2009-11-03T11:55:02Z 2009-11-03T12:06:15Z

Leaders in other sectors who REALLY CARE about winning and retaining the confidence, trust, and loyalty of the American public know how to earn it.

Bob Schoultz Taking Chance" last night, which brought home the degree to which simple commitment to duty resonates so much with the American public. What can the rest of America learn from military leaders? Be trustworthy. Earn trust, and don't, under any circumstance violate it. And perceptions matter. I believe that leaders in other sectors who REALLY CARE about winning and retaining the confidence, trust, and loyalty of the American public know how to earn it. It is simple, but it isn't easy. ]]>