Abraham Lincoln’s Leadership Lessons

The overview of Abraham Lincoln’s leadership style, as presented in the article, “The Team of Rivals: Abraham Lincoln’s Crisis Cabinet”, based on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals: The Genius of Abraham Lincoln (2005) was inspiring.  Although I had seen the film, Lincoln, this historical perspective which focused on Lincoln’s leadership skills reflected in his behavior towards individuals who were competitors was new to me, and the lessons therein are profound.

Lincoln was intent on building the strongest team possible at a critical time in US history.  He kept his highly intelligent rivals close by offering them cabinet positions.  It appears Lincoln admitted his vulnerability in many areas; he knew he wasn’t perfect, had limitations, so he created a cabinet of men with a complement of skills and knowledge that made the team whole. He was clear and resolute in his vision and communicated that vision firmly, and listened closely before jumping into a debate.  There was a humility in his demeanor; Lincoln could admit failure, pick himself up, and continue to work slowly, surely and forward with a purpose.  He was confident, yet without a sense of self-importance, unlike some of the personalities in his cabinet. He had an uncanny ability to understand people, their strengths and weaknesses, capitalize on those strengths and forgive the weaknesses.  Lincoln was always working towards a higher purpose that was free from ego and based on what he felt was “the greater good” (p. 4).  There are numbers of positive words about Lincoln’s leadership style that flow freely throughout the article:  “genius”, “perceptive”, “steadfast”, “gracious”, “unselfish”, “humble”, “humorous”, and above all, principled.

Consistent with my assumption about leadership is the need to build a team and, if possible, leave one’s ego aside in the process.  The strongest complement of individuals, each with a variety of skills and knowledge, should be assembled and honored for their talents.  Lincoln’s humility allowed him to show appreciation and eschew self-importance.  It is critical in leadership, yet sometimes difficult, to be humble on a daily basis.

Also, Lincoln worked toward a purpose, a plan, a vision.  Currently, in healthcare continuing education, our plan sometimes waivers depending on the market and the business issues inherent in that market, such as fees, timing, new models of learning.  However, constant conversations as a team –similar to the lesson offered in the article which described Lincoln’s considerations, debates, and listening abilities – can facilitate a vision even though the plan towards that vision may change.

There are so many insights gained through this article.  Certainly, building a team regardless of past rivalries was inspiring.  Another insight was the ability to forgive rivals and think twice before sending a vitriolic letter expressing your anger towards them and their opinions.  Those letters (now e-mails) can come back to “bite” you at a later point.  In addition, the need to collect data and information before making a decision is key.  And finally, “the path to success and ambition is broad enough for two or more” (p. 11); share the success, forgive the failures, and continually build a team honestly and with humor.

The three most important leadership lessons from Lincoln are:

(1)    Listen to different points of view in order to gain a fair assessment of issues,  

 understanding alternatives, and honoring those who approach issues from different backgrounds and experiences. 

(2)    Be willing to share credit for success and to praise one’s colleagues.  There has been research showing employees want verbal/organizational recognition more than financial reward.  I think that is true, particularly in an organization that can’t provide extraordinary increases in salary.  Also, it’s important to constantly acknowledge employee successes and as the leader not hoard those thanks or be seen as the ultimate decision-maker responsible for the success; it is always a shared experience.

(3)    Possess the courage, integrity, and resolution to adhere to core principles and vision.  Ethics are important in any leadership role.  Some decisions may be difficult, but ultimately integrity keeps an organization doing the right things for the right reasons.

The Power of Vulnerability

Each time I watch Brené Brown’s The Power of Vulnerability something new is revealed.  Perhaps it is the process of wanting to become more vulnerable that there are new “ah ha’s” with each viewing.  Or, maybe there is an underlying searching for, and concentrating on, wisdom that was not apparent before.  Regardless, Dr. Brown’s message is chocked full of ideas placed in the context of personal insights that she has come to understand over the years through discomfort, therapy, research, writing and thinking, or a combination of all of these.  Her path to vulnerability indicates that it takes time, painful change, patience, and it’s not easy.   I love her message and it creates a calming approach and encouragement to keep working towards becoming a vulnerable leader.

It isn’t easy to be vulnerable: both our best and worst sides show up.  Sometimes we, as the “emperor” “have no clothes”.  Or, we are questioned or question ourselves whether we are just “making it up” as we proceed along paths that may not yet have definition.  But, we should give ourselves permission to be vulnerable and not have to be perfect because, as one person once said, there is ultimately a “perfectionist’s script for self-defeat”.  For me, vulnerability means trying out a new behavior, which may not initially have any “there, there”, only hoping and trusting change will work out.  Often, it was easier to take “leaps of faith” when a bit younger, whether towards a new job, moving across the country, love, marriage, parenthood.  Now, those vulnerable leaps are a bit more calculated and considered because they impact more than just me.  

Dr. Brown’s view is the antithesis of a controlling leader who is constantly micro managing and guiding with a firm, entrenched heavy hand that never waivers, is loud or wryly manipulative, and always right.  None of these styles allow individuals to grow in competency, or enjoy and learn from the process of work.  The lack of vulnerability in a leader does not engender vulnerability, or as Brown states, “an opportunity for growth” among those who are led.  The ability of a leader to be vulnerable tempers the path to success or failure or somewhere in between with permission to attenuate perfection so that individuals can grow in knowledge, skills and a basic love of the job.  Leadership vulnerability based on that leader’s sense of worthiness, as Dr. Brown describes, offers a healthier and less stressful understanding of work-related options to be employed by the willing participation of the whole team.  Vulnerability creates a team where everyone is honored for their efforts, which may not be perfect the first time.   The need to live with ambiguity is constant within all organizations; the vulnerable leader enables a quality of work life where that is possible.

The Innovative University - Part Five: Genetic Re-engineering

The Innovative University

By

Clayton M. Christensen and Henry J. Eyring

Part Five:  Genetic Re-engineering

Part Five: Genetic Re-engineering in The Innovative University by Clayton M. Christensen and Henry J. Eyring, describes three major threats to the traditional university:  obsolescence, disorientation and depersonalization.  As the authors point out, the traditional university must perpetually reinvent itself during times of change when it is often more difficult to make strong, strategic decisions in an increasingly technological world that is becoming more impersonal.  Throughout this final section of the book, Harvard is described as the “elite” university which most other traditional universities want to imitate.  However, caution is prescribed by Christensen and Eyring who clearly suggest that the extraordinary endowment maintained by Harvard puts it way ahead of the pack financially.  As an alternative, universities should consider online learning as a means to cut teaching costs and encourage an increase in the number of graduates who complete their undergraduate education on time.  The Carnegie Foundation academic classifications are noted as guidelines for colleges and universities to focus on their strengths (discovery, integration, application, teaching, and now community-engagement), as well as strategically identify the types and range of students that will be included in the institution, the subject matter (majors) to be emphasized, and a definition of scholarship.  Underlying all of this strategy should be ethics, strengthening of values and behavior.  The example highlighted by the authors, BYU-Idaho (formerly Ricks College), has this underlying strategy as a foundation.

One of the most useful and clear segments of this part of the book is the Table of DNA Alteration suggestions (Table 23.1) on page 386-387.  The table serves as a synopsis of Part Five and describes how traditional universities might alter traits to ensure successful change.  Institutional DNA, which includes program offerings, structures, systems and processes, and ultimately strategy, can be modified systematically by considering issues related to hybrid (online and face-to-face) instruction, values orientation, year-round operation, methods of fundraising, placing athletics in the background, and less selectivity for admissions, to name a few.   It’s a tall order and one that takes time and extraordinary leadership.  Christensen and Eyring point to Kim Clark of BYU-Idaho as the example where such strategy has engendered exemplary change. 

Part Five of The Innovative University is informative, but in spots hard to follow.  In addition, I kept questioning whether most traditional universities want to emulate Harvard.  Also, the term, “genetic re-engineering” has both a negative and a positive connotation:  positive related to change for a greater good, but negative if the meaning is manipulation for underhanded purposes.  Clearly, the innovative university and changing institutional DNA for wider and more inclusive education is the positive side of the definition.  The authors are optimistic.  As they state, “life students furthest and fastest and share scholarship most broadly” (p. 397).