Posts Tagged ‘ethics’

Note: Please contact me if you or anyone you know of is interested in publishing this series as a book (or in any other format). I can also provide a full book proposal and will refer you to my agent. This is from the Introduction of my series on leadership and leadership development, based on my experience as an army officer and over 10 years as a business and management consultant helping businesses and executives to thrive in the face of rapid change, risk, and uncertainty. It comes from a book I started to write two years ago. I’ve been posting the introductory chapter as a series on this blog, which you can consult at the following links:

Leadership is the same in the military, business… and hockey

My purpose in writing this series on leadership

What do I mean by leadership anyway?

Chapter 1: Competence Is the Heart of Leadership

The profession of arms is concerned with the legal, rational application of force to the resolution of a social or political problem. If you are going to rationally apply force, then you will necessarily be directing missions that are risky for those you are leading and the ones you wish to influence through force. The rational application of force therefore requires rational leadership.

But here’s the rub. When you get right down to it, there is nothing less rational than asking people to put themselves in harm’s way for the good of someone else. Evolution has endowed us all with a survival instinct. We have a propensity to avoid life-threatening danger, if at all possible. How do you get people to go against their deepest instincts—and interests—in order to achieve someone else’s objectives?

The military takes a very pragmatic approach to leadership and leadership development. When I was a young cadet, training to become an infantry officer, we learned a set of basic principles to guide in our leadership.

  1. Achieve professional competence.
  2. Appreciate your own strengths and limitations and pursue self-improvement.
  3. Seek and accept responsibility.
  4. Lead by example.
  5. Make sure that your followers know your meaning and intent, and then lead them to the accomplishment of the mission.
  6. Know your followers and promote their welfare.
  7. Develop the leadership potential of your followers.
  8. Make sound and timely decisions.
  9. Train your followers as a team and employ them to their capabilities.
  10. Keep your followers informed of the mission, the changing situation, and the overall picture.

In addition to inculcating these principles, the military approach to leadership development focuses heavily on the “nuts and bolts” of leadership and influence. I call this the competence-based philosophy of leadership development. In a nutshell, officer candidates and rank and file soldiers who have been selected for development are put through grueling training that builds planning, decision-making and directing skills. The military hierarchy does not rely only on character traits and willingness to take charge, but also seeks to impart the specific skills and knowledge required to command.

The underlying assumption of competence-based leadership is that soldiers will follow their leaders if they have confidence in their abilities and judgment. Confidence is directly related to the leader’s abilities to make sound plans, give clear and specific direction to followers, and to exercise rational powers and decision-making even under extreme conditions. The military training system therefore takes a fairly mechanistic approach in imparting these competencies. Instead of simply haranguing trainees or giving them rousing speeches—although those are sometimes required—leadership instructors focus on the processes of situational analysis, problem solving, planning, and organizing. Military forces the world over have created standardized approaches for all aspects of the leader’s job, from how to analyze the enemy’s likely actions and intentions, to assessing the tactical value of ground, logistical requirements, personnel needs, ammunition calculations, etc. There are also standardized processes and templates to follow for tactical planning and giving orders and direction. Everything that a leader has to do has been broken down into discrete steps. The focus of leadership training and professional development is on acquiring the knowledge, skills and attitudes to apply these processes and methodologies in all circumstances. In the final analysis, conflict is too dangerous and important to be left to the vagaries of personality and natural talent. Leadership trainees are assessed against these requirements and must be able to implement them to a reasonable standard before official promotion and appointment to command.

I’ll have much more to say about all of these leadership principles and processes as the book progresses. The key point though is that leadership can be developed. Some people have more natural talent than others. Also, some people have more of the “right stuff” to progress through the ranks and be entrusted with very high levels of responsibility. However, no matter what the command level—tactical, operational, or strategic—leadership is fundamentally the same in form and philosophy. It is the content and complexity of the leadership and command challenges that change as hierarchical and operational responsibilities widen in scope and deepen in impact.

© 2016 Richard Martin. Reproduction, forwarding and quotes permitted with proper attribution.

Note: Please contact me if you or anyone you know of is interested in publishing this series as a book (or in any other format). I can also provide a full book proposal and will refer you to my agent. This is from the Introduction of my series on leadership and leadership development, based on my experience as an army officer and over 10 years as a business and management consultant helping businesses and executives to thrive in the face of rapid change, risk, and uncertainty. It comes from a book I started to write two years ago. I’ve been posting the introductory chapter as a series on this blog, which you can consult at the following links:

Leadership is the same in the military, business… and hockey

My purpose in writing this series on leadership

Why is the military approach to leadership so powerful?

Chapter 1: Competence Is the Heart of Leadership

Before we go any further, it will be helpful to define exactly what I mean by leadership. Whenever I’m facilitating a strategy retreat, working with an executive on developing her leadership competencies, or just in a discussion with a prospect or client, the question inevitably comes up as to what the (or my) definition of leadership is. If I’m conducting training or teaching, I usually turn the question around and ask the trainees or students what their definition of leadership is. When this happens, I always find that the answers cover a range of individual and group behaviors. However, the common element in these answers always has some combination of the following:

  • A leader provides a vision of the future.
  • A leader makes decisions.
  • A leader illuminate the way forward.
  • A leader sets the example.
  • A leader tells people what to do, and sometimes how to do it.
  • A leader inspires and motivates others.

All of these definitions are true, and they all point to a few critical ingredients of leadership. First, there must be a goal. Second, there must be a range of options for how to proceed, and a certain level of uncertainty and risk. Third, the leader must inspire and motivate. Lastly, leaders have to lead; they have to set the example.

But when all is said and done, my favorite definition of leadership is the one I learned in the army:

Leadership is the art of influencing others in the accomplishment of a mission.

This definition is simple, perhaps deceptively so, but it encapsulates all of the elements of leadership that are salient to getting others to behave in a certain way in order to achieve a favored goal. Notice that this definition says nothing about providing a vision, making decisions, motivating others, or telling people what to do. There is no hint of coercion or authority, nor is there any indication that one should use any particular form of influence.

This definition also states that leadership is an art. There may be a certain amount of science and knowledge involved in leading, but ultimately it is more about honing a craft and applying the right skills and mindset than finding and applying the right formula. A good leader is a kind of artisan, honing his craft through diligent practice and experiential learning.

Another keyword in this definition of leadership is influence. Effective leaders use a range of approaches to influence others, from extreme “asking” to extreme “telling.” Sometimes a light touch is needed and a leader must influence by rational argument and evidence. At other times, the leader must get out in front and charge headfirst into enemy fire, hoping that the followers will follow. In some situations, leaders can ask for advice and get everyone to participate in problem solving and decision-making democratically. In others, the leader must be harsh and use threats and coercion to command obedience. It all depends on the leader’s objectives, the needs of the organization, the nature of the mission, and the skills, knowledge, attitudes, and emotional states of the followers. There is no magic recipe, and the more methods a leader has at her disposal to get others to follow her, the greater her range of effectiveness.

The final important element in this definition of leadership is that there is a mission. Leadership is only exercised in the context of some form of purpose or goal. If you’re just trying to influence others to like you or to hang out with you, there is nothing wrong with that. But that isn’t leadership. Leadership is goal-oriented.

© 2016 Richard Martin. Reproduction, forwarding and quotes permitted with proper attribution.

Note: Please contact me if you or anyone you know of is interested in publishing this series as a book (or in any other format). I can also provide a full book proposal and will refer you to my agent. This is from the Introduction of my series on leadership and leadership development, based on my experience as an army officer and over 10 years as a business and management consultant helping businesses and executives to thrive in the face of rapid change, risk, and uncertainty. It comes from a book I started to write two years ago. I’ve been posting the introductory chapter as a series on this blog, which you can consult at the following links:

Leadership is the same in the military, business… and hockey

What do I mean by leadership anyway?

Why is the military approach to leadership so powerful?

Chapter 1: Competence Is the Heart of Leadership

I have found over the years that the most influential and critical teachings in my development as a leader have come from watching, following, and learning from some of the most effective and inspirational leaders. You don’t know any of these people. However, I can say that they shaped my development as a leader in ways they probably can’t even imagine. They have given me the gift of example, guidance or critique at key junctures of my life and career(s). My aim with this book is to give you the same guidance, knowledge, and skills that I got as a developing leader throughout my adolescence, youth, military service, and business career. Some people are still important role models and influences even now, when I’m in my early fifties and enjoying a second career as an independent consultant, coach, speaker, and author.

I’ve structured the book around the ten leadership principles I learned as an officer in the Canadian Army. These military principles no doubt vary across the world, but I’m fairly certain that they nonetheless distill a common core of practical wisdom. I know these principles intimately, because—I often jokingly say—I’ve failed at every single one of them. But I can also assure you that I excelled as well. Sometimes I broke them intentionally, because I thought I could get away with it, but more often I broke them out of bad habits, lack of attention, or just plain foolishness. One thing I can say, however, is that they work, all the time, and in all circumstances. This means that you, dear reader, can also learn these principles.

Now you can incorporate this wisdom into your leadership and style. You may have an image of military leadership as harsh, direct, authoritarian, and prone to excessive rigidity and discipline. I’m not going to lie to you; military leadership can be all of those things. But military leadership is also about bringing out the best in people, forging them into a cohesive, unified, and inspired whole. You may be surprised to learn this, but I was taught that the need to fall back on authority was actually a failing. I therefore learned to rely on influence and inspiration rather than brute power. Military leadership can get people and teams to perform beyond expectations, in ways and conditions that the followers couldn’t even have imagined prior to undertaking a mission or task. Military leadership goes well beyond the transactional style of influence and basic forms of teamwork. It’s about creating an organic whole to survive and thrive in life threatening situations and that demand sacrifice, superb morale, and overcoming primal fears. Military leadership incorporates the best ways of transforming people, teams, and organizations.

© 2016 Richard Martin. Reproduction, forwarding and quotes permitted with proper attribution.

We seem to live in an era when words are more like bullets—a way to injure and defeat others, to get one’s own way—than a way to communicate in a genuine manner, seeking understanding, insight, and mutual respect.

As I write this, the Paris climate summit is underway. We have just about all the countries in the world represented and we’re told this is the “last chance” to “save the planet.” Last chance. Really? Save the planet? I would think the planet doesn’t need us to “save” it. But, like the gospel inspired song said of That Lucky Old Sun, the earth will surely go on rolling around heaven all day. We may be in danger of disrupting our habitat or of damaging it beyond repair (that remains to be seen), such that we, as a species might be endangered. However, a cursory review of earth’s evolution over geological eons will show that it’s been through much worse before and life has gone on.

The zeal with which enviro-enthusiasts (or should I say fascists?) are claiming that it’s our last chance to keep the planet’s temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees is more religious than scientific. The same can be said of the attempts to claim a scientific consensus, as if scientists all agree with everything that’s claimed about environmentalists.

There may be a scientific consensus about the law of gravity, or evolution through natural selection, because the empirical evidence is overwhelming in favour of those theories. I doubt there is even close to the same level of agreement within the climatological community, which is really the only one that counts scientifically. And yet we keep hearing that 95 % of scientists, or whatever the figure is, believe that global warming is a reality. That may be the case, but being a scientist doesn’t automatically qualify someone to judge the validity of scientific theories outside their field of expertise. Just talk to medical doctors with different specialties to see how divergent the knowledge, skills, and judgment are on any particular illness or condition to realize how important these specialized competencies are to coming to a proper diagnosis and prognosis, much less the best treatment plan.

I’m not necessarily a skeptic about climate change and human-caused warming. However, there has been too much environmental change over the eons on earth to claim any kind of stasis in the matter. After all, what caused the end of the most recent ice age 10 or 12 thousand years ago? Perhaps the woolly mammoths and giant ground sloths were expelling too much methane as they chewed their cud. And what caused the planet to plunge into a deep freeze 130 thousand years ago when the current ice age started?

On the other hand, I am a skeptic when it comes to claims that “the science is settled.” Moreover, I find the current climate (pun intended) against questioning this so called common sense consensus to be a dangerous trend. It’s also very convenient for those with a statist centralizing agenda who wish to restrain economic growth and capitalism, because they claim they are the cause of global warming, at least indirectly. How convenient that there be a such an apocalyptic menace for our collective well-being. Nothing less than total war is needed to combat impending doom. And in war, all manner of propaganda and control mechanisms are warranted to defeat the common enemy. Many of the poorest countries in the world are already clamoring for a transfer of wealth from the wealthy countries to pay for African wind farms and human scale solar power units. After all, nothing should be excluded in order to “save the planet,” because this is our “last best chance.” Once again, I’m not arguing against such a wealth transfer (although there are good arguments against one). But I don’t think that haranguing people into feeling guilty is the correct way to go about it.

The use of language as a weapon and words as bullets is just as pernicious in other areas. Activists—or should I say bullies—at the University of Ottawa have gotten management to discontinue free yoga lessons for handicapped people on the grounds that yoga is “cultural appropriation.” In other words, they claim that you can’t use any idea or activity that comes from another culture if that culture was at one time subjugated by another. Presumably, the reference is to British imperialism in India. Is it okay to have Indian cuisine, or Chinese food? Can we Zumba, or do the limbo? After all, they come from Latin America and the Caribbean, originally all slave societies.

Just to be egalitarian, I don’t think war mongers come off any better. The Islamist inspired attacks in Paris, the Middle East and anywhere else are horrible and the Jihadist threat must be met militarily and politically with appropriate means and strategy. But I don’t think we’re in a “war on terror” any more than we’re engaged in wars on inequality, cultural appropriation, climate change, or global capitalism.

Language and words should help us understand and think better, not separate us into sloganeering tribes with faith-based creeds and intolerant beliefs. After all, words aren’t bullets.

Richard Martin is The Force Multiplier. He brings his military and business leadership and management experience to bear for executives and organizations seeking to radically improve performance, grow, and thrive in the face of rapid change, harsh competition, and increasing uncertainty.

© 2015 Richard Martin. Reproduction and quotes are permitted with proper attribution.

The recent resignations of Martin Winterkorn as CEO of VW and Marcel Aubut as president of the Canadian Olympic Committee highlight the continuing need for leaders to lead by example.

I learned this as an officer in the Canadian military, through minor incidents involving me and major ones involving others. Unethical conduct always catches up to you, no matter what it is. What’s more, the leader sets the ethical tone of the entire organization. I call this “giving moral license.” If the top boss and, by extension, the other leaders within the “chain of command” give ethically ambiguous direction or a downright bad example, this gives a license to everyone else to act in the same ethically questionable or ambiguous manner. As I wrote in Brilliant Manoeuvres:

“The leader sets the tone for the entire organization by how he or she thinks, acts, speaks, and decides. If the leader is weak and indecisive, the whole organization will often be of the same complexion. If the leader acts ethically and with integrity, then this attitude will tend to permeate the organization. The leader gives a licence to his or her followers to think and perform in a certain way; so all actions and words must be assessed for their impact on followers, superiors, peers, and those the organization is meant to serve. In the final analysis, the leader must be worthy of the loyalty, confidence, and respect of followers, because they will mimic the leader’s performance.”

If you think that’s hard and demanding, then you’re right. But that’s what it means to be a leader!

I’m never too busy to discuss your needs or those of anyone else you feel may benefit from meeting or talking to me. So feel free to contact me at any time!

Richard Martin is The Force Multiplier. He brings his military and business leadership and management experience to bear for executives and organizations seeking to radically improve performance, grow, and thrive in the face of rapid change, harsh competition, and increasing uncertainty.

© 2015 Richard Martin. Reproduction and quotes are permitted with proper attribution.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation just released its report by an outside investigator into star radio host Jian Ghomeshi’s execrable behaviour. Beyond confirming that Ghomeshi was a class A a__hole, we’ve also learned that managers knew about it and did mostly… nothing.

This is not an HR problem. It’s a leadership problem, a management problem, an ethical problem! Leaders set the ethical tone of an organization. What they accept will be deemed acceptable; what they reject, will be deemed rejectable. Poor leadership breeds poor management and poor leadership, and it also breeds questionable actions.

I call this the “license principle.” Leaders provide a license for certain types of behaviour and attitudes, even if they don’t act that way themselves. Refusing to deal with a workplace bully like Ghomeshi just because he’s a star provides a license to others to act in the same manner and fails to protect those that are the target of the bully’s ire.

A fundamental leadership principle that I learned in the Army requires that leaders care for the welfare of subordinates and followers. CBC management failed in this mission while tacitly encouraging bullying and favouratism.

Richard Martin is The Force Multiplier. He brings his military and business leadership and management experience to bear for executives and organizations seeking to radically improve performance, grow, and thrive in the face of rapid change, harsh competition, and increasing uncertainty. 

© 2015 Richard Martin. Reproduction and quotes are permitted with proper attribution.

One of the most important lessons I learned as a young army officer was that it’s more important to give followers what they need than what they want. Yes, it can be good to offer rewards and compliments. But it’s much more critical that followers and others under a leader’s authority receive what they need. And what they need is solid, competent leadership; a realistic understanding of the situation, including opportunities, threats, strengths, AND weaknesses; honest feedback to improve and change for the better; and, finally, resolve and resilience.

However, this philosophy doesn’t just apply to leadership. It is also fundamental to the client relationship. We’ve all heard the bromide to the effect that the “customer is always right.” Well, actually, no! The customer isn’t always right. Imagine going to see a dentist and saying, “I don’t want that cavity filled because it might hurt too much.” We all have to hear and undergo something unpleasant or disruptive at some point, even if we’re the customer. The provider’s job is to give sound advice that is in the client’s best interest, even if the latter doesn’t like to hear it. And that takes leadership, too!

Richard Martin is The Force Multiplier. He brings his military and business leadership and management experience to bear for executives and organizations seeking to radically improve performance, grow, and thrive in the face of rapid change, harsh competition, and increasing uncertainty.

© 2015 Richard Martin. Reproduction and quotes are permitted with proper attribution.

Every once in a while we’re faced with highly emotional reactions to risky situations. The “lone wolf” attacks perpetrated in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Ottawa on Canadian state institutions (i.e., soldiers and Parliament) last week fall into this category, as does the Ebola outbreak in western Africa. Yet, if you watch the news and read newspapers, you’d think we’re under attack!

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that the Ebola crisis in Africa isn’t dangerous and a major catastrophe, or that the terrorist threat isn’t real. But we have to keep things in perspective.

So far, a few people have contracted Ebola in North America and Europe. They have all been people who have been in prolonged bodily contact with infected victims in Africa, or who have treated these people. From what I gather, the non-Africans are also all health care workers. A few have survived, although we don’t know yet what, if any long-term consequences there will be on their health.

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) deem that a quarantine system is not needed, based on scientific opinion. Meanwhile, some states (e.g. New Jersey) have chosen to impose their own quarantine rules, overriding the considered evaluation of the CDC. The CDC is basing its recommendations on a scientific, rational assessment. I’m not sure the states and various schools that have reacted emotionally are doing the same thing. The science could be wrong, but at least it’s based on rational assessment of the risks and threat, not just emotional reaction. It’s therefore subject to updating as more empirical evidence is gathered and as the theoretical understanding of the disease progresses. Moreover, where does the epidemiological know how reside, in the CDC, or a handful of much smaller and less capable state and municipal agencies?

Whenever we face a potential health crisis, such as a pandemic or epidemic, it’s normal to assess the threats and risks and take preventive or compensatory action. On the other hand, we have to keep the threat in perspective. Every year, thousands of parents refuse to have their children inoculated against common diseases. Whether we’re talking about measles or smallpox, the risks of infection and mortality vary. The common element is that this stupid attitude toward proven measures for preventing and containing these diseases has enabled a periodic resurgence of measles, pertussis (whooping cough), etc. And, we’ve been lucky that smallpox has not come back in strength.

Here’s the thing, though: measles and pertussis can actually kill people, especially the weakest, and that usually means children. So, on the one hand we have an overreaction to Ebola by state and municipal authorities in the US (and no doubt other countries), while some people are too fearful or pigheaded to take active measures such as allowing vaccinations for their children. Not only does this put their own children at risk, but it reduces the overall “herd immunity” of a population. This is required to protect those for whom vaccination doesn’t work no matter what. If you doubt this, I invite you to watch a recent episode of PBS’s Nova science documentary on vaccination panics in the US. You can watch it online.

There is also a lack of perspective on the terrorism threat, and we need a balanced and reasoned approach to the risks of what are known as “lone wolf” terrorists. This isn’t a new threat, or proper to Islamic extremism. There have always been crackpots with various motivations, be they environmentalists ready to spike trees in order to injure forestry workers or Jewish ultra-orthodox extremists willing to blow themselves up in Jerusalem. We also need to keep in mind that terrorism and urban guerrilla are the strategy of the weak. As I wrote in my book, Brilliant Manoeuvres, it “stems from a realization the force one is commanding is incapable of highly coordinated, and highly damaging offensive action.” Security consultancy and analysis firm STRATFOR points out that the “lone wolf” approach to Jihadism is actually mostly a failure for extremist Muslims intending on creating havoc in the West. It comes from a realization that they are unable to launch destructive and coordinated attacks without exposing themselves to extreme risks of mission failure.

When a crisis hits, it’s time to think, even if hastily, not to panic and run around responding to popular appeals to “do something, anything.” We often have to weigh a range of unsavoury options in order to select and implement a “least bad” solution. The danger with overreacting to terrorism is that we impose so many restrictions on civil liberties and access to democratic institutions that the terrorists get a political and social response that is out of all proportion to the actual risks.

When we’re talking about health risks, the danger is that we overreact while we ignore or tolerate much more damning behaviours in our own back yard. Reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate contagion from Africa are one thing. But meanwhile, there are incipient outbreaks of easily preventable and controllable diseases right here, and they don’t come from Africa.

Richard Martin is a Master Strategist and Leadership Catalyst. Richard brings his military and business leadership and management experience to bear for executives and organizations seeking to radically improve performance, grow, and thrive in the face of rapid change, harsh competition, and increasing uncertainty.

© 2014 Richard Martin. Reproduction and quotes are permitted with proper attribution.

If the leader is weak and indecisive, the whole organization will often be of the same complexion. If the leader acts ethically and with integrity, then this attitude will tend to permeate the organization.

The leader gives a license to his or her followers to think and perform in a certain way; so all actions and words must be assessed for their impact on followers, superiors, peers, and those the organization is meant to serve. In the final analysis, the leader must be worthy of the loyalty, confidence, and respect of followers, because they will mimic the leader’s performance.

  • Examine your speech, decisions, actions, and performance from the perspective of others, especially your followers.
  • What do you think they expect in a leader?
  • What do they need in a leader?
  • Have you ever said one thing but done the opposite?
  • Why did you do so?
  • How could you have avoided it?
  • What will you do to avoid it in the future?

Richard Martin is a Master Strategist and Leadership Catalyst. Richard brings his military and business leadership and management experience to bear for executives and organizations seeking to radically improve performance, grow, and thrive in the face of rapid change, harsh competition, and increasing uncertainty.

© 2014 Richard Martin. Reproduction and quotes are permitted with proper attribution.

I’ve been an independent consultant for eight years now. One of the deepest insights I’ve gained, from my own experience and that of helping others is the unerring value of self-esteem.

Self-esteem is the profound belief, faith even, that we are worthwhile individuals and that we have something of value to contribute to others and to the wider world. Unfortunately, many people confuse the belief in one’s unconditional worth and value with the belief that one should be beyond criticism or sheltered from opposition, difficulty, or even enmity.

An acquaintance of mine has been struggling for years with the idea of writing a book. He has—falsely in my estimation—focused on researching the topic to death and developing the ideas of others. If he had just written the book based on what he knows about the topic he would probably have published it by now and started drawing the benefits of having done so. He thinks he has a writing problem and frames his situation in that way. I’ve suggested to him that what he really has is a self-esteem issue. He thinks that he needs to rely on the ideas of others in order to be taken seriously as an author and expert on his topic of choice.

To quote Isaac Newton, we all “stand on the shoulders of giants.” That’s okay, and we should always acknowledge the sources of our ideas and contributions of others. But when that becomes an excuse to put off accomplishing what we truly want, it’s not simply a technical problem. It’s a self-esteem problem.

I’ve often been surprised in working with executives and companies that a lot of their problems stem from low self-esteem, or at least a lack of self-confidence and self-recognition of their unique value. I was doing a project with a professional service company. We were discussing ways of increasing the value—and fees—they could be charging their clients. When I broached the topic of moving from simply providing ready-made information and executing client-defined mandates, to knowledge- and wisdom-based interventions, the members of the group were visibly ill at ease.

When I inquired as to the nature of their discomfort, they told me straight out they didn’t think they could do it, and that besides their clients would never pay for that. They said they could never venture outside the beaten path of how things are done in their industry. It reminded me of the Simpsons episode when Marge washes Homer’s white shirts with the reds, and they come out pink. Marge tells Homer she thinks he looks good in pink, and that he looks different. But he tells her that he can’t risk being different because he’s not popular enough.

As my mentor, Alan Weiss, always says, “You can’t ask others to believe in your value unless you first believe it yourself.” Value is largely a psychological phenomenon. Can we honestly say a $100 thousand Mercedes is worth three times as much as a $30 thousand dollar Toyota (or whatever)? Not objectively at least. The value is in the perception and the branding. Before someone accuses me of not recognizing the workmanship and styling and performance of a Mercedes, I’ll say right away that these are objective qualities. However, there is also a unique, subjective qualitative difference. Technical know-how and proficiency are definitely a source of the Mercedes brand, but so is the self-esteem of the company, its management, and its employees. Moreover, customers acquire Mercedes’s cars because of that perception.

The exercise of sound leadership implies risk-taking and decision-making. This also entails a need for strong self-esteem. If you’re in front and leading, seeking to influence others and giving your view of things, then you will necessarily be criticized and occasionally opposed. You can’t lead if you don’t have the self-esteem to weather its inevitable ups and downs. By extension, leadership is founded on respect. We think of respect for the leader, but that also includes respect of others in general. To lead people you have to respect them enough to give them information, to explain the situation, to let them use their creativity and initiative, and to develop them so they can shine and eventually step into your shoes.

As you can see, self-esteem is not just some ethereal quality suitable only for preschoolers. If we want to take risks in life—And can we really avoid them?—then we require self-esteem. We must believe in our powers and abilities, and be willing to take a chance on them. We must have faith that others want and value our products and services and contributions. Otherwise, we get lost in the pack with no perception of difference and competitive advantage. We also fail to make our best contribution.

Richard Martin is The Master Strategist and Leadership Catalyst. Richard brings his military and business leadership and management experience to bear for executives and organizations seeking to radically improve performance, grow, and thrive in the face of rapid change, harsh competition, and increasing uncertainty.

© Alcera Consulting Inc. 2014. We encourage the sharing of this information and forwarding of this email with attribution. All other rights reserved.