Personal Strength

In their extensive study Leadership that Works, Barbara Wheeler, C. Douglass Lewis, Sharon Miller, Anthony Ruger and David Tiede, set out to discover “…the ingredients of executive leadership that make institutions both durable—as in fit for the long haul—and visionary—that is, moving forward in ways the future is likely to require (1).” Though this study focused exclusively on leadership within theological institutions, their findings are pertinent to effective leaders in all organizations, particularly those organizations that are navigating a new and challenging future. Surprisingly, Wheeler et. al., discovered that character is a better predictor of executive leaders’ success than credentials and interview performance. The author’s discovered four common character traits within leadership that “…creates the conditions for institutional stability, productivity, and creativity (2).” The first of these character traits is what the authors’ refer to as “personal strength.”

#1: Personal Strength

What do the author’s mean by personal strength? Is it the ability to bench press 300 pounds? Is it the ability to bend the will of subordinates to achieve one’s own point of view? Or is it something else entirely?

As part of a leader’s character, personal strength is required to do the job well, and it is two-sided. First, there are the visible markers of strength that include powerful intelligence, confidence, persuasiveness, and persistence. These markers develop over time through a combination of formal and informal preparation.

For example, I vividly remember a moment in a graduate school seminar where, after a particularly brutal berating by the professor, at least half of my classmates exited the seminar in tears, and some never fully recovered; their intellectual self-confidence had been damaged by public humiliation. Curiously, the other half of the class seemed to be relatively unaffected. Yes, the professor’s demeanor perturbed us, but the event was received as one more experience on a rather long journey. So why is there such a difference in response?

My hunch is that many people can point to similar events in their own lives; deciding moments where the proverbial “bully” is either confronted or avoided. For some, that “bully” may be a particularly vexing mathematical theorem; while for others it may be a life-threatening disease or a seemingly overwhelming life experience. In any event, the “bully” can’t be ignored; it must either be confronted or avoided.

Over time, built to change leaders learn to confront the “bully” which simply means that they develop a kind of tenacity or drive to persist, even in the face of difficulty or discouragement. [bctt tweet=”Over time, built to change leaders learn to develop a drive to persist, even in the face of difficulty.” via=”no”]

But the author’s also point to an invisible marker of strength, which they describe as “…firmness and the capacity to withstand criticism (4).” Paraphrasing the authors, every leader eventually finds himself or herself in a situation where the right answer is “No” and where that response will disappoint and sometimes even anger some powerful constituency group or individual.

Leaders whose self-esteem depends upon consistent affirmation from those they are privileged to lead, and who shy away from the tougher decisions that sometimes end in “No” will not, over time, facilitate the creation of a healthy organization. [bctt tweet=”Leaders whose self-esteem depends upon consistent affirmation, will not create a healthy organization.” via=”no”]

In American history, one of the best illustrations of personal strength can be found in the person of President Harry Truman. Truman was the undercard Vice-President of FDR’s fourth presidential term. Whereas Franklin Roosevelt was larger than life and had led the country through the Depression and most of World War II, Harry Truman was a relatively obscure senator from Missouri.

He had failed in business, talked a little funny, was awkward in public, and was widely perceived to be under the control of his state’s political machine. But FDR died unexpectedly, and without so much as a meeting with his superior and in a matter of just a few months, Harry Truman became President of the United States.

During his presidency, Truman executed two of the most consequential decisions ever made by the country’s chief executive. He approved unleashing the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan which led to the end of the War, and he fired General Douglas Macarthur who, at the time, was one of the three most well-respected and beloved military leaders in our country’s history.

Truman also helped found the United Nations and passed the Marshall Plan which put a beleaguered and war-torn Europe back together. To this day, historians debate the merits of these decisions and the effectiveness of Truman’s presidency; however, by the time he died in 1972, Harry Truman was widely regarded as one of the strongest leaders to have ever served as President.

So what is personal strength? It is powerful intelligence, confidence, persuasiveness, and persistence, along with firmness and the capacity to withstand criticism, and it’s an essential ingredient to a leader’s character. [bctt tweet=”Personal strength is confidence, persuasiveness, persistence, & the capacity to withstand criticism.” via=”no”]