New Paragraph

Leading Change: A changing world without strong leadership is like ship without a rudder
August 26, 2024

In my recent article Change causes fear and fear causes stress – and we’re all feeling it, I spoke of the massive and continuous change to our environment on a number of fronts, including technological, political, pandemic impacts, economic, world conflicts and public safety. I also suggested that our “leaders”, that being a number of elected officials, company and agency executives and more, are not leading effectively to get us all through these challenging times.


So, what are my and your expectations of these ‘leaders’ (or at times – ‘pseudo-leaders’) and what should we see an feel in them to develop our trust that they will collectively lead us through to better days, or at minimum help us more effectively adapt to an ongoing changing world or individual crises?


I repeatedly claim that “Leadership is leadership”, regardless of profession or sector. In business, government, military, emergency response, public service or not-for-profit. True “leaders” are going to get people through the tough times and help them celebrate the good times.


A leader is someone who always puts the good of the people he or she leads and serves before any personal needs or agenda. That of course applies to every decision leaders make, which must always be in the best interests of “the people”. Decisions, strategies and actions should never be about making the leaders themselves look good. They have to make decisions based on what is best for others, as opposed to what will advance their personal agendas or feed their egos.


Through their words and actions, true leaders inspire all of those around them to do and be their very best. They communicate effectively, respectfully and listen to the suggestions and feedback of others. When things go bad, they take the blame and don’t throw others under the bus. When things go well, they pass on the credit – letting the light shine on those they have the honour to lead.


Is this what we are seeing from our leaders? No. Far from it in some cases I’m afraid.


From the employee perspective, they see many so-called leaders as “bosses”. A “boss” – not a leader, is routinely described as a master, a controller and a manipulator. That’s not what building trust is about and certainly does not pull a team together to work hard to accomplish common goals. Sadly, we still see that in some.


Communication is key. It should be a demonstrative continuum of honesty, ethical behaviour, integrity, open and respectful dialogue, finding happy mediums in difficult times and people working together to do the right things for the right reasons. It should also be about learning from what has happened but focusing on moving forward and making things better for all.


Successful leaders communicate regularly and consistently. People don’t want to hear nonsensical claims and rose-colored glasses promises. They want and need to hear the facts; what the leader is doing to get them through the mess; and what they as citizens (and/or employees) can do to help.


It should never be about personal agendas and partisanship, or protective mistruths. And it should never include infantile name-calling and belittling attacks on others. Disagreement should never result in divisive discourse – politically or in any environment. That is totally unhealthy.


It’s critical that leaders build and maintain trust. Trust is a fragile commodity which is difficult to gain and can be lost in a nanosecond. It is normally developed over time, through day-to-day interaction, in relatively normal situations and not when the chips are down. That trust will pay enormous dividends in difficult times, but without developing it prior to, when the poop hits the proverbial fan, it will be too late.


Our leaders must set a positive personal example at all times. That includes in their private lives. A leader can say and do all the right things publicly, but if their personal life is a train-wreck, they will lose credibility. Integrity is key and wannabe leaders without it will fail themselves and us.


Instilling optimism in people that feel threatened and/or vulnerable isn’t easy. But as a leader, that should be a priority. How and when they communicate – including listening to criticism and suggestions; building trust by creating that environment where people know they have our best interests at heart, is paramount.


In this digital era, there are many ways to communicate – email, phone, video, etc., and leaders should use them all to capture all audiences, but they should never overlook the need for some face time. People need to look into their leader’s eyes on occasion to close the circle of trust.


In the 1800’s, the 6th President of the United States, John Quincy Adams said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” Our modern leaders need to get with that 200-year-old program.


Too many of them have missed the memo.

___________________________________________________________

With excerpts from: Never Stop on a Hill; Crisis Communications; What has happened to true “leadership” in Canadian politics?; Donald J. Trump: Leader or Boss? All by Chris D. Lewis

 

By Chris Lewis January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.
By Chris Lewis December 28, 2024
Violent Crime Remains High
By Chris Lewis December 20, 2024
$1.3 billion is a lot of money, but it’s nothing more than a good start.
Share by: