# Does Character Matter?



## pbi (3 Nov 2013)

How much separation is there between the public role of a leader such as a politician, a general, or a CEO, and the way he conducts his personal life? Does the character of a public figure affect his suitability to do his duties, elected or appointed?

If we take the French (France not PQ),  point of view it probably doesn't matter at all. What is a French politician if he hasn't had at least one affair, or been involved in at least one scandal?

If, on the other hand, we take the point of view that is often prevalent in the US, then the character and behaviour of a public figure can be big news, and often the source of argument over  an individual's suitability for office. These arguments can range from the significant to the ridiculous (ie: President Obama putting Dijon mustard on his red hot instead of good old American mustard).

I'm raising this as a result of the Mayor Ford saga, although my question is only about him in passing. What I have noticed (most recently in a Globe and Mail article on Friday 02 November) is that many of the mayor's defenders (the "Ford Nation" folks) have stated very clearly that his personal behaviours don't concern them, even if  they become quite public. Some folks on this site have posted similar opinions. This leads to my question.

The bar seems to be set at " is he a convicted criminal, or not?", with the implication being that as long as person hasn't been found guilty of anything, they are suitable to hold positions of responsibility. Is this right?

I don't know exactly where the line is. I'm not sure, for example, that somebody should be removed from office because they had an extramarital affair that doesn't involve anybody at the office.  On the other hand, I tend to believe that if a person consistently demonstrates poor judgement in their private behaviour, and clear weaknesses in their character, then they should probably be removed from their position whether or not they have committed any crime.

I use the military as an example. It isn't necessary to commit a criminal offence to be removed from a position of trust, responsibility and power: all that is required is reasonable grounds to doubt the person's suitability to hold the position. The military draws a very clear  line between the consequences of violating the Code of Service Discipline, and the consequences of unacceptable behaviour.

Is that yardstick applicable to public figures outside the military? Should public leaders be held to a higher standard than Joe Citizen? Or is there a "fence" between character/behaviour and suitability for office?


----------



## Transporter (3 Nov 2013)

To me, character pretty much matters above all else... but maybe I'm old school.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Nov 2013)

An untrustworthy person is unsuited to govern, or hold authority over, others.

Examples of untrustworthiness: breaking vows or oaths, betraying trust, lying.

I do not follow the French model.  A person who betrays his most intimate partner in the pursuit of pleasure might betray any interests for any reason to serve himself.  Adultery should be grounds for immediate removal from military or public service.


----------



## mariomike (3 Nov 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I do not follow the French model.  A person who betrays his most intimate partner in the pursuit of pleasure might betray any interests for any reason to serve himself.  Adultery should be grounds for immediate removal from military or public service.



Reminds me of a famous quote of President Truman, "If a man lies to his wife, he will lie to me.  And if he’ll break his oath of marriage, he’ll break his oath of office.” 



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> The bar seems to be set at " is he a convicted criminal, or not?", with the implication being that as long as person hasn't been found guilty of anything, they are suitable to hold positions of responsibility. Is this right?



"How far should high standards of professional conduct apply when employees are off duty?"
http://www.hrreporter.com/blog/employment-law/archive/2013/04/22/professional-conduct-outside-of-profession

This was a City of Toronto employee, not a politician. No charges were ever laid.


----------



## Lightguns (4 Nov 2013)

"I'm raising this as a result of the Mayor Ford saga, although my question is only about him in passing. What I have noticed (most recently in a Globe and Mail article on Friday 02 November) is that many of the mayor's defenders (the "Ford Nation" folks) have stated very clearly that his personal behaviours don't concern them, even if  they become quite public. Some folks on this site have posted similar opinions. This leads to my question."

Yet you do not raise the moral issue a police chief who uses evidence to pay politics?  I am not a Torontoian or even a Ford Nation type but I am concerned when a uniformed civil servant uses his office to effect an outcome in political sphere.  Fantino's man is definitely Fantino's man.  Has Canada become Chile or Argentina?  Character does matter and neither character in this latest melodrama has any.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> An untrustworthy person is unsuited to govern, or hold authority over, others.
> 
> Examples of untrustworthiness: breaking vows or oaths, betraying trust, lying.
> 
> I do not follow the French model.  A person who betrays his most intimate partner in the pursuit of pleasure might betray any interests for any reason to serve himself.  Adultery should be grounds for immediate removal from military or public service.




I am, very much, of two minds ...

Did Lord Nelson's not so private, personal, peccadilloes‎ with Lady Hamilton make him any less a brilliant and trusted military commander? No, I suggest, it was quite irrelevant to his commanders, especially John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent, and to his sovereign. Nelson was the best admiral they had, no one, except a lickspittle media, cared about his _affairs_ ~ but the media cared a lot. (Ditto for Wellington, by the way.)






Nelson meets Lady Hamilton by C L Doughty

What about William Pitt, the Younger. In his biography British Foreign Secretary William Hague suggests that Pitt was a homosexual when such conduct was anathema in the country he led. I would argue that Pitt the Younger was one of the greatest men of the millennium, not just his century, and that his private, personal life ~ and even failings, if you want ~ are quite irrelevant. The media of the day fanned the flames of rumours about Pitt's private live ~ hoping, I think, to "bag" a great man. 






But Mayor Ford has crossed a line: he has _paraded_ his personal failimngs on public, while "on duty," at official functions.

And, further, I note that some politicians, including Prime Minister Harper, eschew alcohol. Are they, were they "problem drinkers," as Mayor Ford appears to be? No, they avoid alcohol because they, and their advisors/handlers know that any alcohol induced "slip" can have grave political consequences and they are _morally_ strong enough to pay the small price that political success demands.

I am a bit baffled, however, by the fact ~ and it is a fact, it's a plain as the nose on your face ~ that Mayor Ford's failings are _national_ and _international_ news while the much, much more serious, criminal failings of various and sundry mayors and officials in Quebec were, largely reported on with a shrug.

And, by the way, given my extreme dislike of Pierre Trudeau, I can report that I was not bothered about his reported affairs with e.g. Liona Boyd _et al_.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Nov 2013)

Thomas Jefferson allegedly had affairs with his slaves.  Benjamin Franklin was a reputed alcoholic and philanderer.  Sir John A. McDonald and Ralph Klein were well known alchoholics.  Obviously shortcoming in character aren't always relevant to the ability to be a successful politician.  Crossing the line into criminal behaviour is another matter, and as ER Campbell has noted several Quebec mayors have been charged convicted criminally and another one in London is currently on trial, yet we aren't really hearing about all that.  

The media is having a field day with Ford's character and "alleged" offences, but where were they when his adversary in the election basically invited them to tear his life apart.  Smitherman ADMITTED to being an ADICT for several YEARS, to an undisclosed narcotic.  And yet NO ONE looked into this any further, was it during his time in office, before then, how much did he use, WHAT did he use, whom did he use it with, how did he get it etc.   Basing compentency on someones character is not particularly useful, if you aren't going to be consistent in your application, which is something the media and by extension the public are routinely guilty of.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2013)

Perhaps many of the folks mentioned are flying under the radar because they do not have a weekly radio Talk Show with their brother, another member of city council.


----------



## Remius (4 Nov 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The media is having a field day with Ford's character and "alleged" offences, but where were they when his adversary in the election basically invited them to tear his life apart.  Smitherman ADMITTED to being an ADICT for several YEARS, to an undisclosed narcotic.  And yet NO ONE looked into this any further, was it during his time in office, before then, how much did he use, WHAT did he use, whom did he use it with, how did he get it etc.   Basing compentency on someones character is not particularly useful, if you aren't going to be consistent in your application, which is something the media and by extension the public are routinely guilty of.



The media is having a field day, even media that supported him.  Maybe in Smitherman's case, he managed the issue much better exactly by admitting he had a problem.  In the cases of the Quebec mayors, charges have been laid, story gets told but there is just no more story to tell.  Ford, likely because of his personality (both a strength and a weakness) he's getting more press, but also the story hasn't totally unfolded since there are many unanswered questions the story keeps going and the media keeps digging.

I think for Ford supporters (Ford nation), they want to see proof, real proof.  Until then they won't care and will forgive what they see as his bombastic personality coming to the fore, for which he is well known for.  Another word we see bandied about is "Due process" in which we are also see be used in the case of three disgraced senators.  I've noticed in a lot of right wing media, people are in fact calling for due process in both Mayor Ford and in the case of the three senators.  Fairly consistant.  But on the left side of things, we see accusations of unfairness and not following due process for the senators and calls for removing the mayor without due cause, sometimes even on the same news page...  

For others, his character goes to the core of the problem.  Public displays, shady characters and envelope's in the night in parking lots.  No proof, but a lot of circumstantial evidence.

Either way, the man is pretty resiliant.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Nov 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Maybe in Smitherman's case, he managed the issue much better exactly by admitting he had a problem.


  But in his case it wasn't a full admission, he quite deliberately left out a lot of details, some of the very same details the media/public are now demanding of Ford.  As I said if you aren't going to be consistent in how you use a person's character to judge their effectiveness, then you are a hypocrite plain and simple.  I don't support drug use or people who use them plain and simple, and my support for the mayor is about as wide as a hair at this point, the breaking point will be if/when this video become public.  One of the bigger reasons I didn't support Smitherman (among the many) was his less than total honesty about his own use.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Nov 2013)

I suppose an important factor to be weighed is whether the character failing is well-known and openly acknowledged and accepted, or is potential leverage.


----------



## Remius (4 Nov 2013)

And that is part of the problem when using character to judge effectiveness. In some cases we are willing to forgive someone or even overlook their issues based on likability or political bias.

I've voted both liberal and conservative.  I voted conservative in 2006 exactly because I was disgusted with lies and scandal and yes heavy handness.  Something I'm having a hard time with when it comes to the CPC because I feel I have to hold them to what I held the liberals to.  Character plays a role despite effectiveness.  The morning talk show (it is a pro CPC station) here had a commentator on who stated that if you reversed the roles and put JT in the PM's shoe, the CPC base would be infuriated with the way things were handled.  There is nothing wrong with critising one's team, but still supporting what the team stands for.  

But I find the PMs character to be above board despite all of the current shenanigans.  But i don't feel too good about how he's handled it but that's just political arm chairing.

In Mayor Ford's case, people will support him no matter what and some will go after him no matter what.  Character or not, as a person's politics can be incredibly polarising.

A more fluffy example is Justin Bieber (yep, I'm bringing him into this).  His die hard fans will forgive anything this guys does.  But some will find any reason to try and bring him down even for minor indiscretions simply because he is who he is.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Nov 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> *And that is part of the problem when using character to judge effectiveness. In some cases we are willing to forgive someone or even overlook their issues based on likability or political bias.*



Bingo.  Which is why barring the person doing something criminal, I try to keep my judgements limited to/based on their job performance.  Anyone who is shocked and appalled at Ford's behaviour/character (excluding the crack stuff), is slightly deluded.  It's not like he suddenly morphed into a real life Homer Simpson/Peter Griffin, he was always like that.  I think what has shocked and engraged certain people is he is an everyman shlub, who against odds and logic, got into a postion of power. 

But to not totally dominate this with Ford talk, and keep it on track, Jack Layton was given a pass, and is pratically venerated as a saint, despite some VERY questionable behaviour , IE getting caught in a rub and tug...."I didn't know what goes on in here officer, it was my first time".....sure   :, living in social housing with his wife while both were city councillors.  In fact I clearly recall The Sun was the only outlet that brought these up during the last election, and many people called it a low blow to impugne his character like that... : :


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2013)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Yet you do not raise the moral issue a police chief who uses evidence to pay politics?  I am not a Torontoian or even a Ford Nation type but I am concerned when a uniformed civil servant uses his office to effect an outcome in political sphere.  Fantino's man is definitely Fantino's man.  Has Canada become Chile or Argentina?  Character does matter and neither character in this latest melodrama has any.



No, I specifically did not, because I didn't see the Chief's actions in the light of my question.  I differ very clearly from your view of this: I see that the Chief's actions probably demonstrate strength of character in a manner of "speaking truth to power", and in this case raising reasonable doubt about the suitability of an important elected official. 

I'm not clear how the Chief is making any political mileage for himself (or his service), least of all with Fantino who is a Tory cabinet minister and belongs to a party whose senior leadership has quite blatantly aligned itself with the Mayor.  I don't know what the Chief's political alignment is, but I suspect that like most senior folks in the police service he tends towards the (small-c) conservative end of things. He also defended the Mayor during Rob Ford's train smash with the 911 operators, so it can go both ways.

We could also ask what the reaction might have been if Chief Blair had *failed *to report on similar behaviour by a different politician (pick one....). Would he be accused of playing politics by "covering up?"

But that said, fine. Fair is fair: let's throw the Chief into the question pot too. Do his actions demonstrate a lack of character and unfitness for his job? At what point is it the duty of a public servant to come forward and advise the public of questionable behaviour by an important figure?


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Crossing the line into criminal behaviour is another matter, and as ER Campbell has noted several Quebec mayors have been charged convicted criminally and another one in London is currently on trial, yet we aren't really hearing about all that.



Actually, I read about it and hear about it quite regularly on the CBC (suprise, surprise!!) . That's how I found out about Joe Fontana in London. There has been detailed coverage on both issues, as there was last year when the Mayor of Ottawa was under a cloud.  It seems a bit disingenuous for Ford and his supporters to claim themselves as the only ones to ever get "beaten up" by the press.

For a different way of conducting yourself, look at the Provincial Tory boss. Tim Hudak is a pretty outspoken conservative, both small "c" and big "C". How come the media doesn't have his behaviour for lunch? Could it be that Mr Hudak behaves himself and doesn't hand them raw material on a silver platter, on a weekly basis?


----------



## Remius (4 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> But that said, fine. Fair is fair: let's throw the Chief into the question pot too. Do his actions demonstrate a lack of character and unfitness for his job? At what point is it the duty of a public servant to come forward and advise the public of questionable behaviour by an important figure?



Well, i think the Chief bringing the issue to light is fine.  Yes, the video exists and is part of an investigation.  End state.  Where I think he screwed up was providing his opinion on the matter.  That as a citizen he was disapointed.  NOT his place to make that kind of statement given his position.  But he's taking heat for it now.


----------



## Sythen (4 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> I don't know exactly where the line is. I'm not sure, for example, that somebody should be removed from office[...]



No one should be able to be removed from office, unless they break the law. This is a democracy. Simply because you do not like someone, or their hobbies, does not mean you can undermine my vote with your drama. This in why I do not care what Ford, or anyone else, does in their private time. If the voters care, they will vote him out. If not, the courts need to stay the hell out of it.


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> But to not totally dominate this with Ford talk, and keep it on track, Jack Layton was given a pass, and is pratically venerated as a saint, despite some VERY questionable behaviour , IE getting caught in a rub and tug...."I didn't know what goes on in here officer, it was my first time".....sure   :, living in social housing with his wife while both were city councillors.  In fact I clearly recall The Sun was the only outlet that brought these up during the last election, and many people called it a low blow to impugne his character like that... : :



I agree with you. I found his sainthood was a bit strange, given the fairly widely circulated stories that you recalled. That said, IMHO we would have a hard time denying that he was an "effective" politician: he pulled off an electoral victory that I never would have thought possible.

I think we have to be careful about basing *our* judgement on the importance of character, on the feelings of any particular politician's hard core supporters. These people will always see a saint where the rest of us see a devil: to do otherwise might be to call their entire belief system (not to mention their own gullibility) into question.


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2013)

Sythen said:
			
		

> No one should be able to be removed from office, unless they break the law. This is a democracy. Simply because you do not like someone, or their hobbies, does not mean you can undermine my vote with your drama. This in why I do not care what Ford, or anyone else, does in their private time. If the voters care, they will vote him out. If not, the courts need to stay the hell out of it.



I'm not sure what the courts have to do with his personal behaviour, which is really what my question is about. They will have lots to do with any criminal behaviour that is proven, (if any ever is), but we clearly aren't there yet. Maybe we will never be. And anyway, AFAIK an actual criminal conviction would result in removal from office.

I'm thinking more of recall procedures such as exist in some states in the US, where based on certain criteria an elected official can be removed from office. I'm not 100% clear on how these work, but I believe they require some combination of a vote in state legislature/city council, and/or a referendum to the voters. Those are both in keeping with democratic principles, I think.

I took the following from the website of the US "National Council of State Legislatures" at  http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/initiative-referendum-and-recall-overview.aspx  :



> ...a procedure that allows citizens to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office. Recall differs from another method for removing officials from office – impeachment – in that it is a political device while impeachment is a legal process. Impeachment requires the House to bring specific charges and the Senate to act as a jury. In most of the recall states, specific grounds are not required, and the recall of a state official is by an election. Eighteen states permit the recall of state officials. A recent, high-profile example of the recall process was the recall of California Governor Gray Davis and his replacement with Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003.



From what I can see, recall allows voters to deal with issues that are short of actual criminal charges, but still sufficiently important to raise reasonable doubts about suitability.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> No, I specifically did not, because I didn't see the Chief's actions in the light of my question.  I differ very clearly from your view of this: I see that the Chief's actions probably demonstrate strength of character in a manner of "speaking truth to power", and in this case raising reasonable doubt about the suitability of an important elected official.


In Canada though it is not the place of the Chief of Police to pass judgements or make statements about the behaviour of elected officials, unless of course they are going to charge them with an actual crime.  For the Chief to put it out the video "exsists" using a stream of legal double speak, but then refuse to allow others to view the video, because it's involved in matter before the courts is improper.  ESPECIALLY if they don't have enough evidence to charge the mayor with a crime.  



> I'm not clear how the Chief is making any political mileage for himself (or his service),


 Really???  I guess you weren't paying attention all those times during each round of budget negotiations, when the Mayor refused to cave into the Blair's budget demands.  Considering budget season is right around the corner the timing of this statement is well suspect. 



> Fair is fair: let's throw the Chief into the question pot too. Do his actions demonstrate a lack of character and unfitness for his job? At what point is it the duty of a public servant to come forward and advise the public of questionable behaviour by an important figure?



When it comes to law enforcement they shouldn't be getting involved in the political world, unless they intend to bring charges forward (or the opposite, say no charges are pending).  Beyond that it isn't their place to comment or pass judgement.  In this particular instance, as a few commentators have noted, because of their past "difficulties"  Blair should have had another agency take the lead, to ensure their were no issues or conflict of interest.  At this point given Ford is refusing to step aside, and Blair isn't charging him with anything, it's going to make their meetings during the budget fairly interesting.


----------



## Sythen (4 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what the courts have to do with his personal behaviour, which is really what my question is about. They will have lots to do with any criminal behaviour that is proven, (if any ever is), but we clearly aren't there yet.



In your original post, it asks if someone should be able to be removed from an elected position. The answer is no, unless they break the law. Democracy chooses who is in charge, not some one elses "sensibilities" in regards to personal behaviour. If you don't like how someone acts, don't vote for them. Your view (not you specifically, but anyone who wants to remove an elected official based on attitude) on what is "proper" does not matter at all to me.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> I agree with you. I found his sainthood was a bit strange, given the fairly widely circulated stories that you recalled. That *said, IMHO we would have a hard time denying that he was an "effective" politician: he pulled off an electoral victory that I never would have thought possible.*


The same could be said of Ford, although their effectiveness is based on completely different reasons.  



> I think we have to be careful about basing *our* judgement on the importance of character, on the feelings of any particular politician's hard core supporters. These people will always see a saint where the rest of us see a devil: to do otherwise might be to call their entire belief system (not to mention their own gullibility) into question.


I have no issue calling peoples beliefs into question, especially when those beliefs demonstrate blantant hypocrisy, wilful blindness etc.  I voted PC last federal election, if I am around in Canada, for the next one, probably vote for Libertarian or something, at least those fringe parties haven't had a change to totally lie and demonstrate their incompentence. 

And for the record, I never voted Ford, I was deployed at the time, and this time round well, I will be here in Kabul.


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2013)

Sythen said:
			
		

> ... Democracy chooses who is in charge, not some one elses "sensibilities" in regards to personal behaviour. If you don't like how someone acts, don't vote for them. Your view (not you specifically, but anyone who wants to remove an elected official based on attitude) on what is "proper" does not matter at all to me.



Seen. Go back and take a look: I found some info on recall legislation in the US. It allows the voters to pull an elected official before their term is up, without restricting the grounds to criminal charges. (Which would be handled differently anyway)

Granted, a US practice and not a Canadian one (except in BC). But maybe one we should think about, for politicians of all stripes and stations.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Nov 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Seen. Go back and take a look: I found some info on recall legislation in the US. It allows the voters to pull an elected official before their term is up, without restricting the grounds to criminal charges. (Which would be handled differently anyway)


Arnold was probably the most high profile.  There have a been a few state legislators in Colorado, who were recalled and punted after voting in stricter gun control laws, within the last few months.



> Granted, a US practice and not a Canadian one (except in BC). But maybe one we should think about, for politicians of all stripes and stations.


I would not be opposed to the idea, hell something like that could probably useful, in forcing an unelected Premier to stop stalling and call an election already.


----------



## Ostrozac (4 Nov 2013)

Sythen said:
			
		

> In your original post, it asks if someone should be able to be removed from an elected position. The answer is no, unless they break the law. Democracy chooses who is in charge, not some one elses "sensibilities" in regards to personal behaviour. If you don't like how someone acts, don't vote for them. Your view (not you specifically, but anyone who wants to remove an elected official based on attitude) on what is "proper" does not matter at all to me.



As I recall, in Canada, I don't think that even a criminal conviction is usually enough to force someone out of an elected office. Mayors of Montreal like to resign in disgrace, so it doesn't come up much there. Mayor Ford came close to being pushed out by court order for conflict of interest, but he would have been allowed to run in the follow-on election.  I'm not aware of any commonly used method by which an elected Member of Parliament can be forced out of office, even for being a criminal. We may have inherited this from the UK -- Conrad Black is still a member of the House of Lords, and was so during his extended time in the custody of the US prison system, although his lack of voting was covered by a "Leave of Absence". 

As to the case of character -- I would separate character from criminality. Some of Ariel Sharon's actions, in several wars, certainly cross the line of international law and would be what I would consider to be war crimes. But I would never question the man's character, his dedication to the men under his command or his belief that such actions were necessary for the defence of his nation. Conversely, John McCain has probably never done anything more illegal than speeding in his whole life, but I find his treatment of his first wife to be reprehensible and to show a serious lack of character.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Nov 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I would not be opposed to the idea, hell something like that could probably useful, in forcing an unelected Premier to stop stalling and call an election already.



All premiers and prime ministers are unelected.


----------



## Shrek1985 (4 Nov 2013)

If it truly is personal, assuming no lawbreaking is involved, I could hardly care less.

I care about competence and professional honesty, so long as the personal problems, do not become my problems.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Nov 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> All premiers and prime ministers are unelected.



Semantics.  The current premier of Ontario was chosen by her party, and has yet to face the voters at large.


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2013)

Well...so far the vote on this thread seems to be that while it might be useful to have a US (or BC-)-style recall mechanism, it probably would never get used unless a politician was actually convicted of a crime while in office, in which case it would probably be redundant.

So, I guess the answer to the question "Does Character Matter?" is "not much, really".

Unless, of course, it's a politician we don't happen to like?


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Nov 2013)

Slim... 


"To begin with, we do not in the Army talk of "management", but of "leadership". This is significant. There is a difference between leadership and management. The leader and the men who follow him represent one of the oldest, most natural and most effective of all human relationships. The manager and those he manages are a later product, with neither so romantic nor so inspiring a history. Leadership is of the spirit compounded of personality and vision; its practice is an art. Management is of the mind, more a matter of accurate calculation, of statistics, of methods, time tables, and routine; its practice is a science. Managers are necessary; leaders are essential. A good system will produce efficient managers but more than that is needed. We must find managers who are not only skilled organizers by inspired and inspiring leaders, destined carefully eventually to fill the highest ranks of control and direction. Such men will gather round them close knit teams of subordinates like themselves and of technical experts, whose efficiency, enthusiasm and loyalty will be unbeatable. Increasingly this is recognized and the search for leadership is on. 

Who should we look for? Where are we likely to find it? When we have found it, how shall we develop and use it? Can the experience of the Army be any help? Let us see. 

In this matter of leadership we in the Fighting Services have, of course, certain very marked advantages over civil life:- 


(i)                 The principle of personal leadership is traditional and accepted. 

(ii)               Besides, there is a strict legal code for the enforcement of obedience to lawful direction. 

(iii)             Officers and men recognize that they are on the same side, fighting together against a common enemy. 

(iv)              The commanders do not, in war at any rate, have to pay so much regard to the financial effects of their action. 

I can well understand a business man saying, "If we had all that, management would indeed be simple!" So, lest you think that military management is too easy, I would remind you that:- 


(i)                 Personal leadership exists only as long as the officers demonstrate it by superior courage, wider knowledge, quicker initiative and a greater readiness to accept responsibility than those they lead. 

(ii)               Again military command is not just a matter bawling order that will be obeyed for fear of punishment. Any commander's success comes more from being trusted than from being feared; from leading rather than driving. 

(iii)             Officers and men feel themselves on the same side only as long as the officers, in all their dealings, show integrity and unselfishness and place the well-being of their men before their own. 

(iv)              In war the general may not be haunted by finance, but his is the responsibility for good management and economy in matters more important than money - his men's lives. 
 These things, not stars and crowns or the director's Rolls-Royce, are the badges of leadership anywhere. 
When we talk of leaders in the Army what sort of men do we picture? Not the explosive old generals of the comic strips, whose complexions are indicative of blood-pressure and of the consumption of port - both high; whose conversation is limited to reminiscences of Poona and of blood-sports; whose only solution to any political or social problem is "Damn it, sir, shoot 'em". If those generals ever existed in real life they were well on the way out before I joined the Army. No, the first things we require in a leader are character, of which I will speak later, and an alert mind. Of course, it will be a military mind. Every profession produces its own type of mind which shows itself in its trained approach to any given question. A scientist, for instance, if you ask him something, will probably answer, "I cannot tell you now. Come back in six months when the experiments I am engaged in will, I hope, be completed and I shall have compared my results with those of other research workers in the same field. Then I may be able to tell you." 

If you ask an engineer what sort of a bridge should be put across a river, his answer will be, "Before I can give an indication I must have exact information. What is the width of the river, its depth, its flow? What are it banks like, its bottom, what is the highest recorded flood? Is the site accessible; is labour available? What is the climate? How much traffic will the bridge be expected to carry in the future? 

But your general cannot answer like that. He knows the information he has is far from complete; that some of it is bound to be inaccurate. He is only too well aware that there are all sorts of factors over which he has no control - the enemy, the weather and a dozen others. Yet he has got to say promptly, clearly and with every appearance of complete confidence, "We will do this!" Other professions are trained quite rightly not to reply until they have the exact and correct answer, some to give an answer made up of alternatives or possibilities. The military mind has to provide, not necessarily the perfect answer, but one which, in the circumstances as far as they are known, will work. That given, the commander has to back his judgement, face the risks, force his plan through and stand or fall by the result. It seems to me that wouldn't be a bad kind of mind to initiate and carry through enterprises in other fields - possibly even in those of commerce and industry. 

What is leadership? I would define it as the projection of personality. It is that combination of persuasion, compulsion and example that makes other people do what you want them to do. If leadership is this projection of personality then the first requirement is a personality to project. The personality of a successful leader is a blend of many qualities - courage, will power, knowledge, judgement and flexibility of mind. 

Courage is the basis of all leadership, indeed of all virtue in man or beast. Courage is o les in the higher than in the lower levels of command, but the greater the responsibility the more the emphasis shifts from physical to moral courage – a much rarer quality. Rare, but essential to higher leadership. 

Will power is, I suppose, the most obvious requirement in a leader’s make-up. Without it no man can remain a leader for he will have to force through his purpose, not only against the enemy, but against the weariness of his troops, the advise of his experts, the doubts of his staff, the waverings of politicians and the inclinations of his allies. I am sure these obstacles are duplicated in industry; will power is as needed in the board room as in the council of war. 

The main task of a leader is to make decisions, but if he has not the judgement to make the right decisions, then the greater his strength of will, the higher his courage, the more tragic will be his mistakes. When looking for your leader, make sure of his courage and his will power, but for the love of Mike, see that he has judgement, that he is balanced. 

I said he must have knowledge. A man has no right to set himself up as a leader – or to be set up as a leader – unless he knows more than those he is to lead. In a small unit, a platoon say – or maybe a workshop gang – the leader should be able to do the job of any man in the outfit better than he can. That is a standard that should be required from all junior leaders. As the leader rises higher in the scale, he can no longer, of course, be expected to show such mastery of the detail of all the activities under him. A Divisional Commander need no know how to coax a wireless set, drive a tank, preach a sermon, or take out an appendix as well as the people in his division who are trained to do those things. But he has got to know how long these jobs should take, what their difficulties are, what they need in training and equipment and the strain they entail. As the leader moves towards the top of the ladder, he must be able to judge between experts and technicians and to use their advice although he will not need their knowledge. One kind of knowledge the he must always keep in his own hands - is that of his men. 

“Flexibility of mind” is becoming more and more important to leadership. The world, in material and scientific matter, is advancing much more rapidly than most men can keep up with. A leader is surrounded by new and changing factors. What it was wise to do yesterday may well be foolish today. Some invention, some new process, some political change may have come along overnight and the leader must speedily adjust himself and his organization to it. The only living organisms that survive are those that adapt themselves to change. There is always the danger that determination becomes only obstinacy; flexibility mere vacillation. Every man must work out the balance between them for himself; until he has he is no real leader. 

Now if a man has all these qualifications – courage, will power, judgement, knowledge, flexibility of mind – he cannot fail to be a leader in whatever walk of life he is engaged. Yet he is still not the leader we seek; he lacks one last quality – integrity. Integrity should not be so much a quality of itself as the element in which all the others live and are active, as fishes exist and move in water. 

Integrity is a combination of the old Christian virtues of being honest with all men and of unselfishness, thinking of others, the people we lead, before ourselves. Moral reasons are, strangely enough, the ones that both in war and commerce tell most in the long run, but apart from its spiritual aspect this attitude – and there need be nothing soft or sloppy about it – has a practical material value. The real test of leadership is not if your men will follow you in success, but if they will stick by you in defeat and hardship. They won’t do that unless you believe you to be hones and to have care for them. 

I once had under me a battalion that had not done well in a fight. I went to see why. I found men in the jungle, tired, hungry, dirty, jumpy, some of them wounded, sitting miserably about doing nothing. I looked for he CO – for any officer; none was to be seen. Then I realized why that battalion had failed. Collected under a tree were the officers, having a meal while the men went hungry. Those officers had forgotten the tradition of the Service that they look after their men’s wants before their own. I was compelled to remind them. I hope they never again forgot the integrity and unselfishness that always permeate good leadership. I have never known men tail to respond to them. 

So much for the type of man we want as a leader. How, in a big organization are we to find him? In the Army we believe it is vitally important to recognize the potential leader at an early stage of his career. Then, while cultivating the natural root of leadership in him, to graft on to its growth the techniques of management. To uncover the natural leaders in our own ranks – to attract them from the outside, too – and then give them the chance to get our in front and lead. 

I think we have done this more deliberately, more systematically and more constantly in the Army for the last forty years than has been done in industry. 

From the day he joins, a recruit is scanned constantly for signs of potential leadership. Within a few weeks at his depot if his alertness, intelligence, education and general character justify it, he finds himself in either the potential officers; or potential NCO’s squad. When he joins his unit watched for leadership all the time, he may be recommended for a commission. A Selection Board tests him and if he satisfies it, he moves on either to an Officer’s Training School for a National Service Commission or a Cadet College for a Regular one. Over that hurdle, the young officer joins his unit where for some time in decent obscurity he should learn the bolts and nuts of his trade and equally important, gain his first real experience of leadership. 

Our aim is to extract the potential officer at the start of his career and begin his grooming for leadership as soon as possible. Too long in the ranks is not good for him and the sooner he enters junior management the better. Responsibility breeds responsibility; the best training for leadership is leadership. 

Schools, where the use of weapons and tactics are taught, staff colleges which study not only the techniques of staff work – management, but the principles and practices of command leadership all help to turn the young officer into a leader. In this the annual Confidential Reports submitted on every officer help a great deal. A study of his reports over a period of years will give a very fair idea of an officer’s character, capabilities and what sort of post he will fill best. Eventually he may be placed on the select list of officers, whose careers are planned some years ahead to give them the kind of experience they will need to be finned for high command. Such officers are well up in management and the very highest appointments are coming within their reach. 

Of course the pyramid narrows rapidly towards the top and on the climb there many are dropped out, but by starting in management early, being watched all the time and given varied experience the best men do get to the top. One of the most difficult but none the less important things about estimating a man’s capacity is to be able to recognize his ceiling – the point beyond which he will be tested too highly. 

I have talked so far about those destined for the higher appointments but the Army in which the only leaders are the generals will min no victories. All down the line there must be leaders. We have the equivalent of supervisors and foremen of industry; they are our Warrant and Non-Commissioned Officers. You will note we call them officers. They are very definitely part of the management, feel themselves that they are and are recognized by others as such. It has seemed to me that the position of the equivalent ranks in industry suspended as they often are, between management and workers, must be terribly difficult. I have sometimes though the American system where they are made to feel much more a part of management has advantages. 

The greater the size of an army, of an organization, the more difficult it becomes for the leaders to make their ideas and intentions clear and vivid to all their thousands of subordinates. All sorts of ways of doing this have been attempted. There has even gown up in industry a special class of officer whose job roughly is to keep touch between management and work. I think there is some danger they may interpose rather than correct. Leadership is a very personal thin and like some germs it is weakened by passing through other bodies. 

In my experience thee are many things that can be done to keep touch, but if they are to be effective they must all be based on two things:- 




(i)                  The head man of the army, the firm; the division, the department; the regiment, the workshop must be known as an actual person to all under him. 

(ii)                  The soldier of the employee must be made to feel he is part of the show and what he is and what he does matters to it.
The best way to get known to your men is to let them see you and hear you by going among them and talking to them. The head man should be able to walk on to any parade ground in his command or into any factory in his firm and be recognized – even if it’s only “Here comes the old so-and-so.” It is surprising how soldiers and workmen can use an uncomplimentary expression as an endearment. The boss should talk to individuals as he moves about and occasionally – only occasionally, as it should be something of an event – assemble his staff and workers, mixed together for preference, and tell them something of what he is trying to do. It’s not more difficult, I should think, to talk to a meeting of employees than to one of shareholders – and I do believe it’s worth more. To talk to men like that doesn’t require great eloquence; only two things are needed – to know what you are talking about and to believe in yourself. That last is important. 

To make anyone feel part of a show you have to take them into your confidence. We soldiers have long grown out of the “theirs-not-to-reason-why” stage. Any intelligent man wants to know why he’s doing things and what for. It’s not a bad idea to tell him; let him look a bit farther along the chain of which he is a link. Personally I believe a good system passing on to every man information of what is going on outside his immediate view is worth more that such things as joint consultation which really only reach a few. Security, I know, may enter into this as is does in military matters, but a little risk with security is more than repaid by the feeling chaps get that their leaders have confidence in them, that they are let into the know and that they belong. 

From washing machines to electronic brains we live increasingly by technology. Technicians are vital to our industry. But we don’t make a man a general in the field because he is an expert in explosives; the most brilliant surgeon is not necessarily the best man to run a hospital; nor the best-selling author to run a publishing business. The technically trained man is not the answer to the management problem. There has in some quarters been a tendency to make managers out of technical men. Some of them may make good managers because they have in them the qualities of leadership, but the better to use him in his own field. 

Industry in the past has produced some managers who were true leaders; you have had your share in Australia, in South Australia, but management itself is now a specialized field. It is little use any longer to let men work their way up in haphazard fashion; then grab the nearest at hand, make him a manager, hoping he will learn the techniques and provide the leadership as he goes along. 

We anxiously calculate stocks of raw materials, seek new minerals, study technical advances overseas and push them on at home; we devise new processes, we equip our factories with new machinery. In all these matters we take great thought for he morrow. Yet too often we just hope that tomorrow’s leaders will, by some miracle, bob up when needed. 

The only way in which the growing need for leadership in management can be met is to find the potential leader and then start his training and give him his chance to lead. 

Here is Australia, believe me, there is not lack of potential leaders – the climate, the freedom, the tradition of this country breed them: Leadership material is lying around in every factory, office and university in Australia. Unless we spot it and give it a chance, a lot of it is doomed to rust. That would be a tragedy but a greater would be that our expanding industry should lack leadership. 

The raw material of leadership is there and the Australian worker, properly led, from what I have seen of him, is as good as any and more intelligent than most. But the words properly led are vital. Australian industry deserves and will need leaders, not just efficient managers. 

In industry you will never have to ask men to do the stark things demanded of soldiers, but the men you employ are the same men. Instead of rifles the handle tools; instead of guns they serve machines. They have changed their khaki and jungle-green for workshop overalls and civvy suits. But they are the same men and they will respond to leadership of the right kind as they have always done. 

Infuse your management with leadership; then they will show their mettle in the workshop as they have on the battlefield. Like me, they would rather be led than managed. Wouldn’t you?" 

http://intergon.net/slim.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Slim...
> 
> 
> "To begin with, we do not in the Army talk of "management", but of "leadership" ...
> ...




Slim was, as usual, spot on, but see, also, my comments and consider the problem commanders in the fleet and the field, today, have in convincing higher HQs that we must be prepared to fight with the forces we have, not with the one some admirals and generals, bureaucrats and politicians dream about.


----------



## pbi (6 Nov 2013)

I must admit that my views on leadership and the necessity of character are to a certain extent shaped by the views of people like Slim, and (obviously...) by my years in the Army. I agree with ERC that the military (especially the Army) places a great emphasis on selecting, developing and promoting leaders. I don't know of any organization that even comes close.

And even with all that we have still gotten it wrong from time to time (we can all think of the examples: some have been horrible). But, just imagine what we would get if we didn't even have the systems we have.  Clearly, the system that puts a person into municipal office lacks most of the checks, balances and rigour that the military system has: essentially all you have to do is win the support of a majority (or, worse and far more common,  a plurality) of voters, many of whom tend to be ill-informed or "single issue", and you're in.

So maybe we shouldn't expect much.

In my book, the rules that His Worship broke are:

-Don't behave in ways that your subordinates are prohibited from. It's like saying "_look what I can do, look what I can do, Nyaaah nyaaah_". You can't have a rule for your own conduct and a rule for others.;

-Never bully or belittle subordinates, especially the very junior ones who are largely defenceless. To paraphrase: "The measure of a truly great person is how they treat those who could never be of any use to them";

-never resort to that weakest, lowest and most despicable of all moral and ethical "defences": "_He did it too! He did it too!_"

-tell the truth; and

-act in ways that, if your people were to copy your ways, things would improve. In other words, "lead by example".

To me, it has very little to do with a "Right" or "Left" agenda: it's about how you behave and how you treat people.


----------



## DBA (6 Nov 2013)

How our leaders are chosen and how they gain, retain and lose power is a major part of our political system. By largely taking force out of it democracies flourish over the long term compared to alternatives. 

As for Ford - insulting and denigrating his supporters isn't a very effective means of winning them over. Drug use, especially over a lifetime is not uncommon.

    
Drugs and Drug Policy in Canada
    A brief review and Commentary
    By Diane Riley, PhD
    Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy  &
    International Harm Reduction Association

    Prepared for the Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin 
    November 1998


> Illicit Drugs
> 
> Many Canadians report that they have used illicit drugs. At some point in their lives, 24% of Canadians have used one or more of the following illegal drugs: cannabis, cocaine. LSD, speed/amphetamines, heroin. More males than females report having used these drugs (30% versus 18%).
> 
> ...


----------

