I once headed up a division of a large organization located in a Midwest city. Overall, the organization served about 35,000 clients in the city and was one of the largest employers in the area. I was hired by the then CEO of the organization to lead the division through transformational change which we did in about a year.
The CEO then abruptly resigned and left for another job. An
interim leader was followed by a new CEO. Stability did not occur because the
staff members the new CEO brought on board kept leaving; one even lasted only
three days. As a result, standards and benchmarks kept changing. The gains made
by my division were eroded because of the confusion of what was expected by the
organizational leaders. We were blamed for the lack of progress, and I was told
I needed to place several of my division team members on “job targets.” I
refused and thus I was told I would be transferred to another division in a
lesser role at the end of the business cycle.
Rather than accept the demotion I decided to retire at the
end of the cycle. Then the CEO announced she was leaving and joining another
organization. I could have become bitter at the situation but instead I went to
the CEO and told her I had no hard feelings and wished her the best in the
future. So I retired gracefully, and the CEO left town only to be forced to
resign from her new organization for alleged misconduct. Then it was discovered
that she also presided over serious misconduct in our organization.
I share my altered story to put my thoughts on a current
leadership situation in context. Ambassador John Bolton had been the national
security advisor to President Trump for 17 months. Their relationship
deteriorated and he resigned or was fired, depending on who is telling the
story. Now in his tell-all memoir of his White House experiences Bolton is
charging the President with serious misconduct.
I am not concerned about the creditability of his
allegations against the President. What I am concerned about is the
creditability of Bolton’s leadership. By most accounts Ambassador Bolton is a
brilliant and driven leader. Also, by most accounts, Bolton is a backstabber
who always wants his way at all costs. I have several questions regarding his
leadership wisdom:
1. Why
did Bolton accept the White House position in the first place? He knew
beforehand he fundamentally disagreed with the President on foreign wars and
interventions.
2. Why
didn’t Bolton resign earlier when he suspected the President of misconduct? By staying on he gave the strong appearance
of being complicit in the misconduct or possessing a savior complex.
Compare Bolton’s conduct with that of my hero General George
Marshall who served two presidents as Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, and
Secretary of Defense, among other positions serving his country. He did not always
agree with his bosses; for example, he very strongly disagrees with President
Truman’s decision to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. But Marshall felt
discretion was a key to good leadership in a subordinate role. When he finally
retired, he refused to write his memoirs and refused to criticize others
publicly.
I may be old fashioned because I believe publicly bad
mouthing your previous employers is bad form and will eventually backfire on
the one feeling mistreated. And these tell-all books whether from the right or
left and vindictive or self-congratulatory are the stuff of cotton candy- all
illusion and no substance. Let the pundits read the books of the John Boltons
and brief you on the highlights and lowlights. Your better investment in
reading are the enduring books of great leadership like the life of George Marshall.