JOHN BOLTON & COTTON CANDY LEADERSHIP

 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.