Was Mick Jagger a Stoic?

I've never been a huge fan of the rock band The Rolling Stones.  It's not like I don't enjoy listening to their music.  As a matter of fact, I actually do enjoy listening to a number of their songs, and at one time I owned a couple of their albums.  I suppose I've just always liked other rock bands better.  Regardless, one of my favorite songs by the band is the song "You Can't Always Get What You Want", which appeared on the 1969 album "Let It Bleed".  The song was co-written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards and was named as the 100th greatest song of all time by Rolling Stone magazine on its 2004 list of the "500 Greatest Songs of All Time".  

One of the lines in the song is absolutely fantastic (which prompted me to write a blog post about it several years ago):

"You can't always get what you want.  But if you try sometime, you'll find, you get what you need."

Regardless of whether the song is actually addressing major topics of the 1960's (love, politics, and drugs), the title and main line in the chorus perhaps summarizes a major tenet of the Stoic philosophy.  I came across the following passage from the Roman Stoic Seneca today:

"No person has the power to have everything they want, but it is in their power not to want what they don't have, and to cheerfully put to good use what they do have."

I don't know if Mick Jagger ever read Stoic philosophy, but it's far from impossible.  At one point in time, he was an undergraduate student in finance and accounting at the famous London School of Economics.  Regardless, there is a lot of similarities between the Rolling Stones song lyric and Seneca's passage above.

As Seneca suggests, there is absolutely no way that we can ever have all of the things that we want in life.  Maybe the trick is to want less and enjoy what we do have in life.  Or to paraphrase Mick Jagger, "There's no way that we will ever get everything that we want, but if we try and focus on what we do have, we will find that we have all that we need."

There's no 'I' in Team...

I read a lot of Greek mythology when I was younger.  The character Narcissus was a hunter from the ancient Greek city of Thespiae who was renowned for his beauty.  He rejected all romantic advances and eventually fell in love with his reflection in a pool of water.  The water nymph Echo fell in love with Narcissus, but when she was rejected (like all the others), she withdrew from the world and wasted away, becoming only a whisper (which is where echoes come from!).  Anyway, Narcissus stared at his reflection for the rest of his life, eventually dying (I suppose of starvation?). 

Anyway, the term narcissism comes directly from Greek mythology and describes individuals who are "full of themselves".  Importantly, narcissists aren't just self-centered individuals though.  They also crave attention and expect to receive special treatment for their self-perceived higher status.  While studies have shown that being a narcissist doesn't affect individual job performance, there are comparatively few studies that have explored the impact of narcissism on group-level or team performance.  

Anecdotally, there have been a number of sports teams throughout history who have performed far below expectations despite having a number of so-called "All Stars" on the team.  For example, the 2004 U.S. Men's Olympic Basketball team lost three games and won the Bronze Medal (failing to win the Gold Medal for the fourth Olympics in a row) despite having NBA greats Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson, Dwayne Wade, and Carmelo Anthony on the team.  The 2017-2018 Oklahoma City Thunder finished 4th in the Western Conference and were eliminated in the first round of the play-offs despite having Carmelo Anthony, Paul George, and Russell Westbrook (one video describes them as the "Worst Superteam in NBA history", though I would suggest that the 2003-2004 Los Angeles Lakers, with several future Hall of Famers on the roster coached by a Hall of Fame legend are more deserving of that title).  While not every "All Star" is a narcissist, at least in these cases, the players just didn't play well together, perhaps because they were more focused on their individual successes than the team's success.

It is with all of this in mind that I wanted to discuss the findings of a research study published in the Academy of Management Journal ("Examining the 'I' in team: A longitudinal investigation of the influence of team narcissism composition on team outcomes in the NBA").  The investigators analyzed data on 2,460 professional basketball games played during the 2013-2014 NBA season.  They hypothesized that a team's overall (average score) level of narcissism, the maximum level of narcissism (highest score), and finally the narcissism score for a key player on the team ("core player"), which was the team's point guard (the playmaker).  They generated their own "narcissism score" (which they validated in an accompanying study) based upon an analysis of the 396/483 (82%) players Twitter accounts.  Specifically, they looked at the percentage of tweets by individual players determined to be narcissistic in nature (as an example of one tweet, a player tweeted a photo of himself standing in front of a mirror with the caption, "What do you think when you look in the mirror?  Greatness.").  They also analyzed each player's Twitter profile picture (pictures of players who appeared shirtless or flexing their muscles were rated higher on the narcissistic scale versus players that showed pictures of their families).

Teams with high narcissism scores in any of the three dimensions (overall average, maximum, or core player) did not coordinate their play as well as teams with lower narcissism scores.  Team coordination was measured, in part, by the number of assists (in the sport of basketball, a player gets an assist if he or she passes the ball to a player who then scores a basket).  Most importantly, teams with high narcissism scores didn't perform well (as measured by wins versus losses, as well as the margin of victory).  

The investigators also were interested to see if team familiarity (defined as the number of games the teams played together over the course of the season) had any impact on the results discussed above.  For example, several previous studies on narcissism and group interaction have shown that initially, during the beginning stages of group formation, narcissists are described positively as "confident", "entertaining", and "physically attractive."  However, as the individuals within a group tend to become more familiar with each other, the narcissists are described negatively as "hostile", "arrogant", or "cold."  In other words, we get sick of being around narcissists as time goes on.  Teams with higher narcissism scores maintained the same levels of team coordination over the course of the season.  However, teams with lower narcissism scores showed greater improvement in team coordination as they became more familiar with one another.  Rather than causing "bad things to happen", narcissists "prevented good things from happening."

So, what are we to conclude from this particular study?  First, and perhaps most obvious, if you ever find yourself in the general manager role for a professional sports team, don't over-rely on talent to build your team - team chemistry and team culture is important too!  Second (and probably more realistic), organizations should consider narcissism when putting together their project teams.  The investigators stated, "Organizations should consider narcissism when forming teams and proactively monitor teams' narcissism composition to allow interventions before problems arise.  In particular, we recommend that companies should avoid putting highly narcissistic members in the most critical team roles (e.g., roles that are more central to a team's workflow)."

As they say, there is no "I" in team.  The American psychologist M. Scott Peck once said, “Since narcissists deep down feel themselves to be faultless, it is inevitable that when they are in conflict with the world they will invariably perceive the conflict as the world’s fault.”  I have found that to be exactly the case, and unfortunately, as this study highlights particularly well, they often bring down the rest of the team too.

The way of the warrior

During our recent trip to New Zealand, my son and I sat down and watched the 2003 film "The Last Samurai" starring Ken Watanabe in the title role and Tom Cruise.  Cruise plays an American Civil War hero who unexpectedly finds himself in Japan during the Meiji Restoration in 19th century Japan.  He befriends Watanabe's character, a samurai warrior who is fighting the westernization of Japan by foreign powers.  Watanabe's character teaches Cruise's character Bushido, translated as "the way of the warrior."  

Bushido is a moral code, practice, and philosophy that governs how a samurai warrior lived and died.  A few decades after the Meiji Restoration, when Japan's warrior class was abolished (as depicted in the Watanabe/Cruise film), then U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt started handing out copies of a book, Bushido: The Soul of Japan by Inazo Nitobe.   In a letter to the diplomat and politician, Count Kentarō Kaneko, dated April 13, 1904, President Roosevelt wrote, "I was most impressed by the little volume on Bushido. I have learned not a little from what I have read of the fine Samurai spirit."  Lord Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts also enjoyed the book, writing that one of his aims for starting the Boy Scouts was  "...to revive some of the rules of the knights of old, which did so much for the moral tone of our race, just as …Bushido… has done, and is still doing, for Japan."

Nitobe's book presents the eight virtues or key principles of Bushido that all samurai warriors were expected to uphold.  They are:

1. Rectitude or Justice.  Justice is perhaps the most important virtue of Bushido.  It's interesting that the theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas used the term rectitude in his definition of justice, stating "Justice is a certain rectitude of mind whereby a man does what he ought to do in the circumstances confronting him."  The samurai define justice in the following manner: "Rectitude is one's power to decide upon a course of conduct in accordance with reason, without wavering; to die when to die is right, to strike when to strike is right."  

2. Courage.  Importantly, Bushido emphasizes a distinction between bravery and courage.  Courage is worthy of being counted among the 8 virtues of Bushido only if it's exercised in the cause of justice and rectitude.  The ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius wrote, "Perceiving what is right and doing it not reveals a lack of courage." In other words, courage is doing what is right and just.

3. Compassion.  A samurai warrior had the power to command and to kill.  Anyone with those powers was expected to demonstrate equally extraordinary powers of compassion, mercy, and benevolence.  

4. Respect.  Respect is the expression of a benevolent regard for the feelings of others, and in its highest form, respect approaches love.

5. Integrity.  I am reminded here of the West Point Honor Code, which states that "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."  Integrity goes beyond mere honesty and sincerity.  A famous samurai said, "A warrior is worthless unless he rises above others and stands strong in the midst of a storm."  Integrity requires us to choose the right path and encourage - even require - others to do so as well.  Integrity requires 200% accountability - I am accountable not only for myself, but for others too.

6. Honor.  The true warrior has only one judge of honor and character - him or herself.  You cannot hide from yourself.  Living with honor requires us to live with a keen sense of ethical conduct, duty (to self and to others).  As the 17th century Japanese philosopher Miyamoto Musashi (author of The Book of Five Rings) said, "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world."

7. Loyalty. A samurai warrior remained fiercely true to those that they were responsible for.  They were loyal to a cause greater than themselves.  Again, Miyamoto Musashi said, "Exist for the good of man."

8. Self-control. Self-control meant that the samurai warrior adhered to this code, the eight virtues, under all circumstances, when with others and when alone.  One of Miyamoto Musashi's most well-known concepts involved self-control (personal mastery): "See to it that you temper yourself with one thousand days of practice, and refine yourself with ten thousand days of training."

As you may have noticed, I brought some other non-samurai teachings into the description of these 8 virtues.  These virtues are universal and timeless, which is why they are so important for us even today and why you can find examples of them in other philosophies.  Someone once said, "Act with the heart of a warrior."  Inazo Nitobe himself wrote, "Bushido as an independent code of ethics may vanish, but its power will not perish from the earth; its schools of martial prowess or civic honor may be demolished, but its light and its glory will long survive their ruins."

The mathematics of happiness

Most people, with the possible exception of my wife (who happens to be a middle school mathematics teacher) would rarely, if ever, use the words "mathematics" and "happiness" in the same sentence!  That's why I was so interested in reading an article I came across recently in The Atlantic by the Harvard Business School professor Arthur C. Brooks entitled, "The 3 Equations for a Happy Life, Even During a Pandemic".  Apparently, Brooks started a column in the magazine called "How to Build a Life".  He is uniquely qualified to do so, having taught a class at Harvard Business School on happiness (and how cool is that!?!?!).  So, let's take a closer look math fans.  

Equation #1: Subjective Well-being = Genes + Circumstances + Habits

The term "subjective well-being" is a more scientific term for "happiness" perhaps.  Regardless, any one individual's level of happiness is determined by genetics, circumstances, and personal habits (see the excellent summary in the article by Sonja Lyubomirsky and colleagues "Pursuing Happiness: The Architecture of Sustainable Change").  The most important factor is genetics, which accounts for close 50% (and in some studies, the percentage is as high as 80%) of what makes someone happy, as determined by studying twins raised in the same versus separate households.  Apparently we inherit a so-called set point (or set range) of happiness.  Our level of happiness changes within this genetically determined range of happiness (so, some individuals are generally very happy, while others may be less so).  Our range of happiness states likely changes very little over the course of our lifetime and is dependent on our underlying neurobiology.  

The second factor determining our level of happiness involve our life circumstances.  These are the incidental, but relatively stable, facets of an individual's life, such as where they live, as well as demographic factors including age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, and employment status.  Collectively, these factors account for about 10% of or overall level of happiness (again, based upon twin studies).

Finally, the last factor that determines our level of happiness involves our habits - the things we do throughout our life that directly impact our mood and behavior.  These factors account for 40% of our overall level of happiness, which is really great news because these are the factors that we have the most control over!    These factors include lifestyle choices such as what we eat in our diet or how much we exercise.  They can also include whether or not we choose to look at the positives or the negatives in our lives (as my wife says, "It's the power of a positive attitude!"), all of which brings us to Equation #2 below. 

Equation #2: Habits = Faith + Family + Friends + Work

As discussed above, there is good news and bad news in the science of happiness.  Bad news first - at least 60% of our level of happiness is out of our own control.  The good news is that the remaining 40% is under our direct control.  Equation #2 summarizes the results of literally thousands of studies that consistently show that (1) people who consistently practice some religious faith or secular philosophy of life are happier than those who do not; (2) people who have loving relationships with family and/or friends are happier than those who do not; and (3) people who have meaningful work are happier than those who do not.  Factors in this category that are just as important include our choices to eat a healthy, balanced diet, get regular exercise, avoid tobacco, drugs, and alcohol, and focus on positive behaviors.  We can surprisingly control more of our own happiness than we realize.  As Martha Washington said, "I am determined to be cheerful and happy in whatever situation I may find myself.  For I have learned that the greater part of our misery or unhappiness is determined not by our circumstance, but by our disposition."

Equation #3: Satisfaction = What you have ÷ What you want

The Dalai Lama stated, "We need to learn how to want what we have, not to have what we want..."  The Spanish Catholic saint Josemaría Escrivá said something similar, "Don't forget it: he has most who needs least.  Don't create needs for yourself."  There is something in the field of happiness psychology called the hedonic treadmill, the idea that our happiness always regresses to the mean (our set point).  Over time, what made us really happy in the recent past (more money, more love, more friends, etc) no longer makes us as happy over the long term.  We get accustomed to a certain level of what ever makes us happy.  The key to avoiding the hedonic treadmill is to focus on the denominator in Equation #3.  When we want less, we are typically more content with what we have.

As it turns out, these three equations encapsulate almost everything that has been written about the science of happiness.  I will end this post, as I often do, with a quote.  This one comes from an ancient Chinese proverb: "If you want happiness for an hour—take a nap. If you want happiness for a day—go fishing. If you want happiness for a year—inherit a fortune. If you want happiness for a lifetime—help someone else."  Be happy and be well.

Physician leadership: Wards to Boards

My Twitter profile used to state that I was a physician first and health care administrator second.  I don't mean to be controversial or offensive here, I am proud of what I have accomplished both as a physician and as an administrator.  However, I've devoted a lot of time and energy into my education and training to become a physician (four years of medical school, three years of residency, and three years of fellowship training).  I've been a physician much longer than I have been a health care administrator.  So, while I identify with both groups, I self-identify as a physician first and foremost.

Social identity theory states that individuals categorize both themselves and others into different groupings based upon their social identity.  A person's sense of identity ("who they are") is based upon their group membership.  Identification with a group incites loyalty to that group.  It may even inspire competitive (and unfortunately, at times discriminatory) behavior towards individuals who are not part of the group.

Building upon what I described above, I self-identify as a physician and as a health care administrator.  I also self-identify as a pediatrician (based upon my residency training and ongoing professional certification) and as a pediatric intensivist (again, based upon my fellowship training and ongoing professional certification).  If you take a close look at my professional network, most of my colleagues and collaborators are also pediatric intensivists.  Therefore, if I were to rank my social identity, at least from a professional standpoint, I would classify my identity in the following order:

1. Pediatric intensivist

2. Pediatrician

3. Physician

4. Health care administrator

I do wonder if most physicians who hold administrative positions would self-identify as a health care administrator.  Several studies have noted that physicians and health care administrators don't always see eye to eye.  Physicians, as a group, often view administrators through a lens of distrust, often perceiving that administrators place financial considerations over patient care.  For this reason alone, I suspect that some of us would rather identify as a physician executive.  Not all health care administrators are physicians, and many, if not most, health care administrators don't have a clinical background.  

Studies suggest that when physicians move into administrative leadership roles, they may lose some of their sense of identity as physicians.  It is with this in mind that I wanted to talk about a recent study published in the Journal of Healthcare Management ("Engaging physicians in leadership: Motivations, challenges, and identity-based considerations").  The investigators interviewed 27 physician leaders to determine why they chose an administrative position, how they experienced their roles as leaders, and what challenges they faced as physician leaders.  The findings of this study are not necessarily new and have been reported elsewhere.  Regardless, the investigators highlight important issues that deserve a broader discussion.

Of the 27 physicians interviewed, the majority (17/27, or 63%) were medical directors, directors, or C-suite level executives.  When the interviews were analyzed further, four main themes emerged.  First, the physicians stated that they accepted their leadership roles out of a desire to make a necessary change that would benefit patient care.  Several physicians voiced frustration with the status quo, and rather than ignore or complain about the problem, they chose to be part of the solution.  As one physician stated during the interview, "I can't stand it when I see things not running the way they should.  I'd rather participate than grumble.  I'd rather take a leap."  Another physician said, "I couldn't stop because I felt I had a point and I needed to fix this problem."  Importantly, all of these sentiments are consistent with the more general motivation of practicing medicine - that is to help and serve patients.

The physicians also expressed a desire for professional growth and development (second theme).  However, the majority also felt that "learning the ropes" of an administrative or leadership position was not easy, and juggling clinical practice with administrative responsibilities took a lot of time and effort.  As one physician stated, "I think my life would be smoother and easier if I had chosen to just be a pure clinician."  Unfortunately, a number of studies have revealed similar findings.  Moving into an administrative role requires a commitment to learn a different and additional discipline, and whether that occurs through graduate-level coursework or "on the job" training, it takes time and effort.

The third and perhaps most important theme centered around the difficulties with transitioning from being a pure clinician to a physician/administrator.  Most of the physicians surveyed still maintained a clinical practice, but those who did not expressed the sentiment of missing patient care.  These physicians often felt lost in their new role, particularly during the initial transition, and most felt that their relationships with colleagues changed.  Both the research and my own anecdotal experience has found that when physicians accept an administrative role, colleagues often say that they have "gone to the dark side" or "exchanged the white lab coat for a dark blue suit."  One of the physicians was told by a colleague, "It's like you're no longer a real doctor."  This is of course unfortunate - our physician colleagues should recognize the value of having a clinical person in a hospital leadership position.  Perhaps we need to do a better job of demonstrating our value to both the business side and the clinical side?

The fourth theme was related to the third and dealt with the change in identity associated with a change in professional responsibilities.  Most of the physicians surveyed felt that taking on a leadership role changed the way that they perceived themselves as professionals.  One physician stated, "I think it [identity] took a hit.  There's nobility and there's status of being a physician...that I had to give up."  

There's another important point that the investigators didn't mention that is related to the their third theme.  Physicians in administrative roles often find themselves in a strange middle ground where their physician colleagues feel that they are no longer true physicians (they've "gone to the dark side"), but they are not fully accepted by their administrative colleagues either.  Recall my earlier discussion on social identity theory, when I stated that one's social identity inspires both loyalty to the in group and competition with the out group.  Physician administrators often find themselves caught in the middle of this loyalty/competition (for more discussion on this topic, see the articles "The Paradox of Legitimacy: Physician Executives and the Practice of Medicine" and "Physicians as Executives: Boon or Boondoggle?").  

There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that hospitals perform better, both from a quality of care standpoint as well as a financial standpoint, when they are led by physicians and nurses.  Our nursing colleagues seem to have figured out the transition from clinical practice to administrative leadership, at least in my opinion.  Regardless, we can certainly learn from their experience.  Given all of the issues presented above, we clearly need a better and more defined pathway for physicians who want to make a difference and choose to become administrators.  I like to call it the "Wards to Boards" pathway.   

"Be a candle and a mirror"

We spend a lot of time, energy, and money on leadership.  There's a mantra that organizations are successful because of their leaders, and so we try to learn as much as we possibly can about how these leaders led their organizations to success.  Yet in doing so, we often neglect another very important component of success - the followers!  

Recall from my recent post ("Learn to follow, then learn to lead...") how the management expert Peter Drucker defined leadership.  He said, "The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers."  While it's certainly not that simple, the fact remains that organizations are successful because of how well their leaders lead, as well as how well their followers follow.  

The Civil War hero William T. Sherman, who was an excellent follower too, by the way, reportedly once said, "We have good corporals and good sergeants and some good lieutenants and captains, and those are far more important than good generals."  General Sherman was a servant leader who recognized the importance of his middle managers (the lieutenants and captains), as well as the front-line leaders (sergeants) and followers (corporals).  

So, how do you become a good follower?  For as much as has been written about leadership, followership has received far less attention.  Yet, there are some excellent articles on followership.  There's an excellent one published in 1988 in Harvard Business Review 1988 by Robert E. Kelley called "In Praise of Followers".  Kelley presented a framework using the classic 2x2 matrix, in which the vertical axis measures the degree to which followers exercise independent, critical thinking and the horizontal axis ranks the followers on a passive/active scale.  He then suggested that there are five different followership patterns (see the figure below).

Followers who Kelley describes as "Sheep" (Passive, Dependent/Uncritical thinking) are the individuals in the organization who fail to act on their own.  They don't take initiative or accept responsibility for anything.  They do their job and nothing more.  

The followers that Kelley describes as "Yes People" are just as bad as the "Sheep", maybe even worse.  These individuals blindly follow the leader, regardless of whether the leader deserves to be followed or not.  The "Yes People" are completely dependent upon the leader for guidance and inspiration and are what Kelley describes as "aggressively deferential" (the combination of "Yes People" with a charismatic leader with questionable morals and integrity is particularly dangerous).  

"Alienated Followers" are the individuals who can think independently and critically about how to solve a particular problem or issue, yet they are passive in the execution of the solution.  These individuals are often cynical and over time may even become disgruntled.

The "Survivors" stand in the middle of Kelley's 2x2 matrix.  They are generally conservative and play it safe.  At the same time, they generally adapt well to change.  It's as if they just "go with the flow" and follow the proverbial direction of the winds.

The last group of followers that Kelley described are the individuals who think and act independently.  The "Effective Followers" are the individuals who are self-starters and risk-takers.  They take their own initiative and can succeed even in the absence of good leadership.  As Chester Barnard wrote in The Functions of the Executive over 80 years ago, "The decision as to whether an order has authority or not lies with the person to whom it is addressed, and does not reside in 'persons of authority' or those who issue orders."

"Effective Followers" exhibit a number of important characteristics:

1. Self-management

2. Commitment

3. Competence

4. Focus

5. Courage

6. Honesty

7. Credibility

Some would argue that the typical model of training "leadership" has not worked.  Perhaps that is because we have focused far less attention on developing good followers.  Leadership and followership are tightly linked and mutually dependent.  Leadership development is important, but a growing body of literature suggests that we should devote just as much time and energy on training individuals to be good followers.

Robert Kelley's article in Harvard Business Review also provides some recommendations on cultivating followership.  He writes, "You may have noticed by now that the qualities that make effective followers are, confusingly enough, pretty much the same qualities found in some effective leaders."  Here's the key point - leadership and followership are roles that individuals play in the organization.  What distinguishes leaders from followers may not have anything to do with the traits or qualities they possess, but rather the role that they play in the organization.  Kelley goes on to say that "effective followers and effective leaders are often the same people playing different parts at different hours of the day."  In other words, an individual could be in the role of a "leader" and a "follower" at different times of the day.

Kelley recommends four steps to cultivate "Effective Followers" in your organization:

1. Redefining Followership and Leadership: Again, as suggested in the paragraph above, we need to view leadership and followership from the viewpoint that leaders and followers are positions that individuals occupy, not as distinct traits or characteristics that individuals possess.  Similarly, we should adopt the framework that leaders and followers are mutually dependent and not hierarchical in nature.  In other words, leaders are not superior to the followers.  Instead, they are equally important but distinct roles that these individuals fill in the organization.  That sounds a lot like the HRO principle of "Deference to Expertise" doesn't it?  Kelley describes the relationship between leaders and followers in this manner: "People who are effective in the leader role have the vision to set corporate goals and strategies, the interpersonal skills to achieve consensus, the verbal capacity to communicate enthusiasm to large and diverse groups of individuals, the organizational talent to coordinate disparate efforts, and above all, the desire to lead."  Similarly, "People who are effective in follower roles have the vision to see both the forest and the trees, the social capacity to work well with others, the strength of character to flourish without heroic status, the moral and psychological balance to pursue personal and corporate goals at no cost to either, and above all, the desire to participate in a team effort for the accomplishment of some greater common purpose."  At one point or another, all of us play to the role of leader and follower - the success of the organization depends upon our ability to play both roles equally well!

2. Honing Followership Skills:  Unfortunately, a lot of us commonly assume that leadership has to be taught (see for example, "Practice makes better, but does Practice make perfect?"), but that everyone knows how to follow.  Kelley writes, "This assumption is based upon three faulty premises: (1) that leaders are more important than followers, (2) that following is simply doing what you are told to do, and (3) that followers are inevitably draw their energy and aims, even their talent, from the leader."  Followership, just like leadership, is not only a learned skill, it is an equally important one.  Organizations can train followership skills by emphasizing topics such as (1) self-management, improving independent, (2) critical thinking, (3) disagreeing agreeably (conflict management), (4) aligning personal and organizational goals and commitments, and (5) moving between followership and leadership roles seamlessly.  

3. Performance Evaluation and Feedback: Building upon the discussion in #2 above, performance evaluation should focus on building both leadership and followership.  

4. Organizational Structures That Encourage Followership: Organizations can help foster effective followership by incorporating certain structural changes such as self-managed teams (see the Harvard Business Review article "Beyond the Holocracy Hype" for a great discussion on this subject), rotating leadership of teams (for example, some organizations have "term limits" for certain roles and positions within the organization), and encouraging the HRO concept of "Deference to Expertise" (delegating responsibility to the lowest level).  Check out how Nordstrom's ("The Tire Story") empowers front-line employees to make decisions as one example.  Alternatively, read about how the military encourages followership (and by extension, leadership) through the concepts of "commander's intent" and "deference to expertise" ("We rely upon your ability...you know what to do").

I will end this post, as I frequently do, with a couple of quotes on followership.  Helen Keller said, "The world is moved not only by the mighty shoves of heroes, but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of each honest worker."  The writer and magazine editor Merle Crowell wrote, "It is the men behind who make the man ahead."  Finally, the author Edith Wharton said, "There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it."  Learn and strive to be both a candle and a mirror.

"You can't learn that which you think you already know..."

Our world has become a lot more polarized over the course of the last several years.  I'm not sure when it began exactly, and I definitely don't know how it will end.  Regardless, whether it's politics, sports, entertainment, or just daily life, our views and opinions have become stronger and we tend to gravitate towards one side of the spectrum versus the other.  

Studies show that our lives tend to congregate around other people that we agree with.  We listen to podcasts and watch television shows that share our views on different opinions and ideas.  We follow individuals on social media whose views and opinions mirror our own.  We even read newspapers, books, and magazines that are consistent with our opinions and views.  Unfortunately, the studies also show that this lack of diversity in opinion and thought contributes to the polarization that we see in our world today.

Ryan Holiday recently talked about the need for diversity in opinion and thought on his Daily Stoic podcast (see "Why you must build a deep bookshelf").  He says, "Most people look for mirrors.  Their bookshelves are full of books that reflect back what they know and believe."  The entrepreneur and author Luke Burgis, who was a recent guest on Holiday's podcast, says "That's what I call a thin shelf.  What we want to build is a deep shelf."  He goes on, "Republicans should be reading books by Democrats; Democrats should be reading books by Republicans; atheists or agnostics should read Ratzinger; Christians should read Dawkins; Talebians should dabble in Pinker."

The Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca would have agreed with Burgis.  He wrote, "Cross over into the enemy's camp.  Not as a deserter, but as a scout."  Similarly, Epictetus reportedly said, "You can’t learn that which you think you already know.”  In other words, read more widely.  Broaden your intellectual horizons.  Learn how others think.

Ryan Holiday finishes his blog with the following admonition.  "Read and study like a scout.  Go into the enemy's camp.  Build a deep bookshelf.  Challenge yourself.  Vary your (intellectual) diet.  Expose yourself to new, foreign influences.  That's how you get stronger."  Indeed.

Philosophers and Kings

The Roman Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus said, "I believe a good king is from the outset and by necessity a philosopher, and the philosopher is from the outset a kingly person."  The Greek philosopher Plato believed in a utopia ruled by a philosopher king and wrote in The Republic that "Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide…cities will have no rest from evils…there can be no happiness, either public or private, in any other city."

We are living in a turbulent world.  Let's take a brief look at what confronts today's leaders: The pandemics of COVID-19, racism, and violence, Climate change, Political division and unrest.  The issues that we face as leaders are not going away anytime soon.  The entrepreneur and former Icelandic presidential candidate Halla Tómasdóttir suggests that "Hard times often precede great awakenings. If we choose to meet this moment with courage, humility and collective leadership, hope will overcome fear, hate and violence. It is up to us to confront the crisis of conformity in leadership.  In a recent TED talk ("The crisis of leadership --- and a new way forward"), Tómasdóttir explains this "crisis of conformity" further by saying, "It's a crisis of conformity when we continue to do business the way that we always have, yet the evidence is overwhelming that the world needs us to change our ways."  She goes on to say that leaders must be ten times bolder in the ways that we lead.  We can start by embracing philosophy.

The U.S. Army recently developed a leadership framework of "Be, Know, Do".  "Be" refers to character, "Know" refers to the knowledge, skills, and abilities (expertise), and "Do" refers to the application of leadership by influencing, operating, and improving.  The "Be" in this leadership framework encompasses the following key values:

L         Loyalty

D        Duty

R        Respect

S        Selfless Service

H        Honor

I         Integrity

P        Personal Courage

Whenever a leader is faced with a serious challenge, dilemma, or crisis, it's helpful to fall back upon the teachings of some of the philosophers of the past through self-reflection and introspection.  David Brendel refers to the "SANE" mnemonic in his Harvard Business Review article "How philosophy makes you a better leader".  The "SANE" mnemonic draws upon four key questions from the Western philosophers Socrates, Aristotle, Nietzsche, and the Existentialist Sartre:

Socrates: What is the most challenging question someone could ask me about my current approach?

Aristotle: What character virtues are most important to me and how will I express them?

Nietzsche: How will I direct my "will to power", manage my self-interest, and act in accordance with my chosen values?

Existentialists: "How will I take full responsibility for my choices and the outcomes to which they lead?

I am not advocating for one brand of philosophy over another (I have found the Stoic philosophers to be the most useful for me).  My point is that the lessons of philosophy can help us confront the challenges that we face as leaders in this rapidly evolving and turbulent world in which we live.  The concept of the "philosopher king" will help us be "ten times bolder" and overcome the "crisis of conformity", so that we can move forward and change the world.

Different worlds

As I stated in my last post, I just returned from a once-in-a-lifetime trip to New Zealand with our son.  It was absolutely incredible.  It's always good, I think, to experience different cultures and different ways of thinking.  We were there for two weeks, and it took us at least a week to figure out some of these differences.  For example, when someone in New Zealand asks you if you would like a biscuit, they actually mean a cookie!  When you order lemonade in New Zealand, there's a good chance that they will hand you a glass of Sprite.  There's no such thing as ordering something To Go.  Instead, you order it Take Away.  And most important (for me at least), when ordering coffee in New Zealand, there's no such thing as a regular coffee black (without cream and sugar).  The closest thing is called a Long Black, which is really a shot of espresso with additional hot water.  

One of the other major differences we experienced is that New Zealanders drive on the wrong side of the road!  Actually, it wasn't all that difficult, especially since the steering wheel is on the right side of the car and not the left (see the picture below):

Basically, you just have to remember that the driver is always on the inside lane, which is the same in every other country around the world, including the United States.  Truthfully, getting used to the fact that I had to use my left hand (as opposed to my right) to shift the car into Drive or Park was more difficult than driving the car on the wrong side of the road.

I hope you can appreciate that experiencing a different culture, even one that in actual truth is fairly similar to our own, is a great educational experience.  Our diversity is what makes us strong.  As former President Jimmy Carter said, "We have become not a melting pot but a beautiful mosaic.  Different people, different beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes, different dreams."  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr said, "An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."  The first step in achieving Dr. King's vision is to actually escape the narrow confines and learn and experience life in a different way. We had a lot of fun in New Zealand, but the most important part of our trip was the experience of a different world.

“Live more. Fear less.”

All of us (well, maybe not all of us) have irrational fears.  Someone in our family is terribly afraid of birds and other winged creatures!  I am absolutely terrified of heights.  I'm not sure where this fear started exactly.  I remember a time growing up when I was working on a roof in the Appalachian region as part of a youth group excursion trip (an early version of "Habitat for Humanity").  I fell off the roof, but safely landed on the very soft ground (mud actually).  As they say, my pride was hurt more than my body.  Perhaps that is when I became afraid of heights.  I just don't know.

Well, the English playwright Shakespeare wrote, "Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once."  I don't know if I would quite put it like that, so I like the quote by Eleanor Roosevelt better.  She once reportedly said, "Do one thing every day that scares you."

My son and I just got back home from a once-in-a-lifetime trip to New Zealand.  His work paid for most of the trip, and I was lucky enough to be able to go with him!  The country is absolutely amazing in its beauty!  While in Queenstown, he convinced me to go Bungy jumping with A.J. Hackett Bungy New Zealand!  Apparently, Queenstown is the home of bungy jumping, so I guess this made sense.

Bungy jumping, or rather the idea of jumping from a height while tethered to a rope first originated on the island of Vanuatu, where young men ritually jumped from tall wooden platforms with vines tied to their ankles as a test of their courage.  Apparently, this was the inspiration for the modern concept of bungy jumping developed by entrepreneur A.J. Hackett.  The first commercial site for bungy jumping was the Kawarau River Gorge suspension bridge in Queenstown.  Here's a picture of the bungy platform on the bridge (taken with my cell phone right before we made the jump):

It's only (only) 43 meters high!  The A.J. Hackett Nevis Highwire Platform, the third highest bungy jumping platform in the word, is three times as high at 134 meters!  Anyway, we decided to go ahead and make the jump from the Kawarau River Bridge (I will say it was due to historical reasons, but I'd be lying).  The worst part was shuffling out to the edge of the platform, but I have to admit that the jump was a lot of fun.

One of my daughters asked me if I would ever do this again.  I told her that I absolutely would - it was an incredible thrill.  Once I got past the fear of being on the edge of a platform so high above the river, the rest was an amazing experience.  And if I had let my fears rule the day, I would have missed out on an incredible thrill of bungy jumping.

Will I make this a hobby?  Nope.  But I was proud that I conquered my fear.  Like Eleanor Roosevelt said, ""Do one thing every day that scares you."  Not only will you expand your repertoire of experiences, learn something new, or actually have fun, but you may also find that your fears were unwarranted.  The marketing slogan for A.J. Hackett's company states it best - "Live more.  Fear less."

Learn to follow, then learn to lead...

Several years ago, a couple of business school professors, William Litzinger and Thomas Schaefer sat down with a group Army officers, all of which were either teaching faculty or recent graduates from the United States Military Academy at West Point.  The two professors asked a very simple question, "Since developing leadership is what this place is all about, how do you go about doing that task?"

The Army officers' collective answer was surprising in both its simplicity and its message.  "We begin by teaching them to be followers."

As it turns out, this concept has been around for a really long time!  The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote in his book Politics wrote, "Who would learn to lead, must, as men say, first of all learn to obey."  In other words, good leaders start out as good followers!

It should be fairly obvious (but I will mention it anyway) that in order to be a leader, individuals need to have followers.  According to the visionary management and leadership expert Peter Drucker, "The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers."  Of course, it's not quite that simple.  

Take, for example, a new Army captain who is newly promoted to be the company Commanding Officer (CO) and is now responsible for the roughly 200 soldiers in the company.  Suppose that the CO never actually leaves company headquarters and gives orders to the rest of the company only through subordinates.  Technically, the CO has followers, but does that make the CO a leader?  I would argue that it does not.

Ralph Nader once said that "the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers."  And that is absolutely true.  However, as the former business school professor and leadership expert Warren Bennis observed, leaders are only as effective as their ability to engage followers.  What is the best way to engage followers?  Be a good follower.

Kim Peters and Alex Haslam wrote (see "Research: To be a good leader, start by being a good follower"), "...the key to success in leadership lies in the collective we not the individual I."  They go on to define leadership as "a process that emerges from a relationship between leaders and followers who are bound together by their understanding that they are members of the same social group.  People will be more effective leaders when their behaviors indicate that they are one of us, because they share our values, concerns and experiences, and are doing it for us..."

Peters and Haslam published a study in the British Journal of Psychiatry with the title "I follow, therefore I lead: A longitudinal study of leader and follower identity and leadership in the marines".  They conducted several leadership assessments and interviews of 218 male Royal Marine recruits over the course of 32 weeks of basic infantry training.  They found that recruits who considered themselves to be leaders were also seen by their commanders as leaders.  However, the rest of their fellow recruits did not see it that way.  The recruits who saw themselves as followers were the ones who ultimately emerged as leaders!

Perhaps not surprisingly, the commanders often envisaged a specific leadership phenotype (see my last post "Diamonds in the Rough") and rated the recruits who fit this phenotype as having the most leadership potential.  Again however, the other members of the group just did not see it that way.  As it turned out, the recruits who were rated as followers by both their fellow recruits and commanders were the ones who actually emerged as the leaders of the group.  

Hopefully I convinced you in my last post that there is no such thing as a leadership phenotype.  Now, I've expanded that discussion to include the observation that in order to be a good leader, you must first be a good follower.  In a future post, we will discuss how to be a good follower!

Diamonds in the Rough

Shortly after starting medical school, I applied for and received a U.S. Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship.  During the summer between my first and second years of medical school, I attended what was then called Officer Indoctrination School (OIS, which is affectionately known as "knife and fork" school), now known as Officer Development School (ODS).  The school is one of five officer training programs at the Navy's Officer Training Command located in Newport, Rhode Island.  

The purpose of ODS is to provide Staff Corps (physicians, nurses, chaplains, lawyers, etc) with the education and training necessary to prepare them to function in their role as a newly commissioned Naval Officer.  The 5-week course covers areas including Naval Leadership, Naval Administration, Naval Organization, Sea Power, Military Law, Military Indoctrination, Naval Warfare, and Damage Control (see a video of Damage Control training aboard the USS Buttercup), as well as providing a basic introduction into the fundamental aspects of leadership through case studies and instructor led leadership scenarios.

I thoroughly enjoyed my time at OIS.  These experiences have been the subject of or at least mentioned in a number of my previous posts (see "You know what to do", "Tap Code", and "12 O'Clock High" for a few of my favorites).  I suppose it also helped that I learned to sail and became certified in scuba diving during my time there!  And most importantly, shortly after graduating from OIS, my wife and I were married and went on our honeymoon!  Needless to say, it was a great summer.

Our brigade (all of my classmates were fellow medical students who were in the scholarship program) was divided into six companies of approximately 20-30 officers (a big difference between OIS/ODS and some of the other officer training programs is that the students are already commissioned officers).  Our company was led by a Lt. Commander in the Nurse Corps (as the Officer-in-Charge, or OIC), assisted by a Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant.  Each week, our OIC selected our company leader and assistant to help her coordinate the training and classroom activities for the week.  She would rotate who would serve as the leader and assistant based upon our performance (and level of interest, of course) during the previous week.

There was a small group of us who were perhaps less seriously engaged as the rest (see my previous comment about learning to sail and getting certified in scuba diving).  We did what was required, of course, but we also made sure that we were having fun doing so.  For the fifth and final week of our training, our OIC decided to let the rest of our company elect the leader and assistant.  She assumed that the company would vote for who they thought had been the best leader or the most engaged for the preceding four weeks of the program.  More or less as a joke (or punishment), the class selected two of us who were part of the group that had fun.  I was selected as the assistant, and one of my new friends was selected as the leader.  Our OIC was pretty worried and told us so during our first meeting of the week.  I remember her telling us, "Surprise me!"

I think we rose to our OIC's challenge.  We made sure that our company had a great week to close out our training, but we also made sure that we had fun doing it.  One of the areas that our OIC prided herself on was teaching her company to march/drill in formation.  We made sure that our company won the brigade-wide march/drill competition, which was held the day before graduation.  Afterwards, we celebrated with a softball game and barbecue that we put together.  We led by example (which required us to "up our game" significantly), and we finished the week strong.  By the end of the week, our OIC met with us and told us that she was surprised and impressed.  She told us, "I completely underestimated you both.  You did a fantastic job leading the company this week."

We often think that leaders should fit a certain mold or phenotype.  The stereotypical leader is someone who captures our attention the moment they enter the room.  According to this line of thinking, leaders should be charismatic, visionary, and inspiring.  The truth is that there isn't a single, dominant leadership phenotype.  We often find leaders in unexpected places - the so-called diamonds in the rough.  These "unexpected leaders" are the often the individuals who nobody believed would emerge as a leader of a group.  These individuals are often quiet, introverted, and otherwise nondescript (the "wallflower stereotype"), but as the case above shows, they could also be the individuals who don't necessarily want to be the first to step up to the plate.

As Matthew Collier writes in his blog post "Unexpected Leadership", "Past performance in just about any skill is not necessarily a predictor of future leadership greatness."  He talks about two historical leaders who suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves in a leadership position (Ulysses S. Grant, who was placed in overall command of the Union Army during the Civil War and Harry Truman, who became President after Franklin Roosevelt's death in office).  Neither individual had, at least to that date, what anyone would call a successful career or demonstrated the qualities necessary to be a great leader.  Yet, they both showed great leadership during some of the most difficult times in our nation's history.

The author and poet Solange Nicole said, "A diamond doesn't start out polished and shining. It once was nothing special, but with enough pressure and time, becomes spectacular."  You never know where you will find the future leaders in your group, team, or organization.  Don't write off someone just because they don't fit your classic leadership stereotype - you may lose out on a diamond in the rough.

"Barbecue sauce"

If you've been following my blog in the last year or so, you will appreciate the fact that I am a big fan of the television Apple TV+ series Ted Lasso.  Apparently they just started filming Season 3, which may possibly be the final season of the show!  I certainly hope not.  It's a great show, and I've posted themes and lessons learned from the show in a number of posts in the past (for example, see a couple of my favorites "Be a goldfish!", "Believe", and "Football is life").

My wife and I recently started watching the first season again (okay, maybe I made her re-watch the first couple of episodes).  I came across another great leadership lesson in Season 1, Episode 8 "The Diamond Dogs" .  Without getting into specifics on the show itself, by this point in the show, the other characters have at least started to warm up to Ted, and the players on AFC Richmond are responding to his leadership style.  Rupert, the ex-husband (and former owner) of Rebecca (who is now the owner of the team) challenges Ted to a game of darts.  As he approaches, he says, "Do you like darts, Ted?"  Ted responds with, "Oh they're okay."

It's the classic hustle.  Rupert thinks that he will easily beat Ted and wages 10,000 pounds as a bet.  Ted counters with his own bet.  If Rupert wins, he can pick the starting line-ups for the last two games of the season.  However, if Ted wins, Rupert has to stay away from the stadium for the last two games.

Rupert takes an early and seemingly insurmountable lead in the game.  In order to win, Ted has to score a two triple 20's and a bulls-eye with his last three dart throws.  Before he throws the first dart, he begins his soliloquy.  You can watch the video here or read the transcript below:

“Guys have underestimated me my entire life and for years I never understood why – it used to really bother me. Then one day I was driving my little boy to school, and I saw a quote by Walt Whitman, it was painted on the wall there and it said, ‘Be curious, not judgmental.’ I like that.” (Ted throws his first dart and scores his first triple-20.)

“So, I get back in my car and I’m driving to work and all of a sudden it hits me – all them fellas that used to belittle me, not a single one of them was curious. You know, they thought they had everything all figured out, so they judged everything, and they judged everyone. And I realized that their underestimating me – who I was had nothing to do with it. Because if they were curious, they would’ve asked questions. Questions like, ‘Have you played a lot of darts, Ted?’” (Ted throws his second dart and again scores a triple-20.)

“To which I would have answered, ‘Yes sir. Every Sunday afternoon at a sports bar with my father from age ten until I was 16 when he passed away.’ Barbecue sauce.” (Ted throws a double bullseye to win the game.)

"Be curious, not judgmental."  As it turns out, Walt Whitman never actually said or wrote that (at least according to the experts).  But I think the quote is incredible regardless of who said it.  As Connie Whittaker Dunlop wrote in an article for the Forbes online magazine, Rupert should have been more curious (and less judgmental about Ted's dart skills) by instead first asking Ted (which is exactly the question that Ted suggested at the end of his soliloquy), "Have you played a lot of darts, Ted?"  However, while a significant improvement, this alternative question is still what is known as a closed-ended question, i.e. it can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no."  

A still better question for Rupert to ask would have been an open-ended question, such as "When was the last time you played darts, Ted?"  Or an even better question, "What's your best score in a dart game, Ted?" or "How good of a dart player are you, Ted?"

So one take-home message from this particular Ted Lasso episode is that leaders should "be curious" by asking more powerful questions.  The other important take-home message is that leaders should spend the time to get to know and understand the people that work for them, perhaps just as much (if not more) than the people that they work with and work for.  Take the time to ask questions.  Don't assume that you know or understand someone's skills, knowledge, or attitude.  Do not pre-judge.  Be curious.

"Barbecue sauce."

"People don't leave organizations, they leave bad bosses"

There is a commonly used statement in the management literature that has turned into a cliché - people don't leave organizations, they leave bad bosses."  I have found at least one article that suggests that while people do, in fact, leave bad bosses, it's not the number one reason that they leave organizations.  Jason McPherson at Culture Amp apparently gathered data from 175 different teams and found that in "good" companies, managers make a difference in whether an employee chooses to stay or leave.  However, in "bad" companies, good or bad managers make little to no difference to an employee's decision to leave.

Interestingly, a similar study conducted at Facebook (when it was still called Facebook) and found that people don't quit a boss - they quit a job.  But here's the catch.  The managers are the ones who are most responsible for determining what the job is like (at least at Facebook).  So it turns out that maybe people really do leave bad managers after all.  Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries explains it perfectly in the Harvard Business Review article "Coaching the Toxic Leader" when he says that leaders and managers "have the power to create an environment that allows people to grow and give their best - or a toxic workplace where everyone is unhappy."

Marcia Lynn Whicker first defined and popularized the term "toxic leaders" in her book Toxic Leaders: When Organizations Go Bad.  Whicker defined a toxic leader as an individual in a position of authority and responsibility who abuses the leader-follower relationship by leaving the team, group, or organization in a worse condition than it was when he or she first interacted with them.  Barbara Kellerman, writing in Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters described seven different types of toxic leaders:

1. Incompetent Leaders - Leaders who do not inspire or create positive change

2. Rigid Leaders - Leaders who refuse to change

3. Intemperate Leaders - Leaders who lack self-control

4. Callous Leaders - Leaders who do not care and ignore the needs of their teams

5. Corrupt Leaders - Leaders who lie, cheat, and place their interests above everyone else's

6. Insular Leaders - Leaders who disregard the health and welfare of those outside their immediate team

7. Evil Leaders - Leaders who commit atrocities and cause psychological or physical harm

In my last post ("We were soldiers once..."), I mentioned a book Hal Moore on Leadership: Winning When Outgunned and Outmanned co-written by Lt General Moore and Mike Guardia.  Lt General Hal Moore expanded provides what I thought is a great list of the different types of toxic leaders:  

1. Bully leaders - Leaders who inflict emotional pain, deliver threats and ultimatums, hurl insults, and invalidate the opinions of others

2. Narcissistic Leaders - Leaders who are arrogant and self-congratulatory to the point where the force themselves and their personality on the rest of the team and/or organization.  These leaders believe (wrongly) that they are the standard that every other leader in the organization should strive to emulate.

3. Divisive Leaders - Likely a subcategory of Narcissistic leaders, as they share many of the same qualities, these leaders channel their wrath or arrogance towards a specific person or group who they perceive as particularly weak or unfit to be a leader (based on their own definition and standards of leadership - see above description).  The Divisive leader often subjects these individuals to public humiliation, resentment, and ridicule until they leave the organization.

4. Insular Leaders - These leaders form cliques and go to great lengths to make sure that their "followers" (those loyal to the leader) are shielded and enjoy special treatment/privileges.  Conversely, those individuals who are outside this group are targeted for ridicule and/or derision.

5. Hypocritical Leaders - These leaders live by a certain code ("Do as I say, not as I do") and rarely practice what they preach.  

6. Enforcement Leaders - These leaders continuously seek the approval of their superiors without regard to their own direct reports' welfare.  There is a difference here between taking a so-called "enterprise-wide view" (in other words, at times, the best decision for the entire organization may not be the best decision for the department and/or division) and blindly following the direction of the superior (which has been called "brown nosing"!).

7. Callous Leaders - These leaders are similar to Enforcement Leaders with one exception.  Here, the blatant disregard for the welfare of their direct reports stems, not from a desire to please their own bosses, but due to the lack of empathy.

8. Seniority Preference Leaders - These leaders are very similar to the Insular leaders, but the preference for special treatment and/or privileges is based on the length of tenure in the organization rather than their own "followers".

9. Credit-hog Leaders - These leaders take all the credit for success, even when that credit should be someone else's (often one of their direct reports).

10. Blame-shifting Leaders - These leaders shift all the blame for failure on to their direct reports.

Lt General Moore's list is longer than Barbara Kellerman's for sure, but both lists have a lot in common.  And it appears that Lt General Moore is more of a splitter than a lumper.  As I look back on my career, I've encountered (either directly or indirectly) examples of almost every one of these types of toxic leaders.  

So, how do we, as leaders, deal effectively with toxic leaders who may be colleagues and/or direct reports?  I go back to an article in the Harvard Business Review, "Stop Making Excuses for Toxic Bosses".  The first step is to recognize toxic behavior when it occurs (preferably, before it occurs).  Once we witness the toxic behavior, we should neither excuse it or tolerate it.  As the saying goes, "What you permit, you promote."  They only way to stop the toxic behavior is to simply not tolerate it.  As a matter of fact, one study found that toxic behaviors that are excused or otherwise dismissed generally get worse and more frequent. Given the implications of toxic leaders on employee turnover and morale, organizations should strictly adhere and follow a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to toxic leadership.