Day one of the next 250 years...

I've been reading about the recent completion of the Basílica Sagrada Família with great interest.  As you may recall from my post "Cathedral Thinking" last year, this famous church (and UNESCO World Heritage site) in Barcelona was designed by the Catalan architect Antoni Gaudí.  Construction began on the church on March 19, 1882 under the direction of the architect Francisco de Paula del Villar y Lozano, though Gaudí took over when Villar resigned in 1883.  The project would become Gaudí's magnum opus, and he would devote the remainder of his life to the project.  At the time of his death in 1926, only about a quarter of the church construction was complete.  After over 144 years, the central Tower of Jesus Christ was completed on February 20, 2026, and it was inaugurated and blessed by Pope Leo XIV June 10, 2026 during his visit to Spain, coinciding with the centenary of Gaudí's death, as originally planned.

One hundred and forty-four years is definitely a long time, until it's realized that most of the famous churches and other structures from antiquity took far longer to complete.  For example, the Great Wall of China took over 2,000 years to build.  Angkor Wat, the temple complex in Cambodia took over 400 years to build.  Westminster Abbey in London required nearly 500 years to build.  St. Peter's Basilica in Rome required 120 years of construction. The Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris required over 100 years to finish.  It's clear that even with modern construction and engineering, 144 years is not too far out of the ordinary.

As I discussed in last year's post, the concept known as "cathedral thinking" describes the mindset in which long-term projects or goals are initiated for the sake of or for the benefit of future generations. Gaudí knew that he wouldn't live long enough to see the final results of his dream for the Sagrada Família.  Importantly, "cathedral thinking" applies to more than just physical objects.  The U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock recently wrote a book called The Crooked Places Made Straight: Reflections on the Moral Meaning of America.  In the introduction to his book (the title of which, appropriately enough, is "America, The Grand Cathedral"), Warnock uses the same analogy to describe the work that lies ahead for the United States of America, particularly as we celebrate the first 250 years since our nation's founding on July 4, 1776.  He writes, "I reflected that America is like a glorious cathedral, 250 years in the making.  Yet, after all these years, we're still wrestling and toiling to build this grand cathedral of freedom and democracy."  He then cites a passage from the poem "Let America Be America Again") by Langston Hughes:

America never was America to me

And yet, I swear this oath - America will be!

Senator Warnock concludes his book by returning to the "cathedral thinking" analogy.  He writes, "Our grand cathedral is 250 years in the making.  It is majestic, mighty, and full of possibility; yet it remains unfinished. At a time when our country is so deeply divided, I urge us to recognize the danger of our divisions, of allowing demagogues with no vision to deepen the chaos and tear down what has been built with blood and sacrifice.  I urge us instead to lean toward the moral work that can and must be done and to ask ourselves what kind of nation we want.  I urge us to imagine a future full of hope for everyone.  The future Isaiah [the Old Testament prophet] laid out so dearly: Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill brought low.  The crooked places shall be made straight, and the rough places smooth.  The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together (Isaiah 40:4-5)."

Yesterday was a celebration of America's first 250 years.  Today, we look forward to our next 250 years.  We still have work to do, for this grand cathedral of ours is not complete.  Today is day one of the next 250 years.  Let us commit to finish the work ahead.

"Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and..."

When I was growing up in the 1970's, there was a popular Chevrolet commercial that basically said that the four things that defined what it is to be an American were baseball (often referred to as America's national pastime), hot dogs (and never - I mean never- with ketchup), apple pie ("American as apple pie"), and of course, owning a Chevrolet.  I don't know about the Chevrolet part, even though my parents often owned Chevrolet automobiles.  Regardless, I have been reflecting a lot on what it truly means to be an American the past couple of months, even more so as we have been getting closer to the 250th anniversary of our nation's founding on July 4, 1776.  Certainly "America" means more than just "baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie" right (I won't even comment on the fact that this was a television commercial for a major automobile manufacturer).  

I was fortunate enough to experience July 4, 1976, the American Bicentennial, when I was growing up. The journalist Kyle Smith, who is about the same age as me, has similar memories about that time in our nation's history.  In a recent article for the Wall Street Journal (see "The Bicentennial was a better birthday than this"), Smith writes, "To be 10 years old on July 4, 1976, was pure exhilaration and, as it turned out, the last time American culture was truly overwhelmed by patriotic devotion."  While the issues of the day were certainly different from the ones we struggle with today, American society in 1976 was similar to our present day, at least in terms of the general mood.  We were still emerging from the shadows of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.  Trust in institutions, particularly in government ones, was at historic lows, at least up to that point in history.  The 1973 OPEC oil embargo had caused long lines and high prices at the gas pumps, leading to years of inflation.  Just a year earlier, soon-to-be Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote in his essay "What have we learned", "In no one thing has the American civic culture declined more in recent decades than in the symbols of love of country, and of manly or womanly pride in the nation."  I think it's fair to argue that Americans were just as cynical in 1976 as they are now.  And yet, we came out in full force to celebrate our nation's 200th birthday.  The colors red, white, and blue were everywhere.  I remember all the parades, pageants, historical re-enactments, and celebrations on television.  They called it the "Spirit of 1976" (see the famous painting by A.M. Willard of the same name below) and it was magical.  

This year seems different.  I could be wrong, but I don't think the American Sesquicentennial (250th year) will be anything quite like what we experienced in 1976.  It certainly hasn't been that way yet.  And that is unfortunate.  While we were perhaps just as divided and cynical in 1976, I think we were a lot more patriotic then compared to now.  We still were proud of "America" as a concept.  We still hoped for and believed in the so-called "American Dream" ("If you work hard, you will get ahead").  Last year, a Gallup poll found that a record-low proportion of Americans described themselves as "extremely" or "very proud" to be American.  In that same poll, 11% of respondents said that they were "only a little" proud and 9% claimed that they were "not at all" proud to be Americans.  According to a recent AP-NORC poll, only one-third of Americans still believe in the "American Dream".  More than half of those polled don't even believe it still exists.  Many Americans feel that our best days are behind us.

The journalist Matthew Continetti recently reported in the Wall Street Journal (see "America's Posterity Problem") on significant declines in patriotism and national pride among younger generations of Americans.  Continetti reported the results of an American Enterprise Institute survey ("America at 250: Surveying Change and Continuity on Civic Values") that showed most Americans understand the importance of our founding, which we celebrate today, and that most of us living here agree that America stands for something special.  Unfortunately, that sentiment is far from universal among Generation Z, represented by Americans born 1997 and 2012.  Overall, 65%% of Americans said that our country is a nation unlike any other, though only 52% of Gen Z Americans felt that way.  Similarly, in the same 2025 Gallup poll mentioned above, just 41% of GenZ Americans claimed that they were "extremely" or "very proud" to be an American, by far the lowest of all the generations surveyed.

I don't know how to fix this malaise.  Perhaps it can't be fixed.  But I don't want to feel that way.  I still am proud to be an American.  I still believe in the "American Dream".  And I still believe that better days are still ahead for all Americans.  Yes, we have problems.  We are more politically divided, and we have lost the ability for civic discourse.  Our economy is getting weaker.  The world is becoming more dangerous.  Some have claimed that the era of American hegemony is over.  But we still have the core ideals that are written in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence, one of the greatest documents ever to be written: all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore, the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the people.  As then President Calvin Coolidge said in a speech delivered in Philadelphia on the 150th Fourth of July Celebration, "Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence...whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate applications of the law of the land will provide and adequate defense and protection."

Do yourself a favor.  If you haven't read it before, take this opportunity, on this the 250th anniversary of its signing, to read our nation's Declaration of Independence.  If you have read it in the past, take a moment to read it again.  

I will leave today's post with one more memory.  I grew up going to Purdue University football games (my parents were season ticket holders for almost fifty years I think, and I also attended Purdue as an undergraduate in the late 1980's).  One of the pregame traditions at Purdue's Ross-Ade Stadium was a reading of a tribute to America called "I am an America" by the "voice" of the Purdue All-American Marching Band, prior to the playing of the national anthem:

I am an American.  That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly.  They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail , or sweep them across this bright autumn sky.  But remember too, that they are more than just words.  They are a way of life.  So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully.  I am an American.  

"What kind of leader makes for a great President?"

For the past several years, I've been reading at least one biography (occasionally more than just one) of all the U.S. Presidents in order, starting with George Washington.  It all started with a book club that I joined at the Cincinnati Mercantile Library.  The book club kept on pace with a six biographies every year, but unfortunately now that I am living in Chicago, I haven't been keeping to that same schedule.  I am currently on our 33rd President, Harry S. Truman (though technically, I read David McCullough's excellent biography of Truman several years ago).  I am hoping to finish up in the next year or two.

I've learned a lot of history while reading biographies of the 45 men (unfortunately, no woman has ever served as our nation's chief executive) who have served as U.S. President.  More relevant to this blog, I've learned a lot about leadership in general.  With that in mind, I read an interesting article ("What kind of leader makes for a great President?") in the Wall Street Journal the other day by Colleen Shogan.  Shogan served as the 11th Archivist of the United States from 2023 to 2025, and she currently serves as the CEO of In Pursuit, a new initiative from More Perfect, to look back upon our first 250 years and "distill its most timeless lessons to inspire and inform our future."  

Shogan asked historians, journalists, military leaders, and civic leaders (including former U.S. Presidents and First Ladies) to identify one lesson from our nation's Presidents and First Ladies and write an essay about it.  She found that "the most consequential American leadership has rarely been loud or ideological.  Instead, it has relied on character, restraint, discerning judgement and a capacity to distinguish between compromise and moral surrender."  Shogan felt that four leadership qualities stood out among all of the other lessons:

1. "The importance of character"

Shogan writes, "Character shapes decisions most clearly when stakes are high and outcomes are uncertain.  Character can serve as a mitigating factor in the face of disaster, while the absence of character often has the opposite effect."

2. "The importance of soft power"

We all know U.S. Presidents who have tried to be effective by exercising what is known as hard power, which is best defined as the ability to coerce others to do what you want through threats, force, or financial leverage.  In contrast, soft power is the ability to persuade and attract others to voluntarily align with your goals through shared culture, values, and policies.  The most successful Presidents and First Ladies didn't have to rely upon hard power.

3. "Compromise with principles"

Shogan writes, "The role of compromise is critical in a democracy, but with an important caveat: Compromise untethered from principled leadership corrodes democratic legitimacy rather than preserving it...The lesson isn't that leaders should refuse compromise.  Rather, they must know what is morally nonnegotiable and understand why.  When compromise becomes an end in itself, it weakens both leadership and legitimacy."

4. "Learning from failure"

Failure is an opportunity to learn, and Shogan suggests that "leadership is often honed by failure...Failure clarifies what success obscures.  It exposes weak assumptions, tests cherished institutions, and forces citizens to confront uncomfortable truths."

I've just found my new favorite podcast!  There is a lesson for every President and many of the First Ladies (see the website here).  There is an essay, audio, and video for every single lesson on leadership.

It's déjà vu all over again...

The Yankee legend and baseball Hall of Famer Yogi Berra famously once said, "It's like déjà vu all over again!"  It's one of his most famous Yogi-isms, which he said after watching Yankee teammates Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris hit back-to-back home runs during the 1961 baseball season (this was the season that Maris broke Babe Ruth's longstanding record for most home runs hit during a single season).  The phrase is now a colloquialism used when someone is experiencing a situation that feels like an exact repetition of something that happened in the past.

Eric Poon, Andrew Rosenberg, Adam Landman, and Tejal Gandhi published an article this past year that asked whether we are experiencing a "déjà vu" moment with the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care (see "Déjà Vu? How Might Lessons Learned from Electronic Health Record Implementation Apply to Artificial Intelligence?").  Poon, Rosenberg, and Landman are the Chief Information Officers from Duke University Health System, Michigan Medicine, and Mass General Brigham, respectively, while Gandhi is the Chief Safety and Transformation Officer at Press Gainey.  They offer several recommendations on how we should be applying lessons learned from the widespread adoption and implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) to the implementation of AI in health care today.  

The authors cite statistics showing that the widespread adoption of EHRs have contributed to an estimated $150 billion per year in health information technology spending in the U.S. alone.  That would certainly be okay if EHR implementation was associated with significant improvements in quality of care, patient safety, and clinician productivity, though the results here have been mixed at best.  In addition, the EHR (perhaps unfairly) is often cited as a major cause of burnout amongst health care workers.  Suffice it to say, there are likely some lessons that we can learn from EHR implementation that are translatable to adoption of AI.

The authors first begin with discussing the key differences between the era of EHR implementation and now.  First, the HITECH Act of 2009 provided substantial financial incentives for hospitals and providers to adopt EHRs and included delayed penalties for failing to do so.  These incentives and delayed penalties pushed health care organizations to adopt EHRs in a short period of time.  While some executive leaders are mandating AI adoption and use, to date at least, there have been no federal mandates or incentive programs to do so.  Rather than following the EHR "big bang" approach to widescale adoption, AI implementation could occur in a more phased and flexible manner.  That being said, while EHR implementation occurred in a top-down fashion, the bottom-up adoption of AI could outpace what organizations are actually ready to implement, particularly in the absence of an overall roadmap to help guide AI implementation.  

Second, the overall computer literacy of the health care workforce is quite different today compared to when EHRs were first rolled out.  Technology, including AI, already plays a major role in our personal and professional lives.  For example, smartphones are ubiquitous now - they were much less so back when EHRs were being implemented.  In addition, many health care workers are likely already using AI in some form at home (and in work).  However, while the workforce is likely already facile and comfortable with technology, the levels of burnout amongst health care workers is high enough that they will have diminished capacity and interest to take on additional work.  There is also significant concerns that AI could replace humans when it comes to certain clinical tasks, leading to fears about some clinical jobs being eliminated (I've discussed this topic to some extent recently - see my post, "Is AI going to replace us?").

Third, as I alluded to earlier, the pace of change in regards to AI implementation is likely going to be much faster.  EHR technology evolved slowly over decades, and up until the HITECH Act, implementation was relatively slow and infrequent.  AI technology, in contrast, is proliferating at a much faster pace and has been particularly fueled by interest in industries outside of health care.  

Poon, Rosenberg, Landman, and Gandhi discuss five key lessons learned based on their collective (and extensive) experience and the available literature on EHR and AI implementation:

1. Respect the Human Element

Processes and workflows need to be designed in advance for optimal efficiency and use.  Automating a flawed process will only perpetuate inefficiencies and lead to frustration.  A key lesson from EHR implementation comes from the human factors field - the distinction between work-as-imagined or work-as-prescribed versus work-as-done.  AI systems should be designed so that they are intuitive, user-friendly, and tailored to the specific needs of the end users.

2. Build Strong Organizational Governance

Particularly during the early days of EHR implementation, governance was loose and decentralized.  Robust governance around AI implementation will be crucial so that we do not end up with tools with overlapping and redundant capabilities that interoperate poorly with each other.  The "problem to be solved" should be identified beforehand, rather than bringing in a technology first and finding a problem to be solved later.

3. Adapt Leadership and Culture to Enable Change

Retired Marine Corps General and former Secretary of Defense James Mattis once wrote, "A leader's role is problem solving.  If you don't like problems, stay out of leadership."  I would paraphrase General Mattis slightly, and say that a leader's role is about leading and managing change.  If you don't like change, stay out of leadership!  Upfront investments to prepare both leaders and teams to deal effectively with the rapid pace of change involving AI technology will pay huge dividends in the long-run.

4. Ready the Workforce for an AI-Enabled Future

Many health care organizations failed to invest in computer literacy and typing skills when they made the shift from paper-based medical records to electronic ones.  We should not repeat that mistake.  Health care organizations should invest in AI and digital literacy in order to adequately prepare the workforce and fully leverage the benefits of AI.

5. Avoid Short-term Hype and Build for the Long Term

Remember that it's a marathon, not a sprint.  AI is here to stay.  Health care organizations should commit to measuring the impact of AI implementation.  If an AI tool is not working, these same organizations should be prepared to either modify the tool or move on from it.

"The Science of Talking to Strangers"

This past February, I wrote a blog post (see "Mistakenly seeking solitude") about an interesting study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology by Nicholas Epley, a social science researcher at the University of Chicago.  The study ("Mistakenly Seeking Solitude") is about twelve years old, though Epley recently wrote about his research in a short article published this past month in the Wall Street Journal (see "The Science of Talking to Strangers").  Of note, Epley just released a new book earlier in May this year, A Little More Social: How Small Choices Create Unexpected Happiness, Health, and Connection.

Epley and his colleague Juliana Schroeder conducted a total of nine experiments, both in the field and in the laboratory setting.  Study participants were Chicago commuter train and public bus riders who were asked to talk to a stranger, to sit in solitude, or to do whatever they normally would do, then fill out a survey to measure how they felt afterwards.  Even though the study participants reported greater well-being when they did engage with strangers, they predicted precisely the opposite pattern of experiences.    Based on the survey results, study participants were reluctant to engage with strangers, because they felt that other people wouldn't be interested in talking.  Again, Epley and Schroeder found that the opposite was the case.  Not only were people open to making idle conversation, they found the experience much more pleasurable when they did, particularly compared to choosing silent solitude. 

In the Wall Street Journal editorial, Epley wrote about his own personal experience on a train commute, in which he reluctantly initiated a conversation with a complete stranger.  He writes:

A woman who looked more than a decade older than I, wearing a fabulous red hat, sat next to me. I put other people in experiments for a living, but that morning I decided to put myself in one. Instead of ignoring my neighbor, I would try to connect in a conversation. My brain immediately shut down the idea: "She doesn’t want to talk; you’ll have nothing to talk about; she’ll probably think you’re a creep trying to hit on her." Nevertheless, I worked up my courage and said, "Hi, my name is Nick. I love your hat. I have one just like it!"

To his surprise, the woman engaged in a full conversation with him for the entire commute, and then she thanked him afterwards.

He writes again:

This conversation wasn’t only good, it was surprisingly good. The gap between my pessimistic fears and my positive experience was massive. That gap also suggested a resolution to the paradox of highly social creatures’ avoiding each other. Social connection isn’t something that just happens to us. It’s a choice we make: to be bold and connect with someone or to hold back and avoid. It may be the most important choice we make routinely because it determines so much of our happiness, health and success. If we’re overly pessimistic about how someone will respond to us, then we might choose to hold back too often.

Interestingly enough, this conversation further prompted Epley's interest and directly led to his research study.  Epley goes on to write that our pessimism about talking to strangers extends beyond simple conversation.  He writes, "Asking for help, performing an act of kindness, giving someone a compliment, expressing your gratitude, or calling an old friend to reconnect is more favorably received than those who are reaching out expect. How much more often would you reach out in kindness if you knew how much good you could actually do?"

He ends his article with a quote from Fred Rogers, who said, "Imagine what our real neighborhoods would be like if each of us offered, as a matter of course, just one kind word to another person."  Imagine indeed.

Why do giraffes have long necks?

One of the things I've learned from studying history is that concepts that fell out of favor in the past never seem to go completely away.  It's a topic that I've discussed a number of times in the past (see "Past is Prologue", "Study the past", "...all of this has happened before", and "The past is never dead...").  As the philosopher, George Santayana famously said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  

Look no further than the concept of Lamarckian Inheritance or Lamarckism, the concept that physical and personal improvements that humans acquire during their lifetime can be passed down to their children in subsequent generations.  The French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck first proposed the concept describing the inheritance of acquired characteristics in 1809.  Lamarck famously argued that a blacksmith's sons inherit the strong muscles that he acquires from his work as a blacksmith.  

Lamarck's ideas began to fall out of favor with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, first described in his book, On the Origin of the Species in 1859.  Lamarck would say that early giraffes continually stretched their necks to reach the highest leaves in the trees by physically stretching their necks.  The physical stretching caused their necks to grow, which was passed on to as a "longer neck" to subsequent generations.

In contrast, Darwin's theory of natural selection would explain that some giraffes would be born with a longer neck by random chance.  These giraffes would be able to reach more food higher up in the tree.  The longer neck conferred a survival advantage, allowing these giraffes with the longer necks to pass on their genes to subsequent generations, who would in turn have longer necks.  Over time, the giraffes with the longer necks "replace" the giraffes born with the shorter necks.

Lamarckian Inheritance has also been called "soft inheritance" to differentiate from the so-called "hard inheritance" that occurs via the transmission of genetic mutations to subsequent generations.  What's interesting is that we now know that at least some acquired characteristics can, in fact, be passed down to subsequent generations via a mechanism known as transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.  "Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance" describes the process by which environmental factors, such as stress or diet, can affect gene expression in such a way that these changes are passed down to future generations.  More generally, "epigenetics" describes the way that changes in gene expression occur without altering the underlying structure of DNA (basically, the chemical structure of the genes themselves).

I came across a recent report in Nature Reviews Urology that suggests Lamarck may have been at least partially correct, at least when it came to the blacksmiths passing down their strong muscles to their children.  The report comes on the heels of evidence showing that physical exercise can trigger epigenetic changes in muscle that can be passed on to subsequent generations.  In other words, mothers who exercise during pregnancy can pass on some of their overall fitness and health to their children.  The current study shows that fathers can pass on some of the epigenetic changes associated with fitness via their sperm through so-called exercise-responsive microRNA (miRNA), similar to what has been observed with mothers who exercise during pregnancy.  As the authors of the study conclude, "...in addition to well-established maternal influences, paternal exercise before conception can shape the metabolic trajectory of offspring, pointing to the paternal germline as a biologically meaningful conduit of environmental information."

I think there are two points that I would like to make here.  First, once again, we see an older concept, one that was even widely discredited at one point, come back, albeit in a re-packaged form, with new knowledge advances.  It's a common scenario that I frequently encounter both in my clinical practice and in my administrative one.  Second, one can only wonder if we will ever find certain leadership traits passed down from one generation to the next?  I've mentioned a study in the past (see my post, "Once again...are leaders born or made?") that found that genetic factors explained 24% of the difference between individuals in leadership occupancy in a large clinical database (specifically the single nucleotide polymorphism found at rs4950 on the CHRNB3 gene.  Specifically, having one more rs4950 A allele (instead of a G allele) increased the odds of being in a leadership role by 50 percent!  One wonders if we will find certain epigenetic modifications in so-called "leadership genes" that can be passed down from one generation to the next.  It sounds far-fetched now, but then, no one probably ever thought that a study would show that physical fitness can be transmitted to our children either!

"Self-trust is the first secret of success..."

I want to re-visit the book The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything by Stephen M.R. Covey, former CEO of the Covey Leadership Center.  Covey's main argument is that building trust is a key leadership competency that confers a major strategic advantage.  I introduced the topic in a post last November, "Change happens at the speed of trust..."

Covey compares trust to the well-known ripple effect, in which waves start out small at the center and become larger and more powerful as they move and expand outward.  He describes five "waves of trust" to drive home the point that trust begins with oneself and expands outward to relationships, organizations, the market, and society.  I'll cover the first wave of trust today, and I will discuss the remaining waves in subsequent posts.  

The first wave, Self Trust, deals with the confidence we have in ourselves and our abilities.  It addresses our ability to set goals, keep commitments, "walk our talk", and inspire trust in others.  We can't build trust with each other unless we first trust ourselves.  As Jean François Paul de Gondi, who served as the Cardinal of Paris from 1654 to 1662 said, "A man who doesn't trust himself can never really trust anyone else."  The American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "Self-trust is the first secret of success...the essence of heroism."

Covey emphasizes that the key to Self Trust is Credibility, which comes from the Latin word root credere, meaning to believe.  He suggests that Self Trust is built on four Cores of Credibility - Integrity (being honest), Intent (having good motives), Capabilities (being competent), and Results (delivering on promises).  

1. Integrity

Integrity is about being honest, both with yourself and with others.  It is defined by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as the quality of being honest, having strong moral principles, and consistently adhering to ethical standards, regardless of who is watching.  Covey says, "The problem in organizations is that many 'ethics' solutions focus on compliance.  The compliance definition of 'ethics' is not one of integrity or interrelatedness; it is a watered-down, devalued definition that essentially means 'follow the rules'."  Integrity is more than just simply following the rules.  As Alan Greenspan, former Chair of the Federal Reserve of the United States said, "Rules cannot take the place of character."

Covey suggests that there are three components to Integrity - Congruence, Humility, and Courage.  Congruence means that someone acts in harmony with their beliefs and values.  These leaders are authentic - "what you see is what you get" and does not depend upon the situation.  These leaders always do the right thing, even when no one else is watching.  Mahatma Gandhi said, "To believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest."

The leadership expert Jim Collins talks a lot about a concept that he calls "Level 5 Leadership".  He writes, "These leaders [the Level 5 Leaders] are a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.  They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than Patton and Caesar."  He goes on to say, "Level 5 leaders display a powerful mixture of personal humility and indomitable will. They're incredibly ambitious, but their ambition is first and foremost for the cause, for the organization and its purpose, not themselves."  Confidence is okay - and more than acceptable, we often want our leaders to be confident.  However, Humility is so important that I often combine the two sentiments into one critical leadership characteristic, Confident Humility.  Level 5 Leaders are "humbly confident" (see my post, "The Four C's of Leadership" and "The ignorance of arrogance") - they have the self-confidence to step up and lead, yet they also have the Humility to know that they don't know everything and will seek help when appropriate.  They care more about what is right than being right, more about building the team than getting credit, and more about principles than their own self-interest.

Courage (see my posts, "The Four C's of Leadership" and "Benjamin Franklin's thirteen necessary virtues...") is the last component to Integrity.  Courage is not the absence of fear, but acting despite it. The word Courage derives from the Latin word cor, which means heart.  To say that someone has heart or showed heart is to suggest that they were courageous.  The author Brené Brown said, "Courage is a heart word. The root of the word courage is cor – the Latin word for heart. In one of its earliest forms, the word courage meant To speak one’s mind by telling all one’s heart. Over time, this definition has changed, and today, we typically associate courage with heroic and brave deeds. But in my opinion, this definition fails to recognize the inner strength and level of commitment required for us to actually speak honestly and openly about who we are and about our experiences – good and bad. Speaking from our hearts is what I think of as ordinary courage."  Leaders with Courage "speak their heart" by telling the truth and standing up for what is right, even when it is difficult (or even dangerous) to do so.

2. Intent

According to Covey, Intent encompasses Motive ("your reason for doing something"), Agenda ("what you intend to do"), and Behavior ("what you do").  People will judge you on what you do, rather than what you say.  When a leader's Motive shows genuine concern for others, he or she will build trust.  Similarly, when a leader's Agenda is to find solutions that are mutually beneficial to all, he or she will engender trust.  Finally, a leader whose Behavior acts in the best interest of others will foster trust.  The Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant said, "In law, a man is guilty when he violates the rights of another.  In ethics, he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so."    

3. Capabilities

Covey uses the acronym TASKS to explain the various dimensions that comprise our Capabilities.  Talents are our natural gifts and strengths.  Attitudes explain our way of viewing events that happen in the world.  Skills are the things that we do well.  Knowledge explains what we have learned, as well as our insight, understanding and awareness.  Finally, Style represents our own unique approach and personality.  A leader's Capabilities are what will build confidence that he or she is competent to do the job of leading.  Remember, at least one side of the "Trust Triangle" is that our teams are confident that we can lead them.

4. Results

Covey says, "My motto is: Whenever possible, finish, and finish strong."  A leader who does not produce results will have no credibility.  Without credibility, there is no trust (see my comment above on the "Trust Triangle").  Everyone - including even ourselves - will judge credibility based on what you have done in the past, what you are producing now, and what you can do in the future.  If trust depends upon delivering on our promises, there's perhaps no better way of doing so than producing the results that we say we are going to produce.

The first wave of trust (there are five total) is perhaps the most important.  Going back to Covey's analogy of the well-known ripple effect, the bigger the first wave, the bigger the ripple!  And if change happens at the speed of trust, the speed of trust depends first and foremost on trusting yourself.  Look out for the remaining four waves of trust in future posts.