Harry Truman’s said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” For many years I thought that meant that leaders were responsible for making the difficult decisions. Now, I think there’s more to it than that.

Leadership is tough. Not only are leaders responsible for making tough decisions, but also they have to do so without sufficient data, when time is short, when there are numerous people clamoring for their attention, and when the circumstances are so different that past experience is a poor guide. The conditions in which leaders make decisions make it tough to make good ones.

However, there’s more.

Like sports superstars, leaders have to do more than just perform well. Of course, they are the person to whom the rest of the team looks when crunch time comes; they have to perform well and make the right decisions when it matters most. Superstars sit in the spotlight after the game while the media scrutinizes their performance publicly, rigorously, candidly, and directly; leaders have to analyze their performance, too.

The really good leaders do both. Many leaders make the tough decisions, but they don’t evaluate their own performance. Why is it important that they do?

Imagine watching Michael Jordan taking the last shot to win the game, but not knowing if it went in or not, not knowing if he won the game or lost it. Taking the shot is different from making it; making the decision is not the same as looking at the result of that decision. Leaders have to rigorously analyze their performance (the results produced by the decisions they made) in order to know how well they did so that they can improve their performance in the future.

Think of the leaders you know. How many of them, after having made a decision, avoided the scrutiny that should follow and made statements like the following.

“The market changed in ways we didn’t expect.”

“The industry is undergoing a structural shift.”

“Our customers’ needs are not the same as they used to be.”

“The employees we have and the ones we need are not the same.”

They acknowledged a change in circumstance, but did not accept responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. That’s not good enough.

Leaders must be the ones who, in addition to making the tough decisions, shoulder the burden of responsibility for the results they produce. Excuses and explanations don’t cut it.

Leaders demonstrate by their words and actions that every person in the business must bear responsibility for the results of their actions, must be accountable, and must not avoid or shirk that responsibility. That often means that leaders must be in the spotlight.

It may not be a public setting with reporters, lights, and cameras, but leaders should talk openly with other key members of the business to acknowledge and accept responsibility and to objectively analyze their performance, just like sports superstars after the game.

Why is that so important? Leaders are not infallible. To avoid scrutiny conveys the impression that leaders are better than others and not subject to standards of performance. That is a mistake. To do so fosters the belief that there are two standards, that hypocrisy reigns, and that those at the top are immune from accountability.

The unintended message of those leaders who avoid their own personal accountability is clear. If leaders don’t have to be responsible and accountable, why should anyone else be?

So, Harry Truman’s words means more than just an encouragement for leaders to make decisions, it means that they should accept the visibility, accountability, and responsibility that comes with making them, too.

Yesterday, I was leading a workshop I had developed for younger leaders. I was struck by their hunger for learning. Their hunger contrasts with what many more experienced leaders have told me about their perceptions of younger leaders.

Many of the stories by experienced leaders have to do with their belief that younger leaders aren’t as dedicated and devoted as they were. They use, as their argument, how hard they had to work, the sacrifices they had to make, and the personal initiative they had to take – all done to suggest that younger leaders aren’t like that now.

There is a disconnect resulting from the fact that experienced leaders use their lives as measures for evaluating younger leaders and, when they do, find younger leaders lacking. Their lens colors their view.

Left unresolved, the disconnect leads to missteps and mistakes in developing the next generation of leaders. Programs are developed that have the wrong focus and capable younger leaders are overlooked.

Be careful, assuming that other leaders are like you is problematic.

I’m in the middle of “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin, a political biography of Abraham Lincoln. I am struck by the fact that Lincoln was known for and so ably practiced the art of telling the truth.

Now, he din not always tell all the truth, but he was never known to lie or to avoid the truth. Quite the contrary, he was gifted at putting his cards on the table and providing both the context and criteria for the many decisions he had to make.

His truth telling enabled him to earn the respect of everyone with whom he interacted, including those who disagreed with him.

Refreshing, isn’t it?

email: archie@archietinelli.com archie@archietinelli.com