The Character of a Leader

by Donald Alexander

LtGen John F. Sattler USMC (Ret.): The Character of a Leader is now a dog-eared, yellow-highlighted “leadership reference book” with notes in the margins that I carry with me to every leadership class or presentation. A motivating must read for young leaders and a great check for the senior/midlevel executive. Former CIA Director George Donald Alexander is a legendary American intelligence officer, a man of enormous competence, grace, and courage. His humility will never allow most to ever know what his service has meant to the Central Intelligence Agency or our country. Now he has given all of us a timeless gift—a book on leadership based on decades of experience, research, and reflection. His emphasis on old fashion values and selfless compassionate service should be mandatory reading for anyone entrusted with the care and development of young men and women, whether in government or a Silicon Valley start-up. This is a book that will challenge and inspire you to make a difference every day of your life. Donald Alexander is the pen name of a senior executive officer in the US Intelligence Community. During a career spanning almost five decades, he has served multiple tours overseas in operational positions, commanding major elements both in the field and at Headquarters, experiences that spawned many of the ideas and principles set out in this book. Chief among these is the belief that leaders who conduct themselves with honor and to the highest standards of integrity are vital to America's business success, national security, and social well-being.

156 pages, Paperback

First published January 2, 2014

Reviews

[George · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an excellent book on leadership and, specifically, the character traits that the author contends are required for an individual to be a leader. Alexander establishes credibility early by conceding that, on a certain level, there's nothing new to be said or written about "leadership," -- only new ways of considering some timeless truths; the rest of the literature is fluff and there is no one specific timeless recipe (as someone who has read a lot...A LOT...on this subject, this rings true). In his book, Alexander lays out these timeless truths and focuses closely on integrity as the foundation upon which all other leadership skills are built and spends substantial time justifying that point and outlining other traits that follow. He also makes compelling cases against moral relativism to underpin his argument on integrity and moral leadership. His arguments are thoughtful, thought-provoking, and persuasive.

Alexander hits a series of others important ideas in support of his overall theme that "to be a leader, one must have integrity." Most important among these ideas is that, presuming you are maintaining your integrity as your starting point, then anyone can develop the skills needed to be a leader. Leaders are made -- not just "born that way." If you have bedrock integrity, you can develop the additional skills required to lead (Alexander defines integrity and outlines the additional skills -- I won't here). Further, even if you have particular strengths, then you can make those strengths stronger and mitigate your weaknesses, also. (This is in keeping with the ideas covered in Carol Dweck's "Growth Mindset" and Angela Duckworth's "Grit." However, instead of being theoretical, academic research-based, etc., Alexander's are based on his circa 40 years in service and leadership in an operations role at the CIA. This gives a different-and-equally-important credibility to his argument. As in, he has personally developed skills as well as helped and watched others grow.)

Alexander also devotes an entire chapter to the concept of tribalism -- "us" versus "them" -- and the poison that it is to organizations and the imperative for leaders to fight it continually. This chapter is particularly timely in the broader sense of where we are as a nation, but timeless in terms of leadership mandates. He does an excellent job of explaining how to walk the knife's edge in terms of supporting a sense of camaraderie within your organization without being elitist and separatist.

Alexander's book is titled as a handbook for the young leader, but it is not exclusive. The point is to get this book in the hands of "the next generation" so that they can benefit from his experience sooner than later. It is broadly applicable to anyone interested in growing their skills and abilities and, for some of us, would probably be a hard mirror to gaze into -- how selfless are we? How firm is our commitment to integrity above all else?

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Character of a Leader provides a strong argument for both professional and personal character, listing a series of character traits and providing real-world examples of why these traits are necessary for a successful leader.

Recommended for: Young leaders in the defense or intelligence industries.

Themes you'll find: Integrity, character, biographical information.

Stuff that was awesome: The sea stories. Also, the author's voice comes across very strong. He uses a conversational tone. It's like getting a pep-talk (sometimes a lecture) from your boss's boss's boss. The structure of the book make it a quick and uncomplicated read.

Stuff that was annoying: Rookie author mistakes, like not getting a real editor (more on that later).

As both an English major and a novice author, I'm disappointed. While it may be easy to chalk this up as another case of a good book whose author lacked the resources to hire a good editor, this author's level of education and his age tell me he should have known better. Besides a handful of punctuation errors, typos, and a misplaced modifier, the formatting is inconsistent. There are places where the argument is incomplete due to a missing or obscure transition between points. The author relies not on his own reading of some of the texts he refers to, but on others' reviews of the texts. Sometimes, he spends too much time making the same point; he gets repetitive.

All that aside, the argument for being of good moral character is well made. The author draws on his own extensive experience as a leader and chooses historical examples that help make his points. He also draws from more recent studies, books, and articles. His tone is conversational, reassuring, and instructive. He's kind of obsessed with Shakleton and Gates of Fire, but that's not really a bad thing, in my opinion.

Now, pardon, I have to go add Gates of Fire to my To Read shelf. ;)

[Craig · Rating 4 out of 5]

A concise easy read on leadership. If you are looking for a good overview on the subject this is a good place to start.

[Alan Eyre · Rating 3 out of 5]

Simple, good

[Luv · Rating 5 out of 5]

Easy, and fast read. That doesn't mean it wasn't packed with information. It is a book I intend to re-read down the line. His recommendation for further reading went on my "Want to Read" list.

[Christy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great read! Profound points to consider pre and post command.

[Travis Denardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought it was an excellent description of a leader. Showcasing how there is no exact formula. I love how concise and direct the author is.

Integrity above all else.

[Ben Payne · Rating 2 out of 5]

Premise is that leadership comprises three basic elements: character (integrity and purity of motive), vision, and effectiveness. (Page 13.) For evidence of this claim the author relies on personal experience, Western literature, and article in the newspaper.

This focus on character stands up to neither abstract reasoning nor real-world experience. There are many leaders who do not have good character yet still lead and are followed. This can be drawn from historical examples or present times, yet is ignored in this book. As an exercise for the reader of this review, why would bad leaders be followed? That idea isn't investigated in Alexander's book.

My view is that aspects like integrity are necessary but not sufficient. There are many other aspects critical to being a leader. This book doesn't provide effective argument or evidence for the claims made.

[Daniel Dawson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mediocre.... focused on traits. The author isn't really data driven- definitely in the troubadour tradition. Skip.