Lincoln On Leadership: Executive Strategies for Tough Times

by Donald T. Phillips

Studies of other well-known leaders suggest that certain factors in childhood can predispose a person to great leadership. James MacGregor Burns pointed out, for example, that the most important influences on the shaping of leaders lie “almost wholly in their early years.” He observed that Gandhi, Lenin, and Franklin Roosevelt appeared to have “a strong attachment to one parent coupled with some intensively negative attachment to the other.” Most of these leaders had a close relationship with their mothers, who appeared to favor them over other siblings. Sigmund Freud made a similar observation when, in The Interpretation of Dreams, he wrote, “I have found that people who know that they are preferred or favoured by their mother[s] give evidence in their lives of a peculiar self-reliance and an unshakable optimism which often seem like heroic attributes and bring actual success to their possessors.”

envisioned

He was poised and confident under pressure, and he influenced others with his friendly manner, openness, and verbal skills.

And here is where Lincoln tied in the Golden Rule and the law of the land to his personal leadership style. He treated people the way he would want to be treated, the way he knew others wanted to be treated.

In short, Lincoln exercised competent leadership

he delegated responsibility and authority, and empowered his subordinates to act on their own. Nearly all of them failed, however, causing Lincoln endless pain and anguish.

TO MCCLELLAN (10-13-63): “. . . This letter is in no sense an order.” TO HALLECK (9-19-63): “I hope you will consider it . . . .” TO BURNSIDE (9-27-63): “It was suggested to you, not ordered . . . .” TO BANKS (1-13-64): “Frame orders, and fix times and places, for this, and that, according to your own judgment.” TO GRANT (4-30-64): If there is anything wanting which is within my power to give, do not fail to let me know it.”

Leadership often involves parenting, and Lincoln’s fatherly tendencies aided him in his position as president.

“Honest

Abe.”

unblemished.

purported

The architecture of leadership, all the theories and guidelines, falls apart without honesty and integrity. It’s the keystone that holds an organization together.

“Managers do things

right, leaders do the right thing,”

is the sole responsibility of the leader to instill these values by constant preaching and persuasion. It is the leader’s role to lift followers out of their everyday selves up to a higher level of awareness, motivation, and commitment.

Subordinates must perceive their leader as a consistently fair person if they’re to engage in the kind of innovative risk-taking that brings an organization success.

“Stand with anybody

that stands right,”

he preached. “St...

him while he is right and part with him when ...

Pettiness, spite, and vengeance are emotional reactions considered to be beneath the dignity of a leader.

Followers expect their leaders to rise above such demeaning and degrading activity.

Invariably an organization takes on the personality of its top leader, providing that individual is in touch with the members of the organization. If the leader is petty, the subordinates will be petty. But if the leader is encouraging, optimistic, and courteous, then the vast majority of the workers in the organization will be as well.

He was called just about every name imaginable by the press of the day, including a grotesque baboon, a third-rate country lawyer who once split rails and now splits the Union, a coarse vulgar joker, a dictator, an ape, a buffoon, and others. The Illinois State Register labeled him “the craftiest and most dishonest politician that ever disgraced an office in America.” One can only imagine what it must have been like and what was going through Lincoln’s mind when he reached Washington to take the oath of office. He gave an indication that he was ever mindful of these feelings toward him when, shortly before his inauguration, he related to a group of people: “I have reached this city of Washington under circumstances considerably different from those under which any other man has ever reached it.

Throughout much of his life, Lincoln was the object of jealousy, envy, and malice. This was largely the result of his burning desire for achievement, which motivated him to excel.

summed up years of experience in dealing with malicious criticism when he said: “As a general rule, I abstain from reading the reports upon myself, wishing not to be provoked by that to which I can not properly offer an answer.”

In 1858, when Stephen A. Douglas made several false charges against him, Lincoln began a reply by stating: “When a man hears

himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him – at least, I find it so with myself; but when the misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him.”

Lincoln even used the “consistency” rationale to justify his running for a second term: “I have not permitted myself, gentlemen, to conclude that I am the best man in the country,” he once said to the National Urban League, “but I am reminded, in this connection, of a story of an old Dutch farmer, who remarked to a companion once that ‘it was not best to swap horses when crossing streams.’”

Better give your path to a dog, then be bitten by him in contesting for the right. Even killing the dog would not cure the bite.

situations. Lincoln was able to do it, and so can contemporary leaders, who can learn from his skill. He managed his darker side by displaying his outrage only in private, writing long letters to vent his anger and emotion, avoiding conflict wherever possible, and never quarreling over insignificant matters. But keeping one’s darker side under

Competent executive decision-making is crucial in any organization. Abraham Lincoln knew it. And because of his extraordinary decisiveness, he was able to make policy, produce change, and win the war.

As Lao Tzu said: “Fail to honor people, they fail to honor you. But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will all say, ‘We did this ourselves.’”

Leadership requires aggressive individuals – those who accept a “take charge”

role.

Leaders, in general, are self-starting and change-oriented. They set a strategic direction and initiate as well as act. They achieve results as...

In fact, everything – failures and successes – became stepping stones to the presidency. In this sense, Lincoln’s entire life prepared him for his future executive leadership role.

Like all great leaders, Lincoln was driven. He was results-oriented.

A man . . . had a small bull-terrier that could whip all the dogs of the neighborhood. The owner of a large dog which the terrier had whipped asked the owner of the terrier how it happened that the terrier whipped every dog he encountered. “That,” said the owner of the terrier, “is no mystery to me; your dog and other dogs get half through a fight before they are ready; now, my dog is always mad!”

But no one should have to worry about lighting a fire under great leaders. They don’t need it if they are like Lincoln. His fire was always burning.

Moreover, many of President Lincoln’s changes in the American military command system were permanent. And his overall design was later used as something as a blueprint for future organizations.

He started looking for a chief subordinate who craves responsibility, is a risk-taker, and, most importantly, makes things happen.

This recurring pattern in Lincoln’s treatment of his generals is interesting because it is a familiar tactic used in many organizations today. When a subordinate is not performing adequately, rather than firing the person outright, some responsibility and authority are removed in the hope that the individual will be able to perform better with fewer responsibilities. Fairness and human dignity are preserved when this first step is employed. It gives the unsatisfactory performer a change to “turn it around.” If behavior and performance are not reversed, the next step is to get the individual out of the decision-making process as much as possible.

In dealing with this dilemma, modern leaders should take their cue from Lincoln. f your chief executive’s subordinates complain, let the executive know about the complaints. This is only fair. He may not know that people are disenchanted, and it will give him time to correct the problem. However, Lincoln would also be the first to say that if you determine that the complaints are true, and nothing changes, it’s appropriate to remove the supervisor, especially if he’s not doing his job properly.

In the days surrounding the general’s promotion, Lincoln did something that many modern-day corporate executives do – he counseled Grant thoroughly in several private meetings.

All leaders should realize that they can’t do everything on their own. They simply must have people below them who will do what is necessary to insure success. Those subordinates who will take risks, act without waiting for direction, and ask for responsibility rather than reject it, should be treated as your most prized possessions. Such individuals are exceedingly rare and worth their weight in gold.

After the first battle of Bull Run, Lincoln visited Gen. Irvin McDowell and told him: “I have not lost a particle of confidence in you.” He did the same thing with Burnside after Fredericksburg, Hooker after Chancellorsville, and Grant when he stalled at Petersburg after the Wilderness Campaign. In each case Lincoln visited his defeated general in the field and offered his full support.

It seems that there was this colonel, who when raising his regiment in Missouri, proposed to his men that he should do all the swearing for the regiment. They assented; and for months no instance was known of violation of the promise. The colonel had a teamster named John Todd, who, as roads were not always the best, had some difficulty in commanding his temper and tongue. John happened to be driving a mule team through a series of mudholes a little worse than usual, when he burst forth into a volley of profanity. The colonel took notice of the offense and brought John to account. “John,” said he, “didn’t you promise to let me do all the swearing for the regiment?” “Yes, I did, Colonel,” he replied, “but the fact was the swearing had to be done then or not at all, and you weren’t there to do it.”

Extemporaneous speaking should be practiced and cultivated. It is the lawyer’s avenue to the public. However able and faithful he may be in other respects, people are slow to bring him business if he cannot make a speech. From Lincoln’s notes for a law lecture intended to advise younger lawyers how best to succeed (July 1, 1850)