Positive leadership: These days, criticism has become uncivil

In my Thursday column, I quoted from two books, one about Winston Churchill and the other about Theodore Roosevelt.

The following is from the chapter in the Churchill book, "Never Give In" by Stephen Mansfield, on "action."

"Things do not get better by being left alone. Unless they are adjusted, they explode with a shattering detonation."

For him passivity and neglect were sins, ... "I never worry about action," he said, "but only inaction."

Churchill's experiences in life taught him that victory is won by concentrated and undying effort. He overcame the frail physique that brought him so much bullying in school by mastering fencing and swimming. They demanded hour after hour of devoted practice. He then overcame huge gaps in his learning by becoming his own teacher. He planned the curriculum, acquired the materials and worked himself night and day until he was satisfied. He also built his career by positioning himself in the dangerous hot spots of the world and carving out a reputation for bravery. To execute all of this required that he have a goal, a plan and an iron will.

Finally, in his greatest test, the one against the Nazis, he knew before most other leaders did that doing nothing would be disastrous. Bold, creative, commanding, unswerving action was the tall order of the day, and Churchill was prepared to answer it.

As a man of action, though, nothing frustrated him quite like uncertain, passive leaders. During the 1930s, when he was out of power but forced to witness the ill-conceived policies of appeasement, he said of its architects that they were "decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."

"Why wouldn't they act?" he wondered, until upon reflection he began to understand.

First, they lacked the will. Churchill knew that victory graces those whose basic attitude is action and strength rather than vacillation and meekness, that even knowing what to do is not enough without the will to do it. "It is one thing to see the forward path," he believed, "and another to be able to take it."

It is a simple philosophy, perhaps, but the simplicity makes taking the first step easier: "If you travel the earth, you will find it is largely divided into two classes of people -- people who say 'I wonder why such and such is not done' and people who say 'Now who is going to prevent me from doing that thing?'"

Second, they lacked a plan. Even if one possessed the will to act, it would not be enough without a plan. "It is better to have an ambitious plan than none at all," he believed, and he spent large amounts of time planning in anticipation of crises while those without wise planning were overwhelmed and immobilized by events.

Third, they wanted perfection. Without it, they would do nothing. Churchill knew that any policy or battle plan has to be fine-tuned once in progress, so he never expected perfection from the beginning. He mobilized while others micromanaged because he understood that the details could be changed later; the critical need was action. "The maxim, 'Nothing avails but perfection,'" he said, "may be spelled, Paralysis."

Armed with these insights into the mistakes of others, Churchill was ready when the call for wise, decisive action sounded.

n

It seems to me that criticism of leaders who take action has become more uncivil. However, both T. Roosevelt and Churchill received and expected such criticism, as should today's leaders.

Roosevelt's man-in-the-arena quote is the classic: "It is not the critic that counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly, who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds."

n

Another excerpt.

Churchill also commented on criticism as follows: "One of the deciding marks of a great leader is the way he handles criticism. Leadership is, after all, a matter of things like standing for principle, exercising authority, and marshaling resources, change and power -- the very things most likely to invite criticism. The mettle of a leader is tested by the criticism he receives. He cannot afford to ignore it or become preoccupied with it. Nor can he allow a root of bitterness to set in that threatens to warp his judgment. Instead, he has to look fully at the criticism lodged against him, however harsh or unjust it may be, draw from it what wisdom he can, and move on."

n

We have too many negative Web pages, commentators, columnists and new articles today -- and too few positive and informative news formats.

Gary Rust is chairman of Rust Communications.