Does Character Still Define Leadership? Reflections on Crisis, Challenges, and Hope

“Is Character Dead?” – with these words, openly and without unnecessary courtesy, Gerard Seijts begins his fresh article. He is not just a researcher at the Ian O. Ihnatowycz Institute for Leadership at the Ivey Business School but also a person who stands at the origins of the very concept of Leadership Character – a foundational idea for the Center for Leadership of UCU.

What compelled this prominent scholar to title his publication in such a way? Should its release be seen as a sign of disillusionment with his own ideals, in light of the U.S. election results, or, on the contrary, as a voice of hope in turbulent times? And why are the thoughts of our Canadian colleague something that we, Ukrainians, should listen to as we mark another anniversary of the hybrid war, which has recently escalated into a full-scale one? Answers to these and other questions – in an analysis prepared for you by the team of the Center for Leadership of UCU.

Why Must We Acknowledge a Crisis of Character?

When we consider a potential crisis or even the “death” of Character, we must first and foremost define what we are talking about. In their research, Gerard Seijts and his colleagues have given it a very clear definition. It is a complex of 11 Virtues (Transcendence, Drive, Collaboration, Humanity, Humility, Integrity, Temperance, Accountability, Justice, Courage, and Judgment), which has been the focus of the author’s professional attention for the past fifteen years. Alongside Competencies and Commitment, it is one of the “pillars” that define true Leadership.

According to Gerard Seijts, interviews with 17 outstanding contemporary figures, which formed the basis of his joint book with Kimberley Young Milani, “Character: What Contemporary Leaders Can Teach Us About Building a More Just, Prosperous, and Sustainable Future”, allow for a definitive conclusion: the deficit of Leadership is the root cause that has plunged the world into today’s chaos. All pressing challenges – from climate change and armed conflicts to economic or healthcare system crises, erosion of social cohesion, and, ultimately, societal polarization – stem from this.

The lack of Leadership, in its traditional sense – forward-thinking, inclined toward collaboration and consensus-seeking, and most importantly, inspiring trust and hope – characterizes most of today’s political elites. And the reason for this lies in the weakness of their Character. The same Character that is the foundation for making effective decisions. No level of competence or skills can compensate for its absence. According to the researcher, it is Character – and only Character – that determines the “health” and strength not only of leaders themselves but also of the organizations, communities, and societies they lead.

Donald Trump: A Harbinger of the Crisis of Traditional Leadership?

It is hard to suspect Gerard Seijts of excessive sympathy for Donald Trump. And the article “Is Character Dead?” leaves no room for doubt in this regard. As the researcher himself states, all his years of academic pursuit of Leadership origins have been tied to Character. The latter is at the heart of decision-making, reflecting their root causes.

Donald Trump’s Character was a subject of discussion during all three of his presidential campaigns. Joe Biden’s 2020 admission that he was running to “battle for the soul of this nation”, or Mitt Romney’s statement in his 2019 Washington Post article that “in a time when the nation is so divided, resentful and angry, […] the shortfall in [Trump’s Character] has been most glaring”, serve as vivid examples.

Thus, in this context, the election to one of the world’s most influential positions of a person renowned for his tendency to polarize society is a real cause for concern. The logical question arises: does Character truly play the role in Leadership that it is attributed to? And if a mistake has occurred, what kind of world risks emerging under the influence of “wrong” Leadership?

Why Has Character Become (Un)Important in the Modern World?

In his attempt to find an answer, the author highlights three points that make the American precedent a reason for deep analysis:

• The combination of politics and Character is a truly complex task. In their provocative article “Politics Makes Us All Bastards: Why Moral Judgment Is Politically Situational?” Kyle Hull, Clarisse Warren, and Kevin Smith noted that party loyalty too often outweighs people’s basic notions of “right” and “wrong”. But why? The fact is that political struggle often leads to increasing antipathy toward political opponents. And when we begin to hate someone, the risk of deviating from our own moral compass becomes very real.

• Based on his own research, the author points out that voters in the countries he analyzed (including Canada, the UK, and the U.S.) agree on the role of Character in successful governance. However, the scholar immediately warns of three factors to remember about Leadership Character:
  
  1. Given that Character is embodied in 11 Virtues, their application must be based on the context in which decisions are made. At the same time, it is a mistake to assume that an extremely high level of any one Virtue is the ideal goal. Each of the 11 dimensions of Character can manifest either weakly or excessively. And when Courage is not balanced by the leader’s Temperance, it threatens both them and those around them with extremely negative consequences. Thus, both the level of Virtue expression and their mutual influence must not be overlooked by potential leaders.
  
  2. In this context, the characterization of Donald Trump by American voters is indicative. While highly valuing his Courage and Drive, they tend to view the rest of his Virtues as significantly less pronounced. And what the world has been able to observe recently is a striking example of the consequences such an imbalance can lead to.
  
  3. The author’s third warning is that voters’ assessments of political leaders’ Character are highly individual. And when some of them favor traits unrelated to the politician’s Character, there is a real risk of unworthy individuals coming to power.

“[Considering the phenomenon of Donald Trump’s return to big politics], we should seek the root cause in the so-called ‘magical thinking’ of the majority of voters. When blind faith in the omnipotence of a charismatic leader compels them to justify any of his actions, ignore corruption, Character flaws, or other ‘red flags’. Determination and Drive are captivating. But if they are not supported by other Virtues, such trust will inevitably lead to deep disappointment…”, –

reflects on the situation described in the article
Andrew Rozhdestvensky,
Executive Director of the Center for Leadership of UCU

• Finally, Gerard Seijts analyzes the conclusions of his Stanford Graduate School of Business colleague Jeffrey Pfeffer, who noted back in 2015 that Donald Trump embodies the same leadership qualities that, despite general disdain, find our understanding in everyday life. After all, they are characteristic of many successful people. Excessive Drive, Courage, intolerance of failure, and consequently – arrogance, are traits that are difficult to call pleasant. However, they “infect” the team around such a leader. Therefore, overcoming “toxic” Leadership is possible only if we ourselves reconsider our attitude towards such behavior. And when we stop supporting what we claim to condemn.

About the “Beacon of Hope” in a Sea of Chaos

So, what are the author’s conclusions about the place of Character in the modern world? Has it truly “died”? Has it become an unbearable burden for today’s leaders? Gerard Seijts categorically rejects such thoughts. Numerous studies prove that the demand for Character-based Leadership remains strong. Outstanding figures achieve success thanks to their Character, not in spite of it. And true Leadership continues to be based on three “pillars”: Competencies, Commitment, and Character. Prioritizing one while sacrificing the others means undermining not only one’s effectiveness as a Leader but also the viability of the organization (or even the country) one serves.

Thus, Character has not disappeared. On the contrary, it has become more in demand than ever before. And the darkness born of its deficit, in the author’s view, can only be overcome by our own readiness to become “Beacons of Hope” for others – those who, through their actions, inspire those around them in a Sea of Chaos. And instill in their hearts the hope that the “shore”, and with it – solid ground underfoot, is very close.