On the Power of Character and the Leader’s Choice – Q&A

“Ukraine is a powerful forge of Leadership. Yes, not immediately. Yes, not easily. But I believe in it” – these words by Andrew Rozhdestvensky, spoken at the end of the final, Tenth Episode of the first season of the “Leadership Podcast”, sound not like a wish but like an acknowledgment: we live in an era of intense growth, painful learning, and a constant test of Character. And at the same time – in an age of creating new meanings of Leadership, in which the Ukrainian experience is not an exception but a unique contribution to the global conversation.

This final episode of the joint project by the Center for Leadership of UCU and “Radio SKOVORODA” is not a conclusion but an invitation to a profound conversation. It is built entirely on the listeners’ questions, who became co-creators of this dialogue. Instead of a monologue, there is an honest, lively, flexible improvisation, in which our colleague managed to touch on the most painful topics of contemporary Leadership: trust and toxicity, feedback and “burnout”, pseudo-Leadership, rituals, and even Donald Trump. So sit back and get comfortable: it will be interesting!

However, this story begins with a fundamental question: how to grow leaders within your team? And this is where one of the key concepts of the episode unfolds – the model of “breeder” leaders and “blocker” leaders.

To Grow or to Restrain: Where to Place the “Comma” in Working With Potential Leaders?

“There are managers who choose loyal, easily controlled people. But true leaders are those who select people with potential, even if they are difficult. Because they grow giants”,

explains Andrew Rozhdestvensky, introducing a vivid yet precise opposition between “breeders” and “blockers”.

Who are “breeder” leaders?

These are those who:

• hire people stronger than themselves; 
• give challenging but honest feedback; 
• create opportunities for growth, challenge, and mentoring; 
• notice and support talents even when it’s inconvenient; 
• develop the team instead of merely controlling it.

This is a position of courage and great inner security. To grow others, you must not fear your own shadow.

And who are the “blockers”?

These are those who:

• hire convenient but not strong people; 
• avoid feedback or reduce it to criticism; 
• do not create opportunities for growth; 
• ignore people’s potential out of fear of competition; 
• create a culture of loyalty rather than professionalism.

This is not always about bad intentions. Often, it’s just an unconscious survival strategy: “I’m afraid of being outshined – therefore, I won’t grow my own replacement”.

To illustrate his point, the host cites examples of political systems where positions are occupied by the “faithful”, not the best. As a result – policy rollbacks, scandals, and a loss of management quality. And he refers to the classic phrase by David Ogilvy:

“If each of us hires people who are weaker than ourselves, we shall become a company of dwarfs. But if each of us hires people who are stronger than ourselves, we shall become a company of giants”.

In the context of war, crisis, and limited resources, this is not just a style – it is an ethical choice: either we cultivate strength around us, or we leave behind a wasteland.

What is happening today in Ukrainian society is mass Leadership “without a mandate”, the growth of initiative, and a deep rethinking of the roles of the manager, the team, and influence. And that is why the “breeder” vs. “blocker” model becomes a litmus test – not only for top managers but for everyone who influences others.

From “No” to a Kind Word: How Trust, Feedback, and Boundaries Shape the Leader’s Character

“The most important of the 11 Virtues of a Leadership Character is Integrity. It’s about a conscious understanding of your principles and the ability to stand up for them”,

explains the Executive Director of the Center for Leadership of UCU, answering a question about how to learn to say “No”.

The ability to say “No” is not a banal social skill, but the capacity to defend your boundaries without aggression, shame, or guilt. And precisely because of this, it’s about Leadership that does not try to be convenient. Refusal is also an expression of values.

“Believe me, people won’t love you for it. But we’ve already said: Leadership is not about being loved”,

the researcher notes wryly.

Here an important topic arises – the unpopularity of decisions. True Leadership does not fear conflict if it is inevitable. It does not play the role of the “nice person” when focus must be maintained and the common cause protected.

The ability to say “No” is also an invitation to maturity in organizational culture. Because where no one says “No”, sooner or later no one knows where the boundary of responsibility lies.

Feedback: Being Honest Is Also a Risk

““Breeder” leaders give candid feedback, even if it is difficult. And “blockers” stay silent or pretend they don’t see the problems”,

the podcast host states as an axiom.

Feedback does not necessarily have to be harsh. But it must be honest and regular. Otherwise, a shadow culture of silence emerges in the team: everyone sees everything, but no one speaks aloud. As a result – neither the people nor the system develop.

This is not just an issue of effectiveness. It is an ethical gap between what the leader sees and what they say. And it destroys trust faster than mistakes ever could.

Why a “Kind Word” Is Not a Weakness

In response to one of the warmest questions of the episode – “Is it true that Leadership begins with a kind word?” – the scholar answers without hesitation:

“Yes, I can confirm that. Not all management – but Leadership begins with a kind word. Because Leadership is about the ability to unite people around solving problems. And that requires trust”.

And here again the logic of Character comes into play. Because kindness is not politeness. It is a conscious act aimed at supporting another. Sometimes a kind word can prevent burnout, help someone preserve their dignity, and simply motivate them in the darkest moment.

This applies to both daily team dynamics and strategic Leadership: without trust, no innovation, change, or adaptation is possible. And trust cannot be built on relentless demands alone – it needs a warm space of mutual dignity.

Laying Bricks or Building a Cathedral: How Meaning, Rituals, and Team-Building Hold Teams Together

“There is nothing humiliating about laying bricks. The question is how you perceive it. If you feel you are doing something meaningful – it is building a cathedral. If not – it’s just drudgery”,

says Andrew Rozhdestvensky, responding to a question about motivation.

In other words: true team-building is not in activities but in meaning. In the feeling that even the smallest action matters. That you are seen. And that your contribution is important.

In this regard, our colleague offers a beautiful metaphor: the one who passes bricks today may become a master, an architect, a mentor tomorrow. But this is possible only in a culture where growth is allowed, supported, and noticed.

In this context, a leader is someone who:

• shows how even simple work has value;
• creates conditions in which one can grow;
• tells stories that bring meaning to the everyday.

This is the transformative act: turning “I work” into “I create”.

What About Online? Is Culture Possible Without Meetings?

One of the most popular questions of the episode was about motivation and team spirit in remote teams. And the head of the Center for Leadership of UCU gives an answer that is both honest and encouraging:

“If you can – meet in person. Even just once a year, even in Barcelona. If not – at least create online formats with cameras on, to spend informal time together”.

Because a team is not just a function. It is a social structure. And it is nourished not only by goals and KPIs but by emotional connection, shared rituals, and a sense of belonging.

And here comes an important insight: sometimes what matters more is how rather than what. For example:

• you don’t necessarily need team-building with tasks – a space for a trusting conversation is enough; 
• you don’t need to know all the details – but someone should know that you care; 
• you don’t need to create a “Mission” – but it’s enough to maintain the link between action and meaning.

Returning to Edgar Schein’s classic model, our colleague emphasizes: rituals are artifacts of culture, and the leader is responsible for sustaining them.

“Rituals themselves are just symbols. But they point to values. And those – to the fundamental assumptions that shape the culture”,

the host reminds us.

In the context of war, loss of stability, and widespread remote work, organizational culture experiences pressure and wear. And it is precisely rituals (even small, regular, online) that can become those “pillars” that keep a person within the collective and the team in integrity.

Burnout, Toxicity, and Pseudo-Leadership: What to Do When the Leader Doesn’t “Shine”?

In response to the question “Can a leader who has “burned out” regain trust?”, Andrew Rozhdestvensky tears the mask off a common stereotype: no, “burnout” is not weakness, and it does not equal a loss of trust.

“If you have a supportive culture, “burnout” is not perceived as vulnerability. It is the result of intense work, not a shame”,

he remarks.

This is a radical thought in a society where efficiency is idolized and fatigue evokes skepticism. Yet in Leadership of a new quality, the ability to acknowledge fatigue, ask for support, and not hide crises becomes an indicator of maturity.

As for toxicity, our colleague clearly distinguishes between:

• Leadership as a neutral (and often positive) force of influence; 
• and the toxicity that a person brings with them into the leadership role.

“Yes, a leader can be toxic. But Leadership as a phenomenon – no. We, as living human beings, bring our own toxicity into the role”,

he elaborates.

And this is particularly important: to understand that a leadership position does not automatically transform Character but only amplifies the traits already present.

So how can one avoid toxic behavior in leaders? Here is a “recipe” of three ingredients:

• Develop the Leader’s Character systematically. This is not just about skills, but also about Virtues, Integrity, and self-reflection. If Character is weak, power will make the person worse. 
• Develop employees’ Integrity. Explain that tolerating toxicity is also a choice. That silence, compliance, or excessive patience only reinforce the problem. 
• Institutionalize protection mechanisms. Policies, complaint procedures, codes of ethics – all of these are not bureaucracy, but structural safeguards of human dignity. And this, too, is about Leadership.

Is It Possible to Recognize a Pseudo-Leader?

A topic that is hard to grasp but impossible to ignore.

“Don’t look at what a person says. Look at what they do. Do they deliver results? Do they develop others? Do they take risks, tackle difficult projects? Do they build trust?”,

advises the Executive Director of the Center for Leadership of UCU.

These, he says, are the tests of authenticity. Pseudo-leaders are characterized by dazzling words, behind which there is no depth. A true leader may be unassuming, but their actions have impact, unite, and nourish.

And this segment of the episode sounds like an ethical warning: before following someone – take note of where that person’s path actually leads.

Donald Trump, Tribalism, and Nelson Mandela: Is True Leadership Possible in Politics?

“Lukashenko and Putin are not leaders. They are dictators”,

states the researcher in response to the direct question: “Can a politician be a leader?”

This is not an assessment of style. It is an assessment of the essence of governance: dictatorship – not because the leader is tough, but because power is usurped and the will of others is destroyed. Leadership, on the other hand, implies:

• building trust; 
• engaging others in solving problems; 
• innovating in the name of progress for the Community.

In this context, Andrew Rozhdestvensky refers to a concept introduced by his colleague Dean Williams – tribalism. This is a hybrid of:

• a democratic mandate (the person was elected); 
• an authoritarian management style (the person acts as they please); 
• and a fragmented culture (absence of boundaries, frameworks, ethics).

“[Donald] Trump is a democratically elected president who acts in a tribalist style. He identifies problems well, but his methods of solving them are often opaque, contradictory, and in the spirit of a “blocker” leader…”,

the host explains.

This example demonstrates: a political mandate is no guarantee of Leadership. It merely creates the stage. But behavior, ethics, and decisions determine whether a leader is genuine.

In contrast to this, our colleague mentions the figure of Nelson Mandela – one of the brightest examples of a political leader with Character, respected even after his death.

But even he was not flawless. And therein lies the main point:

“There are questions for every living person. We are all imperfect. But Leadership is not about perfection. It is about the path, about the vector, about the choice in favor of the common good”.

Andrew Rozhdestvensky also mentions a new generation of Ukrainian politicians – in particular, Roman Lozynskyi, Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, Yaroslav Rushchyshyn, Solomiia Bobrovska… These mentions do not sound like PR, but rather as an attempt to point out an alternative – those who work not for power but for change.

And can politics be compared to business? That seems hardly appropriate.

“After state governance, management in business is like chewing seeds outside a temple”,

the scholar compares wryly.

This is not meant to diminish the role of business. It is an acknowledgment: the scale, complexity, political pressure, and public expectations in politics are radically different. However, this list cannot excuse the absence of Leadership. On the contrary – it only heightens the need for it.

Heroes on the Wall: How We Choose Leaders and Why It’s Important to Stay Open to Reflection

“I am not the person who would have been sitting here at 18. And not even the one I was before the full-scale invasion”,

the host admits candidly in one of the most personal parts of the episode.

This brings us to a question that came up in the comments but could just as easily have been asked in a therapist’s office or a conversation with a mentor: “Is there an age when we choose our leaders? And how can that choice turn against us?”

We choose leaders constantly. And we change them too. It’s not a one-time choice. It’s a series of inner decisions that evolve along with our experience, pain, and context. Our heroes are mirrors of the life stage we’re in. Some hung on our childhood walls as posters (like “Metallica”, “Warlock”, and the “Rolling Stones” for Andrew Rozhdestvensky himself), and some lived in our hearts in the midst of war.

And that’s normal. The danger isn’t in changing heroes. The danger lies in the inability to ask ourselves: “Is this person still my guidepost?”

“If you choose an unworthy person as your guidepost, it can work against you. Especially if there’s no good person nearby to honestly tell you that you’re mistaken”,

the researcher notes.

And at this point, he moves to the power of feedback – which can be unpleasant, but lifesaving. Because reflection is not weakness. It’s a vitamin that can be hard to swallow, but it protects against deeper ailments.

“I have friends I call and say: “I think I’m not being very adequate right now”. And they lovingly tell me: “Yes, Andrew, you’re not very adequate at the moment”…”,

our colleague shares.

This fragment is no joke. It’s a culture of honesty and care that a true leader builds around themselves – even when it hurts.

Instead of an Epilogue: A New Beginning?

“We’ve lived through 10 episodes together. And it’s a little sad… But if you really need us – we’ll find a way to continue”,

says Andrew Rozhdestvensky, as if summing up the entire journey.

Because the final episode of the season is not a full stop for the project itself. It’s an ellipsis. An invitation to continue. But no longer in the format of a monologue – instead, as a shared conversation. Where even more voices, questions, and topics will be heard.

Because the most important thing this podcast has done is not to give ready-made answers – but to teach how to ask. And how to listen.