Peter Drucker recommended a 2,000-year-old book to his PhD students which he described as “the first systematic book on leadership and still the best”. It was written by Xenophon, an Athenian-born military general, a writer and a student of Socrates, entitled Kyropaidaia, on battle leadership.
This book recommendation was not a complete surprise. As a veteran with battle experience in several wars I had used and applied my own experiences in industry and in academic organizations and they worked.
I was also familiar with a large study of several hundred thousand combat participants conducted under US government sponsorship during WWII, by academics at well-known universities including Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the University of Chicago. They had analyzed questionnaires on combat leadership and their effectiveness from American soldiers in battle.
As a West Point graduate, the focus on leadership there had been primarily on preparation for combat still I could not get the answers to the questions I was asking myself at the time. These were on whether leadership techniques from battle could or should be adapted for use in industry even though what was taught was both ethical and effective. Because of the environment and dangers, it had to be.
Later, West Point established a chair of leadership and the first occupant was Frances Hesselbein, who was not only Drucker’s friend but had co-authored a book based on the Army’s leadership methods with general Eric Shinseki, a former Army Chief of Staff. She had also established a leadership institute for non-profit executives, which is respected and still exists, based on Drucker’s principles. Later, when I was president of the California Institute of Advanced Management, I appointed Frances to my board of directors.
After gaining my PhD from Drucker I wrote several books based on his theories. After reading one, Senator Barry Goldwater told me that he agreed that all successful leadership was based on a foundation of basic honesty which was also a central belief of both Drucker and West Point. The former taught that without integrity a leader would fail eventually, while the latter educated people that integrity must be scrupulously observed and is critical.
The combat leader research project and civilian leadership
An article published in a national newspaper proposed that the decline in the number of military veterans who were serving in major government institutions and large corporations was the reason for a decline in those organizations’ effectiveness.
If true, I wondered to what extent practices learned by leaders through battle experiences were applied in civilian careers and whether it was necessary that they have these experiences.
To answer these questions, I developed the Combat Leadership Research Project. The basis of my research was a written survey that I sent to former combat leaders including generals, admirals, sergeants and junior officers, now successful in civilian pursuits, including government and both profit and nonprofit institutions.
I asked them to identify if any which lessons they learned from the military, the three most important actions and what had been the results. Their responses demonstrated that there were general concepts that successful leaders followed. They would allow leaders to dramatically boost productivity under stress and achieve extraordinary success in all types of civilian organizations.
Related content: Drucker’s advice on becoming a pack leader
I expected an encyclopedic list of ideas, having in mind the 115 maxims on the conduct of war the Emperor Napoleon published. If one combat leader could identify that many, how many hundreds of different leadership principles would I uncover after analyzing and tabulating the input from so many respondents? I thought that 1,000 or more concepts was likely.
I was mistaken as about 95 percent of the responses pertained to only eight basic insights that were significant. All respondents had followed one or more of only eight actions which helped them achieve remarkable results in later in civilian careers.
In a latter phase of my research, I interviewed other successful senior business leaders and reviewed dozens of corporate situations and the actions taken by these civilian executives. Some had military backgrounds but most did not. Many had developed their own lists of principles over the years.
While their lists frequently differed, they almost invariably included one or more of the eight ideas from my surveys. I also looked at history for further confirmation. Assessment of 7,000 years of recorded history gave me an abundance of evidence supporting only eight principles.
The eight universal laws of leadership
The strength of the results of my investigation motivated me to rename these the universal laws of leadership. I published the results in several books and articles and discussed them over lunch with Drucker.
Of course, there were more than eight ideas that were identified, but these were the most frequently noted. They were:
- Maintain absolute integrity
- Know your stuff
- Declare your expectations
- Show uncommon commitment
- Expect positive results
- Take care of your people
- Put duty before self
- Get out in front
Integrity as the most frequent and important action
There was one action that West Point, Peter Drucker and Senator Goldwater spoke of, and it was the most frequently noted by combat leaders: maintain absolute integrity. A significant majority of responses included this principle, and many respondents wrote additional letters or notes.
They expressed the opinion that without basic trust between leaders and followers, the leader would probably have difficulty even if they applied other leadership principles properly. Integrity means doing the right thing no matter how difficult. Moreover, lack of integrity can have very bad consequences for any organization and any endeavor that involved trust.
Organizations have succeeded, sometimes against all odds, simply because their leadership maintained absolute integrity. Billion-dollar catalog giant Lands’ End was in trouble several years ago. Paper prices had doubled and apparel demand collapsed at the same time as a significant postal hike.
Third quarter profits were down 60 percent and falling. Advisors told the CEO, then 34-year old Michael J. Smith, that he should think about laying off employees to improve his bottom line which would please stockholders.
To him, that was an integrity issue. Laying off employees simply to look good was not doing the right thing so he did the opposite. He added benefits including an adoption assistance service and mental health referrals and even part-time employees received full healthcare benefits.
Related content: Top 10 business transformation teams making a difference
He refused to lay anyone off and explained, “If people feel squeezed, they will not treat the customer as well”. The following year first quarter profits more than tripled to US$4.4mn compared to the previous year. Sales rose 2.3 percent and the stock price of Lands’ End shares increased 85 percent.
Even absolute integrity cannot ensure a leader’s success or guarantee a happy ending for himself or the organization. Four years later when competitive pressures and other problems caused sales to again decline, Smith was asked to resign, so there is no guarantee about anything. Integrity is about doing the right thing or what you believe to be right whether you live happily forever after or not.
Starbucks had problems when president Harold Schultz was establishing his brand in China. He discovered that his employees were more concerned about taking care of their parents as they grew older than in the US.
At company expense he funded insurance policies for his employees enabling the care of their parents in the future when the employee retired or left the firm. Company consultants advised against it, saying that it would cost the company too much, but Schultz knew it was the right thing to do and did it. It was expensive, but it worked.
When I hear that eventually the leader suffered, I remember what the combat leaders found: integrity, the truth and doing the right ethical action, is more important regardless.
My investigation found that leaders do not need to be combat veterans necessarily – not so long as they know and practice the eight principles.
Do you believe that businesses should always act with integrity? Let us know in the comments below.