This book is written from the context of a Christian worldview however with a broad base of support from diverse pieces of history and literature. In fact the author uses excerpts of literature and history to develop each of his points concerning character. His basic premise is that character counts in leadership whether it is leadership of a nation as a president or of a family as a father or mother. Good character is the central issue of leadership. Then he develops this theme throughout the book through showing the importance of character, then showing how character is developed in the issues of life, and the spiritual foundations of character. He also describes how character is eroded by cultural issues and that heroes of character are important for inspiring proper character development.
The central question is the definition of character - which is the inner form that makes anyone or anything what it is. Character expresses most deeply what constitutes a unique individual. Focus on power, money and style or the trappings of success have displaced purpose in leadership and made character a casualty instead of an anchor of leadership. However, character is important to leadership on at least two levels. One is that it is the link of trust with those that follow and two it is the source of proper bearings for leadership decisions.
The importance of character is developed using historical biographies of several people on different spectrums of how to address this issue with a balancing view for government as found in James Madison. The importance of character is seen as charisma without character is dangerous yet leadership without charisma can be ineffective. The quote from Lincoln is insightful at this point. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." This is an important reason for the need of character in leadership in that the leader must pass the test of promotion to be a great leader. It is not enough to pass through adversity but can the leader hold power with restraint and use it well for the good of others and not self. Washington and others have passed this test but not all have done so well. Machiavelli suggested a feigned character of convenience for the sake of power and this concept has embedded itself into modern leadership and politics. Because of these realities to balance between the ideal and realists positions Madison developed a system of government which was intended to use checks and balances where ambition would counteract ambition though the ideal was to have people of virtue in places of power.
Character is not a given and is developed especially under fire. These testings are shown in the Greek tragedy of Oedipus and the biblical story of Job. These testings speak to us of our lives and testings and thereby help us work through the crucible of character development. Oedipus is a man of conviction yet one who is followed by unforeseen (to him) twists in life that test his character. His passion for the truth becomes his own undoing but preserves a certain amount of character though ultimately he is the murderer. Then in Job, he is tested and remains faithful to God in the early stages but ultimately must be adjusted by God though he must also do sacrifice for his "friends." His character is good but is deeply impacted by this encounter with suffering and ultimately his encounter with God.
Society has moved away from the concept of the hero based on greatness due to character to public image and style with a person becoming famous for being well known. In this shift the psychological gyroscope has been lost for individuals and society at large. It is about "designer personalities" now that has to do with public impressions and little to do with character. A person can be moved by their own lack of self-esteem which comes from an inordinate self-love which produces envy and a desire for image that is outward driven rather than character which is inward. With a movement away from Christianity to psychology American culture has lost is sense of responsibility which is an important part of good character. Since the graphic revolution in the early 1900's fame has been manufactured decreasing the need for true greatness to be considered great. Possibly man cannot make himself great but human greatness is connected with belief in God. However, due to current realities in culture and the workforce detachment and superficial cooperativeness are the way to deal with the current realities which are contrary to the issues of loyalty and character.
Though there are those that say character does not matter it does matter and there are certain spiritual foundations for building strong character. The idea of the holy character of God is the standard and the substance for human character. This is the ideal of character and the inspiration or source to draw from in developing human character. The second characteristic for good character is the capacity for deep lasting change or conversion and repentance. The third ingredient is that of moral accountability and the need for correction as informed and directed by confession. The fourth ingredient for character is an ability to say no to the bad habits that enslave us - to surrender to grace that teaches us to say "no." The fifth ingredient of good character is forgiveness the ability to forgive and go on not to be bound up with bitterness. The sixth ingredient for developing good character is the discipline of secrecy or the ability to confess our sins and shortcomings but to leave our good deeds in secret. I found this last one to be particularly interesting as a part of character development. I think this might fall under the category of humility but I found the way it was presented very intriguing. Where did he get this list? I realize he used history but why this history? Because he is the author he can do this but is this a valid list are there others like humility or integrity that need inclusion or are they included by implication in this list?
Character is caught more than taught. Therefore we still need true heroes today much as in the past. But if this is true how can we teach an important ingredient of leadership in our leadership schools? If it is caught then it is not just academic credentials that are needed but also character credentials for the teachers but can these be put on a curriculum vitae like academic credentials? I think not. So where do we go from here. The first answer is that we really do need more heroes like More, Luther, and Bonheoffer. We must become those heroes so we can lead by who we are and not just by what we say. But can we get there from here in an age of image? I think it is difficult but not impossible.
