A Few Final Thoughts...

This is my last week of class, and the last week of my program at Troy University.

Barring any tragic events, I will graduate with my Master’s degree in Public Administration. I have grown considerably throughout the program as a writer, and as a thinker. From my first course, Foundations of Public Administration (taught by Dr. Terry Anderson); to my final two courses, Managing Government Contracts (taught by Dr. Joel Alvarey) and Leadership in Public Administration (taught by Dr. Tammy Esteves); I have been given a box chock full of some great tools. What I do with these tools is yet to be determined, but I will try my best to not be a world-class hoop jumper.

Today I read an article from the website The American Scholar titled Solitude and Leadership, written by William Deresiewicz and delivered to the 2009 plebe class at the United States Military Academy at West

Point. His speech really struck a chord with me. Deresiewicz discusses touches on the flawed nature of multitasking in its lacking of developing true concentration in the workplace. Furthermore, he contends that are not thinking when they multitask, because thinking requires concentration and idea development. I know that as Americans, we are constantly on the go and thinking about ten things at once. Our minivans and crossover SUV’s have become mom taxis for our children so we can taxi them from one event to the next; all in the spirit of giving them everything we can. Think about the last time you had to multitask at work. Do you remember what the actual tasks were? What the memo was about? Did you give each task 100% of your attention? Did you have the time to stop, concentrate, develop ideas, and then act on those ideas? I find that when I multitask that I seldom get the sum of all of the work completed any faster than if I focused on one thing at a time, and often I seem to not give each task the care and attention it needs.

As the youth of today become the leaders of tomorrow, will they have all of the tools that they need to think and act for themselves? To effectively and independently troubleshoot and problem solve situations on their own? As our kids race to fill up their college portfolios with scores of extracurricular activities, they are not learning to truly think, and it is actually quite sad, when you think about it. They are, however, learning how

to essentially how to push a button and get a treat. When my children were younger, I watched their friends constantly run from one activity to the next. Ballet, soccer, FBLA, 4H, Scouts, football, cross country, fall baseball, etc. I vividly remember a couple of families that would pull their kids out of one sports practice to go to another one. Those families actually had their kids in 3 sports each season, and often did some sort of private music lessons as well. I wonder when these kids get to just be kids. Children that grow up with these types of relatively short attention spans grow up to be adults with relatively short attention spans. When compared to other societies, it seems like we are in such a hurry that we have lost our focus, such as taking time to be a family, go to church, and to rest our bodies and our minds from the physical and mental stress of all of the activities. In the end, it seems like all of this go, go, go, is going to lead to cynical, burnt out adults; higher stress and poorer health; higher divorce rates; substance abuse, domestic abuse, problems with coping, or worse...

As Deresiewicz discusses, the leaders of tomorrow are learning to lead by what they see us do today. We

need to teach them to lead with inner strength that comes from a strong ethical foundation. We need to not only teach our kids to act from their heart, not from MTV, Facebook, the NBA, NFL, MLB, or Twitter. The media of the internet, television, and entertainment is not the moral compass that we should be using. Our morality and ethical foundation needs to come from our families, churches, and the authors and teachers of the past. As parents, we need to put our smartphones, our tablets, and our laptops away, and spend time teach our children what true leadership means. We are the leaders of families and organizations. We should take a moment to think about what our priorities really should be. Are we focused on them? If we are, good! If not, then why?

As this is my last blog entry for this class, and as a graduate student at Troy University, I would like to say thank you. Thank you to the administrators and office staff who guided me through the application process, and answered my questions along the way. Thank you to my fellow students from each one of my classes for their honest and open feedback, for that is the only way I will grow. Thank you to the professors who took their time to provide me with a first-class education, and a box full of tools for me to use in my professional travels. Lastly, I would like to thank my wife and children for their unwavering support throughout this last 18 months. I am so blessed to have you in my life.


Now go do great things!

The Great Mind of Dr. Robert J. House

This past week was spent celebrating my daughter’s 24^th birthday, continuing my work towards a grant application I am completing at work, and, of course, studying leadership! 

One of the topics I studied was the works of Dr. Robert J. House. Robert J. House was born on June 6, 1932, grew up in Toledo, Ohio, and received his Doctorate in Management from The Ohio State University in June of 1960. During his career, Dr. House held faculty appointments at The Ohio State University, University of Michigan, City University of New York, University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management, and finally, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where he taught until his retirement in 2010. Dr. House passed in November, 2011 at the age of 79.

Dr. House was an innovator in the field of management and organizational behavior. According to his wife, Tessa, his passion was in his research, which I found to be evident in his contributions to the field, as he authored more than 130 journal articles, as well as many book chapters.

One of Dr. House’s many contributions to the world of leadership included the path-goal theory. The path-goal theory focuses on a leader’s ability to motive subordinates to accomplish organizational goals, and according to author Peter G. Northouse, focuses on a leader’s style and the characteristics of the subordinates and the work setting. The path-goal theory requires that a leader must understand their

organization’s needs and apply the necessary leadership style in order to solve organizational problems. The approach can be directive, where a leader assigns structured tasks and timelines to subordinates to attain goals; supportive, where a leader would tend to their subordinates well-being so they can focus on completing assigned tasks; participative, where a leader solicits suggestions from subordinates on how to solve the problem;  or achievement-oriented, where a leader would coach them to achieve their highest potential possible (similar to a football coach pushing their players to perform beyond their preconceived notions of their capabilities). Applying the appropriate leadership style in the appropriate situation will provides subordinates encouragement and confidence in their abilities, resulting in motivation and higher performance. Good stuff. No, great stuff!

In 1993, Dr. House founded and became Principle Investigator of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Program. His work with them continued through 2003. The GLOBE project is a study of 62 countries and the idiosyncrasies and dimensions of each’s culture. Similar to the results from an omnibus survey, House utilized data from 1985 research to create what was known as regional clusters, classifying clusters by factors such as common language, geography, religion, and historical accounts. These clusters included:

Confucian Asia	Southern Asia	Latin America	Nordic Europe	Anglo
Singapore Hong Kong, Taiwan China South Korea Japan	Philippines Indonesia Malaysia India Thailand Iran	Ecuador El Salvador Columbia Bolivia Brazil Guatemala Argentina Costa Rica Venezuela Mexico	Denmark Finland Sweden	Canada United States Australia Ireland England South Africa (white sample) New Zealand
Germanic Europe	Latin Europe	Sub-Saharan Africa	Eastern Europe	Middle East
Austria The Netherlands Switzerland Germany	Israel Italy Switzerland (Francophone) Spain Portugal France	Zimbabwe Namibia Zambia Nigeria South Africa (black sample)	Greece Hungary Albania Slovenia Poland Russia Georgia Kazakhstan	Turkey Kuwait Egypt Morocco Qatar

            The culture within each cluster was studied and traits were defined, which resulted in the creation of cultural dimensions. The following is a brief description of each dimension, along with the high and low ranking clusters associated with those traits:

Uncertainty Avoidance: the extent a group relies on established norms and rituals to avoid uncertainty. Cluster ranked high in Germanic & Nordic Europe; but low in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East.

Power Distance: the degree that a group expects to agree that power should be shared unequally. There were no clusters in the high category, and low in Nordic Europe.

Institutional Collectivism: the degree that a group will encourage societal collective action. Clusters ranked high in Nordic Europe and Confucian Asia; but low in Germanic & Latin Europe, Latin America.

In-Group Collectivism: the degree members express pride, loyalty or cohesiveness in their organization. Clusters ranked high in Confucian & Southern Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Middle East; and low in Anglo, Germanic and Nordic Europe.

Gender Egalitarianism: the degree that society minimizes gender role differences and promotes equality. Clusters ranked high in Eastern and Nordic Europe; and low in the Middle East.

Assertiveness: the degree that people are determined, assertive, or aggressive in their relationships. Clusters ranking high were Eastern & Germanic Europe; low in Nordic Europe.

Future Orientation: the degree that people engage in planning, investing in the future, etc. Clusters were high in Germanic & Nordic Europe; and low in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East.

Performance Orientation: the degree that society awards people of improved performance. Clusters ranked high in Anglo, Confucian Asia, and Germanic Europe; but low in Eastern Europe and Latin America.

Humane Orientation: the degree that society encourages altruism, generosity, caring, and kindness. Clusters ranked high in Southern Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa; low in Germanic & Latin Europe.

What can we learn from this?

The biggest lesson I received by studying this is that different cultures have different priorities and 

society norms.  As leaders, it is our responsibility to understand these differences, embrace these differences, and develop our skills and apply the appropriate leadership styles that speak to the motivators of each culture that we work with. The differences that each culture brings can make our organizations more versatile and strong. As leaders, we must understand this and promote it to come to fruition. How we do this is a question that each must answer going forward in this global workplace.

Dr. House: You were brilliant, and your contributions to leadership will be discussed, debated, and remembered forever. 

May you rest in peace. 

What creates a team?

I spent a fair part of this week reading and studying team leadership.

Team leadership can be defined a few different ways. In the mid-2000’s, Zaccaro, Heinen, and Shuffler developed conceptual models that defined teams as either being leader-centric and/or team-centric interactions that define the hierarchy of what would be considered flatter than the traditional organizational style. The comparison between the centricities of a team-based theory is interesting, and requires some additional discussion.

In a traditional organization, the leader-centric environment has been the norm; where there is a hierarchy of director, manager, supervisor, and subordinate. A director would formulate a mission and communicate it to their manager, who in turn would direct their supervisor, who in turn would guide their subordinates to act accordingly in fulfillment of the organizational cause. This has been since before the study of organizational leadership; there was a known and predictable flow in the workplace.The team leadership theory teaches us

an alternative concept. While leadership and decision making can still come from the traditional leader-centric hierarchy, organizations will also look to its employees for decisions that can leadership. Decision making can occur from any source in the organization, from the highest director to the newest subordinate. Hence, the concept of team-centricity. Within a team leadership organization, the leader can be the typical defined manager or supervisor, but can also be someone working on the production line, and would emerge as a leader from within the team itself. 

Early discussions of team leadership began as early as the 1960’s, as organizations began understanding the importance of team effectiveness. Throughout the 70’s, American industry saw in increase in competition from Japan and other countries as foreign industrialists cut into a share the U.S. economy as foreign industrialists were able to manufacture faster and for less money. While foreign products became common place, U.S. output was waning as their countrymen chose lower prices over the Made in America label. American industry had to respond. In the late 1980’s, psychologists and management professionals began studying and defining group dynamics and the team-centric philosophy that helped define the team leadership approach. 

One of the earlier team leadership models was created by Susan E. Kogler Hill, Communication Management Division Director for Cleveland State University. Her Model for Team Leadership takes one through the process of how leaders make decisions; consider internal task or relational actions and external environmental actions and develop team effectiveness. When I first studied Hill’s Model for Team Leadership, I thought “oh great, another flowchart!” The more I study Hill’s team leadership model, the more I appreciate its elegance. Within the model, a leader has the option to monitor the situation, or to act upon it. As a leader, there are times in the workplace confrontations between staff or other problems can occur, and it is not always in your best interest to act on it; at least not right away. If staff can work out issues themselves, let them, as long as the problem is not slowing down production. Encourage them. Coach them. Let them grow. Of course, if issues are at the point of escalation or if the problems are affecting the quality of services being offered, then you must take action. If you do take action, you need to determine if the action necessary is internal or external. Internal actions can be task related, such as goal focusing, structuring for results, facilitating decisions, training, or enforcing standards; or relational, such as coaching, collaborating, managing conflict, building commitment, satisfying needs (or at least satisficing needs), or modeling principles. External actions are generally environmental in nature, and can be

achieved either inside or outside of the organization. When I speak of external actions, it is in reference to your direct work team, and can include a work team within a similar or associated division. Actions can include networking, advocating, negotiating support, buffering, assessing, and sharing information. The goal of determining and acting upon the solution is simple: to increase team effectiveness, the obvious indicator of a leaders success can be an increase in performance, and the development of your staff. One of the many benefits of the team leadership approach is ownership. When you include staff in the process of decision making in the workplace, you instill a sense of ownership within them. As the sense of ownership increases, accountability grows. Ownership and accountability increases employee growth, satisfaction, and ultimately, retention. 

As a leader, all of your hard work will result in effectiveness within your team.

Serving While Leading

First of all, I want to wish a very happy July 4th to my family, my friends, and to the men and women who serve in both the Armed Forces and as First Responders.  We should all feel so blessed to have each of you placing your lives on the line daily to protect our freedom and keep us safe.  Thank you.

Now, to my blog entry this week...

I love my family.

Both of my children are older (23 and 20). Nevertheless, they still enjoy going and doing things with mom

and dad, and we love doing things with them. They are an absolute pleasure to be around, and are growing into fantastic adults. Our daughter (23), is in her second year of her masters/doctoral program, and will

become a college professor when she graduates. Our son (20) is in his third year of his firefighter/paramedic program, just completed a 2 year residency service at our local fire department, and will someday be a paid firefighter and paramedic. Paid is good! Both of them serve as lifeguards at various public pools. They have saved people’s lives on numerous occasions while living their lives in an ethical manner. For the most part, they do the right thing at the right time (this is me being a critical parent!). When their friends need someone to talk to, they listen and show genuine empathy and love. They are fine examples of young referent power and future leaders; all through the servitude of their fellow man. They are my heroes, and I am proud to call them daughter and son.

Each week, I have read multiple chapters as part of my leadership curriculum. Each theory, style, or leadership type possesses very similar goals. Whether it is trait, contingency, path-goal, or leader-member exchange (LMX) theories; skills, style, or situational approaches; transformational, servant, or authentic leadership; all focus on one thing: how we, as leaders, communicate with people.

Of all of the leadership styles and theories, I have a real connection with servant leadership, and think it is a

big deal. A really big deal. Those who are servant leaders exhibit skills such as listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and a commitment to build communities to make them stronger. Is there any skill associated with servant leadership that you feel is not essential to being an effective leader? I would argue that there is not, because one of the beautiful things about servant leadership is that it is inclusive of every key criterion necessary for effective leadership.

When I think of servant leaders, I think about people who give their love, support, and amazing sacrifice of themselves in support of people and causes. Examples include Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandala, Martin Luther King Jr, the Dalai Lama, the Prophet Mohammed, and of course, Jesus Christ. One of the greatest things we can do as leaders and as people in general is to care for our fellow humans. While some of us can be a tad narcissistic at times, at the core of our being must lie the need to help each other out, raise each other up, and to give everyone an opportunity to shine as much as he or she wants to. No exceptions.

Servant leadership is about helping people shine. At its core, this form of leadership is focused on the behaviors of the leader and their ability to put the needs of their employees first through the use of empathy, empowerment, nurturing, and ethical behavior. Servant leadership was first discussed by the late Robert

Greenleaf, who was the director of management research for American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T). At the time, Greenleaf was considered by AT&T to be the “conscience of the company”, as he taught that “servant leadership begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first… to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served”.

Serving the needs of your employees will result in happier, more content people. One of the benefits you will

see is higher retention of staff. If you are placing our employee’s needs first, and are successfully fulfilling those needs through empathy, empowerment, nurturing, and ethical behavior, you will see happier employees, less work days lost to illness, and the opportunity for greater employee retention. You will still have employee turnover, as some employees will take the support you provide and run with it. They will shine like a new penny and ultimately move on and accept advancement opportunities that are presented to them. This is not only ok, it is a great thing! As a leader, whether you are a parent, manager, supervisor, or director, your role is to help your followers learn, grow, seeking to fulfill their dreams and aspirations.

This is our ultimate goal.

The Sensibilities of Path-Goal Leadership

Being a budget and finance professional, I keep an eye on the dollars, and I gladly accept any monikers that go with that. As a public servant, I focus on offering quality services to my constituents in the most cost-effective manner possible. Part of being cost effective is being able to hire and retain fellow professionals to
efficiently and effectively run government operations.  While I believe in maximizing the dollars that are
entrusted in me by the taxpayer, I also believe that you must offer a competitive total compensation package as one of the means of retaining quality staff. The cost of providing public services can be reduced by minimizing staff turnover. As an administrator, one way of reducing staff turnover is by doing what is necessary to promote satisfaction in the workplace, and promoting satisfaction means that leaders must understand the motivating factors of the staff in our organizations. While this can be a complex endeavor, it is not impossible when proper efforts are applied. It requires multiple aspects of leadership theories, such as those provided in the path-goal theory.


This week I read about the leadership concept of the path-goal theory. This subject intrigued me as it speaks to something we all strive for as leaders: to effectively understand and serve the needs of our employees. The theory seems like a win-win situation for the employee and the manager alike. This week I will focus on the employee aspects of the path-goal theory.

The foundation of path-goal theory is that it focuses on the ability of a manager to motivate their employees to accomplish the goals set forth by the organization.  This is a different approach than managers using contingency theory, where the goal is to survey an organizational problem and apply the appropriate management style best suited to solve the problem. Peter Northouse writes that path-goal theory focuses an employee’s characteristics, the work setting, and the appropriate leadership style. One example of an employee characteristic would be experience. For example, let’s say that there are two employees that work in similar jobs for the same employer. Employee A has been with the agency for 3 months, while employee B has been with the agency for 6 years.  Both employees were assigned to work together on a project.  The two get along great, but are struggling to complete the project. As a manager, what would you do?

Obviously, that would depend on the circumstances surrounding why the project has not been completed.  If the problem is due to the lack of training, then as a manager you would need to decide the proper course of action using a directive and/or supportive leadership style. Would you provide your employees the necessary training, or would you replace one or both employees with someone who already has the training? How would you address the problem if it is due to motivational factors?  As a leader, the solution can be complicated, but you have numerous options. Will you employ a directive style, and provide coaching to the employee, explaining the expectations?  Or, would you employee a supportive style, where you would coerce the employee to perform and reassure them that their skillset is more than adequate to complete the task at hand?   Would you use a participative style, where you could involve the employees in the decision process that determines why the problem exists and work together to determine the best solution? Lastly, would you try to utilize an achievement-oriented approach to establish the expectation of high performance and success? Using any of these leadership theories is highly dependent on the situation and the employee you are working with.  A leader needs to possess an understanding of their organization and the idiosyncrasies of their staff they are working with.

One of the strengths of the path-goal concept is that the leader’s approach to organizational problems are customized based on the employee, as it provides a useful theoretical framework for how the behaviors of leadership affect the satisfaction of your employees. Satisfied employees are content and motivated employees. Content employees will more than likely be retained; saving thousands of dollars in recruiting, hiring, and training staff. Motivated employees become higher performing employees. If you are a achievement-oriented leader, you gotta love that!

Situational Leadership – Deciding when to think outside of your box

This week, one of the subjects I read about was situational leadership. This style of leadership speaks to me because I have always believed that different situations call for different solutions …and styles.

Situational leadership teaches us that there are four main styles that are driven by low and high supportive and directive behaviors. Along the bell curve of the situational leadership model lies each of the four styles; directing (S1), coaching (S2), supporting (S3), and delegating (S4). The key is for a leader to possess advanced understanding each management style as well as the interpersonal skills to properly read their employee’s socioemotional needs.  Once these needs have been identified, an effective leader will employ the most appropriate management style accordingly.  Doesn’t this just make sense?  In my opinion, it just makes sense for a leader to have enough management savvy to customize their approach to each employee. Let’s discuss each of the four management styles.

Directing (S1). The directing management style lies within the lower right portion of the situational leadership model, within the quadrant defined as low supportive and high directive management behaviors. A leader exhibiting this style will focus almost solely on completing organizational tasks, and very little on the socioemotional needs of their staff.  This does not mean that a directing style leader is uncaring about staff needs; but their focus is on communicating organizational needs, defining what has to be accomplished, and closely monitoring progress until the goal is obtained.  This style of leadership would shine in a couple of situations. The first would be a crisis situation, where everyone’s focus must be one solving the crisis, and once the crisis has been removed, a leader can transition back into a role that is more employee-centric. The second would be in an environment with new staff where they have yet to develop an understanding of organizational needs, and thus need very direct guidance on what to do and even sometimes, how to do it.

Coaching (S2). The coaching management style lies within the upper right portion of the situational leadership model, within the quadrant defined as high supportive and high directive management behaviors. A leader exhibiting the coaching leadership style will place primary foci on both achieving the task at hand and developing staff and their socioemotional needs. A coaching leader will communicate the goals and tasks to their staff, solicit feedback on what the employee thinks is the best solution to the problem, but making a final decision falls upon the manager. Training or staff development is supported, but a coaching leader’s support of this could potentially be focused on task at hand.  This style seems to be where the most concessions would occur, and in my mind, would be the most difficult management style to sustain because this leadership style require a continuous juggling between organizational need and employee desires. The coaching leadership style would test the savviness of an effective leader, but it is a skill that one needs to develop and perfect in order to work within the situational leadership continuum.

Supporting (S3). The supporting management style lies within the upper left portion of the situational leadership model within the quadrant defined as high supportive and low directive management behaviors. A leader exhibiting a supportive management style will place a greater emphasis on developing their staff and their socioemotional needs than completing the task at hand.  This does not mean that the leader with this style does not have the task in mind, just that they believe that the best way to accomplish the task is through developing their employees. This is not a bad management style for a couple of reasons. Developing your staff yields immediate and future benefits to an organization, as the employee can use their newly acquired skills for both the current task at hand, as well as tasks that come down the road.  In addition, developing staff can boost an employee’s self-confidence and dedication to the organization. Granted, leaders that develop employees will potentially provide them with the skills needed to seek advancement opportunities, and that is ok. The benefits reaped from developing your employees far outweigh any concerns of them moving on.

Delegating (S4). The delegating management style falls at the bottom left portion of the situational model within the quadrant defined as low supportive and low directive management behaviors. The delegating style really has to do with a matter of a leader’s trust in their employees to be able to act autonomously in the
workplace.  A delegating leader would trust staff to make decisions regarding how the work gets done, and then watch them employ those decisions accordingly. This is a hands-off approach to management that would require a very, very special group of employees who have a true interest and investment in their jobs to want to go above and beyond the job description.  In the government arena, I would argue that this type of management does not occur on most levels, and would really only be successful on the director to manager level. At the manager to staff level there are many obstacles that prevent a delegating style, such as labor contracts and policies that limit what a line employee can do without being considered to be working out of their job classification.

So... which leader should you be? Depends on situation.

Have a great week, and go do great things!

Traits, Skills, and a Strong Back.

First of all, Happy Father’s Day to all of your dads. If you are involved in your kid’s lives (regardless of age), great job! If you are not involved, it is never too late. Society needs kids that have a positive father’s presence in their lives. I have two wonderful adult children who both are in college. I still do my best to be a positive role model to them, provide them guidance, and I am their biggest cheerleader! I love them dearly, and am very proud of them. Someday, I hope and pray that both of them are just a big of a pain in the butt to their kids as I have been to them. If they are, then I feel in some way that I have done my job well.

This weekend was an interesting Father’s Day weekend for me. In the past two days, my kids decided that this was the week for both of them to move apartments. I couldn’t help but think “really, both of you are going to move... the same weekend?!!” Needless to say, my wife and I have spent this weekend moving our kids. What a wonderful Father’s Day present: boy, am I tire sore!

You are probably thinking: where is he going with this? Well, this week I read about two different theories/approaches to leadership: the trait approach and the skills approach. Northouse discusses that the trait approach describes leadership traits that are inherent traits exhibited by great leaders, and that true leaders were born with the ability to exhibit them. The trait approach teaches us that there are core qualities defining true leadership, such as intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability. By contrast, the skills approach emphasizes skills and abilities that can be learned and developed, such as problem-solving, social judgment, as well as other knowledge-based attributes. The skills approach also stresses the need for technical, personal, and conceptual skills as an important foundation for effective leadership.

Which theory do you think correctly addresses what makes up a true leader? My opinion is this: An effective leader will exhibit qualities of both theories. A leader, or anyone who successfully achieves the goals they set for themselves, will have aspects of trait leadership (intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability). However, these successful people also have skill-based skills (as problem-solving, social judgment, perceptiveness, perspective, knowledge, general and crystalized cognitive abilities). The trait and skills approaches form a partnership. It takes determination and drive to gain knowledge and problem-solving skills; and it takes intelligence and confidence to develop cognitive abilities and perceptiveness towards one’s customers and employees. A true leader really must have qualities of one approach to possess the other.

How does this relate to my weekend? It takes trait leadership qualities to be a father. It takes perceptiveness, perspective, integrity, and determination to continue to coach and teach your children when they do not want to listen. It takes self-confidence to teach your kids how to be determined and persistent. It takes intelligence to know when to push, and when to back off and let them push themselves. Most of all, it takes love, patience, and faith.

…and a strong back!