James M Strock Quotes

Theodore Roosevelt regarded leadership as his one gift, the area in which he might be considered to possess genius. He presented his views on leadership throughout his voluminous writings. He intended for future writers to study them with an eye toward action, as he himself had done of historic figures.

In a time when our nation is engaged in multiple, long-term wars, it's critical that "the military" not become an abstraction to the vast majority of Americans who are not participants.

President-elect John F.Kennedy said to Robert McNamara that there's no school for presidents, or, for that matter, for secretaries of defense.

Woodrow Wilson is reported to have told a Princeton colleague, shortly after the 1912 election, "It would be an irony of fate if my administration had to deal chiefly with foreign problems, for all my preparation has been in domestic matters." In the event, Wilson's early months were marked by substantial domestic legislative accomplishment. Unfortunately, after Europe plunged into the Great War in August 1914, Wilson's leadership was uncertain.

Arguably there's no school for any high position of leadership. That said, Theodore Roosevelt was remarkably well prepared for the presidency. He had held executive positions in the military, in local government, in the federal government.

Theodore Roosevelt is of singular interest, because he was, in many evident ways, a self-created figure. He transformed his life into performance art. He intended his life to be an example for others to learn from or even emulate.

Legal training has been quite useful in developing critical thinking. Whether one attains it in mathematics, philosophy or law, an analytic grounding can add great value in defining and confronting complex problems, or laying out a path to implement a vision.

I often ask myself: "What would Theodore Roosevelt do?" One can never know, of course. The ultimate contribution of consequential leaders is often their capacity to reframe issues in novel ways. That said, his leadership engaged, at a foundational level, whether the American "national character" would accept decline and mediocrity, or would go all-in for leadership and excellence. Amid the myriad of otherwise disconnected issues before us, that choice is emerging yet again.

When Americans decry our politicians, we must remember that ultimately, politicians reflect us. When we demand more than mediocrity - and the passing comforts it bestows - we will certainly attain it. One hopes and prays it doesn't take an historic crisis for us to demand and reward excellence in public service.

I attended law school, the progression into a career in corporate law was almost foreordained. I set about to craft a career reflective of my values. These included: public service, environmental protection, and leadership development. Trusting my instincts, following my heart, enabled me to create a calling that became a career.

Presidential leadership is best evaluated not on the basis of one's agreement with the policies, but on their effectiveness in using their powers to transform the nation and our understanding of ourselves.

Ronald Reagan was a traditionalist - who purposefully, effectively unleashed innovation and change in himself, in the nation, and in the world. He was a "great communicator" who achieved memorable intimacy with the people everywhere - yet he was often disengaged from his own family.

One of the greatest misconceptions about Theodore Roosevelt - in his time and ours - is that he was impetuous.

Everyone knows that Theodore Roosevelt was able to wring so much life out of each day, every hour, every minute. And yet, when one is immersed in a detailed, retrospective review of his life, his intense living, his vigor di vita, is nonetheless breathtaking.

Curiously, for all the outpourings of scholarship on Theodore Roosevelt, no one had written a book focused directly on his leadership approach, working in large part from his own letters and other writings. That opportunity was open, and I was privileged to step in.

I often encountered books by academics and others who had not actually done what they had written about. They tend to create artificial simplicity; their prose doesn't have the vigor of "lived words." On the other hand, many practitioners lack the context or introspection to make their experiences and understandings transferable - and, in our time, many don't actually write the books they "author." My ideal is to unify theory and practice.

My books arose from my own experience, when I sought guidance in practical leadership in my career. In sum, I strive to write the kind of book that I would find valuable in my own life.

William McKinley has surely been underrated - in no small part because he was succeeded by a memorable leader, Theodore Roosevelt.

Woodrow Wilson administration ended in tragedy, with his insistence on governing following his disabling stroke. I suspect President Wilson is often graded on a special curve, because many academic historians identify with him as one of their own.

California is, in many respects, best understood as a nation-state. In the environmental-energy realm, California possesses far-reaching legal authorities that other states do not.

I've benefited greatly from studying many effective people from history. Among those who've influenced me the most are Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill. Each of the three altered history; each was self-created to a great extent; and each was a great student of history and leadership.

Effective leaders at a high level tend to be skilled actors. Franklin Roosevelt is said to have to quipped, on being introduced to Orson Welles, that they were the two greatest actors in America. The story may be apocryphal, but the message rings true.

Many people become self-conscious when they communicate. Whether it's writing or speaking, they are consumed by anxiety. Self-consciousness is an impediment to what is required to serve an audience effectively. One's goal must be to achieve audience consciousness. To put oneself in their place, to recognize that the value of any communication arises from how it is received by them, not by what it means to the author. Rather than learning a multiplicity of rules for speaking, for example, I would suggest that a focus on serving one's audience will simplify and clarify everything.

If leadership is, fundamentally, about serving others, then any one person should be able to move between being a "leader" and a "follower."

I would suggest two approaches to begin the leadership journey in earnest. First would be to ask oneself, in every interaction with others over the course of a single day: How can you best serve this person? Another approach would be to attempt, over the course of a single day, to reframe your declarative statements into questions. The thoughtful use of questions can be transformational. In my experience, most people find these exercises more challenging - and more rewarding - than they would have imagined.

Dwight Eisenhower has been underestimated, which may relate to his advanced age in office, his somewhat uneven communications skills, and his failure to present a forward-looking vision on the rising issue of civil rights.

Effective leadership relationships at a high level include the insertion of a degree of distance from those being served. That may be part of what President Ronald Reagan referred to when he mused that he didn't see how anyone could be president who wasn't an actor.

Ronald Reagan was notably able to avoid having personal considerations dissuade him from taking decisive actions. This may have arisen in part from his career in motion pictures; it may be related to his being a bit of a loner; it may have related to his focus on those people and principles he sought to serve. What is clear is that this capacity enhanced his effectiveness. It was also a surprise to many people.

Some critics have suggested that Ronald Reagan succeeded in a series of careers, ultimately as a two-term president of the United States, by a series of fortunate accidents. Such a criticism is not backed by the evidence. It is true, though, that Reagan's approach to work and life was not conventional.

There are people all around us whose lives are masterpieces of service. One thinks of parents working two or three jobs to serve their families and community. So, too, many in the military or in nursing or teaching. As the needs are endless, so are the possibilities of service. Now, more than ever, empowered by the Internet, more of us can serve in more ways than ever before in history.

Many people have a very hard time truly believing that doing the right thing by others, striving to serve them to the greatest extent, can actually be a competitive advantage.

Theodore Roosevelt is a natural choice for leadership education. Along with many other observers, I believe he was among the greatest of leaders to serve as president.

Any gathering of people requires leadership to cohere, to achieve its potential contribution. What is not needed is a "boss" of yore, directing everyone else's efforts toward "the one best way."

Ronald Reagan memorably combined intimacy with distance.

One wonders if Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon's administrations may come to be viewed, in the future, as having been underestimated in some respects. To be sure, each ended in failure. Nonetheless, Johnson's accomplishments in civil rights and immigration legislation, and Nixon's in respect to relations with China, may loom larger with the passage of time.

Theodore Roosevelt is among the most captivating of presidents in our time, but his administration is often underestimated. Roosevelt's successes in domestic and international affairs are so wide-ranging as to appear obvious or inevitable in retrospect.

Often, in a given project team or network, one sees leadership roles shifting among various members at various times. Attempts to fit these into traditional views of "leader" and "follower" don't quite work. It's more like Twitter: the "leader" has "followers" - but the "followers" are empowered to alter the relationship unilaterally, and the "leader" must continually earn the consent of the "followers."

Ronald Reagan was unusual in being an authentic personality. Unlike many professional actors - and politicians - he was much the same behind the curtain as in front.

It was a particular pleasure to examine President Ronald Reagan's leadership. I experienced it first-hand, as a member of his administration in several capacities as well as his 1984 reelection campaign staff. The most common misconception is that Reagan was a bystander to his own career.

My Army reserve service was in the 1990s. It was, more than anything else, an opportunity for me to express gratitude. My understanding of and admiration for the American armed forces is deeper, better informed as a result. I'm among those who believe that military or other citizen service should be an expected part of every American's life.

Wal-Mart, with its legendary focus on customer value in terms of price, is innovating in sustainability. Now, we're beginning to see the mirror image, a convergence, as the not-for-profit sector is beginning to serve more effectively by applying private sector accountability and efficiencies to social needs. This reflects a rising recognition that to serve others best requires more than good intentions; it mandates a focus on real-world results. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are among the most conspicuous advocates and representatives of this transformation.

The unprecedented transparency of our time is a making change by the day. Our era, with transparency and the spread of information, is decentralizing authority and power at a breakneck pace. Those who understand this can break away. Those who attempt to hold back may well be trampled.

Theodore Roosevelt crafted a masterpiece of service. He served people in every aspect of his life. His legacy was transformational, encompassing his family, his nation and the world.

Ronald Reagan's career was so unusual, so unprecedented, that this would be very interesting to learn, to gain understanding of his way of looking at the world.

William Ewart Gladstone is credited with the credo that a prime minister must be a "good butcher." The metaphor is apt insofar as the root of the word "decision" is "to cut."