Summary: I recently received an email from a client that speaks to the tension we are all feeling these days. Here is the essence of it: I am exhausted by the anger surrounding this election. Friends no longer speak to one another. Even at work, people are careful about what they say because one wrong comment can damage a relationship. Is there anyone in politics who can remind us what leadership is supposed to look like?
I want to take you back to October 10, 2008. Republican presidential candidate John McCain was speaking at a town hall meeting in Minnesota. The presidential election was approaching, emotions were running high, and many of his supporters were angry and frightened about the possibility of Barack Obama becoming president.
One woman expressed distrust of Obama and suggested that his identity made him suspect. McCain interrupted her. He rejected her characterization and defended Obama as a decent person with whom he had serious political disagreements.
At another point, McCain urged the audience to respect his opponent. Some people booed. Think about that for a moment. Here was a presidential candidate, standing before his own supporters, asking them to respect the man he was trying to defeat. He could have encouraged their anger or remained silent. In fact, he could have allowed their fear to become fuel for his campaign. Instead, at that moment, he chose to challenge it.
Now, McCain was hardly a perfect example of political civility. His campaign also engaged in personal attacks, and that contradiction deserves acknowledgment. Yet the moment remains important because it raises a question every leader should consider: Are you willing to disappoint the people who support you when your values require it?
When Loyalty Becomes More Important Than Truth
After more than 35 years working with executives, families, and organizations, I have learned that one of the most dangerous leadership patterns is also one of the most socially rewarded. Loyalty.
Wait. Isn’t loyalty a good thing? Of course it is. Loyalty can create trust, belonging, and lasting relationships. But loyalty becomes destructive when it demands silence, excuses harmful behavior, or insists that anyone who disagrees must be treated as an enemy.
And where do we first learn these rules? In our original organization: the family. Some children grow up hearing, “We stick together, no matter what.” Others learn that questioning a parent means being disrespectful. In some families, the person who names a problem becomes the problem. Sound familiar?
Now move that family dynamic into a boardroom, a political organization, or a community. The same patterns appear. People defend behavior they would otherwise condemn because the person involved belongs to their group. They remain silent when someone crosses a line. They confuse disagreement with betrayal. Before long, belonging becomes more important than integrity. And when that happens, leadership suffers.
The Courage to Disagree With Your Own Side
One of the most revealing tests of character is not how we treat people who agree with us. It is how we behave when someone on our own side does something we know is wrong. Do we speak up? Or do we rationalize? Perhaps we look away because confronting the problem might cost us approval, influence, or belonging?
McCain’s town hall moment is worth remembering precisely because the pressure came from his supporters, not his opponents. He faced a choice between encouraging the crowd and correcting it. That is a leadership dilemma I recognize from my coaching work.
I have watched CEOs struggle to confront longtime colleagues. In other situations, I have seen parents protect one adult child while expecting another to absorb the consequences. I have worked with family businesses where everyone knew something was wrong, yet nobody wanted to disturb the peace. The problem was rarely a lack of information. It was the fear of what might happen if someone told the truth.
And here is what I tell leaders: If your loyalty requires you to abandon your integrity, it is no longer healthy loyalty. It has become a trap.
What Our Political Divisions Reveal About Our Patterns
As we approach the November 3 election, I am less interested in telling people what to think than in asking them to examine how they think and react. Notice what happens when someone challenges your political beliefs.
Does your body tighten? Does your voice become sharper? Do you immediately prepare a counterargument before the other person finishes speaking? Perhaps you become the Rebel, determined to fight. Or the Pleaser, pretending to agree to avoid conflict. The Avoider may withdraw, while the Persecutor moves quickly toward blame and attack.
These are familiar behavioral patterns, often learned long before we understood politics. The important question is not whether we have them. We all have patterns. The question is whether we recognize them before they begin making our decisions. This is central to what I call the GLIMMERS Effect™.(opens in new tab)
When something triggers us, we can move through a familiar sequence: Trigger → Pattern → Pause → Ugly Middle → Choice.
That pause matters. It is the space between an automatic reaction and a conscious response. The Ugly Middle is where we sit with discomfort long enough to make a different choice.
A GLIMMER is the possibility we begin to recognize when we stop allowing an old pattern to dictate our next move.
Instead of attacking someone, we become curious. Rather than protecting our side at any cost, we ask whether our response reflects our values. And, instead of confusing certainty with wisdom, we make room for examination. This doesn’t mean we abandon our convictions. It means we stop allowing our convictions to become excuses for contempt.
Five Questions to Ask Before You Vote — or Follow Any Leader
Political candidates are not the only people who need to demonstrate character. CEOs, managers, educators, and parents face similar tests.
As you consider the people asking for your trust, here are five questions worth examining.
- Do they tell the truth when the truth is inconvenient?
It is easy to be truthful when the facts support your position. Integrity becomes more visible when honesty carries a personal cost.
- Can they acknowledge mistakes?
Accountability is not weakness. A leader who can recognize an error creates more opportunity for learning than one who must always appear right.
- How do they treat people who disagree with them?
Strong disagreement is not the same as personal humiliation. Watch whether leaders address ideas and behavior or attack the dignity of others.
- Are they willing to challenge misconduct within their own group?
This may be the most revealing question of all. Standards that apply only to opponents are not consistent standards.
- Do their actions match their stated values?
Speeches can inspire. Promises can persuade. Yet repeated behavior offers stronger evidence of how someone will lead. These questions won’t tell you whom to vote for. They will help you think more carefully about the character and conduct of anyone seeking authority.
We Need More Than Winners; We Need Grown-Ups
Here is what concerns me most about our polarized climate. We have become so focused on winning that we sometimes forget what happens after the contest is over. Families still need to gather. Colleagues still need to work together. Communities still need to solve problems. And our children are watching how we handle disagreement.
They are learning from us. Are we teaching them that people with different beliefs are enemies? Is that humiliation strength? That admitting a mistake means defeat? Or are we demonstrating something better? I believe healthy leadership requires the integration of head, heart, and gut.
Head helps us evaluate facts and consider consequences.
Heart reminds us that people deserve dignity, even when we disagree.
Gut can alert us when something feels wrong, prompting us to examine the situation rather than react impulsively.
We need all three. The goal is not to become so agreeable that we stand for nothing. There are times when strong boundaries, firm opposition, and courageous action are essential. The goal is to stand for something without losing our humanity.
That is a different kind of strength.
The Election Will End, But Our Patterns Will Remain
On November 3, voters will make their choices. Some people will celebrate. Others will be disappointed. And the work of living together in a complicated democracy will continue.
No election can do our inner work for us.
We still have to examine the old family patterns that make disagreement feel dangerous, loyalty feel compulsory, and compromise feel like defeat. We still have to decide whether we will reward leaders for telling us what we want to hear or respect them when they tell us something we need to consider.
John McCain’s moment in Minnesota did not erase the contradictions of his campaign. Nor did it resolve the deep disagreements between him and Barack Obama. But it demonstrated something worth remembering. For a brief moment, a candidate stood before people who wanted him to attack his opponent, and he asked them to show respect instead.
The Courage to Challenge Your Opponents Matters As Well As Courage to Challenge Your Own Side
Perhaps that is one of the most important leadership lessons we can carry into this election and beyond. The next time someone says something that immediately triggers your anger, notice your reaction. Pause. Ask yourself whether your response will strengthen understanding or deepen division.
That is where a new pattern can begin. And that is where a GLIMMER can change more than one conversation.
Here’s to leaders who have the courage to tell the truth, the humility to examine themselves, and the wisdom to remember that we belong to something larger than our disagreements.
To your success,
Sylvia Lafair
P.S. Leadership Reflection: When was the last time you challenged someone on your own side because you believed they were wrong? What did it cost you, and what did it teach you about your own leadership? Let’s start discussing and help each other grow.
