The Stuff Leaders Are Made Of

Competence, Capacity, Character, and what happens when even one part is missing

Thank you for being here. As always, these essays are free and publicly available without a paywall. If you are able, consider supporting my writing by becoming a patron via a paid subscription.

"What is leadership?"

Last Wednesday, on a hot and dry afternoon of the kind to be expected on a July day in Southern California, I was sitting at lunch with one of my favorite professors from undergrad. As one does over tacos, we were talking about leadership, and in particular, how to train engineering leaders.

So I asked him. What is leadership? His eyes narrowed. He leaned forward. The tone in his voice intensified. It's the same look that will be forever burned in my memory from over a decade ago when I first saw it when I was a student in his Engineering Project Management class.

His answer? Three words: Competence, capacity, and character. It was a framework inspired by the framework that the Army uses to develop it’s leaders, the West Point System for Leader Development.

Absent any one of these qualities, you can at best be a mediocre leader. At worst, deficiencies in one or more of these areas will deeply distort your potential impact as a leader. Each element is needed, but none are sufficient without the others. Together, they cast a vision for the type of leaders our world needs, in engineering and beyond.

For the rest of today's piece, I want to explore this definition. I'll start by unpacking and defining each of these qualities. Then, I'll explain how the issues with the Boeing 737 MAX demonstrate the importance of all three aspects and highlight the consequences when one or more is missing. The lesson of the 737 MAX project is that each of these aspects of leadership is necessary, but that character is the most important. Finally, I'll share some reflections on how this framework has been challenging me and how I'm considering ways to deepen my own leadership skills and invite my students to join me.

---

The Absent-Minded Professor is a reader-supported guide to human flourishing in a technology-saturated world. The best way to support my work is by becoming a paid subscriber and sharing it with others.

---

The Three Elements of Leadership

You likely have an idea about what each of these three qualities of leadership means, but let's make sure we’re all on the same page. First, competence.

Competence

Leaders must be competent. They have got to know their stuff. If I want to successfully help a student learn a particular skill in a course I'm teaching, I had better know what those skills are and be able to demonstrate them with excellence.

This isn’t to say that every leader needs to know how to do every aspect of the work of those they lead. But it does mean that they need to have a deep understanding of what needs to be done at the level of familiarity needed to give useful guidance to those under their direction.

Capacity

In addition to competence, leaders must also have capacity. In short, they need to be able to get things done. Not only that, but they must be able to get things done while managing complex and often amorphous projects across a variety of dimensions. This includes not only keeping up to speed with the most important technical aspects but even more importantly managing and directing the energy and talent of the team. This aspect of leadership is most clearly needed at the upper levels of management at an organization, but it extends to all positions of leadership. It is one thing to be technically excellent in a particular domain, but to lead others successfully you must have the requisite bandwidth to juggle the responsibilities of multiple dimensions of a project.

Character

Finally, leaders must have character. Character is about who you are. In their 2021 paper "How is virtue cultivated?", Michael Lamb and his colleagues Jonathan Brant and Edward Brooks define character as "a set of stable, deep, enduring dispositions that define who we are and shape how we characteristically think, feel, and act."

These stable, deep, and enduring dispositions in a leader set the course for a team. They are the foundation of its culture. Leaders need to develop character to consistently direct their teams in a way that recognizes the uniqueness of each team member and what they bring to the table. Character enables leaders to earn the respect of those following them through virtues like authenticity, courage, creativity, curiosity, honesty, humility, empathy, justice, wisdom, resilience, purposefulness, and integrity.

But here's the thing, while character is the most important of the three components of leadership, it's also the one we are most haphazard about cultivating. In engineering, there is a strong case to be made that we are doing quite well in the categories of competence and capacity. Looking domestically in the United States, we can see many examples of engineering innovation enabled by the technical excellence that is part and parcel of many of our institutions of higher education. The US continues to be a global leader in technological innovation across a range of engineering disciplines from AI, robotics, energy, and beyond. Our success as a country in these areas is undoubtedly tied to our universities which remain the envy of the world.

And yet, recent waves of innovation have unmasked cracks in the foundation. Failures of competence or capacity are contributing factors, but the root causes are failures of character.

We all are building character, whether we like it or not. Each day, we either cultivate virtues or allow vices to take hold. Our choices compound into habits, which set the direction for our competence and capacity.

Leaders need to develop character that points them toward the good. Competence and capacity raise the ceiling for the potential impact of our leadership, but character sets the floor. We've got far too many examples of what happens when leaders lack character. We have an opportunity to do better, and in doing so, to help further the flourishing of our world.

The consequences downstream from a lack of character

Boeing has been getting a lot of press these last few years and not much of it has been good. Before its most recent challenges with loose and missing bolts, the Boeing 737 MAX was at the center of controversy in 2018 and 2019 when a combination of issues led to two catastrophic crashes. These incidents demonstrate the importance of all three aspects of leadership by showing what happens when one or more is missing. However, the fundamental failure that led to crashes in 2018 and 2019 was not the result of technical incompetence or the inability to carry a complex and complicated task across the finish line. At its root, what led to the loss of life was a failure of character.

It's not so hard to put the pieces together. In late 2010, Airbus announced their new A320neo aircraft. This new plane offered a 15-20% increase in fuel efficiency over the previous generation. In response, Boeing felt the heat. It needed a new more efficient airliner and it needed it fast.

But, as you might expect, designing and building a brand-new aircraft is quite an undertaking. Not only are there many technical questions to address during the design and testing phase, but in a highly regulated field like aviation, there are significant time and money costs connected to the required regulatory process and pilot training.

However, there are ways to shorten the time to get a new plane to market. The regulatory process for certifying a new plane is similar to getting a new biomedical device approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In general, a new medical device must go through a rigorous procedure called Premarket Approval to determine its effectiveness and safety. If, however, you can argue that your new device is essentially an improved or slightly modified version of an existing, already FDA-approved device on the market (the official FDA terminology is "substantially equivalent"), then you can apply for approval through a shorter, cheaper, and more streamlined process known as the 510(k) Clearance Process.

The FAA has a similar accelerated certification process. Boeing decided to take this route to get regulatory approval for the 737 MAX from the Federal Aviation Administration. It argued that the 737 MAX was similar enough to the existing 737 legacy series, the 737 Next Generation, to have it approved under the existing 737 certification. In the FAA world, this is called an Amended Type Certificate and it typically shortens the 5-9 year timeline for certifying a new aircraft to 3-5 years. That much time means we're talking big money, especially in a competitive environment.

To take the Amended Type Certificate path, Boeing decided to re-engine the existing 737 NG with new CFM LEAP engines to improve its fuel efficiency instead of designing an entirely new aircraft. An article in the NY Times from 2019 details some of the specific modifications and their consequences. You can see some of the outward changes in the animated image below.

An animated image demonstrating the differences between the Boeing 737 MAX and 737 NG. Adapted with permission from illustrations created by Norebbo.

The most significant change, unsurprisingly, was due to the new engines. The new engines were larger than those of the previous generation of 737s and therefore needed to be mounted a little higher from the ground to maintain the needed clearance. This in turn impacted the way the aircraft maneuvered, especially in particular conditions such as low speeds when making tight turns. In these situations, it could cause the nose to be pushed up, causing the aircraft to stall.

Although the new engines impacted the handling of the aircraft, solving these types of coupled problems is standard fare in engineering practice. It is normal for small changes in one part of a finely tuned system to trigger necessary compensating adjustments. But here again, was another opportunity for a design decision to be made: fix this problem in hardware by further modifying the physical design of the airplane or address it in software by tweaking the flight controller? Boeing engineers chose the latter.

Software fixes can be effective and relatively low-cost solutions. But while they are cheaper, they are rarely more effective than fixing the problem more directly way. In this case, Boeing decided to modify the aircraft's flight control system to counter the destabilizing forces caused by the engine adjustments, writing code to push the nose of the plane down to avoid a potential stall. Thus the now-infamous MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) was born.

Problem solved, right? Well, yes and no. Technically, yes, the modifications to the flight controller via the MCAS were sufficient to counteract the potential stall risk created by the newly mounted engines. But at a deeper level, the software fix was simply a bandaid on the bigger problem of the increased stall risk due to the new engines.

Unfortunately, the Lion Air crash in October of 2018 and the Ethiopian Airlines crash in March of 2019 exposed the weaknesses of the solution that Boeing chose. In both cases, within several minutes of takeoff, the MCAS repeatedly forced the nose of the aircraft down. The pilots were ultimately unable to maintain control of the airplanes before they crashed.

A failure of competence is often not the root cause

What happened in the case of the Boeing 737 MAX illustrates a point that should be sobering for all of us as engineers. The root cause of a failure is almost never the result of a technical failure alone. More often than not, problems result from a failure on multiple fronts. The Boeing 737 MAX incidents illustrate this point well.

The first problem was an unwise and unsound technical decision. In their modifications of the flight controller, Boeing chose to base the stall prediction on only one of the two angle of attack sensors available. This meant that information from the second sensor, which could provide important information about the legitimacy of a potential stall, was not taken into account.

The macro-level decisions also bear scrutiny. Were the design changes to the 737 MAX really insignificant enough that they merited regulatory approval through an Amended Type Certification as opposed to a more thorough full certification process? Did this decision to target an amended certification influence the company's decision to fix the problem in software rather than redesigning the aircraft more comprehensively? Might the financial pressures to bring a new plane to market as quickly as possible have created unhealthy pressure to go the fastest route possible?

Some of these questions are technical questions with technical answers. But many, if not all of them, are also questions of wisdom. They are questions about the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law. Perhaps these decisions could be justified, but were they wise?

So what?

What should we take away from this story? I think it would be wise if we did at least three things:

1. Revisit our understanding of what leadership is

2. Reflect on our own leadership strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures

3. Renew our commitment to deepening our own competence, capacity, and character and helping others around us to do the same.

1. What Leadership Is

A leader needs competence, capacity, and character, but these three are not created equal. The scale of the impact of a leader is controlled by the first two. The direction of the impact is set by the third.

Consider the figure below. This figure illustrates broad categories of leadership that an individual with strong character is capable of. Individuals with high competence and capacity are exemplary leaders, the people who are able to lead well. These are the leaders we aspire to emulate: leaders like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Winston Churchill, and Mother Teresa.

But those who fall into the category of Exemplary Leader are few and far between. Many of us are likely to fall into one of the other categorizations. Each of these designations indicates a weakness in leadership potential demonstrating either how a lack of capacity hampers our ability to make a significant impact (Principled Expert and Well-Meaning Novice) or how a lack of competence might allow us to gather but not lead effectively (Virtuous Organizer).

However, while a deficiency in competence or capacity limits leadership effectiveness, each of these descriptions describes someone who is positively contributing to the world around them. This is not the case in the absence of strong character.

When a character deficiency exists, the categories point in a very different direction. Now, strength on the other two axes points toward increasingly harmful impacts. The Ruthless Achiever leverages their competence and capacity to lead, but not in a direction that promotes human flourishing. They have the means to attain their goals, but the world is worse off because of it.

Now the weaknesses on the other two axes are helpful flat tires, slowing down the potential negative impacts of a leader of flawed character. A lack of competence or capacity will prevent the character flaws from reaching their full potential for harm, leading to deception or manipulation instead of the full realization of their harmful aims.

2. Reflect on our own leadership experiences

Character is of fundamental importance: it is the foundational characteristic of a leader and determines the ultimate impact of one's leadership. It is a rudder which steers the ship on the right course. But a person of strong character—one whose actions demonstrate virtues like integrity, honesty, curiosity, humility, and empathy—may not be an effective leader. A shortage of competence or capacity can limit their ability to rise to the challenges that require a leader who is strong in all three areas.

We all are responsible for leading in areas of our life. In these areas, we need to sit down and assess how we're doing on the metrics of competence, capacity, and character. We need to be asking questions like these:

• Competence: Where are the areas of technical growth where we need to deepen our expertise?

• Capacity: What do we need to say “no” to so that we can better prioritize the things that matter most?

• Character: What areas of our character are lacking and how can we address our areas of weakness while further developing our areas of strength?

3. Renewing our commitments

As I think about my own work as an engineering educator, I'm increasingly convinced that I need to do more to help invite my students to cultivate their character. Especially for those of us in technical fields, we often focus explicitly on building competence and capacity but neglect to address character.

Character is certainly trickier to teach. Learning any skill is strongly dictated by a student's intrinsic motivation to do so, but this is even more true in areas of character development compared to learning a technical skill. We're not trying to convey information or even knowledge here; we're trying to build wisdom.

To do this, we need to start by acknowledging that character matters. We need to help students understand what it looks like and what happens when character is absent. We need to remind ourselves that cultivating character is the key to helping our world and the people in it to flourish. And in a time where many of us are contemplating how we might work to change our world for the better, that character is a foundational aspect of leadership without which our efforts will undoubtedly fall short of our aspirations.

This fall, I've got a few prototypes I want to try. First, I want to be more open and honest with my students and share my own experiences as a young leader who still sees many areas where I need to grow. I want to share the times when I’ve succeeded, and even more importantly, the times when I have failed. I also want to give my students language to articulate what leadership is and why character matters. Finally, I want to give them time and space to think about their own desires to grow in all three areas of leadership, with regular opportunities to revisit their progress and encourage one another.

We need leaders in all areas. Our flourishing as a local and global community depends upon it. For this to become a reality, we must build competence, capacity, and character. In doing so we should remember that all three of them count, but character counts most.

The Boeing 737 MAX story demonstrates what happens when leaders fail. It also shows how deficiencies in competence, capacity, and character are often connected. The mistakes that led to these crashes were not technical engineering failures alone. The deeper issue was a failure of leadership and character.

There are stones to be thrown. These two crashes led to the loss of 346 lives. But before we start hurling, let's take a moment to look in the mirror. The issues in the Boeing 737 MAX story deserve our attention and demand consequences. As I was writing this essay, news broke of the settlement reached between the government and Boeing as the company pled guilty to a felony charge of conspiring to defraud the federal government. The decision is accompanied by almost $1 billion dollars in consequences: a $487.2 million dollar fine (the maximum allowed by law) and at least $455 million committed to strengthening compliance and safety programs at Boeing over the next three years.

But it would be a mistake to get caught up in condemning the problem out there. If we can't see reflections of ourselves in this story, we're just not looking closely enough. When asked "What is wrong with the world?", G.K. Chesterton is said to have written back "Dear Sir, I am." Whether the account is apocryphal or not is beside the point.

While the scale of our failures may not compare to Boeing's, if we probe deeply enough we can surely find evidence of places where our failures of competence, capacity, and character have negatively impacted the people around us. While we are right to diagnose the problems in the Boeing story, we ought to do so in the hopes of correcting them in the future and addressing them in ourselves. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

This story demonstrates the importance of cultivating character. Ethical failures or poisonous cultural dynamics often come to light only in the aftermath of tragedy. But seeing these failures as single, acute events is not an accurate picture. Character failings result from little decisions made day in and day out. Decisions that accumulate and slowly dull our ability to see clearly and with wisdom. Character counts.

Got a comment? Click the button and let me know what you’re thinking. And if you liked the piece, do me a favor and share it with a friend who you think might get something out of it.

Reading Recommendations

Boeing 737 MAX

Here are a few articles that I used as references to help research information about the Boeing MAX 737.

• After a Lion Air 737 Max Crashed in October, Questions About the Plane Arose - The New York Times

• What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 Max? - The New York Times

• Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system | The Seattle Times

Teaching Leadership & Ethics in Engineering

In addition to reporting on the issue, I also came across this paper written on the issues raised through an Engineering ethics lens. The paper, titled “The Boeing 737 MAX: Lessons for Engineering Ethics” by Joseph Herkert, Jason Borenstein, and Keith Miller does a great job of summarizing the main engineering issues present in the case and highlighting how we ought to learn from it.

As I think about developing new ethics curricula for my courses this fall, this resource on ethical decision-making from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University provides some helpful frameworks.

Finally, I’ve been inspired by the work of the Engineering Department at Wake Forest University and the way that they’ve intentionally built their new program on a foundation of leadership development. Their mission of educating the “whole enigneer” resonates deeply with me and with the thesis of this piece. You can read more about the engineering program here and about The Program for Leadership and Character at Wake Forest which support their work.

---

The Book Nook

I am so behind on my reading game these days. I’m always buying books faster than I can read them, but hoping to make a little more progress than usual once summer research wraps up at the end of the month.

In that vein, this week’s book selection is aspirational. I’ve been hearing a lot about Albert Borgmann’s work in philosophy of technology and am looking forward to reading his book, Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life before the end of the summer.

---

The Professor Is In

Here I am with Dr. G, himself, post tacos and a long conversation about leadership. One of the highlights of my week.

P.S., if you’ve been around for a while, you’ve already read about Dr. G, even if you may not have been aware of it. He was the one who taught me an important lesson about grades and the pursuit of academic perfection.

---

Leisure Line

We had a fun day celebrating the 4th of July. We started by driving over to Sierra Madre for their annual parade in the morning (with some yummy pastries from Poppy Cake). Then, in the evening we went to Monrovia for fireworks.

---

Still Life

This weekend we made a trip to Home Depot to get supplies to make a bike rack (link). It turned out great and the kids loved navigating the aisles of Home Depot with the big long 10-foot sections of PVC pipe!