Courage to Lead: A Call for Principles Over Preferences

Recently I was talking with a politically savvy and shrewd individual about an employment situation that was, by most interpretations, unjust and frankly saddening. Of course, the person being savvy and shrewd engaged the topic with great professionalism. They were never coy but they were prudent.

That’s the context for their noting that the upper administrator in the situation, had informally but openly stated that they would support their middle level executives in all their decisions. When this person moved their glass containing a perfectly poured black and tan to their lips to take the first of what would be many sips—most taken while discussing more pleasant things—I noticed something. I noticed it but I didn’t comment. I didn’t follow up. I didn’t have to. Their non-verbal communication said quite enough. The slight downturn of their lips, the lowering of their eyes, and the short twist, not a nod, but not a shrug, of their head was pregnant with implication: That’s a noble position, but one that ought not be universally applied.

This 21st century will soon be twenty-five percent in the past and I do think the future is bright. But not everything is rosy. In fact, somethings have not advanced to the level they ought to be at by now. Rather than run through a list that would ultimately prove to be incomplete and even divisive, I’ll stop beating around the bush and speak to the issue I think this conversation flagged—a crisis in leadership.

As at my computer and type this, the shelves in front of my desk and behind are covered with books. Many of those explore this subject. From George Washington on Leadership to The Leadership Secrets of Billy Graham, I’ve read many of them, perused them all, and taken notes on most. The books bear the marks to prove this. I am a bibliophile but I see books as tools. They are not be adjusted, I don’t dog ear the pages to mark my place, at least I don’t when I have anything that will serve to mark the page handy. I generally take the dust jacket off while I’m reading—so as to reduce the chance of tattering it. That way when I put it back on the shelf, it looks new, even though the actual state is far from that.

In college, one of my professors noted a characteristic of text books. The rotund and balding Psychology 101 educator pointed out the large margins of white space in text books. He said that was there so students could make notes as they read. His statement was an epiphany to me and I believe it forever changed my life. I know it changed my studies. My books, even the non-textbook variety, are full of handwritten notes. I try to write them out long form, light on appreciation and absent any jargon or shortcuts that only I would know, because for me, my notes become part of the book.

I’ve a few copies of the Bible that belonged to my dad. He’s written in many of them but in some cases I can figure out what his note means. There’s something significant to him there, I can be confident in that, but what precisely that is will be a limited by what I can infer. But I digress. We former professors do that.

My books on leadership have a lot of my handwritten annotations on their pages. Many of those notes though are questions. I’ve noticed a theme arising when I consume content on leadership: I wonder what the ultimate value is that drives these leaders in their decision making.

In the case of Billy Graham, it is evident that his faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior dominate his decision matrix and subsequently his directives to his direct reports.

For Washington, the ultimate decision matrix is a little tougher to put a finger on. Washington was focused on bettering society through political strategies. He wasn’t the first such leader. Many today are so driven.

But ultimately what would be the top level decision matrix for this high level administrator who had stated the intent for supporting their midlevel leader who was engaging in if not outright unethical behavior, but certainly unscrupulous?

It saddens me to say the situation I’m noting took place within an organization that publicly ascribes to and even proliferates Christian values. Even more saddening, the upper level administrator themself publicly professes Christian values. Yet then, why would an unjust course of action by a subordinate leader be supported? And not just tacitly approved. Why would injustice be authorized?

Sadly, I believe the answer is complicated and would take a great deal of time and require a high word count to fully unpack. Even so, there are two aspects that can be discussed rather succinctly. That’s what I’ll try to do before wrapping up this little thought exercise.

I think there is indeed a crisis of leadership that, in part, stems from leaders desiring the accolades of leadership but not being willing to invest themselves in the hard work it demands. The phrase, “paying the cost to be the boss,” is pithy but carries a profound truth. Leadership is not about glamor; it is about sacrifice, accountability, and courage. Authentic leadership requires an unwavering commitment to justice and integrity, even when it involves personal or professional risk.

Dr. Charles Stanley, in discussing the story of Daniel in his sermon The Key to Making Wise Decisions, illustrated this point beautifully. Daniel refused to compromise his principles, even when doing so would have been far easier and less perilous. He faced lions—both literal and figurative—because he understood that true leadership and faith demand courage in the face of adversity.

Dr. Stanley also offers a profound distinction between principled and preference-based leadership in that sermon. He highlights that principled leadership is anchored in unchanging moral truths, while preference-driven leadership wavers with circumstances, personal desires, or convenience. This distinction is vital when examining the actions of leaders in positions of authority.

The failure to lead with principles, as demonstrated by the upper administrator in this case, exposes the organization to a drift toward preference-based decision-making. When leadership prioritizes personal convenience or harmony over justice and integrity, it creates an unstable environment where values and ethics are sacrificed for expediency. Dr. Stanley compares such an approach to driving on a dark road without a center line—directionless and perilous.

Principled leadership, on the other hand, provides a guiding framework that ensures decisions are made with clarity, consistency, and accountability. Daniel’s steadfast refusal to compromise his beliefs, even in the face of severe consequences, exemplifies this kind of leadership. His actions remind us that true leaders must be willing to stand firm on their convictions, even when it’s uncomfortable or unpopular.

For organizations to thrive, leaders must commit to the hard work of upholding principles, particularly when faced with challenging situations. As Dr. Stanley puts it, “Principles are for our protection.” They safeguard the integrity of leadership and ensure that decisions align with higher values, rather than transient preferences or pressures.

This commitment to principled leadership is not just a moral imperative but a practical necessity. Organizations led by principled leaders foster trust, collaboration, and resilience. Conversely, when leaders abdicate responsibility and operate without clear convictions, they undermine the very foundations of the organization, as seen in the unjust actions supported by the administrator in this case.

Modern leaders must also rise to this challenge. Supporting a midlevel executive who undermines a new hire simply because they are unwilling to mindlessly agree with every decision is not leadership—it is abdication. It is easier to avoid conflict, to let unethical or unscrupulous behavior persist for the sake of harmony, but this ease comes at the cost of integrity.

Leadership demands courage: the courage to make difficult decisions, to intervene when wrong is being done, and to prioritize the long-term health of an organization over temporary comfort. Without this willingness to sacrifice convenience for conviction, leaders risk not only their own integrity but the future of the organizations they are charged with guiding.

When good people leave an organization due to bad leadership, the countdown to the end of the organization starts.

Ultimately, this situation highlights a troubling truth: leadership is often misinterpreted as a title rather than a practice. The leader who blindly supports poor decisions is not leading; they are abdicating responsibility. Leadership demands courage, discernment, and a commitment to justice—not just for the sake of optics or harmony, but for the health and longevity of the organization.

True leadership is about fostering an environment where integrity and collaboration thrive, not where power dynamics and personal biases dictate outcomes. The failure to intervene in this case signals not only a lapse in judgment but a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to lead.

As the 21st century advances, the burden falls on us to demand better, to expect more, and to strive for leadership that is not only competent but rooted in a clear and unwavering sense of purpose. Anything less may win the moment, but it will lose the future.