Book Sample

    Introduction

After hearing some of my sea stories from my nine years in the U. S. Navy, and his knowing of a few of my civilian experiences since then, my brother (who prefers to remain nameless) suggested that I write a book about Leadership. I first rejected that idea as just so much nonsense. After all, who would want to read anything that I have to say, not to mention the fact that I can’t write worth a darn.

Because I have an attitude and thought process that has allowed me to progress reasonably far without a college degree (in an environment dominated by college degrees), it is also (unfortunately) an attitude (not the thought process) which has prevented me from going even further, and it is also that very same personality flaw that has encouraged me to perform this most egotistic thing that a person can do…. put my thoughts in a book for others to read… Yeahhh!!! I get to join our philosophical forebears--Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato… Wait--wasn’t Plato a cartoon pooch? Scratch Plato… Kinky Friedman… Yeah, that’s the ticket--Kinky-freaking-Friedman!!! I can envision it now; Socrates, Aristotle, Kinky and me, the officers of philosophers, residing shoulder to shoulder on the Mount Rushmore of great thinkers… Ohhh yeahhh!!!

Uh--anyway, I only finally agreed to put my thoughts in a book as a result of the encouragement of family members so that I could lay the blame on them in the event it is a monumental flop. Also my brother (who wishes to remain nameless) agreed to take the rough edges out of the book, and remove about a gazillion commas (I do so love comma’s--and semi-colons, semi-colons are neat too). Remember also that if there is anything that ticks you off in this book--it’s my brothers’ fault because this was all his idea.

My thoughts in this book will be limited to what I have observed regarding leadership, which is basically competence--supported by Strategic Thinking, Analytical Thinking, and Ethical Thinking. All of which, when utilized properly, are interdependent. Not only is it a blueprint for those who want to be good leaders, but also it can be a guide for those who prefer to be followers that will enable them to choose good leaders to follow.

From an email from my brother (who wishes to remain nameless): With regard to the book--I am editing it from the perspective that you are a veteran with a PhD in life and you have lessons from that life others can benefit from. Your stories sell the point that you have been there, done that, and got the t-shirt. I am trying to get away from any perspective that you have an agenda, except to help those who do not have your experience. That means young and old, stupid and not stupid, leaders/followers, officers/enlisted....

With that in mind, I can pretty much promise that, by the time you finish this book, you will likely discover something that you hadn’t known before.

Oh, yeah, be forewarned; I love quotes and anecdotes. Anecdotes are great word pictures for illustrating my points; and quotes offer an excellent opportunity for me to piggyback on someone else’s credibility and intellect, not to mention the fact that they sound mucho better than anything that could possibly originate with me.

Leadership

Throughout my adult life, I have been told by nearly all of my supervisors I am a natural leader, and if I would only channel that ability and be a team player I would really be able to shine. I knew what they really wanted. They wanted me to use this “ability” to lead the people who trusted me. But, like a ‘Judas goat’, along with leading people--management (or Brass) wanted me to follow them without regard to whether that direction was safe, moral, ethical, legal, or even correct.

During all this time I examined what makes a leader, how it applies to me, and why I haven’t used this ability to it’s fullest.

First let me say what the dictionary has to say about leadership:

(1) The position or guidance of a leader.

(2) The ability to lead.

(3) The leaders of a group.

Now, notice that there is no statement of right, correctness, legality, morality or ethics. Just as the concept of “capitalism” is an amoral (notice I did not use the term immoral) tool or process, so is the term “leadership”. Both leadership and capitalism gain their moral or immoral characteristics from the people practicing them. A leader can lead his or her followers in any direction he or she (see how politically correct I am now?) chooses; good or bad, right or wrong. Hitler was as much a leader as Gandhi was.

I have come to the opinion that there are three kinds of “natural leaders” (without regard to quality):

(1) Those who are leaders because of competence.

(2) Those who are leaders because of charisma.

(3) Those who are ‘leaders designated by law’.

People are drawn to follow either the Competent or the Charismatic for similar reasons; trust.  People are forced to follow the ’leaders’ designated by law.

The seat of the chair called leadership is competence.

People naturally seek out those who are competent first and foremost. They wish to follow and put their trust in those who appear to know what they are doing, or what they are talking about. They trust they won’t be misled. The reason for this is competent people usually tend to be (when possible) accurate, correct, ethical, safe, and legal. Competent people do not usually allow ideology or agenda to excessively influence their position. However, very few people can be completely uninfluenced by ideology or agenda. With that in mind it is understandable why truly competent people are an extremely rare commodity.

For the most part, a competent person tries not to “spin”, or trust in “spin”. Much like what a Magician does with an audience, the purpose of “spinning” is to misdirect the attention (or focus) of those who may not have a good understanding of what is about to happen. Unfortunately nearly everything one hears on TV, reads on the Internet, or hears from advisors, is “spin” derived from things taken out of context, is based on hyperbole, or is anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. Politicians love to “spin”. Probably the best of the five basic strategies that I will cover in the next chapter is the “indirect” strategy. It is a very good and useful strategy, but when used in a less than truthful manner is just another form of ’spin’.

Here is a good place to remind everyone of some definitions.  A good example of ‘anecdotal evidence’ is when someone touts vitamin C as a supplement that can prevent, or even cure flu, colds, viruses and even AIDs. They recount how some people have taken vitamin C and subsequently either didn’t contract those diseases or were even cured outright. They will ignore stories about how some people also took vitamin C prior to contracting those diseases, or are in remission from the condition/disease not related to taking them. Whereas, an example of ’empirical evidence‘ is when a non-biased laboratory does an extensive and exhaustive test or study, and determines that vitamin C supplements have no significant effect on those conditions or diseases. An example of ‘hyperbole’ (when used as ‘spin’) is when some people who opposing tax increases refer to a proposed tax rate increase from 10% to 12% as a 20% tax increase (it is indeed a 20% increase), or those favoring to tax increase refer to it as an increase of only 2% (which is also only a 2% increase). Both statements are mathematically correct from two different perspectives, but they are used in hyperbolic terms designed to either scare or placate someone, depending on their ideology or agenda.  Of course, I wouldn’t want to leave out of the examples of hyperbole the sound bites of the mathematically challenged athletes saying they give 150% effort. Uh, for those of you who are, yourselves, mathematically challenged, giving more than 100% effort is not possible.

I once heard an oil company mouthpiece, explain why oil companies need government subsidies, saying their profit margins are lower than most other companies, and if the subsidies were removed, the price of gas would have to go up in order to make up for the loss. What he didn’t say is that gasoline doesn’t take a year to make and sell, but it brings back every dollar (with a small profit) within a few days or weeks to be reinvested (compounded). When you Invest $1, and get back  $1.10 within 1 day to be reinvested, after 10 days you have $2.59 for a profit of 159% on the original $1 that was invested, plus future revenue and profit being readily reinvested (compounding). Instead of a 159 % profit on that dollar, they choose to “spin” it as each individual reinvestment being unique, resulting in a profit of only $0.10, or “only” 10%. Both are ‘spin’, and both are mathematically accurate, while each gives an entirely different perspective. A truly competent person sees through the “spin”.

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ignorance is a (hopefully) temporary intellectual condition. Stupidity is both permanent and irreversible—Me.

A person’s competence is usually limited to the subjects, which they truly know about. Their competence regarding other subjects is enhanced by a willingness to listen to (and learn from) others. A competent person sees through agendas, ideology, and ‘spin’. One thing to keep in mind is someone who is standing up and shouting, “Listen to me,” or “Trust me,” is probably not worth listening to, nor speaking the truth. That person is more likely pushing an agenda. People who don’t ‘spin’, or don’t try to forward an agenda, rarely stand up and make noise.

To get back on subject, a large percentage of corporate managers fall into the “Competent” category. But if they were all competent, General Motors, Chrysler, and the Investment Banks wouldn’t have needed to be bailed out. If all corporate leaders were competent once leading companies such as Univac, Control Data, DEC, Data General, Wang, Compaq, American Motors, Montgomery Wards, and K Mart would still be in existence. Look what happened to Apple when they first replaced Steven Jobs with the bonehead from Pepsi (at least I think it was Pepsi); it nearly killed the company. After they brought Jobs back to rescue the company, they went on to become once again one of the largest and most prosperous companies in the world.

In the military we see examples of ‘competent’ type of leaders in Generals Omar Bradley, Eisenhower, and Powell.

With charisma, leaders often rely on the force of their perceived sense of caring and involvement to draw people to them. These charismatic characteristics can be something as silly as appearance, but can be something else such as occupation, wealth, speaking ability, or the seemingly warmth of their personality. These are the people who, when at a party, always have a crowd of people around them. People may be attracted to them because of their looks, their witty repartee, and the way they tell jokes, stories, or whatever gives the follower warmth and desire to be around the ‘leader’. Charismatics sometimes take advantage of their position to promote an agenda. If they are knowledgeable and honest, so much the better because it makes following someone a lot more pleasant if you like them as well as respect them. But, if they are using their position to forward a position that isn’t necessarily a good idea then they can be dangerous. An example of this is when an actor, or actress, or whacked out rock star, promotes an agenda or something else which they have no extraordinary knowledge or experience. For the most part the “Talking Heads” on TV fall into this category; pretty face--pretty speech--and an empty head. The reason they sound so good is because the empty space between their ears makes for an excellent resonating chamber.

Charismatics tend to be narcissistic (why not love themselves, everyone else does). Although, this is not a universal characteristic, it is an unfortunate flaw in some. Some believe they know what is best for others because they strongly and intimately believe they just know what is best.

In the absence of competence people will follow a charismatic because they are attracted to them with hope they will not be led astray. Politicians tend to fall into the charismatic category, which explains why we are in a near perpetual state of dissatisfaction with the political leaders in our country. We play “crack the whip” with our elections, going from one extreme to another in search of someone (anyone) who will do us no harm.

A person can be both competent and charismatic. When that happens you can have excellence in leadership. These people not only build trust within us, but they can also inspire us. Examples of these are statesmen like George Washington, Winston Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, and John Kennedy; Generals Patton and Mac Arthur; and certainly, Abraham Lincoln, although I suspect Lincoln’s charisma stemmed more from his intellect and orating ability than from his legendary good looks.

The third category of leaders is the law-mandated kind such as Monarchs, Dictators, and the Junior Officers in the military.

You notice I included junior officers and not senior officers. While all officers receive their commissions from congress by nature of having a college degree and military leadership courses with absolutely no regard to aptitude or competence, senior officers are, for the most part, promoted to their ranks on competence. To be a junior officer one does not need a degree in aeronautics, naval architecture, war strategies, etc.; a degree in Renaissance Art will do just fine. These people automatically get placed in positions of leadership over people who usually have much more experience regarding their units’ needs, tasks and skills, as long as they have a college degree that indicates they know a “Iambic Pentameter” is not a five-function meter for measuring cosmic rays (it’s not, look it up). Because of the long weeding out process to progress to senior officer, most of the incompetent idiots in the junior officer ranks get weeded out, and competence eventually (for the most part) prevails. I know I am being very hard on officers, and in truth, of the dozens of junior officers I encountered, a few were good, most were mediocre, and some were absolute morons. Think “frat boys” playing soldier. Since peoples’ lives and well being hang in the balance, this practice can have lethal outcomes. In Viet Nam the worst offenders were occasionally “fragged” by their own people in self-defense. In my not-so-humble opinion the military would be much better off if they would make everyone start life as an enlisted. They could still promote only people with degrees if that is what is best, but to my way of thinking only competent people would be promoted to the officer ranks because the vetting process would be accomplished at the enlisted level where they can do the least damage.

I am now going to relate a few of my personal experiences while I served nine years in the U.S. Navy (as an enlisted man) to illustrate situations caused by congressionally mandated incompetence. In other words, it was leadership that was neither earned nor deserved, but assigned.

1.  We were holding a fire drill in port, while tied to the pier, and I was in charge of the fire team to keep the ASROC Launcher (with eight-12 3/4 inch diameter solid fuel rocket motors, six homing torpedoes, and two nuclear depth charges) from overheating, catching fire, and cooking off (not a good thing). It can be done, but it required a MINIMUM of two-3 1/2-inch hoses and two-2-inch hoses (if I remember correctly) constantly streaming cold seawater on the launcher. I had been battling with the junior officers about this for a couple of months, because we only had three-2-inch hoses. But, they did not want to call the attention of their superiors to the fact we were not in a good state of readiness. Well, one day when the fire drill alarm went off I went out and stood on the pier instead of on the ASROC deck--supervising. The XO yelled at me, "What do you think you're doing, Petty Officer Marxsen?"  I yelled back, that "I abandoned ship in order to save my life, and everyone else still on the ship is dead.“ We soon got our needed hoses… In the interest of accuracy, I need to point out that the nukes would not explode because of fire, or anything else short of a very specific and controlled chain of events. I just mentioned them to peak your interest. It was the rocket motors and torpedo warheads that were the real danger (big time).

2.  Another time, while off the coast of Viet Nam, we were providing Gun Fire Support (GFS) for the “ground-pounders”, and I was acting Gun Control Officer. When you have a gun mission they tell you how many guns, which guns, range and bearing, and how many rounds they want you to shoot for spotting, and how many rounds they want you to shoot for effect. I would then aim the guns, and instruct the gun crews and magazine crews to load the correct number of powder canisters and rounds into the appropriate mount. An example would be when I would speak into the sound powered net. "Mount one, Gun Control, prepare for two guns 12 rounds HICAP". When they had them in position and ready, they would say, "Gun Control, Mount one, twelve rounds ready."

One of the things you have to keep track of when firing the guns was the number of times fired for each gun in any rolling hour. This information was needed because we needed to know if we had a "hot gun" (fifty rounds in one hour). This was important for two reasons: first, a hot guns' bore wears at a greatly accelerated rate (which results in the need to replace a very expensive barrel), and the second reason is if you leave a round in the breech of a hot gun it WILL cook off (explode), damaging the gun and killing the crew in the mount. We frequently worked with a hot gun (after all, this WAS a war--uh, excuse me--conflict). Another thing to remember is that you NEVER unload a hot gun. It could explode at any time, and with the breech open that would be catastrophic. You also should not have the hatches going from the mount down to the magazines open because any accident could ignite the magazine resulting in catastrophic consequences.

In this instance, our hatches were open because the transfer elevators to move rounds from the magazine to the mount were inoperable. 

Guess what, we also had a hot gun.

This is a good time to point out that I not only supervised the guns, but also actually fired them. This was done by placing my hand on what looked like an old Colt 45 Peacemaker handle (attached to the fire control computer) and squeezing the trigger after first sounding the alarms.

So, this time I gave the order to prepare mount one with twelve rounds of HICAP. When  “loaded”, I then announced to everyone on the net (Combat, Bridge, and Mounts and Magazine) to "Stand-by," followed by two beeps of the alarm, followed by squeezing the trigger, and a very loud boom and ship-lurch. Then the gun mount crew would put the next round and powder canister in the gun, and say, "Loaded", and I would again say, "Stand by", beep the alarm and fire. This sequence was repeated every time we fired a round.

After the twelve rounds had been fired I was about to announce to Combat and Bridge that the guns were empty--twelve rounds complete, when over the net I heard, "Loaded".

I said, "Say again"?

"Mount one Loaded".

I said, "We already fired the twelve rounds".

"Well, we're loaded, anyway." Someone in the gun mount had miscounted.

I said, "Wait one… Bridge, Gun Control, We have a "hot gun" with a round loaded, request permission to shoot." (You never say fire aboard a ship unless there is a real fire.)

"Gun Control, Bridge, wait one".

After about 30 seconds, I said, "Bridge, Gun Control, I repeat, we have a hot gun with a round about to cook off. The hatches are open all the way to the magazine because the elevators are in-op. Request permission to shoot so we don't blow up the ship and kill everyone on board."

"Wait one." Same thing.

After waiting another 60 seconds, I said to those in Gun Control, “the hell with this”. Then I announced over the sound powered net, "Stand-by," beeped twice, and fired the guns.

About four or five minutes later, the Captain, XO, Combat Officer, Weapons Officer, and my ASW Division Officer came screaming into Gun Control/Plot.

The Captain yelled, "Who the hell gave you permission to fire the guns"?

I said, "No one, Cap’n", (This was during a period in my life when I refused to say “sir” to officers) “that’s the problem”.

Captain: “You’re going to be court marshaled, and you'll spend some serious time in the brig."

Me: "Good, I’ll be happy to testify before a bunch of senior officers at my court marshal. I can point out when I repeatedly requested permission to shoot because we had  ‘hot guns’ (against regulations), had open hatches all the way from the gun mount to the magazine (also against regulations) and had a round in the gun “cooking off”, not one officer here in the chain of command had the presence of mind to do what was right and safe, and that was to fire the S. O. B. ‘s. The only alternative to me firing the guns was to sit here with my thumb up my ass, like everyone above me, and wait for the ship to blow up and kill half the crew.”

Everybody present, enlisted and officers alike, stood there with their mouths open and jaws on the floor.

The Captain, after about 10 seconds of pregnant silence, said, “Well, don’t let it happen again,” and did an about face and beat feet out of there, followed by all his toadies. Not one word was ever spoken to me about it again. I seriously doubt that they even put it in the ships logs.

As an aside, this same Captain, (a few months later) while backing away from a pier in Mexico, backed the ship aground while taking depth soundings from the bow. Think about that. Taking depth readings from the bow while backing up. This act of incompetence wrecked both our screws and shafts. Very expensive!  The Captain was not the only officer on the bridge, but no one dared stop him (assuming they even recognized how stupid he was). He kind of reminded me of a cross between ‘Old Leadbottom’ from the TV show ‘McHale’s Navy’, and the Captain from ‘The Caine Mutiny’.

3.  We were having a torpedo drill / exercise and we lost the ability to charge the torpedo tube air flasks on the torpedo deck.

Now the air flasks that launch the torpedoes were under so much air pressure that if you jarred a charged flask while moving it, the pressure release could be akin to a grenade going off in your hands. Because of this you were to never transport charged flasks to--or from--the torpedo deck except under extreme emergency conditions (like war).

The command went down over the sound powered net that I was on (in Sonar Control) to the torpedo deck, to take the empty flask to engineering and charge it up, then carry the charged flask to the torpedo deck and proceed with the exercise. I immediately ordered the Torpedoman to not move till I got there. My Division Chief Petty Officer, three or four officers, and I converged on the torpedo deck at the same time. After explaining to the officers it was an unsafe and illegal order, and that we were not in an actual battle--but were only in a training exercise, the ASW Division Officer and Combat Officer both repeated the order to the Torpedoman. I then turned to the Torpedoman and, in front of them, said, "They have just given you an unsafe and illegal order that you are under no obligation to follow. If you wish to follow their unsafe and illegal order it is totally up to you."  Dropped jaw time... The officers turned to the Chief, who shrugged his shoulders and said, “he’s right”. The Torpedo man very carefully did as they ordered, and nothing was ever said about it to me again.

I have many more sea stories, but this isn’t my military memoir; there’s no point in putting you to sleep.

The point of these anecdotes is to illustrate how incompetence and toadyism can be (at a minimum) dangerous, and even potentially fatal. If all officers had to go through a competency vetting process I would not have needed to step in and be insubordinate. It is worth noting because of these and other similar events I enjoyed a great deal of respect from the enlisted men (and even most officers) on the ship. To paraphrase an old TV commercial from a now-defunct brokerage house, “when I spoke, people listened”. When I had a run-in with a new division officer (a brand new academy-puke who later gave me that less than sterling review), he went to our division Chief Petty Officer and insisted that I be written up for insubordination. The Chief responded, “What did YOU do to piss Petty Officer Marxsen off?” Upset by this response, he then went to his boss (Weapons Officer) to complain about both me, and what the Chief had said, and got a similar response, “Well, what DID you do to piss him off?” The result was--no write-up--just one really pissed off Ensign.

A number of years ago (1982, I believe) there was a book written that took the business world by storm, the title of which was ‘In Search Of Excellence’ by Tom Peters.  I remember thinking at the time, that without first being competent--the search for excellence is nothing but a Quixotic adventure that will (at best) have little chance in even attaining mediocrity.  Thirty years later that book, its title, and my brother inspired me to write on this subject.

Because I feel the essence of competent leadership is founded in knowledge, here are some more quotes about knowledge I feel are appropriate to the difference between those who are competent, and those who are incompetent. I feel both those who wish to lead, as well as those who prefer to follow should heed these. These quotes are also relevant to the next three chapters on ‘Strategic Thinking’, ‘Analytical Thinking’, and ‘Ethical Thinking’.

 There is one principle that can keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That is contempt prior to investigation…Herbert Spencer.

The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about…Wayne Dyer.

In short, a competent person has an open mind, will listen to evidence, and will choose a direction consistent with the facts and evidence (empirical--not anecdotal).

He who asks is a fool for five minutes, but he who does not ask remains a fool forever…Chinese Proverb.

Here’s my all-time favorite for those who wish to be followers:

Men are four: He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool--shun him; He who knows not and knows he knows not, he is simple--teach him; He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep--wake him; He who knows and knows he knows, he is wise-- follow him…Arabian proverb.

The essence of knowledge is, having it--to apply it; not having it--to confess your ignorance…Confucius.

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge…Daniel J Boorstin.

The greatest of fools is he who imposes on himself, and in greatest concern, thinks certainly he knows that which he has studied, and of which he is profoundly ignorant--Shaftsbury.

The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt…Bertrand Russell.

Suppose you were an Idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself…Mark Twain. (That’s a reflection of the intelligence of our elected leaders).

The final element to be added to competence (in my opinion) is consistency. The people you lead must not feel that you may / will change direction (or mind) often, or do so in an unpredictable manner--without good reason. You can, indeed, change your mind. However, it should be for a very good reason for those following to readily understand. Conversely, very few people want to follow a person that is intractable any more than they want to follow a person who changes constantly. I guess you could say a good leader has a need of being “flexibly firm”.

It helps, and is even desirable, for a leader to be nice (and liked), but it is not absolutely necessary. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Gen. George Patton were, by some accounts, not especially warm and fuzzy guys, but their overabundance of competence made up for that apparent shortfall.

Charismatic Leaders and Statutory Leaders enjoy temporary (albeit, sometimes longer than we prefer) success. They cannot hide their shortcomings forever, and are eventually removed from their leadership position. It can be quick and violent (as with revolution, assassination, or fragging), or quick and non-violent (as in elections, or firings), or gradual, such as when the followers gradually wise up and walk away shaking their heads at the stupidity of their leader.

The following is a reflection on the competence of some of our recent Commanders in Chiefs:

Sun Tzu:  When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped.  If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity.  Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

If some of our Presidents had read and understood Sun Tzu--Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan might have ended differently. Maybe they might have even--just--ended, or not have even started.

In case you hadn’t figured it out on your own--these last Sun Tzu quotes are my thinly disguised jab at most of our Presidents after FDR; good examples of leaders who were, or are, incompetent--at least in regard to being our Commander in Chief (totally in charge of the military by law without regard to competence). They have been quick to say “Cry ‘havoc’ and let slip the dogs of war” (Julius Caesar…Shakespeare) quickly followed by their own “but keep them on a leash”. If their own families and fortunes were at risk they might be a little more reticent to risk ours. After reading the chapter on “Strategic Thinking” you will see that they either had no strategy, or were extremely incompetent. I’m sorry; I just couldn’t help myself. My disdain for most of our elected leaders keeps surfacing.

Leadership is competence (whose main ingredient is a large portion of knowledge) that is supported by Strategic Thinking, Analytical Thinking, and Ethical Thinking (the three legs of the three-legged leadership/competence seat). These are traits that all “good” leaders possess. This also is a slick segueing into this next chapter (‘Strategic Thinking’), and the chapters after that (‘Analytical Thinking’ and ‘Ethical Thinking’).