Trust: As a Leader This is a Must

I always enjoy Justin Patton's presentations on leadership.  The latest was no exception.  He started off talking about one’s “Presence vs Leadership Presence.”

He said we all have presence but that is very different then leadership presence.  Some individuals have a presence that has a negative impact on others.


Justin talked about trust and stated that, “trust is the unwavering belief that you have my back.”  He defined trust in terms of loyalty, security, engagement productivity.

He went on to talk about how ego (arrogant, condescending) is the biggest detriment to becoming a great leader and losing trust by lying, not being consistent, or accountable.


He then spent some time giving advice on how leaders who have lost that trust can take steps to repairing the trust they’ve lost.


  • Take full accountability for your part;
  • Ask for or extend forgiveness;
  • Demonstrate a change in behavior; and
  • Be willing and available to talk.


He went on to talk about how you can create your own roadmap to trust and offered the following comments:


Truth - people interpret the truth differently.  Your truth is not the only truth.


  • Actions of truth - candor, consistent, track record, take accountability.


Transparency - clarity.  People fill in the holes with fear.


  • Actions of transparency - share intentions, explain the why, be available, admit mistakes.


Tact - ability to manage your intensity (passive vs aggressive).


  • Actions of tact - manage intensity, listen to understand, pause before responding, be aware of body language.


Togetherness - ability to put the relationship before yourself.


  • Actions of togetherness - demonstrate empathy, honor boundaries, extend trust, apologize when needed.


He ended the webinar with the comment that the best leaders “Communicate to Build Trust, not Compliance.”


For more information about Justin Patton go HERE.

Why Strategy and Foresight Are Not the Same Thing

I wrote about this subject in a previous blog post that can be found HERE.

This post is based on a session I attended with Jeff De Cagna, a leader in the field of Foresight in the association community.

Strategy vs Foresight:

Strategy plan vs strategy learning!  Both are about intentional learning.

Strategy process (36 months) should be done by the under 40 members, more than just your board, think your YPG groups.

Foresight practice (84-months) should be done by the over 40 members - what could the world look like in 2027?  Prepare for plausible futures for the benefit of our successors.

That is the responsibility of your board.  And by the way, you need to have some “under 40” folks on your board too!

He went on to talk about the attention challenge of our boards!

  • Concentration - getting decision-makers to stay focused on the difficult questions.
  • Curiosity - get decision-makers to devote their attention on a transforming world.

What’s the major difference of the two?

He talked about the 70-20-10 rule of time spent by boards on the future, work of the board, what’s going on now is based on current practices.  Jeff argues your board should be spending 90 to 95 percent of its time on the future.

Your chamber needs to be able to pivot from a legacy organization vs being able to transition.

He goes on to talk about the “Duty of Foresight,” as an addition to the Duty of Care, Duty of Loyalty and Duty of Obedience responsibilities of boards that I’ve blogged about before HERE.

ACCE’s Horizon Initiative: Chambers 2025, in my mind, is a product of Foresight, but the deal is you have to continue to look at it and update as you look to the future in at least 10-year increments.

He ended with a few statements on how we must question orthodox beliefs, build new capacity, and design next practices (this is not about best practices).  Best practices are based on the past!

For more information on the study of Foresight by ASAE go HERE.