People often talk about the value of a bias toward action. I know I did, but I believe I was mistaken. Why? No one thinks they lack a bias toward action. After all, busyness and productivity are hard to tell apart. For example, I remember a younger me who didn’t have GPS. When I was lost, I would never stop and ask for direction. So while I was putting miles on the car, I really wasn’t going anywhere.

My point is I think it’s time we reframe our notion of action. Let’s call it a bias toward progress instead. It’s forward movement we’re after, right? Or maybe it’s conscious or intentional movement since sometimes going backward or sideways teaches us something important. So how does a bias toward action differ from a bias toward progress? Let’s talk about that today.

I was getting breakfast with a colleague last week, and we were talking about leadership. Specifically we talked about polish. I told her that I preferred unpolished leaders; she disagreed.

For me, it’s examples like General Mattis that come to mind as an excellent and unpolished leader. I had the honor of serving under him and learned a great deal from him during my time in the Marine Corps. And I recall when he took some heat from the press for speaking from the heart. As I work through his book Call Sign Chaos, I think this quote sums up his leadership style:

When your Marines know you care about them, then you can speak bluntly when they disappoint you.

As my friend and I talked, it was obvious our definition of unpolished leadership wasn’t the same. Since then, I’ve been chewing on what to call it. Authentic leadership? Straightforwardness? Blunt and raw over verbose and fluffy? I’m sure many will tell me I’m describing servant leadership, but that term is so bloated that I prefer not to mention it. Maybe it would be easier if I just described what’s on my mind.