Character beyond question? Or questionable character?
If leadership is about any one thing, it is about influence, and nothing will erode your influence faster than questionable character.
“Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without strategy.” –General Norman Schwarzkopf
When it comes to your professional reputation (or your personal one, for that matter), there may be nothing more important than being known as someone of high character.
So what does the quote from General Schwarzkopf have to do with that? If leadership is about any one thing, it is about influence. Nobody is reading this who doesn’t need to influence those around them, whether team members, prospects or clients. Nothing will erode your influence faster than questionable character.
Related: Winning ethically pays big dividends for benefits brokers
Those you want and need to influence are always watching and listening. Does what they see and hear from you reinforce your desired character?
I spend a fair amount of time on LinkedIn participating in and observing industry conversations and I’ve become concerned at how often I see what I’d like to believe are well-intentioned, sincere, and honest advisors saying things that may be calling their character into question.
Transparency
One of the recent bandwagon messages is for advisors to demand transparency. With great passion, they demand transparency of seemingly everyone in the health care and health insurance ecosystem, from pharmacy benefit managers and insurance carriers to providers of care.
I am certainly not attacking the idea of transparency; I support and encourage it as much as anyone. But if someone is going to climb up on a bully pulpit and make such demands of others, they should look in the mirror first. It should be safe to assume that these demanders of transparency are completely transparent about every aspect of every relationship they have with every client. However, I know that in many cases, their clients aren’t even aware of how much they are paying them.
BUCAH bashing
I see other advisors attacking insurance carriers, and especially the BUCAHs (Blue Cross, UnitedHealthcare, Cigna, Aetna, Humana), as being unethical, even criminal. I’m not here to get into that debate, and if anyone is participating in questionable or criminal behavior, they need to be held accountable and challenged to do better.
Again, my point isn’t about the BUCAHs themselves, but if an advisor is going to attack an entire category of the industry, it would be safe to assume they don’t do business with said category—that they only write self-funded business. However, I have seen firsthand that some of these BUCAH bashers may only have one or two self-funded clients on the books, while the rest remain with the very carriers they attack.
Commission, bonuses, incentives, oh my!
Then some espouse the evils of carrier commission and bonuses. And, I’m sure some advisors do allow such compensation to cloud their judgment; however, I also think such an advisor will always be of questionable judgment, regardless of their form of payment.
Again, you would think those speaking out against commissions and bonuses are only working on fees. However, I know that many still receive a significant percentage of their revenue from commissions and bonuses, whether it’s from medical, dental or ancillary carriers.
Protect your perceived character
My message here isn’t about any of the messages themselves. If they are 100% true for you, then tell the hell out of them. But, if they aren’t, I challenge you to stop and think about the damage sharing such messages may be doing to your perceived character.
If they are gross exaggerations, even if to make a valid point, and don’t reflect the reality of your story, you are eroding the trust and confidence of those around you who know your reality. This includes your team members, as well as clients who are examples of your hypocrisy.
Character is what makes trust possible. Trust is what makes leadership and influence possible.
Read more: