Leadership Intent- The Most Important Thing To Understand


June 25, 2010

As many readers know, I am attending the Leadership Experience at Gettysburg this week.  This event is part of the leadership offerings from The Conference Board.  They invited me to attend and write about the event.  They did not direct me in what to write or how to write it though, so all thoughts and impressions are mine.

That said, I think this is an event that everyone should attend.  Notice I did not say just leaders or just people from a certain industry.  I didn’t say that Boomers would benefit more than Gen X or Gen Y.  I didn’t say that you should be black, white, Asian, or Hispanic. EVERYONE.  Why? Because we all need leadership and we can all learn from leadership examples in the past.

I’m someone who needs some time to absorb things before writing about them in a manner that does it justice.  That said, there is one point that came up again and again that I must share now.  In the moment.  Even as I have one more day of the event to attend.  The point is this:

If you do not understand the leader’s intent, you cannot possibly be successful. Conversely, if you are the leader and you have not adequately conveyed your intent, your leadership team will not succeed.

That is a bold statement, so I have been thinking about it for the last few weeks.  I was not a particular history buff when it came to the Civil War, or Gettysburg in particular.  However, after reading The Killer Angels, watching the movie ‘Gettysburg’ and now being here live and in person, I can share that the lessons that played out here on the battlefields were numerous.

The most important ones all come back to the success of the Army of the Potomac KNOWING, communicating, and reacting to the leader’s intent, the leader being General Meade.  Each of his direct reports in his leadership team had some degree of autonomy in decision making as long as that decision tied back to the intent of the mission.

Several of his leaders, Buford and Chamberlain in particular, understood Meade’s intent and made their own divergences contrary to orders based on knowledge they had that their actions would further the mission. This was based on Meade’s intent.  Sickles, on the other hand, was a renegade and did not.  His disobedience was not something that furthered the leaders’ intent and he was ultimately driven back.

My question to you is this…..how have you seen this played out correctly in the corporate world, and how have you seen it fall apart?  What happens when the 2nd line leaders make decisions that are contrary to the main leader’s intent?  Share in the comments please.  This will also further our discussion at Gettysburg.


  • Thanks Trish ,Yyou make great comments and added to that is the fact that we are all leaders as we are all followers and the point of intent is well made.
    In reply to your question. Not often. Clarity is a key essence to leadership as is is trust,authenticity and consistency. The penalty for inconsistency ( 2nd line) is they have to get of the bus, there is alignment or the leader needs to go. At the end of it all there has to be a oneness.

    • @Peter- Thanks for the comment. I like your point about there having to be a “oneness”.

Comments are closed.

Screen Shot 2019-12-01 at 17.20.39

About Trish

A former HR executive and HCM product leader with over 20 years of experience.


Play Video


Play Video

Related posts

Fear and Chaos: Taking Action at Work

Ten years ago, I wrote an article called Nothing Should Trump Personal Accountability. Back then, I was thinking about ways to reduce […]

Read More

Embracing Positive Friction in the Workplace

Ready for some HR buzzword analysis? For the past couple years, phrases like frictionless HR, frictionless candidate experience, friction in the […]

Read More

Partner with me


Get in touch today to find out more about how I can help your organization leverage HR and HCM technology to attract, onboard, retain and manage top talent.