Successful leaders differ in how they communicate, influence others, make decisions, manage pressure, and set boundaries. But most share one important trait: they experienced failures.

What do successful leaders have in common? They are resilient, persistent, and they treat failure as information, not identity. Crawford Loritts, writing on Christian leadership in his book titled Leadership as an Identity, adds that great leaders often experience being “broken”—a humbling realization that they need God’s help to accomplish meaningful work.

Here are five examples of leaders whose failures pushed them toward faith:

• Abraham Lincoln — After losing his postmaster job and six elections, leaned more deeply into spirituality and a sense of divine purpose.
• Thomas Edison — Despite major business failures, often spoke of a higher order guiding discovery.
• Oprah Winfrey — Fired from her early TV news job, has said her faith played a significant role in her resilience.
• Lee Iacocca — After being fired by Henry Ford II, turned to prayer and reflection before leading Chrysler’s historic turnaround.
• Nelson Mandela — During 27 years in prison, drew heavily on spiritual writings to sustain hope.

Failures humble many successful leaders, faith steadies them and resilience carries them forward. 

“What is your major responsibility?” I asked a new manager.

“Representing my team to upper management,” he replied.

“Do you make suggestions about what you want your team to accomplish or how you should adapt to changes?”

“No. I listen to my people and try to become their voice.”

Facilitating managers listen, gather input, and represents their team’s perspective upward. Facilitators accept 80-90% of their team’s ideas, receive more phone calls than they make, and initiate less than 10% change.  Facilitation is a valuable skill, but their teams provide the leadership while the manager merely transmits it.

By contract initiators take team input but contribute 70-80% of ideas that shape direction, send 2-3 times more communications than they receive, and make 80-90% of decisions available to the team especially when an issue contradicts the team’s comfort zone.

Leaders listen, but they do not outsource leadership to the team. They shape direction, set standards, and move people toward outcomes that matter because leadership is an initiating role, not a reactive one.

Former First Lady Rosalynn Carter captured the distinction well, “A great leader takes people where they don’t necessarily want to go, but ought to be.”

When an employee told me, “I have a new manager and she is changing everything,” I asked a simple question: “Were there things that needed changing?”

“Yes,” he said, “but I thought she would be patient. In her first week, she identified changes to processes we’ve used for years.”

I followed up: “Was she part of your team before her promotion?”

“Yes. She performed well and peers liked her.”

Most new managers, whether promoted from within or hired from outside, quickly notice inefficiencies and opportunities for improvement. Yet many hesitate. They allow long‑standing practices to continue, sometimes for weeks or months, before suggesting changes. By then, resistance is almost guaranteed.

What new leaders overlook is this: employees are most open to change early in a manager’s tenure. In fact, they expect it. A new leader has a brief window where adjustments feel natural, appropriate, and even welcome.

Changes that should be addressed early include:

• Expectations for performance, deadlines, and communication.
• Practices that are unsafe or out of compliance.
• Toxic or disruptive behaviors.
• Processes that create friction but add little or no value.

Leaders who act thoughtfully early in their tenure set the tone for a healthier, more effective team.

“I’m very frustrated with my new supervisor,” a high‑performing employee told me.

“What frustrates you?” I asked.

“He must approve everything and asks for status updates several times a week. I hardly have time to do my work.”

The employee added: he wants to be copied on every email, restricts access to basic office supplies, hovers around the work area, questions every decision, criticizes constantly, never shows appreciation.

This experience is far from rare. According to research from the Society for Human Resource Management, 25% of employees dread going to work because of poor managers, and over 50% quit because of them. The most common complaint? Micromanagement.

Micromanagement drains energy, slows productivity, and erodes trust. But it is also preventable.

To avoid micromanaging, focus on the “what,” not the “how.”  Clarify the outcomes you expect and how you will measure success. Establish deadlines, quality standards, and a predictable rhythm for updates. Be available when employees need support—but otherwise, step back and give them the freedom to choose how they accomplish their work.

Spend time in employees’ work areas, but use that time to offer encouragement, appreciation, and genuine interest—not scrutiny.

A simple test: If your employees are happy to see you walking toward them, the odds are you are not micromanaging.

From a middle manager, “I know corporate wants me to execute changes quickly, but they do not understand how decisions impact my department. I feel an obligation to support my team.  But I know that my boss expects me to side with management.”

Effective middle managers do not simply repeat leadership’s message. They turn broad goals into clear, manageable steps their team can deliver.  For example: “I know the new system is stressful. I have broken the rollout into short segments with realistic deadlines so we can tackle it without burning out.”  This reframes the directive into something the team can absorb and act on.

Strong managers do not shield executives from reality; they present it in a way that helps leaders make better decisions.  For example: “If we delay this process by two weeks, we can avoid a quality risk that could lead to significant rework. Here are two options for adjusting the timeline.” This is not resistance. It is responsible stewardship.

Middle managers who excel do not dump executive pressure onto their teams, and they do not carry team frustration into leadership meetings as raw emotion. They absorb the tension, synthesize it, and communicate it in a way that moves the organization forward.

“I inherited an educated, experienced contributor who keeps making careless mistakes and always has excuses,” a leader said to me.

“Has the person been properly trained?”

“Yes—and I’ve personally coached him at least five times.”

When trained individuals continue making avoidable errors, more training rarely solves the problem. At that point, the issue is more about the person’s underlying behavioral patterns.

A useful way to think about personnel development is to sort behaviors into three categories:

• Hard‑wired behaviors — deeply ingrained traits that are extremely difficult to change and tend to resurface under stress.

• Flexible behaviors — habits and skills that may be improved with moderate effort.

• High‑effort behaviors — areas where change is possible but requires sustained structure, accountability, and close follow‑through.

Chronically careless, mistake‑prone contributors seldom transform into consistently reliable performers. Most adults do not dramatically change their core work behaviors, even with repeated coaching. Leaders who try to “remake” people often end up exhausted, frustrated, and no closer to the performance they need.

Effective leaders identify what each contributor naturally does well and assigns work that aligns with those strengths. When leaders place people in roles where their strengths matter most—and their limitations matter least—they perform better, stay engaged longer, and contribute more consistently.

At a quarterly town hall meeting, Regional Vice President Jensen addressed store managers in his district. He opened by saying:

“I’m aware of rumors circulating about budget cuts. I want to be transparent and share what I know. Our sales revenue for the past two quarters has not grown as projected, and corporate has asked us to cut our budget by five percent.”

After the announcement, store leaders asked front-line-focused questions:

• Will hours be cut in our stores?
• Are we looking at layoffs?
• What is being done about revenue?

Jensen’s responses were vague and lacked detail:

• Decisions on cuts have not been made.
• I hope there will be no layoffs.
• We have new products in the pipeline.

Transparency requires clarity and detail, for example:

• I am reviewing labor hours, and I’ll share the criteria before deciding.
• If staffing changes are necessary, I will prioritize overtime reduction and avoid filling open positions.
• Mid-May is the launch date for new product lines.

When leaders announce their desire for “transparency,” it usually means they are not.  As an employee said, “If you are transparent I we will be able to see it. You do not have to announce it.”