Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5



Dr. Cohen through extensive study and observation found

there are eight universal laws of leadership. They are as
1. Maintain Absolute Integrity
2. Know your stuff
3. Declare Your Expectations
4. Show Uncommon Commitment
5. Expect Positive Results
6. Take Care of Your People
7. Put Duty Before Self
8. Get Out In Front
1. Maintain Absolute Integrity. This is the foundation of all
leadership. If you dont maintain your integrity, you will never fully be
trusted by those you lead and will not win anyones mind since they
will always have doubts. They must know you will always do what is
right without regard to what is best for you.
The manager who practices that integrity is for the other guy is not a
leader but a charlatan. The worst are those who profess to be leaders,
but when it is time to act as a leader they fail. For example, a consultant
was asked to attend a board meeting for a hospital and present various
reports. The reports had been approved by the corporate board and we
signed off by the CFO and CEO of the hospital. The board packet had

already been sent so the consultant brought copies for the board
members. At the meeting the reports were reviewed and the chairman
of the board took an extreme exception to one of the noted findings.
Both the CEO and CFO were not able to provide the chairman with a
satisfactory answer. The consultant explained the process of the how
the reports were prepared and was asked to bring more information
next meeting. The consultant left the meeting.
A few days later the CFO asked the consultant to meet with him, and
the consultant agreed. In the meeting the CFO stated the consultant
was not to have given the reports to the board members. The
consultant reminded the CFO he knew and agreed the reports were
going to be presented. He said both reports had been signed off by the
CFO and the corporate board. Nevertheless, the CFO insisted the
consultant must lie to the board and tell them the CFO didnt know the
reports were going to be presented. The consultant pointed out that
other than presenting the reports, there was no need for the consultant
to attend the meeting. Again the CFO stressed the need for the
consultant lie to the board or there would be consequences. The
consultant refused and left the meeting.
The consultant immediately told his supervisor what had happened, and
the supervisor assured the consultant he would be backed. This
supervisor had recently been promoted and would only be in her
current position for a short time. The consultant said the CFOs boss
needed to be told immediately what had happened. The supervisor
assured him she would discuss the matter with her boss and would then
proceed. She agreed the CFOs supervisor needed to be called. Days
went by and no word was received. Finally, the consultant was called
by the supervisor and told he needed some coaching. The CFO, the

CEO, and the supervisor had met and complaints were leveled at the
consultant. The consultant had worked for the client for many years
and had always had excellent feedback. The consultant asked if the
supervisor had told them she was aware that CFO wanted the
consultant to lie about the reports. The supervisor said NO. She had
simply dictated their complaints. The consultant subsequently asked
the CFO if his complaints were solely due to the board meeting. The
CFO said yes. This was relayed to the supervisor and she became
angry. The consultant was subsequently written up and was
threatened with termination. It became clear the supervisor was trying
to avoid any blame for the situation. Since she was recently promoted
she didnt want to appear she had not been managing the client. Siding
with the client was the easy way out for her personally, yet it was not
the right way out. Again the consultant pressed the supervisor to go to
the CFOs boss. She refused. The consultant contacted the
supervisors boss believing an organization proclaiming to have trust
at its source would intervene. Both the supervisors boss and the
human resource department refused to get involved.
The consultant left shortly thereafter, and the supervisor went on to her
promotion but was later fired as was her boss The supervisor and her
boss put themselves above what was right. They lacked integrity and
clearly were not leaders.
2. Know your stuff. "Followers dont care if youre good at office
politics. They want you to be good at what you do since if you are not,
they will probably get the blame for failures.
3. Declare Your Expectations. You cant get there until you
know where there is, and you let your follows know to.

4. Show Uncommon Commitment. If you arent committed, no

one else is going to be. If you are not uncommonly committed, no one
else will be, either.
5. Expect Positive Results. "If you expect to succeed or expect to
fail, youre right. So, though it makes sense to be ready for the worst,
expect the best.
6. Take Care of Your People. "If you take care of your people, they
will take care of you. However, the reverse is true.
7. Put Duty Before Self. "If you are a leader, your mission and your
people must come before you, or you are not the leader.
8. Get Out In Front. "Get out in front where you can see and be
seen. That way, not only will you know whats going on, but those who
follow will know whats going on.
You should print these out and start to immediately practice them. As
Dr. Cohen says, without integrity none of the other laws matter. This
may require you to first make amends to those who have been harmed
by past events where you acted without integrity. You cant start acting
with integrity after not acting with integrity without first repairing the
damage. You either have integrity or you lack integrity; it is an all or
nothing question.

This study explored the structure of elementary cognitive
tasks (ECTs) and relations between the corresponding

construct(s) with processing speed (Gs) and fluid intelligence

(Gf). Participants (N = 321) completed 14 ECTs, 3 Gs, and 6
Gf marker tests, all administered in paper-and-pencil format to
reduce potential confounds evident when tasks are presented
using different media. Factor analysis of the ECTs resulted in
a general mental speed factor, along with several task-class
specific factors. General mental speed was indistinguishable
from Gs and highly correlated with Gf. Significant
correlations were also found between Gf and variance specific
to task-class speed factors. The findings point to the nonunitary nature of mental speed and the potentially important
role of specific speed factors for examining the relationship
between speed and fluid intelligence.