The Leadertship Journal

It depends on the nature of the role and the organization’s current needs. However, in most managerial and leadership positions, I would generally prefer a disciplined employee with solid performance over a high-performing employee who lacks discipline.

The reason is that performance can often be improved through coaching, training, and development, whereas poor discipline can create broader organizational challenges, such as:

• Negative impact on team culture.
• Reduced reliability in critical tasks and responsibilities.
• Perceived unfairness among other employees.
• Increased safety, compliance, or operational risks.

Employees can often be viewed within four categories:

1. Disciplined and High-Performing
   • The ideal employee and the preferred choice for advancement.
2. Disciplined with Moderate Performance
   • A dependable employee with strong potential for development and growth.
3. High-Performing but Undisciplined
   • May deliver strong short-term results but can create long-term challenges for the team and organization.
4. Undisciplined with Low Performance
   • Typically the least valuable profile for the organization.

In industries where compliance, safety, and procedural adherence are critical—such as aviation and air traffic management—discipline becomes even more important. High performance does not compensate for the risks associated with failing to follow established procedures and regulations.

When considering promotion to a managerial or executive leadership role, I would typically assess:

• Discipline and reliability.
• Ability to deliver results.
• Leadership capability and influence.
• Decision-making skills.
• Professional integrity.

In such cases, I may not select the highest-performing employee if their level of discipline is inadequate, because leaders serve as role models and influence the behavior, culture, and performance of an entire team.

---

Many professionals tend to overstate their achievements on LinkedIn, and this does not always stem from intentional deception. Common reasons include:

1. Personal Branding
   • LinkedIn is a professional networking platform where individuals market their skills and accomplishments to attract career opportunities.
2. Role Inflation
   • Some individuals contribute to a project as part of a team but describe their involvement as if they personally led the entire initiative.
3. Competitive Pressure
   • Seeing highly polished profiles can encourage others to present themselves in a more favorable light to remain competitive.
4. Different Interpretations of Achievement
   • What one person considers a significant accomplishment may be viewed by others as a routine part of the job.
5. Building a Professional Image
   • Some professionals focus on presenting an impressive professional narrative and therefore use broad or highly positive descriptions of their contributions.

Experienced hiring managers and leaders can often identify exaggeration through:

• Detailed interview questions.
• Requests for specific examples and measurable outcomes.
• Assessing the depth of the candidate’s knowledge and involvement.

As a result, the strongest professional profiles are usually not those with the most impressive claims, but those that demonstrate clear, measurable, and verifiable results, such as:

• “Reduced processing time by 25%.”
• “Led a team of 15 employees.”
• “Implemented a new operational process that improved efficiency.”

These statements tend to be more credible and impactful than broad claims such as “Led a major strategic transformation.”