Arguably there's no school for any high position of leadership. That said, Theodore Roosevelt was remarkably well prepared for the presidency. He had held executive positions in the military, in local government, in the federal government.

I often ask myself: "What would Theodore Roosevelt do?" One can never know, of course. The ultimate contribution of consequential leaders is often their capacity to reframe issues in novel ways. That said, his leadership engaged, at a foundational level, whether the American "national character" would accept decline and mediocrity, or would go all-in for leadership and excellence. Amid the myriad of otherwise disconnected issues before us, that choice is emerging yet again.

Some critics have suggested that Ronald Reagan succeeded in a series of careers, ultimately as a two-term president of the United States, by a series of fortunate accidents. Such a criticism is not backed by the evidence. It is true, though, that Reagan's approach to work and life was not conventional.

Many people become self-conscious when they communicate. Whether it's writing or speaking, they are consumed by anxiety. Self-consciousness is an impediment to what is required to serve an audience effectively. One's goal must be to achieve audience consciousness. To put oneself in their place, to recognize that the value of any communication arises from how it is received by them, not by what it means to the author. Rather than learning a multiplicity of rules for speaking, for example, I would suggest that a focus on serving one's audience will simplify and clarify everything.

Many people have a very hard time truly believing that doing the right thing by others, striving to serve them to the greatest extent, can actually be a competitive advantage.

William McKinley has surely been underrated - in no small part because he was succeeded by a memorable leader, Theodore Roosevelt.

I often encountered books by academics and others who had not actually done what they had written about. They tend to create artificial simplicity; their prose doesn't have the vigor of "lived words." On the other hand, many practitioners lack the context or introspection to make their experiences and understandings transferable - and, in our time, many don't actually write the books they "author." My ideal is to unify theory and practice.