8:00 a.m., Concord

When Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith marched into Concord he must have been mindful of the very strict instructions from his boss, General Thomas Gage, to avoid picking a fight. Gage knew about the Second Continental Congress and was anxious to avoid giving its members the event they sought to rally the moderates to their cause. 

He did not plan, or want, the fight that occurred in Lexington three hours ago, and he was keen to avoid any further antagonism. Gage’s admonitions aside, Smith realized that his regiment had to march back (more than 20 miles) through what he knew had become hostile territory.

Concord was his destination for that day, so he at least didn’t have to go further west. His mission there was to “seize and distroy (sic) all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.

He moved quickly to his work. He deployed men at each of the bridges, north and south, to prevent anyone from entering or leaving the town, and he dispatched a patrol out to Colonel Barrett’s’ Farm to destroy the stock piles reported to be there by his spies.

As his men worked, he too would see smoke near the town center and ironically would have been pleased to know that it was from his men pouring water on a minor house fire inadvertently started as they burned some gun carriages.

The Character of James Barrett

The Regulars were burning the town, or so the militia leaders thought as they watched the smoke clouds rising into the clear blue sky. James Barrett would have been incredulous. He was a British subject. Why would the King’s soldiers do this?

The news that the Regulars fired upon the minute company at Lexington -- with lethal results -- was still largely raw, undigested, and remote. But this he was seeing with his own eyes. 

Colonel Barrett faced a tough decision. To march on the Regulars was unthinkable. To let them burn his town, unforgivable. Many lives, including the 250 men of the minute companies and militia standing with him, depended on his choice. 

Why would they follow him? What gave him credibility (beyond his position) that so many put their faith in his wisdom? James Kouzes and Barry Posner, the authors of The Leadership Challenge, have some thoughts. Credibility, according to Kouzes and Posner, is the blending of honesty, competence, and the ability to inspire. But chief among these, they say, is honesty.

Honesty is a subjective measure. In fact, I have yet to meet a person who admits to being dishonest or acting unethically, yet nearly everyone I know will share a story about someone they know who they say is or does. My point is that although most of us as leaders say we meet the standard, someone out there may have a different opinion. The tipping point is often not in our words, but in our actions. 

As Kouzes and Posner explain, “if a leader behaves in ways consistent with his or her stated values and beliefs, then we can entrust to that person our careers, our security, and ultimately even our lives.”

Credibility takes years to earn. James Barrett acted on his convictions. He served with distinction as a soldier in the French and Indian War and later in the Commonwealth’s government where he was known to be an outspoken critic of what he saw as unjust policies. In fact, although it cost him financially he stopped doing business with the army – his farm supplied provisions to the military in Boston -- in 1774. 

Credibility is fragile. Had Barrett continued doing business with the Crown, his neighbors might have seen his actions as inconsistent with his rhetoric. While Barrett would have been justified in saying he never once lied or behaved unethically, his neighbors (his followers) might have judged differently. Again Kouzes and Posner offer strong words, credibility “is lost with one false step, one thoughtless remark, one inconsistent act, one broken agreement, one lie, one cover-up…”

Colonel Barrett’s neighbors trusted him to act in their best interest, not in his own best interest. 

When we violate our organization’s rules regardless of our justifications and rationalizations - even for seemingly minor matters such as making photo-copies for personal use – we risk our credibility. When it comes time to make the truly important life changing decisions, your followers may not like what you’re doing (they may believe other alternatives are better) but they’ll not question your motives.

There are exceptions. Some people are so manipulative and argumentative themselves that they engage in what I call reflective behavior, or “mirroring.” Since they tend to be disingenuous or even duplicitous, they expect that everyone is like that. Despite the fact that your motives come from deeply held values they will suspect that you are insincere and have an ulterior motive simply because they themselves would. Don’t worry about their petty behavior. Focus on your own motivations, and you should be fine.