I’m continuing to unpack key ideas from my latest book, Lead Last. Let’s keep this discussion going! As always, I’m not here to preach or pretend I have all the answers, so I want to hear from the people actually leading, teaching, parenting, and mentoring every day. Today’s topic focuses on character flaws in leadership and why they’re so difficult to address. This topic tends to make leaders shift in their seats a bit. It’s counterintuitive, uncomfortable, and absolutely necessary. 

With that in mind, here’s the quote:

“Training deficiencies can be remedied; character flaws cannot.”

Let’s define the two terms at the center of this conversation:

• Training deficiencies are gaps in knowledge or skill (i.e., the things you can fix with coaching, repetition, or experience).
• Character flaws, as I define them in Lead Last, are a person’s qualities, beliefs, and principles that influence them to be unaligned with an organization’s vision and values. The real challenge, especially for emerging leaders, is that these flaws aren’t always obvious and aren’t limited to traits like dishonesty or disrespect. They show up in subtle ways — how someone handles authority, how they respond to accountability, how they treat people when no one is watching, and whether their personal priorities consistently clash with the mission.

When I first started sharing this idea with colleagues, their reactions were predictable:

“Everybody can be trained.”
“Character is subjective.”
“You’re telling me people can’t change?”
“Sounds a little harsh, Lu.”

I get it. We want to believe every problem can be solved with a workshop, certification, or new system. But leadership doesn’t break down because someone didn’t memorize a process. Leadership breaks down when someone’s character is misaligned with the responsibility they’ve been given.

And here’s the part most people don’t want to admit: We often tolerate character issues longer than we should because the person is talented. That’s the trap, especially for emerging leaders. Skills are teachable, and people reveal character through daily actions.

How Character Flaws in Leadership Undermine Teams

I wrote this chapter to challenge the assumption that performance is the ultimate measure of leadership potential. It really isn’t. Performance without character is a liability for your team or organization. It creates instability, erodes trust, and forces everyone around that leader to work twice as hard to compensate for the fallout.

Plain speak: You can train someone to write better reports, manage a project, or run a meeting, but you cannot train someone to value the mission, respect the culture, or align their personal principles with the organization’s purpose. People develop those qualities long before they show up in the workplace or the classroom. And when they’re missing, no amount of technical training will fix the underlying issue. 

The Brené Brown Counterargument

Now, let’s address the counterargument…and it’s a strong one. I’m a huge fan of Brené Brown’s work, so writing this particular chapter and highlighting a potential seam between our philosophies is tough, but hopefully it sparks intellectual debate and reflections that help refine our leadership.

Brené Brown would likely push back on the idea that character flaws cannot be remedied. Her research suggests that what we often label as fixed character traits are actually learned protective behaviors. She argues that people aren’t broken; they’re armored. And armor can be removed.

In her work, she consistently emphasizes that:

• Courage is a skill set.
• Vulnerability is a practice.
• Integrity is a choice.
• Trust is built through behaviors, not personality.
• People can “unlearn” self‑protective habits that no longer serve them.

I believe that Brown would say that character flaws are not permanent defects; rather, they’re patterns shaped by fear, shame, or past experiences. She’d continue that with intentional work, people can rewrite those patterns. In her words, we are the “authors” of our lives, not fixed characters trapped in a predetermined story.

It’s a compelling argument, and one I respect.

Where Our Ideas Intersect and Where They Diverge

Here’s where our perspectives align:

• We both believe people can grow.
• We both believe courage and integrity require practice.
• We both believe leaders must confront their internal barriers.

But here’s where my principle draws a line and where I suggest leaders should focus when deciphering whether they’re facing a character flaw or a training deficiency: Growth requires willingness, and character change requires ownership. Helping someone overcome their character flaws requires both. In other words, Brené Brown is right: people can change, and as leaders, we should encourage that change by being direct and creating an environment that fosters it. However, people won’t always be receptive to your leadership, especially when there’s a misalignment of values and priorities. That’s the distinction my principle is addressing. When someone refuses to do the internal work, no amount of external training will compensate for the instability their behavior creates. When character flaws in leadership go unaddressed, the entire team feels it.

So yes, we can help people develop their character, but we cannot force, outsource, or assume its development.

That’s why I stand by my principle and could even add an ellipsis to summarize the concept:
Training deficiencies can be remedied; character flaws cannot…unless the person chooses to do the work.

The Real Question

So here’s what I want to explore with you: Are you investing more time in training someone’s skills than in addressing the character issues that are undermining your team?

Think about the last time you justified someone’s behavior because they were good at their job or a team favorite. Consider the last time you avoided a conversation because you hoped training would fix what character was breaking.

Let’s talk about it in the comments. I want to hear your perspective.