Posts

San Francisco-based Anthropic is one of the companies leading the artificial intelligence revolution. Its primary large-language model product is Claude, and Claude has offshoots that write computer code and can essentially reflect upon and rewrite themselves.

Anthropic’s founders split from OpenAI, another San Francisco AI company, primarily because they were concerned that reckless AI development could lead to unfortunate unintended consequences. These range from the elimination of humans by an artificial intelligence that no longer needs us to the development of AI-controlled autonomous weapons engineered for war or terrorism. Less apocalyptically, it means imagining profound effects on job markets, education, inequality and privacy.

Anthropic was founded explicitly to develop AI more responsibly. With forethought and commitment, it has developed a “constitution” that spells out what it, and AI, should and should not do. The company has published its constitution under a license that makes it freely available to other AI developers and encourages the industry to adopt its principles.

Development of the Claude Constitution has been a company-wide priority. Anthropic hired not an engineer to lead the effort but a philosopher, Amanda Askell. Many engineers at Anthropic also participate. And Claude itself reviews the constitution and suggests revisions. It is creating, essentially, a pact between the company and its artificially intelligent product to behave ethically.

As business writer Melissa Daimler observes, it’s also an inspiration for non-AI firms. Anthropic’s first constitution established a detailed list of safety and ethics rules for Claude and for software engineers. “But as Claude became more capable and the stakes got higher, they realized a list wasn’t enough. The model needed to understand why it should behave in certain ways, not just what to do. They rewrote it with a focus on judgment and context, not just rules.” Daimler suggests that there is much to learn from Anthropic’s collective effort that can apply to other firms’ efforts to build a culture of ethics, collaboration and creativity.

This is a more complicated subject than one post can cover. We encourage you to start exploring with the links above. This is the beginning of something with unimaginable outcomes. But it’s starting, it’s happening, and Anthropic’s engineers are trying to bend it toward responsible development.

The encyclical Magnifica Humanitas from Pope Leo XIV covers topics from the principle of the common good to the use of AI in warfare. One section, “The dignity of work at a time of digital transition,” stood out on first reading. A key excerpt:

Today, the convergence of automation, robotics and AI is rapidly transforming the very structure of work. It is said that this will bring great improvements for everyone. In reality, however, the “new ways” of working are not necessarily better, for “while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work.

In The Engineer’s Guide to Authentic Leadership is a section on the responsibility of leaders to develop others. It talks about developing teams and understanding individuals’ perspectives and needs. Another section discusses the leader’s role in motivating workers and teams to innovate. Authentic leaders Dianne Chong and Katy Kolbeck speak specifically to the importance of emotional intelligence in responding to this responsibility.

Creating an environment where individual people’s goals and skills are considered, and their contributions encouraged and optimized, should be a leader’s top priority. As artificial intelligence applications increase, leaders need to ensure that jobs enhance workers’ dignity, inspire them to innovate and reinforce their sense of purpose.

If your job involves managing others, you probably have to create or follow policies about where employees work. A decade ago, working from home was uncommon. Most employees still went to an office or production facility or laboratory. The last pandemic changed that for everyone whose job didn’t require maintaining equipment or interacting with the public.

More recently, large employers have told employees they must return to the workplace. Executives talk about collaboration and productivity. But surveys show that forcing employees back to the office doesn’t make companies more profitable.

Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, with Ph.D. candidates Marissa Shandell and Courtney Elliott, published an opinion piece in the New York Times titled “The Secret Reason Bosses Want Everyone Back in the Office, Every Day of the Week.” Their research paper in Science Direct says there is a clear correlation between executives’ opposition to remote work and narcissistic traits.

Where employees work is just one example. We encourage you to think about any number of policies you can influence or change. How many of them exist to protect power, reinforce hierarchy, reduce employee autonomy or limit independent decision making? Do you see any conflicts between what’s good for the people on your team or for the organization, and what’s good for senior management—or for you?

If you’re in a leadership position, you probably get lots of requests for favors: Will you speak at this event? Can you write a review of my book? Would you put in a good word for me?

Some of these requests may not seem worthwhile. Indulging them all takes time. And the reputation you built can give a shine to these favors, but you risk dulling it in reflection.

With all this in mind, here’s a story of a star athlete, a persistent fan and a lucky second meeting decades later: Dominique Wilkins reconnects with fan he gave shoes to 42 years ago: ‘Totally blew me away’

When you grant a favor, it may make little difference. But sometimes, people remember.

We often say that leadership is a role you take on, not just a title you earn. People we profiled in The Engineer’s Guide to Authentic Leadership used their ideas, values, expertise and beliefs to build something new. Some students in our leadership course, which became the basis for Leadership for Engineers, did the same in their lives.

So can you.

Not once you find investors or get a patent or write a grant, but today. Structures are already in place for you to lead others as a mentor. Here’s an example.

Through the University of St. Thomas, we are connected to an organization called ThreeSixty Journalism. The program encourages high school and college students, especially low-income students and teens of color, to pursue careers in journalism. At its 25th anniversary celebration on April 16, 2026, ThreeSixty Journalism honored Georgia Fort for her reporting on major events in the Twin Cities.

The academics and professionals who coach and encourage ThreeSixty Journalism students include well known and respected names in the industry. But they don’t need a famous byline to have an impact. ThreeSixty invites all kinds of people with relevant skills to inspire the next generation of journalists.

You can probably find a comparable group in your field. Start with your professional association, a nearby college or an online community. Mentoring is not filling empty vessels with knowledge but lighting lamps to help others see better.

You can lead right now. Where will you share your light?

On February 26, 2026, James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, spoke at the Westminster Town Hall Forum in Minneapolis, Minnesota. His presentation was titled “Ethics & Government: Wrestling with Truth and Democracy.”

One passage stood out to us as students and teachers of leadership: the importance of listening. We have condensed his remarks here and invite you to watch the entire event.

“Every leader of any organization sits uphill from the people they lead. All leaders are feared by the people downhill from them to varying degrees. When I became FBI director, I was surprised at just how steep the hill was. The challenge as the leader at the top of that hill is that that slope makes it very, very hard for me to hear the truth, especially about me, for them to tell me when I’m wrong, when I’m confused, when I’m angry, when I’m about to make a mistake. I have to have enough confidence to risk myself by lowering and flattening that hill.

I used to think that there were two states of the world that passed for listening. And I’ve learned through leading and from being married to an amazing person that there’s actually three states of the world. The first state of the world is obviously not listening. That’s silence while you talk. The second state of the world that I thought was listening was silence. So you talk and I actually follow what you’re saying. I’m paying attention. That’s wrong. The third state of the world that is actual listening. And that must be the way a leader at the top of the hill acts is. It’s silence plus I’m listening to your words. following you, plus a weird form of communication. I have to communicate to you with my body, my face, weird sounds that you’re safe. I got you. It’s okay. I want what you have. That’s listening. Even with sounds, that’s listening.”

If you are a leader, or aspire to be one, we recommend you practice listening—starting with Comey’s speech.

In a New York Times column published March 15, 2026, Thomas Friedman mentioned a conversation with Bill George, former CEO of Medtronic and longtime leadership educator. They discussed the people of Minneapolis who acted without fanfare to protect their neighbors against the unlawful and deadly acts of ICE agents.

George said “There were hundreds of leaders in this movement, and I don’t know a single one of their names.” Friedman compared this group to the behavior of a president who insists on putting his name everywhere possible, whether or not he deserves the honor. The contrast brought three things to mind:

• First, leadership is not a position but a behavior. Leaders can come from anywhere in a group, not just the top.
• Second was a comment by former 3M CEO George Buckley: “There is no place in leadership for ego. It is better to have your shadow on things than your fingerprints.”
• Third, leadership is contagious. Being among people who are stepping up to lead, especially when it is personally dangerous to do so, takes courage, and inspires others to step up as well.

Jan Hansen, one of the leaders profiled in The Engineer’s Guide to Authentic Leadership, may have said it best: “Don’t get too caught up about who gets credit. Just do the right thing every single time.”

When engineers and scientists take on leadership roles, they sometimes need to take action without as much information as they would like. “What if I’m wrong?” they ask. Bob Johnson—a Navy pilot in WWII, executive at Honeywell, and president of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers—told us how he learned to get past his doubts.

“One of my heroes was a guy named Ed Lund. He said, ‘In your management style, always make a decision, because you’re going to be right 70% of the time. Don’t procrastinate. Make a decision, because you can always correct a wrong decision.’”

“Here’s why I think that rule works,” Johnson said. “Mistakes are usually inconveniences, seldom tragedies. But if you never make a decision, you’re always afraid. We are so risk averse that nothing gets done. Some people have a hard time making a decision. That doesn’t mean they are bad people, they just can’t manage stuff. In most cases they bring other qualities and knowledge that leaders don’t possess.”

The Engineer’s Guide to Authentic Leadership features candid interviews with leaders like Bob. We think you’ll enjoy reading their stories.

Sir George Buckley, who wrote the foreword to Leadership for Engineers, values diversity of backgrounds and ideas: “I really loved the idea of contributions from people who…didn’t think like me. They had different perspectives on the same things and I thought ‘that’s interesting, I’ve never thought about it that way.’”

We saw another kind of diversity in a leadership workshop with a group of women professional engineers. We conducted an experiment based on learning styles, one of the measures of self-knowledge.

Before the workshop, each participant was assessed using the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory. Women with the same learning style were grouped together and given a problem to address. Results varied: One group finished in five minutes; another didn’t reach any conclusion in the half-hour given.

We then put the participants in new groups that had a member with each learning style and assigned a new problem. The difference was dramatic. Not only did all groups complete the assignment, the solutions were better. Diversity improved the speed and quality of results.

How does this example fit with your experience? Do you have diverse workgroups? Are you encouraging diversity in teams to improve performance quality and speed?