In some ways, the federal government can be said to have its own chief executive officer – the person at the top of the executive branch.
While it might not be standard for folks to refer to the president as the nations’ “CEO,” how one leads from the Oval Office can offer profound lessons on leadership that speak to those in the corner office – or even those who face leadership demands beyond brick and mortar walls.
This is a matter Mark Updegrove, presidential scholar and CEO of the LBJ Foundation, has been thinking a lot about. Over the years he’s interviewed and come to know several people who have held the nation’s highest office and his new book, “Make Your Mark: Lessons in Character from Seven Presidents,” offers insights on leadership.
He joined the Texas Standard to share what he’s learned. Listen to the interview above or read the transcript below.
This transcript has been edited lightly for clarity:

Mark Updegrove, president and CEO of the LBJ Foundation, is the author of “Make Your Mark: Lessons in Character from Seven Presidents.” Renee Dominguez / KUT News
Texas Standard: Is there a way to separate out the politics from the qualities of leadership that distinguish one president from another?
Mark Updegrove: I think it depends. We’re in a particularly divided environment where partisanship is just an everyday reality.
But I think at the end of the day, I wrote this book because I think, as the Greeks said, “character is destiny” 2,500 years ago. And almost three millennia later, we see that that message resounds as much as at any time in the history of the world.
It’s most exhibited in the qualities, the character of our presidents who have outsize impact on the nation and the world. And their character, I have seen, is a rudder that directs our destiny in large measure. And I wanted to chronicle the positive aspects of the presidents that I have known.
There are negative aspects as well. But I think there are major chunks of these presidents’ legacies that have an underlying character trait associated with them, and they’re worth exploring.
You begin with, at least chronologically speaking, we’re talking about Gerald Ford, and then you go up to, what, Barack Obama?
Barack Obama, 7.
Why stop there? I mean, someone’s gonna say, “hey, wait a minute, there’s a conspicuous person missing here” when we’re talking about character, right?
The key is legacy. And in order to have a presidential legacy, you need to finish your term as president so we can really faithfully analyze what your legacy looks like.
President Trump, when I wrote the book, was a presidential candidate. He was the presumptive presidential nominee and of course would win a second term. Joe Biden was in office.
The other thing is with Trump, I’ve never interviewed Trump. I don’t know Trump, never met him.
I have interviewed Biden. I have gotten to know him a little bit, so he could have been a contender. But again, when I was writing this book, his legacy was very much in the balance, and we have seen so much come from that administration since I put the book to bed late last year.
» GET MORE NEWS FROM AROUND THE STATE: Sign up for Texas Standard’s weekly newsletters
Let’s talk about the two Texans here because, obviously, we’re the Standard. George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush.
I noticed that for H. W. Bush, you chose a particular characteristic of character – humility. Could you say more about that?
You know, George H.W. Bush is so anomalous as a politician because his humility is as much a part of his character as any other trait. And it comes to bear in what I think is his most important legacy as president, which is the peaceful end of the Cold War which had raged for 44 years and a transition into what Bush called a “New World Order.”
And then I start the chapter with the fall of the Berlin Wall, which happened in late 1989, and George H.W. Bush was asked in that moment of triumph for the United States, because the symbol of odious communist tyranny was being torn asunder by East and West Germans alike. And George H.W. Bush refused to, in the words of his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, “dance on the wall.”
He refused to beat his chest and spike the football over this great triumph of democracy over totalitarianism, and he did so for a purpose. And that was so that the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev was not jeopardized by hardliners who might overthrow him, compromising the possibility of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and to ensure that he had a negotiation opportunity with Gorbachev in the offing, and it worked. We saw a peaceful end to the Cold War, and there was no assurance of that.