Intuitive leaders take calculated risks and carefully considered chances with hard resources such as capital and soft resources such as political support. Before taking such risks, they first determine the cost to the organization of paying the hard or soft resource bill if their action is unsuccessful. Next, they determine the extent of total organizational resource reduction that could result from having to pay that bill. How much worse off would the organization be if the bill is paid? That is "X" or the downside cost of action.

"Y" or the upside benefit of action is similarly calculated in terms of the level of increase in total hard and soft resources if the action is successful. Action then gambles "X" against the possibility of "Y."

Two additional factors are then considered: the likelihood of getting "y," and how much the value of "Y" exceeds the value of "X." They don't gamble a lot to only gain a little.

For the intuitive leader, then, taking calculated risks with organizational resources means that the potential value of attaining "Y" justifies the risk of having to pay the downside bill (X). In either event, contingency plans are in place to manage the outcome and intuition plays an important role in predicting those contingencies and in understanding the odds for particular outcomes.

Intuitive leaders have a high tolerance for and acceptance of differing personalities, traits and characteristics, personal styles, individual values and beliefs, and for the idiosyncrasies of people. Similarly, they easily manage fluctuations in people's moods, points of view, and interests. Alternatively, they have little tolerance for sub-standard work, less than complete attention to the task at hand, or lackluster performance. They always give their best effort and expect others to do the same.

Intuitive leaders expect others to do things correctly, to give everything they do their best effort, to succeed. They are surprised when people make mistakes, give things less than their best effort, don't succeed.

Since they expect success, they assume personal responsibility for mistakes of others, lackluster effort, non-success. Their first take on the situation is that they (the intuitive leader) haven't been smart enough or skilled enough to effectuate the right outcome. They then work with the person to identify the deficiencies, to modify their (the intuitive leader's) performance so that they better facilitate the person's success.

Of course, the intuitive leader occasionally determines that a specific person either can't or won't perform as expected no matter what is done but typically, the intuitive leader assumes shared responsibility for assuring the success of others.

Intuitive leaders accept people as is. Their goal isn't to change anyone. Rather, they focus on encouraging and facilitating in ways that enable each person to achieve optimal performance within the context of their skills, abilities, and interests. Concurrently, they expect people to expand and improve their capacities and are ready to help with that process however they can, within the resources and constraints of the organization. People aren't expected to change but are expected to grow and develop as organizational participants.

Intuitive leaders aren't stingy with praise nor are they lavish with it. They are quick to recognize and acknowledge the successes and accomplishments of others but don't confuse praise with simple good manners.

Please and thank you and noting that someone did a good job or was helpful are not examples of praise. They are, rather, merely examples of good manners and are integral to the intuitive leader's habitual deportment. Alternatively, praise is an intentional and thoughtful action which privately or publicly acknowledges and commends excellence. Intuitive leaders reserve praise for exceptional or extraordinary performance, never missing an opportunity to praise when individual or group performance meets that standard.

Intuitive leaders understand that holding people responsible and accountable on the one hand and blaming and accusing them on the other are not the same. Holding someone responsible is a performance standard. Holding them accountable is a performance expectation. Alternatively, blaming and accusing imply negative opinions and perceptions of the individual.

To blame someone or accuse them represents a pejorative assessment of them. Blaming and accusing are always subjective and personal while responsibility and accountability are performance elements that can be objectively evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted. Since the individual or group are accountable for their performance, the level of responsibility extended to them may be increased or decreased, depending on their performance.

To blame or accuse are counterproductive and incompatible with intuitive leadership. Holding people responsible and accountable are key elements in the intuitive leader's approach with people. It starts with holding himself (or herself) responsible and accountable and then simply extending the principle to everyone else in the organization.