In 2011 the US withdrew troops from Iraq and, initially, things looked good. In terms of security, military and civilian deaths had dropped to an all-time low. In terms of economy, Iraq’s GDP was roaring up the charts.

Now, only three years later, things appear to be unraveling. What happened? And what we can we learn, as it applies to leadership, here at home?

Simply put – Prime Minister (at that time) Nouri al-Maliki and his government neglected two enormously important leadership responsibilities.

Yes, al-Maliki faced the challenge of trying to build a unified nation (or at least a stable nation) out of the complex political and ethnic landscape of Iraq. But, in the midst of this challenge, he missed two leadership principles that statesmen (and successful executives) must follow or risk similar unraveling.

Principle #1: Improve the Condition of Others

The only reason anyone submits to the direction of a leader is they have hope for an improved condition of life; or, at the very least, they hope their condition of life will not worsen. Therefore, the first job of any leader is to get to work improving the condition of those being led.

In al-Maliki’s case, it became clear his focus was consolidating power around himself and his interests. This focus is the organizational or political equivalent of cancer. Whenever a leader begins to act primarily for their own interests, they begin to suck the life out of those around them.

Whether al-Maliki could have been successful in forging a new, united Iraq remains unclear. But he clearly chose not to try when he began choosing to serve himself rather than serve the needs of those he led.

Leadership lesson: Any leader hoping to grow or establish their influence needs to begin by answering the question: “How are my decisions and actions improving the conditions of those being led?

Principle #2: Directly Address Underlying Issues

Prime Minister al-Maliki didn’t ignore underlying issues; but, he avoided dealing with the people who were behind those issues. He attempted to sidestep issues by simply excluding those who weren’t automatically on his side.

This is one of the most common, and ineffective, leadership strategies for dealing with challenging organizational issues. It is so common, and so widely practiced, that I hear leaders share strategies that include phrases like:

“She’s talking about moving anyway.”

“We just lean on people and make it uncomfortable for them to stay.”

“It won’t help to stir things up.”

In a nation, residents cannot easily make changes and leave; so they tend to resist.

In an organization, people who have lost hope in their leadership often leave; if not physically, at least mentally. Preceding many organizational melt-downs you can observe a slow, discrete, trickle of some of the best and the brightest moving away from an organization. Those left behind are no longer creative.

They are not transparent or effective problem-solvers. Problems are often blamed on something or someone else. Taking the ‘easy way’, blame is placed upon those leaving. And organizational dry-rot sets in.

Leadership lesson: Problems rarely just go away. However, great people and opportunities do. It’s almost always better to face and navigate through underlying issues than to avoid them or blame others for them.

Every leader wants to avoid watching their organization unravel. How do you foster growth and strength for your organization? Ask yourself: Are my decisions improving the conditions of those around me? And, am I being transparent and direct as I address the underlying issues around me?