Redefining Leadership

"Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost" 
- Thomas J Watson 


Reading this quote, I was struck on how it captured the very essence of leadership; something that seems in rather short supply these days. Of course many of you finding yourselves agreeing with this sentiment are now asking who Mr Watson was, not having heard the name before. He was not in fact Sherlock Holmes trusted associate and housemate at 221B Baker Street, that was Dr John Watson. 


Thomas John Watson was the president of a company of no small import to the US and the world from 1914 to 1956, International Business Machines. When the president of IBM during its heyday says something on the subject of leadership, you might well want to listen. Certainly some of those in Washington DC could stand a bit of tutelage on the subject. How else would you describe most of what has been going on in recent days, except of as a lack of this rather critical attribute in any elected official? 


Certainly no one would say that the Democrats who controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House showed leadership for failing to pass a budget in 2010 for the first time in this country's history. Neither would many say that the President showed leadership in brokering what has become the budget compromise that brought this particular drama to a close. That is unless of course, you would call it leadership to accuse both sides in the discussion of being little more than petulant children rather than putting forward a legitimate plan of your own. 


The nation's chief executive likewise showed no signs of primacy in dealing with the situations in Egypt and in Libya, instead allowing events to unfold before attempting to take any role at all. (A role he seems content to play as the rest of the Middle East and Africa continue in turmoil.) Having finally assumed that role in Libya however, he then abdicated such responsibility almost immediately, taking a second chair position to NATO while US soldiers were (and are) put in harm's way. 


Even now as 2011's budget will set aside in favor of the beginning of discussion over raising the debt limit and trying to come up with a budget for 2012, the nation's leader appears only now ready to unveil a plan of his own for the period. While one could say that he enters the fray before Congress begins its debates on the subject, others would point out that he does so a full week after Republicans in Congress (in the person of Paul Ryan) unveiled their own vision of the future. 


Lest Republicans decide to take pride for having now assumed the mantle of leadership in the nation, let us remind them that at no time during the last Congress did any member of the GOP in either House step up and put themselves forward with a budgetary blueprint; even as the jumping off point for discussion. And while I applaud the principles put forward by Rep. Ryan's effort, many with a knowledge of what goes on in DC have said that the timing of the 2012 budget announcement was little more than political expediency to divert attention from the compromise that was eventually reached over the 2011 budget. 


Neither have Republicans, while in the majority in the House, brought any legislative pressure to bear on the ongoing military madness masquerading as the current foreign policy in North Africa and the Middle East. Nor have they chastised the president for unilaterally creating the Libyan no-fly zone without consulting or even informing Congress; or pressed the president, as their counterparts did in Iraq and Afghanistan, on defining the mission goal or devising an exit strategy for this affair before entering it.


It appears that leadership as Mr Watson defined it is in rather short supply in today's politicians in Washington. Rather than accepting the mantle of leadership granted to them by gaining elected office, they instead seem (paraphrasing Mr Watson's words) always ready to accept the stigma of conformity for fear of being called a crackpot. 


In fact, those on both sides of the aisle seem far more concerned with keeping their jobs than with doing them. Unwilling to throw the first punch in the ring of public debate, they seem instead content to circle their opponent, endlessly dancing. Instead of wading into fight that they chose by running for office, they appear instead to be waiting for an opening, ready with a counter-punch when and if the opportunity presents itself. And while this may make for good political strategy, it makes for bad government. 


Truthfully, it seems more like a football game where both sides are trying to play a 'prevent defense' in the hopes of keeping the other team from embarrassing them by executing the big play. Not only has history shown that such attempts regularly fail, but ultimately it makes we spectators the real losers, regardless of which side wins the game. 


The resulting nonsense takes on little more importance than Olympic competition of rhythmic gymnastics. While it shows skill and may be mildly entertaining at times, throwing out the high and low scores in this event normally results in an average score of little more than '0'. 


But perhaps this is how leadership shall be defined as in the 21st Century (and more's the pity). It's a sad commentary of the quality of the leadership (and of the politicians) that we are presented with these days. It seems in fact, more in keeping with the words of French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin:


"There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them."

Leader of the Band

Here we are again, continuing our seeming never ending journey of how to find the good candidate or office holder. Now a good candidate should be someone who would make a good leader (Why elect them otherwise?), so this time I would like on what it means to be a leader. Oh brother, this means we better go back again to the Merriam Webster dictionary to discover the meaning of the word "leader". (Will it never end?) A leader is: 

A blank section at the beginning or end of a reel of film or recorded tape 
Many political candidates could be considered to be the equivalent of a blank piece of tape (or an empty suit, take your pick), but I'm not sure that's who I should want to pick for the running of the country.

Something for guiding fish into a trap 
The concept of guiding seems like a good one to me, except of course, if you're the fish. Many times I feel like candidates are attempting to lead me into a trap that they will spring on me after being elected, and that they believe that I am too dumb to see it coming. Some actually manage to fool me. Sorry, but I can't see this as a quality to be sought in a used car salesman, let alone a political candidate.

A first or principal performer of a group 
This too has a certain ring of truth to it. The concept of candidate and performer has come up before in our research, and while actors have become politicians (and vise-versa), I would prefer someone who isn't "performing". While I believe that acting like a leader is important, I don't believe that it's the same thing as being one. I suspect that it isn't.
 

A horse placed in advance of the other horses of a team 
Well, political parties could be considered as teams, their candidates are the ones up front, and these are called "races" after all. But while this is clever as a word game, I'm not sure I want to play the ponies with the future of my government at stake. Besides, who decides who gets to do the placing? (... and when we are talking about political candidates are we placing horses or just their asses out front?)

A person who has commanding authority or influence 
This probably comes as close to the truth we are looking for as anything, though it scares me. It seems to me to smack of the cult of personality in candidate selection. Again, this is something that we have seen time and time again in politics; and if this is our definition we should be afraid. Past journeys down this road have led to unpleasant destinations. (Napoleon and Hitler come to mind in the category of such mistakes.)

Man, I am really starting to wonder about this whole search. Every time we define a quality that should be admirable or necessary in a political candidate, we either can't define it in any meaningful way or the definitions that we can find are ones that we wouldn't care to have in a candidate. I am beginning to question my reasons for continuing this search. 

(But have no fear, I will pick this up again in two weeks ...)