Charisma: The Chameleon That Always Seeks Sunlit Mountain Tops

It tantalizes us. It provokes us, this perplexing leadership trait called “charisma”. At the same time, we crave it and we fear it, as we do not want to lose our critical judgment or look silly. We also wish we could have more of it for ourselves as the media reminds us over and over again---people love it.

Barack Obama has struck a chord deep in the American psyche. It’s about being tired of living with the tyranny of fear that has permeated our daily lives particularly since 9/11. Fear is not uplifting. Fear puts the wrong hormones into our already over stressed bodies. Fear is a downer. Fear makes us go within ourselves. Retreat from hope and community.

Apparently gospel singer Mahalia Jackson shouted out at least twice to Martin Luther King when he was deep into a “nightmare” speech in front of a throng of thousands on August 28, 1963, in Washington, D.C.: “Tell them about your dream, Martin.” This roused King from his fears (“America has given the Negro people a bad check….”) to “I have a dream…” which resonates to this day. We prefer sunlit mountain tops to the valley of darkness. It is in our nature.

There is much to do as all politicians and ordinary folks know. The middle class in both the United States and Canada is shrinking. The gap between the haves and the have nots is widening. Statistics Canada recently reported that the earned income of the “average” Canadian---the median income--- was the same in 2004 as in 1982. While the Canadian economy grew in real per capita terms by more than half, it is only the very well-paid---those above the 90th percentile of the income distribution that experienced increases in earned income. The same trends exist in the United States but not quite as starkly: Between 1975 and 2005, median family income in the U.S increased by only 28 per cent while the economy grew by 86 per cent. The average earnings of the highest 1 per cent of the U.S. pyramid rose 160 per cent between 1975 and 2005. The income of the top tenth of 1 per cent soared 350 per cent. Top CEOs in both countries now make 200+ times as much as the average worker. This does not make for peaceful and prosperous community-building.

The reasons are complicated. Decisions made by leaders on both sides of the border have mattered. More tolerance of a “winner take all” environment over the past 30 years coupled with massive manufacturing job losses linked to the rise of China and India, according to numerous analysts, have contributed to our era of discontent.

With progress not matching our expectations for overall community well being, the time is ripe for the enlightened and the good side of charisma anywhere particularly one that unites instead of divides. Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King were all well aware that positive change is not possible through fighting. Barack Obama through his record of community development and his “audacity of hope” messages now brings that approach to today’s volatile and complex social and political environment.

While charisma of the right kind beckons, in the end the true measure is getting the right things done. This is a tall order and often transcends charisma. Yes, inspiring visions are absolutely critical and finding common ground vital. But that wears thin when little happens.

In this age of wariness about our political leaders, we are always drawn to warmth, caring about others, authenticity, openness to creative thinking, evidenced–based and thoughtful decision making and action. Senator Obama has caught our attention. We can be grateful that he has re-ignited those very positive emotions that have been subdued or buried since 9/11.

Taking the Long View in an Unpredictable World: Chess Mastery Helps

Living in a developed country where the pace of change seems too fast can lull us into the illusion of progress. With the advantage of hindsight, change is chaotic and non-linear and often very slow in coming.

We are, in reality, just specks in the sand in the long course of human history. So, global events remind us such as Pakistan’s situation. Mahatma Gandhi fought his entire adult life for India to be owned and governed by Indians peaceably and together. The result was not what he imagined.

He envisioned a whole not a partitioned India. Almost 60 years since his untimely death, the decisions made then to divide India into two parts, reverberate today. Given Benazir Bhutto’s recent assassination and the stark contrast between Pakistan’s progress versus India’s, Gandhi’s long view appears to have had more merit as a possible sustainable option. We’ll never know. But one thing is for sure: one lifetime is not enough to celebrate progress in that part of the world.

Another thing stands out: leaders who see the whole, as a chess master does, stand a better chance of making good decisions that have few unintended consequences. That’s a big order in this complex world in which we live but it is the only way to proceed.

Is Optimism Ever Uncool in a Leader?

Some people get downright grumpy when they walk into a room where everyone looks happy. Or, they become wary. Maybe it’s that such apparent happiness is not a true reflection of life, in general, and certainly not that of a leader or manager. On the contrary it’s often full of one issue after another, too much to do, too little time, too many interruptions and the stress of dealing with the strange behaviours of others. If suddenly faced with smiles and laughter in large quantities all at once, for example, at a cocktail party, a leader might find it difficult to adjust.

What should one do? No one appreciates having their fun dampened or being fooled by hollow happiness. Neither do most of us feel comfortable with a leader who rarely shares her emotions and thoughts or who seems always to look at the world through rose coloured glasses. It can put us on edge and ill at ease in their presence. The conversation may never go beyond the superficial as the dance of unreality keeps the gate to rewarding conversation firmly closed.

What lurks in the background is resonance with reality. Otherwise, optimism is “uncool”. As the emotional intelligence research tells us, a leader’s mood matters. An optimistic attitude is infectious helping others around him see tough situations in a more positive light. The caveat however is this: optimism is better accepted if it is balanced by the right kind and level of truth-telling. In effect, having a better way of explaining bad events than the perennial pessimist builds leadership effectiveness!

If faced with a choice, optimism is a better route to go even if as a manager and leader you have to work hard at not being negative. That means viewing bad events as external rather than personal, temporary rather than permanent and specific not pervasive. The skill of optimism, based in reality, can grow with practice.

One way to demonstrate optimism is through subtle changes in expressions that project more powerfully a positive rather than a negative or weak attitude. Here are some examples from George Walther’s work on “power talking” with the stronger phraseology on the right:

Projecting Positive Expectations:
“I’ll have to.” versus “I’ll be glad to.”
“This is impossible,” versus “This can be done.”

Rebounding Resiliently
“I failed.” versus “I learned.”
“If only I had…” versus “Starting now, I will.”

Accepting Responsibility
“I can’t help it. It’s the other guy’s fault.” versus “It’s my responsibility.”
“This is not practical. It won’t work.” versus “Let’s give it a chance.”

These are not naïve statements but ones full of hope aimed at creating something better and spurring us on to solution-finding actions. They are saying yes to life and no to darkness. This is “cool” for leaders.

Stillness amidst the "tribe"

I watched the great actor Ben Kingsley respond to a young aspiring actor’s question as to how to hold in his impatience. Ben evoked the metaphor of a tribe and that actors are like hunters. Eager to use their bow and arrows in pursuit of the hunt. Eager to get going.

But Ben counselled that a good mentor, knowing that the actor is not quite ready for the stage, would only give him an arrow with no bow or a bow with no arrow. Then, one day when he no longer asked, when he did not have the compulsion to ask, the mentor would finally give them to him.

In Ben’s view, an actor must honour the “tribe’s” code of conduct and its traditions for developing hunter-leaders. Some things take time. There are many lessons to be learned. Be patient. Be still.

Stillness, he contends, is a pre-requisite to graduation as it illuminates the lessons to be learned. It enables an actor in training to “empty his cup”. In Joseph Parent’s book Zen Golf: Mastering the Mental Game, he explains:

The empty cup approach doesn’t mean giving up your intelligence and following blindly. The point is to receive everything that is taught in an open way, withholding judgment about it until you’ve tried for awhile. Try your best to understand what is being communicated, then give it a fair chance to see if it works for you.

Parent continues with a great Zen Master’s saying:

In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities; in the expert’s mind there are few.”

Thus, the beginner’s mind is like an empty cup---open, empty of preconceptions, inquisitive, receptive and ready to engage.

In essence, “being still”, can make your mind bigger, no matter who you are…actor, leader, parent, front line worker… Your field of vision widens. You literally see more and connect more directly to the experience at hand.

The newspapers are full of unsettling stories of the failings of some experts. Those whom we have put our faith in to make good decisions about complex matters. When the full stories emerge, it is quite clear that their cups had dirt in them, muddying and distorting what they heard to fit their preconceived ideas and opinions. Thus, “being still” and having an “empty cup” applies as much to experts as novices.

It is a privilege to be a leader and no small task to live up to the ideal of great leadership. No one wants to create disasters. An empty and still mind can help offset any potential bad turns in the road.

In Parent’s words:

Bigger space. Bigger mind. Bigger mind. Better results.

The H.O.A.G. Leadership Factor: How Much Does This Count for Hillary Clinton?

As reported in one newspaper, Mark Grimes, a Toronto City Councilor is a H.O.A.G. (a hell of a "guy"). Judging from what is written about Stephane Dion, Canada’s official leader of the opposition, he has a little of the H.O.A.G. factor—just a whiff. Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, comes across in the media commentary as a cold, authoritarian leader. He does not make the grade as a H.O.A.G. George Bush probably does as well as former President Bill Clinton and former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. But, alas, the polls for Hillary Clinton suggest she’s got some work to do in that area. Does this really matter?

The term registered on my radar a few weeks ago when reading about the latest political skirmishes and accomplishments. A H.O.A. G. is a person (a leader in this context) with whom you’d enjoy “having a beer with”. I take it that this means having a “down to earth” aura or “vibe” that enables others to relax and swap stories and opinions with you. To gain this distinction as a leader, your track record precedes you. Your actions, deeds and way of relating combine to give you a “H.O.A.G.” rating. In matters of voting for a candidate, this “feeling” can matter.

Let’s consider Senator Clinton. About 56 per cent of women favor Hillary, according to recent polls. Yet, only 22 per cent have made up their minds. When asked, people have a hard time articulating why they do or do not like her. The answer from a woman from Coral Gables, Florida captures the ambivalence and hard to put into words conundrum: “I admire her and I think she is well-qualified, but she lacks heart”.

Well, that’s a little drastic but maybe she’s on to something. Many leadership and management researchers speak of “emotional leadership” as counting for up to 90 per cent of success: the ability to relate to others and much more. Now embodied in the term “emotional intelligence”, and made famous by Daniel Goleman, it is becoming an assessment factor in recruiting and a developmental strategy in coaching leaders to become more effective. An amalgam of many “competencies”, there are four main categories with multiple capabilities within:

Self-awareness
Self-management
Social-awareness
Relationship management

If we imagined Hillary taking the EIQ test, what might her results be based on what we perceive from a distance? Here’s an estimate on my part:

Self-awareness---reading one’s own emotions and recognizing their impact; using “gut sense” to guide decisions; knowing one’s strengths and limits; a sound sense of one’s self worth and abilities: B minus

Self-management--- emotional self-control, displaying honesty and integrity, flexibility in adapting to changing situations, drive to improve performance to meet inner standards of excellence, initiative or readiness to act and seize opportunities, optimism: A

Social Awareness---empathy or sensing others’ emotions, understanding their perspective and taking an active interest in their concerns: C

Relationship Management---guiding and motivating with a compelling vision, wielding a range of tactics for persuasion, bolstering others’ abilities through feedback and guidance, initiating, leading and managing in a new direction, resolving disagreements, cultivating and maintaining a web of relationships, cooperation and teamwork: B minus

This quick and very unscientific analysis reveals that Hillary is tough, smart and very reliable. She’s got substance, an extremely important leadership skill. She keeps her emotions tightly in check (an attribute under stressful situations). But, that emotional connection with others is tenuous. Husband Bill wins hands down in that area. It is this that likely explains why Hillary would not easily meet the H.O.A.G. “standard”.

The reality is that leaders’ emotional states are contagious, especially cheerfulness and warmth. In Goleman’s Primal Leadership book, he describes the findings of a Yale University School of Management study: “among working groups, cheerfulness and warmth spread more easily, while irritability is less contagious and depression spreads hardly at all”. The researchers concluded that “upbeat moods boost cooperation, fairness and business performance”.

Underlying the “contagion” of a leader’s positive emotional state is passion and enthusiasm. This is where the H.O.A.G factor and charisma meet. So, I return to an earlier theme: if a leader is passionate about a cause, people naturally gravitate to them and are inspired when in their company. This is the trim tab for Hillary, Stephane Dion, Stephen Harper and any person wanting to make a difference in a leadership capacity.

For Hillary to translate the undecided voters in her direction, showing her heart to others in a more fulsome way through her “cause” will be a huge step in the right direction. It’s time for Senator Clinton to rev up her warmth index. The years of political intrigue and deception by her challengers have likely made her wary. Understandable. But, not to do so, to hold back on her ability to connect on an emotional level, to not show her compassion for a cause, gives Hillary’s opponents the advantage.

These are lessons for all of us wanting to be stronger leaders.

California Burned: Advantage Arnie

One thing is for sure. We’re in an era of disasters, many of which are due to urban sprawl and people in places that nature reclaims as its own on a predictable basis. You’d think we’d learn.

But Calgary journalist Chris Turner writes in his uplifting book, The Geography of Hope, we do learn and its time to dream rather than despair. His book is chock full of little stories where people all over the world take the environmental challenge seriously and have come up with all manner of ways to align with Mother Earth or Gaia. They are leaders working on a small scale who believe every individual effort makes a difference and in the long run will make a big difference. They are here in Canada, in Ontario, as much as elsewhere.

History tells us that eventually, a leader positioned to influence policy to find workable solutions meets up with the little “guys”. Could this be the case right now for Arnold Schwarzenegger? He’s astute enough to understand the power of timing: act while “the iron is hot” so to speak.

Long ago, Arnie claimed that the environment was not about the left or the right on the political spectrum. “What works” is more his mantra. Under his leadership, California has instituted advanced policies and programs to assist in stemming the tide of global warming such as those related to carbon emissions. Now he’s faced with another facet: people who are in harm’s way because of not balancing the natural habitat with development.

This is a battle faced in all developed and developing areas of the world every day. The direction that results depends on leadership, for better or worse. Smart local leaders attuned to what’s right not what’s left or right combined with wise and courageous regional leaders are a powerful force.

Because Governor Schwarzenegger is highly goal-oriented and experienced in achieving what the majority think is impossible, I’m betting that he will astonish us with actions that clearly put public safety first. That will mean collaborating with the different factions to protect the natural habitat where it makes sense to do so and make it easy and desirable for developers to build communities that reduce people’s vulnerability.

As Turner says, inventors, investors, visionaries, pioneers and capitalists in all parts of the world are the pace-setters in a sustainability movement that is far ahead of policy. It would be very satisfying to see California under Arnie’s leadership narrowing the gap between policy and pace. It would be an admirable and significant contribution to the nascent sustainability age.

When You're in a Leadership "Swamp", Rally Your Fourth Order of Consciousness

Malcolm Gladwell author of Blink and The Tipping Point rightly contends that workforces 20 to 30 years from now will have to be cognitively smarter to meet the challenges of complexity. He uses the term “thoughtful”. Ronald Heifetz at Harvard prefers the term “fourth consciousness” particularly for those who lead. MIT’s Peter Senge and others in the leadership development business have championed this for decades under the names, “systems thinking” and “learning organizations”.

Since “swamp” issues now predominate the leadership agenda, that is, ones with no quick technical fixes, leaders being able to connect the dots in their respective complex systems will find the way to success. Call it better “seeing”.

To put this into more concrete form, consider the education “system”. A recent report from The McKinsey Group (Consistently High Performance Lessons from the World’s Top-Performing Systems) provides insight into strengthening any system. The following is the top line:

Focus on a small number of critical, ambitious goals
Invest in quality teachers,
Be transparent in sharing and tracking the results
Intervene early when performance is stagnant
Avoid major distractions (from the priorities)

These lessons, which one could argue persuasively are universal for any complex system, were drawn from the efforts of the leaders, researchers and individual contributors in places such as Finland, Singapore, Alberta, Ontario, South Korea and Hong Kong.

At first glance, it looks like good planning and execution. But, in reality, this is at a level of complexity that is not easy for leaders to grasp, see, untangle and shape into a workable road map. As Heifetz asserts, leaders must be able to work skillfully between being “on the balcony” and the “dance floor”, deftly avoiding unexamined assumptions and the blindness of conventional wisdom. Sherlock Holmes used to say, “if a clue does not fit the theory, throw away the theory, not the fact.” Considerable detective work separates the “wheat from the chaff”.

In a constellation of multiple, ever-shifting interdependent ecosystems, the leverage points (patterns amongst the chaos) are not obvious. Major cognitive and emotional effort by leaders with their workforces is necessary to “see” how all the dots are connected. It’s less about power, persuasion and personality than the capacity to deal with the unknown, the “swampy” issues that create havoc with what’s known.

To govern and lead in today’s and tomorrow’s “vast net of relationships”, Heifetz invites leaders to “get out of their minds” into a fourth dimension: “thinking about their own thinking”.