Did Barack Obama visit “the dark night of his soul” in the aftermath of the Newtown Connecticut mass killing of innocent children? That the time is now to do something?
Crises can bring out the best in a leader aided by circumstances opening the way. “Moments of greatness” as Robert E. Quinn from the University of Michigan asserts come infrequently to leaders. Most of the time, leaders operate in a normal state staying within their comfort zones, allowing external forces to direct their behaviours and experiences. But, “the fundamental state of leadership (greatness) shows up when leaders don’t copy anyone”. They “draw on their own fundamental values and capabilities, operating in a frame of mind that is true to them”.
President Obama has a rare opportunity to change the destructive gun culture that sets America significantly apart from other developed nations.
Will he take up the mantle of greatness? Not for its sake but for the innocent lives that will be saved. What a legacy if he does.
Showing posts with label charismatic leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charismatic leadership. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Power and Empathy: Not Easy "Bedfellows"
Flowing water hollows out a channel which grows broader and deeper. When it flows again, it follows the path traced by itself before.
This reality about how out thoughts and habits “train” our minds structurally, explains what power can do when unleashed without the daily discipline of self-control. If power, due to a leader’s position, goes to his head, it can have grave consequences hollowing out a channel that ultimately can literally trip him (or her) up! It appears to be the case with Dominic Strauss-Kahn.
What is interesting with the commentary on Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s situation is that empathy goes down as power bewitches a person. He or she loses the ability to sense or read accurately another’s emotions and to take constructive actions as a result. The shadow side of the leader takes over weakening more and more the very skills and character qualities that enabled his rise to power.
This paradox is a real and present danger for any leader-manager anywhere in the hierarchy of an organization. It takes work to understand another, daily work. Not surprisingly, the closer a person is to the front line, the greater the empathy for another. A grounded life keeps one grounded.
Friday, July 23, 2010
How to reduce government:scare away the young folks
It's walking the fine line of being a positive leader of the federal public service, but at the same time pushing them and not being captive to them.
---Stephen Harper, CBC Radio Interview
Watch what you wish for, as the saying goes. The fine leadership line has to be the right one and one of the styles clearly unworkable for Gen X and Y is not “my way or the highway” or something mushy called “positive leadership”. They want the right kind of leadership at the right time, often characterized by “What do you think?” or “What do you know?” or “How can we get to this exciting goal?”. Come to think of it, so do baby boomers. But, they are already captive and awaiting their pensions.
The latest skirmish between Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and federal civil servants on the Stats Canada long survey (now to be made voluntary which messes up the reliability of the data) illustrates to the younger generations that only the submissive should apply to the federal government for a job. It’s a brilliant strategy by a leader who wants to downsize without having to pay the costs of letting people go. Decide what you want in advance. Pretend that you have consulted. Pay no attention to any contrary evidence. Stare down the protesters, many of whom are experts in their fields about the matter in question. Do what you want anyway. The downsizing takes care of itself quite tidily. Speeds up the numbers who can retire but haven’t. Scares off any talented folks, especially the young, who want to make a difference.
Gen X and Gen Y want to be involved in decision-making, want to feel that their opinions count and most certainly to have fun. A dictatorial culture of fear is not on their checklist as a nice place to work. Further, as a highly educated bunch, they know a thing or two about “the truth”. The evidence from research does merit serious consideration in the decision making process. Debate, dissent and “brainstorming” help steer the path to solutions that have lasting value.
All generations and cultures value authoritative leadership: being visionary and passionate about a cause, valuing teamwork and getting the job done. Few like authoritarian leadership as it muffles wonderful talent and the potential for great innovation. Stephen Harper may only have meant that his opinion matters too and that he should be "authoritative" as a leader. But, in practice, his fine line seems to be bending toward "push" than "positive".
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Message to Any Leader Anywhere: Neglect Retail Leadership at Your Peril
No bond, no trust
No trust, no credit
No credit, no progress
---Andrew Romano, (January 22, 2010). The Trouble with Barack. Newsweek.
Scott Brown brought retail leadership to Massachusetts. Despite her solid track record and capabilities, it appears that Martha Coakley did not. Legions of political scientists, pollsters and pundits know this well. So do employees everywhere who wish their managers would really connect with them at the visceral level. A few years ago, I interacted with about 400 employees engaged in a merger. My role was to help the transition, build cultural bridges, get them talking with each other to kick start relationships. At every session, the voice and presence of a president past arose to haunt us. “Dave” was most beloved by all in one of the organizations. His kind of leadership was what they valued.
“What was it about Dave that you really liked?” I asked. The answer was always the same: “He cared”.
I continued probing: “What did that look like?”
“Well”, they replied, “every morning, he walked through the office and said hello, asked us about our families and work.”
“Tell me more”, I said. I wanted to better understand how Dave ticked. Almost in unison, they recited that he was not always in meetings, as was the case now with the new leaders. Furthermore, he listened to them and took action.
I don’t think it mattered that Dave could not act on every issue, every “whim” of employees. They knew that Dave had to consider many factors. But, they gave him a fair amount of slack on “substance” because he connected with them emotionally.
Ironically, if Dave had just connected and not taken action, he would not have been revered and missed. There are limits to “retail” leadership.
The expectations are high for Scott Brown, a newly minted Republican senator. So are they for Barack Obama to take lessons from Mr. Brown. Both, however, are in the same boat. People want to see and feel progress at the every day life level. In the end, substance does matter.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Michael Ignatieff is Appealing to the Wrong Part of Our Brains
If the media reports are any indication, the “get rid of Michael Ignatieff” sounds are becoming louder within the Liberal party. Bring in Bob Rae is the refrain. Will this fix the Liberals dismal showing in the polls?
In that Bob Rae is more “warm and cuddly” than Michael Ignatieff, this might work. Our brains prefer such warmth. But the cost to the Liberal party could be worse. Changing leadership three times in as many years does not sit well with the electorate (“Do these guys know what they are doing?”).
A better strategy would be to work on Ignatieff’s emotional messaging before giving up the ship. He’s not tugging at our hearts enough. That stern look and holding the government accountable for a report card don’t appeal to issues that are at the heart of our evolution like survival, the care of our children and extended families and the well-being of our local communities.
Too much reason from Michael Ignatieff, not enough emotion. He’s little different from Stephen Harper who, in fact, is warming up his image and delivery and distancing himself further from the opposition. We now have a strong image of Harper “letting his hair down” playing a Beatles song on the piano with some decent singing. The Liberals have been outmaneuvered by the Conservatives on reaching the right part of our brains first---that which appeals to our emotions.
From an evolutionary perspective, we reason with our emotions first then make choices based on facts, and figures. “Emotions provide a compass that leads us toward or away from things” as psychologist Drew Westen explains in The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.
“Feelings” according to Westen are millions of years older than “reason” or conscious thought processes. They are hard-wired into human brains across all cultures. The evolution of our species has predisposed us to being moved by leaders with whom we feel “an emotional resonance”.
There is a caveat. We can easily become turned off by “bad” governance---again an emotional action supported by evidence (or quasi-evidence). The morality of not having the electorate’s best interests in mind eventually costs a political leader. So too in any organization.
In that Bob Rae is more “warm and cuddly” than Michael Ignatieff, this might work. Our brains prefer such warmth. But the cost to the Liberal party could be worse. Changing leadership three times in as many years does not sit well with the electorate (“Do these guys know what they are doing?”).
A better strategy would be to work on Ignatieff’s emotional messaging before giving up the ship. He’s not tugging at our hearts enough. That stern look and holding the government accountable for a report card don’t appeal to issues that are at the heart of our evolution like survival, the care of our children and extended families and the well-being of our local communities.
Too much reason from Michael Ignatieff, not enough emotion. He’s little different from Stephen Harper who, in fact, is warming up his image and delivery and distancing himself further from the opposition. We now have a strong image of Harper “letting his hair down” playing a Beatles song on the piano with some decent singing. The Liberals have been outmaneuvered by the Conservatives on reaching the right part of our brains first---that which appeals to our emotions.
From an evolutionary perspective, we reason with our emotions first then make choices based on facts, and figures. “Emotions provide a compass that leads us toward or away from things” as psychologist Drew Westen explains in The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.
“Feelings” according to Westen are millions of years older than “reason” or conscious thought processes. They are hard-wired into human brains across all cultures. The evolution of our species has predisposed us to being moved by leaders with whom we feel “an emotional resonance”.
There is a caveat. We can easily become turned off by “bad” governance---again an emotional action supported by evidence (or quasi-evidence). The morality of not having the electorate’s best interests in mind eventually costs a political leader. So too in any organization.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
A Long Steady Glow from Early Beginnings: A Parent's Influence, Edward Kennedy's Leadership Legacy
Parents matter in the lifelong moral worldview of a person and the leadership philosophy thereof. In Edward Kennedy’s example, his mother was the teacher, his father the spark. Rose Kennedy, ever the torch bearer for the oppressed and the disadvantaged, inspired her youngest child and entire family with the source of great leadership: having a worthy cause.
“Teddy” Kennedy’s policy legacy is proof positive: despite tragedy and personal turmoil, over 46 years as a senator, he influenced the passing of 2,500 pieces of legislation. They included expanding health care (the “cause” of Kennedy’s life), increasing the minimum wage, revamping immigration laws and championing equal opportunity regardless of race, gender or disability.
The significance of our upbringing is a “no-brainer”. We know this. But, in the context of leadership for better or worse, it’s troublesome. Are constituents doomed or blessed depending on the early influences of their leaders? Given our storied human history to date, it appears we are. Yet, if we broaden our view from the short term, for example, in Teddy Kennedy’s case, there is a “long steady glow” which persists and is emblematic of progress. Leaders emboldened by worthy causes which benefit many not just a few do eventually have sustainable impacts.
The journey, however, is not easy, as illustrated by Teddy Kennedy. Mental resilience and toughness are necessary because causes have a cost: the journey is messy, taking unpredictable twists and turns often involving personal sacrifice and distress. One’s imperfections smack us in the face calling for “lessons learned”.
Are we up for this? Wangari Maathai, winner of the Nobel Peace prize, makes that point loud and clear in her recent book The Challenge of Africa. She sees hope amidst the poverty and desperation and the trails and tribulations. Her “Green Belt Movement” combined with the efforts of multiple other fearsome and extraordinary, ordinary leaders past and present are flicking the flywheel of positive change. Patience is required because change often spans more than any one person’s lifespan!! But, the legacy endures.
The “political mind” is a source of considerable study in the social and biological sciences. Breakthroughs in our understanding of neuropsychology show promise that we don’t have to be the prisoners of our early upbringing when faced with challenges outside our assumptions and beliefs. That is the learning opportunity for leaders.
There is one key ingredient which never goes away in the ongoing inquiry about great leadership and management: empathy. It’s a natural part of our human history. Without that in our family legacy, without empathy as a leader, it is difficult to nurture the “long steady glow” of progress.
“Teddy” Kennedy’s policy legacy is proof positive: despite tragedy and personal turmoil, over 46 years as a senator, he influenced the passing of 2,500 pieces of legislation. They included expanding health care (the “cause” of Kennedy’s life), increasing the minimum wage, revamping immigration laws and championing equal opportunity regardless of race, gender or disability.
The significance of our upbringing is a “no-brainer”. We know this. But, in the context of leadership for better or worse, it’s troublesome. Are constituents doomed or blessed depending on the early influences of their leaders? Given our storied human history to date, it appears we are. Yet, if we broaden our view from the short term, for example, in Teddy Kennedy’s case, there is a “long steady glow” which persists and is emblematic of progress. Leaders emboldened by worthy causes which benefit many not just a few do eventually have sustainable impacts.
The journey, however, is not easy, as illustrated by Teddy Kennedy. Mental resilience and toughness are necessary because causes have a cost: the journey is messy, taking unpredictable twists and turns often involving personal sacrifice and distress. One’s imperfections smack us in the face calling for “lessons learned”.
Are we up for this? Wangari Maathai, winner of the Nobel Peace prize, makes that point loud and clear in her recent book The Challenge of Africa. She sees hope amidst the poverty and desperation and the trails and tribulations. Her “Green Belt Movement” combined with the efforts of multiple other fearsome and extraordinary, ordinary leaders past and present are flicking the flywheel of positive change. Patience is required because change often spans more than any one person’s lifespan!! But, the legacy endures.
The “political mind” is a source of considerable study in the social and biological sciences. Breakthroughs in our understanding of neuropsychology show promise that we don’t have to be the prisoners of our early upbringing when faced with challenges outside our assumptions and beliefs. That is the learning opportunity for leaders.
There is one key ingredient which never goes away in the ongoing inquiry about great leadership and management: empathy. It’s a natural part of our human history. Without that in our family legacy, without empathy as a leader, it is difficult to nurture the “long steady glow” of progress.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Dion lost on emotions not substance
Our fascination with Barack Obama and Sarah Palin underscores the power of emotions in a leader’s “ratings”. That ability to connect is gate number one. Substance comes later as we ponder who will step up to the leadership challenge. Stephane Dion never had a chance as he could not open his emotional gate enough.
A story by Peter Newman in the October 22, 2008 Globe and Mail brought the mystery of Dion’s disappointing results at the polls into perspective. He recounts meeting up with Dion during the election campaign and proposing how he could win nearly every vote in the country: “Instead of Stephane, call your self Celine.” “You will win by a landslide.”
Although meant clearly as “tongue in cheek”, Dion did not react by making a witty comment or gesture. He simply looked puzzled.
Maybe he thinks too much which causes hesitation rather than spontaneity. In this instance, it is quite possible he truly did not understand because of the nuance of the joke in English. This is a problem when people want to connect first and foremost and that comes from the heart.
Based on his research on leadership, Daniel Goleman considers the emotional task of the leader as primal. “It is both the original and the most important part of leadership.” “Tribal chieftains or shamanesses earned their place in large part because their leadership was emotionally compelling.” The great French philosopher Diderot would concur as he exclaimed that “only passions, great passions can elevate the soul to great things.” Stephane Dion’s passion (which he has) could not be expressed in the right notes to be felt and heard.
This primordial emotional role cuts across cultures. The Globe Project on leadership (http://www.grovewell.com/) found three primary leadership dimensions that are universally regarded as positives in leadership:
First is “charismatic/inspirational”. The most strongly endorsed contributor to good leadership worldwide, it is linked to being positive, dynamic, encouraging, motivating and someone who is a confidence-builder.
Next is “team integrator”. It means being communicative, informed and a good coordinator.
The third top universal leadership dimension viewed around the world as desirable is “integrity”. It relates to leaders being trustworthy, just and honest.
Judging from the media accounts of Dion and certainly from the comments to the editor pages, Dion scored well on “integrity” only. He was often quoted by critics as being a “lone wolf”, ignoring or rejecting the opinions of his advisors and caucus (for example, to play down the “green shift” and to counter Stephen Harper’s negative advertisements with some of the same). Reason seems to have won the day with Mr. Dion at his peril.
At the end of the day, reason and solid evidence must prevail for effective leadership. But our humanness demands connection first through “the audacity of hope” as Barack Obama so eloquently describes in his book of the same name and through assurances and clarity when we face threats and uncertainties. That’s why Stephen Harper still has his minority and Barack Obama is poised to become the next President of the United States by a landslide.
A story by Peter Newman in the October 22, 2008 Globe and Mail brought the mystery of Dion’s disappointing results at the polls into perspective. He recounts meeting up with Dion during the election campaign and proposing how he could win nearly every vote in the country: “Instead of Stephane, call your self Celine.” “You will win by a landslide.”
Although meant clearly as “tongue in cheek”, Dion did not react by making a witty comment or gesture. He simply looked puzzled.
Maybe he thinks too much which causes hesitation rather than spontaneity. In this instance, it is quite possible he truly did not understand because of the nuance of the joke in English. This is a problem when people want to connect first and foremost and that comes from the heart.
Based on his research on leadership, Daniel Goleman considers the emotional task of the leader as primal. “It is both the original and the most important part of leadership.” “Tribal chieftains or shamanesses earned their place in large part because their leadership was emotionally compelling.” The great French philosopher Diderot would concur as he exclaimed that “only passions, great passions can elevate the soul to great things.” Stephane Dion’s passion (which he has) could not be expressed in the right notes to be felt and heard.
This primordial emotional role cuts across cultures. The Globe Project on leadership (http://www.grovewell.com/) found three primary leadership dimensions that are universally regarded as positives in leadership:
First is “charismatic/inspirational”. The most strongly endorsed contributor to good leadership worldwide, it is linked to being positive, dynamic, encouraging, motivating and someone who is a confidence-builder.
Next is “team integrator”. It means being communicative, informed and a good coordinator.
The third top universal leadership dimension viewed around the world as desirable is “integrity”. It relates to leaders being trustworthy, just and honest.
Judging from the media accounts of Dion and certainly from the comments to the editor pages, Dion scored well on “integrity” only. He was often quoted by critics as being a “lone wolf”, ignoring or rejecting the opinions of his advisors and caucus (for example, to play down the “green shift” and to counter Stephen Harper’s negative advertisements with some of the same). Reason seems to have won the day with Mr. Dion at his peril.
At the end of the day, reason and solid evidence must prevail for effective leadership. But our humanness demands connection first through “the audacity of hope” as Barack Obama so eloquently describes in his book of the same name and through assurances and clarity when we face threats and uncertainties. That’s why Stephen Harper still has his minority and Barack Obama is poised to become the next President of the United States by a landslide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
