Deficit of Leadership?

David Gergen argues in U.S. News and World Report that we have a national deficit of leadership. He focuses almost exclusively on political leaders, yet claims the scope of the problem is national. A link to the article is below. Mr. Gergen makes some bold statements, including:

"It was nearly four decades ago that John Gardner first observed that at the founding, with a population of 3 million, the republic spawned a dozen world-class leaders—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, and Hamilton among them—but today, with a population nearly 100 times that, we struggle to produce even one or two."

That's a fairly subjective statement. What does it mean to be "world-class?" What does one have to accomplish to meet that standard? If it requires the founding of a nation, then it's no wonder we've had so few.

Mr. Gergen also points out that "the blogosphere and 24-hour news channels that feature extreme voices and manufacture artificial controversies" provide a greater challenge to leaders today than in the past. He reminisces about the good old days when everyone was civil and the tone was positive. These would also be the days when leadership was uni-directional and ordinary folks had very limited chances to question authority. The internet has provided a chance for followers to influence leaders - and thus become leaders themselves in the process. Cable news networks can provide a lot of negativity, but can also provide more public accountability to leaders, which there was less of in the good old days. Perhaps we'd consider more leaders today world-class if we knew as little about them as citizens knew about their leaders before cable and the internet.

So - Mr. Gergen - perhaps we've seen a deficit in traditional, top-down, positional leadership. But, perhaps we've also seen a rise in innovative, bottom-up, influential grassroots leadership. I don't have any empirical evidence to support this, but my sense is that while national leaders might be failing, local folks who work through nonprofits, activist groups, and civic organizations may be leading more strongly than ever. Where you see a deficit, I think I see a shift.

Here is Mr. Gergen's article.

Vanity and Leadership

I’ve read some columns and listened to political pundits over the weekend discuss at length whether or not President Obama is narcissistic and if that’s negatively affecting his impact as a leader. Conservative columnist George Will discussed this issue in the context of Obama’s (and the first lady’s) speeches to the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen. In his column, Will remarks that: “In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns ‘I’ or ‘me’ 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences was sufficient to convey the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago's case compelling.” A rebuttal to Will's column is here.


President Obama’s self-confidence (described as vain, narcissistic, egotistical, arrogant) has come up repeatedly as a criticism since he took office. One of his opponents in the election, Sarah Palin, also faced similar criticism, being labeled as a “diva” by even those on her own side. She has even been accused of having a narcissistic personality disorder.

Narcissism is mostly used in the negative – as a way to describe someone who is obnoxiously self-centered. Although, if kept in check, it can be seen as a positive. Emily Yoffe, in a column on Slate.com recently wrote about narcissism and noted that it “is used to describe a quality that comes in three gradations: a characteristic that in the right amount is a normal component of healthy ego; a troublesome trait when there is too much; and a pathological state when it overwhelms a personality.”

I don’t know if the commentary about Obama or Palin is fair. It’s hard to really know anyone in this world of soundbites, instant reaction, and attack-style politics. I also don’t think they’re very different from their colleagues on capital hill. Most politicians echo, through their actions, the famous words of NFL star Chad Ochocinco: “I love me some me!”

However, it got me wondering about the vanity and its role in leadership. (By the way, I tend to use the words vanity, ego, and narcissism interchangeably, although I’m sure there are some subtle differences in those concepts).

Do leaders tend to have large egos? Probably. It takes a lot of self-confidence to step forward and assume the risks of leadership.

Does a leader have to have a large ego? No. One way to examine is something is necessary or significant as a leadership quality is to also understand the opposite trait. The opposite of vanity is humility. Some of the finest leaders, those that Jim Collins refers to as “Level 5” leaders in Good to Great, are exceptionally humble.

If you had two leaders, one of them vain, and the other humble, who has the greater chance for success? It depends on a myriad of other factors of course, but I tend to believe that the vain leader would have a greater impact immediately, whereas the humble leader would have an impact that lasts longer. Both kinds of leaders can be respected, but I wonder if the legacy of a humble leader becomes stronger by the sheer fact that we just like them more.

Should leaders nurture their ego? Perhaps - if it helps them exert influence in a positive way for the betterment of the organization. Pete Hall wrote a nice article for Education World on this topic. He states “Simply put, since we acknowledge that leaders who are charismatic and self-confident (the politically-correct term for possessing a strong ego) are likely to be effective in their leadership, then we ought to cultivate those traits.”

Should leaders keep their egos in check? Definitely. As a society, we value strength and confidence in our leaders. However, we despise unnecessary arrogance or self-grandeur – especially in our elected public servants.

Thus, in summary, I think all leaders exist on a continuum of vanity and ego. Those who stay in the middle of the continuum, or more towards the less extreme end, tend to get rewarded. Those who drift farther towards the vain or narcissistic end tend to get ridiculed and criticized.

That’s enough rambling on the subject. I’d love to have your thoughts.

Breaking Decorum

The internet and media have been buzzing with outrage about U.S. Representative Joe Wilson's outburst at President Obama's speech last night.

For instance, Rochelle Riley of the Detroit Free Press: "Joe Wilson didn’t insult the president. He insulted America. And every one of us deserves an apology, too."

First of all, count me among those who are surprised that breaking decorum in the halls of congress is such a hot-button issue. But, I'm aware of the ultra-political environment we're in and Mr. Wilson is going to get plenty of flack for what he did.

This got me thinking about the whole idea of "decorum." Decorum is the norm, the standard, the way things are supposed to be. It's one of those things that society determines collectively, based on past traditions and well-regarded practices. Most of the time, decorum is linked with things that are polite or civil.

This is all well and good, and I welcome decorum in my life. Although I must admit that I resist the term, since it makes me think boring, stuffy, and ordinary (imagine the town elders from Footloose). Mr. Wilson's outburst certainly broke decorum, as defined above. My read is that his emotions truly did get the best of him. I find it hard to despise someone like that, especially if they recognize it and apologize for it - which he did.

This post isn't about Joe Wilson. His act just got me thinking more broadly about decorum and leadership.

The leadership question is, when and how often should we break decorum? In other words, when is it appropriate to challenge the status quo, break away from convention, and go with our gut instincts about what's right?

I wonder if our regard for decorum sets us up for groupthink or the avoidance of conflict. We push against those who break decorum with our sighs, nasty looks, rolled eyes, and laughter. We isolate them, talk about them behind their backs, and give them few chances to respect decorum again. Why do we gasp when someone breaks decorum? What are we afraid of?

Many of our most treasured heroes became that way because they found the right time to break decorum. In your practice of leadership, when was the last time you did?

Those organizations that struggle might be bound too much by decorum. It can inhibit creativity. People may be more willing to hide emotions and opinions in such an environment. Maybe we're just too polite with each other.

I'm probably making too much out of this, but I just can't help it sometimes. I appreciate decorum, and it serves us well. I just wonder if more often than we realize, a well-intentioned person who breaks decorum, serves us better.

Small Wins and Health Care Reform

Karl Weick, author of "Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems," an article that appeared in the January 1984 edition of American Psychologist, wrote:

"The massive scale on which social problems are conceived often precludes innovative action because the limits of bounded rationality are exceeded...People often define social problems in ways that overwhelm their ability to do anything about them."

In order to solve social problems, Weick argues that we define them as a series of smaller problems that can then be affected by small wins. He refers to small wins as a "series of concrete, complete outcomes of moderate importance [that] build a pattern that attracts allies and deters opponents."

Whenever I teach leadership to college students, especially those in fraternities or sororities, I introduce Weick's concepts and they are almost universally accepted. It makes sense to take a huge problem and break it down into manageable chunks.

And now, our nation is having a fevered debate on reforming health care and health insurance. Can Weick's ideas apply? From my view, they explain everything.

The President and congressional Democrats have been struggling in recent weeks, largely because the solution that has been proposed shows up as a 1000-page bill that tries to do everything at once. The problem is daunting, and the proposed solution has become equally so. If people cannot get a firm grasp of the problem and an even firmer grasp of the proposed solutions, they are much less likely to support the leader's proposals.

I am not a health-care expert, or a politician, but I wonder if the reform measures that are being lumped all together in once giant piece of legislation had instead been approached one step at a time, would this debate be different? What if congress first passed tort reform, then lifted the ban that disallows individuals from buying insurance out-of-state, then develop nonprofit co-0ps that strive to provide a low-cost alternative, and so on. Each step along the way, the effects on cost and coverage are evaluated. We can then see the plans work in pieces (or not work) and subsequently make better, more informed, decisions.

Perhaps health care reform is the latest example of what can happen when we ignore the power of small wins.

Football Coaches, Politics, and Leadership

Here is an interesting article on football coaches and their political leanings. I paid particular attention to this quote:

"Others point out that Republicans tend to revere strong, singular executive leaders—a pretty good description of a coach."

It's interesting because I think many Republicans do like singular leadership, but the nature of conservatism also tends to make Republicans distrust those in power. I think a greater examination of political ideology and leadership views is called for (I'll get to work on that). In the meantime, enjoy the article.

A Tribute to Everyday Leadership

This feature was produced for the Major League Baseball All-Star game, and was shown along with a ceremony honoring "everyday heroes." Stories of these kinds never get old. The piece is also compelling because it features 5 living presidents. As an advocate for the nonprofit sector, I also admire how the heroes all seem to be connected to a nonprofit organization. Enjoy...

Running on Smile Power

I found this interesting news piece about a man running for public leadership office in Japan. In the old style vs. substance debate, this guy's going purely for style! In a distraction-filled world, it seems that finding a way to stand out is the best strategy.

Time Magazine: Charisma and Leadership

Time magazine recently included an article about the role of charisma in leadership. Michael Elliot is the author. What do you think? Is charisma necessary, helpful, not necessary, or possibly problematic? Here is the article.