As someone who studies leadership, I use the term great leader sparingly. There are a lot of wannabe great leaders, but few truly great leaders. Margaret Thatcher was a great leader. Her death today brings to the end the life of the first female prime minister of a major western country. I did not always agree with either her policies or her leadership style. But, she was determined and uncompromising. She was often called "the iron lady," which was both a tribute to her determination and a slur against women leaders. Men are rarely if ever called "an iron leader." Stalin cultivated the notion of being the man of steel, but few male leaders are compared to metal.
At the present time, Angela Merkel is sometimes called "the iron frau." When a woman leader is determined, she is likely to be labeled in some way that can have a double meaning.
If Hillary Clinton ever becomes president, I suspect she too will be labeled with some variant of "the iron lady."
Margaret was a path breaker. The Iron Lady, the film about her life that came out in the last couple of years did little to tell the story of the real Margaret Thatcher. It had selected flashbacks from a frail elderly lady who appeared to suffer from dementia. Some events were highlighted but the film, despite Meryl's fabulous acting, gave us a distorted view of Margaret Thatcher in power. It was a powerful film on dementia, but not a true political statement of her contributions.
Farewell, Margaret, and rest in peace.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Friday, March 15, 2013
Pope Francis and Servant Leadership
This has been an exciting week for Catholics around the world as they waited to learn who the new Pope would be.
The selection of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, a man considered by some as "too old" to become Pope, was a bold step. The new Pope is a man known for his commitment to servant leadership who has led a life full of challenges and in keeping with humility and modesty. In his life he has already demonstrated servant leadership for many years.
In less than two days, he has shown what he will do. Wearing only the white cassock, not the elaborate cape of the Pope, wearing ordinary shoes, paying his own hotel bill, and riding in a mini bus rather than in a limousine were small notes. Today for the meeting with cardinals, he asked them to wear their black cassocks, not the more elaborate red cassocks of cardinals.
These are all symbolic acts, but symbolism sometimes tells us more about a leader than do words.
A corporate CEO who tells his employees that there will be cutbacks and lives a lavish jet set life style gives a strong message. A non-profit CEO who asks for our funds and takes a huge salary himself also sends a message.
Pope Francis is sending a message that he will pursue a path of humility. At the same time, in our age, we have to remember that security needs may require him to have more isolation than he may want. Pope Francis may have to acquiesce to the limousine or popemobile for security against his own preferences. Such is the tragedy of modern life.
The selection of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, a man considered by some as "too old" to become Pope, was a bold step. The new Pope is a man known for his commitment to servant leadership who has led a life full of challenges and in keeping with humility and modesty. In his life he has already demonstrated servant leadership for many years.
In less than two days, he has shown what he will do. Wearing only the white cassock, not the elaborate cape of the Pope, wearing ordinary shoes, paying his own hotel bill, and riding in a mini bus rather than in a limousine were small notes. Today for the meeting with cardinals, he asked them to wear their black cassocks, not the more elaborate red cassocks of cardinals.
These are all symbolic acts, but symbolism sometimes tells us more about a leader than do words.
A corporate CEO who tells his employees that there will be cutbacks and lives a lavish jet set life style gives a strong message. A non-profit CEO who asks for our funds and takes a huge salary himself also sends a message.
Pope Francis is sending a message that he will pursue a path of humility. At the same time, in our age, we have to remember that security needs may require him to have more isolation than he may want. Pope Francis may have to acquiesce to the limousine or popemobile for security against his own preferences. Such is the tragedy of modern life.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Knowing when it is time....
An important point for leaders is to know when it is time to leave... Often the perks of a position make it too attractive to stay even beyond one's effectiveness.
This morning the world heard that Pope Benedict XVI plans to resign at the end of the February (18 days from now). As Cardinal Ratzinger he observed the long, slow decline of Pope John Paul II. I believe that a couple of years ago he indicated that he was open to resignation if he could not continue at full strength (I don't have the exact information).
Now he has taken a bold step: the first Pope in 600 years to resign. It is a courageous step. It is a rational step by a man who has devoted his life to careful, rational thinking. I applaud his courage...
Would that many political leaders would have similar courage!
This morning the world heard that Pope Benedict XVI plans to resign at the end of the February (18 days from now). As Cardinal Ratzinger he observed the long, slow decline of Pope John Paul II. I believe that a couple of years ago he indicated that he was open to resignation if he could not continue at full strength (I don't have the exact information).
Now he has taken a bold step: the first Pope in 600 years to resign. It is a courageous step. It is a rational step by a man who has devoted his life to careful, rational thinking. I applaud his courage...
Would that many political leaders would have similar courage!
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
The Leadership Persona: Image or Illusion?
Do you ever see someone who looks like a leader and who talks like a leader? I do. Recently I have been reflecting on what I call "the leadership persona." This can be defined as the public face of the leader. But, do we look beyond the public face?
Often what we find is that the image is only an illusion. One can cultivate leadership dignity and a careful way of speaking and thus project an image of leadership.
As I thought about some positional leaders, I wanted to probe more deeply in their persona. In some cases, there is very little below the surface. The surface has been carefully cultivated and groomed to project "perfection." It is a performance that has become part of the person's very self.
But, as one goes more deeply, one finds there is almost nothing of the deliberative, thoughtful leader below the surface. There is caution, yes, but also uncertainty rather than decisiveness.
So much attention has been placed on creating the outer leader image that there is little of substantive leadership below the surface.
As a classic movie buff, one of my favorites is Cary Grant. Grant never won an Academy Award for a single performance although he may have won some sort of lifetime achievement award. But, he deserved an Academy Award for his greatest performance, that of the creation of Cary Grant. Grant focused very much on creating that public persona. Sometimes when filming he would respond to a request thus: Cary Grant would not do that. Grant had a firm image of the persona he had created and how that persona would react and behave.
So too does the illusory leader. That individual knows how he or she should respond as a leader and follows that formula.
As we examine leadership we should become aware of what is illusion and what is real leadership.
Often what we find is that the image is only an illusion. One can cultivate leadership dignity and a careful way of speaking and thus project an image of leadership.
As I thought about some positional leaders, I wanted to probe more deeply in their persona. In some cases, there is very little below the surface. The surface has been carefully cultivated and groomed to project "perfection." It is a performance that has become part of the person's very self.
But, as one goes more deeply, one finds there is almost nothing of the deliberative, thoughtful leader below the surface. There is caution, yes, but also uncertainty rather than decisiveness.
So much attention has been placed on creating the outer leader image that there is little of substantive leadership below the surface.
As a classic movie buff, one of my favorites is Cary Grant. Grant never won an Academy Award for a single performance although he may have won some sort of lifetime achievement award. But, he deserved an Academy Award for his greatest performance, that of the creation of Cary Grant. Grant focused very much on creating that public persona. Sometimes when filming he would respond to a request thus: Cary Grant would not do that. Grant had a firm image of the persona he had created and how that persona would react and behave.
So too does the illusory leader. That individual knows how he or she should respond as a leader and follows that formula.
As we examine leadership we should become aware of what is illusion and what is real leadership.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Role of the Secretary of State: Leadership or Execution
Today, February 1, 2013, is Secretary Hillary Clinton's last day as Secretary of State. The debate on her impact is puzzling. The crux of the matter is whether she has a "great achievement" and whether she will have a lasting impact.
When is the last time that a Secretary of State operated independently of the President? The Secretary of State implements foreign policy designed by an administration. Clinton has done this with grace and great energy.
I don't recall a similar debate about other recent Secretaries of State.
Are our expectations higher for HRC as a leader than for others? Are we in fact measuring whether she is ready to be the presidential candidate in 2016?
I do not recall a similar discussion about Powell, Rice, Albright, or other recent Secretaries. Even with some of the giants like Kissinger and Dulles, we have reason to believe that they were skillful in executing the policies of their respective presidents, most if not all of the time.
The Secretary of State is a leader in terms of leading the public dialogue and heading the Department of State. The Secretary of State is not an independent foreign policy initiator.
When is the last time that a Secretary of State operated independently of the President? The Secretary of State implements foreign policy designed by an administration. Clinton has done this with grace and great energy.
I don't recall a similar debate about other recent Secretaries of State.
Are our expectations higher for HRC as a leader than for others? Are we in fact measuring whether she is ready to be the presidential candidate in 2016?
I do not recall a similar discussion about Powell, Rice, Albright, or other recent Secretaries. Even with some of the giants like Kissinger and Dulles, we have reason to believe that they were skillful in executing the policies of their respective presidents, most if not all of the time.
The Secretary of State is a leader in terms of leading the public dialogue and heading the Department of State. The Secretary of State is not an independent foreign policy initiator.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Are we up to the challenge?
Like most Americans, I have been shocked and devastated by the tragedy in Newtown. Who can ever forget the death of 20 innocent children at the hands of an unbalanced young person?
As I listen to the discussion these senseless deaths have engendered, I am appalled at the suggestion that the solution to gun violence is more guns. America already has an unhealthy obsession with guns. With 5% of the population of the globe, we have about 50% of the guns in private hands. There are more guns in the US in private hands than in the Russian army. Does this make sense?
I believe in the second Amendment whose purpose was to prevent oppression by another unjust government, such as the one that the colonists had experienced.
That does not mean that assault weapons should be in private hands. I remember when I was young and TV was young, there was already dismay at the violence on TV and its possible effects on children. The violence then was tame compared to the violence now in computer games, films, and TV.
It is time for us to pause and reflect on what we are doing. Is this a nation bent on suicide? Is this a nation bent on self-dsstruction? No one needs an assault weapon.
We need to have more than a conversation, the euphemism one hears again and again on television news. We need to take leadership in solving a problem.
In this season of healing and peace, let us take a giant step forward as a nation and show leadership in facing our own problems and solving them so that there are no more Newtown tragedies in your town and my town.
As I listen to the discussion these senseless deaths have engendered, I am appalled at the suggestion that the solution to gun violence is more guns. America already has an unhealthy obsession with guns. With 5% of the population of the globe, we have about 50% of the guns in private hands. There are more guns in the US in private hands than in the Russian army. Does this make sense?
I believe in the second Amendment whose purpose was to prevent oppression by another unjust government, such as the one that the colonists had experienced.
That does not mean that assault weapons should be in private hands. I remember when I was young and TV was young, there was already dismay at the violence on TV and its possible effects on children. The violence then was tame compared to the violence now in computer games, films, and TV.
It is time for us to pause and reflect on what we are doing. Is this a nation bent on suicide? Is this a nation bent on self-dsstruction? No one needs an assault weapon.
We need to have more than a conversation, the euphemism one hears again and again on television news. We need to take leadership in solving a problem.
In this season of healing and peace, let us take a giant step forward as a nation and show leadership in facing our own problems and solving them so that there are no more Newtown tragedies in your town and my town.
Monday, December 10, 2012
The Fiscal Cliff and Leadership
If the nation goes off the fiscal cliff, it is unclear what the economic impact will be. Some think it will adversely affect the stock market, whereas others think it will slow down US growth. But, the more obvious impact will be political. The failure to resolve issues relating to the fiscal cliff are a potent example of the failure of leadership.
On Sunday December 9, former Secretary of State and Presidential Chief of State, James Baker, presented a rational way to approach the fiscal cliff. I thought to myself: why isn't he at the table, mediating between Congress and the presidential administration?
Baker presented careful, thoughtful approaches to resolving the fiscal cliff. Who is listening?
It is clear that the US needs to cut its addiction to spending and needs to raise more revenue. No matter how it is carved up, we shall all be asked to contribute in some way either through increased taxes or lower deductions.
The gamesmanship of not wanting to raise taxes is symbolic on both sides. Everyone involved knows more revenue has to gathered, and we have to reduce spending in some significant areas.
Everyone wants to appear as a fiscal conservative but has there been a true fiscal conservative in decades? Even some of the most famous supposed conservatives in fact spend liberally for their own districts or their own states.
Pledges not to raise taxes are a kind of blackmail to hold over the head of Congress. They are meaningless and should be abandoned.
A realistic approach to the fiscal cliff is necessary. Congress and the administration have only a few weeks to wake up, or we all pay more taxes without any decisions being made. That is the easy path. Then Congress can blame the President, and the President can blame Congress. That will be a failure of leadership and an invocation of "blame" as a substitute for rational decision-making.
On Sunday December 9, former Secretary of State and Presidential Chief of State, James Baker, presented a rational way to approach the fiscal cliff. I thought to myself: why isn't he at the table, mediating between Congress and the presidential administration?
Baker presented careful, thoughtful approaches to resolving the fiscal cliff. Who is listening?
It is clear that the US needs to cut its addiction to spending and needs to raise more revenue. No matter how it is carved up, we shall all be asked to contribute in some way either through increased taxes or lower deductions.
The gamesmanship of not wanting to raise taxes is symbolic on both sides. Everyone involved knows more revenue has to gathered, and we have to reduce spending in some significant areas.
Everyone wants to appear as a fiscal conservative but has there been a true fiscal conservative in decades? Even some of the most famous supposed conservatives in fact spend liberally for their own districts or their own states.
Pledges not to raise taxes are a kind of blackmail to hold over the head of Congress. They are meaningless and should be abandoned.
A realistic approach to the fiscal cliff is necessary. Congress and the administration have only a few weeks to wake up, or we all pay more taxes without any decisions being made. That is the easy path. Then Congress can blame the President, and the President can blame Congress. That will be a failure of leadership and an invocation of "blame" as a substitute for rational decision-making.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)