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!

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.

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.  

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.

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.

Heroes and Leaders?

As a society, we love to create heroes only to tear them down later.   David Petraeus illustrates this point perfectly.    We embued Petraeus with heroic qualities as great as any of our World War II stars, including Eisenhower and MacArthur. 

When our hero was shown to be all too human, he not only fell from grace but his impressive record has been blemished.

Why don't we recognize from the outset that leaders are humans, not heroes on a pedestal, and view them accordingly?

The Two Myths that Haunt Us

The Two Myths that Haunt Us   

7/8/12

Two myths seem to haunt us as we go about our daily lives.  We can argue that these myths gnaw more deeply at women than men, but that may not be the case.

What are they?  The myth of the balance life and the myth that “we can have it all” dog our life and career paths.

For years I have taught a graduate course on Women and Leadership, and these two issues come up year after year.    

The two are interrelated and perhaps a belief in one leads to a belief in the other.

Contemporary women (and men too) believe that they can have a work-life balance.   The work-life balance suggests finding a perfect formula for dividing one’s attention between work and family and other interests.   The reality is that both work and family want 100% of one’s attention or at least 2/3 of it, and to spend time on work takes away from the family and vice versa.  Women in particular are guilt stricken when work intrudes on time they want to spend with their children.  Society may be more forgiving of men who spend time at work away from the family, but contemporary men feel guilt too. 

After years of reflection and life experience, my own conclusion is that one can have serial work-life balance but not simultaneous.   What do I mean?  Maybe over the next two months, I can focus more on family, but in the busy season in my work in the fall I know that I will have to focus more on work than on family activities.

This myth is closely related to the belief that “one can have it all.”   What is all, anyway?  First of all, “all” for you may differ from “all” for me.   All at 25 differs from all at 50.   You get the picture.   Does it mean that we can have everything that we want?   Does it mean that we can achieve success in careers and success in families?    This topic can be explored at great length, but the bottom line is that “having it all,” is abstract concept which is probably impossible to achieve.  Historically, for a woman, it probably meant that one can have a career and a family.   For a man, it probably meant that he could be a success at work and a super dad. 

On some level,"having it all" is possible for both men and women but requires a lot of work and attention.  Having it all is elusive and often the conception of “all” changes as we experience life.  

I encourage women to undertake both career and family.  But, that is not the same as “having it all,” and it will exact a heavy price.  One has to be disciplined, realize that leisure time is a luxury and one will have to juggle on a daily basis.  Not everyone can handle the pressures intrinsic to the process.

I think it is time we address these two myths.  I shall tackle these topics more.  This is just my opener on this theme.