"Ooops!" Sorry, Dr. King

I recall a time recently I was listening to a newscast ... One of the political analysts says, "You're right, [Anchorman], it's true that we don't really know what 'he' is really all about or know 'his' character...or even how 'he' is going to go about making all the changes 'he' has been talking about...I guess we'll just all have to wait and see... on 'Day One' ... what 'he' does...and learn who 'he' is." I am not interested in a political debate. That's not my focus. What I am interested in is how we define leadership, and how we make choices in leader selection, and the implications of that process in the real world - the intended and unintended consequences. In this Part I, I want to share some discoveries about how we make Leader Selections. In Part II, I would like to discuss the implications (consequences) of a selection process based on any/all of the 'themes' discovered. PART I: EMERGENT THEMES IN LEADER SELECTION To validate the political analyst's comments, I queried some people and asked them to describe the process by which they made their 'leader selection'. Admittedly, this is not a scientific study, but I think the feedback may be generalized for understanding the process of leader selection. At a minimum, it's a great discussion for improving our understanding and increasing our self-awareness of how we choose those who will lead us. General themes that emerged from the feedback: 1. Considering Context in Leader Selection. There is a general lack of information/understanding of 'context' when it comes to making leader selections. Everyone who is a leader is not necessarily the right choice for a particular position of leadership. Just because I can lead a group of girl scouts does not equate to an ability (or competency) for leading a Fortune 100 organization. If I excel in a leadership position in one context, it does not 'naturally' (logically or rationally) follow that I would excel in 'any' position of leadership. Context matters. Example: Recent presidential elections. If the issues relevant to the health/effectiveness of the 'system' to be governed or led are not clear; how does one make an educated choice for who should lead in that context? Feedback I received that indicates the lack of understanding of 'context' was "I know we are a nation at war. But I want peace. I think the next leader should be someone who hates war." Context matters. It serves as a guide for rational determination of who is best equipped (prepared, proven) to serve followers in a specific leadership context. 2. 'Lesser of Two Evils' Rationale in Leader Selection. When knowledge is limited - with regard to context OR character - individuals tend to select leaders based on subjective perceptions, not objective rationality. Rather than actively (pro-actively) seeking the knowledge that supports a 'wise' (and responsible) decision, individuals rely on a combination of subjective 'feeling' and perceptions in a pseudo-rational process for decision-making. Example: Feedback indicated in many cases, leader selection was based on a perceived 'lesser of two evils'; e.g. "I didn't really know about either one or 'like' either one; so I just chose the one that seemed better. It's [the Party's] fault' for not giving us better choices." 3. 'Associative Theory' in Leader Selection. What I call 'Associative Theory' really amounts to the use of Trait Theory for determining leader selection. The use of trait theory in leadership analysis means individuals determine leadership competency according to leadership 'traits' - charisma, physical appearance, speech competency, etc. This is a slippery slope fallacy of a more 'positive nature'; that is, an argument based on false premises - that one action will necessarily lead to a determined conclusion. In this case, if a leader exhibits behaviors or traits similar to another leader (famous or infamous) then the results of the selected leader should also positively equate. I call this "Guilt or Glory - by Association". Example: Traits of one candidate in recent U.S. Presidential elections were compared publicly with the glorious images of JFK and MLK; conversely, traits of the other candidate are negatively compared with negative images (this case, current administration). Because candidate #2 is like So-and-so (blue eyes, big nose, wears dark suits, jogs, has three kids, doesn't have any kids, etc.); in this case, is from the same 'ideological household', the fallacious argument suggests, "He is 'like'; therefore, he or she must be the same". 3. Choice of Charisma over Character in Leader Selection. This is the theme that concerns me the most I think. I love charismatic individuals as much as the next gal/guy. Hey! I'm charismatic (both in personality traits and religious beliefs :); however ... charisma all too often is 'blinding' - like the bright lights of Hollywood - it can hide rather than reveal the 'heart' of the matter -- or of the man or woman aspiring to lead. Charisma is a crowd-pleaser - it is also a character concealer - especially when it comes to concealing a 'lack of' character. A charismatic personality does not equate to a person of character. Examples are not necessary here. I will simply rely on our collective memory of recent (and historical) of charismatic leaders that obtained leadership position but failed (and fell) without the sustainable quality of 'character'. Remember - Charisma may get you into a position to lead - but only Character can 'keep you'. Charismatic leaders that lead by platitudes are soon enough exposed by their character and attitudes. Feel free to quote me on that. Blessings as you lead ~ and make your own Leader Selections! Angie Ross

Life is a gift. Leadership is a gift. It is only right that we act as good and faithful stewards of both gifts. I think the best way to do that ~ and to give the best each of us has to give ... is to Live and Lead In-Sp!red. Personally, I live and lead from a deeply spiritual perspective; it works for me. And I have seen the impact spiritual leadership has on transforming organizations and other people around the world. As vital as it is that we align our organizations internally with the external forces of the environment, it is equally - certainly even more! - important that we align our lives ~ our leadership ~ in the same way. So let me ask you, "What is your Life's Strategic Proposition?" Are you effective in aligning your Life & Leadership to accomplish that strategy? Leading from the 'inside out' can facilitate that alignment. Trust me on this one. I've tried it both (several, all, too many!) ways. The super great thing is that now I can 'redeem' all the mistakes, mishaps, down right miserable failures in life or leadership - right here! right now! with You! okay, i know... a little 'over the top' on the enthusiasm. But the point is - in effectively Leading others - we must first be willing to lead self; and self-leadership demands ...

a BIG FAT DOSE of that super nasty guilt inducing shame producing medicine we like to term "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY".

Yeah - anyone remember THAT one? Probably about as forgotten as those (yummy) orange baby aspirin some of us used to take (ahem...some born before say 1980?). BUT it is by far the best known cure for hubris, narcissism, unethical & immoral behavior, and just really bad decision-making in Leadership today! Anyway, I'm all about it. It's not only time - it's waaaaaay past time. Quite frankly, I am a little tired of the Image Management Leadership Model . Instead of focusing on the followers' perceptions or definitions of what leadership IS - which in effect is simply doing the market research to produce a 'product' ; i.e. what others admire and conforming to that image as a leader - how about we try something new:

FIGURE OUT WHO YOU ARE AND LEAD FROM THERE

Results:

• Your leadership will be more than the latest, greatest, New & Improved "Product" (which by the way... has a definite 'life cycle'...can't last forever - Marketing 101)
• You can sleep at night because you aren't lying there wondering if you were indeed 'everything to everyone' during the course of the day;
• You will be believable because your leadership won't appear more like a modern-day colorized version of Dr. Jekyll / Mr (or Mrs) Hyde;
• You will be able to learn ... from success AND from failure AND from others! (just so you know - that's how those who are truly 'great' got that way ;)

So there you have it. Perhaps a little too much sarcasm (sorry about that); but you get the idea (I hope). Now - go take your medicine! ;)

First BLOG! Giving up my right to remain silent :)

Well now this is exciting! First blog. Have you ever wondered how many people have created a blog and never 'blogged anything'? Okay, I haven't really 'wondered' Per Se; but I have come across quite a few blogs with, well...no blogging. But as I begin this one, I am curious about how many have started a blog, then just stopped. And why? Maybe it speaks to our 'busyness' or our short attention spans or just our down-right fickle nature. Let's face it - we're all a little A.D.D. when it comes to the distractions of 'new attractions'. Like the witty comment someone recently emailed me, "I'm not A.D.D., I'm just...'oh Look!!, a kitty!!" Exactly. Anyway, it sounds like I am already preparing for either boredom or failure - HA! No... I am just extremely - sometimes overly - okay, probably obsessively 'realistic' - and yet - I'm hopeful! :) Now that's what I call creating a balanced life through effective multi-tasking! So here I go - submitting to blog-mania - giving up my right to remain silent :) And if I am to Blog Leadership I should probably start with a little self- leadership and some accountability, right? Okay then. I commit to six months, at least one blog per week. How's that? oh look!! a kitty!!! Wish me well???