"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