Why Sarah Palin changes everything—an Alpha leadership model
by Miki SaxonBy Wes Ball. Wes is a strategic innovation consultant and author of The Alpha Factor – a revolutionary new look at what really creates market dominance and self-sustaining success (Westlyn Publishing, 2008) and writes for Leadership turn every Tuesday. See all his posts here. Wes can be reached at www.theballgroup.com.
It doesn’t make any difference what your political views are, everyone recognizes that Sarah Palin’s nomination as candidate for VP for the Republican Party changed everything… not only at the Republican convention, but also at the DNC. There was obvious fear in both the eyes of Democratic spokespersons and the words of their primary candidate.
Why would something so simple have such a major effect? I believe it is an example of the power of the Alpha model at work. Let me explain…
We saw that John McCain was the underdog, despite the apparent closeness of the polls. Almost everyone assumed that this one was in the bag for Obama. He is smooth, well-spoken, and inspirational, even when you’re not quite sure what he is saying. His original message was one of joining together for a great purpose that made many persons who are not tattooed with a cute gray elephant on their foreheads aspire to be part of the movement to a brighter tomorrow. Obama had not even had to tell anyone how that brighter tomorrow might occur to gain that following.
John McCain, on the other hand, had never been able to quite generate the support his poll numbers seemed to indicate he had, because his stiff jawed approach and constant reminders that he was the candidate with experience rang un-inspiringly hollow. Going into this convention, the Republicans were trying hard to put on a good face, but it was obviously hard to do.
Then, magic happened. It wasn’t that she was another “Maverick.” It wasn’t that she was a “real” woman, who can shoot her moose dinner, cook it up, and still make it to work at the governor’s mansion the next morning in time to bust the tail of some nasty oil executives. It was something quite simple, and it happened when we saw her speak: she was inspirational. She was real. She, like Obama, could make people feel that they could be part of something great. She made people aspire to be part of this “maverick” movement, and that even if you are a lifelong small-town resident, you can be part of this great country — you don’t have to be an ivy-league elitist.
The best part was that she was able to tell the “my experience is better than yours” story more inspirationally than John McCain, not because she has more experience, but because she was so inspirational and aspirational. It meant something coming from her, where it just did not mean that much coming from McCain, because not that many really cared.
This is the Alpha model at work. The Alpha innovation rule is: Ego-satisfaction over-rules functional satisfaction. You can have the performance advantage and still lose to someone who is more inspirational and aspirational than you. Make people feel that they will feel good about themselves (self-satisfaction) and that others will feel good about them (personal significance), and the only factor performance has in the equation is to act as “proof” that you are telling the truth.
This campaign has suddenly become one where issues will be important. They weren’t before. Before it was who makes us feel that we want to be part of a movement. Now it’s going to come down to who can prove that their claim of that benefit is real, based upon how they are going to achieve their goals.
A couple of months ago, Obama would have won without anyone really knowing how he was going to do anything. Now he will be forced to explain it, because there is another inspirational “gun” in town who is stealing the scene.
If candidate McCain can join in the inspirational, aspirational game plan, this could now have become an unbeatable ticket. If not, it will still be a very close race with the small set of independent voters measuring who they really believe will give them the Alpha leadership they desire.
Does Sarah Palin provide you with ‘ego-satisfaction’? (Miki)
Your comments—priceless
Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL
Image credit: x_cella_chan_x CC license
September 9th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Hi Wes, I added the question because I really hope to see many of our readers respond to it.
For me, Palin offers no ego-satisfaction. But that may be because I’ve always been more interested in issues and Palin’s stance is diametrically opposed to mine. As it is to most so-called “Hillary women” (of which I’m not one:)
September 9th, 2008 at 11:27 am
As I already knew, Miki, you are not their target audience with Sarah. I doubt that they would have expected you to change your position a bit. But that’s not the point. There have been a large contingent of disenfranchised voting adults around the country who were feeling left out and uncared for. Sarah has been able to bring them into the process again.
I just received a copy of Ad Age today, and even ad agency people (typically far more liberal than the population as a whole) say that Sarah gave a whole new “brand image” and excitement to McCain.
It’s not that she brings anything new to the party or that her presence changes anything about McCain. As you note, she certainly doesn’t address hard-core Hillary women. It is purely her ability to inspire their target audience of undecided men and women who are not sold-out to the Democratic party or are elitist “coastals,” as conservatives are prone to call them.
The fun part to me is that the issues will finally become a part of this campaign, as they really need to become. Now, Obama won’t get the free ride he had before and McCain is going to have to become a more concise explainer of what he thinks will work than he has been.
I’m enjoying this campaign more than any I’ve ever seen, mostly because it proves the Alpha model so well.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Hi Wes, I think what Palin has done is take the spotlight off of McCain. People are comparing Obama (Prez) and Palin (VP) and that takes a lot of pressure off McCain.
As to my own views, I have the unhappy position of being a moderate in a world of extremists—right, left, up down.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Miki:
She has done exactly that. the important thing to understand as a leadership model is why. It’s not because she’s a woman. It’s not because she brings anything new to the party. It’s not because she does anything more than act as an inspirational aspirational voice to stand up against the inspirational, aspirational voice that Obama has brought to this campaign from the beginning.
Back during the primaries I was pointing out that Obama was the Alpha, not because he had anything tangible to bring to the campaign, but rather because he was the only one with a hopeful, inspirational message that made people aspire to be part of his “movement.” (Even though we weren’t quite sure what that movement really was.) Hillary was too busy backbiting and attacking — only angry people followed her. The Republicans were having a hard time making any of their candidates look like someone you would aspire to follow.
Corporate leaders can easily recall Lee Iacocca and his inspirational, aspirational approach that made every CEO want to be exactly like him. This approach works so much better, faster, and easier than investing in functional innovation that may or may not provide any long-term benefit to the investor.
Functional differentiation only comes into play when faced with another inspirational, aspirational voice. That’s when the investment and hard work begins.
In the corporate world, there aren’t that many inspirational, aspirational voices out there, so the job can be a lot easier than most CEOs make it.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Wes, it seems as if you’re saying that Alpha status is more form than function,more smoke and mirrors than substance. I hope I’m wrong:)
September 10th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
No, it is as real as human motivations are real. If you believe that human needs for physical and emotional satisfaction and fulfillment are all smoke and mirrors, then you will be lost in being able to influence human behavior. By understanding the basis of human behavior, you have a chance to influence it (which I think is supposed to be the motivation of marketers).
I know lots of people like to believe that humans are completely rational, but no one has ever been able to successfully demonstrate that. That is not and never has been true.
The problem for most marketers has been that they want to believe that people make rational decisions, so they try to innovate to address rational thinking. It seldom works. But those marketers and leaders who recognize the emotional element of influencing people are much more likely to be successful in their efforts.
The real question is how you use such knowledge. There are those who use this to “trick” people (the classic politician stereotype). That’s when it is imperative that another voice that also understands how to influence people comes forward to force rational comparison.
In the world of marketing, that means that more companies who recognize how to effectively influence people through their emotional needs will actually create more rational and physical satisfaction, because they will force competitors to actually create great produts that actually work AND satisfy emotional needs.
The interesting thing about the Alpha Factor research was the discovery that people would rather have their emotional needs fulfilled than have their rational, physical ones satisfied.
So, is it smoke and mirrors? Only if you hold the way we are created in disdain and wishfully suppose that humans are (or should be) completely rational. Our greatest gift is our emotionality. It makes us better, kinder, more caring, and more forgiving. Of course, that can be turned to “the dark side,” but that is a matter of choice more than “nature.”