Wednesday Phil Gerbyshak over at Slacker Manager shared his application of Edward Brown’s description of the two dominant leadership models, Charismatic Leadership (often described as arousing the emotions of the populous through imagery and poetic prose) and Traditional Leadership (Often described as operations-centric and unilateral while courting consensus building) and analyzed Obama and McCain in that light.

I thought I’d add to that with a guest post from Korn/Ferry International’s Kevin Cashman and Ken Brousseau (detailed bios at end of post), in which they apply their CEO assessment, expertise and constructs to the Presidential candidates.

Note: The candidates are discussed in random order and reflects no preference by the authors.

An Expert Analysis Of Our Presidential Candidates’ Executive Leadership

Voters commonly cast their ballots based on the critical issues and policies, but what about the equally crucial assessment of a candidate’s leadership strengths and approaches?

• Who is the leader beneath the speeches, policies and ads?
• How would experts describe the unique leadership styles of Barrack Obama and John McCain if they were being assessed for a global CEO position?

Two leadership authorities from one of the world’s largest talent management firms, Korn/Ferry International, point to four critical and differentiating facets of Obama and McCain’s leadership:

• decision-making styles;
• emotional temperaments;
• learning agility; and
• power-of-voice versus power-of-connection.

Overall, Cashman and Brousseau say that

• McCain’s strengths appear to be action-orientation, adherence to principle and a fiery tenacity to achieving results, whereas

• Obama tends to demonstrate exceptional learning agility, collaboration and is calmer under pressure.

1. Decision-Making Styles – Cashman and Brousseau assert that both candidates are principled decision-makers, but differ in their propensities to quickly or analytically make decisions and hone in on single versus multiple courses of action. Korn/Ferry’s research (see this Harvard Business Review article) at  shows that those unable to lead in a “complex style” have low likelihoods of succeeding in their positions, yet once they’ve risen to a top level, it’s possible to succeed with multiple approaches.  They observe:

• McCain is a more uni-focused thinker who focuses on one key principle or goal and tenaciously holds to a particular action rather than changing positions. When not in action-mode, he shifts to a more complex style that’s both analytic and uni-focused, efficiently studying the facts, and making and sticking to what he senses is the best decision.

• Obama also operates in the complex mode, but more often uses a creative and integrative style that is analytic and more open to alternate possibilities.  Before making a judgment, he studies an extensive array of information and options, then gradually forms a strategy combining multiple objectives, actions and viewpoints.

2. Emotional Temperaments – The ability to manage the emotions of one’s self and those around them is a defining aspect of leadership at any level.

• When principles are challenged or threatened, McCain seems to be more emotive and combative to win the day. Achieving high performance works best for him in a high-octane pace where things are very active.

• Obama tends to maintain equanimity and gets introspective to sort out the best solutions to win, asking his staff to provide him with some reflective time each day.  His high performance is achieved by reflecting, synthesizing and collaborating.

3. Leadership Agility and Ability to Deal with Ambiguity -The key leadership competency in shortest supply is the ability to deal with ambiguity, according to the research of Korn/Ferry and others and supported by past Presidents who’ve described the job as “everything happening all at once.” Though we often dub political leaders who change their positions as wishy-washy, Cashman and Brousseau say that can be a sign of agility, as good leaders summon past lessons and observations to reframe thinking in first-time contexts or changing global environments. Agility – found to be much more predictive of potential and success than raw intelligence – has components related to mental, people, results and change.

• Obama demonstrates exceptional mental agility and has proclivity for dealing with change and people, but critics may question if his results agility on a large-scale have been sufficiently demonstrated.

• McCain, in contrast, shows a strong results orientation and a measure of mental agility, but his history of working amid volatility and commitment to tradition may call his agility with people and change into question.

4. Exerting Power-of-Voice or Power-of-Connection – Cashman and Brousseau say that many leaders can be understood as either heroic leaders who assert their power-of-voice or more interpersonally inclined leaders who employ power-of-connection. The key is being able to exercise the weaker, non-default area.  According to research by Zenger and Folkman, leaders who excel in people or results only, reach the 90th percentile of leadership effectiveness nine or 13 percent of the time, but those who possess both reach that level of success in two-thirds of instances.

• McCain, as someone who forcefully asserts for results, best typifies the heroic “I” type of leader, who leverages personal influence to impact results.  The downside can be too much drive and not enough relational connection.

• Obama and his collaborative approach characterize “We” leaders, who leverage collaboration, relationship and synergy to get results. In crisis situations, however, sometimes more “I” is required.

The leadership experts say Obama fits the overall archetype of a “magician” leader, someone who blends ideas and people to produce new solutions to unsolved problems.

McCain, on the other hand, is more of the traditional “warrior” leader, bringing about results through force of will or assertion with little fear of adversarial relationships or situations.

I’m no expert, but it seems to me that we’re more in need of a magician who “blends ideas to produce new solutions” than a warrior who applies “force of will.”

It seems to me that most of the “leaders” who crashed their companies on the rocks, as well as the current Administration, either are, or have a strong leaning towards, the warrior model.

I’m tired of “I” leaders proclaiming their visions, unwilling to brook any kind of disagreement.

I (we?) can only hope that the calamities we’re facing foster a stronger application of “we”—in both politics and business

About the authors:
Kevin Cashman, author of the newly expanded book Leadership from the Inside Out, founded LeaderSource, a Minneapolis-based international leadership development, executive coaching and team effectiveness consultancy that joined with Korn/Ferry International in 2006. Leadership from the Inside Out, available in second edition in September, was named the #1 best-selling business book of 2000 by CEO-READ and one of the top 20 best-selling business books of the decade.  Over the past 25+ years, Cashman and his team have coached thousands of senior executives and teams to enhance performance.

Kenneth Brousseau, Ph.D., is CEO and co-founder of Decision Dynamics LLC, a firm specializing in behavior profiling and human resource systems design. Prior to forming Decision Dynamics, he served as a management and organization professor at the University of Southern California Graduate School of Business Administration.  Dr. Brousseau specializes in behavioral assessment systems for purposes of employee selection, organizational development and career management.  He is coauthor of The Dynamic Decision Maker, and he has authored articles on career development, work system design, team development and organizational design in publications such as Harvard Business Review, the Journal of Applied Psychology and the Academy of Management Executive.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: Obama, McCain

Have you stopped to think that the “leaders” responsible for this mess are mostly Boomers and a few older Gen X?

It doesn’t surprise me, the Boomers’ parents tried to give them everything that they didn’t have and ended up with the first sex/drugs/rock&roll generation that thumbed their collective nose at “the rules” more than any previous one.

They, in turn, raised the first “entitled” generation and Gen X has increased that attitude by an order of magnitude.

In 1977 Richard Nixon said, “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,” and it seems as if the generations that revile him have taken that as their individual mantra—in spirit if not in fact.

The effort eliminate accountability and further increasing that sense of entitlement to further trash future leaders’ ethical base is in full swing. (Texas seems to be taking a leading role in both. Read this, this and this.)

Religion doesn’t seem to be the answer—I’m sure that most “leaders” of the current debacle would tell you that they have a strong faith, as would all the religious “leaders” who have lied, cheated, stolen and abused.

Education certainly doesn’t lead to a higher moral plane—the millions of people damaged by the well-educated people who wreaked havoc on the global economy certainly equals, if not exceeds, the damage done by drug dealers and other criminals.

Obviously, ignorance doesn’t cut it, either.

I don’t know the answer, but I’m pretty sure it starts in the crib and the initial responsibility belongs to the people responsible for creating that life.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Photo by Sandy Caldwell

Today is International Talk Like a Pirate Day with the goal to “unleash your inner buccaneer.”Black humor indeed, considering the financial headlines this week.

Wall Street not only unleashed its inner buccaneer, it walked the pirate talk to financially rape and pillage with nary a thought to the consequences.

That’s what 30 years of bipartisan deregulation (three Republican and two Democratic Presidents) gets you.

Not that I think regulation always works, nor that Congress crafts good regulation, since it’s heavily influenced by lobbyists, PACs, and other special interests.

But assuming that “leaders” will act in the best interests of all is way beyond stupidity.

To add to the hilarity, the folks on Capitol Hill are debating whether to allow the same financial institutions that are melting down to take over private pension funds.

Only this time the totally unregulated, shrouded-in-secrecy, completely opaque hedge funds want a piece of the action, too.

So if bailed-out AIG, Chapter 11 Lehman and the already acquired Merrlil Lynch haven’t given you nightmares this certainly should.

Maybe we should all just walk the plank and get it over with.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: slightlywinded   CC license

CandidProf is dealing with the aftermath of Ike—he’s fine, but has family in Houston; hopefully he’ll be back with us next week. (Read all of CandidProf here.)  In the meantime…Last week, CandidProf cited new rules by the Dallas School District that, essentially, eliminated accountability from the classroom—“…students who flunk tests, blow off homework and miss assignment deadlines can make up the work without penalty…”

Hilariously, an article yesterday on the dismal state of grammar and spelling said “the State Board of Education in May adopted new curriculum standards, including greater emphasis on grammar instruction in Texas schools.” I wonder how that will match up with Dallas’ no accountability standard.

The article focuses on the spelling in signs, “cheep gas, No in-and-out priviliges,” and student writing.

• “There is nothing wrong with my writing, maybe it is her that doesn’t know what she is doing.”
• “After writing numerous papers I feel I have improved existentially.”
• “He should not have taken that for granite.”

But don’t sit there and smugly assume that this is a Dallas or even a Texas problem, it’s global.

“A university lecturer in England says teachers should accept their students’ errors – Febuary instead of February or speach instead of speech. “Either we go on beating ourselves and our students up over this problem, or we simply give everyone a break,” Ken Smith wrote last month in the Times Higher Education Supplement.”

That lecturer would feel right at home in Dallas.

“Educators say these bungled words are a symptom of a deeper problem: Students aren’t learning grammar.”

Duh. Based on the writing I’ve seen both in and out of business, they haven’t been learning it for decades.

I guess this is what’s meant by a pebble turning into an avalanche.

Do you think that the Federally mandated no child left behind and associated funding cuts are improving the situation or do they inspire “just so they pass” rules similar to those from the Dallas Board?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: multiple  CC license

The terms ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’ are bandied about constantly, but nowhere more often than in politics, especially during elections.

But did you know that nearly five thousand years ago a Chinese philosopher proved that truly great leadership couldn’t exist in the political arena?

Not true, I hear many of you say.

OK, first, consider three generally acknowledged descriptions of true leadership by Lao Tse in the Tao Te Ching.

• Be gentle and you can be bold; be frugal and you can be liberal; avoid putting yourself before others and you can become a leader among men.

• The superior leader gets things done with very little motion. He imparts instruction not through many words but through a few deeds. He keeps informed about everything but interferes hardly at all. He is a catalyst, and though things would not get done well if he weren’t there, when they succeed he takes no credit. And because he takes no credit, credit never leaves him.

• As for the best leaders,the people do not notice their existence.
  The next best,
  the people honor and praise.
  The next, the people fear;
  and the next, the people hate—
  When the best leader’s work is done,
  the people say, “We did it ourselves!”
  To lead the people, walk behind them.

Now name for me just one politician who comes even close to fitting these descriptions.

Sadly, the oxymoronic coupling of ‘leader’ and ‘politician’ usually is just plain moronic.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: Patti  CC license

By 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

Last week Kristen King asked Should Religion Be Part of Your Brand? She said “I wish companies would keep their religious views to themselves…[it’s] unprofessional and it makes me angry.”

It makes me more than angry.

Kristen used Covenant Transport and a design element on their truck that says “It Is Not A Choice It Is A Child” as her example (read her post, I’m not going to repeat it all here).

One of the comments said, “To try to dictate that I should not stand up for the rights of human beings is tyrannical… Would you want to work with a practicing Murder?”

But as Kristen says, “Morality and ethics according to whom?”

Last year in Are ethical values set or fluid? I said “Universally, murder has always been considered bad, but what constitutes murder is ever changing.”

For centuries killing your wife was considered bad taste, but since she was property it wasn’t a crime; certainly killing your slave wasn’t murder in ancient times and in the pre-Civil War days it depended on where you lived and what you believed.

The Army of God thinks it’s OK to bomb abortion clinics and kill the staff, while Osama bin Laden wants to kill “infidels.”

Religion, like sex, used to be private. Now it is evangelized, advertised and promoted the same way as any other commercial product.

But commercial products don’t vilify you for not buying them.

As I said in my comment, “I am so tired of having almost every person I meet explain to me why
1. I’m a horrible person because I don’t have “the true faith” and will go to Hell.
2. The only true faith is their version and if I don’t switch I’ll go to Hell.
3. They’ll pray for me.
I find number three the most insulting, since it dismisses everything else and assumes their superiority.”

Some defend religion in business as nitch marketing, but where is the line drawn? I’ve been on the receiving end when a “Christian” business owner found out that I didn’t share his beliefs. Fortunately, the court didn’t agree that the differences were an acceptable reason for violating a contract.

There may be valid reasons to mention religion, such as Hebrew National (mentioned by one commenter), but Hebrew National doesn’t spend its money lobbying to make kosher the law of the land.

I passionately subscribe to S.G. Tallentyre’s (not Voltaire) statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” only I don’t disapprove, I just disagree.

What I disapprove of is the effort to cram it down my throat; to claim that YOUR morality, YOUR judgments, YOUR beliefs are CORRECT and should color every decision I make or become the law of the land.

What do YOU think?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: similarlee  CC license

I know, you were expecting to read about the fifth chapter in IBM’s The Enterprise of the Future (a steady Saturday feature since July 12 (be sure and download your free copy), but I’m taking a break in the name of politics.

As you all know, John McCain announced his running mate in an acknowledged effort to blunt the Democratic convention momentum (yawn). Nothing new there.

McCain chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Based on my limited knowledge of political maneuvering, her main advantages are gender, Conservative credentials, and age.

Upon reading here and there today, I got the impression that the Republicans are hoping that “Hilary women” will vote the Republican ticket because the Vice Presidential candidate has the same plumbing. Never mind that Palin stands in diametric opposition to most of Clinton’s beliefs.

At the Democratic Convention and in the media Obama was hailed as a personification of Dr. King’s Dream, but If he (an eighth cousin to Dick Cheney and an 11th cousin to G. W. Bush) does win he’ll actually be the seventh black president (after Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower)—just the first one who shows and, as Americans have proved over and over, appearance is everything.

Are we [the American people] really as shallow as we’ve made ourselves out to be?

Is our vision truly so focused on form that substance sinks into oblivion?

Yesterday CandidProf wrote about what he’s expected to do as “reasonable accommodation” for his students with disabilities.

Many of these struck me as totally UNreasonable. For example, the additional 18 hours a week for just one student is ridiculous—even more so because the work is expected to be done gratis in addition to a normal professor’s workload. No corporation could get away with that.

And CandidProf’s situation applies in the majority of universities, colleges and even high schools across the US.

I realize that in many lofty universities, such as Stanford and Harvard, there are rock star professors who teach only a few classes and spend their time and reputations acquiring grant money to fund research, which, in turn, attracts more alumni donations and an ever larger endowment fund. And although much of that research is valuable and needed, that’s not the issue here.

The issue is the choices being forced on our educators in the name of politically correct and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—but not on the educational facility.

Our educational system is continually being dumbed down in the name of “fairness,” initiatives such as “no child left behind” and laws like the ADA, with compliance tied to ever scarcer funding.

All mandated by the Powers That Be—mandated but never paid for. So the actual cost is pushed down from Federal to State to local to individuals, with, as usual, those who care, who haven’t been burned/burned out by the system, footing the bill through unpaid hours of work.

The more I read CandidProf’s posts the more depressed I become. I wonder how long he, and others like him, will choose to continue teaching, continue being put in the position of doing more and more for which they weren’t trained, aren’t paid for,  and never dreamed would be required.

What is “reasonable” when it comes to education? And how reasonable is it when that accommodation can have a ripple effect? Do you want an accountant doing your taxes who achieved professional status through a series of accommodations? How about your lawyer or doctor. Would you want your house wired by an electrician whose training was eased over because he had difficulty reading schematics?

How fair is it to the students who do all the work to achieve the same status as the disabled student who was “accommodated?”

Is it even fair to the disabled student? How fair is it to take that student’s money, tell them that they are qualified only to have the world and the law tell them that they aren’t?

Finally, before you tear into what I’ve said—

There are teachers in my family. My niece taught English and history in middle school for several years. Burned out from the constant battles with parents demanding better grades for their children and children talking about suicide as their only choice she returned to school for a MS in Library Science. As a librarian, she can focus on nurturing a love of reading. Her husband teaches college-level economics to high school honor students and runs afoul of the same problems as CandidProf.

As to myself, I have an 85db hearing loss—the typical hearing aid is designed for losses below 65 db—specifically in the consonant range of the human voice. Normal noise, coupled with today’s ultra-fast speech patterns, has eliminated my ability to do much out in the world. It has been years since I’ve attended a function and actually taken an intelligent role in the conversations; and forget podcasts and videos (unless they’re closed captioned). Even in a quiet conference (or living) room I can’t understand the back-and-forth talk between people. That’s why I switched my consulting to coaching via phone, instant messaging and email.

I can tell you first hand that it’s enormously difficult for people to modify their speech patterns and the majority don’t want the bother, which I can understand having been on their side in communicating with my mother.

What truly amazes me is that in spite of all this there are still people who want to teach.

What do you feel is “reasonable accommodation” in an educational situation? And how should it be paid for?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: star-one  CC license

Even as you read this, the very financial whizzes responsible for the subprime fiasco and global credit crisis, just the most recent on a long list of financial screw-ups, are lobbying Congress for permission to buy and manage your pension fund.

“A broad coalition of Wall Street firms, from banks and insurers to hedge funds and private equity firms, are pushing lawmakers to let them buy and manage so-called frozen corporate pension plans, which no longer accept new members but must continue to cover current ones. Of the $2.3 trillion in U.S. corporate pension fund assets, some $500 billion sits in frozen plans, including those of big companies such as IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Verizon, and Alcoa.”

In an UN-surprising move the Treasury Department approved the idea; fortunately the IRS ruled that the plan would require legislative approval (and you thought the IRS wasn’t your friend).

Hilariously, Treasury “offered a blueprint for lawmakers to allow “financially strong entities in well-regulated sectors” to acquire pension plans. Now the debate moves to Congress, which would have to change existing law.”

Knowing who those “financially strong entities” are will really increase your warm and fuzzy feelings—they include Aon Consulting, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Prudential Financial, Cerberus Capital Management, and, to raise the level from hilarious to hysterical, consider that “JPMorgan’s newest property, Bear Stearns, was among the first to lobby Congress and regulators. It started last year, just as two of its hedge funds were imploding.”

But your friends on Wall Street are drooling over all the zeros in the potential fees. “…McKinsey & Co. predicts that the assets in frozen plans will more than triple, to $1.7 trillion, by 2012. By taking over frozen plans, Wall Street firms could charge fees based on the total assets, perhaps in line with the standard 1% to 2% levied by many money managers.”

Charles Millard, the current director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp loves the plan, as does Former PBGC Director Bradley D. Belt, a GW Bush appointee and former top aid to John McCain, “who two years ago teamed up with private equity firm Reservoir Capital Group to form Palisades Capital Advisors, a pension advisory firm,” and thinks that the little guys like him should be able to play, too.

As to the thoughts of the opposition, “Critics, including some on Capitol Hill, worry that financial firms won’t always have workers’ best interests at heart…”

Ya think? Well, duh.

And be sure to see what Small Business Bomers has to say about this!

What do you think?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: microboy   CC license