My apologies if there has been too much politics lately, but you have to admit it’s difficult to avoid when so much of it is tied to “leadership” issues.

Or the lack thereof.

I rarely read op-ed pieces, but the title caught my, Awful, Awfuler, Awfulest; wouldn’t you click on that?

The author, Gail Collins, had written an article debating which state had the worst “leaders” running for election and chose Nevada as the winner.

Immediately, there were outcries from voters who believed their state had been unfairly overlooked on the dreadfulness meter.

Maine has a candidate for governor whose wife and kids live in their “primary residence” in Florida (the the other house is in Maine); Missouri has honors as the state with the least variety, 26 different candidates since 1980 from just two families; Florida has the dubious honor of a gubernatorial candidate whose company was fined $1.7 billion for fraudulent Medicare billing.

She says that in Net York’s race one candidate seems to tie every issue to his opponent’s sex life, while the main opponent doesn’t talk at all and a minor one is a self-proclaimed madam.

Nevada still won and you’ll have to click the link to learn why. (Hint: One of the candidates claims that Dearborn, Mich., and Frankford, Texas (a ghost town) are governed under Sharia, which is Islamic law.)  And take a moment to read some of the 229 comments for more hilarious examples and observations.

Why do we continue to accept acts from those in public service that we would condemn in other circumstances?

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/avlxyz/1807572441/

Because of where I live I have the dubious pleasure of being inundated by both Washington (my state) and Oregon (across the river) political ads. So I went looking for comments that might add some intelligence to the standard political garbage in which we’re all drowning.

Let’s start with some commentary from across the pond.

For the cynics among us, George Bernard Shaw offers an excellent definition of democracy, “Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.”

And a bit of levity from Jessica Mitford, “Things on the whole are much faster in America; people don’t ‘stand for election’, they ‘run for office.'”

Of course they run, since, as H. L. Mencken said, “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

Politicians have been known to lie—frequently, so that’s nothing new. It probably dates back as far as politics and is part of the human condition; as Otto von Bismark said, “People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.”

While that is true, Cal Thomas’ words offer a viable explanation of why they lie, “One of the reasons people hate politics is that truth is rarely a politician’s objective. Election and power are.”

Have you ever wondered why modern politicians rarely, if ever, earn the sobriquet “statesman?” We probably need a new song, along the lines of ‘Where have all the statement gone, longtime passing…’ They aren’t endangered, they’re extinct. James Freeman Clarke explained why when he said, “A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.”

It’s a sad state of affairs, but the general population is just as responsible, because, as Bill Vaughan said, “A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidortez/2883940379/

Mid-term elections are coming up, so I thought I would share some something I wrote a couple of years ago.

In general, I’m not a cynical person, In fact, I’ve always said that I’d rather be a chump than a cynic, but I also believe in two old adages,

(This post generated some interesting comments.)

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The first time it’s a mistake, the second time it’s experience and the third time it’s stupidity.

I try very hard to avoid the third time.

But time and experience have taken their toll and my cynicism has increased over the years—especially in politics.

We have no leaders, let alone statesmen, just ideologues, elected by like-minded ideologues, who care only about getting reelected, bringing government money back to their constituency and making lucrative connections in the event they aren’t reelected or are caught by term limits.

In most elections I find myself going to the polls, holding my nose and voting for whomever I see as the least offensive candidate—the one I believe will do the least damage—and maybe even buy us a bit more time to find real solutions.

But I don’t hold my breath.

Solutions mean going against entrenched interests—the same interests that pony up the money needed to win the next election.

And so it goes.

Albert Einstein said, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”

Sad to say we’re at the same level that created them—if not lower.

(This post generated some interesting comments.)

Einstein also said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

Americans must be insane; we will go to the polls flip the party in charge and expect different results.

Based on the past, what we will get is a different ideology that screws up differently, not better results.

Better results would require real leaders and even a few statesmen if we were lucky, but again, I’m not holding my breath.

What do you think would really make a difference?

Image credit: Atom Smasher

People make the world go round. Love ’em or hate ’em they are the only thing that truly keeps boredom at bay. However, we’re not all fascinated by the same ones. Personally, I require more substance to fuel my interest than is usually offered by most of the glitterati and sports figures that many people follow; here are a few that I’ve enjoyed recently.

I always find salaries and those who receive them interesting and this synopsis of a Wall Street Journal article and the article itself (links in the synopsis) fill the bill. I especially chuckled when I saw that Steve Jobs would have made more holding his underwater options than he did with the restricted stock that replaced them; he also wouldn’t have gotten into a backdating bind.

Of all the articles written about Tony Hayward, my favorite was Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s guide to Hayward’s leadership skills. To wit: “deny and minimize problems; emphasize your own power and importance; make the story all about you; never apologize, and don’t even pretend to learn from your mistakes; and hang onto your job even when it’s clear you should go.” Although many executives practice one or more of these traits, the list seems a better fit for 99.9% of politicians past, present and, probably, future.

Next is an absorbing article about Alex Bogusky, the whiz of Madison Avenue—or he was. The guy responsible for Burger King’s success and Microsoft’s “I’m a PC” campaign quit. Not uncommon, but Bogusky not only left the industry and turned his considerable talents to making a kind of peaceful war on it.

Finally, the story of socialite Judith Peabody—a truly remarkable woman. Remarkable not just for the money she raised, but for her courage in the face of a disease that terrified a nation—AIDS. 30 years ago when even much of the medical profession refused to touch an AIDS patient, Judith Peabody spent hours visiting patients offering hugs and encouragement.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pedroelcarvalho/2812091311/

How can a week of discussion focused on ethics and cheating not touch on politics? Especially when it’s that time of year and media is filling the air with conversation, clamor and rants by and about those running for public office.

It’s a frustrating time for those who don’t blindly vote an ideological ticket; frustrating because most campaigning is focused on trashing the opponent as opposed to anything constructive.

I listen to people complain about the negativity when it’s aimed at their candidate, while sagely nodding at its appropriateness when coming from their side.

I listen to the rants against incumbents, but hear little about what should be done, other than ideological platitudes.

They all talk of the importance of leadership, while demonstrating none.

In a post a couple of years ago I wrote, “Sadly, the oxymoronic coupling of ‘leader’ and ‘politician’ usually is just plain moronic.”

Proof of that is showcased in an analysis of how Rod Blagojevich got elected.

How did we, the people, end up with this mess?

It can’t just be blamed on Obama or even on Bush—it’s been developing for more than seven decades.

It stems from our collective MAP and the arrogant world-view we developed after WWII; the abandonment of our melting pot roots; the entitled mindset that taught generations of Americans to covet and indulge in unsustainable lifestyles and, more recently, the replacement of thought by ideology.

How can we, the people, clean it up? How can we find more statesmen and fewer politicians?

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/quinnanya/2244832648/

Yesterday I commented on the fact that leadership is dependent on both context and culture to be effective.

In a review of The Leadership Illusion at Leading Blog Michael McKinney says,

This gets to the heart of the leadership illusion: seeing leaders and leadership in one dimension. We ignore the context. When we evaluate the causes of the success or failure of leaders, we tend to “focus predominantly on the individual (sometimes the context), but very rarely both at the same time. The need to see someone as “fabulously successful or woefully inadequate” is strong. … Leadership is not a solo performance.

The importance of context is especially timely because of the upcoming election.

Consider Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, two in a long list of business executives who will tell you that if they can lead successfully in the corporate world they can lead in government.

For the sake of this article we’ll accept their claim to successful corporate leadership.

Now comes the real question: how transferable is that success in the context of government service?

Whitman is running for the CEO slot in California, AKA governor.

When you are a corporate CEO you need a great vision and Whitman had that, but you also need a management structure that supports that vision and works to make it happen—not just a strong senior staff, but the whole management team.

What it really comes down to is support the CEO’s vision or find a new company.

But there is no such power structure available for a governor dealing with the legislature. The governor has little to no say in who is hired, they aren’t likely to leave if they don’t like the vision; they certainly can’t be laid off or fired, their reviews are only done every four years and not by the executive team.

Given that context how many corporate CEOs would succeed?

For an interesting look at a darker context read Dan Gillmor’s article in Salon.

And if you really want to get depressed take a look at this opinion piece on the “Rise of the Richies.”

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brunoagostinho/3952264896/

Anyone who knows me knows that hypocrisy and fanaticism are tied for first place on my list of things-that-I-detest.

Political, religious and business hypocrisy continue to make headlines; rarely do I find myself laughing, but this time I did.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, the undisputed king of monopolistic uncompetitive practices is boo-hooing to both US and European regulators that Google has an unfair advantage in search.

Ballmer said Microsoft believes Google Inc. has done a number of things to gain an unfair advantage in the Internet’s lucrative search advertising market. He didn’t specify the alleged misconduct.

I am not alone in considering this totally ludicrous. And it’s not what Google does or does not do, but that Ballmer has the audacity to complain in the wake of Microsoft’s own track record.

And therein lays the real problem.

The idea that if ‘they’ do it it’s unfair, immoral, or illegal, but if we do it it’s OK.

We saw it in the arguments of torture being acceptable on the detainees at Gitmo.

We see it in the political and religious leaders who preach high moral codes while practicing immorality.

We see it in business leaders who preach ethics and practice them only as long as it’s convenient.

We see it in parents who demand better education and then condemn any teacher that doesn’t give their child a good grade.

We see it in colleagues whom we complain of slacking only to do something similar ourselves.

We see it in friends who share our private information even as we share someone else’s.

To paraphrase Walt Kelly’s Pogo, “We have met the hypocrite and he is us.”

Image credit: Kain Kalju on flickr

‘Leader’ is a word that’s bandied about with reckless abandon, but it is the only word that’s available that carries a fairly universal meaning.

That said, I have several leadership links I think you’ll find interesting.

First, from American Express’ Open Forum, 10 excellent examples of real business leadership. Some refer to companies, others to people, none will take you long to read. And if the story resonates you can always google more in-depth information.

Next is a fascinating analysis from Newsweek that looks at the pros and cons of business executives as politicians. It’s a timely article considering how many are throwing their hats in the ring.

Finally, whether you consider yourself a leader, or just someone who enjoys helping others excel, you’ll find lots of good ideas at LeaderTalk where Becky Robinson has a round up of posts discussing the importance of, and ways to, develop people from some of the smartest coaches around—including me.

Have a great weekend and happy reading.

Image credit: pedroCarvalho on flickr

I love George Bernard Shaw; he was brilliant and had a rapier wit with which he skewered deserving people, ideas and situations, while supplying pithy commentary on the events of his time as well as inspirational ideas.

Some of the things he said have passed into such common usage that few people even realize they are quotes. How many times have you seen this on cards, plaques and samplers?

“You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’”

Sound familiar? It’s a favorite of mine; in fact, I have it on my office wall.

So I went looking for a few of the more esoteric Shawisms.

The first is an important heads-up for all of us, but especially anyone in a leadership role; you might even find that it accurately describes the problems you’re having.

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

Progress is something that both people and business expend great effort to do; what we often forget is that progress means things will be different.

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”

Because we progress we are all constantly changing, but too often people don’t take the time to find out who you are now; Shaw sums the problem and solution up in just a few words.

“The only man who behaves sensibly is my tailor; he takes my measurements anew every time he sees me, while all the rest go on with their old measurements and expect me to fit them”

Collaboration boosts progress; Shaw understood this and explained why it’s so important.

“If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”

Progress requires innovation, but real progress requires thinking as opposed to rephrasing previous ideas to sound new, but if Shaw was correct it accounts for the lack of progress in so many areas.

“Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.”

Those who don’t think often lean on ideology to support their agenda. The problem with ideology is that it doesn’t lend itself to seeing another’s world-view. Shaw understood how ridiculous this was.

“The frontier between hell and heaven is only the difference between two ways of looking at things.”

My last choice is one I would like to apply to all politicians and educators. Perhaps, if we did, it would significantly improve the quality of those who claim to serve. (Hmm, it probably wouldn’t hurt to apply it to everybody else, too, including yours truly.)

“We should all be obliged to appear before a board every five years and justify our existence…on pain of liquidation.”

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Today was a super cool day for me. I met my Russian business partner Nick Mikhailovsky, CEO of NTR Lab, for the first time, although we’ve worked together for a decade.

So when I started thinking about today’s quotes Russia was on my mind. And when I think of Russia I think of proverbs.

I find proverbs to be fascinating proof that no matter the color, culture or time there really is only one race on this planet—human.

The basic concepts of human action and interaction span the globe. In fact, I’ll bet that your culture has a saying that embodies the same concepts as these do.

War has been around as long as the human race as has the desire for peace, which only proves the truth of this proverb, “Eternal peace lasts only until the next war.”

Common sense underlies this proverb, “as long as the sun shines one does not ask for the moon,” but people rarely follow it.

Real Estate people are fond of saying that the there are only three things that matter, location, location, location, but I’ll bet that this proverb predates that by decades, if not longer. “Don’t buy the house, buy the neighborhood.”

It is well know that age is no guarantee of wisdom, knowledge or smarts, but “long whiskers cannot take the place of brains” is a more elegant way of saying it.

My next offering is one that has always been true, but has been proven in spades over the last couple of decades. “With lies you may go ahead in the world – but you can never go back.” Bernie Madoff has decades to think that one over.

“There is no shame in not knowing; the shame lies in not finding out.” This is one that all of us need to take to heart. We need to find out about our politicians, financial managers, corporate chieftains, religious leaders and any others we choose to trust.

Speaking of politicians, we should never forget that “when money speaks, the truth is silent” and we have condoned a culture of political silence.

There is a universal applicability and truth in this proverb, “When you meet a man, you judge him by his clothes; when you leave, you judge him by his heart.”

Maybe the reason for the universality of these thoughts is found in my final offering, “Proverbs are the people’s wisdom.”

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: Ed Yourdon on flickr