Last night, at the Al Smith Dinner in New York, there were
the two candidates for president at what traditionally has been a chance for
such candidates to display their more humorous sides. It is a competition between which side can muster
up better joke writers. It is to be a light-hearted
evening. Both candidates last night
acted as if they had not gotten the memo as to the purpose of the gathering,
although both admitted that they had been to prior Al Smith Dinners.
One of the two
candidates, although he began his remarks in the intended spirit, devolved into
the same strident tone he exhibited in the last debate, just the night before,
between the two. The other sustained a
more jovial presentation but did push her candidacy, which was not the purpose.
The usual tenor at this event is to
be self-deprecating and to needle the other candidate with good natured quips. Last night, one candidate, in trying to be self-deprecating,
was more deprecating of his wife. The
other did make certain self-deprecating remarks, but nothing too profound. She made, for example, a reference to her
“deplorable” comment of some weeks ago, a comment she indicated was
unfortunate.
In short, he,
Donald Trump, and she, Hillary Clinton, were worth seeing, but they did not
exemplify what a “good” Al Smith Dinner is supposed to be. For that, see the Obama-McCain or the
Obama-Romney version – they were just right.
But what was more revealing last night were the opposing leadership
styles each candidate exhibited. In that,
they demonstrated clashing approaches of leadership.
The Republican
candidate provides an example of the charismatic style for those who follow him
and the Democratic candidate more of the low profile, humble appearing
style. I write “appearing” because in both
cases, one is dealing with individuals who have had celebrity status for a long
time. As such, they have had ample
opportunity to craft a style they want to portray to the public.
Therefore, one cannot be sure in
either case whether what one sees is what one will get. A person would have had to work for one of
these candidates to know how he/she is when the pressure builds. What does each fall back on when the pressure
is on? This is important because the job
they are after will have a boat load of pressure.
Let’s suppose
that what one sees is what one will get come January 20th. Based on those appearances, which is
best: a charismatic leader or a low
profile, “humble” leader? According to
Michael A. Roberto,[1]
there seems to be some disagreement between two gurus of organizational theory
and research. There are Jim Collins[2] and
Thomas J. Peters who propose somewhat opposing opinions on this score.
Collins sides
with the low profile, humble approach.
Peters does not so much favor the charismatic approach as he prefers
matching the leader and his/her dispositions to the demands of the organization
at a given time.
Roberto gives the example of Rudy
Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City (he was at the dinner last night
scowling at Clinton and her unflattering reference to him). When Giuliani took office, the city was
suffering from high crime rates and other ailments. He “righted the ship” and consequently
enjoyed high approval ratings. He was
easily reelected.
Then there was
his second term and he tried to impose more “conservative” policies – policies
that many believed were detrimental to minority populations – and his
popularity plummeted. But all that
changed with the 9/11 attacks where he took charge, was highly visible and
relatively transparent. He again upped his
approval ratings and left office on a high note.
Giuliani’s
example is good in that it demonstrates how, based on one person’s experience,
a single personality is good in certain situations and not so good in others. Apparently, Giuliani was good when things were
extremely demanding, but lacking when things were moving along more normally. As such, his tale seems to support Peters’
argument.
What is wrong with the Giuliani
example is that it reflects a very unusual set of circumstances. Most leaders will not be called upon to
handle such extreme conditions. So, the
mayor’s effectiveness seemed to spike when the city was experiencing very
difficult challenges.
On the other
hand, Collin’s argument is derived from his study about how various business enterprises
that were doing poorly to mediocrely were transformed to becoming top profit-making
entities – “good to great.” In terms of
leadership, he found that these companies were led by low profile, humble leaders. These were not companies that at the time
were facing drastic futures; they were not about to go bankrupt. So, their conditions were not so imminently
catastrophic.
These more
“normal” situations seem to relate to what Giuliani faced during most of his
second term. Yes, there were challenges,
but established, on-going processes and policies were able to meet the demands
of the day. They could stand to improve,
but that process of improvement could be more deliberate and thought out.
Although it should be pointed out
that one reason Giuliani was so successful during the 9/11 attacks is that, based
on an earlier attack on the World Trade Center, he had instituted appropriate planning
and training to meet the challenges of another attack. He personally supervised these efforts as
they were given high priority.
There is more
that goes into successful leadership than personality traits; good sense,
knowledge, temperament (which is more than just how flamboyant one is), and a host
of other traits.
I will also add that both Collins and
Peters write about leaders who implement, if needed, and sustain more
horizontal organizational structures where collaboration and delegation are featured. Both write of how important it is to have a
workforce that feels a sense of being federated among its members – these
writers might use other language to describe this, but this is part of their message.
So, the question is, in the upcoming
years, how drastic the needs will be and which of these candidates has the personality
and other traits for which the place and times are calling. I know the nation is suffering from certain
problems; I’ve written about them in this blog.
But I think you would agree that they
are not of the catastrophic type. The
nation is moving toward a more secure economy and there are no immediate
threats from any foreign enemy. Our
biggest threat is that of terrorists and any attack from them will have limited
effects. This is serious but does not
pose an existential threat.
[1] Michael A. Roberto, Transformational Leadership: How
Leaders Change Teams, Companies, and Organizations, (Chantilly, VA: The Great Courses/The Teaching Company, 2011).
[2] Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others
Don't, (New York, NY: HarperCollins
Publishers, Inc, .2001).
No comments:
Post a Comment