Confident Conciliator

I started out with the intention of researching and writing a column about Obama’s failed leadership.  As you would imagine, an Internet search on Obama’s approval rating turned up all kinds of conflicting numbers.  But there is no question that the trends are decidedly down – in the low 40’s to high 30’s.  Because the real test of leadership is followership.  And when approximately 60% of the responders aren’t following, that’s bad performance.

Because his leadership ratings are so low I did another Internet search when I found this.  “Sarah Moore and Angela Rodgers, students at the College of Saint Benedict in St. Joseph, Minn., did a research project on “The Personality Profile of President Barack Obama: Leadership Implications.  The profile revealed that Barack Obama is ambitious and confident; modestly dominant and self-asserting; accommodating, cooperative, and agreeable; somewhat outgoing and congenial; and relatively conscientious.

So I decided to try to figure out why a man with these attributes would be failing so badly in the voter’s minds.  First, I realize that some of any presidents’ difficulty with image is that he (someday she) becomes a giant blank screen for everyone’s projections.  By that I mean we see what we believe, not the other way around.  I honestly didn’t know what I would find, so I was not looking to confirm my biases.  In fact, I’m not sure what my bias is, given President’s ostensible performance in the last few weeks.  But then again, I project as much as anyone else, so my bias is no more accurate than yours.

But back to the study.  The summary suggests a leadership personality composite called  a “confident conciliator.”  Here’s where it gets interesting:  For those of you who are convinced that I’m a socialist and a hater of capitalism, take a deep breath and count to ten.  Then continue reading. 

Believe it or not, I once studied, taught, wrote about and coached corporate leaders on the topic of leadership.  Heck! I was one at various times in my business career.  Among the many theories of leadership that I studied, one in particular stands out in this context.  It’s called “Situational Leadership”.  In this theory, the most effective leadership style must be appropriate for the circumstances and the people.  But this brings more two dimensions into focus:  The circumstances and the people.  You see, leadership is really a process of interaction between the leader, the situation and the people involved in it.  And it seems to me that the American voter wants a different kind of leader.  Now I chose the word, “wants” carefully.  I didn’t say “needs” for a particular reason.  Many times, the people being led don’t know what they need.  They just know what they want.  And any real business leader knows that I’m speaking the truth.  You know that if you gave the people everything they want, you’d go out of business.  You have to figure out what they need, what the circumstances will allow and in President Bush’s words, “be the decider”.  And in the current circumstances in our country, a “confident conciliator” leadership style certainly doesn’t seem to be effective. 

In times like these, the most effective style is called “Directive Manager”.  This manager manages by hands-on, direct intervention.  Now comes the confusing part.  Managing is not leading:  Managers do things right.  Leaders do the right things.  Leaders know what is needed.  In spite of the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”, (in the moment) leaders hold their course.

A directive manager of a fire brigade may get the escape ladder up first.  But it may be the wrong building.  And he certainly won’t prevent any future fires.  Our future depends on getting and keeping leaders in our government.  And it’s up to the voters to determine who starts the fires and rushes in to manage them and who the leaders are.  I hope this little treatise helps.

Robert DeFilippis