I worry that the information most widely shared about today's U.S. presidential candidates doesn't reflect relevant criteria. For example, there has been a lot of discussion about whether or not Obama has sufficient legislative experience or McCain has adequate economic knowledge.  I'm increasingly convinced that neither is a particularly useful yardstick.

Based on my research on leadership - on the capabilities that business leaders will need over the next decade - I've concluded that what's required for business executives is quite different from the capabilities that we've focused on in the past.  I suspect the same is true for political leaders.

Future leaders in all spheres will have to contend with an environment that is complex in many dimensions - a world with finite limits, no easy answers, and the sobering realization that we are facing significant, seemingly intractable problems on multiple fronts. 

Thinking along these lines has drawn me back to the work of Ronald Heifetz, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School, who argued that a different type of leadership is required to tackle complex contemporary problems as opposed to routine problems.  The latter require expertise (e.g., knowledge and experience), while the former - what he calls "adaptive" problems, such as the complex issues of crime, poverty, and educational reform, and to which I would add sustainable resources, global warming, conflict in the Middle East and a number of others - requires both innovation and the consideration of values.

To that end, Heifetz encourages future leaders to:

• Consider how individuals' differing values influence their views and behaviors. (Remember the discussions in previous posts of how a business situation - say, an offer to relocate - might look very different to a Boomer and an X'er based on different values?  This is an example of considering values as part of your leadership approach.  Neither is "right" or "wrong" - the values are different.)
• Openly acknowledge the complexity of the issues head on, without attempting to minimize the difficulties involved.  Research has found that ignoring or oversimplifying complex challenges does not work, in large part because of the stress it places on the organization.  Leaders need to wade in and grapple with complex issues. 
• Avoid authoritative (top-down) solutions.  Instead, shift responsibility for problems from the leader to all the primary stakeholders.

Regarding the last point, in "Political Leadership," a classic article co-authored with Riley Sinder, Heifetz pointed out that we have come to accept and expect an approach to leadership in which the leader supplies all the answers.   In contrast, Heifetz and Sinder call for a future form of leadership that provides a context in which all interested parties, the leader included, can together create a vision, mission, or purpose they can collectively uphold.

Leaders able to guide organizations through the complex conditions of this decade will have to become adept at:

• Rejecting absolutes - getting comfortable with the idea that there is no final "right" analysis of events that tops all other analyses, no single rationality, no single morality
• Avoiding expressions of power or dominance - eliminating the language and metaphors of combat and practices that are designed to reinforce the hegemony of one group over others
• Celebrating differences - acknowledging both that there is no reason to grant anyone special significance or value and that the existence of differences are vital to arriving at a full appreciation of the issue and its possible outcomes
• Recognizing one's own built-in bias - acknowledging that your view and the other guy's are both ideology, rather than absolute truth, and are therefore necessarily partial and incomplete.

With that in mind, here are my criteria for evaluating tomorrow's world leaders:

• Has this individual demonstrated an ability to appreciate the validity of multiple points of view?  (Perhaps "flip flopping" should be viewed as a plus, if it represents a considered reflection of multiple perspectives?)
• Has this individual left open the eventual co-creation of a solution?  (Perhaps a pre-set policy should be a minus?)
• Does the candidate avoid authoritative statements and categorical solutions?  (Perhaps being will to listen to multiple points of view should be a plus?) 
• Does he try to simplify complex problems into crisp sound-bite solutions?  (Perhaps we should we wary of any answers that sound too easy to be true?)
• Can the candidate set the context for innovation:  strong relationships, willingness to acknowledge disruptive information (to hear "bad news"), and the ability to ask smart questions?

What do you think?  What criteria are you using to weigh the candidates?