Harvard Business Publishing

I like many points made by the accomplished author, especially the point of dealing with complex issues on multiple fronts. After finishing Robert McNamara's book, "In Retrospect - The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" --- sometimes there are problems in life where solutions are beyond the immediate future. However, some of the points made seem to be a reaction to the last eight years under the Bush Administration. Granted, it wasn't a perfect administration by any means, but -- No absolutes? Avoid expressions of power? I question the wisdom and practicality of that advice.

Your first criterion is right on, not only for president but for leaders at all levels.

I've noticed that leaders have become increasingly reluctant to admit to having changed their minds in recent years. The choices they make instead are to either refuse to make a decision, or to refuse to admit that they ever held a particular viewpoint in the past despite evidence to the contrary. Apparently indecision or lying are preferable to "flip-flopping".

Certainly leaders should not be wishy-washy. But there should be no shame in making a decision, continuing to re-evaluate the decision based on new facts, and if necessary changing one's mind accordingly.

Political and business leaders need vision. I cannot emphasize that enough. Then they need to know how to communicate that vision. Then they need to lay out a very clear plan to achieve that vision. Then they need to get "buy in" from those they are leading. Currently, and quite unfortunately, most political leaders lack the necessary essentials to accomplish any of the above, particularly the vision. You see, to have vision you must have passion. If you do not have passion, you are not able to see far enough into the future to be any good to anyone as a leader. Too many of our political and business leaders have been and are, given more to personal pursuits; distracted by money and power and an over-inflated opinion of themselves. Leaders must first be servants to their passions. Things tend to fall into place after the priorities are straight.

I agree with your view. While there may be some universal truths, the remaining majority of truths move based on prevailing situations - all too varied to label at the surface and prescribe a solution.

As the truth moves, so must we.

This requires not only the redefinition of what it is to be a leader but also what it is to be the the lead. We too need to be responsible to not accept the media hype and the "disaster of the day" reporting that keeps our world in a frenzy and off the important information.

business leaders are not elected to a chief executive position by their workers. presidents, on the other hand, only get a private bathroom in the oval office by public mandate. as a side issue, american democracy requires a higher power than that of a ceo. the president, cannot fire the populace when the economy gets dicey, (perhaps a special office of The Disappeared could be established for those obstinately refusing their pink slip). presidents of the united states are expected to have a political philosophy to which they adhere. that is the basis upon which they are elected. flip flopping is not rethinking, it is pandering and flapping around whichever way the wind blows. business leaders who are not especially gifted, have no plan other than their parachute, and are apt to change their minds over issues they don't understand in the first place. the difference is one is in the books of the accountants, the other is in the history books. and, for better or worse we are all part of history.

Tami, I tend to agree with your information worries, lack of useful yardstick,relevant, criteria etc.,but fail to understand the full extend of your underlying assumptions(Begging the question:So what in reality are we reasoning about in the 'small talk' mode ?).The responses are more than feeble.
From this perspective, I see a pervasive inconsistency between what is preached and what is practiced. In any organizational form that we study, we start by reading statements of objectives
and the we look at what is happening. The President of the U.S., is selected by it's people to
serve them them well, generally speaking. Yet this never seems to happen to the maximum extend(For every major decision that was taken during the mandate,there had been an objectively better alternative. It also could be concluded that the Top Management of the Nation had been aware of them.)
It is naive to conclude that the President is stupid, by failing to achieve what was promised, since stupid people seldom, can become presidents of such important nations. So one must not ask not what the real objectives have been, but try to infer the 'true objectives',from the decisions that were made. The result is often startling, because of the simple fact that the 'true objectives had been to
maximize the 'Quality of Life of the Presidency' and it's surrounding "ESTABLISHMENT"!? From this viewpoint one can find a reasonable explanation of all the much spoken about, disputed, analyzed,etc, decisions that were made. Now, I don't
think that the 'Presidency' is wrong, but I also don't think that they are absolutely right either. My only serious objection is that they stop with themselves. If they generalized their objective to include the quality of life of all their citizens that faithfully voted for them, then they would be absolutely
right(By this I mean, efficiently to cope with "adaptive" problems and the complex issues like: the educational reform ;the health - care system; crime; poverty; sustainable resources; global warming,etc.)
In this context let me cite:"Senator Obama's New Strategy for a New Wold",Washington.D.C.,July 15,2008. He states:"As President,I will pursue a tough, smart and principal national security strategy..."This vague statement could easily be countered, by the following observation:...More than 5 years after the September 11 attacks, we have not yet responded with the 'creativity' displayed at the outset of the Cold War. Instead , we are either disparaging Cold War institutions or, at best, tinkering with them to make them play a role for which 'they were never designed.',CEO of the Aspen Institute,2007.
In order to meet the security challenges of the 21'st century, it is vital to move away from this piecemeal approach and view the tools, processes, and practices used to provide for the nation's security as a whole. It is not just the performance of the system's individual components that matters, but the relationships, interactions and interdependence between and among them, and, ultimately, how they function together." The Project on National Security Re form's " has helped to identify and shape several insights worth listing: 1) National security reform must be conducted with a deep appreciation for the context within which the national security interests are pursued.;2)Success cannot come from leadership and organization alone. Both are needed and they
must be fused into a dynamic, synergistic relationship.;3) `The system must facilitate a collaborative
approach that can draw on capabilities of any part of the government if necessary.;4)Human and
financial resources must match goals and objectives.;5)The system must focus on effective response in a wide range of present and future challenges, not just current operations.;6) Where the system
cannot find adequate capacities to draw, it must have the ability ti build these capacities.;7) The
national security system must have structures and processes that enable it to deal more effectively
with other nations and multilateral organizations.
To anyone truly interested what modern leadership qualities and criteria are necessary for evaluating tomorrow's world leaders I can recommend reading chapter 3, of the preliminary findings:
"Detailing the Problems: A Summary of PNSR Working Group Findings."-A truly great reading.
Concerning the (CPL) list of 15 Tough Questions for the Presidential Candidates, my modest opinion
is that they perfectly fit some 'Hollywood Style -Show', which is also part of the election campaign,
but must not involve too seriously such prestigious minds that represent the 'Harvard Forum'.

The criteria that you suggest the next president and other leaders should adopt is a fitting complement to Daniel Goleman's theory of social intelligence. Not only will socially intelligent leaders have to recognize their own biases, learn to celebrate differences, and avoid exerting absolute power except when absolutely necessary, but they will also have to work on several key relational components including developing rapport with colleagues, mentoring and inspiring others, articulating a vision and learning to listen and be empathetic to employees. Such requirements will be especially demanding for the political and business leaders of the world, but developing and balancing the task and relationship dynamics of an organization's people is critical for the long-term success of the group and the individuals that comprise it.

I think that these are great criteria on which to judge our world leaders. From the description of your criteria, it seems to me like you are describing a transformational leader, a term originated by Burns and elaborated on by Bass. A transformational leader provides support to his followers, encourages experimentation and innovation, shares vision therefore promoting teamwork and communication, and finally forms trust and acts as a role model. Natasha Munshi reveals that transformational leadership promotes an environment conducive to innovation. In addition, the value of diversity for creativity has been cited by Nicholas Negroponte, leader of the MIT Media lab. IBM also understands the importance of diversity in an organization and of utilizing people from different backgrounds.

~HA