On Defining Leadership
Each time the nation goes about picking a new President, there is considerable talk about leadership. Leadership clearly is a critical attribute of a successful politician, but leadership also may be the most difficult to define. One way is to think of past leaders and see how their leadership manifested itself.
In Franklin D. Roosevelt there was a jauntiness, symbolized by F.D.R.’s big grin and upthrust cigarette and holder. Think of Winston Churchill and one sees a tough British bulldog snarling at his foes. The image of Harry S. Truman could be that of the dogged World War I doughboy slogging from one trench to the next. John F. Kennedy was the suave yachtsman, adjusting sails to take the greatest advantage of the wind. Ronald Reagan is the man at the microphone, reducing complex government ideas to simplistics.
All these were very personal qualities associated uniquely with each individual. What worked as a leadership quality in one would not necessarily work for the other. Nor does this historic trivia game help much in establishing leadership criteria for future presidential candidates. Leadership is a little like art: You know it when you see it.
As an example of the difficulty, a nonprofit foundation called Independent Sector has published the sixth in a series of papers on leadership. The author is John W. Gardner, former secretary of health, education and welfare, former president of Carnegie Corp. and co-founder of Independent Sector. Gardner lists 14 separate attributes of leadership and invites the reader to add his own. Further, Gardner says that it is important not to think rigidly or mechanically about the attributes of leaders because they “depend upon the kind of leadership being exercised, the context, the nature of followers and so on.”
In capsule version, here is Gardner’s list:
1. Physical vitality and stamina. 2. Intelligence and judgment-in-action. 3. Willingness and eagerness to accept responsibility. 4. Knowledge of the task at hand. 5. Understanding of followers/constituents and their needs. 6. Skill in dealing with people. 7. Need to achieve. 8. Capacity to motivate. 9. Courage, resolution and steadiness. 10. Capacity to win and hold trust. 11. Capacity to manage, decide and set priorities. 12. Confidence. 13. Ascendance, dominance and assertiveness. 14. Adaptability, flexibility of approach.
The problem in judging a candidate’s leadership ability is made even more difficult because so much depends on the situation at hand. The candidate’s experience and conduct of the campaign may offer some guide, but no one knows just how a President will act until he or she actually is in the White House endowed with all the powers and responsibilities of the office.
Gardner also laments the use of information management and professional consultants to remake a candidate’s image. This packaging tends to sever the traditional bond between the leader and the led, Gardner says, and the public is left with the sorry option of choosing among illusions.
