Apex Thinking: Words from Dr. Charles H. Polk

The Magic of 14,000

There seems to be something magical about the number 14,000. It was the Dow hitting 14,000 that made investment history. Surfing the internet for that number yields many interesting references:

“14,000 Americans lose health insurance every day”

In Baghdad, “more than 14,000 candidates vying for just 444 council seats”

“Factiva, with a data base of 14,000 news sources”

In the coverage of quarterback McNair’s death, a reference to a “gigantic house of more than 14,000 square feet”

14,000 people worldwide become infected with HIV every day”

“14,000 barrels of oil spilled in the Amazon last night”

“An estimated 14,000 firework displays this year”

“The economy sucked when unemployment was at 4% and the DOW was at 14,000”

“14,000 Things To Be Happy About”

Regarding politics, “New Hampshire WMUR-TV saw 14,000 ads alone with more money…..”

Regarding Scientology, “the ranks of the volunteer ministers have grown from 5000 to 14,000”

“…mining giant Rio Tinto is axing 14,000 staff and contractor jobs….”

“Kenny Chesney continues his instant sell-out momentum, moving 14,000 tickets in under 14 minutes in Kansas City.”

Leaders often get caught up in chasing the 14,000 number as well — no, not in money or autographs, but in terms of doing many more things than they are actually capable of doing. What is it that makes one leader better than another? Certainly there are many distinguishing characteristics that add up to someone being better at the leadership game than someone else, and whether it is strategic planning, intuition, appearance, ability to communicate, charisma, or something else that causes me to be better at leading than you, the bottom line for all in leadership roles is doing those things that we do best. It is not being able to do 14,000 things that makes one a good leader, but doing 14 things unbelievably well and being able to do them 14,000 times.

What can you, a leader, be the best in the world at? And, just as important, what is it that you can identify, and are willing to admit, that you cannot be the best in the world at? What makes one a cut above the next goes far beyond the core competences that are essential to being a good and successful leader. We may possess those core competences — which are generally agreed upon to cause good leadership — but it doesn’t mean that we are necessarily the best in the world at it. A thorough analysis of our abilities just might reveal that what we can be best at might not even be related to what we are doing as a leader.

If you want to be a great leader, understand who you are and ground your strategies for leading solidly in them. Second, to be great, try to translate your understanding of who you are into a few simple strategies that you can perfect over time. Great leaders do not concentrate on doing everything well or trying to be all things to all people; instead, like great companies who yield spectacular results, they focus on 14 rather than 14,000.

What fuels your leadership engine? A small quantity of great things or a large quantity of “just things”?

Race

What does race have to do with leadership?  This past week in the process of investigating what appeared to be a break-in in the fine city of Boston, two strangers met and found that they had at least one thing in common; neither quite fully appreciated that race issues can be generated very innocently.  Fate brought two men together who now share the national scene, both getting the opportunity to talk about whether they are racists or just victims of what can go wrong when you least expect it.

A renowned Harvard professor whose specialty in academe is “race” and a young cop who arrested the former share what is so difficult to deal with in issues of this kind; there is really nothing “correct” about any of it. In events like this one and others, one cannot say what they mean, mean what they say, or act in good conscience.  It is, for the most part, a no- win situation.  Time will tell who wins or who loses in this one.

One thing is for certain, however, and that is that these two individuals have found themselves being invited to the White House for a beer with the president, not because of what they did, or necessarily how they responded, but because the president himself failed in his leadership duty.  Whether deliberately or innocently, President Obama, when publicly asked to respond to the issue of race in the Boston event, offered that the young cop acted “stupidly.”  At this point, the leader of the free world, supposedly the most powerful person in the world, permits himself to be sucked into the muck of the mundane—he is no longer sitting at the apex of the power structure and leading by example and by word, but becomes “one of the boys”.   

Being “on point” in every instance and not making mistakes is, for the most part, impossible. But we do not give presidents this latitude—as followers, we expect more.  After-the-fact-quarterbacking by telling the president what he should or should not have done is not appropriate; I’m sure at this point, he knows what the better course of action could have been had he answered that reporter’s question differently, but he did not.  Our president is ascribed another role by those who both approve or disapprove of his behavior; he does not determine in this event who and what he is, but his demise results from his own words making him not politically correct.

Leaders will make mistakes. It is how leaders make the correction that in the long term will make the difference.  Looking in from the outside it is easy to say, “If it were up to me, this is what I would have done.”  In fact, most people sensitized to issues of race might have made a similar remark as did Mr. Obama, but the fact is, they are not president and few people care what they would have done, including the author of this blog post.  What is clearly evident is that race has significance in leadership and likely it always will.  Mr. Obama, even in making what many think to be a major mistake in his involvement in the disagreement over an arrest, has an opportunity to positively draw attention to race in ways that no other person could. After all, he is the president.  He can define issues and he can offer solutions even when he seemingly innocently invites himself to be part of the problem.

More Thoughts on Celebrity and Leadership

In a period of a week, America — if not the world — saw that life in a bubble has its moments and that those moments have an ending. The governor of South Carolina, a political leader, experienced a microscopic examination into his life and that of his family. Farrah Fawcett, a beautiful actress, passed away after a long battle with cancer; her life in the bubble ended. And, of course, overshadowing a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, a faltering economy, and an effort to solve America’s health care crisis, was the death of Michael Jackson. What I found most interesting in these events was how each of them was viewed by those who followed their subjects’ careers and contributions.

Certainly the governor of South Carolina, while paling in acquired notoriety with Fawcett and Jackson, captured the nation’s attention for days because of our fixation on sex and illicit love. What he had done as a leader quickly dissolved into a critique of him as a person, and although by most standards he was a competent governor and leader of people, what he will be most remembered for is that he had sex with “another woman.”

Farrah Fawcett, whose pin-up poster of 1976 made her a national sex symbol, had a role in Charlie’s Angels, which gave her a foundation for establishing herself as an actress. Interestingly, like the governor of South Carolina, her celebrity status was fueled by the constant media coverage of her ongoing personal dramas. Although those close to her will likely remember her for her kindness and smile, most others will remember her as some kind of sex goddess.

Michael Jackson, undeniably an icon by any standard, in the final analysis was simply an entertainer. While his life was colored by controversy involving young children, extravagance, confusion, and possibly drugs, these issues will fade away to the memories of his contributions to the music and dance he obviously loved so much. Unlike the governor, he will not be judged by the strangeness of his life but by positive memories generated by how he danced, what he wore, and the songs he sang.

Interestingly, during the weeks that the news was dominated by the lives of these three people, the word “leader” was used to describe all three of them by those who covered their stories, opined about their contributions, and ascribed characteristics to them as they saw their respective roles played out in their worlds — yet only one was, in any real sense, a leader of anything. Obviously, there is no lack of misunderstanding about leadership. Notoriety and being a celebrity do not qualify anyone as a leader.

Michael Jackson, A Great Artist…And Not A Leader

Michael Jackson’s untimely departure from the world brought literally thousands of people to the to the public pulpit to comment on who he was: what his contributions to entertainment have been, how he had or had not matured as an adult, why he had surgically attempted to change the way he looked, where he had gone wrong in his psychological development as explanation of why he apparently fixated on children, and why (and when) he had begun to support his life with drugs that altered his physical condition.

Whatever he was, including a renown, prominent, and acclaimed famous person, star, personality, pop idol, movie star, icon, big shot, celebrity, household name, public figure, and luminary, he was not what some commentaries attributed to him—a leader.

Leadership is a performing art, but performing artists are not necessarily leaders. There seems to be a tendency to assume that those who influence public opinion, are opinion makers, have a large following, and are held in high esteem are leaders. Leaders, of course, have these qualifications, but function for different reasons and outcomes. A leader’s aim is to transform something for the better and to develop potential in others. Leadership is not a solitary pursuit but one that gains control of the energy of those around you. For someone to become a leader, they must know themselves first before they can know others. Leadership is not a position or a title, and leadership cannot be achieved in isolation.

Some who can be called famous and who have been in the arts have exercised a leadership role, but for the most part, they do not see themselves as a leader, nor are they one. Michael Jackson might not have been comfortable embracing the label, but others certainly have. Ronald Reagan unquestionably parlayed his prominence into leadership. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, Al Franken, Denzel Washington, Angelina Jolie, Bill Cosby, Charlton Heston, Whoopi Goldberg are only a few of the star who became leaders.

Great artists, who, by virtue of their talent reach the heart and soul of millions, need not be scripted by other opinion makers to play on the leadership stage. Let great artists be great artists and be satisfied—even in their worst of times, or when they die—with their accomplishments. Michael Jackson was a great artist and that should be sufficient to memorialize him forever.

Is Quitting Leading, Too?

Since the beginning of July, there has been an enormous amount of celebrity news. Governor Sanford’s extramarital affair with a woman from Argentina, the death of Farrah Fawcett, and the enormous scale of Michael Jackson’s departing all made other national and worldwide news seem unimportant, at least as measured by the media’s coverage of these events. Not to be outdone in the hunt for notoriety and celebrity status, Sarah Palin resigned the governorship of Alaska and proclaimed that she was taking another path to influencing others.

Governor Palin’s resignation was analyzed by most who took the time to throw their thoughts into the debate as to why she was choosing to end of her career as a politician. From discussing her now-limited resume, her unconventional background, her personal tenacity, her limited ability to handle criticism, her earthy nature, and that instinctively conservative political DNA, to speculating what it all meant, pundits seemed to give their best in criticism, and likely they are still hoping for another shot.

By any definition, Sarah Palin is a leader and if she follows through with her promises to continue to be influential in American politics, she will continue to be among the country’s most recognized political figures. Observers have made every effort to play off of one word that they believe describes her resignation – quitting. For Palin, by her own declaration, she was not quitting but repositioning to gain more influence. To make the point more poignant, she decided to say goodbye to Alaska on Independence Day weekend — a symbol, she said, of her new and exhilarating freedom.

Taken at face value, all of the criticism aimed at her just might be true, or come to be true, which is certainly the wish of many aspiring Republicans and, of course, of the Obama White House. Leaders influence others in a variety of ways and we all know about the taxonomy of styles and strategies, but one of the most revered from our political success stories led his nation to abandon apartheid as a formalized social/political structure. One recent description of that leader, Nelson Mandela, maintains that part of his strength lies in knowing that “quitting is leading too.”

Mandela was a formidable leader by any measure, but he knew that abandoning a failed idea, facing the reality that there is always another day to win, and showing humility in a loss are lessons in leadership. Against formidable odds, he knew that his role in South Africa was to set the course and for others who were better positioned to man the ship. Mandela was well aware that in leading others, it is as important not to do some things as it is to do others.

I would not suggest that Sarah Palin can fill the shadow of the man called Madiba (his clan name), but she can read, study, gain advice, and emulate whomever she wishes — and little might the rest of us know who she looks to for guidance. It could even be Mandela, who knows the importance of understanding that quitting can be leading too.