Lumberjack or Ballerina? Reloaded.

In responding to LumberJack or Ballerina? (still makes me laugh) I think Canadian Headhunter wonders if I thought he was endorsing heartless or martial leadership. Not at all. I think we agree that, as he notes:

...leaders are willing to command and that many want to do so. And, also, that they are willing to take painful action without suffering too much stress, even when the pain is suffered by someone else. Which is something many people would be afraid to do.

Exactly. The problem comes when hard choices are perceived as "game moves" and people are the pawns. Painful truth people can handle, but the consequence must be perceived as broadly affective and, ultimately effective. If not, acquiescence to "painful truth" becomes paralytic distrust. He also notes that

when Bob Woodward's book about George W came out... It was widely reported and with great interest that he lost some sleep over the decision to go to war. As if that was something amazing. It's not what a leader is expected to do. It showed that he was a bit "normal". [Emphasis mine]

Followed by:

These guys [leaders] have guts. And, it's just not possible that their "courage" could manifest itself in this way if it had to struggle against tremendous counter-emotions to see the light of day. They have to have nerves of steel or, perhaps their equivalent, a thick skin.

I don't doubt it a bit. He then adds in a very tight ender:

...my comments and Fouro's make a leader sound, more than anything else, like an extraordinary sales person. He can "show people futures" they didn't see before, knows when to get out of the way, and is not afraid to move ahead even when there is a risk that other people will dislike him, or her, for doing so.

Cool! I like the synthesis of that final graf.

Yes. Great leaders are Great Salespeople, and not in the Willy Loman or P.T. Barnum sense. Oddly enough, the best salespeople aren't perceived as salespeople. Instead of jumping the shark, they jump the broom, as Alex Haley would put it: They become one of Us, and not one of "them" anymore. They stop "selling" and become force multipliers for hire. A nice persona to hold in the mind of a consumer.

As for "these guys have guts", that's operational when one adds in the thought: "Our Guy, or Girl, has guts." Why does this matter? I wrote a piece on Frank Lorenzo a few weeks back--uhh, here. To me he is an example of a failed leader, cubed.

He was, for a while, vaunted in boardrooms for his confidence and numerical facility, but doomed also, because he forgot his base as they say in politics. That base was the people delivering and maintaining Lorenzo's products--Eastern, then Continental Airlines--which themselves were only enablers to his REAL product: Helping people see and meet and reunite with other people. He made moves that people disliked, which is inevitable for a Leader. But his people also distrusted the moves. Which is Death for a leader.

Lorenzo never perceived that he had much of an obligation to Machinists, Luggage Handlers, Pilots, FAs or anybody except his board peers, and perhaps, his shareholders. He was a Number leader, and everybody knew it. He was not "everybody's guy" and they knew it. Tick tock. The man is history.

I know Candian Headhunter's reference was to military and political leaders as much as business, but in my view it's really all the same. Dubya, for instance, swings at the "decisiveness" metaphor that many are hungry for in this filibustering and parsing age. But the higher up the command chain you get, the less impressive his simplistic understanding becomes. Good rah-rah for grunts and maybe your average voter, but not very sustaining for subordinate-leaders who have to answer, in a more HR-focused and results-oriented environment, a simple question: "Why are we doing this?" Viewed in this way, Bush is a Rice Cake, not Prime Rib, to people who know food.

Woodward's "losing sleep" revelation, while perhaps true, was politically necessary in that Americans do want their leaders to have pause before asking for sacrifice. It is culturally dissonant to act otherwise. (Witness the negative response to his "Go shopping" answer to the WTC attacks.) I'd say the "losing sleep" thing was character development for the administration's desired narrative. Which brings up the question: Is Bush "playing" a leader, rather than actually being one?

I think you know my answer.

[edited 3-5-04 p.m. for goofy grammar]