There is a huge gap between talking about leadership in the abstract and putting the ideas into action. Leadership is a powerful idea – crucial to success, yet squishy. So how does a leader transform hope and new directions into tangible results?
David Gergen of Harvard describes comtemporary leadership this way: “Command and control leadership has given way to a new approach, [which is] often called the influence model. The essence of leading others is to develop empathy with them and to develop the social skills that will persuade them to work toward shared goals.”
Many authorities, like Gergen, focus heavily on leadership style. But perceptions of style are often superficial and short-lived: emphasizing the message and delivery, or personal traits – decisive, judgmental, brilliant – or the emotion or charisma to inspire others and get them to follow.
Of course connecting with one’s constituents matters. But style alone will not build a successful business or platform for change. Leaders who want to produce strong results need much more.
Especially in the current environment, the credibility of a leader depends heavily on substance – the content of the executive’s agenda: the critical questions that need to be answered, the concrete plans, and the sequencing of steps throughout execution. Substance is essential to get to the right solution and to command the support of many talents and constituencies.
Despite the difficulties of the great recession, the best leaders are creating substantive agendas that strengthen their companies. Their primary focus is on what they can accomplish with their people. They speak in terms of “We”, not “Me”. They clearly define success and how it will be measured. They are focused and specific, building a sense of confidence in their capacity to deliver.
The distinction between style and substance explains the contentious debate about Carly Fiorina’s tenure as CEO of Hewlett Packard. In 2005 when Fiorina was asked to step down, a number of academics and feminists called her a great leader – her style was exceptional: she was decisive, an articulate speaker, always the smartest person in the room. Although Carly’s style was impressive, others believed that the substance of her leadership caused her problems. Her strategy to acquire Compaq was flawed. She lacked focus. She failed to execute her plan. She believed that size was crucial in a market that was going in another direction. Her company’s performance was dismal.
Similarly, it was the substance of Barack Obama’s leadership that prevented him from pushing through his health care agenda on his terms and schedule. His speeches, often eloquent and emotional, failed to persuade large segments of Americans who had supported him. Assertions, without facts and a concrete plan, undermined his immediate results. The Administration had a disastrous summer, as the single payer system faced resistance in Congress.
As a candidate, Obama talked about the transformation of America in bold, emotional terms. Hope become the promise and the inspiration. But as Matt Bai wrote in the New York Times Magazine on July 19, “His legislative priorities seem to rotate in and out like so many suitcases on a conveyor belt.” Obama’s promise of hope and change needed a sharper focus and concrete substance.
The result: the President - like other leaders who try to do too much, too fast – lost his momentum. He delegated too much of the detail to Congress and appeared to lose control of the substance, and therefore, the message.
According to the most current Rasmussen poll on Right track/Wrong track, only 33% of Americans believe the nation is going in the right direction. Angst remains high about the economy, the stimulus, earmarks, and the ever-growing deficit. With this as a backdrop, it’s not surprising that Obama’s move to overhaul health care ignited a public outcry. People pushed back hard and loud - on the enormity of the proposal, the scarcity of detail, the feasibility of the promise to cut costs while increasing quality, and the audacity of limiting something so personal as my health and well-being.
In an interview on September 6, Steve Forbes emphasized that a leader needs to focus on a few important things. I believe Forbes called it right. Successful leadership requires critical thinking and analysis, a deep understanding of the costs and benefits, a rigorous look at the consequences. Getting to the right solution – the content and the reliability of what is proposed and implemented - is crucial for success. Driving complex change requires tremendous work up-front. Successful change, even if it is accomplished in increments, builds credibility, trust, and the will to do more.
Leadership Pundit will pursue the stories that will make leadership real and actionable – recognizing that leadership requires substance and style. For now, think carefully about what you propose before you attempt to persuade others to embrace a new idea. Also, if what you want to achieve is exciting, get others to help you think it through. The devil’s in the detail.
