Good Leadership

During a presidential debate we talk a good deal about leadership and leadership qualities. Historians have often used the criteria of rating presidents as those who got things done; got their way, enacted the programs they wanted enacted. It is a very pragmatic definition of leadership and, in my opinion, a poor one.

Ronald E. Riggio, PhD wrote an article on the Psychology Today blog that I think explains leadership far better than the historian’s criteria which is also shared with a great many citizens and business folk, and socially aware folk. Following is Riggio’s criteria:

First, do the right things vs. simply getting things done. This gets at the value of a thing to the nation or organization, not just that it happened.

Second, leaders are to be responsible and ethical not breaking or fudging rules but treating people fairly and not lying, cheating, or stealing to get ahead.

1.    These leaders limit collateral damage; they don’t abuse their followers, they don’t destroy the environment, waste resources to achieve a goal.

2.   They develop their followers, building up the leadership skills and talents of others.

3.   They leave the organization better than they found it. This is about sustainability. They plan ahead for future leadership and create hope for the future.

These are qualities I saw as being very important in church leadership, and qualities that leaders of any organization who possesses integrity and responsibility embrace. It is the stuff of John F. Kennedy’s book, Profiles in Courage. And sadly is often lacking in the political scene.

Some see these qualities as unimportant or less important that the pragmatic standard of just accomplishing a goal. Using that criteria, Gandhi, Martin, Luther King, Jr., FDR  were effective leaders. But using that criterion you would also have to include Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

It is hard to read the hearts of those running for office today, and the tenor or today’s negative but effective campaigns do not foster good leadership, no matter what people claim. And we have to question our own values that embrace negativity, name calling, demonization and plain bigotry that we bring to the political debate.

I think it is clear that from a pragmatic standpoint, Romney won the first debate last night. But I would not go as far as to say he projects the best leadership qualities for our country. You need to take in a much wider picture of that and see which programs the candidates embrace and whether they have the best interests of all Americans at heart in them.

If you go to the fact checking pages you will find both candidates playing loose with the facts, some by presupposition and some just by plain misinformation. But, as I said, it is hard to read the heart of a candidate, though in my estimation Obama comes out far ahead in the qualities of sound leadership as described above. Others will see that differently as is their right. But I would ask all of us to check our hearts and our minds and do the necessary work to check out the beliefs of our candidates and whether they show great leadership.