Team Model

Blog


How About Trust Intelligence?

February 14 in Authenticity, Trust by Joel DiGirolamo | No Comments

A few weeks ago the 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer results were announced. It was a sad day for CEOs and government leaders. Trust that business, government, and NGOs (non-government organizations) will “do what is right” all declined. The credibility of CEOs took a hit, moving from 50% in 2011 to 38% in 2012. Government officials or regulators also declined in credibility from 43% to 29%.

As you well know, trust is a big deal. Leaders frequently bemoan to me the lack of trust from their subordinates. I’ve had the conversation enough times that it has caused me ponder the notion of a “trust intelligence.” We’ve got emotional intelligence, why not trust intelligence? It flows both ways, as well. Subordinates may not trust their superiors and superiors may not trust their subordinates.

Trust is a significant factor in team performance and contains many facets. Let’s look at a list of the elements a leader needs in order to earn trust:

  • Social interaction, approachable
  • Enthusiastic
  • Takes initiative
  • Resolves uncertainty as much as possible
  • Consistent communication
  • Responsive
  • Calming
  • Putting the team before self
  • Fair
  • Respectful
  • Resolves conflict
  • Honest
  • Respects confidences
  • Inclusive
  • Focuses the effort
  • Develops procedures when necessary

With this many facets it is clear that an individual would have difficulty learning to build trust by rote. I believe that the ability and desire to earn trust needs to come from an individual’s soul, from deep within, otherwise it is easily perceived as false and self-serving. Some leaders feel that they can demand or dictate trust. I wish it were so easy.

As you peruse through this list it may be helpful to list times when you have behaved in alignment with these elements and also which elements you might want to work on.

Concepts:

  • Trust goes two ways—how much do you trust your team to get the job done and how much do they trust you to follow through on your commitments and remain authentic to them?
  • A desire to build trust must come from authenticity rather as a means to achieve a performance goal.

Keywords: leadership, emotional intelligence, trust

References:

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571.
  • Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606-632.
  • Hempel, P. S., Zhang, Z. X., & Tjosvold, D. (2008). Conflict management between and within teams for trusting relationships and performance in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.540
  • Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4). Retrieved from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00080.x
  • Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. (2010). Leadership and trust: Their effect on knowledge sharing and team performance. Management Learning, 41(4), 473-491.
  • Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Simpson, J. A. (2007). Psychological Foundations of Trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(5), 264-268.
Share on Facebook

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tagged

Great Leaders Got Soul

February 7 in Authenticity by Joel DiGirolamo | No Comments

When I explore great leaders I always find they have a vast depth of thought, an intensity—a soul. Those who lead from the depths are genuine individuals who strive to make profound changes in the lives of many. Let’s explore two international leaders and how they might affect your leadership style.

Mahatma (Great Soul) Gandhi and Nelson Mandela both sought and enabled profound social justice improvements in their respective countries. At their core, their depth, they valued the principle of social equality and for it were willing to give their lives.

Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela

These leaders spent considerable time in reflection, whether in prison or voluntarily during their times of freedom. From these depths emerged the strong boughs, beautiful blossoms, and succulent fruits of their philosophy, providing the eloquence and fortitude to move ever onward.

Once these leaders came to power their drive continued as they worked to fulfill their mission. Others waiver and allow themselves to be corrupted by the power. Great leaders choose principle over power, maintaining a constant course using their moral compass.

I am reminded of the quote from Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority…” Following the Arab Spring we have several countries with fresh revolutions. My hope is that their elected leaders stay true to their moral compass and do not become drunk with power.

As I contrast great leaders with despots and politicians it is easy to see how the latter types operate from the surface. They only care about their own survival or promotion rather than a deep conviction for the greater good of the community.

Taking some time to reflect on the questions below may help you assess your leadership and find the convictions in the depths of your soul.

Questions:

• How much time have you spent reflecting on your leadership role and what you might strive to accomplish?
• Which is more important to you: how you may be perceived as a leader or what profound changes you may be able to make in peoples’ lives?
• In what ways do you engage others in your mission and vision?
• Who are your role models and sources of inspiration?

Keywords: leadership, non-violence, soul, depth, power, principle, Arab Spring

Share on Facebook

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

The Collaborative Leadership of Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren

January 31 in Collaborative Leadership, Communication, Trust by Joel DiGirolamo | No Comments

On January 20th U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren and incumbent Scott Brown signed a pledge intending to stop all PAC (Political Action Committee) spending on their campaigns. The pledge states that for every dollar a PAC spends on TV or Internet advertisement for them or against their opponent they will donate half that amount of money to a charity of the opponent’s choice.

I find this agreement a breath of fresh air, setting an example of political bipartisan leadership as well as collaborative leadership. This model should serve as an example for all politicians to follow. Collaboration is about building something together. It is about remaining open to new possibilities.

Collaborative leadership is both unifying and fluid. Think of an evolving organism, one that is highly dynamic as it adapts and wends its way toward its ever-changing goals. While this may seem amorphous, or even wishy-washy, it is the nature of the universe. Physicists speak of the dance when describing particle physics. Leadership and the nature of organizations is exactly the same.

Conversely, hardened positions such as signing a pledge for no new taxes (a la Taxpayer Protection Pledge) takes flexibility and adaptability off the table. Charles Darwin explained all too well for us what happens to species that are no longer able to adapt. Hardened ideological positions are fine for religions but are no way to stay ahead of the curve, whether leading a nation or a private organization.

It is difficult to lead collaboratively. It requires time, patience, and skill. All parties must be committed to the goal of creating something new and building trust. They must be willing to enter a meaningful dialog to come to an understanding of each other’s values and goals so that this new creation may emerge. Begin by building on small achievements together.

So ask yourself how well you’re working with other leaders and other teams…

Questions:

• What behaviors do you exhibit which build trust?
• How do you engage others in meaningful dialog?
• How do you get peers to buy into your vision and goals?
• What process do you use to understand everyone’s values, beliefs, and goals?
• What process do you use to build a common vision?
• How do you build upon early accomplishments?
• Are you willing to invest the time to lead collaboratively?
• Are you willing to invest the time and energy to upgrade your leadership skills if necessary?

Keywords: collaborative leadership, trust, dialog, commitment

References:

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571.
Chrislip, D. D., & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mullen, C. A., & Kochan, F. K. (2000). Creating a collaborative leadership network: An organic view of change. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(3), 183-200.

Share on Facebook

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tagged

Be Careful What You Give-You Cannot Take it Back

January 24 in Loss Aversion, Motivation by Joel DiGirolamo | No Comments

Last Thursday was “comp day” at one of the premier investment banking firms, Goldman Sachs. This is the day when employees are handed their bonus for their previous year’s performance. Unfortunately, some reportedly received nothing. If you’ve never received a bonus for your work, that’s not a big deal. If you have, it is a big deal. Let’s find out why.

Imagine you’re babysitting a friend’s child, Jimmy, for the day and he’s been happily playing in your yard. The day is growing long and you decide to reward Jimmy’s good behavior. “Hey Jimmy,” you shout, “you’ve been such a good boy today how ‘bout I take you down to the store and get you a new ball?”

“Awesome!” Jimmy replies as he runs to hop in the car. “Can we get a kickball?” he asks as he slides onto the car seat.

“Sure thing,” you reply. “You’ve been really good today, Jimmy, and I want to reward you for that.”

“Works for me, Mr. Leider. Thanks!”

Anxious to give his new ball a try, Jimmy slides out of the car and onto the driveway without even closing the car door. Stepping to the edge, he holds the ball in front, one hand on each side and swings his right leg back. Hesitating for a moment, he then swings his leg forward in a graceful, powerful arc, sending the ball to the other side of the yard and squeals, “Yippee! Thanks Mr. L. This is awesome!” “You’re welcome Jimmy. I’m glad you enjoy it.”

Jimmy kicks the ball back and forth in the yard, enjoying each kick just as much as the one before. But as he tires, Jimmy has some difficulty keeping the ball in the yard. You watch as he winds up for another powerful stroke. The second his leg connects with the ball you see a car speeding down the street, oblivious to the ball hurled into its path. In an instant the ball is under the car, and then POW! Without hesitating, the car speeds on past, either unaware of the damage inflicted or unwilling to face a dejected child deprived of his precious toy.

“Mr. Leider, Mr. Leider!” Jimmy calls. “Awwww.” Tears begin to stream down his face and you rush to console him.
While it is certainly expected that Jimmy would be sad that his ball has been crushed, let’s step back for a moment to analyze this logically. In the first part of this story Jimmy is quite content playing in the yard without a ball. He has a certain reference point in terms of toys to play with and games he is able to play. You introduce a new toy and new modes of play follow. You have changed the reference point, raising the bar, so to speak.

As a leader, every time that you give your team members something you are changing the reference point. If you don’t give as much as before or take something away you generate unhappiness. While this may not be logical, it is a fact of human behavior.

So be careful what you give. While you can take it back—it won’t be pretty.

Concepts:
• Every time you give team members something you generate a new reference point
• As humans, once we have an enjoyable experience we desire to keep it or repeat it

Keywords: leadership, rewards, happiness, endowment effect, loss aversion, reference point

References:
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325-1348.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.
Munger, C. (1995, June). The psychology of human misjudgment. Lecture given at the Harvard University.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061.
Veenhoven, R. (1991). Is happiness relative? Social Indicators Research, 24(1), 1-34.

Share on Facebook

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tagged

Motivating Your Team: The Types of Human Motivation

January 17 in Motivation by Joel DiGirolamo | No Comments

As I work with clients to hone their leadership skills the issue of motivation frequently arises. The prevailing view is that you must provide an incentive for your team members to work hard to meet their goals. However, such a view is fraught with peril.

Research on motivation has shown us that individuals are generally motivated in one of two ways:
• Intrinsically, with the satisfaction of having done a good job or completing a challenging assignment
• Extrinsically, with external rewards such as a bonus, prize, or contest

In general, intrinsically motivated individuals are those you should be looking for. They will be motivated by challenging assignments and the satisfaction of having done a good job. The extrinsically motivated people will require constant care and feeding since they’ll always be looking for the reward, the “what’s in it for me” (WIIFM) factor.

The real difficulty lies in rewarding intrinsically motivated individuals with external rewards. A colleague of mine and fellow Kansas State University alumna, Dr. Nancy Johnson, provided me with an excellent example over coffee one day. In one of her classes at the University of Kentucky she encouraged students to participate and appealed to their intrinsic motivation. Those who were generally intrinsically motivated were eager to participate and became more involved in the class. She then offered an extra credit point for class participation—an extrinsic reward. As expected, the extrinsically motivated individuals began to participate. So far so good. But then the intrinsically motivated people significantly reduced their participation because they felt as if they were only participating for points rather than ideas. In other words the extrinsic reward impaired the intrinsic motivation.

So be careful—the same effect can happen to your team. Some of the motivation research has shown a similar phenomena where external rewards destroy intrinsic motivation. Even further, some of the motivation and creativity research has revealed that extrinsic rewards may diminish creativity.

Goals are also powerful motivators. We have seen many studies which show that well-designed goals enhance performance. The existence of goals, depending on how they are treated, may appeal to an individual’s intrinsic or extrinsic motivation.

Concepts:
• Through your one-on-one discussions with team members determine whether they are more intrinsically or extrinsically motivated
• Use appropriate motivation techniques with individuals
• Use a thoughtful and measured approach to setting goals and incentives for team projects

Keywords: leadership, motivation, extrinsic, intrinsic, goals, creativity

References:
Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effect of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 393-399.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58.
Atkinson, J. W. (1958). Towards experimental analysis of human motivation in terms of motives, expectancies, and incentives. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society (pp. 288–305). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1996). The debate about rewards and intrinsic motivation: Protests and accusations do not alter the results. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 39-51.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105-115.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1-27.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991, A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. Proceedings from Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1990, Lincoln, NE.
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51(11), 1153-1166.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53-62.
Herzberg, F. (1973). Work and the nature of man. New York: New American Library.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
McGregor, D. M. (1957). The human side of enterprise. Management Review, 46, 22-28, 88-92.
McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Prendergast, C. (1999). The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 7-63.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Share on Facebook

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

This is One Impressive Cat: The Leadership of Doug Oberhelman

January 10 in Balance, Communication, Strategy by Joel DiGirolamo | No Comments

Caterpillar is an unlikely darling. We all know that technology is where it’s at, not heavy industry. Don’t tell that to Doug Oberhelman, CEO of Caterpillar. Under his leadership the company has thrived through the current recession.

Doug led a team during a boom cycle in 2005 that put together a strategy on how to deal with a huge downturn in sales. While extremely unpopular at the time, it turned out to be exactly the right thing to do. In November 2008 sales plummeted and the strategy was quickly executed in order to stay ahead of the downturn. This prepared Caterpillar for the next up-cycle—one that is currently underway.

Under Oberhelman’s leadership, Caterpillar recently completed the $8.8B acquisition of Bucyrus, a manufacturer of complementary heavy machinery as well as several other smaller acquisitions. Determined to make the most of this recession, he’s investing in new plants, hiring workers, bringing manufacturing back to the US where the customers are, and scratching to gain market share while others sit on hoards of cash and continue to lay workers off. This takes courage.

If you listen to Doug Oberhelman’s words and observe his actions you’ll notice something—his forward-moving energy is palpable. There’s a lot we can learn from Doug. Let’s look at his behavior:
• Focused on the customer (he visits at least one customer a week)
• Is optimistic about the market and paranoid about competitors
• Maintains a good balance between people and tasks
• Communicates, communicates, and communicates even more
• Focuses on moving forward while learning from the past

Keywords: leadership, balance, strategy, communication

Share on Facebook

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Sears: A Fallen Giant

January 3 in Arrogance, Selection by Joel DiGirolamo | No Comments

Last week Sears reported that it will close up to 120 Sears and Kmart stores. I found it to be another sad chapter in the story of a fallen giant. For me, Sears is akin to a giant sequoia tree—a mammoth, standing stable generation after generation. Unfortunately the retailer continues to erode its foundation a bit almost every year.

Let’s travel back in time for a moment. Many of you may not be aware that in the late 1950s to early 1980s considerable work on employee selection took place, primarily at Standard Oil Company, AT&T, and Sears. These organizations spent considerable time and money to determine how to select individuals most likely to be successful in their organizations. V. J. Bentz and L. L. Thurstone pioneered the efforts at Sears. Those studies became the basis for today’s selection instruments. Their efforts paid off.

Sears was the big Kahuna of retail. But it didn’t last as complacency and arrogance set in. Arrogance can blind you to new competitors, and I’ll give you a personal example. Many years ago I gave a presentation to a company regarding technology industry customer support. I listed WordPerfect (remember them?) and PCs Limited as exemplars. Before I could move past the slide one of the executives couldn’t pass up the chance to sneer at the name PCs Limited. “Who are those guys? They’re nothing.” was the comment. My retort was a simple, “Well, they may be nothing today but if they keep up the good service they’ll be something some day.” We do know them today—Dell. And the company I was presenting to, well, I’ll withhold comment.

Sears failed to adapt to changing market conditions as specialty retailers and big box stores left them in the dust. While Sears continues to be a strong retailer (number 10 last year) those with superior market strategies have prevailed.

Concepts:
• Use well-validated employee selection methods
• Remain adaptable to market conditions
• Never, ever become complacent or arrogant—maintain a healthy fear of competitors

Keywords: leadership, employee selection, complacency, adaptability

References:
• Bentz, V. J. (1967). The Sears experience in the investigation, description, and prediction of executive behavior. In F. R. Wickert & D. E. McFarland (Eds.), Measuring executive effectiveness (pp. 147-205). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Bentz, V. J. (1968). The Sears experience in the investigation, description, and prediction of executive behavior. In J. A. Myers (Ed.), Predicting managerial success (pp. 59-152). Ann Arbor, Michigan: Foundation for Research on Human Behavior.
• Bentz, V. J. (1985). Research findings from personality assessment of executives. In J. H. Bernardin & D. A. Bownas (Eds.), Personality assessment in organizations (pp. 82–144). New York: Praeger Publishers.
• Bentz, V. J. (1990). Contextual issues in predicting high-level leadership performance: Contextual richness as a criterion consideration in personality research with executives. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 131-143). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America, Inc.
• Bray, D. W. (1968). Choosing good managers. In J. A. Myers (Ed.), Predicting managerial success (pp. 153-165). Ann Arbor, Michigan: Foundation for Research on Human Behavior.
• Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L. (1974). Formative years in business: A long-term AT&T study of managerial lives. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
• Sparks, C. P. (1970). Validity of psychological tests. Personnel Psychology, 23(1), 39–46.
• Sparks, C. P. (1983). Paper and pencil measures of potential. In G. F. Dreher & P. R. Sackett (Eds.), Perspectives on employee staffing and selection (pp. 349–368). Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. irwin, Inc.
• Sparks, C. P. (1990). Testing for management potential. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 103-112).

Share on Facebook

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tagged

Are You Leading Consumers or Creators?

December 27 in Communication, Motivation by Joel DiGirolamo | No Comments

I’ll be the first to admit that today’s topic may be overly simplistic, however, I believe it is worth discussing. Make a list of your team members in one column. To the right of that column make three more columns with the headings Creator, Consumer, and Other.

Creators are individuals on your team who take minimal care and feeding, and they produce a steady stream of innovative results. Give them a direction and they’re off. These individuals are generally bright, disciplined and passionate about their work. On the other hand, Consumers will take a disproportionate share of your time by asking questions, remain unsure how to proceed in most tasks, and continually check in to make sure they are on the right track. They will likely be more concerned about what they are getting out of their employment than what they can produce for your team and the organization. Others may be steady, heads-down workers or deadwood.

Now venture down the list and place a check mark in the Creator or Consumer column for each team member or enter a comment in the Other column. It should now be easier for you to determine your top contributors as well as team members you may want to consider moving out. You may also want to think about your role in each performer’s results. How are you motivating your team members? How are you rewarding your top contributors?

Concepts:
• How many of your team members are needlessly consuming the majority of your time?
• How many of your team members are continually churning out useful, innovative results?

Keywords: leadership, employee selection, creativity, motivation

Share on Facebook

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Vaclav Havel and Kim Jong Il: A Contrast in Leadership

December 20 in Authenticity, Dark Side by Joel DiGirolamo | No Comments

The coincidental loss of two world leaders in as many days illuminates a stark contrast in leadership styles. It is difficult to find a greater difference in approach than that of Václav Havel of the Czech Republic and Kim Jong Il of North Korea.

Václav Havel was President of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic from 1989 to 2003. Prior to his rise to power he was an outspoken dissident of Communist rule in Czechoslovakia. His political plays and support for the opposition frequently led to imprisonment. In the fall of 1989 he became the head of the revolution against Communist rule, the Velvet Revolution. His nonviolent approach led to a bloodless transfer of power and election in 1990 as the first freely elected President of Czechoslovakia since 1946.

Havel was an idealist and always fought for freedom for all individuals, no matter how unpopular that stance may be. For example, he fought for the rights of Gypsies and Communists after losing control of the government.

In contrast, despot Kim Jong Il was a brutal and cunning leader. At his ascension to ruler of North Korea in 1994 he inherited a country which had lost its benefactor, was slipping into a large-scale famine, and whose economy was in shambles. Despite the dire situation, Kim was able to nurture a fledgling nuclear program to the point of creating nuclear weapons which he used as blackmail in a brilliant game of tactical brinksmanship with China, the United States, Japan, and Russia. The famine ultimately terminated over two million lives, almost 10% of the North Korean population. Yet Kim was able to maintain control by treating the military well and keeping a tight lid on dissent.

At the time he rose to power, pundits predicted his rule would unravel before his second anniversary as leader. Instead, Kim played his cards extremely well and beat all odds, maintaining rule, oppression and the country’s borders. Kim Jong Il led by fear, intimidation, and unpredictability.

The passing of these titans should give all leaders pause. As I observe and interact with leaders in organizations I see the complete spectrum of leadership, from abusive to congenial, from command and control to laissez faire, from respectful to disdain. It may be a good time to look in the mirror and assess your leadership style, much as many around the globe are assessing the leadership style of Havel and Kim.

Questions:

• Do you lead more frequently with fear—or empowerment?
• Do you direct team members—or nurture their creative energy?
• Do you respect everyone, even those seemingly without any power?
• What legacy will your leadership leave behind?

Keywords: leadership, authentic, dark side

Share on Facebook

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tagged

President Obama Lays the Vision

December 13 in Charismatic Leadership by Joel DiGirolamo | No Comments

As if unrolling a tapestry, last week President Obama laid out a remake of Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism speech from 1910. Some call the President’s speech a populist appeal. I don’t care so much if it is or isn’t, but I do care to find out if we can sift through the speech to glean a few leadership tidbits.

In the speech we see clear signs of charismatic leadership. President Obama lays out the vision—fair rules, superior education, and a strong middle class developing and manufacturing innovative products for global consumption. He states, “We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America.”

Secondly, he works to build a bond with his supporters. He does this by reiterating the pain they’ve felt through declining fortunes and echoing their hope for a better future. The speech is a rallying cry to pull together. Will members of each side of the political divide listen and pay heed? I doubt it.

I frequently tell people that we, as humans respond to pain. The current pain is not great enough for the politicians. When it does become significant, when a catastrophic event takes place then they will pull together.

In the meantime, whether you’re conservative or liberal, listen to the President’s speech or read a transcript. Look for his vision and how he builds a bond. I think you’ll find a few nuggets in there.

Concepts:

• Charismatic leadership characteristic #1: lay out a compelling vision
• Charismatic leadership characteristic #2: build a bond with your followers
• Humans respond to pain

Keywords: charismatic leadership

Share on Facebook

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tagged