Houcek: Is "Political Leadership" an Oxymoron?

ATLANTA - Unless you're living under a rock, you've seen, heard, and felt the torrential media bombardment about the so-called Wall Street bailout.

It has dominated the news for several weeks.  Maybe you've felt the sting of the financial crisis in your pocketbook.  I hope not.

Anyway, there's a burr under my saddle about this whole bailout thing. And it's instructive for leaders.  (No, it isn't the final decision.  As I've said repeatedly, I don't use this blog for personal politics.  It's about leadership.  Period.)

Here's what's enraging me:

A high-integrity leader must make difficult and controversial choices every day.  And in the end -- especially in times of crisis -- Job 1 is to make unselfish decisions that serve the greater good. Even if they anger small pockets of people. Even if they piss off influential supporters. Even if they get a carton of eggs thrown at their picture window at 2 am.

And the one thing the high-integrity leader never does is act in his own personal best interest at the expense of the greater good.  That's hugely taboo in integrity circles. Oh, to be sure, leaders violate that every day. But I said "high integrity" leaders.

They ... don't.

Yet once again, some of our law-making politicians -- who should be the highest integrity leaders in the land, don't you agree? -- have shown their true colors by doing what's best for themselves, even if it's not best for the country and the citizenry.  They proved it with their bailout votes. No, not their actual yay or nay vote ... but their reason for the vote.

Let me explain.

Last week, after the first House vote that killed the bailout package (before the Senate vote that approved it and the second House vote that approved it), USA Today reported that one of the reasons for the "no" votes was... ...political fear.

Four USA Today staff writers collaborated on this front-page story (dated Sept. 30).  These reporters did some digging, computed some numbers, made a disturbing discovery, and arrived at a profound conclusion.

Here it is.

Specifically, despite the urgings of their own party leaders -- both Democrats and Republicans who were called to the White House to create a bipartisan bill that would serve the needs of BOTH party interests AND the American people... ...even then... ..."political fear" drove 75% of House members who are in close races in the Nov. 4 elections to vote no.

The important wording there is ... in close races. (The next 3 paragraphs are quoted directly from USA Today.)

"Republicans facing tough re-election challenges deserted their leaders in droves.  32 of 37 Republicans listed as endangered by the non-partisan Cook Political Report voted no, compared with 18 of 29 Democrats in the same category.

On the flip side, 22 of 29 Republicans who are leaving the House this year voted for the bill.  2 of 6 retiring Democrats voted against the bill.  (...meaning 4 of 6 retirees voted for.) 'There aren't many vulnerable members who voted yes,' said David Wasserman, House editor for the Cook report.  A yes vote, he said, would give 'every opponent a new blistering ad to run against you.' "

Now it's clear.

Wasserman and the 4 USA Today writers came to the same conclusion. That since a high percentage of those in tough races voted no ... and a high percentage of those retiring voted yes ... then it sure LOOKS like many of those in tough races voted in their own self interest, to preserve their re-election bid, and not have to deal with voter backlash.

That's a lousy reason, and it boils my blood.  Doesn't it yours?

Further, maybe (just maybe) more of them would have voted differently had their re-elections not been so rocky. Yes, I'm sure one could argue the opposite, but on appearance anyway, that's the conclusion they're drawing. Frankly, it looks the same to me. So how they voted is not in question.  But why they voted the way they did, is.

And it's of grave concern. Looks like a case of a vote for "me" rather than a vote for "we".

Translation:  they served their own personal self interest, not the greater good, which they were elected to do.

Therein lies my anger.  And mistrust.

We elect our leaders with the faith that they will study the issues deeply, then make intelligent decisions on our behalf, not theirs. Why is that so much to ask? Oh sure, I get that there will always be disagreement over which is the "greater good" choice.

Politicians and voters argue that daily.  On every issue. But what voters can universally agree on is ... the choice that is clearly NOT greater good is the one that serves only the politician's election status. I also get that this in nothing new.

Since time began, in governments the world over, there has been public outcry against self-serving politicians.  And now, in this bailout vote, those House members facing close re-elections seem to have brought the white-hot light of scrutiny on themselves again.

Two key questions:

1. Would they have voted differently if it were not an election year?
2. Or if they were not fighting a tight race? Of course, we'll never know.  But as the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...Bubba, it's a duck.

Lessons & Actions For You:

In "Good To Great", the best-seller by Jim Collins, one of the characteristic traits of a Level 5 Leader -- the pinnacle position you should be shooting for -- is the willingness to make self-less, rather than selfish, decisions.

For leaders well known to have little or no integrity, we expect them to take the self-serving way out.  No surprise.  Thankfully, only a small percentage of leaders fall in here. At the other end, the high integrity leaders always decide in favor of the greater good, even when it's not best for them as an individual.  No surprise here either.  Sadly, this group too is only a small percent of the whole.

But what's maddening -- and deceptively unpredictable -- is that dangerously large group in the middle.  The ones who proudly proclaim to be of high integrity, but then occasionally or frequently make selfish decisions -- violating the very ethics they purport to live by.  We never know when.  We just know we can't trust them.  They are consistent only in their inconsistency.

Bottom line to all this is simple.  Or should be. Always take the high road.

Here's a simple litmus test.  Look at yourself in the mirror and ask:  "If I make choice A, who will benefit and who will be hurt?  If I make choice B, who will benefit and who will be hurt?  If I make choice C, who will benefit and who will be hurt?"

Make three columns on a sheet of paper, one each for choices A, B, C (more if there are additional options).  Now divide each of the columns into two, one for Benefit, one for Hurt. Then, start writing.

Want a couple examples of folks who do it right?

Peter Ueberroth, who ran for California governor in the mid-term election a few years ago, bowed out of the race with four weeks to go, behind by a wide margin, rather than engage in the only election tactic that could give him hope of closing a large gap in a short time.  Mud-slinging at opponents.  As easy as that negative choice is for others, Ueberroth was only interested in running a clean, positive campaign.  In dropping out, he decided in favor of the greater good rather than personal interest.  A noble choice.

Another... Last week, a client and former Marine told me that in the chow line, Marines with higher rank always eat last.  Soldiers who fight the battles eat first.  If they run out of food, too bad for the officers.  It's part of their code.  That's a "greater good" decision, and one I admire.

The question for you is:  Which side of the ledger do your decisions fall on? Greater good?  Or self interest? If you got fidgety reading all this, squirming in your seat, maybe it's time for an ethics check.

If, on the other hand, you can honestly say you always make greater good decisions ... and a majority of your constituency would agree (heck, there are always a few who won't) ...

Congratulations! You're in a small fraternity of the highest integrity Level 5 Leaders.  We need a whole lot more like you.
__________________________________________________________

Rick Houcek is a regular contributor to MarketingHeadhunter.com.  Rick facilitates off-site strategic planning retreats, helping CEOs and Leadership Teams create high-impact plans that overcome the crippling effects of lousy execution and get successfully implemented.  His Power Planning strategic process drives action through his Escape-Proof Accountability system.  It's ideal for small and mid-size businesses.  To bring this potent weapon to your team, contact Rick by phone, fax or email.  Visit his web site at Soar with Eagles.com.  Ask about his 100% No-Risk Guarantee.