Hamilton's Improvisation

Alexander Hamilton faced a political impasse that threatened not only the new administration but the existence of the nation itself. After the economic panics and political scares of the mid-1780s, national leaders met to address the national challenges. The result was the Constitution that, after a fierce ratification battle swayed by Hamilton’s Federalist Papers, established “a new order of the ages.” George Washington, the first president of the United States, appointed Hamilton Treasury Secretary and assigned him the challenge of resolving the new nation’s acute financial crisis. Heavily in debt and without resources to run the government, let alone meet its obligations, the national and state economies were on the brink of collapse.

Without a strong domestic manufacturing base and a vibrant economy, the United States seemed doomed to collapse under the weight of debts from the Revolutionary War and the disparate systems of trade and taxation between each state and other countries. What’s more, two opposing political cultures had emerged. One distrusted government and championed states-rights and minimal national intervention; the other believed in a strong federal government, decisive leadership and limited national intervention; both espoused fiscally conservative policy.

Hamilton’s Improvisation emerged from this political and economic environment. Improvisation, defined by Jeffery Yip, is the “unique practice that derives its energy in working through uncertain situations.” It is the ability “to act and learn through paradox,” or two contradictory behaviors. Improvisation, a necessary element to resolving the tensions of paradox, is an important leadership skill.

Hamilton, who was from New York, proposed a solution at a dinner attended by his chief opponent, James Madison, and hosted by Thomas Jefferson, both Virginians. The proposal called for the Federal Government to assume all state and national debts and to fund the payment of the debts through modest import taxes. As a part of the deal, the national capital—another point of vehement disagreement between the two rival factions—was to be located for 10 years in the northern location of Philadelphia and then permanently fixed in the South on the border between Maryland and Virginia. Because Hamilton was willing to yield on the location for the capital, Madison was willing to yield on how to pay off the national debt. Even in conflict, Hamilton was able to improvise a solution based on harmonizing the disparate political issues and positions.

Yip explains that anticipation, harmonization, and experimentation are key elements of improvisation, just like in jazz music. Hamilton anticipated the critical issues, was willing to blend the issues together, and attempt solutions that had never been proposed before.

To relieve the tensions of paradox try these three things: Anticipate, harmonize, and experiment. When you do, the science of leadership becomes the art of leadership. It worked for Hamilton; it will for today’s leaders, too.

Quit Whining* and Start the Revolution

     One should be hesitant about addressing the topic of gender and leadership. Like politics and religion, it is a topic that really should not be discussed at dinner when in polite company. All too often, the discussions produce more heat than light. It is, nevertheless, an important topic, if for no other reason than a significant portion of the intelligentsia is concerned with it.

     “Gender,” as Laura Sjoberg—in her book chapter entitled “Feminist Approaches to the Study of Political Leadership”—and other feminist theorists have reminded us, is a socially constructed term, not to be confused with sex, which is a biologically constructed. My former colleague, Diane Knippers, was wont to say, "Sex is better than gender."    However, when social scientists like Sjoberg discuss gender they speak of masculinity and femininity, rather than male or female. This may be a distinction without a difference, but not in the minds of the theorists.  

     So how does this tie in with leadership? Sjoberg argued that the term “leadership” itself is gendered. Because gender is socially constructed by “behavior expectations, stereotypes, and rules which apply to persons because they are understood to be members of particular sex categories”, and leadership attributes are typically associated with masculinity, therefore leadership is gendered masculine. She unpacked her idea this way:

This is because the definition of what it means to be a good leader is couched in masculine terms; there is a substantial correlation between characteristics that define a good man and characteristics that define a good leader. Therefore, men are assumed to have leadership capacity, while women’s masculinity is doubted until proven.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were leaders capable
of leading others and working together across gender.

     My question then is, so what? If gender is socially constructed, let’s remove the masculinity from leadership so that we can get past this debate and on to putting qualified and effective people in positions of leadership, where they can make a difference, no matter what their “gender” is.

     My suspicion is that the real agenda is not one of putting people into places of possibility, but gaining positions so that individuals can exercise power. This Foucaldian approach is ultimately nihilistic; it divides and conquers rather than embracing and leading. Ultimately, this is not an approach to leadership. It’s an approach to coercion.

     What, then, do we do with gender and leadership? Well, first, I would eschew using the term gender. It really isn’t helpful. It divides and puts people off. If however, one were to focus on the biological characteristics of sex, traits and personal aspects that are deeply rooted but enduring, one can get past the notion of trying to “fix” the other person’s defects. Second, and more importantly, I would focus on leadership and the qualities that make a good leader, no matter what that leader’s biological sex is. Undoubtedly, females can be good leaders; so can males. Females can bring characteristics to leadership that males lack, and vice versa.

     The better approach, I think is to focus on contingent leadership and fit the person into the correct situation, all the while being open to whoever has the skills and giftedness that the position requires, whether female or male. Then, we can get on with accomplishing the mission rather than getting bogged down in “socially constructed concepts” that cause more harm than good. Basically, to borrow the phrase, “Quit whining* and start the revolution.”

*Originally, I had used the term “bitchin,” often found in the vernacular. A wise friend, however, pointed out that “bitch” refers to a woman and might be considered a gender stereotype. While of shock value, using the term would undermine my argument for setting aside gender to focus more on leadership. Touché. Whiners, however, can be of either sex and are just as irritating and divisive. So, please, if you’re going to whine, pass the cheese. At least that way we can have something tasty, too.

What You See is What You Get

The world was captivated when newly-confirmed U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld first held press conferences. To the reporters in the room asking the questions, there seemed to be a fresh breeze blowing: Rumsfeld was someone who would answer a question directly, even to the point of being blunt. He famously talked about knowns and unknowns, and about known-unknowns. As a straight shooter, you got the sense that when you talked to him, you got the real Rumsfeld, bluntness and all. In that sense, Rumsfeld demonstrated Authentic Leadership. This has been defined as the “unobstructed operation of one’s true self in one’s day-to-day behavior.” In Rumsfeld, what you saw was what you got.

Authentic Leadership is leadership that demonstrates a “consistency between what you value and how you act.” This could be described as a vertical concept; one is aligned with one’s own values and beliefs. There is no inconsistency that draws this vertical axis off its true orientation. Another concept of Authentic Leadership could be described horizontally; one is aligned with the values and beliefs of those around him. In this way, personal beliefs mesh with corporate policies; the CEO fully agrees with the values and policies of the company. There is no inconsistency that undermines this horizontal axis from being level.

Authenticity, the foundation of Authentic Leadership, includes four aspects according to Michael Kernis. Self-awareness of one’s own strengths and weaknesses is the first aspect. Unbiased processing is another aspect; this means that one can hear positive and negative feedback without feeling threatened. The third aspect is consistency with one’s own values. The fourth and final component is relational authenticity, which incorporates frank honesty with one’s close associates. The end result of authenticity is meaningful relationships and trust.

With a foundation of authenticity, Authentic Leadership thus builds trust. One group of authors offered their definition of trust: “The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another based on the expectation that the other will perform [in a particular way], irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.” Vulnerability and freedom from control must almost certainly be prerequisites for the creativity, initiative and entrepreneurship that are required for successful organizations. Therefore, Authentic Leadership is an important condition of organizational success.

Leaders must answer for themselves, “Do my values align with my behaviors?” In other words, “Am I being true to myself?” The Shakespearean advice, “This above all to thine own self be true,” is certainly apropos. Leaders should be true to who they are at their core. Do you lead with authenticity?

Another serious question leaders might ask is, “Do my colleagues and associates trust me? If not, why not?” When the self-analysis shows a lack of trust, there may be a lack of authenticity. Leaders can then take steps to be more authentic including being more honest about one’s beliefs or taking steps to align with organizations that are more in tune with one’s beliefs. Sometimes, the problem is a poor fit between the individual and the organization that results in conflict.

One way to apply these concepts is to live an examined life. Socrates said, “The unexamined life is one not worth living.” One should set aside time, periodically, to scan the horizon—the immediate, intermediate, and the distant—to make sure that one’s behaviors and values are fully aligned. A 360-review may be one way to ascertain this, but self-examination is surely a good first step. Re-examine your beliefs and behaviors periodically to ensure that your leadership is authentic. That will build trust and produce better results, both in the short and long terms.

Leading Across the Fault Lines

Earthquakes are seismic events with tremendous power. Movement in the Earth’s different plates, the foundations beneath each continental land mass, causes earthquakes. The area where one plate encounters another plate is called a fault line.

When geologists talk about earthquakes and fault lines they use terms like rigidity, friction, stress, shearing, and strain. An earthquake occurs when the strain of pent-up energy is unleashed in an instant.

Diverse people encountering one another in organizations are much like the Earth’s plates: they have deep foundations and immense potential energy. When they interact with one another there can be rigidity, friction, stress, shearing, and strain. Sometimes, especially when leadership is lacking and tensions build up, an earthquake can occur. It can leave tremendous personal and organization devastation in its path.

One way to reduce tensions across fault lines in organizations is to cultivate relationships between individuals from different groups within the organization. In effect, the fault line is redrawn, the boundary reframed, and the pressure is reduced. Promoting a shared identity that binds people together is an effective way to contend with a fault line. If diverse people can focus on their personal and organizational commonalities rather than their differences, fault lines within can become less destructive.

One leader who was able to diffuse fault lines was Mohandas Gandhi. The South Asian homeland of Gandhi is one of the most diverse countries in the world. The seventh largest country by land mass, India is the second most populous country in the world with over 1.2 billion people. More than 400 languages are spoken in India and people—Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Sikhs—practice many different religions. In fact, when Gandhi was leading the people toward independence, there was no single nation, but instead numerous small states and principalities each ruled by the British Indian Empire. Out of this diversity and disparity, Gandhi sought to create a unified nation—India.

Gandhi founded India through a campaign of non-violent civil disobedience. But he also appealed to Hindus, Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs to set aside their sharp religious differences. Furthermore, he emphasized India above all else and shunned petty political rivalries. As a transformational leader, Gandhi worked to change the hearts and minds of his followers, so that the nation of India could be born.

Leaders in other contexts can employ many of the same methods to reduce tensions around personal and organizational fault lines. Ernst and Yip suggest that boundary suspending, boundary reframing, boundary nesting, and boundary weaving are all techniques that leaders can draw on to lower tensions and reduce the effects of fault lines.

Why not try practicing some of these techniques in your own context? Think of a new identity, cast a larger vision, consult a rival, reframe the question, or remove a stereotype. You have little to lose and a whole lot to gain.

Diversity and Leadership

In some circles the term diversity has a negative connotation, in part because of accusations of unfair advantage given to a group of individuals. Gareth Morgan, writing about organizational theory, recast diversity in a positive light. He noted that a “requisite variety” is necessary for organizational survival. Connerly and Pedersen have observed that we live in an increasingly diverse environment. Companies not only have global locations, they have domestic locations with multinational workers. A recent Washington Post news story illustrated how Montgomery County, Maryland, one of the wealthy Washington, DC suburbs, now has a majority minority population. Diversity is a fact of life.

Dealing with diversity is a challenge that will increasingly confront executives as they lead in various contexts. Connerly and Pederson suggested that awareness, knowledge, and skills are all necessary for leaders to successfully navigate the challenges of diversity. Many leaders, certainly, have done so.

Theodore Roosevelt, 26^th President of the United States, was one such leader. The son of a wealthy New York City businessman, Theodore Roosevelt was exposed to more than the high society of Victorian New York. He traveled, with his family, on two world tours. An avid nature lover, he explored the wilderness of New England and the American West, especially the Dakota Territory, where he had a cattle ranch. He learned and spoke foreign languages, including French and German, in addition to his native English. He studied at Harvard and Columbia. Upon graduating from Harvard, Roosevelt, already a published naturalist researched and wrote a naval history of the War of 1812, the first of over 30 books.

Roosevelt participated in local, state and national political office, serving as New York State Assemblyman, U.S. Civil Service Commissioner, New York City Police Commissioner, U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Navy, New York Governor, and Vice-President and President of the United States. At the outbreak of war with Spain, Roosevelt led a cavalry regiment know as the Rough Riders in a famous charge up San Juan Hill. As President, Roosevelt brokered an armistice between Russia and Japan and received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Roosevelt was comfortable in almost any environment: in high society of New York, on the plains of the Dakota Badlands, in the lecture halls of Harvard, in the meeting halls of New York City, in the backwoods of New England, in the capitals of Europe, or the hills of tropical Cuba. In whatever environment he found himself, Theodore Roosevelt had the capacity to adapt and thrive.

So how can you develop that same capacity? Cultivate your own natural curiosity. Read various subjects. Travel to different places, domestic or international. Learn a foreign language. Make friends of those with different cultural or national background. Share coffee with the seniors at McDonalds. Participate in civic activities. In a word, engage the diversity around you. One day you might just need the skills you develop to lead in a position of influence. That’s what Theodore Roosevelt did, and so can you.

Strategic Leadership

Whatever else leaders may do, they need to capture and communicate their vision. That’s what leadership author Bruce Avolio calls strategic leadership. He describes this important aspect of leadership as the ability “to articulate the strategic intent that needs to be pursued and then to get others to interpret it, modify it as necessary, implement it, and then evaluate how close to intent they were able to achieve.”

When I think of how a leader implements strategic leadership, I think of how our political leaders pitch their domestic program. Several have articulated their vision in simple, yet easily understood terms.

For example, Theodore Roosevelt asserted the “Square Deal”.

Franklin Roosevelt offered Americans a “New Deal”.

And John F. Kennedy campaigned for the “New Frontier.”

In their own way, this slogan accomplishes Avolio’s idea of strategic leadership: each slogan represents a program, articulates that program, invites support from followers, and allows others to interpret it for themselves.

We remember these presidents and their programs because they were, in one sense, successful. That is, the imagery each president used to present their domestic program proved to be captivating to those in the electorate. The American people bought into these ideas and supported these presidents as they pursued their agenda. That is a key element of strategic leadership: ownership. It’s not just that a leader owns a vision. It’s that he is able to get others to own it as well. At its most successful, a vision is not the president’s or the leader’s but rather our vision. We take it as our own.

Leadership at its fullest expression, then, casts a vision that others find compelling and are willing to make their own. As you and I think about and pursue leadership in our various contexts, we should remember that our best and most successful leadership will cultivate and communicate a compelling vision. Are you implementing strategic leadership?

Lincoln’s Transformational Leadership

Abraham Lincoln is arguably the greatest president and transformational leader in US history. Having presided over the Union’s victory over the Confederacy, Lincoln nevertheless called for national reconciliation. The definitive statement of Lincoln’s gracious generosity of spirit is encapsulated in his Second Inaugural Address.

Delivered March 4, 1865, just over one month before the end of the Civil War, this speech exemplifies Lincoln’s transformational leadership ability:

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Lincoln set the United States on the trajectory we follow today and transformed our nation.

Transformational leadership, according to author Peter Northouse, “engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower.”

Mount Rushmore depicts four presidents who were great transformational leaders. George Washington, the father of our country, set the standard for presidential leadership. Thomas Jefferson presided over a peaceful transfer of power and enlarged the national territory. Abraham Lincoln saved the union and bound the nation’s wounds. Theodore Roosevelt projected national authority both for strong foreign policy and progressive reforms.

These presidents were prominent political transformational leaders. But many men and women in other positions are also transformational leaders: parents, pastors, coaches, civic leaders, and teachers. I’ve blogged about two of my favorite transformation leaders, Dennis Kinlaw and Roy Lauter.

Who are your favorite transformational leaders? And how are you being transformed?