The Recovering Leader

Health Care Reform Leadership: Rise

Yes, our elected officials have been paid for by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  Yes, there's dis- and misinformation flooding the media.  Yes, people are confused, overwhelmed, scared, and apathetic.  Yes, there are going to be problems and unknowns with anything that passes.  Yes, Olympia may vote against it. 

But now is the time.  It's time we find the strength within ourselves to be at our best and most ingenious. Now is America's opportunity to show how capitalism and caring can coexist in harmony.

People are dying for health care coverage that works.  That must include an option that says "We've got your back" to the medically / financially challenged, to the small business leader or worker, to the unemployed, to the doctors and hospitals, and to those who must make an excruciating choice each day between food, shelter or life-giving treatment.  An option that drives the health industry to control costs and be at its most competitive and healthy.  It's time for capitalism to roll up its sleeves and show the world how its done.  To offer great options for all, even as it cares for the least able among us. It's in our Bill of Rights: Democracy at its best means striking a majestic balance between freedom and the inalienable human right to a healthy life.

Rise up, be heard, and be a leader. Reach into your heart--and your experience with friends and family--for the passion to do something, and then do what you can, even if it seems small.  It won't be.  We all know it's the right time to create the right thing--health care that works for everyone.

David Peck

How About a 12-Step Approach to Health Care Reform?

Given the drunken brawl that is the American conversation on health care reform, it's high time we "...place principles before personalities!" as is said in 12-step circles.  Today, I'm sticking closer than usual to the context of my blog--applying principles of recovery to leadership.

Why? Particularly after this week of insanity, I hope you’ll agree that something new is needed in this "debate."  Also, politicians and media personalities alike bear many similarities to addicts.  For these reasons, over several posts, I'm applying a number of the tried-and-true 12 steps, and a selection of the powerful yet lesser-known 12 traditions of recovery to the health care reform effort.

The steps were designed as a roadmap for individuals wishing sobriety, while the traditions apply to groups of people in recovery. Let’s take a look at the first step and tradition:

Step 1: "We admitted we were powerless over the current state of health care--that our current medical delivery and health insurance systems had become unmanageable."

Rationale: While I fear there are hold outs, I hope an overwhelming majority of Americans and our leaders have admitted this, as it's the first and most important step in any recovery. The further discussion of Step 1 ends with the suggestion that we must be as willing to change "as the dying can be" and to do "whatever it takes" to face facts and recover.  To the extent that Americans are somehow unconvinced that the current system has hit bottom, then the time for recovery is not yet at hand.

What Step 1 can do for us: remind us that extraordinary problems require extraordinary efforts to be solved.  And until the vast majority is convinced that the current situation is unmanageable, the will to change it will be absent.  So far, despite very good arguments (cost, quality, access) the administration’s attempts at piercing the veil of denial have been ineffective.

What's needed: people need more convincing (or must come to their own conviction) that we've hit bottom with the current system.  While millions go un- and under-insured, those that have insurance seem in denial, or apathy, when it comes to their neighbors.

Tradition 1: "Our common welfare should come first; access to quality, affordable health care for everyone depends upon the unity of the American people and our leadership."

Rationale: What better example of putting our common welfare first could one imagine than providing full access to quality, affordable healthcare?  I see politicians, at present, putting political and financial gain first, not to mention the media on all sides of this "debate."  Considering the bile being spewed by everyone, like a bunch of anger-management castaways, our common welfare is sorely lacking in the national conversation.

What tradition 1 can do for us: remind us that what we're really talking about will require sacrifice, and is not what you can do for me, but what we can do for the greater good of all of us.  That's the "common" in our common welfare.

What's needed: greater engagement among all of us in the conversation, and more accurate representation by our politicians.  It’s time we and they put our common welfare above rhetoric, bile, and political / economic gain.

Are we ready to apply this step and tradition to the current debate?  I don't know, but I hope so.  As I’ve said before, I hope we can look back at this time as one of courageous leadership--when our leaders and each of us committed to health care for everyone in this country.

What do YOU think?  Is this a good application of recovery?  I invite you to chime in, as I’m always learning!

David Peck
The Recovering Leader

Begin with the End in Mind: Leadership in U.S. Healthcare Reform

18 Factors for a United States leadership role in health care.

When beginning an initiative, it’s important to design the end state first.  Some call it vision.  Others call it target environment.  Why?  If you jump to the details, the funding, or the “how” of it too soon, particularly when the issues are as complex as those related to health care reform in this country, then you get unfocused and mired in useless debate.  Rhetoric / conjecture become the substance rather than the side show.  Shockingly, that’s where we are already on the topic of a new U.S. health care system, despite the lessons of the past, most notably the failed efforts of Hillary Clinton in 1994 - 1995.

So this time, rather than settle for the lowest common denominator, let's do it right.  In this regard, I like to help my executive coaching clients set a high bar.  I suggest they develop their vision by identifying “conditions of delight” (“COD’s”)—what common ground would have the majority of participants / stakeholders (in this case, Americans) be quite pleased with outcome (in this case, with a new health care system)?

Since politicians, especially the detail-minded President Obama, jumped directly into the “how,” rather than set a vision and obtain our buy in for that, it’s time to back up.  Why do I say that?  Well rhetoric and conjecture were the reaction to his first round of ideas.  Criticism is being leveled before the ink has dried (e.g., “single-payer!”, "socialized medicine!", “giant government-run bureaucracy,” “administrators will get between doctors and patients,” “costs out of control,” etc.)  We have indeed plunged into a derailing debate about the “how” before the “what” is defined. 

What do we want?  Here are my own conditions of delight – the vision / end-state – that I’ve been able to piece together from all I’ve read and watched.  In my view, the list below reflect what must be true for the majority of Americans, including corporate interests that aren’t planning on disappearing anytime soon, to be pleased with health care reform.  Once we decide on specifically what these look like, and how we measure them, only then can we create the “how” of implementing them.

1.  Every man, woman, and child in America will have decent health care, including preventative, diagnostic, inpatient, outpatient, rehabilitation, and necessary medication.

2.  Access to medical services will be timely.

3.  Costs to Americans for their health care will be affordable for all.

4.  Costs to the federal government for health care will be deficit-neutral.

5.  Quality of health care in America, on average, will improve from its current state.

6.  People who want and can afford “premium” health care services (by accessing providers either at home or abroad) are free to do so.

7.  Standards of care and health care decisions will be designed and made by medical professionals, families, and patients.

8.  Individual’s health information will be private and portable.

9.  Security against scamming / gaming / fraud will be designed into the system.

10.  Quality measurement and continuous improvement will be designed into the system.

11.  The current health and medical malpractice insurance industry will not be destroyed—it will be actively involved in the redesign of the system, and reinvention of themselves.

12.  Health care providers will no longer be required to pay exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums.

13.  Financial damages for medical mistakes will be reasonable for providers and patients.

14.  Pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device researchers, developers, and manufacturers will  not be destroyed—they will be actively involved in the redesign of the system, and reinvention of themselves.

15.  Pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device developers will be incentivized to find / deliver cures rather than permanent, chronic dependence on prescriptions.

16.  Medical research is funded and thriving, and we continue to be a leader in this area – from basic science to practical application.

17.  Medicine as a profession is respectable and pays well.

18.  Medical education—from technicians, to doctors, nurses, and public health practitioners thrives and generates best-in-class graduates.

Let’s stop trying to engineer the details before we know what we’re building.  Encourage your representatives to vote against anything that tries to build the “how” before we can begin with the end state in mind


David Peck
Executive Coach and President
Leadership Unleashed
Palm Springs, California

OpEd: Applying Leadership Principles to Afghanistan

Many thanks to the Christian Science Monitor for publishing my OpEd piece in today's paper: -- "Are We Winning or Losing in Afghanistan?" http://bit.ly/XlyIT

David Peck

Financial Firms Need 'Nutrition Labels'

With the "bank testing," and the results thereof, being done by the Federal government in recent weeks, I want to remind folks of an OpEd I published in the Christian Science Monitor (no affiliation with the religion--they've been kind enough to publish a number of my pieces) on this topc.

Financial Firms Need 'Nutrition Labels' was published last October, and I stand by it today.

David Peck

Leadership in Avoiding Future Disasters: 5 Ideas for Reinventing Regulators and Regulation

Considering the recent regulatory meltdowns over Credit Default Swaps, Madoff, and less-publicized failures at the FDA, it's clear that leadership in overhauling regulation itself--something way beyond tinkering with old rules--is long overdue.
   
Regulators—folks working for the FDA, FCC, the SEC, DOE, and so on—are the referees of commerce.  Regulations are the rules of the game.  We need to think in a fresh new way  both about regulators themselves, and regulation – what would leadership look like? 

Personally, I believe Regulators are way too close to the industries they regulate, and, while it's a tad radical, I suggest they become a kind of Caste unto themselves, like referees.  They need to be educated in, and heavily insulated from the industry they regulate.  Think of it as a new profession:

• Becoming a regulator needs to be a one-way street.  Ban regulators from ever returning to the industry, or customers of / suppliers to the industry they regulate.

• Compensation for regulators needs to be similar to that of the industry they regulate.  Adjust the average compensation of regulators to be in the 50th percentile or above versus the industry they regulate.

• Regulators must be experts in the field they are to regulate, either from training, education, experience, or all of these.  Arguably, this might have helped with FEMA and Katrina during Bush 2.  Require that regulators be educated deeply in the industry they regulate.

• Regulatory agencies cannot use the industry they are regulating as a supplier of services.  No more “fox guarding the henhouse.”

• Regulation must itself be reformed to catch patterns of bad behavior, in addition to specific bad acts.  For example, Credit Default Swaps could be banned, yet something will take their place.  The pattern or theme of creating a secondary market that destabilizes when bets start going bad, is something worthy of looking at.  We have the tools and technology –and hopefully now the will.

Just some ideas to prime the pump.  More to follow!

David

Comatose Leadership: Our Complicity in Denying AIG's Future

From a leadership standpoint, failure can be a wonderful teacher, yet failure denied cements problems in place, for which insurance conglomerate AIG is the latest and most toxic poster child.

Take a look at results: AIG is producing no new ideas/strategies, no new public value (in fact, just the opposite), and no tangible success or achievement in the marketplace.  In short, the company is brain dead, and has been for a number of years.  Between the debates about “what do we do about the $165 million failure bonus payments” and the repeated bailouts, we are feeding it through a tube that doesn’t seem to be connected to anyone or anything.

Let's cut to the chase, declare AIG to be in a chronic, vegetative state, and try a new intervention: acceptance, change in leadership, strategic plan, transparent restructuring, track progress versus this new plan, and hold leadership accountable.  The classics.

Instead, given the current congressional hearings and media chest-thumping, we have pitched a jumbo "party tent" in denial about the death of AIG's current incarnation, and are therefore complicit in preventing it's future from unfolding, whatever that may need to look like.

While another AIG public and financial spanking is in order, the question about what to do with the bonus payments is a sideshow—political and optical “hay-making,” taking time and energy from the bigger issues:

• If AIG in its current form is simply dead, is it REALLY true that we can’t pull the plug, because if it goes it will take what remains of our economy with it?

• Does AIG have a do-able future as a reconfigured / restructured company?

                            If not, what's needed to stop wasting time and shoot the horse?

                            If so, what should that look like?

• If there is an immediate roadmap / plan / strategy for the company, what is it?  How can that be made public?

• Who’s leading it – as 80% “owner,” is the U.S. Government in charge?  Are we all in charge?

The White House (first Bush, now Obama), Fed, Treasury, and Congress all seem to feel that the company is “too big / too important to fail.”  Yet fail it has already done, and continuing our current thinking and approach is the definition of insanity: repeating the same behavior and awaiting / hoping for a different result.

If AIG’s death will take us down with it, then let’s get the public spanking over and done, accept that the current course of “treatment” has failed, appoint someone with a brain to run it on our behalf, and head into a very transparent and participative restructuring.

Tick tock.

David Peck

Bipartisanship is on the Rise: Leadership in Washington Means Engagement, Not Agreement

I'm thrilled that Bipartisanship is beginning to return to Washington!

What did you say?  I’m crazy?

I hear you: watching the Sunday morning news shows today I was about to start beating my head against the more-of-the-same wall until I realized: Hey, dude: leadership needs engagement, and not agreement.  So our elected leaders who engage in smart and open conflict is just what the doctor ordered for a new climate of recovery and innovation in our country.

Mission accomplished.  They are truly going for the jugulars. 

So bring on the jambalaya of animosity and fighting between parties, ideologies, and budget bills.  Notwithstanding the Limbaugh sideshow, these welcome conflicts are creating our future.  That we have an adult in the White House, along with a freshly “engaged” Congress, makes it more likely the irritation in the oyster will create a pearl.

In this corner: “We must spend more!” In that one: “Freeze all spending!”  Awesome!  Feel the heat!  What a great change from the cold, deep space dark matter of the previous administration, where disengagement was born of a lack of . . . well . . . competence.

And speaking of dark matter, part of this healthy conflict is brought to you by greater visibility.  President Obama is bringing transparency to the budget, accounting for the wars, and even ethics policies in the White House.  Now that things can be seen clearly, we can now have strong opinions and ideas about . . . wait for it . . . what’s REALLY going on.

And you gotta love the guy -- his own actions in his first 46 days (up to today) are hitting and missing his openly-stated goals.  It’s alien to Washington insiders, so they’re treating hits with silence, and misses like failed campaign promises, rather than the revolution they are: a more open executive branch that says:  “Here’s what we want to be doing.  Oops – we didn’t do that, but at least you know it, and by the way, we’re trying.”

It’s great to see this new, and competent, level of conflict in Washington. I’d rather have four years of sharp edges and elbows that fight out something worthwhile, than what seemed like 100 years of underhanded incompetence ended January 20, 2009.

A culture that values consensus would be symptomatic of avoided candor, garbled communication and a general lack of teamwork.

Our leaders and media must set the tone by not fearing or getting sidetracked by complaints about too vigorous a debate.

Disharmony, discord, and disagreement followed by fully-informed decisions result in rich and productive outcomes.

We the people should be looking not for Cumbaya in Washington, and the media for that matter, but instead to make sure the level of engagement remains topnotch.  Given that, remember that a conflict-friendly perspective increases the capacity of our leaders to make great choices, and therefore to heal America.

David Peck
Executive Coach and President
Leadership Unleashed

Self-aware Leadership Watch: Leader Acting as Pilot or Passenger

Step out of the cockpit of your leadership for a moment and take a look at how the trip is going.

Turbulence, storms, navigational changes, difficult crewmates / passengers, and the need for acceleration or deceleration are the facts of life.

Yet, if you’re a leader, then you’re at the helm, whether or not you’ve got a firm grip on the rudder and stick—or have been on autopilot while hanging out in the passenger cabin feeling annoyed or victimized.

Nothing reveals this passenger versus pilot mindset more so than a crisis like the one in the American automobile industry.  The additional multi-billion dollar bailout requests from GM and Chrysler show that when leaders believe themselves to be passengers, the only solution tends to be a desperate cry to “rescue me.”  However, at Ford, an organization that has NOT asked for a bailout, we see leaders behaving like pilots: “we’re at the helm, this is quite the storm, we’ve had some mechanical problems, yet we’ll get there one way or another.”

Your mindset isn’t just a psychological curiosity . . . it’s in charge.  What you want, what you believe about the  best way to get there, and how actively—or passively—engaged you are as the pilot, are the three key factors responsible for your current position and heading.  Yet too often leaders are unaware of the causal relationship between their internal “story” and bottom line results.

So it’s a responsibility of leadership to look in the mirror from time to time and ask four questions:

• What do I MOST want to achieve or accomplish right now, and immediately ahead?

• What do my current actions reveal of my beliefs about the best way to get there?

• How actively fired up and engaged am I in these things?

• What do all of the above mean for my current position, speed, and heading, and necessary adjustments to these?

Particularly when things are tough, too often leaders, not accustomed to turbulence, wrongly blame outside factors—other than their own beliefs and behavior—as key to the results they are getting.  They make their people, economic / competitive / market conditions, their clients or customers, their board, investors, and so on, the perpetrators of less-than-desired results.  Such thinking lets a leader put themselves in the role of passenger.

To avoid this, you must check in with yourself, and notice any bias to place responsibility for your trajectory and progress somewhere else.

Your results always reflect the answers to these questions, which makes a deliberate awareness and approach critical to all you hope to achieve.  As leader, you always have choices, particularly when you know your beliefs control your actions (and inactions), which then lead directly to the results, wanted or unwanted, you are getting.  Expose and change your beliefs in these areas and you can always change your organization’s outcome for the better.

David Peck

Leader as Narcissist Piggy: From Hubris to Humility

"Shame!" says President Obama to lard-slurping CEO's. And yet, many wonder. . .

• What could posses the head of a sinking multi-billion dollar firm to spend tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to remodel a bathroom in the executive suite?

• What could possess a multi-billionaire to commit suicide because they're worth a billion less than they were six months ago?

• What could possess Wall Streeters to pay themselves tremendous bonuses with, in part, taxpayer "Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)" money?

Piggishness, yes, for sure, but the headlines in recent months, beyond the pathological, like Medoff, have rocketed us from the ordinary trough to mythological proportions--and that's an opportunity for greater self-awareness when it comes to: hubris.  In modern times, hubris is typically defined as arrogance, exaggerated pride, and/or overconfidence. In ancient Greece hubris was somewhat different, but was then (as it should be now) ultimately a fatal flaw.

In a leader of a public enterprise, hubris is not having, losing, or seriously misplacing one's role and context in relation to "doing well by doing the right thing."  It's about the narcissistic misuse of money, influence, ambition, and the dominated perception of others.  In short, it is having a wrong relationship with power.

What are the signs and symptoms for hubris in a leader?

• Wasting public money on vanity items: bathrooms, jets, spa / resort retreats, and generally screwing others for your own gain
• Being grandiose
• Instantly devaluing others--people, places, and things that don't reflect the great "me"
• It's all about "me"
• Being belligerent or self-important
• Being on transmit mode, unable to receive or listen
• Wielding power in an overbearing way, harmful to self or others
• Being entitled
• Not asking others for help
• Not admitting a problem
• Not able to learn from mistakes
• Not taking responsibility
• Being unapproachable
• Overestimating one's own abilities

Any one of us can take on these traits/behaviors at times, which leads us back to the question: what practices keep hubris in check, and avoid its more malignant manifestations?

If the hubris problem is in someone else, it's important to come to terms with the fact that we can't fix the other person. There's nothing anyone can do to help them until they are ready or willing to face it in themselves and recover. In many cases, their behavior will lead them to a crash (in recovery circles, that's known as "hitting bottom,") and one hopes thereafter they will begin an inquiry into their own responsibility in creating the problem, and address it.

If the problem or the desire to avoid such issues is your own, and you want to address it, then congratulations. You're on the right road.

Here are a few ideas to keep in mind:

It's important to make humility (i.e., a “right” relationship to personal power) and integrity core values, and to find ways of incorporating them into day-to-day living.

One of the ways to do that is take a regular inventory (for example, perhaps occasional journaling and/or reflecting) of your beliefs and practices related to your own power. Here are several framing questions in each of these areas:

• What does "doing well by doing the right thing" mean to you / how does your behavior mirror that, and/or run in opposition to it?

• To what extent do you use your positional authority to help others versus get ahead yourself? Do you promptly admit when you are indeed powerless (and not trying to force your will in such situations?)

• To what extent are you (and/or your comfort, security, success) more important than those you lead?

• When you have a success, is it more your own victory, or was it your team? When there is a failure, is it yours, or does it belong to others?

• Are you inclined to be brutally honest, and true to your values and principles, or are you inclined to view those as relative to the situation?

• Do you, on an ongoing basis, identify and face the things about yourself you wish to work on or change, and do your best to address them?

• Do you, on an ongoing basis, admit when you are wrong, and promptly make necessary amends to yourself and others?

These questions, asked of yourself on a periodic basis, are a good start.

Let me stress, though, that there are many ways to address such issues. I’m a fan of whatever works for you to help you keep on the humility and integrity beam. Self-reflection coupled with coaching and/or occasional check ins with trusted advisors to review recent examples or situations you've been involved in are well worth the time and energy.  If such efforts seem time-consuming, exhausting, or may cause you "feedback burnout," then weigh them against the cost of NOT keeping your relationship to power in check, and do the math.

David Peck

Obama's election network can transform US consumer culture

Thanks to the Christian Science Monitor for publishing another of my OpEds today!

David Peck

Capitalism Derailed--it's a Good Thing

(Author's note: this is a revised version of a previous post.  I received some great and critical feedback, which, hopefully, is reflected here.)

Whether you recently lost your home or your job, had a pay cut, had to run up your credit, or can't get a loan, most of us are reeling from the breakdown of our economy.  Our heads and hearts are pounding with the raw hangover of capitalism run wild—the aftermath of testosterone, hubris, greed, excess, I win/you lose, see-you-at-the-billion-dollar-bail-out-spa.

Mirroring individual turmoil, our collective credit card is beyond maxed out: the national debt is estimated around $10.6 trillion, growing at $3.5 billion per day, while our nation's annual "salary" (i.e., taxes and other revenue) is only around $2.5 trillion.

The good news about capitalism's failure here in the U.S. is the prospect of coming together to design something better.  We are well on our way to "hitting bottom," as recovering addicts would say, and reinvention of capitalism itself is now a very real possibility.  And the time is ripe.

Yet our impulse is to tinker and not to reinvent.  Some say it’s time for socialism, or quasi-socialism.  Others want less regulation or more regulation.  New relief packages are under way, and more bailouts are lining up to be done.  Yet how can we trust any of these ideas?

I don’t think we can.  We as a nation have lost trust in the steering mechanism itself.  To restore it will take individual responsibility and great leadership—nothing short of a national economic reinvention that provides a new, bold, and global vision.  Tinkering with what has failed us in the past will only get us more of the same.

So as surprised as I find myself saying this, it’s time to discard evolution and get back to creation.  Just as our nation’s founders did so brilliantly so long ago, we must now take on the larger questions of who we want to be from an economic standpoint.  Let’s put together a team to create it deliberately, expediently, smartly, and in a way that reflects the greatest good we can imagine—the best in all of us.  I suggest we make it a big thing: a new Manhattan Project . . . or a Moon Shot for the reinvention of capitalism itself.

Unlike the industrial revolution, or the reactive post-depression era translation of our values into economic behavior, this time we can rethink our system from greater self-awareness—better informed by history's mistakes and lessons, enabled by great technology and global communication, and in the bright and sober light of the morning after.

And let’s not shoot the horse—capitalism has great potential and rock solid core ideas.  Ratchet it back to its positive intentions and you have the American Dream: the desire to give everyone a chance to “succeed” through entrepreneurial freedom, opportunity, and innovation.  In short, the best of capitalism is turning possibility into fruition.  It’s about kindness toward the dreamer willing to roll up their sleeves and take risks.  It’s a passion to create something great out of nothing.

This team will likely have to rethink how we define success.  To restore trust and make it sustainable, our notion of economic and individual “success” itself will likely have to encompass values more relevant to the needs of people around the world.  Fortune, fame, and the private-jet  CEO are dinosaurs.  Is that the best that humanity in 2009 can do?

So let's make it a national priority to sequester and empower a brilliant team of people—the best and brightest from around the world.  Lock them in a room until they reinvent capitalism, and come up with a plan to implement it.  Whether it’s economic team Obama, which seems unlikely, as it’s already up to its gonads in crises, or a more nimble group, we’re going to have to support it by not settling for less.  We’re way beyond the curative value of hand-wringing, worrying, and tinkering.

Yes, I’m proposing we redesign and rebuild the car while it’s driving down the track at 200 miles per hour.  Some might say that’s impossible, and they may be right.  Yet it’s falling apart anyway, so what have we to lose by trying?  When it comes to America, history has proven the doomsayers wrong.  We are far more resilient than we seem.

I would rather live in a society that wakes up and responds to a crisis of this magnitude by pulling out all the stops to create something new, than one seeking greatness by doing more of the same and hoping for a different result.  Wouldn't you?

David Peck

10 Suggestions for Self-aware Leadership in 2009

1)  Government leaders get back to the best, most ethical, positive spark of what drove them to want to lead in the first place.

2)  Corporate leaders learn lessons from the current economic crisis: for example, the business value of ethics, self-awareness, kindness, and the negative ROI of greed and excess.  They get back to "capitalism at its best:" innovation for a greater good.

3)  Religious leaders hold life, peace, personal freedom, and love—in all forms—as their highest sacraments.

4)  Media leaders take a fresh look at the practice of exploiting negativity for money.  Consider getting back to speaking truth to power, and challenging all of us to be at our best.

5)  Military leaders help others to understand the cost of violent conflict, and become advocates for peace.

6)  All leaders let go of the temptation to operate from fear, and instead, choose love, forgiveness, and being of service.

7)  We help each other, taking an active role in building a better future for our communities, one based on hope, possibility, and loving our neighbors.

8)  We quiet our minds from time to time for self-reflection, and, in particular, to LISTEN to each other.

9)  Individuals seek and find what fires us up, who we are at our very best, and algin / realign with that.

10) We all take a fresh look at our values as individuals and societies, and let go of anything / everything that doesn’t fit with them.

David Peck

Vision for the White House: Self-Aware Leadership from the Top Down

Barack Obama has been elected with a mandate for a new kind of leadership. Here's my vision of the type of leadership framework needed to enable President Obama and his executive team to achieve the many important goals in the years ahead:

1. There is tremendous candor, trust, and healthy conflict among the Obama executive team.
2. They are responsible for how their own beliefs drive their behavior, decisions, and results as leaders.  They challenge their own—and each other’s— beliefs in order to change outcomes.
3. They listen to the American People, each other, foreign heads-of-state, and others with open minds and hearts. They have a deep curiosity and open-mindedness to ideas, learning, and translating those into systemic change.
4. When they fail or make mistakes they admit them openly, make amends as appropriate, learn from them, and then apply the lessons-learned. 
5. They create transparent goals and progress measures, and share those openly with the world.
6. They are personally accountable for their impact on others, our community, and on the world overall.
7. They put the greater good of the world and that of the American People ahead of their political or personal needs or wants. 
8. They lead with great ethics, honesty, humility, integrity, and courageous authenticity of heart and mind.
9. They are driven, work hard, and committed to achieve.
10. They balance fierce realism with inspiring vision at all times.

Truly great leaders not only have most or all of these characteristics, but they inspire us to find them in ourselves by challenging our own beliefs and actions.

Finally, continue to be audacious.  Few things are more vital to the kind of transforming leadership our country so sorely needs.

David Peck

California Prop 8 / Gay Marriage Ban: Separation of Church and State Issue, or State-Sanctioned Discrimination?

California Ballot Measure 8, which bans Gay Marriage previously legalized by the state's Supreme Court, passed by a healthy margin this week.  While one might say "the people have spoken," Yes-on-8 voters were inappropriately asked indirectly their own views about gay rights before they looked at the more foundational question of the appropriateness of such measures in the first place.

Specifically, Proposition 8 leapfrogged a more critical concern of whether ballot measures should enable a religious view to dictate what's acceptable in a state's business behavior.  And as we all know, separation of church and state is a key element of American democracy.  Similarly, it institutionalized discrimination.

To get to the heart of the matter, consider a more apt ballot question like: "Shall amendments to the State Constitution, past or present, enable the State to ban certain licenses for specific groups of people based on age, race, religion, gender, physical impairment, size, or sexual orientation?" I think the answer would be, indeed, no.

After all, once the state's constitution starts limiting licenses for religious reasons, it's not unreasonable to foresee the voters inappropriately taking aim at even scarier targets.

And if you think this is not a religious issue, then put the church's agenda aside and you end up with the absurdity of preventing certain groups of people from receiving other state licenses.  What's next?  No more driver's licenses for Native Americans?  No more business licenses for the handicapped? No more liquor licenses for recovering alcoholics?

Bottom line, the passing of Proposition 8 starts us circling the drain of discrimination and state-sanctioned religious bias.

Regardless of whether you think this is a church/state separation issue, which I think it is, or a discrimination issue, which is also a reasonable argument, here's my hope: next election cycle, let's get a new ballot measure in that addresses the core question of what we want—and don’t want—the state’s constitution to do to certain groups of people when it comes to issuing licenses.  That I would love to see in California, and other states, teed up for a fair vote during the next election cycle.

David Peck

Prouder to be an American Today than Yesterday

Regardless of who you may have supported in the presidential election, we are blessed in this country to have a process that enlists the voices of all of us to enact change.

While many in this country were asleep at the switch of change during the last two elections, tonight's election was American Democracy at it's finest.

Tonight, I am prouder to be an American than I have been for eight years.

I am also grateful to have witnessed such fine leadership--from both candidates--in their speeches  post-election this evening.  This is a transformational time for the world, and at this historic moment, it's nice to see us get our mojo back.

Now, the real work of change begins, and our new president was clear: it's up to all of us.

David Peck

McCain versus Obama: Casting Your Vote Wide Awake

What is the true nature of the choice on the ballot before us?

In these crazy final days before the presidential election, the campaigns are furiously trying to put it in stark contrast.  They are piling on false comparisons: "It’s about hope versus fear," "experience versus danger," "ready for office versus learn as he goes," "more of the same versus change," and the list goes on.  If these actually were our choices, then the polls wouldn't be so close.

And while all the juicy innuendo, fear-mongering, and character assassination make for good television, they tap something deeper in all of us: the need for the reassuringly familiar.  While bipolar choices and mud-slinging may smell bad, they are at the same time a worn old blanket to comfort us in such uncertain times—we complain, we are indignant about it, but, my friends, we get it, and it feels kind of good.  We're only human, and we need reassurance while the house of cards seems to be collapsing around us.

What's familiar to us is John McCain: the war hero, and a deeply-seasoned and sharp-edged Republican white man.  Unknown to us in so many ways is Barack Obama, the even-keeled, sharp-minded young black Democrat who literally rocketed from community organizer to presidential contender in a minute. Forget the colorful political ad contrasts—in reality, voters are either driven by longing for the devil they know, or the need to reboot the system with a bet on the unknown.

Then there's economic craziness, the dog days of multiple wars, and potential presidential transition terrorism.  These exaggerate the need for some sense of "normalcy," no matter how smelly it may be.

Is the familiar what is needed for the next four years?  Many think so, and many others think not.

Albert Einstein said, "You can’t solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it."  The great leaders challenge and move us to raise the bar on ourselves, which, for Election 2008, means waking up to the nature of the choice before us.

So let's not dumb it down to race, class or party.  It's about the familiar versus the unknown, and our best guess—in the form of one person, one vote—about who's likelier to deliver what is needed right here, right now, for the common good.

Forewarned is forearmed: may you avoid a kneejerk decision, and cast your vote wide awake to the nature of your own choice.

David Peck

Election 2008: Coaching Tips for Mud-Weary Voters

Admit it: with 26 months of scalpel-sharp talking points and weasel-worded promises, the campaigns have worn you down.  Given the prolonged tsunami of campaign mud ("Socialist! Terrorist! More of the same!"), and pandering ("We’ll do healthcare for all, lower taxes, fix the economy, and end the wars at the same time!"), it's no wonder the polling numbers are so close, and so many of us are undecided about which chad to hang or dots to connect on the ballot.

If history is any guide ("Read my lips!  No new taxes…") a candidate's words don't shed too much light on how they will respond when faced with the actual complexities and crises of office.  Of course we hear their words.  But we didn't just fall off the turnip truck; we know that mostly they've told us what they think we want to hear and will get them elected. Yet as our votes hang in the balance, we wish we knew the real story—who's beholden to whom, and who're the key men and women behind the curtain. Add that to all the mud on our windshield—rhetoric, punditry, allegations, and robocalls—and our choice is even harder to make. 

That we must make a critical yet unclear leadership decision is not as daunting as it may seem.  As an executive coach, I happen to work with leaders every day, and I can't tell you how often—and how important it is—that they make clear-headed choices when much of what they need or hope to know is ambiguous.  In fact, each of us makes plenty, if not most, of our critical choices in life lacking any kind of full picture.  So rather than giving up or giving in, the question is: how do we make an important and ambiguous decision in the very best way possible?

Along those lines, here's a bit of executive coaching for you—just a few tricks of the leadership trade that may help you make a good call.  I warn you, what I'm going to suggest may seem a little unusual, but just bear with me.

Right before you touch the screen, hang the chad, or connect the dots, I need you to take a moment to let go of any strong feelings of apathy, anger, fear, or unhappiness.  As you cast your vote, just put this stuff aside and clear your head. Remember, as decisions go, this is one of the biggies . . . like popping the question, signing the deed, or pulling the plug.  Here's the tip: ask yourself two clarifying questions:

1. What is the future that makes the most sense—what is needed—for myself, my family, and the world overall?

2. All the mud and promises aside, is candidate X or Y more likely to steer us toward that future?

Then take a deep breath, check to make sure no one's looking, and cast your vote.

My point here is that better questions lead to better decisions.  I'm worried that, absent a helpful framework, many might make a hasty decision in reaction to the mudslide of misinformation, disinformation, and posturing to which we've all been subjected for so long now.  Given the state of affairs across the board, a reactionary vote is not what this country needs.  As a coach, I challenge you to pull yourself up above the fray when casting your vote.

We will all live in the future that your vote helps create.  Take responsibility by doing what's best for all of us.  If we learn anything from the post-9/11 wars and crises, it's that such accountability has been lacking, and that hasn't worked so well.

Bottom line, transparency and authenticity left the campaigns long ago, if they were ever there in the first place. So at this critical inflection point for the world, clear your mind of all the crud, even for a moment, ask yourself what's best, and who's more likely to steer us in that direction.  Then do the deed for yourself, and for all of us.

David Peck
Executive Coach and President
Leadership Unleashed

Last Night's Presidential Debate: Leadership Lacking

As I watched the stilted Presidential non-town-hall town hall debate last night, I saw a number of opportunities for great leadership to happen, yet safe answers and swiping at each other ruled the evening.

Brokaw: “Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?”

Candidate’s answers: “No, I am confident about the American economy, but . . .” and “It depends.  We need a leader who . . . “ blah blah blah talking points talking points.

A great leader might say: “Yes, Tom, it is going to get worse before it gets better, because all evidence points that way.  It’s a hard truth, but one I feel the American people know in their hearts, and are ready to hear, and one that I will face head on as President.”

Another example: “How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?:”

Candidate’s answers: “I can understand your frustration . . .”  and “I can see why you feel cynicism . . .” blah blah blah talking points talking points.

A great leader might say: “Thank you Theresa, for saying what’s on the minds of so many.  I think a healthy distrust is warranted, particularly given our track record as sitting Senators in Washington.  Part of this is my own responsibility.  As taxpayers, skepticism  is not only your right, but a necessity of citizenship in any great democracy.  To a large extent, you, the people, are the final check and balance in our political system.  So I say: maintain your skepticism, and use that to teach us, to speak the truth to us, and to help us be the best leaders we can be.”

Other than the stilted format of this non-event of a debate, my final comment is about the temporal aspect of leadership.  Read the transcript of the debate, and you will find that the majority of statements were about the past.  Leadership’s time frame is now and into the future.  Both were spending more time on their records, and retaliating about statements and misstatements from the past than they were painting visions and practical plans for now going into the future.

That’s not change, it’s more of the same.

David Peck

Ending the Bail Out of Wall Street

A few days ago I posted a piece on the bailout of Wall Street here ("Ending the Fed's Feeding Frenzy of 2008"), and it got picked up by the Washington Times as an OpEd today, so I had to remove it.

For those interested, they retitled it: "PECK: The Sins of Wall Street / Government Must Stop Rewarding Failed Leadership."

Also, as a follow up to that piece, I was interview by conservative radio host Greg Knapp.  Click below to listen or download the segment.

Download Knapp_Peck_Interview_9-19-08.mp3

David Peck

McCain and Obama: Accountability First, Then I Might Buy "Change"

Senators McCain and Obama are now each saying they are the "change" candidate. "Hitch your wagon to me," they tell us," and change will come!"  They are also tooting their own horns and touting their various past accomplishments.  What, no screw ups?

As a leadership development professional, I say it's high time both dudes-in-waiting show personal accountability for the not-so-pretty aspects of where were are today (economy=crapper, occupation of Iraq=ill-advised, taking too long, costing too much, not strategic enough, America's standing around the globe=same crapper, and the list goes on.)

After all, both candidates have been big cogs in the machine that got us to where we are today, a fact that didn't have a speaker's slot at either party convention over the last two weeks.

As two sitting Senators, each Presidential nominee has had a role, either by commission or omission, in getting us to the point at which change is so desperately needed.  Once they've acknowledged that, I might be more inclined to buy the change message.

How about: "I'm John McCain / I'm Barack Obama, and I've been a Senator for 26 years / 12 years (8 years as a State Senator, and 4 in Congress), and I have an admission to make: as a nation, we are where we are--for better AND worse--in part, because of my leadership, and/or my own failure to lead.  I take full responsibility, as it happened on my watch.  I will do better as President."

Accountability (rather than blaming everything on "Washington Insiders" or "Media Elite" or "Bush" or "Eurpoeans")?  Now that's leadership, and Change--with a big-boy capital C.

David Peck

Attacks on Obama: Leadership and "Reversion to the Mean"

The attacks on Obama ("Not ready for the White House!" and "Celebrity!" and "Muslim!" and "No substance!" and "Elitist!") are mean-spirited, manipulative, and meant to scare us.  Hey, fear works . . . Stalin, Hitler, and others have proven that over the years. 

We the people have been so snowed by fear-mongering, boogie-man politics ("Weapons of Mass Destruction!" and "The axis of evil!" and "Saddam!" and "Osama!")  that we have elected an idiot repeatedly, given up our right to privacy, let our economy hit the crapper, and volunteered to get caught with our pants down on oil-dependence.

Nominee Obama inspired people last night because he has the ability to speak in a way that moves us.  Speaking of fear, it's ironic that Obama's ability to inspire scares the fear-monger-machine itself--the media babble-heads, the party system, and the elite intelligencia.  It's that difference that creates the possibility he can win by a large margin, if he sticks to his strengths.

By the way, who actually is ready for the real-life job challenges of President of the United States?  As a leadership development professional, I'm pretty sure that it's a job for which no one is ready.  When you hit the Oval Office, I imagine the global power, responsibility, and consequences of your actions either make you raise your game, or play it dirty.

"Reversion to the Mean" (a theory suggesting that values eventually move back towards the mean or average) is as typical for dynamic leaders in Washington as it is in the stock market.  For Nominee Obama, the danger is that he starts to sound like everyone else because he starts to believe what others tell him he must do to get elected.

So the anti-reversion to the mean strategy is this: don't try and win by scaring us about McCain.  Yes, unlike past lame candidates, please fight back when absolutely necessary, but fight with hope and inspiration more so than fear.

To the extent Candidate Obama tries to scare us about McCain, which has started to creep in to some of his rhetoric, that's reversion to the mean.  In Biden's words, "That's not change, it's more of the same."  Please, Senator Obama, stick with what you're good at: being the change you want to create.

David Peck
david@leadershipunleashed.com

Leadership the American Way in Volatile Economic Times: What is Needed?

If yesterday's glum and glummer economic outlook from the Federal Reserve, slight drop in the price per barrel of oil, and recent huge daily swings in the stock market remind us of anything, it's that volatile times are the new "normal."  At the same time, the Presidential campaigns are once again sounding like more of the same old same old.  What, then, is needed?

Exactly my point.  Great leadership asks itself: what's needed here?  And then it takes action.

As much as I hated to hear about the fellow in Florida who rented a big billboard that says "Don't vote for a Democrat" juxtaposed against an image of 9/11, at least he took a stand, which is more than many of us tend to do on a daily basis.

The biggest failure of leadership over the last eight plus years has not been in Washington, D.C.--it's actually been our own.  That is, we, the American people, have failed to lead.  Why is it our failure?  Because, unlike many other countries, we have the right, the freedom, and the means to make changes, and we simply haven't done it.

We've been too busy.

We would do well to get off our butts, ask ourselves: what's needed here, and then do something.  Write and publish. Take a stand.  Make suggestions to your favorite candidate.  Vote.  Raise money.  Buy an ad.  Argue with a friend.  Make a statement.  Agree with a friend.  Have an issue discussion party.  Run for office.  Gather signatures for a ballot initiative.

Care about something, and translate your passion into action.

So search your soul, and ask yourself "what's needed here?" Then do something totally different and new for you -- just one significant action to address the issue you find most important in our country right now.  The one that you feel strongest about.  Then let people know what you did and why you did it.  Why?  Because you will inspire them.

That's leadership the American way!

David Peck

Challenge to Presidential Campaigns: Tell Us About Your White House Dream Team

A leader's key hiring choices directly impact their potential to achieve greatness. So, Senators McCain and Obama: set aside the VP question for now, and tell us in advance who’s going to be on your White House dream team.

We elect the President/Vice President, and yet we actually get a combination platter—party of two, plus those they hire for the critical task of transforming their vision into reality, and who counterbalance and challenge their own views.  Who they might pick for their leadership team is as revealing as their values and policies, and more telling than their running mate.

While pre-election disclosure of cabinet members and special advisors has been off the table in the past, both candidates are touting “change.” What better way to show it than by being up front and transparent about whom we might see in the top jobs.  Such an innovative way to campaign—that is, to deepen our understanding of the candidates, rather than hide behind hedged bets—would show leadership, guts, and integrity.

There’s no good reason we should have to wait until after the election to know who else we’re hiring.

While the vacant Vice President job has dominated headlines with the resignation of Sen. Obama's VP-vetting committee head James A. Johnson, and Obama camp counterattacks on McCain's advisors’ ties to special interests, voters must remember that the VP will most likely be chosen based on weaknesses in the candidate’s campaign map.  That will only serve to confirm what we already know.

Whether likely voters favor the vision / inspiration of Obama, or the tenure and Republican values of McCain, it’s only natural to hope they bring in people that fill their individual gaps.  Bet on Obama, and one might hope that his cabinet and advisors will be very experienced managers: capable, detail-oriented, get-it-done types who know how to work the Hill.  Concerning McCain, one might want to see people who are not part of the status quo D.C. machine (thus the "change" theme in action) and who can counterbalance his glum, fear-based outlook with inspiration, innovation, and fresh young thinking.

As leadership expert and author of “Good to Great” Jim Collins said, “First, get the right people on the bus, and the wrong people off the bus. Then get the people in the right seats.” I doubt that candidates would want to put names with jobs right now, but it would be nice to know who’s very likely to be on each bus—call it a short list.

After all, when working with a corporate President or CEO as en executive coach, I look at the whole picture: who’s in power, who’s got the ear of the leader, who can tell them they’re full of it, and what is their overall bench strength?

If you think this challenge is irrelevant, just imagine how today’s world might look different had past cabinet members not included names like Kissinger, Cheney (during elder Bush), Robert Rubin, Carl Rove, and Donald Rumsfeld—just to name a few.

Obama's Win: Leadership Means Making a Caring Connection

In these troubled times, the candidate who can maintain a caring connection with voters, regardless of how nasty the run up to the election may be, will have the advantage. 

By "caring connection," I mean communicating with authentic warmth and approachability, empathy for the worries and struggles of people worldwide, appreciation for the successes of others, genuineness, and the ability to admit one's own weaknesses and failures.

Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Obama can connect with others in this way.  In his salad days, Bill Clinton was able to do this, while Hillary Clinton showed herself too stiff for it. John McCain seems incapable of it.

What will derail Senator Obama is the temptation to take fire and brimstone too far--passion is great, fervor is off-putting.

Don't underestimate the need for all of us now for warmth with integrity, and a sense of hope.

David Peck

Candidate Missteps: Blood Sport of the 2008 Presidential Race

It’s Monday in America—any Monday—and politics is as usual.  Being good blood-sportspeople, we’re at the arena hoping no one gets gored, and waiting to see what happens when they do.

The candidates, the politicians, the political media, the consultants—those who put on the show—seem to feel more this year than ever that we’d rather see gore than be bored.  And no, I don’t mean Al.

So to feed our frenzy, whether it’s a gaffe—like Obama calling economically pummeled people “bitter”—or outright fabrication, like Hillary’s fish story confusing a hail of Bosnian bullets aimed at her FLOTUS self, with Hail to the Chief—every candidate misstep is trotted around the ring for us as a sordid little spectacle of spilled blood.  What type?  Arterial?  How much?  Dead?  Infected? Surface abrasion?  Well my friend, here’s what I know today (as CNN’s Beck would say) -- that’s a matter of opinion, and opinion, and opinion.

Oh and it’s got a little dramatic arc all its own: it’s a rumor, then a headline, then a candidate crisis or scandal, then, according to anchors, pundits, and press corps, possibly the end of the line for him or her, or even for the democratic party as we know it.

And then it’s … well … old.  Or is it? Maybe McCain's socked it away for later, and it'll be an RPG in the general election. Hmmm. Let's talk about that over and over again.

Is it substantive?  Is it true?  Is it relevant?  Who cares!  What-EVER, just feed the need!  We want our show.  Someone give him a wipe down – get that blood off her blouse.  GET back out there. 

And the news cycle starts again.  It’s Tuesday in America.

Candidates!  Capes at the ready!  Charge!

Leadership?  LOL.  I’m still waiting.

David Peck

Wanted: Self-Aware Leader in the Whitehouse

Don't know about you, but I want a self-aware leader to be the next President of the United States.

By which I mean six things:

1.  They are responsible for how their own beliefs drive their behavior, decisions, and results as a leader.

2.  They listen, learn and apply the lessons from their mistakes.  They have a deep curiosity and open-mindedness to ideas, learning, and translating those into systemic change.

3.  They balance fierce realism with imaginative vision.

4.  They are personally accountable for their impact on others, our community, and on the world overall.

5.  They are honest.  They lead with great authenticity of heart and mind.

6.  They are driven, work hard, and committed to achieve.

Truly great leaders not only have most or all of these characteristics, but they inspire us to find them in ourselves by challenging our own beliefs and actions.

This vital characteristic seemed a strong aspect of Barack Obama's recent speeches about race, including the post-Reverend Wright speech in Philadelphia.

For me, the key was his challenge to all of us: that WE need to change the way we think about racial politics -- to not accept the usual fodder of scandal, barb and riposte -- and actually expose, then change, the substance of our beliefs.

That's what I call self-aware leadership!

Maybe it's all talk.  My Hillary-supporting friends say Obama is an empty suit.  They admit he's a great orator, but think a junior first-term Senator is woefully inexperienced, and simply not ready for a hard race against John McCain.

And yet I wonder.

Many of today's burning issues have been ignored / inadequately addressed / or caused by the "best and the brightest": experienced, smart, highly motivated and educated senior people, with great credentials in Washington.

Given this, maybe Americans are looking for a fresh face, someone "junior" or "inexperienced", who's willing to challenge the status quo by suggesting that not all experience is helpful, and not all strongly-held beliefs lead to prosperity.

In this context, the self-awareness / bold tone / and challenging substance of his ideas on race bode well not just for Obama, but for the rest of the country -- precisely because he's asking US to re-think our own core notions about race.

I would also like him and the other candidates challenge us to similarly think for ourselves about other key issues-education, health care, the economy, and world security.

But given the centrality of race as a problem in American history, I think Obama's call to examine ourselves distinguishes him, at least for now, from both Clinton and McCain in even more profound ways than we have yet seen in this campaign.

It's certainly audacious -- and few things are more vital to the kind of transforming leadership our country so sorely needs.

David Peck

Self-aware Leadership Watch: Creative Leadership--Democrats Need to Fight More Like Republicans

Look at yourselves!  Wake Up!  Stop the nastiness!!! . . . is what I'd say if I had the ear of the Democratic presidential candidates.

While the Republicans know how to fight with each other, and then fall into step like pack animals (reference the Bush-supports-McCain-on-the-White House steps photo op two days ago), the Democrats are more like cannibals; they don't ever hesitate to eat each other's young on CNN.

Why?  Who knows?  Bad political consulting; crappy advice; pressure from (and sucking up to) the bloodthirsty media.  Or maybe the Dems think it looks strong to attack and counterattack.  "Nasty is the new strong" if you're in the screaming House of Howard Dean.

Strong leadership is creating a better future, creating new plans and programs, creating new ways to make the American people thrive.

In fact, studies show great leadership is about creating.  In polar contrast, reacting is simply weak and wasteful.

This has to end.

Given the many months between now and the conventions, my wish is that the would-be Democratic nominees show us they can be leaders by learning to fight more like Republican on Republican.  We'll all be the better for it.

David Peck

Obama's Rise: Leader Needed — Managers Need Not Apply

Obama's surge over Clinton in the presidential primaries is a great reminder that when times are tough, a leader, and not a manager, is what people want and need.

Those who know her say Hillary is very, very smart.  If I had had $10,000 to buy a seat at that 'business luncheon' with her last year in San Francisco, I would have accepted the invitation and decided that for myself. Since I didn't win the lottery that week, I’ll just have to take their word for it.

As for Barack, my gut tells me I can trust him. Since his first primary win, he’s rediscovered his leadership voice—the one that gives folks the chills, and acts like a magnet, pulling in people looking for polar change from the status quo. 

That ability to move us deeply not only means Barack can win it all, but also that he can be a great President.

A leader inspires people and has the vision to guide them to a future greater than the present.  Then they hire superb managers to make it happen.  It doesn’t work in reverse—that is, you can’t hire a manager to create a vision and inspire people, because that isn’t what they do well. While Hillary is no doubt a highly capable manager, this is too major an inflection point in our own history, and that of the world, to put the most powerful office in the land in the hands of someone who lacks the gravitas of a leader.

In the leadership development field, using interviews and assessment tools, we can map the correlation between a leader's relational skills and their ability to succeed. A leader who is authentically and primarily relational in nature touches people in a way that the terminally smart but relationally-challenged can only dream about.  That translates to trust, money, votes, and missions accomplished.

Forget the specific candidates for a moment:  If you had to choose between an extremely smart and experienced leader, and one who strikes you as the type of guy or gal you can trust, which would you pick?

For those who worry Obama lacks Hillary's prodigious I.Q., or her and Bill's collective experience, I challenge you to take a hard look at how much value you place on those qualities alone.

The road to ruin is often paved with no-bid contracts awarded by very smart and experienced people with resumes to die for-literally.  Yes, I mean Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and the other architects of the Iraq situation. In fact, wasn't Karl Rove super-smart and super-experienced? 

The nation's capital is teeming with brains and resumes as thick as monuments, and about as effective.  Hillary strikes people at an intuitive level as … well … that's just it. She doesn't strike people deeply at all.

In my opinion, the Obama surge reflects a new and great leader in the making-one who seems, at least for now, to understand what people want and need, and is thus causing a wave of trust and hope that is likely to grow.  It will then start to skyrocket as we project our own hopes onto him.

Speaking of hopes, I for one, hope that Obama stays true to himself, regardless of the temptations of cronyism, 'good advice' and tremendous power; if he does, and surrounds himself with the best managers in the world, he will become a great leader, one worthy of the presidency, and of history's thanks.

David Peck