Why Leadership Keeps Failing
by Kathleen Reardon
at Huffington Post
June 8, 2007"Dan Balz of the Washington Post described the collapse of the comprehensive immigration revision as a defeat for all involved, an indictment of the political culture of Washington and a failure of leadership. Critics, he wrote, will argue that if Washington can't successfully address the "glaring problem of immigration," then "what hope is there for progress on health care, energy independence, or the financial challenges facing Medicare and Social Security?"
The problem, as I've come to see it, is not so much an absence of leadership as a complete misunderstanding of what the term means. Leadership success in solving any problem depends on the leader's suitability to the problem and solution stage at hand. I co-authored a paper on this a few years ago -- "Leadership Style and The Five Stages of Radical Change". The premise: Each problem stage calls for a different type of leadership style.
Some lead by reasoning, others by forming coalitions, bargaining, exerting authority, establishing favor banks, being charismatic, appealing to altruism, exerting power or inspiring. None of these approaches is superior to the others. Each is more or less suited to the demands of the times and issue at hand. Each problem has solution stages, and for each of these (problem analysis, creativity, motivation, implementation) different types of leadership serve best. I think we've lost sight of this. We keep using a hammer because everything has come to look like a nail.
Al Gore took energy solutions on the road. He's a reasoned, motivational leader and that's just what we needed. Evidence of global warming became more evident over the last few years, but people needed to be convinced -- not only that it is real but also that there are reasonable solutions. Al Gore's leadership style was suited to the task and he did an exceptional job.
......SNIP"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-reardon/why-leadership-keeps-fail_b_51362.html