Categories
BLG Leadership Insights Leadership On the Edge Managerial Competence Political Competence

Sane People Need Not Apply

Aristotle said, “There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.” For those of us who aren’t geniuses Aristotle’s words are a small comfort. “At least,” our average minds think, “we aren’t mad.”

We look up to smart people, great artists, and record-breakers—but we also know that some of them are a little off. Van Gogh was a pioneering artist, but he cut off his ear. Nikola Tesla made ground breaking discoveries in the field of electrical engineering, but he was obsessed with the number three and pigeons. And Ernest Hemingway introduced a new literary style to American letters, but he took his own life after dealing with decades of depression.

According to Professor Nassir Ghaemi—history’s greatest leaders also have “a tincture of madness.” Professor Ghaemi says that figures like Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln were great crisis leaders because they were great depressives.

If you want to be one of those figures that can galvanize a country or a business that’s floundering it would appear that you would do well if you could arm yourself with a few mood disorders.

The leaders Professor Ghaemi looks at certainly had problems with depression, but does that mean people who don’t deal with similar problems would be incompetent in crisis leadership roles?

Probably not.

Aristotle and Professor Ghaemi are certainly right. Unusual minds frame problems in a different light and are highly creative—but this mindset discounts the talents of those who aren’t mad or fighting depression.

Artists like Picasso to Nabakov weren’t mad, but they are nonetheless geniuses. Leaders like Eisenhower and  Washington weren’t people who dealt with severe depression–but they were certainly powerful crisis leaders.

Professor Ghaemi’s work is interesting and it’s great to see how certain leaders turned their weaknesses into incredible strengths. But don’t worry–you don’t need to be mad or depressed to achieve great things.

Aristotle said, “There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.” For those of us who aren’t geniuses—Aristotle’s words are a small comfort. “At least,” our average minds think, “we aren’t mad.”

We look up to smart people, great artists, and record-breakers—but we also know that some of them are a little off. Van Gogh was a pioneering artist, but he cut off his ear. Nikola Tesla made ground breaking discoveries in the field of electrical engineering, but he was obsessed with the number three and pigeons. And Ernest Hemingway introduced a new literary style in American letters, but he took his own life after dealing with decades of depression.

According to Professor Nassir Ghaemi—history’s greatest leaders also have “a

Aristotle said, “There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.” For those of us who aren’t geniuses—Aristotle’s words are a small comfort. “At least,” our average minds think, “we aren’t mad.”

We look up to smart people, great artists, and record-breakers—but we also know that some of them are a little off. Van Gogh was a pioneering artist, but he cut off his ear. Nikola Tesla made ground breaking discoveries in the field of electrical engineering, but he was obsessed with the number three and pigeons. And Ernest Hemingway introduced a new literary style in American letters, but he took his own life after dealing with decades of depression.

According to Professor Nassir Ghaemi—history’s greatest leaders also have “a tincture of madness.” Professor Ghaemi says that the greatest leaders like Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln were great depressives.

If you want to be one of those figures that can galvanize a country or a business that’s floundering it would appear that you would do well if you could arm yourself with a few mood disorders.

The leaders Professor Ghaemi looks at certainly had problems with depression, but does that mean people who don’t deal with similar problems would be incompetent in crisis leadership roles?

Probably not.

Aristotle and Professor Ghaemi are certainly right. Unusual minds can frame problems in a different light and can explore new visions with great ease—but they also discount the talents of those who aren’t mad or generally depressed.

tincture of madness.” Professor Ghaemi says that the greatest leaders like Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln were great depressives.

If you want to be one of those figures that can galvanize a country or a business that’s floundering it would appear that you would do well if you could arm yourself with a few mood disorders.

The leaders Professor Ghaemi looks at certainly had problems with depression, but does that mean people who don’t deal with similar problems would be incompetent in crisis leadership roles?

Probably not.

Aristotle and Professor Ghaemi are certainly right. Unusual minds can frame problems in a different light and can explore new visions with great ease—but they also discount the talents of those who aren’t mad or generally depressed.

Categories
BLG Leadership Insights

A Noble Political Testament: When to Step Down

When we talk about the essence of pragmatic leadership we usually focus on the establishment and duration of leadership. By that I mean the majority of blogs and books deal with how to attain a leadership position and how to effectively lead once you are in a commanding position. Less attention is focused on transition leadership and power to another individual.

Even leaders as well regarded as Jack Welch and Sandy Weil have seen their prestige suffer as the result of the poorly executed transitional efforts. For an example of how to properly leave office, we can look to “the father of the country,” George Washington.

Washington released his farewell in the nation’s newspapers in September 1796. The President opened with a tribute to the people of the United States and offered an explanation as to why the time for his retirement had come. He emphasized the importance of union and the need to avoid sectional and factional divisions. He also warned the country against permanent alliances with foreign nations. By resigning voluntarily he was declaring that his allegiances were thoroughly republican. As Joseph Ellis in Founding Brothers notes, “Washington intended his address as advice to his fellow countrymen about how to sustain national unity and purpose, not just without him, but without a king.”

To date the United States of America is the most successful example of a colony transitioning into a successful democratic state. While I grudgingly give some credit to the influence of the English parliamentary system, I believe the success of our system lies in the effective transition initiated by Washington.

Replacing an executive doesn’t have to be a mystical process. In order to be most effective your team should get together and define the requirements of leadership, identify the key constituents who will participate in the process, articulate the context for the organization, and set a universally acceptable search criteria that accurately reflects a vision for the future.

Photo Credit: Wally G

Categories
BLG Leadership Insights

The Maverick Mistake

In late September of 2008, in the aftermath of the Lehman Brothers collapse and the bailout bill finding tepid support amongst legislators; John McCain decided he needed to act. He suspended his campaign and rushed to Washington to broker a deal.

John Heilemann and Mark Halperin in their recent book, Game Change, argue that McCain’s actions might have over empathized his ability to construct a swift reconciliation with the Democrats and Republicans. They write,  “McCain’s instinct when he saw a problem was to charge straight at it and try to solve it. He started thinking I can do this. I can cut this deal.”

Vision alone will not mobilize stagnant forces to create and sustain action. What becomes important in this context is strategic agility.The ability to jump into action and capitalize on opportunities and networks with incomplete information and time pressure.

“In staging his return to Washington on September 25, McCain left a great deal to be desired. There was no careful coordination with House Republicans or the White House. There was no media strategy, no plan for a press conference. Nothing. McCain just showed up in his Senate Office and said, Okay let’s see what I can do to get something moving here.”

Before embarking upon Washington, guns blazing, the McCain team should have done a better job identifying potential allies and resistors, while considering how these actions would be interpreted by the media and general public. In failing to think strategically the McCain campaign ceded the ability to frame the issue and in the midst of a presidential campaign it’s no small penalty. This oversight coupled with the Palin debacle cast doubt on McCain’s most important claim to the White House: experience.