Barbara Kellerman, author of Bad Leadership needs to add a new category.

Cheaters.

This is an interesting (and unfortunate) compilation of leaders who have cheated and in the process lost the trust of constituents, and undermined their ability to effectively lead.

- Scott J. Allen

“I don’t want to blow up my time in politics,” he told the AP. “I don’t want to blow up future earning power, I don’t want to blow up the kids’ lives. I don’t want to blow up 20 years that we’ve invested. But if I’m completely honest, there are still feelings in the way. If we keep pushing it this way, we get those to die off, but they’re still there and they’re still real.”

Most American children, through school and the media, characterize  the participatory democracy of the United States as epitomizing equality. Furthermore, they are taught that political leaders, like the president, represent their rights as citizens and are therefore ideal leaders. I question how valid and compatible these notions are in light of the mudslinging and political pandering that occurs during today’s elections. This, of course, is not to take away from the accomplishments of men like Senators McCain and Obama. Both possess many of the qualities necessary to lead the free world. In politics, however, they often partake in a process that is essentially below them. Though each of them has the capacity to become one of history’s great leaders, they will have to forever battle against the political blemishes or gaffes on their records.

This brings me to the critical question: Can  a modern US politician serve as a model of exemplary leadership or does the game of politics inhibit leadership potential? When it comes to identifying the truly profound leaders in history, there is little to no argument when names like Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi arise. On the other hand, even when traditionally popular presidents like John F. Kennedy (JFK) are mentioned, someone will be able to cite a political stance that aims to negate his qualities as a transcendent leader. Looking into the future, I see less of a chance, especially under the now watchful eyes of the media and Internet, that future American politicians will ever be mentioned in the same breath as JFK or Franklin Delano Roosevelt.        – Jim Meehan

So often we view the undergraduate experience as the ideal setting for leadership development, and rightly so. Logic follows that most undergraduate students in America will hold some type of part-time employment before or during their undergraduate days. I now ask you, wouldn’t these work places prove just as opportune a setting for learning leadership skills as a college campus? I will spare you the many stories – arising mainly from dysfunctional management – of my first job, many of which could have been avoided with a better focus on intelligent leadership. After all, most leadership literature and consulting today is aimed at college degree-holding employees. I feel its time for employers of students to consider doing more for their workers than simply signing a pay check. – Jim Meehan

Barbara Kellerman’s phone must be ringing off the hook! She wrote a book called Bad Leadership a couple years ago.  It is a great read…

Intemperate Leadership – “the leader lacks self-control and is aided by followers who are unwilling or unable to effectively intervene.” – A potential example.

Corrupt Leadership – “the leader and at least some followers lie, cheat or steal. To a degree that exceeds the norm, they put self-interest ahead of the public interest.” – A potential example.

- Scott J. Allen

Like many other government agencies, the US Department of Homeland Security maintains a blog which is called Leadership Journal. The contributors include Secretary Michael Chertoff and all of the department leaders. About the Department Journal:

This journal is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide a forum to talk about our work protecting the American people, building an effective emergency preparedness and response capability, enforcing immigration laws, and promoting economic prosperity.

On February 22, 2008, Michael Chertoff wrote a post entitled A Fresh Look at Port Security. Nothing really new here; but what I did find interesting was the tone set by Secretary Chertoff. He opens:

It often amazes me how certain myths about our Department’s efforts continue to endure despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Take port security, for example. I regularly see stories in the media asserting that our nation’s seaports are insecure as if we’ve done nothing since 9/11 to protect them. Just yesterday, a columnist for the New York Times casually repeated that claim.

I suspect a lot of this venting is simply intellectual laziness by those who prefer to recycle old sound bites rather than do their homework. In some cases, a deeper misunderstanding is taking place about how ports function in the real world. I’m referring to those who contend that because we don’t physically inspect every one of the 11 million shipping containers arriving at our ports each year, our entire system of security is compromised. Incidentally, those same individuals never explain that if we did open every box, there’d be a line of ships stretching across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans waiting to enter our country.

OK, Homeland Security has a very challenging mission and will always be an easy target for critics; but that’s precisely why the Leader’s Voice is so important. It presents the vision, mission and values to the world and sets the tone for the entire organization.  

Secretary Chertoff should be commended for participating in the DHS’ social media initiative. However, his post is alternatively and unnecessarily defensive and aggressive in tone. While presenting “A Fresh Look at Port Security” is valuable, framing it around “myths about our Department’s efforts” diverts and diffuses the readers attention. Using language like “as if we’ve done nothing” is defensive in nature. Read the editorial that he linked to and see if it is really worthy of this attention or again just distracts the reader. 

In the second paragraph Secretary Chertoff’s writing takes an aggressive turn. Accusing unnamed critics of “intellectual laziness by those who prefer to recycle old sound bites rather than do their homework” appears to be taking the bait of DHS critics; something that the leader of this type of organization should really avoid. The final sentence of this paragraph presents an arrogant “know it all” attitude.

In the next four paragraphs, Secretary Chertoff lays out many of the programs and initiatives undertaken by the DHS to bolster our nation’s maritime security.  While informative and full of links, the passionate voice displayed in the first two paragraphs entirely disappears in the body of the post. Granted presenting this material in an exciting way is pretty difficult and has been made even more so by how he framed the post in the preceding paragraphs.

Secretary Chertoff closes the post by writing:

Those who don’t put in the effort to get their facts straight, or who use misinformation to suggest we are ignoring our maritime sector, are not serving their readers or the American people. They also do a disservice to the men and women who stand watch over our ports and our frontlines every day.

Readers remember the last thing they read and Secretary Chertoff misses the opportunity to make a strong close. By returning attention to DHS critics the reader’s attention is diverted away from the good work done by department employees and it makes the entire post read like a defensive Quixotic argument.

Finally, social media like this blog is designed to be conversational. It is the most democratic form of engaging communication short of actually hosting a town hall meeting. In fact many would argue that this is a form of digital age town hall meeting. Unfortunately, Secretary Chertoff’s post doesn’t really engender conversation and as of this posting, no comments appear. In fact, the entire blog is remarkably void of comments considering the subject matter and authorship.

The Leader’s Voice is so important in every type organization and more so in a constantly closely scrutinized government agency like the Department of Homeland Security. Properly framing the message (vision, mission and values) is absolutely essential in order lead stakeholders and interested parties toward desired outcomes. While Homeland Security should be commended for launching a social media program, they need to find a more engaging voice if they truly want the Leadership Journal to be an authentic and effective communication medium.

Cross posted: Sea-Fever blog and Center for Leader Development