01 Dec 09 The Ridiculous Focus on Approval Ratings

Ok, you can probably tell by my title where this blog is going to go. I have become increasingly more fascinated at the desire that we have to measure effectiveness primarily through numbers. I’ve written on this before in a corporate setting with the idea that measures established to make the vague more concrete become overly important and allow us to ignore the not-so-measurable environmental and cultural changes that are going on around us as leaders. I don’t think we should throw out all of the numbers…I just think we get obsessed with them.

But this is not my point right now. I have noticed more and more this obsession with approval ratings. For example, there was panic a week or so ago when President Obama’s approval rating dropped below 50%. Now it is back to above 50% but the whole issue was silly because there is a 5% margin of error. In other words, we have no idea whether 45% is that much different than 55% because the range of scores is 10%.

Ok, that’s one thing, but here’s the real issue. Leaders can not lead effectively worrying about rolling approval scores. President Obama was not elected to gain public approval. He was elected to lead the nation. The same is true of every governor, mayor and other official who serves public office. Chasing public approval is like chasing employee approval…there are times when you are simply not going to have it. Why is that?

The biggest reason that approval ratings need to be put back on the shelf is that they are short-term measures. Approval ratings as published always represent an immediate and timely response at a specific moment in time. Leadership on the other hand is measured over the long term. You can’t adequately make decisions that are visionary or complex and worry about the response you will get on the day you make that decision. This is the paradox of approval ratings. When published as if they are substantial news, we get confused and concerned because we get the impression that there is something terribly wrong.

One other thing to remember about approval ratings on a large scale. The most reported ratings, those conducted by Gallup, are conducted by phoning between 3000 and 4000 people with the question, “Do you approve of leadership?” or something to that effect. It is as simple as that. In other words, the breaking news that somebody’s approval rating has dropped or risen is based on an answer given by .00001 of the population.

This is the equivalent of asking 1 person in a sell-out crowd at the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium to represent the views of the nation.

While it would be great if we could predict the effectiveness of our President or any other leader based on a simple measure of public opinion, we simply cannot. The same is true of corporate leaders or others in complex systems. There is simply too much we do not know at a given point of view and too great a diversity of opinion to ensure a valid measure. It is important that our leaders hear our views and opinions, but simply having these opinions is no reflection of the effectiveness of the leader.

What do you think?

Tags: accountability, approval ratings, communication, Global Leadership, integrity, leadership approval, performance, politics

18 Sep 09 The Danger of Dogmatic Leaders

So, I’m in a local Walgreen’s and the person in front of me is talking to the cashier about the fact that Michigan is about to put a tax on soda (”pop” for those of you from other areas). It goes like this:

Customer: “So, my son says they are going to start taxing soda. I think we’ve got about enough taxes.”
Cashier: “Yeah, it’s going to be a Socialist state before long. We’re turning into Russian Communists.”

While I managed not to actually snort through my nose or something, I was extremely puzzled. What does paying too much in sales taxes have to do with being Socialists? And how does being a Socialist state with too many taxes have anything to do with Russian Communists? And how does this conversation begin because Pepsi is about to be taxed in Michigan? By the way, the conversation ended with both of them nodding sympathetically to each other so apparently it was me that missed the point.

As I thought about this later it occurred to me that this kind of thinking, and these conversations, happen all of the time because of our tendency to be so dogmatic in our thinking that it doesn’t matter what is said, we have our opinion. If the customer had said, “They are going to repave the road,” it is just as likely that the cashier would have brought up the Socialist/Communist issue. By definition, dogmatic people have beliefs that are to be undisputed and do not require any particular basis in fact. I believe it because I believe it and if you don’t believe it, you are wrong.

Many leaders that we see in the media are dogmatic leaders. Their beliefs are the only facts they need. If you follow them, you follow them without question because their beliefs are the truth. Often they present evidence, but it doesn’t have to be strong because it is only window dressing to the real issue which is that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

This behavior causes many dysfunctions. For one thing, followers of leaders that are dogmatic have no idea why they believe what they believe…only that their leader does. This creates a dysfunctional situation where the follower may hear or see discrediting evidence about the leader but can not accept it as evidence because…well…because their followership is based primarily on belief about the leader, not on evidence. So, when an auditor starts to question the ethics of decisions, or business results start to decline because the decisions are poor, neither the leader nor the followers will challenge the practices because they are “right.”

It is also impossible to compromise with dogmatic leaders because there is no compromise. Look at the current health care debate raging in Washington. Many of the political leaders have taken an unbending position (on the right and the left) based on ideology and not on the needs or wants of the people. Dogmatic leaders tell people what they should believe and then poll them, using the results as proof that they are right. This circular approach creates a no-lose situation for the Dogmatic Leader.

Truly effective leaders have to understand that the strength of their convictions is based on what they believe to be true at the time. Leaders who care about the welfare of their followers take the time for open discussion and consideration of options. Even when they are sure of themselves, they are always seeking indications that their direction or opinion might need adjustment. These leaders do not measure the intelligence of others by how closely others agree with them, but by how willing others are to be innovative and accountable to the outcomes. They start with the problem and work their way to a solution, not the other way around.

Tags: accountability, dogmatic, fear, global leader, Global Leadership, politics

11 Dec 08 A star is born?

So, this is a quick one. I had the opportunity to appear on the Fox Business News show “Cavuto.” Neil Cavuto was hammering away at Governor Blagojevich and wanted to talk about trust and leadership. It was a bit of a strange interview because (a) it was my first on national tv and (b) I’m convinced at the beginning that he thought I was somebody else. On the other hand, he clearly had read some of the blog entries, so that’s good enough for me. Anyway, if you haven’t seen it, you can check out www.Global-Leadership-Dialogue.com and click on the Fox Business News link. Let me know what you think!

Tags: Cavuto, Fox Business, politics, trust