Leaders Need Followers

New Zealand's Prime Minister John Key addressed Parliament yesterday. There have been mixed reactions to his speech. The PM had an opportunity to take some bold actions on tax reform that may have helped propel New Zealand forward. Mr Key had at his disposal recommendations from the Tax Working Group and the 2025 Taskforce. The Tax Working Group's recommendations included a rise in GST, a lowering of the top personal tax rate, and the introduction of a Capital Gains and Land Tax. The former were embraced and the latter deferred. Bob Buckle, Chair of the Tax Working Group, interpreted the PM's speech as a broad acceptance of the Groups framework for New Zealand's future tax system (Fallow, 2010). Other commentators, like Bernard Hickey, told Generation X and Y that the Prime Minister was effectivley telling them to leave the country (Hickey, 2010). I could go on about other reactions, but this has been well covered by the NZ Hearld and Stuff websites.  Instead, I want to focus on leaders and followers by comparing Prime Minister John Key's Statement to Parliament and President Barak Obama's State of the Union Address. This will not be a comprehensive review of the speeches themselves, but rather the circumstances that brought each leader to the delivery of these speeches.

President Barak Obama came to power in January 2009 riding a wave of change. His arrival was accompanied with chants of, "Yes we can!" and "Hope!" He entered Washington in the midst of unusual fervor and excitement. During his first year in office he tackled some big issues. He bailed out the banks; continued efforts to revitalize the economy through various stimulus packages; made efforts at reconciliation between America and the rest of the world; and jumped into the massive task of revamping the health care system. It took bold actions to wade into these issues.

In comparison, Prime Minister John Key's National Government focused on the economy, law and order, education, and health. The National Government has made some in-roads in these areas but they have done so carefully, so as not to rock the boat. National has received a fair amount of public support and has gained enough political capital to allow them to act boldly in the area of tax reform. But this opportunity may have been squandered. Resistance to the introduction of National Achievement Standards is rising in the education sector, and the PMs Statement to Parliament has received mixed reviews. The window for bold action is quickly closing. It appears that the PM is going to walk gently around tax reform. Why make waves when you can keep some ideas in your pocket for re-election?

Obama used his political capital and popularity in an effort to make a fundamental change to America's health care system. He did not communicate well the importance of health care change or paint a clear picture of what the future would look like if this change wasn't made. In his State of the Union, the President acknowledged that he understood that his focus on health care had cost him. But he re-stated his convictions and re-emphasized the importance of addressing the tough challenges and not leaving them for someone else. In contrast, Key has worked to maintain his popularity. It is obvious to some that being liked is more important than making the tough calls that are required to make fundamental changes to the way we live. Obama tried to lead boldly but it appears he did so with few followers. Key has stood in front of many potential followers and has lead them nowhere.

In both examples of leadership given here the follower has played a significant role. The American public made clear that they weren't happy about the direction the President was leading them, and in response he changed his behavior and refocused his message to address their concerns. But, just as he did in the campaign, he also reminded his followers that change wouldn't be easy and that he can't make the changes on his own. Followers need to be willing to sacrifice in order to make a difference.

On the other hand, Key brought with him to his speech many followers who were waiting to go boldly where they needed to go. There were those in this country who were ready to follow him and make the required sacrifices so that New Zealand could have a better future. Instead of a courageous leader, some found that they were following someone who would rather be remembered as a nice guy.

There is more history to be written about these two leaders. In the short term, those that follow them need to make some tough choices. We need bold leadership that will help us to re-think how the world is structured. But these leaders can't restructure the world if we aren't willing to follow them. Blind followership is not the answer. But neither is choosing not to follow at all. We need to be prepared to engage our leaders in the pursuit of solutions that address the unique challenges we currently face. America and New Zealand will repeat the same mistakes if we aren't able to tackle the fundamental issues that got us here in the first place. Our leaders are not going to take us where we need to go if we don't follow. As followers, we need to recognize where our leaders are trying to take us and act accordingly.

State of the Union

I spent tonight listening/watching President Barak Obama's first State of the Union address. I watched it over a terrible Telecom Broadband connection which meant that the video had to stop and buffer every 15 seconds. A seventy-one minute speech took over two hours to watch.

Anyway, the highlight of the speech for me came when Obama encouraged Washington to stop waiting to address the challenges that face America (see below). Washington needs realize that as they bicker among themselves and wrestle to be the top dog in politics, the rest of the world is leaving them behind.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The theme Obama touched on in the video above was scattered throughout the rest of his speech as he talked about the economy, jobs, innovation, healthcare, green energy and more. The silliness of opposing an idea just because it isn't yours; of blocking legislation when there are no other viable alternatives; of dragging your heels, refusing to fix a problem so that you can campaign on that issue in the next election. this silliness has fatigued many Americas. As you watched the address these sorts of attitudes and behaviors were obvious. The Republicans sat in the chamber with arms crossed and fingers tightly clasped together. Many refused to clap for even the most common sense suggestions made by the President.

History will judge those who currently occupy the White House and Congress by what they ultimately accomplished. President Obama seems very aware of this fact. If the next generation of Americans find themselves living in poverty and without hope, they will judge harshly those who refused to act on their behalf when they had the chance.

Thousands of miles away the size and scope of the challenges that face America still seem daunting to me. Whether you agree with what President Obama said or not, one can't help but to reflect on what we are doing to make a difference in our own backyards. Are we avoiding big challenges because they are too daunting? Are we resistant to change in our personal lives because we think it won't make a difference? The President's speech has caused me to ponder the areas of life that I can do something about but have ignored because I'm waiting for the next person to do something.

Continued Change in America

With the election of Scott Brown, the first Republican Senator from Massachusetts in over 35 years, it seems clear that change is still taking place in US politics. One year on from President Obama's inauguration, this surprise Republican win is being reported as the death nail in President's health care plan. What remains to be seen in the face of 10% unemployment and renewed security threats to the US Homeland is whether Republicans and Democrats can put their partisan differences behind them to attack these real issues. Republicans could seize on this opportunity to regain power, which is what politics seems to be about these days. It has always been about power. But at times, there have been glimpses of bi-partisanship in tackling major threats to the US way of life.  The economy will eventually rebound and America will create new jobs as it re-invents itself. But tackling issues like health care and social security are great for getting elected, but apparently nothing more.

In my life time I've heard politicians speak endlessly about fixing health care and social security. But these issues are better at dividing people and when they are used by the opposition party, they become the means by which control of the White House or Congress is regained. If these issues were actually resolved, what would the Republican and Democratic platforms look like? If the Republicans didn't have the health care issue to use against the Democrats at the moment, would Scott Brown still have won Massachusetts? We'll never know. What I do know, however, is that if these issues are fixed in this generation, the next generation will bear the consequences. Unfortunately, I fear that we've put off dealing with these issues for far too long. The long term consequences for America could be devastating.

In comparison, the New Zealand Government recently received the findings from the Tax Working Group who was asked to review the country's current tax system. The TWG made some radical decisions for the Government to consider. It will be interesting to see how the Government responds. Will they predictably put off making unpopular decisions that will benefit the country in the long run so that they can win the next election? Or will they risk making the tough calls now and face the wrath of wealthy property owners who are fearful of what the tax changes will mean for them?

Whether in America or New Zealand, it seems that political leaders continually do what is best for them and the party so they can get re-elected. The argument goes something like this, "If we don't get re-elected we can't make the positive changes that the country needs." But the change a country needs often require hard calls that aren't popular with voters. Tough decisions require sacrifice.

Peter Drucker, in a Harvard Business Review (HBR) excerpt of his book Management Challenges for the 21st Century (1999) wrote this of a certain project manager:

"Like so many brilliant people, he believes that ideas move mountains. But bulldozers move mountains; ideas show where the bulldozers should go to work."

Ideas will get you elected. They can inspire or frighten people. Our leaders need to be full of ideas on how we face the multiple threats to economic and personal security and a variety of other issues like health care. But at some point, in some generation, someone needs to get in the bulldozer and make things happen. I hope that Scott Brown is one of these leaders. I hope that he won't just go to the Senate and play the same political games. I hope that he will take his bulldozer (a.k.a his 2005 GMC Canyon pick-up truck) and get things done.

Sources

Drucker, P. F. (1999). Managing Oneself. Harvard Business Review, 29-40.

Hornick, E. (2010, 20 January @ 4:59p.m. EST). Scott Brown: From pinup to pickup- driving populist.   Retrieved 21 January, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/20/scott.brown.profile/index.html

Victoria University of Wellington. (2009). The Centre for Accounting, Governance and Taxation Research - VUW Tax Working Group.   Retrieved 21 January, 2010, from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/cagtr/twg/