Health Care Summit

Last week President Obama hosted a Health Care Summit at Blair House in Washington, DC. The president invited both parties to get together and discuss the health care issue while the whole thing was streamed on the Internet. This open approach was an effort to 'communicate' more clearly to the American people. A recent Harvard Business Review blog post by Morten Hansen highlighted five ways in which the president failed to demonstrated collaborative leadership during last year's health care debate. Last week's summit was a step in the right direction for Obama. It showed his willingness to act on his desire to see bipartisan collaboration on the health care issue. Can this same sense of collaboration be demonstrated on the issues of the economy and jobs as well?

The president's collaborative leadership style will need to extend beyond the political leadership in Washington. He must embrace the American people as well. Americans need to continue our role in the collaborative process by sending our elective representatives ideas and suggestions for solutions to these difficult issues. And the electorate must hold our officials to account for the way they (do or don't) handle these issues.

When faced with a crisis America has proven time and again that it can come together, set aside disagreements, and make a difference. The current challenges facing America are no different. In A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr's wrote about how Adlai Stevenson prepared the way for JFK by shifting the democratic party's motto from 'you never had it so good,' to 'stressing peril, uncertainty, sacrifice, purpose' (p.23). Obama has repeatedly stressed 'peril, uncertainty, sacrifice, and purpose.' I fear to many Americans have been distracted by current hardships to realize that the difficulties they face are part of the reshaping of America. Hansen points out in his commentary an uncertainty about the president's efforts to clearly establishing health care as his 'moon goal', to unite people and parties. If we realize that the world had fundamentally changed and that the hardships we currently face are part of restructuring society, we might find it a little easier to let go of political ideologies for the sake of making the fundamental change that the country needs—in the areas of health care, the economy, and jobs—to name a few.

References

Schlesinger, A. M. (2002). A thousand days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. Boston: Mariner Books. (Amazon)

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.

Where there is no vision

"Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18, KJV)

What if there is vision, but no leadership? Will 'the people' still perish? This thought woke me up in the middle of the night. There are currently many struggles taking place at my work. I've been there for four years, and for the majority of that time we've been facing major change. There are more changes coming.

The change we've seen has been driven by a mix of economic, financial and industry challenges, but mostly, by vision. Visions are grand and lofty. They are meant to inspire and motivate. They should be just beyond our reach so that we continue to press on towards something 'better'. I've heard it said that there are good visions and bad. If this is the case then surely there are good ways to implement bad vision and bad ways to implement the good.

A vast amount of my work experience has been focused on helping visionary leaders implement their grand schemes. Many visionaries cast their visions and then quickly move on to the next. This 'if you dream it, it's done' mentality can be the greatest source of frustration for the visionary implementers. At some point every vision must be thrashed out, worked over, dissected and put back together again to ensure that it is in fact, implementable, sustainable and worthwhile for the organisation. For those who birthed the vision, I imagine that it would very frustrating to see your idea worked over by others. I haven't yet been blessed with the opportunity to have children, but I imagine having your vision challenged and pulled apart would be a lot like someone picking on your kid. I wouldn't be surprised if it elicited a similar emotional response.

There exist a different set of frustrations for those who work with visionaries as implementers. The implementer's frustrations come in the urgent and often unrealistic expectations that big visions can be implemented immediately. Vision is usually cast from the top of an organisation, therefore, there can be a bit of isolation between the vision caster and those who are most impacted by that same vision. So the implementers, in translating the vision, have to find ways of taking account of all the implications that need sorting out when working out the vision. The implementer needs time to do this. They usually have to rework existing systems, or invent new ones. This is an important part of any change project. But more importantly, they need to be active in shifting the 'people' who are affected. This is where the Proverb is most helpful. Without vision, systems don't perish – people do. So it is vitally important for the vision implementers to work with all individuals and groups affected by the change that vision can bring.

You may be wondering by now (if you're still reading) when I'm going to get to leadership. Hold on for a few more moments. Bill Hybels is the pastor of Willow Creek Church in Chicago. I remember hearing him speak on the topic of vision. His exposition on vision highlighted the importance of vision to an organisation. After getting the audience fired up and excited, he shifted to leadership. He said something to this effect – you should never put vision above people. This line has stuck in my mind for one reason. People need vision to survive. They need to be able to see beyond themselves and their own little worlds. They need to see a world filled with others just like them. Others who struggle, work hard, and who find joy in family and friends. So vision and people are intertwined. Vision is not something that can be cast and left on its own. It must be nurtured, fostered, rewarded and chastised. In order to do this we inevitably must focus on the people who will ultimately experience the benefit of the vision. But we must be careful not to cast a vision that can only be implemented at the expense of those who carry out the implementation.

So this brings me back to my opening question. What if there is vision and no leadership? What if there is a vision that people embrace, but ultimately ignores those it impacts the most? Leadership is required to translate the vision for the people who implement and receive the benefits of the vision. The rest of the proverb says this, "but he that keepeth the law, happy is he." When I read this verse I had to ask myself, "what law?" In the Christian tradition, the two greatest laws are these: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself'" (Matthew 22:37-29, NIV). Whether or not you are a person of faith, there is something here for all of us. Vision that focuses on systems and procedures and things other than human, will be impersonal. The vision caster and implementers may be able to ultimately fulfil the vision, but it will result in a heartless, soulless organisation because it will not contain people who wrestled with and owned the vision. Vision is about ownership. People must believe. Leadership must work to instil ownership in people in order to make this happen. In a 'Brand Me' culture, where everyone is looking out for themselves, the second law above is broken. When we love ourselves more than we love those around us, we cannot expect to be 'truly happy'. Note that the second law does not require us to love others more than ourselves, just 'as yourself.' Some of us love ourselves pretty much (me included). For those of us involved in change management and implementation, there is something in coming to grips with learning to 'love' others as much as we do ourselves. After all, it's the people we lead and manage who ultimately help us fulfil the vision that we (and our leaders) cast.