Do Great Statesmen Make Great Business Leaders?
January 1, 2008 by Bob Turek
Filed under Leadership
Imprimis, a monthly “leaflet” written in the spirit of the founders of our Country, provides fascinating views of our history and political process. Paul Johnson, historical author of note, describes 5 key characteristics of great statesmen in the December issue:
1. Clear ideas and beliefs- the fewer the better so as not to confuse or dilute.
2. Willpower- “the most decisive of all qualities in public life”.
3. Pertinacity- “a determination to see the cause through at all costs”.
4. The ability to communicate- a few simple, true and workable ideas “are enormously enhanced if put across with equal simplicity”.
5. Magnanimity- “greatness of soul”.
He uses Reagan, Thatcher, Lincoln and Churchill to illustrate the characteristics. Emphasis is on knowing who you are as a prerequisite to effectively mixing the 5 elements. He concluded with how humor develops a strong and lasting hold on the affections of the public:
Reagan- “I’m not too worried about the deficit. It’s big enough to take care of itself.”
Thatcher- a bit more risky, after being wearied by 9 dinner speeches, “As the last of ten speakers, and the only woman, I have this to say. The cock may crow, but it’s the hen who lays the eggs.”
Churchill- in dark days when the Nazi’s jibed they would wring England’s neck like a chicken, “Some chicken! Some neck!”
Several individuals have migrated between the business world and the political world. Ross Perot, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney are three I can readily think of. While they are not in the class of Reagan, Thatcher, Churchill and Lincoln, can their examples be used to assess if leadership characteristics in politics and business are similar? Do you have an example of a great business leader who you believe is a “great statesman”?
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe by RSS or EMAIL.
FREE eBOOK for EMAIL Subscribers!
If you subscribe by email I’ll send you my eBook for free! Here’s how: subscribe by email in the right hand column PLUS send an email post that you receive to bob.turek@b5media.com. (Sorry for the extra step- we don’t have this automated yet.)
To preview the book, or to order a hardcopy, go to my publishing web site by clicking the book cover.
Great post, Bob. Not every great leader has the exact same qualities and skills, but they all have some of these qualities.
Argh! I can’t stand statements like this. They assume that so-called leadership qualities are always positive and that their definitions are static. If you could ask them Hitler and Ghengis Kahn would probably agree that they had all five of those traits in abundance. There are millions who would argue it about Reagan and Thatcher, while Churchill was reviled by thousands of his own countrymen and Lincoln’s stance was the basis of our Civil War. It is history and the moral attitudes of the day that determine how so-called leaders are viewed AT THAT POINT IN HISTORY.
It’s the same in business. The people lauded as leaders not long ago are later cast out for not providing leadership, think Bob Nardinelli, Zoe Cruz, the list goes on and on, but they all float down on the strings of their golden parachutes and stock options—sort of like Cheney.
And on a strictly personal level, I find it insulting to include Cheney in the same list as Lincoln and Churchill.
In the Philippines, I consider the OVERSEAS FILIPINO WORKERS as the GREAT BUSINESS LEADERS of our country. For two decades now they have propped up the sagging Philippine economy with homeward annual remittances of more than $10 billion. In the Asian Crisis of 1997, they kept the Philippines afloat through the crisis. They have improved the PhP/$ exchange.
The fly in the ointment is: as they improve the PhP/$ exchange, they have to send more dollars home to cover the peso expenses of the families they support.
Miki- I appreciate your passion. I tend to agree with the “static” comment. I also think that the qualities, assuming a “good” leader (not Hitler), are interesting to use as assessment elements. Views of leaders are shaped by history and comparisons. The inclusion of Cheney was not to argue politics but to simply name a person who has led a company and led in politics and whether the qualities to attain leader status are similar. Overall, a fascinating discussion. Please continue.
Ren- interesting view. I think everyone leads others- it’s either bad or good. I would be interested in your view on whether overseas filipino workers share the 5 characteristics outlined by Paul Johnson.
Eric- the pertinacity (a new word for me) and magnanimity are interesting in that they require seemingly conflicting attributes. The people I’ve been mentored by always had great hearts but expected me to keep up with their “at all costs” approach.
Simply put, boss doesn’t equal leader and politician doesn’t equal statesman. The three you list are politicians, certainly NOT statesmen—unless the definition has been drastically degraded. Heading a company doesn’t make one a leader any more than being elected to any office, including President, makes one a statesman. I wrote on this in Stop abusing the L word!
I just ran into more proof that Cheney is neither a statesman nor a leader, nor is anyone who says it. I saw the quote at http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2008/01/poverty-in-america-ceos-ive-written.html
Q: … Don’t you ever say maybe I’m wrong? THE VICE PRESIDENT: No. (Larry King interviewing Dick Cheney, 7/31/07)
Miki- here’s more of the transcript from the Larry King interview. I think it softens the blow of “no” a little. The only reason I mention this is that taking quotes, especially single words, out of context may not tell the whole story. My take on this is that Cheney was taking more about the process of group decision making:
CHENEY: Well, the way you have to operate in these jobs — and the president obviously is the one who bears the greatest burden — he’s the one who makes the decisions. But I clearly support him. You have to do it on the basis of what you think is right and what’s best for the country.
The polls are notoriously unreliable in the sense that they change all the time and they bounce around all over the place. And that if you looked simply at public opinion, for example, a lot of the key decisions in our history would never have been pursued or followed through on.
Washington never would have carried through for seven years of the Revolution. Abraham Lincoln would never have stayed with it in order to win the Civil War. We would have been two separate nations by then.
You can look at major moments in our history and be thankful that we had leaders and presidents who made decisions, stuck with them and saw them through to the end.
KING: But in all cases, they did question themselves. In all cases, they said, well, let’s look at it this way.
Don’t you?
I mean the question is, don’t you ever say, maybe I’m wrong?
CHENEY: No. I think what we do is we look at it in terms of trying to decide what’s the right thing to do. And the — and weigh the evidence. And there’s a lot of debate and discussion.
We went through the exercise at the beginning of this year, you may remember, when the president decided to put more forces into Baghdad. That’s a time when we evaluated a whole range of options; when we talked to a wide number of people with a variety of viewpoints; met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff; talked to outside military experts, as well as the politicos on the ground; and made a judgment.
The president made a decision then, and the — and I think it was the right decision…
Miki- the three (Romney, Perot, Cheney) are thought by some to be leaders probably because of position, not because of leadership characteristics, as you relate in your post on “abusing the L word”. That post along with the comments are great reading. Rhett’s “everybody who influences, leads” approach resonates with me. As does his quote, “The question at the heart of this discussion is not “leader or not.” It is “positive, effective leader or not.””
First, the context doesn’t change my mind. I’m willing to bet that there were plenty of decisions that both Lincoln and Churchill made that in hindsight they felt might have been wrong or could have been better. The sheer arrogance of saying that every decision made was right, as opposed to the best possible based on what wa known at that time is unbelievable.
I already responded to Rhett at http://www.leadershipturn.com/more-about-the-l-word/. It is history that will determine the accuracy of the use of the adjectives ’statesman’ and ‘leader’ and as a professor commented many years ago, history can’t be accurately evaluated until all those who lived at the time are dead.
Miki
Miki- thanks for pointing me to the story about how a leader emerged after a group came upon an aircraft crash site. This is a MUST READ on how a leader emerges in difficult situations. I think that it also supports the notion that everyone leads either badly or well. The story got me thinking about preparation- i.e., how was the leader in this case more prepared to deal with the crash scene than others?