The Gold Standard

For this to make any sense we must assume an exceptionally broad view of leadership. Not just the stereotypical war heroes (Patton), presidents (Washington), social dissidents (Martin Luther King Jr.), and corporate magnates (Rockefeller). We must look at the leader as anyone who can influence us into action.

Childhood is full of trials, growth, and learning. Children look to their parents, teachers, coaches, older siblings, and celebrities to lead them through the thicket of childhood. Unfortunately some of these role models are less than savory, and may not be able to properly communicate the messages they should.

A prime example of this is Lindsey Lohan. This young lady was once an adored child star, I remember having a crush on her back in the day, but now she is a punch line. What little influence she may have had is eclipsed by her inability to make good choices. Now, this doesn't mean that every child star runs out and becomes the paparazzi fodder for the tabloids, but the good children rarely get the media attention they deserve. What's more, Americans rarely get exposed to the good works of such people.

Rather, we are inundated with negative examples of celebrity. This in itself can actually be a positive example of how to live. The main distinction is to ensure we realize what not to do.


What each of these troubled stars lack is an introspective dedication to self betterment.

My parents were adamant that I learn the value of being told "no", at every turn it was "No you may not have a Mohawk," "No you can't stay out all night looking for the Great Pumpkin," "No you can't move to California to become a pro surfer, you don't even know how to surf!" Unfortunately it seems that our celebrity children are not told 'No' often enough.

This is, ultimately, a failure in the leadership in their lives. This does not mean that there aren't little hellions in a traditional, non celebrity, role; this simply means that the celebrutants are publicly documented in the media. The masses don't care about little Timmy getting hooked on blow and ruining his life. The masses care about Corey Haim's (please don't judge me for using Wikipedia...)travels down self destruction.

Unfortunately irreparable damage has been done. Gone are the days when children looked up to astronauts and people who truly add to society. This day has slowly crept up on us, and we watched helplessly as our heroes were transformed into side shows. We looked on as Neil Armstrong was replaced by Snooki. While we all share a stake in this blame, I contend that the story hungry media has perverted journalism to a new level. The availability of honest journalism is eclipsed by the supermarket checkout tabloids.

This laissez faire approach to media has taken away our heroes, discredited our leaders and raised the idiotic and asinine upon a pedestal. While it is perfectly acceptable to discuss celebrities, let us please remember that they are not special. They are, in most cases, just pretty people.

Really, why do we care.

Leadership Con Carne

We all have had the boss we would walk through fire for. This is the man or woman who, by virtue of their leadership abilities, can ask us to perform tasks well outside our comfort zones and skill sets, and yet we strive to achieve them. Not just a check in the box achievement, no, a full on excellent job achievement. Then again, there is the boss who does not inspire us to push ourselves, who does nothing to ensure we will strive for that extra mile. This is the boss who is only in it for the accolades. This guy doesn't care two figs about your circumstances, he only wants the job done. I have found that this second type of boss leaves much to be desired. They are the type of boss who does not respect your family time, does not respect your time off, does not particularly care if you had plans; you will be in to work on Saturday. You will (in my case) get down into a bilge and, you will, scrape, prep, and paint it. What's more, they expect you to be happy for the opportunity to work with them.

Pilfered from a google search, and This site.

While both types of leaders may be effective, I would argue that the leader who has the people on his side has a distinct advantage over the other.

Now, this may seem inconsequential (if you value your job you will end up jumping through hoops anyway), it does bring to light one of many distinctions of leadership. Leaders can be broken down into two general groups: those who are followed due to an imposed directive, and those who are willingly followed. The imposed directive leader has a sense of entitlement. They walk around as if they can do no wrong, that their word is law, that they are infallible. In my experience they are almost always wrong.

Their air of self importance and over inflated sense of self worth is, again in my experience, generally linked to a deflated self confidence. As discussed in class, one of the traits of a good leader is a high level of self confidence. This along with an engorged ego can lead to people who believe they can accomplish anything. A dash of optimism and a sprinkle of charisma and you have a person who can lead a horse to water and make it drink.

As a matter of national security, we often choose a President based on likability. This little story describes how the American people tend to, at least in part, choose their future leader based on whom they would rather share a frosty pint with. Moreover, we tend to elect people who can relate more to the average Joe. This has not always worked out, take Andrew Jackson's presidency as an example. While Old Hickory was seen as a man's man, he was also the main proponent of the trail of tears, as well as the 'Bank War'. All that aside, the phenomenon of judging our president based on our personal impression of the man, rather than the policies, is a relatively new concept dating back to the Nixon-Kennedy election of 1960.

In the Nixon-Kennedy debate radio listeners called Nixon the clear winner, yet the television viewers saw something completely different. Through the entire debate Nixon seems far less comfortable in his own skin than Kennedy. At one point he breaks out in sweat. These are not qualities we want in the leader of the free world. We want confidence; we want nerves of steel. This was one of a few factors that cost Nixon the Presidency.

For the first time in the history of America people were paying attention to the facial expressions, apparent nervousness and general demeanor of our future President. My favorite part of this past Presidential debate was watching Joe Biden openly disregard what Paul Ryan had to say.

Yet, we still elected the Obama-Biden ticket. Despite the holes in policy, despite the uncertain future they may bring...We elected this dynamic duo.

Why?

Simply put, Americans could not relate to the Romney Ryan ticket. This goes back to the previous argument about who we would rather lift a pint with. Above all we want our President to adequately represent us. We want a person who, at least on the surface, represents the average American.

Interestingly, a search of "is Romney relatable" on the Wall Street Journal's website resulted in zero relevant articles. I will leave you to your own conclusions on that one.