I recently attended the State Candidates Forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters and was disappointed by Jason Conger’s unethical antics.

There were four candidates on the stage, two for the Oregon House and two for the Oregon Senate. Conger is Bend’s Republican incumbent in the House. The moderator posed a series of questions which each of the four candidates was to answer within 90 seconds. Time-keepers raised a yellow card when15 seconds remained and a red card when time was up. On his first answer, Conger talked past the red card; not a significant or unique violation, but a harbinger of what was to come.

While answering a later question, Conger pivoted from a legitimate reply to challenge Nathan Hovekamp about his so called “attack ad” that claimed Conger had voted for special interests. Conger stood self-righteously over a seated and fittingly silent Hovekamp, glaring down at him until his time ran out. Conger’s actions clearly violated the forum rules. The moderator should have told Conger “you’re out of order,” but he said nothing. Conger evidently realized that he could get away with cheating. He immediately blew off the next question and directly challenged Hovekamp a second time, standing over him and glaring down as a long silence dragged on.  Again, the moderator said nothing. Finally, Hovekamp responded by citing two bills Conger had voted for. At that point, the moderator mumbled something about this not being a debate and ended the discussion. I thought I was watching yet another NFL game with substitute referees. (By the way, if you think that Conger’s first challenge was spontaneous instead of calculated, then I have a bridge I want to sell you. Conger may be ethically challenged, but he is clever, and he is not stupid.)

Later on the moderator asked an unintentionally ironic question: “Why is there so little civility in the Legislature?”  He could have looked in the mirror and at Jason Conger to answer it for himself. Civility requires voluntarily adhering to rules of conduct, which are fairly administered by competent moderators, referees, or chairpersons. Civility, like fair play, is undermined when the media, supporters, and general public reward or ignore incivility or cheating, instead of holding the offender’s feet to the fire. The Bend Bulletin, which has endorsed Conger, rewarded him with headlines for his performance and nary a word about his unethical behavior.

Two weeks ago, on 60 Minutes, Mitt Romney and President Obama were each asked, “what are the essential qualities of a leader.” Both responded with remarks about a personal vision, which is important but secondary. Their answers provide clues to past triumphs and troubles in the Obama Presidency, and to the tragic course which a Romney Presidency would take. Allow me to explain.

The most essential quality of a great leader is an ability to recruit and effectively manage outstanding people, including his lieutenants. This conclusion was reached long ago by others besides me. For example, in The True Believer, Eric Hoffer says:  “The most decisive (quality) for the effectiveness of a mass movement leader (is)… above all, the ability to evoke fervent devotion in a group of able lieutenants” (p 115). The majority of leaders settle for mediocre and incompetent loyalists because they are easier to manage during a crisis.

Three decades ago, while CEO of Pro-Log, I wrote A Framework for Managing. It describes how quality people are the most strategic and important resources for sustained success and profits are the most tactical. It also explains that subordinates are a small subset of the people whom a top executive must recruit and manage. A chart from that essay is shown in Fig. 1.

No individual, particularly in politics, business or sports can lead by themselves. A college football coach cannot accept any old group of players and assistant coaches to develop a winning team; he must recruit and manage excellent people, including athletic directors and alumni. Complex systems, like football teams, companies or governments, require a network of capable lieutenants who provide information and advice, develop scenarios, and execute plans in specific specialties.  A great leader attracts, selects, and supports the most qualified people available, even those who don’t fully accept his vision or exhibit blind loyalty to his cause. A President who accepts retreads or limits himself to docile loyalists eventually brings disaster. George Bush the younger comes to mind. (By the way, being the “great decider” which Bush touted as important is, at best, a tertiary quality.)

Abraham Lincoln understood the principles of great leadership. His Gettysburg Address and Emancipation Proclamation generated public support for Continue reading →