TONE AND HABIT

The science of leadership

Leadership Tallahassee Class 26 kicks off on Tuesday, so it was timely this week to see a cover story on leadership in the latest issue of New Scientist, a very readable magazine from England that I recommend to anyone.  Evolutionary social psychologist Mark van Vugt explores the evolution of leadership from 2.5 million years ago to today -- from hunter-gatherer bands to Toyota's corporate structure, and everything in between -- but some of his most interesting insights aren't into leadership.

He also asks the question, why be a follower?  Why would you subordinate yourself when it puts you at a clear disadvantage in terms of power, status and resources?

Well, first, by observing good leaders, you prepare yourself for future leadership.  Also, the disadvantages of following can be offset by the benefits of belonging to a well-led group.

On the flip side, distributed leadership -- delegated decision making, and even letting subordinates choose their own executives -- is gaining more currency today.  Shared goals and interdependence can transform alienated and self-interested employees into "committed collectivists," van Vugt suggests.

In the end, the most useful insight may be that leadership strategies must be different based on the situation an organization faces.  It's much more like jazz than conducting a symphony sometimes.  But no matter what kind of music you're making, it is vitally important that the band leader actually listen to the band.  If not, you're just lost in the dissonance.

Is this message authentic?

Of all the charges leveled against Hillary Clinton this year, the most devastating may have been that she was fake.  Inauthentic.  That she was poll-driven and coached, her true personality and opinions long buried under a politician’s cleverly calculated persona.  It is now looking like we will have two candidates whose personal appeal revolves around a compelling appearance of authenticity.  John McCain and the Straight Talk Express.  Obama and his public disavowal of policy placebos like the gas tax holiday.

 

If authenticity is what is selling today’s candidates, it’s no different in marketing.  The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty made waves when it joined this current of public sentiment by mixing up the sizes and shapes of its beauty models. 

As authenticity is coming to dominate the zietgeist, the public relations industry is taking heed.  Edelman Digital recently relaunched under the banner of Authentic PR, espousing a set of qualities that include trustworthy, transparent and straightforward.  (See more here at http://www.edelmandigital.com/blog/about.html) 

If trustworthy and transparent aren’t the first words that come to mind when you think of public relations, you aren’t alone.  The profession gets a bad rap, mostly undeserved.  On a recent rant about Scott McClellan’s new tell-all, CNN’s Anderson Cooper actually wondered on air, “Isn’t it the job of PR people to spin constantly? Wasn’t lying for the administration his job?”

No, that’s not really our job, at least among the professionals I work with.  If we do “spin,” then Steve Bousquet, the St. Pete Times editor and columnist, had one of the best definitions of it I’ve seen (and one that I can live with if you insist on using the word), calling spin “the clever mixing of fact and opinion.”  That’s actually pretty close. So, if the public is craving more authentic communication from the people who bring them products and ideas, it may be because they are simply exhausted by all this cleverness.  Social media are, of course, giving that public more power than ever over the messages we send into the world.  The No. 1 lesson of 2008 is that those messages better be authentic.