In this season of politics and the pervasive media coverage of the current campaigns, it occurred to me how different campaigning in the corporate world is from what I see on the political campaign trail. Jack Welch provided an excellent description of “campaigning” in the corporate world (How to Get Elected Boss by Jack and Suzy Welch, BusinessWeek Online, May 15 2006). In short, you can think of it as persuading your colleagues and employees to buy-in to your vision. It is a part of successful leadership and it is very different from what appears to be effective political campaigning during an election year:
Style vs. Content – As illustrated by the first presidential debate as well as the numerous adds on both sides, it appears that how emphatic, even aggressive, one is on the campaign trail tends to determine effectiveness. In corporate leadership, one’s style does help to develop the culture of the organization but it is the results you achieve that pack the biggest punch. “Good to Great” leaders (http://www.jimcollins.com/books.html) tend to be less flamboyant and even shun the limelight but provide great results.
Platitudes vs. Clarity – In corporate leadership, your goal is to motivate and generate support for your corporate strategy. This tends to require clarity of vision. This can obviously be beneficial for political leadership too but it does not seem to be very important during the political campaign; perhaps because the issues are too complex, the audience too broad, the time frames too short, and the message is often distorted in the public media. And in corporations, those who we are trying to persuade have other options; they can find another job. Moving to another country is a bit more difficult.
Confrontation vs. Collaboration – It seems that being confrontational in today’s political (and media) environment is what the public demands. Perhaps that is entertainment. Great corporate leaders seem to be much more selective in their use of confrontation, perhaps because they know that in today’s business environment you are just as likely to establish a partnership with another organization as you are to compete with them. Sure, the highly confrontational corporate leaders exist and make the news but they are in the minority.
Popularity vs. Respect – Campaigning seems to be a popularity contest and that’s not what leadership or management is all about. Superficial popularity is in direct contrast to the respect and motivation that is needed in today’s corporations from the top leadership. It seems you strive to earn respect in the corporate environment and to be liked on the campaign trail.
Provoking vs. Motivating – Provoking someone to make a choice on a given day is quite different from motivating someone to come in to work eight hours a day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year and give their best to the organization. We consistently hear that voters are voting against one candidate rather than for the other. This “lesser of two evils” mentality is consistent with the negative campaigning and confrontational approach we see in political campaigns much more pervasively than in corporate leadership.
Negativity vs. Encouragement – One of the major differences in campaigning is the tendency for personal attacks during the political process. It seems that we are motivated to vote against someone by the negative rhetoric that we hear about them. In corporate leadership, personal negative rhetoric is generally of little use in the long-term motivation of our employees.
Look at the first term in each of the comparisons above. In the corporate world one is likely to lose a job using these approaches rather than motivate followers. Make no mistake; I have great respect for some of our political leaders. What I’m talking about here is campaigning, not running the country. Of course, there is leadership required in the political arena and politics required in the corporate world. But I can imagine that we have lost many potentially great political leaders because they could not (or would not) make the distinction between leading and campaigning. What we hear in the media at the moment is the rhetoric of campaigning as opposed to the day-to-day leadership required of the President and Commander-in-Chief. I personally will be happy when it is over, no matter who gets the job.
