Walter Lippmann, commemorating the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote, “The genius of a good leader is to leave behind him a situation which common sense, without the grace of genius, can deal with successfully.” That’s a pretty optimistic definition because among other things, it assumes that common sense abounds in society.
As everyone who has elected a leader who showed promise and then turned out to be a disappointment knows, common sense does not abound, in leaders or in followers. Most people who are considered to be good managers have common sense in abundance. It is a valued quality: certainly leaders need to have it, in order to maintain perspective because certainly leaders, in addition to thinking outside the box and into the future, need to be aware of changes in the environment around them. They need to be able to assess those changes and to respond.
Many people are followers by nature. They want to follow a leader who is thinking ahead and assessing issues so they can safely leave that to “the boss.” When mistrust creeps into the relationship between the leader, or his team, or the group being led, trouble is sure to erupt. One hopes it is a solvable problem: sit down together at a table and talk it out. But in many cases it is not so simple.
Think of Enron. Think of Bernie Madoff. Think of the numerous bank failures bailed out by the government. Those are a few example among many of malfeasance in high places. What did those leaders have in common? Not genius, although a few may have been extremely charismatic. But somewhere along the way they had forgotten they were leaders, not gods, and that they were responsible to other people who were depending on them. The fall-out from Enron in Houston, which led to the loss of Arthur Andersen in Chicago, was vast and terrible. Common sense, as referred to by Mr. Lippmann above, could find no traction in repairing the damage done by the leaders who lead the way to disaster for themselves and others.
The genius of a good leader must include accepting the weight of leadership with all it entails: full and utter responsibility for those being led. As the world watched FDR, a man overcoming tremendous physical challenges on a daily basis, coping with the Depression and World War II, it saw a man who never for a moment forgot his responsibility to those he led. Neither did Winston Churchill. They were pledged to their cause, to leading the best they knew how, and to staying the course until all challenges were met. FDR could not help dying before he could finish with WWII, so the world will never know if he would have sent atomic bombs to Japan or not.
A good leader is always a good manager, but the opposite is not necessarily true. A good leader employs good managers and rewards them. But good managers are always looking down, managing those below, while leaders, in addition to managing, create the vision others will follow. That said, it is important to remember that Adolf Hitler was a charismatic leader. So those of us who elect leaders and follow them must take our responsibility seriously too, and refuse to follow a vision revealed to be corrupt. Common sense demands it, even though common sense may sometimes be in woefully short supply.
About the Author
