Suggestion for a future book revision

Ken S: Thanks for this – very interesting. I very much like the resources you’ve compiled to present Ken C’s book, and the way they’re presented – very informative and easy to follow. A good format for other RO-related books.

My observations relate more to my perceived content of the book (which I look forward to perusing in more depth). I certainly like the application of Elliott’s CAC dimensions to political leadership – I’ve been crowing about this to colleagues and friends forever. US Presidents most definitely need to be operating at least at stratum 7 and preferably at 8 (as difficult as it might be to find an appropriate pool of talent who would want to take on the role). I also like the focus on ‘civic virtue’ as a requisite dimension of assessing whether one is qualified for the Presidential role. I agree with your comments that there is also a need to assess skilled knowledge, both technical and behavioural, as well as whether a candidate values the role and work and is also free from (chronic) personal dysfunction.

Where I would depart from the analysis is the need to understand leadership emergence (and consequent attractiveness to voters) vs. simply managerial and leadership effectiveness (which is what Elliott’s work is focused on, and what Ken C. is applying in his analysis). My research has revealed that leaders engage, align, and mobilize people by meaningfully challenging, or meaningfully resisting challenge to, the status quo/system, and acquire non-coercive power in the process.  Through their communication and actions they induce others to see existing situations in a significantly altered light, compelling them to think and act differently to create a desired new reality. My papers (links below, with colleague researchers) outline this in theoretical detail. We’re currently working on a paper that details empirical studies (both experimental and qualitative) that I undertook as part of my PhD research which provide strong support for my theory (research results which other leadership theories cannot explain, while my theory can be applied broadly).

The theory shows that a key reason political leaders emerge and are elected is because they are meaningfully challenging and/or meaningfully resisting a challenge to the status quo/system in the eyes of a receptive collective. As an example, Trump is meaningfully poking the American system (and by extension, the post-WWII world order) in the eye as perceived by a substantial chunk of the American electorate for whom the current status quo/system is not working (economically and socially), as they perceive it. That is a legitimate concern on their part. The problem is that Trump appears not to be operating at the level of complexity needed to address these concerns, nor does he demonstrate the skilled knowledge to do so (historical, political, economic, managerial, behavioural, etc.), nor does he seem to value the work in the role (elevating the public good vs. valuing his own aggrandizement and satisfying his narcissism), and he manifests as full of personal dysfunction(s).

I would also argue (as political scientists would) that successful democracy is predicated on an informed electorate. That means sufficient schooling in civics – how their government is constructed and how it works, historical context, some understanding of political economy, and so on, in addition to what Ken C. is advocating with regard to ability to assess a candidate’s capability using Elliott’s CAC framework. Many voters seem to lack this requisite literacy, and I would question as well whether voters in general would be able to assess stratum 7 or 8 capability without operating near that level themselves. They can assess whether someone is meaningfully challenging or resisting challenge to the status quo as they perceive things, and whether an individual is articulating values that they agree with. But can they assess whether that individual will be competent to execute accordingly at the level of complexity required and is sincere in their intent to adhere to desired values? I think this is contentious (for all of us). I see Boards struggling with this (and failing) quite frequently with respect to CEOs, let alone the general public with respect to political leaders.

My two cents. Lots more to chew on here.

Morley Katz, PhD, PEng

Rethinking Leadership

What Makes Us See Someone as a Leader?