Leading With The Facts

I have been watching "leaders" lately to see what I find similar or different about them. The most convenient place for observation is obviously the media. Some leaders seem to influence through a moral argument that what they propose is the right thing to do. Some make the case for historical comparison, that what they propose is similar to an event or process that was successful in the past. Some build an argument that time is of the essence since elements are coming together that require a timely response, while yet others say that action should not chosen without clear, on-the-ground information that justifies the action. I would suppose there are times when each of these approaches fit the need of leaders. Clearly there are times when urgency precludes the time it might take to gather sufficient information to know beyond doubt what to do. It is also that we place on leaders that they make every effort to lead with a clear moral intent. The fuzziness here comes with one's choice of moral field. Is it the greatest good for the greatest number, or is it defense of the few against the greater number giving voice to the voiceless? I would suggest that there are almost always more facts available for situations than are brought to bear on the decisions of leaders. There is a human dilemma that creates great stress when some of the facts do not support what we thought we wanted to do. In a day when technology allows much more information to be gathered from many more sources more quickly, I believe I will follow the leader who makes every effort to know the knowable. If that turns out to be blindsided later by new, now knowable facts, I will certainly accept the error. Should a leader make a case on other grounds and miss the mark, I am likely less supportive. When I am the leader I would hope for a similar response. Want to lead, do your homework.

To response to this and other blog entries, please click on the comment button below. Let's talk.