Dan Balz of the Washington Post described the collapse of the comprehensive immigration revision as a defeat for all involved, an indictment of the political culture of Washington and a failure of leadership. Critics, he wrote, will argue that if Washington can't successfully address the "glaring problem of immigration," then "what hope is there for progress on health care, energy independence, or the financial challenges facing Medicare and Social Security?"
The problem, as I've come to see it, is not so much an absence of leadership as a complete misunderstanding of what the term means. Leadership success in solving any problem depends on the leader's suitability to the problem and solution stage at hand. I co-authored a paper on this a few years ago -- "Leadership Style and The Five Stages of Radical Change". The premise: Each problem stage calls for a different type of leadership style.
Some lead by reasoning, others by forming coalitions, bargaining, exerting authority, establishing favor banks, being charismatic, appealing to altruism, exerting power or inspiring. None of these approaches is superior to the others. Each is more or less suited to the demands of the times and issue at hand. Each problem has solution stages, and for each of these (problem analysis, creativity, motivation, implementation) different types of leadership serve best. I think we've lost sight of this. We keep using a hammer because everything has come to look like a nail.
Al Gore took energy solutions on the road. He's a reasoned, motivational leader and that's just what we needed. Evidence of global warming became more evident over the last few years, but people needed to be convinced -- not only that it is real but also that there are reasonable solutions. Al Gore's leadership style was suited to the task and he did an exceptional job.
Leadership is not absent in Washington. It's just misunderstood and lately certain bully types of it have been redundantly misapplied. When the purpose is to analyze a problem or create solutions, there's no benefit to leaders who pound people into submission. That's when thinkers are needed. When it's time to implement agreed upon solutions, useless is the leader still trying to persuade people it's the right course of action. At that point a leader who can get it done is best suited.
Perhaps when Congress grasps this we'll start seeing leaders emerge. We'll hear them talking about stages of our problems. Seniority will not be as relevant as matching talents to the tasks most pressing - and when that happens success on immigration, Iraq, healthcare, and other significant issues will likely not be far behind. We'll be showing signs of understanding the varied faces of leadership and their relative suitability to the problems before us. We'll stop trying to do everything in one fell swoop. Maybe we'll make progress then, earn back a bit more respect around the world and some self-respect as well.