Ambition Versus Leadership

There is a difference between ambition and leadership.

This might explain why too many recent Presidential elections boiled down to the lesser of two evils. It may contribute to why Congressional approvals are so low. It factors into why too many CEOs of public companies across the country are either landing in jail or strapping on golden parachutes as they jump from the companies they set ablaze. This difference definitely contributes to why there are no clear leading candidate in the Democratic or Republican primaries. The result of this difference, sadly, leaves "we the people" more cynical than optimistic about the world we live in.

Put simply, America is desperately lacking truly inspiring leaders.

Those who seek power and influence in business or politics are fat with ambition but anorexicly slim with leadership. This has nothing to do with their desires to do good. I do not question their intentions to want to help, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. All Presidential candidates intend to flight a clean fight; "no mud slinging" they all declare as they announce their candidacies. That is until the first pat smacks them clean in the face. Every candidate says how their campaign will be different and how they intend to reform the system. That is until they realize how the system is what pays for their good intentions. Even CEOs preach their desire to do right by their customers and employees...that is until their stock takes a hit and they brush aside the word of their loyal customers and employees and attune their ears to the fickle analyst community.

Our public offices and corporate boardrooms are rich with ambitious do-gooders but poor with leaders with the strength to ignore the noise that distracts from achieving their vision.

Ambition is the pursuit of power with the hope, once you get there, you can do something with it.

Leadership is having a vision of a better world and doing whatever it takes to achieve that vision, even if sometimes it means pursuing a position of power to help advance your vision more efficiently and effectively.

Leaders have the courage to be unpopular with those that disagree with them. The ambitious want to befriend as many people as possible.

Leaders say what they think. The ambitious say what they think others want to hear.

Leaders have a vision of the future that inspires the masses. The ambitious have goals that motivate a few (though more can be "motivated" if they can afford it).

Optimistic there are more leaders among us - somewhere - I issue two challenges. Only the true leaders will pass these tests.

The first is for anyone who runs for public office. I dare you not to look at a single poll while you are running. Don't worry what some poll tells you to say, just tell us what you believe and we'll decide if we want to live in your vision of America. I dare you to ignore the pundits. And I dare you to fill your staffs with people committed to your vision, not just hired to win your election or run your office. To the party of Lincoln and the party of Roosevelt - your heroes didn't take the public temperature before stating what they thought. You don't have to either. Courage is all it takes.

The second is for leaders of public companies. I dare you not to report your earnings to Wall Street every quarter. There is no legal requirement to do so, so why do you do it? Every quarter, restate your vision and tell the analyst community the steps you are taking, the products you are introducing and the changes you are making to realize that vision. But don't report the numbers or make projections. And if you think I'm nuts - look no further than your own hero, Warren Buffet, he does not state quarterly earnings for Berkshire Hathaway because he doesn't have to nor does he want to. People buy shares in his vision and his leadership. Courage is all it takes.

Follow Simon Sinek on Twitter: www.twitter.com/simonsinek

Comments

[Primadonna]

True leaders are excluded from participating in national presidential debates and are considered "kooks" ... and the lesser of two evils become the only choice as chosen by the media monoliths. We sadly watch and are led ...

I have a dream ... I have a dream that one day people of the human race will put their differences aside and stand in unison and embrace one another and our beautiful planet and rework together what will be the new economy of sustainability.

[Sundialsvc4]

As a people, we do not demand of our politicians what we demand of any other Board of Directors nor any other Chief Executive Officer.

We smile and chuckle and punch poll-results with regard to the single most important group of decision makers in the nation ... and allow them to flaunt their corruption in our faces.

There is no Law Enforcement anywhere in Washington, even though there is express enabling legislation in Article 2 Section 4 of our Constitution. In each of the precisely-three times in our history that we have invoked this powerful clause, it has been nothing more than a political show.

It has also been feeding the greedy mouths of business leaders who, time and time again, demonstrate their abject corruption and their indifference to its consequences.

Perhaps if we start holding our entire Government, on the State and the Federal level, to a true "standard of excellence" with swift and sure enforcement of lawbreaking ... perhaps then, there will be a truly dramatic change.

We have passed stiff laws and exacted stiff penalties from even corporate underlings. Why do we blithely accept outright crime from the supreme officers in our states and country?

Is the true source of our grief not ... us?

[IntrepidReader]

All who run for president have cast aside their scruples before the race begins, when they are confronted with needing at least 100 million dollars to be taken seriously. That's the exact moment they sell out, because only determinedly ambitious men and women would ever seek this position with our current system in place. The most qualified people have no interest in going through this expensive, time consuming and humiliating process that we have allowed choosing a president to become. Until we have meaningful campaign finance reform, we will get naked ambition over inspired leadership over and over again.

How many of you are aware that with November still long months away, the candidates have already spent more in this campaign than was spent for the entire 2004 campaign? Don't expect the media to say much about it, since 50% of that spending goes to buy media exposure.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I've reviewed the field to the extent I really care to, and my nickel goes on the board by Paul's name. Problem? Can't vote for him. I registered Independent, and he's a Republican, and they're going to have a closed primary in our state. I'm not registering as a Republican.
He's a libertarian running as a republican, I'm an Independent sitting out the election for lack of a candidate. Why be stubborn? Simple.
GOP vs. DNC has BUILT the budget mess we're in,
and leaving my name on the party rolls as an Independent is a vote that neither party can gain. Do they care? No. Politics is all about the majority. They don't care about YOU, well maybe if you've got 50 bucks, but that's about it. But, foolish though it may be, that's my stand on it. I think we need Independents voting for an Independent candidate, because the 'business as usual' 2-party thing is well, fucked, and they need to fix it. Other countries have more than one party representing different people, views, and platforms, so do we, but in our system, you have DNC, GOP, and 'not exactly'. It's all good, though, when the next fool goes up, and they finally burn a hole in the whole business, they also know who not to call...

[NABNYC]

Politicians and business people are crooks because the law allows them to and the system encourages them to. Take away the money, nobody's going to be doing all these horrible things.

A clerk in the federal government can go to prison for even accepting a sandwich by a supplies salesperson stopping by on the noon hour.

But our politicians (and yes, even our Supreme Court Justices) take money all the time. I call it bribes. They call it "contributions." The result is corruption. Votes sold for money.

The law for the clerk and for the politician (candidate and those in office) and judge should be the same. It should be illegal for them to take anything from anyone, except immediate family. Live on the paycheck or leave office. And illegal for anyone to offer anything to them. Like a cop: offer them money, it's a bribe, go to jail.

For business: make everyone in management personally liable for any corporate misdeeds including injurying others. Make it illegal to write off more than $250,000 in compensation, and tax anything in excess of $250,000 at 90%. No more billionaires fleeing the scenes of the ravaged business that cheated the public and many of the employees and the creditors.

We can do it. We just need some honest people in our congress to pass these laws.

[altohone]

OK, first of all, Buffett is trusted.

If the CEO of Ford refused to issue quarterly numbers, everyone would assume bad things are happening.

Rather than get rid of them, we should ensure they are accurate and free from manipulation.

I'm not sure getting rid of a means to hold the CEO accountable is such a good idea.


Now, as far as leadership goes, your description does match Barack Obama in many ways... his stand against a popular war, his challenge to Detroit, refusal to vote for DLC corporatist policies like the bankruptcy bill, etc.

We are in dire need of leadership, and I believe Obama fits the bill.

[KaneandAbel]

I think Obama is a truly inspirational leader. It would be hard to find one who raises all those qualities that you write of in those who have made contact with him. All those have come away inspired.

[bethinCary]

I agree with ya-I thinbk it's stupid for companies to disclose quarterly.
I think it's a self-defeating process.
Numbers can be skewed to represent whatever you want-but actual job growth, or increase in contracts overseas, growth of natioanl product-eliminating waste should be the goal of any CEO. If CEO's are underperforming they sure as heck should not get bonuses. A percentage of boardroom clout should be held by employees to say whether a CEO gets a bonus or not-it's the only fair way. Otherwise-just as it happens now with companies-CEOs(or boardmembers) set their own pay-despite a failed growth strategy.
I also hate the "derivatives" aspect of price fluctuations-predictions of "what could happen" instead of what actually happens or does not--allows companies to gouge the public.
It's as though all companies should all be located in a Las Vegas Exchange instead of Wallstreet.
Companies should be judged on the NOW performance-NOT what could be. It is the CEOs vision and courage to be able to give stockholders that-over fearmongering.