The upcoming presidential and vice presidential debates are being framed as the last opportunities for turning points in this election. Unfortunately, if past debates are any indicator, the questions the candidates are asked will be the wrong ones. Much of the time, when it comes to leadership, the media gets it wrong. The media frames presidential leadership through an out-of-date model that focuses on the notion that leadership is housed within an individual, whom we call a “leader,” who possesses specific traits.
To be fair, the media only reflects popular notions of leadership: a suitable presidential candidate has flawless judgment, as evidenced by a life devoid of any mistakes, including youthful transgressions. He or she has the ability to make decisions based on an ability to foresee the future. Mistakes have no place in this model, although we want a leader with the humility of someone who has reflected on his or her errors. Leadership is framed as the ability to persuade others through a forceful, yet charismatic, personality, bolstered by an impressive command of factual information. This suggests that a president who can generate “bipartisan support” is someone who can “reach across the aisle” to overwhelm political opposition. A president who reaches common ground through dialogue is viewed as having compromised, which is considered a weakness in this “great man” model of leadership. Indeed, the popular notion that the most effective leaders are those who can convince others to agree without giving up any ground virtually assures that candidates who meet these criteria will be the ones most adept at maintaining gridlock in Washington D.C. At best, “debates” between the candidates provide journalists with the opportunity to probe the depth and breadth of these popularly-held qualities of leadership—or their glaring absence, much like a high stakes game show: “Who Wants to be the President?” Failure to pronounce an Eastern European country can shed grave doubt on a candidate. “Flip flops,” i.e., inconsistencies between a candidate’s current opinion and a college term paper, cast doubt on the candidate’s omniscience. Under these circumstances, the most important qualification for president may be the judgment needed to hire a consultant who can prepare a candidate for these predictable questions—because while in reality the president makes decisions after consulting with an array of experts, during the debates there are no such “lifelines.” Among those who study and practice leadership, discussions have moved beyond debates over “what qualities make the best leaders?” to the notion that leadership is constructed in a relationship—not only relationships between people, but relationships with the rapidly changing political, social, economic, and natural environment. This approach to leadership recognizes the complexities of our world, the need for leaders to not only to consult experts but to engage in dialogue that engages the diverse perspectives of our nation and our world. In a world of global interlocking systems, the certainty that underlies the kind of “either/or” thinking that puts your idea in competition with mine can be deadly, and the capacity for adaptive responses by leaders is not a sign of weakness, but essential. Imagine a list of qualities that constitute a good spouse. It might identify some good candidates, but that would not guarantee a good marriage, as marriage is a relationship that is shaped by the individuals and the contexts in which they operate. So it is with leadership. Even though there are necessary qualities that serve a leader well, the ability to employ those in the interactions we call “leadership” requires more complex skills, difficult to discern through stump speeches, political ads, and even debates. We’d actually learn a lot more about the leadership qualities of a president if, instead of game-show-style debates, we utilized a kind of reality TV format in which hidden cameras allowed us to see how the candidates interact with advisors, campaign personnel, and even family members. Indeed, comments recently revealed by such hidden cameras have shifted this campaign in ways that calculated appeals to voters have not. The stakes are, indeed, high, and we need a debate format—if not an entire campaign structure--that does a better job of revealing genuine adaptive capacities for leadership, as well as an electorate that understands what those are.