1. Republicans should not be crowing about their “victory.” For the most part, they were not elected because they are favored by voters; they won because voters wanted to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Democrats. Both of the major parties have an overwhelmingly negative image among voters. And most voters do not like the candidates they have to choose from, regardless of the party represented.

2. After being subjected to weeks of mud-throwing and unscrupulous campaign tactics, I cannot help but think that we hold politicians in such low regard – and have such contempt for the work they do – because of the ugliness of the campaigns they run. Does a person of character stoop that low? Does the Golden Rule have no applications to the political process? How did Americans lose such respect for people, for themselves and for the political process that we have allowed such garbage to become the norm? I suppose it’s no different than how we have allowed a faceless contingent of media executives to dictate what decency means in media content. Why don’t we demand a more dignified process?

3. For those who believe that this election will bring better policy outcomes during the next two years, think again. All that happened as a result of the 2010 election is that we pretty much guaranteed a lack of significant legislative progress for two years. Congress will be gridlocked worse than New York City at rush hour. The President will begin running his re-election campaign … today. And certainly we can expect the 2012 election to be the ugliest yet. Both parties will be desperate. They will break the record for campaign expenditures, doing everything within their power to buy whatever seats they can by frittering away obscene amounts of money. No amount of party, candidate and PAC spending, though, will eliminate the public’s disappointment in its elected leaders, and its frustration with the political process.

4. Despite what the pundits have been saying recently, party identification is still critical for candidates. In campaigns in which so much misinformation is bandied about, the issues are so complex, and endorsements mean less than ever, party ID has become a simple (if imprecise) means of determining whom to vote for. Consider this: 95% of registered Republicans voted exclusively or mostly for Republican candidates, and 92% of Democrats voted exclusively or mostly for Democratic candidates. In an ADD culture, where distractions are the norm in our daily experience, labels help cut through the clutter, enabling people to make decisions.

5. Young people, as expected, did not show up for this election. Based on their behavior in other facets of life as well as their attitudes toward the political environment, my view is that their interest in politics and government is based on personalities more than policies. They turned out in 2008 because they were drawn to Mr. Obama (an exciting, young, black, energetic, articulate, charismatic person) and they loved the thought of playing a significant role in a social revolution of sorts. 2010? There wasn’t much that appealed to them. Without a national race to galvanize their attention and passion, they were nearly 40% less likely to vote this year than two years ago. (Among all voters, 18% were 18-to-29 in 2008; just 11% were in that age group this year.)

6. The Protestant community stayed true to form in 2010. Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported conservatives and Republicans; non-evangelical born again voters were more evenly divided, but leaned Republican to a greater extent than was the case in 2008. (In that election, 48% supported Mr. Obama – serving as a major reason why he prevailed.) Black Protestants overwhelmingly supported Democrats. Skeptics went with Democratic candidates by a 2:1 margin. The only noteworthy shift was among Catholics, who returned to the Republican side of the ledger to a greater degree this time. Catholics voted exclusively or mostly for Republicans by about a 3:2 margin. That’s a reversal of their behavior during the past four years. However, their choices were driven largely by economics, not by moral or theological considerations.

7. Do not lose sight of the fact that Americans are typically pragmatic and logical. That translates to being very middle-of-the-road in their political thinking. They have shifted slightly to the right during the past two years, but that has been mostly with regard to economic matters, and even that repositioning has not caused them to lose their centrist orientation. Accordingly, this election was not really about ideology; it was about survival for the present and hope for the future. Millions of Americans have lost their optimism about the future and voted yesterday in ways designed to restore it. They do not consider themselves politically astute or ideologically pure. They consider themselves economically worse off than they were two years ago and do not foresee that changing in the immediate future. Their vote was their mechanism for protecting whatever economic stability they presently possess, and to hopefully communicate that they do not want their children to live with overwhelming debt and financial struggle for the duration of their lifetime. Essentially, they want no more and no less federal government services than they absolutely need in order to get by. With the notable exception of a significant minority of the public who are liberal Democrats committed to substantial government intervention related to social conditions, Americans remain more comfortable with the private sector handling their needs.

8. Having observed Mr. Obama during the past two years, it appears that he believed his eight-point margin of victory over John McCain was a “mandate” to radically redefine the role of government as well as the nation’s political tenor. It seems to me that the election results of 2010 are a correction to that view. Even if people were voting for “change they could believe in” back in 2008, it was also change they did not understand the financial and global ramifications of at that time. Now, more fully apprised of those implications, they have indeed voted for change they can believe in: a return to a less aggressive federal government.

9. The Hispanic vote remains one of the most sought after – and elusive – votes in the electoral game. Although they represent 15% of the population, in 2006 just 8% of the votes cast were by Hispanics, and the number was exactly the same in 2010. At some point this refusal to exercise the right to vote will hamper the gains Hispanics hope to experience in this society. Such consistently low turnout can only hurt them.

10. These past two elections drive home a significant point for leaders: when the public provides permission to lead, the window of opportunity to act and to act appropriately is limited. One of the best indications of that is the complete flip-flop among “independent” voters. In 2008, 52% of independents backed Mr. Obama. This year, that dropped to 39%. If someone is chosen to lead, he/she must get on with it, in ways that reflect the heartbeat of the people, not the whims of the leader. Leadership is not about pursuing the leader’s dreams; it is about representing the people’s best interests and clearest expectations. Immediacy, urgency and competency are critical components necessary to defuse the rampant skepticism and mistrust that characterizes the American political scene.

11. One of my greatest fears is that we may see an escalation of violence in the U.S. in the near future. Why? Look at the combination of conditions and attitudes present. High unemployment and under-employment. Rising taxes with the threat of additional increases in order to diminish an overwhelming national debt. A declining level of public services, and the perception of diminished quality of services. The widespread, nearly universal belief that the public is regularly lied to by its elected representatives. Two out of three adults say the nation is on the wrong track. Three-fourths are angry with the federal government. The same proportion disapproves of the job the Congress is doing. For more than two consecutive years nine out of ten adults have argued that the national economy is in bad shape. A large majority believes that Washington is deaf. Growing numbers of Americans believe they are in a no-win position. They prefer business to provide more services than government. Yet they don’t trust big business, and small businesses are struggling more than at any time in the past fifty years – largely due to forces controlled by the government and big business! Even though they want less government, Americans also have greater needs and fewer resources. What’s a citizen to do? At some point, people become sufficiently fed up with the system that they take more aggressive measures. Time is of the essence for our political leaders to shape up. The people’s patience is running thinner than many assume – or have bothered to notice.

12. My sense was that churches played a very low-key role in the 2010 election. That is extremely unfortunate. Americans are dying for guidance, especially from people whom they trust. Many pastors were scared to participate in the political process, unaware of the extensive rights they have to discuss candidates and policy matters from the pulpit with their congregants. Various political and non-profit organizations have caused tens of thousands of pastors and other church leaders to be fearful about engaging people in political discussions and activity through the local church. In other cases, pastors claimed to be too busy to engage in the political process, or insufficiently knowledgeable about political issues and candidates, or fearful of dividing the congregation by raising such matters. The Christian body needs leaders who will lead them in all dimensions of life, not just regarding theological matters on Sunday morning. Choosing to avoid the electoral process in relation to all but the safest of activities is exactly what has landed America in the moral and spiritual condition it is in today.

END.

With the 2010 mid-term election approaching, I have watched in dismay at the nature of the political conversation that has emerged in several key states, the national media, and the blogosphere.

While I am not a fan of some of the public servants who are being excoriated in the media, I am nevertheless saddened by the superficiality and coarseness of the conversation related to their performance in office and their re-election prospects. Perhaps the most disturbing monologues are those that savage various public officials for outcomes over which they have no control. Among those who seem to be skewered most unfairly are Arnold Swarzeneggar, Ben Bernanke, and even Barack Obama. Yes, I am aware that all three of these gentlemen, and many other officials like them, asked for and willingly accepted the jobs in which they are serving. And I certainly realize that when you campaign for and then are given the mantle of leadership, criticism is part of the package.

But don’t we, as American citizens, have a responsibility to be well-informed before we hurl our criticisms as these people? Don’t we have an obligation to accept some share – and frankly, sometimes a major share – of the responsibility for the unfortunate results that plague the jurisdiction in question? Isn’t it part of the bargain that before we insult or criticize a public official we should do some fact checking and be measured in the tone of our critique? Add another layer of responsibility – that of being a Christ follower – and we have to consider if our task is to criticize or the assist those who seek to do good, regardless of your party affiliation or ideological leanings.

We have become an attack dog society, happy to take unfair shots at those who are striving to serve us. To my knowledge, few elected or appointed officials – even those whom I do not care for, ideologically or in character – have ever claimed to be perfect or capable of solving all of our problems without some missteps. Together, we create absurd expectations and then declare those who fail to meet them to be incompetent, an enemy, or an incompetent enemy.

We live in a complex age. It is also an age when communications opportunities abound. Perhaps one of the lessons we ought to teach our children – and, of course, personally master – relates to self-restraint. There are times when a public response or critique is appropriate and other times when it is not; it’s important to know the difference and to behave accordingly. Ours is not only an over-stimulated society but also an over-communicated society. Just because we possess an idea or feeling, and the tools with which to share it, doesn’t mean it should be broadcast to the world. Self-restraint will help us filter those comments that make us feel good from those that produce good.

And, of course, the challenge for leaders is to know whom to respond to, when to do so, and with what content and tenor. Leadership is not about having the last or the loudest word. Just as there are times for people to raise their voice in protest, so there are times when it makes sense for leaders to not respond to specific charges. In the course of speaking with many leaders over the years, and most recently in the interviews for the Master Leaders book, I learned that leaders are sometimes better off absorbing the body blows of criticism and continuing to move forward than halting their progress in order to strike back. The media love to cover a good blow-for-blow confrontation, but great leaders do not get distracted by the public’s morbid curiosity about such battles.

Knowing when to resist the temptation to respond or retaliate depends upon the self-control of the leader as well as his/her capacity to read the situation and discern whether a response would add value to the lives of the people being led. Effective leaders also realize that should a response be desirable there are different ways of responding that might defuse an explosive situation. Understanding the different types of responses available (e.g., through a spokesperson, using a different medium, by providing facts and figures that expose the absurdity of the criticism, etc.) is a significant part of the leader’s cache of tools.

All leaders must be able to take the heat. No matter who you are and what you lead, if there are people involved then there will be criticism. Some of it will be unjustified, based on inaccuracies, emotion, competition, or irrelevancies. Having enough confidence in your motivations and choices to handle such criticism wisely – i.e., knowing when and how to engage your critics – is one mark of a good leader.

There were many memorable moments. There were the wanna-be’s in the audience, dressed to attract attention. There were the performances of artists vying for awards. And there was the off-stage, off-camera antics of some of the musicians and other industry people in attendance, at the parties before and after. It was genuinely entertaining.

One of the most memorable experiences of the day for me was a comment made by Walter Miller, who produced the telecast of the event for network TV. After explaining what he was hoping to pull off with the day’s broadcast, he said, “On paper, this doesn’t work. It just doesn’t work.” And then he proceeded to pull it off – on time, within budget, and despite the antics of a relatively unruly group of performers and presenters.

How did he do it? Through incredible planning, precise execution, the united effort of a large team of talented specialists (several hundred strong), a huge budget, years of experience, and the ability and willingness to flex on a moment’s notice.

None of that would have been possible, though, if Mr. Miller did not have a clear and compelling vision of the outcome and the confidence of those working for him. After watching the process up close, trust me, the Grammy telecast is a disaster waiting to happen. But that’s where leadership comes in. Despite continually reminding his colleagues of the vision which they were pursuing together, and keeping them apprised throughout the day of the progress they were making, the live broadcast could easily have fallen apart at any of 100 junctures during the 210-minute show. The fact that it didn’t was less a testimony to the eye-popping or ear-pleasing performances of some of the artists than to the relentless behind-the-scenes leadership of a team whose names you’ve never heard – and never will.

Taylor Swift and Beyonce are widely considered to have been the stars of the show. In my mind, Walter Miller was the brightest star of the evening. None of us would have enjoyed them – or any of the other two dozen musicians – without the stellar efforts of him and his team.

As you consider your ministry and the difficult outcomes you seek to facilitate, take a look at the critical points on that journey. How clear is the vision? Are you so certain that it is a vision from God that you are going for it, full speed ahead, even though “it just doesn’t work on paper”? How invested in that vision are your colleagues? Is your team sufficiently prepared and resourced to produce the desired results? Is your plan capable of generating the desired outcome? Who is tracking the quality and timing of the execution? Is your budget realistic? Are there team members who have been through it before and can offer insight from experience? When things go wrong – and they will – are you and your team prepared to quickly and smoothly shift gears and stay focused on the ultimate result?

Vision without strategic action is worthless verbiage. Vision that empowers people to execute a well-conceived plan is priceless leadership.

His comment reminded me of some research we conducted among churches and pastors, examining longevity and impact. We found that church leaders have their greatest impact on the lives of congregants during years five through fourteen of their tenure at a church. Prior to year five they are clarifying, articulating and seeking buy-in of their vision. After year 14 they tend to get stuck in a routine that produces diminishing returns.

Some pastors remain fresh and effective after year 14, but they seem to be the exception to the rule. It is quite easy to become complacent and comfortable in the lead role after a decade and half in the same ministry. Leaders can often justify to constituents their continuation in a comfortable role, but Christian leaders must remember that they answer to the God who called them to leadership – and He will not be fooled.

Great leaders keep reinventing themselves, stimulating both themselves and their organization to reach new levels of impact. That means continually looking at the vision in new ways – coming up with a new vision, but adapting the organization to the ever-changing realities the ministry faces and implementing the vision in new ways and contexts.

But we also discovered that most leaders have a ceiling they must recognize for their leadership abilities, and work within those parameters. Certainly a great leader grows, but part of what makes them great is being realistic about themselves and responding intelligently and honestly to their limitations. Too many leaders engage in denial about their limitations, to the detriment of everyone involved. Great leaders seek situations in which their gifts and abilities are a perfect fit – and they are savvy enough to depart when their abilities are no longer a good match for the circumstances. Operating within one’s limitations is a sign of wisdom not defeat; staying beyond the time when one can add value is selfish and bad stewardship. Learning about these matters from some of the excellent research on the stages of organizational growth is helpful in this regard.

I waited for the disclaimer but soon discovered that the author was serious! Do you agree with that argument?

I think there’s a different way of seeing the scriptures as they discuss leadership. For instance, there is much to be learned by following the example of numerous leaders in the Bible, such as Joshua, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Nehemiah, and Paul. Even a blowhard like Peter went through a transformation that is instructive for today’s leaders.

Second, I cannot help but feel that while the example of Jesus is not “easily” imitated by us mere mortals, nothing worth learning or doing is likely to come “easily.” In fact, a significant reason for Jesus incarnation was to encourage us to observe and imitate His life, not to deem it beyond hope of imitation.

Third, aren’t the failures that we and others experience some of the most compelling and lasting lessons? They may not represent our proudest moments, but they often provide our most transforming experiences.

I have generally thought of the Bible as the greatest leadership text ever written, if you have “leadership eyes” – that is, the ability to see events through the eyes of a leader, and to interpret people’s experiences in light of how their outcomes relate to what we, as leaders, can do to best serve God and His people. Rather than bemoaning the absence of 10-step recipes for award-winning leadership, I love to consider the lessons that each biblical characters leadership adventures teach us, and to translate those into modern-day applications. Am I missing something?