An Editorial by Paul Hugenberg
In the private professional world, a significant amount of time is dedicated to understanding the personal characteristics and capabilities needed for roles with authority and leadership expectations. Even more time and treasure is spent coaching and training leaders to see gaps (with each other as well as with basic skills).
The value of proper leadership is unquestioned to stakeholders and to organizational growth.
Even more time and treasure is spent navigating people OUT of roles that they are not aligned for; as this causes severe dysfunction. It is seen in 2 primary ways: people in position well above their ability (simply cannot lead and unresolvable conflict is everywhere); and those held under their capacity who are chastised and held back. This is an expensive activity – and it avoidable. The LP can clearly see the significance of that expense on culture, profit, strategy and public acceptance of our party under the current “leadership.”
A layman’s review of the current LNC can only conclude that we expect the delegate votes to magically embed such skills in those LP ranks. Obviously, it cannot.
This LNC is a Masters Class in the Dysfunctional Team.
I suggest that the LP may gain more with budgeting for leadership assessments and or a leadership coach than it does with Roberts Rules experts, ad hoc protests or unnecessary offsite meetings.
I additionally suggest the independent creation of a rubric of desired experience, characteristics, complex organizational history, system and project aptitude, and leadership qualities. Publish it and share it with announced candidates at the Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and Treasurer levels. Publish the scorecard to Members. Move away from errant and misleading stump speeches and grow the LP we need. Delegates will vote as they wish, but we will have a clearer picture of what we are getting in to and how to support that [person’s] development throughout their term(s).
Why? Two reasons:
1) LPers are inherently driven to conflict, and not the productive kind. Arguments, podcasts, misuse of rules, character assassination, and rants are the tools of resolution relied upon *by leadership*. If any group needs the guided assistance of how to be constructive with competitive positions and have the capacity to mentally process such discord, we do.
2) Dysfunction is easily recognized but the root causes and fixes are often harder to identify unless a group of true leadership is (1) present and (2) placed at levels consistent with ability. It is clear, especially in the last week of emails alone, that we pay great penalties for this missing structure.
The leader of any team, let alone a leader of a political party struggling to survive that **has to build trust of voters** to succeed, needs to avoid situations where conflict and mistrust rule the day. High (cognitively) functioning leaders are strong and deliberate, but do not avoid issues and redirect “but you” back to those raising them.
This [current] leadership must not be permitted to continue after DC.
Cognitively, it cannot perform at the higher levels needed to remove uncertainty, build trust, solve internal conflict, and manage complex processes with multiple systems. It can only see a few feet ahead, and fall to public admonishment to address concerns.
