Consider:
***the director of an after- school program (think: Boys and Girls Clubs) is consistently losing kids to a new, increasingly popular, gang in town.
***the senior executive whose ‘killer’ proposal for the company’s strategic direction loses favor amongst her colleagues to a peer whose own proposal is blatantly self-serving
***the forthright and well-intended politician consistently loses ground to a charismatic, but unprincipled, opponent whose policies will (among other things) break the bank
What’s common amongst these three examples?
1) each leader had a compelling message
2) each leader was losing ground to an arguably inferior ‘competitor’ and was surprised by it
3) each leader had become dismissive of their counterpart
4) each leader assumed that the ‘moral high ground’ they believed they held would count for more than it eventually did
5) each leader failed to acknowledge their counterpart as a leader
The director, the executive, and the politician each saw their counterpart as unworthy—at least compared to themselves. By default, none of their counterparts could measure up to the lofty standards they associated with being a leader. Each leader felt contempt towards their counterpart. They were dismissive of them—all the while feeling a little victimized.
Of course, all of this is misplaced energy. Most importantly, each made the classic mistake of disrespecting a worthy opponent. They didn’t make any of this of this public. Rather, each kept their feelings and impressions private.
Each of these three were less diligent in advancing their point of view than they should have been. They didn’t work as hard as they needed to. They assumed (among other things) that the moral high-ground they represented would be a great equalizer. Unfortunately for them, it didn’t work out that way.
The truth is, each leader was facing a formidable opponent—a formidable leader if you will. Their counterparts were people that were creating a new status quo; people who had influenced others thinking. Yes their counterparts were indeed leaders—even though these people may have had a malfunctioning moral compass.
Being dismissive of one’s opponents (as leaders) because one considers them ‘unworthy’ is a mistake. It sets in motion a set of psychological conditions that prove to be self-defeating. For each of these three leaders, their counterparts were leaders –they just weren’t ones that these three had much respect for.
Making a judgment is one thing, but developing a sense of moral superiority is quite another. And it was largely that sense of moral superiority that undermined these three leaders. As we mentioned in Part One, leadership is an equal opportunity aspiration for saints and scoundrels alike.