CRA Inc

28 Sep 04 @ 3:07 pm

The Realist-Idealist Dilemma

In Fast Company’s The Realist-Idealist Dilemma, James O’Toole defines what it means for a leader to be a realist or an idealist:

Realists believe that most people are evil and, therefore, do whatever it takes to maintain power and protect the interests of their nations or organizations. Faced with a crisis, they respond depending on how they read the situation. In contrast, idealists, like Reagan, believe that most people are good and that the world can be made a better place if leaders adhere to inviolable values. In crises, idealists stick with principles.

In his opinion, both realists and idealists can make good leaders — and either can stand anywhere along the political spectrum — but they can only make good leaders if they’re either realistic or idealistic, but not both:

The leadership lesson for GW — and for any leader — is simple: Followers don’t much care if leaders are realists or idealists, but they distrust inconstancy. To make a mark in history, as Reagan did, Bush must decide which one he is. Doing so will require moral courage, because it entails commitment to a predictable mode of behavior. And that, ultimately, is what followers seek in their leaders. As Bush said: “Ronald Reagan believed … in the courage and triumph of free men. And we believe it, all the more, because we saw that courage in him.”

O’Toole’s point (stripped of its political context): Followers don’t much care if leaders are realists or idealists, but they distrust inconstancy.

posted in category(s): Points of Interest