With the election swing in full tilt following the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary, and on the heels of contests in Michigan, South Carolina, Nevada, Florida, and elsewhere, every detail of each candidate is scrutinized.  We poke, prod, and parse the contestants and their statements, dig through their records, and cast aspersions on their sincerity and even their motivations.  The majority of the press coverage centers around polls and strategy:  who's up?  Who's down?  Who's the front runner?  So-called "conventional wisdom" changes from day-to-day, hour-to-hour, race-to-race (raising questions about calling it "wisdom").

Lost in the "horse race" coverage seems to be on what basis we choose a candidate for President of the United States.  To many, so-called "identity politics" seems to be the key — voters want to identify with a candidate, so we get women voting for Hillary because she's a woman, Evangelical Christians voting for Huckabee because he "shares my values"; others want to support a candidate who "understands my problems".  Perhaps the most famous example of emotive, identity politics was Bill Clinton's famous "I feel your pain" insistence.

I believe we need to look past identity- or emotion-centered selection and think about what the Presidency ultimately is, and what makes a successful President.  An executive is different from a legislator or a laborer or an employee.  An executive is the face of the organization he or she leads, and is responsible for the direction it takes — good or bad.  Supposedly, with the executive of a government or an organization, the "buck stops here" when it comes to decisions, direction, and success... or failure.

Keeping this in mind, I believe that there are three main areas on which the foundation to a successful Presidency lie:  Vision, Leadership, and Management.  These three criteria form the three legs of a stool; remove any one of the three, and the stool will fall.  While referring in this essay to the Presidency, they are relevant to the executive of organization — business, church, non-profit, political, government, advocacy, and so on.

Vision
The President sets the tone, the direction of the country, the agenda.  As the campaign for President marches on, we have each of the candidates spelling out his or her platform — telling us what each expects to accomplish, where each intends to lead the country.  This is the prime qualification for a President:  having the vision to see where the country needs to go, and what steps we need to take to get there.  Does the economy require less government intrusion or more?  Should taxes be raised or lowered?  Should we engage ourselves military to a greater extent or a lesser extent?  These are important questions, and if a particular leader doesn't have a good vision of where he wants to take his organization, chances are good that the destination will not be one noteworthy for success.

Probably the most time and effort of a campaign for the presidency is spent on what President George H.W. Bush called "the vision thing".  The internet supports this, as candidates can spell out their respective platform and positions directly to voters, unfiltered by the news media.  Detailed plans on taxation, health care, education, and nearly every other issue are available for each candidate at the click of a mouse.

What does the leader want to accomplish?  How are competing priorities ranked?  That is the question of vision.

Leadership
Great ideas, great tone, great direction is undoubtedly crucial for a successful Presidency.  However, position papers and platforms, tax plans and health care schemes are all worth nothing if a candidate does not have the ability to get them enacted.  Leadership is required to successfully enact a President's agenda.  Leadership requires successfully outlining the vision.  The people being led need to understand at least in principle where the President is wishing to go, and why it is important.  If a President is to follow the Constitution, few accomplishments are afforded to him without the support of Congress.  How he goes about securing that support bringing people on board and working towards a common goal is the question of leadership.  Trust and character are key.

In contrast with aspects of vision, reading a website, reading a position paper, or hearing a speech gives little insight into a candidate's leadership skills.  Rather, a person's record of accomplishment is really the only window to his leadership abilities. 

How effectively is the vision outlined?  How effectively are people brought on board with that vision?  Is the President able to move forward in enacting his agenda?  These are the questions of leadership.

Management
No President is an island; a President has to be able to build an effective team that he can trust that will follow his leadership and work towards enacting his agenda.  Any effective head of an organization has to be able to balance personal motives and personalities, putting people in positions to optimize their own skills and interests. 

If there's one thing that's certain about a Presidency, it is that something unexpected will happen.  Distractions can come in many forms, from a West Wing scandal to an impending financial crisis to an imminent threat to our security, there are many pitfalls to be encountered on the way to enacting one's vision.

Keeping a Presidential Administration focused and on task, regardless of any distractions, requires a successful President to be excel in management.  Knowing when and what to delegate versus when and how to engage is a skill that can't be taught.  Working relationships and playing upon personal motives is key.  Many of the details of the act of politics are management-related.  A successful President finds efficient, smart, well-qualified people and uses them to their fullest potential.

How effectively and efficiently does a leader assemble a team dedicated to enacting his vision?  How well are distractions handled?  How focused does a President remain when a crisis occurs?  How effectively are tasks delegated and personalities managed?  These are all questions of management.


A truly successful President excels in all three areas; even a momentary lapse in any of these areas can cause disaster.  Consider President Johnson:  he excelled in leadership and management skills, masterfully working the Congress to enact his Great Society programs; yet, his vision of enacting a welfare state was flawed, and as a result we have a legacy of 40 years of wasted money and failed policies.  President Reagan had a clear vision:  fight Communism (and win) worldwide, and decrease government interference on the domestic economy.  His leadership skills were equally impressive, as the "Great Communicator" was able to get much of his agenda enacted despite a Congress comprised mostly of political enemies; yet, a failure in his management skills led to over-delegation that ultimately resulted in the Iran-Contra scandal.

In any organization, a strong, focused leader who lacks the proper vision is doomed to wander, Moses-like, without direction.  A visionary with great focus and management skills is doomed to failure if none of his ideas are enacted, if no one follows his lead.  A charismatic leader with great vision will accomplish little if he is constantly immersed in minutiae or distracted by scandal.

It is the best combination of vision, leadership, and management on which we need to be focused this campaign season as we consider whom to elect the next President of the United States.