Yes it does. One vote does count. Whether it is the presidential primary elections this year, or for the local school commissioner in your town, that one vote does count. Your neighbors and the lady at the grocery checkout, everyone’s vote is important in the always evolving world of the American Democracy. Recently when speaking at a Syracuse University political science class we discussed this subject intensely.  One student spoke up that she did not feel her vote was important, that she had to vote on an absentee ballot and they don’t count the absentees until after the winner is announced, so her vote truly did not count. With the election returns posted she felt it was over.  How true that maybe in an uncontested race, but how wrong it is in the real world of a competitive election cycle. From the apathy of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s voters were drawn away from the politics of the past, of Nixon and his scandal, to the generational change we, who are 45 years old or older all witnessed at that time.  It blew us away from the political process. Sure we talked about the issues or that candidate and what we didn’t like.

Hell we were right to do so because we as citizens were disenfranchised, lied to and betrayed by those and others mentioned here.  But in the election year of 2,000 we began to see a swing back, of voters whose interests in good government and integrity in the process began to return to the voting booth. Here we are 8 years later and how the world has turned. Record turnout among democratic in almost every primary and caucus has shown that our system, this experiment or experience in democracy is working, and working well. 

Every vote does count, and they always have. Just ask a new citizen to the USA about that and they will tell you, “my right to vote is the most important”.  I am blessed to live Syracuse, New York where in February of this year in the Democratic Primary both NY Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama received 6001 votes, EACH.  12,002 people voted to an actual tie in our city.  As we have seen as the process rolled across the nation people are engaged. Did you get that they are “engaged” in the process. What is exciting this time around is that the different generations are voting, new urban voters are registered and are showing up at the polls.

Why?

Because, as we have learned from our recent past every vote does count, but only if it is cast.

You suppose a difference of Opinion between You and me, on the Subject of Aristocracy. I can find none. I dislike and detest hereditary honours, Offices Emoluments established by Law. So do you. I am for ex[c]luding legal hereditary distinctions from the U.S. as long as possible. So are you. I only say that Mankind have not yet discovered any remedy against irresistible Corruption in Elections to Offices of great Power and Profit, but making them hereditary.

FROM THE BEGINNING

I could hardly wait for each new segment of the recent JOHN ADAMS mini series on television.  As I listened to our founding Fathers debate and disagree and, yes, be downright nasty to each other, it occurred to me that not much has changed.  Every person wanted the fledgling nation to reflect his own beliefs and self-interests. 

The fact that our nation was born is, in itself, a mystery and a miracle.  The fact that it endures baffles me.  And yet, somehow, enough of these flawed men and, now, women hold a vision of service to the goal of justice that we keep rolling along.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were friends.  Then, they disagreed, and for years they did not converse.  After Adams’ best friend, his wife Abigail, died, the former President reached out to Jefferson in a letter, and they corresponded for the rest of their lives.  Their dialogue became so important to each man that apparently they grew dependent on the connection.  They died within hours of each other on July 4.

In one of his letters to Jefferson, Adams wrote:

“But will you say our Elections are pure? Be it so; upon the whole. But do you recollect in history, a more Corrupt Election than that of Aaron Burr to be President, or that of De Witt Clinton last year. By corruption, here I mean a sacrifice of every national Interest and honour, to private and party Objects.”

Our elections will be over in a few months, and who knows which candidates will wind up being dependent on a former foe.  The difference is that all the emails will probably be shredded and we will never know.

This past week in a workshop with very senior governmental officials I came to the realisation that my often used metaphor of sprinters interacting with marathoners needed some adjustment.

Let me explain: I often used the example of a sprinter to illustrate the pace at which our elected officials operate. As a former elected official once said: “I have very little time to implement substantial changes and influence the course of our country.  A few years at the most, a bit more if I am re-re-elected. You, bureaucrats, (marathoners in my parlance) have a life long career ahead of you. Therefore, I will keep on pushing and demanding quicker and quicker responses and action so my contribution to our country can be marked and meaningful.  I want to be able to say to my grandchildren, this specific improvement to our collective well being I was responsible for.”

As we were exploring the necessity for a leader of stepping back, of taking time for real meaningful presence when talking to staff or when taking the appropriate actions  I brought up the sprinter-marathoner metaphor. I was quickly challenged by the top leader who said, “You don’t seem to understand.” “We work in nanoseconds… not only is there no time, but we have multiple demands arriving at us, from all sources, blackberry, phone, e-mail etc. Responses are required immediately. There is no such thing as being a marathoner when you are in the senior ranks of government, there is no time to step back, the pace is incessant.”

Looking for ways to assist these leaders in creating some space I was reminded of my chapter on The Value of Coaching for Leaders in the Public Domain where I propose a simple and very efficient way for people who operate in nanoseconds to step back, take a deep breath, and refocus on the essentials while allowing themselves a few seconds of restorative time. I call it the 4 second 4 step practice; it has a proven track record for  sprinter and marathoners and yes, even “nanoseconders”… Adding awareness and deliberateness to our already breathing is all that is required.

A first-time candidate told me recently that he didn’t have the luxury of “me time”.  This started me thinking about the balance of self vs. service, and how important it is to figure this out during the campaign process.  As a coach working with elected officials as they transition into office, I can tell you that the pressures become worse following a successful election.

So, what happens when “me time” is sacrificed?  In an election, you’re the product being sold.  As a result, I see me time as an investment into product quality.  It’s the restorative time that sharpens acuity, makes us more mindful, vital and charismatic.  In other words, it’s how we sharpen our inner game.

And beyond the benefits of ‘me time’, there are dangers lurking in selflessness.  As I discuss in my chapter, Winning the Power Play, sacrifices in the name of service can often turn into a sense of entitlement.  This, in turn, becomes the root of enormous errors in judgment, of which Elliot Spitzer is just the most recent example.

A lot is at sake in figuring out the balance of self and service.  It’s worth the “me time” to really think it through and choose consciously.

Spiral Dynamics, a theoretical model developed by Don Beck, for looking at human evolution, reveals that a person’s ability to hold a paradox is an indication of heightened human awareness. What is a paradox? Webster’s defines paradox as a: A statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true; b: an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises.

Reading this definition and then considering the approach taken both by the press and most politicians, in which there is always an emphasis to present one side of a political issue, would leave one to believe that these two notions that of paradox, on the one hand, and sticking only to one side of an issue on the other hand–in politics, are completely incompatible. How could a politician embrace paradox and possibly survive in a climate where publicly appreciating and understanding–and yes, possibly even embracing–distinctly different or contradictory positions would be considered political suicide?

Here’s the aspect of the definition of Paradox that interests me the most. It lies in the words is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. Also, an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises.

In Spiral Dynamics, the Second Tier contains the higher levels of human development. This tier contains the human’s ability to hold in its mind, competing truths or realities at the same time. Neither one is more right than the other.

A politician must, of course, maintain a certain perspective on the issues of the day. He or she must represent a firmly committed grounding in a political philosophy. However, the evolved politician must also represent the ability to see the other side and, in a genuine and authentic way, offer respect for the truth of that other sidenot in a pandering and patronizing way, but in a way that reflects an appreciation for how that side operates.

There is a need for great self-authority within, in order to pull this off, without being accused of being wishy-washy. However, when one stands in a place of commanding self authority, fully committed to his or her ideals, AND can also demonstrate the ability to see the truth of the other side and be curious about what can be learned or gained from the truth represented by that other side, then he or she has demonstrated the ability to lead from a place of nuance and complexity.

If we are to resolve the thorny issues of the day, we need politicians who have the wherewithal to go beyond simplistic, one-sided pandering politics, and demonstrate the courage to embrace the complexity and nuance of paradoxical realities, while maintaining a strong self-authority and self respect.

If I wanted to keep my head in the sand around the subject of racism, there seemed to be a consistent effort by the universe to keep pulling it out this week.

In his speech describing his relationship with Rev. Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama brought racism front and center in the Presidential campaign. In the speech, he said,” I suppose the politically safe thing to do would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork.” Obviously, he did not do that.  Now, I have to think about racism, too.

The Saturday before Obama’s speech, I “had to” attend a workshop called ANTI RACISM TRAINING because of a leadership position I hold in my church.

I balked at bit. I wondered aloud about the reasons for calling it anti racism instead of diversity training.  Diversity feels better.

So, I spent a whole day discussing my childhood memories, my power, and my privileges as a white, southern, American woman.  I talked to another person about my parents and grandparents and the messages they sent.  The other person just listened.  Then I listened to the other person.  I said that sometimes I was confused because, on one hand, my grandmother would use the “n” word in relation to the black people in our community. On the other hand, she would work beside a young black woman in the large garden, invite her to eat with us, give her vegetables when the garden produced and bounce the woman’s baby on her knee.

So, when Barack talked about his white grandmother “who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe”, I got it.  I also get that the subject is a hard one to discuss and impossible to do while remaining politically correct.  What I appreciate about Obama is that he periodically gives us a window into his soul. We “have to” talk about uncomfortable subjects.  If we don’t, they stagnate.  They don’t evaporate.

In our workshop we talked about assumptions, beliefs, racial superiority, power and privilege. We defined words like prejudice, bigotry, stereotyping, discrimination and scapegoating.  It was not an entirely comfortable day.  And yet, we all left feeling a little less burdened by unspoken feelings and experiences.

There is a lot of anger in our country.  And that anger comes from men and women and Hispanics and whites and blacks and Asians and different generations and every other “different” we can imagine.  We resent each other.  We misunderstand each other.  We disagree.  And a lot of those thoughts and feelings simmer under the surface.

I have a friend who has a more conservative viewpoint than I do.  We have resolved to stay in dialogue with each other about politics.  I sent him Obama’s speech and asked for his reaction.  He said that he agreed with some things, disagreed with some things and was disappointed about others.  He gave the speech a grade of C.

I gave the speech an A.  Senator Obama put racism into words we could hear and discuss.  See, America is still a wonderful place for diversity to thrive.
 

When we finished and published Winning Without Compromising Yourself in June of 2007, we knew it was relevant to the moment. How relevant we have unexpectedly found out with Elliot Spitzer’s recent fall from leadership. One of our key points for the book was “to become more self aware and break habits that aren’t serving you, or your constituency.”  Almost every chapter offers supports that provide structure and assistance in keeping our word, how to be sure we SERVE® our core values and seek out ways in we can find and stay in our “best self center.” 

In the New York State area, we are again suffering through a major political leader, in our current governor, who has made great errors in judgment and betrayed the trust voters bestowed on him in the 2006 Election.  A little more than twelve months ago, our newly elected Comptroller was also forced to resign after illegal use of employees and vehicles.  Where does it end; how do we get the leaders we need to run? What will it take to raise new leaders whose core values are so strong that they will not succumb to the negative influences around us? 

On page 62 of the book the following appears, “If you are a public leader who must make decisions, your and your family’s integrity will always be a moment away from scrutiny.”   If our democratic system is in need of repair, our own integrity is the place to begin.

You can see the results regularly.  The New Jersey governor is a good example.  He was forced to resign because of a relationship with, and the subsequent hiring of, an individual who may not have been qualified for the position.  The governor had to apologize to his wife, the community and the people for his error in judgment and his indiscretion.  As he did so, his wife stood tall by his side.  The family is always there and often, like in business, the candidate is pulled away from being in integrity with the family at that moment.

On Monday, we New Yorkers from the farms of Upstate to Wall Street learned this lesson all too well again when Elliot Spitzer shocked New York and the Nations Body Politic with his admissions of not only breaking the law quite possibly many times, but also breaking the code of family; defying his code of ethics and his lack of integrity to the people he served.  At a time when record setting voters are showing up at caucus’s and the polling place in this year’s primary elections, we in New York will require the grit to not let these failures in our leaders words and actions effect the integrity of our efforts to fix what is wrong with politics in America with our votes.

All the more reason for everyone to vote and ensure our democratic process is strong and growing. God Bless America, every vote does count from beginning to end. That is how our original leaders must have chose that all important motto, E Pluribus Unum.  

The wheel is turning.  Looking at Barack Obama and John McCain from a historical perspective reveals immediately that they are both unlikely front-runners, when compared against their modern day predecessors.  Obama, with his blackness, his distinctive names, and his refusal to play the politics of divisiveness, is an anomaly among the old guard.  McCain, a maverick who refuses to be pigeon holed, has instead developed a long pattern of reaching across the aisle to find consensus on important issues, while his more staunch Republican allies blanch.  Both men are unseemly to the old guard on both the liberal and conservative sides, when compared against the tried-and-true (or is it tired-and-true?) political strategies of doing whatever it takes to prove how right your side is and how wrong the other side is.

The wheel is turning.  Vast numbers of people—people who have never been interested before—are awakening to the phenomenon of Obama’s message.  Others are switching their allegiance from Clinton to Obama, as they see the trajectory of this imaginative approach that celebrates collaboration over competition, achieving results and moving forward, over being “right” and achieving incessant stalemates.  Why is this so?  What are the people resonating to?

The wheel is turning.  McCain finds unusual success, even though he raises the wrath of “true conservatives” who revile his positions on immigration reform, campaign finance reform, and health care reform.  Why are so many willing to forego their differences with McCain and instead back him, despite those differences?

There are many good reasons.  However, the one that interests me most is the fatigue factor.  Constituents are tired of the combative, entrenched positions of old.  They are tired of watching the inevitable and incessant mud-slinging attacks, generated from behind the barricades of liberal and conservative ideology.  They want to solve problems.  They want to connect with others, despite differences, for the sake of resolving big challenges, which is more important than the need to be “right”.   

Certainly, McCain has made missteps that have revealed when he was disingenuous and out of alignment with his own political true north.  He has had enough time to reveal such flaws in his long history in the senate.  And yet, he has continually shown the ability to recover—like an athlete who loses and quickly re-gains his footing–to his true tendency to hold an independent and principled perspective.  The best recent example of this was demonstrated in speeches he gave while campaigning in Michigan, where he told workers that jobs that have been lost to outsourcing will not be coming back.  He nearly won the state, despite this message. 

Obama is so new to the game that we have yet to see how well he hews to his perceived message of unity and collaboration.  His campaign has already shown occasional signs of the pull to play the divisive political game, at times, in the contest against Clinton.  However, if he demonstrates over time, the notable tendency to come from a position of seeking alignment around issues over differences, he will continue to provide needed fresh air to the voters.

The wheel is turning.  A tipping point is approaching.  There is a hunger for more from our political leaders than the usual battling and divisiveness.  The people are awakening to this hunger.  Whether the wheel turns far enough in this election to hold in place this movement of the wheel along our nation’s political path or whether it will roll backward into politics-as-usual, is yet to be revealed.  I, for one, am hopeful.

Part I – Writing the Book on Political Coaching
 
A few years ago, I found a way to combine my personal passion for the political arena with my professional expertise as a coach.  I’m something of an odd bird in that I’m literally passionate about the political process more than I’m dedicated to advocating a particular agenda.  I love the passion, commitment to service and I’m fascinated by the labyrinth of the process. 
 
And it’s all about people!  I think I enjoy politics so much because the arena is all people - just like coaching.
 
Running the Obstacle Course
As it turns out, coaching is completely new to the political arena, which makes it rich with opportunities.  It’s also a vast uphill climb, creating trust in a confidential resource for leaders in the public eye and hypercompetitive environment.  Additionally, the metrics that prove the efficacy of coaching are in business terms like “return on investment” and “bottom-line” results, making them irrelevant in an arena that measures elections won, money raised, and heaps of poll numbers.
 
It seemed to me that the best way to educate political leaders and their staffs about coaching would be by writing a book explaining the process.  The first book I was published in was a series of essays and I really liked the format, so I put together a group of coaches who I greatly respect who also coach political leaders.  My hope was that we would complete the book in 90 days – and as it turns out, it took 900.  There were a lot of group decisions to make, such as how we define a political leader – an elected or appointed official who impacts policy and their staff.  In addition, we had a lot of research to do in order to understand their world.

As we researched political leaders and the political arena, we made changes to the direction and format of the book to make it a better fit.  Instead of writing about coaching, we chose to ‘coach from the page’ by addressing issues such as authenticity, power and collaboration from a coaching perspective.
 
We also made our chapters short and modular, so the book would be immediately useful without the need to start at the beginning and work through to the end.  We did this in order to fit into the crazy schedule of a political leader.  Now I understand that everybody has tremendous time pressures; however, in my years of coaching top-level executives, I have never experienced anyone in any organization who is under the same 24/7 time pressures of the political arena.  Their days start early, and I have had 9pm coaching calls postponed more than once because of a continuing caucus or floor debate.  There are efficiencies to be wrung out of the political process, and it may just start with everyone getting some rest!
 
The final obstacle was publishing and was very telling about attitudes toward political leadership.  We were lucky enough to have good relationships with editors at major publishing houses, and we received the same response.  They loved the book, and they wanted their representatives to read it!  The catch is, there is no book segment dedicated to the professional development of political leaders.
 
Seriously, think about all the books addressing business leadership that were published last year alone.  Possibly hundreds.  Ours is the only one we know of directed toward developing leadership in the political arena. 
 
I mean seriously, is it that much harder to run a company than a country?

The book was published in June 2007.  Next week, Michelle will share her learnings from coaching congress and what you can learn from it for your business!
 

My colleague, Michelle Randall, and I have been doing the radio and Internet TV interview rounds.  We have been speaking from the perspective of being a boss.  What does that mean?  Every one is accountable to someone in the business world.  The political world is no different.  We hire our officials by election.  We fire them by election.  How well are we doing at talent acquisition?

We talked about how engaged we are in the political process.  We heard different perspectives. Some people were excited about the process.  Some wanted to watch it from afar. Some people wanted to stay out of the political fray at all costs. 

One very interesting reaction came from women who said they were disgusted and offended by the negativity of the campaigns, and they just wanted to avoid it all.  It would be easy to tell them just to get over it and get involved. That’s the way politics is.  But instead, we were curious.  What’s that about?  Without (much) judgment, we wondered about the power of that position.  The exciting part was listening to them and realizing how deeply they care.  It’s hard to use words like “disgusted and offended” if you are apathetic  If they really get riled up about how they are feeling - no apology necessary, thank you - they can affect the political climate positively.  Just for example, if they choose to do so, they can write letters to candidates telling them what they DO want to hear and what they DON’T want to hear.  They can be voices that set performance expectations for our employee, the next PRESIDENT of the United States of America.

The bottom line is that there is power in what each one of us does.  Citizens of the world are watching us to see how we use our power.  They wonder what kind of bosses we are going to be this time.  They are hoping that we are taking our responsibility seriously because the world is a BIG system, and whatever we do affects the whole planet.  As long as we care, we have a chance.