Experience, Contextual Intelligence, and Leadership

[metta 0]

Joseph Nye, Jr. who coined the term "soft power" wrote in his article "Picking a President":

new leader will need is "contextual intelligence"–the ability not only to make decisions, but to know which decisions to make at a given time and in a given situation. Psychologists generally agree that multiple forms of intelligence exist. What we today measure as IQ was originally developed a century ago in the context of the French school system, and thus it focuses on linguistic, mathematical, and spatial skills that tend to predict success in school, but not necessarily in life. Contextual intelligence, on the other hand, consists partly of cognitive analytic capabilities and partly of tacit knowledge built up from experience. Tacit knowledge tends to be implicit and inarticulate, or expressed in rules of thumb. In some situations, such "street smarts" are much more important than "school smarts."

Contextual intelligence is an intuitive diagnostic skill that helps a leader align tactics with objectives to create smart strategies in new situations. It implies both a capability to discern trends in the face of complexity as well as adaptability while trying to shape events. Bismarck once referred to this skill as the ability to intuit God's movements in history, and seize the hem of his garment as he sweeps by. More prosaically, like surfers, leaders with contextual intelligence have the judgment to adjust to new waves and ride them to success.

Contextual intelligence as I take it means ability to transfer knowledge gained from past experience to new situation. In that light, Obama has changed his positions as the context of this election changed but did he or will he make the decisions. I am also looking at McCain according to that criteria. So far, i have not been able to judge either of the candidates conclusively yet.

But for starters, here is an article looking at Obama's decisions ......

Obama's Panic

By Michael Gerson (washingtonpost)

Wednesday, September 17, 2008; Page A19

Seldom has there been a larger contrast between the style of a candidate and the strategy of his campaign.

Barack Obama is cool, firm and permanently unruffled. It is precisely this quality of steadiness that has made him seem a credible prospective president with the thinnest of résumés.

But Obama's campaign is rootless, reactive and panicky. At every stage since securing the nomination, it has seemed fearful of missteps and unsure of its own organizing principle. So it has invariably adopted the Democratic conventional wisdom of the moment.

Obama's first major decision was his running mate. He could have reinforced a message of change and moderation with a Democratic governor who wins in a Republican state, or reached for history by selecting Hillary Clinton. But his choice came soon after Russia invaded Georgia, and the conventional wisdom demanded an old hand who knew his way around Tbilisi. When the Georgia crisis faded, Obama was left with a partisan, undisciplined, congressional liberal at his side. This has served to undermine Obama's message of change -- and has allowed Sarah Palin to pilfer a portion of that appeal.

Obama's second decision concerned the tone and content of his convention. Here the Democratic conventional wisdom was nearly unanimous. Obama should shelve his highfalutin rhetoric and talk like a real Democrat. Go after McCain. Talk about "bread and butter" issues -- code words for class-warfare attacks on consumers of blinis and caviar.

Obama took this advice to the letter -- at the cost of his political identity. In his Denver speech, it seemed that every American home was on the auction block, every car stalled for lack of gasoline, every credit card bill past due, every worker treated like a Russian serf. And John McCain? He was out of touch, with flawed "judgment." His life devoted to serving oil companies and big corporations. And, by the way, he didn't have the courage to follow Osama bin Laden "to the cave where he lives." In obedience to the best Democratic advice, Obama managed to be conventional, bitter and graceless.

Now Obama has made his third major campaign decision -- to finally get really tough on McCain. In response to attacks and dropping polls, the Democratic wisdom is once again nearly uniform: Democrats lose because they are not vicious enough. And once again, the Obama campaign has taken this advice without hesitation. "We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain's attacks, and we will take the fight to him," says Obama's campaign manager.

Obama feels provoked -- and he has been. There is no evidence that Obama supported explicit sex education for kindergarteners, as a McCain ad implied. Having already accused McCain of being a cowardly corporate tool who is disconnected from reality, escalation is not an easy task for Obama. But he has managed. In one recent commercial, McCain is clearly mocked for his age -- compared to a disco ball and a 10-pound cellphone. Another ad uses the word "dishonorable" next to a photo of McCain -- an attack from a candidate who has little practical familiarity with the cost of honor.

Who is hurt most by this race to the bottom? McCain, by the evidence of his own convention, wants to be a viewed as a fighter -- which a fight does little to undermine. Obama was introduced to America as a different and better kind of politician -- an image now in tatters.

Even worse for Obama, all these shifts to catch the prevailing winds confirm the most serious concerns about his political character. As a senator, he has almost never opposed the ideological consensus of his party. (The ethics reform he often cites as his profile in courage eventually passed the Senate 96 to 2.) And now as a presidential candidate, Obama has run his campaign with all the constancy of a skittish sailboat on an erratic ocean.

Here is a different strategy. Obama could attempt to "beat back the politics of fear, and doubt, and cynicism." He could try to build a coalition that "stretches through red states and blue states." He could reject "the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up."

The candidate who said those words the night he won the Iowa caucuses did pretty well. But whatever the outcome of this presidential election, that candidate is no longer in the race.

michaelgerson@cfr.org

Edited September 17, 2008 by metta

[alienlovechild 75]

Now Obama has made his third major campaign decision -- to finally get really tough on McCain. In response to attacks and dropping polls, the Democratic wisdom is once again nearly uniform: Democrats lose because they are not vicious enough. And once again, the Obama campaign has taken this advice without hesitation. "We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain's attacks, and we will take the fight to him," says Obama's campaign manager.

I expect Obama supporters will get angrier and angrier as Obama slips from a sure thing to a maybe and perhaps to a loser. If he loses, the Dems won't pick him again as their nominee just as Kerry, Gore, Dukakis and Mondale weren't given another chance despite some pleas to run. Convention wisdom will say America isn't ready for a liberal minority candidate so they won't make through the primaries. With a Palin VP, Hillary is sure to return for another shot at the White House.

[HAL 9000 96]

That's right. Democrats are not vicious enough at lying their way through campaigns.

- Or we can all take such ridiculous BS out of the discourse since its no secret all politicians lie at some point or another in order to win.

[metta 0]

Objectively speaking, Obama may win because the fundamentals of this election are so strongly in favor of the Democratic candidate. But it is amazing that given the wind of the political climate in his sails, he is still running neck and neck with his rival.

[HAL 9000 96]

Objectively speaking, Obama may win because the fundamentals of this election are so strongly in favor of the Democratic candidate. But it is amazing that given the wind of the political climate in his sails, he is still running neck and neck with his rival.

Can't argue with that. Although its neck and neck as per poll data, we all know from past elections that this phase of the polling is anything but indicative that either candidate will be a winner.

[Peikko 1,575]

Now Obama has made his third major campaign decision -- to finally get really tough on McCain. In response to attacks and dropping polls, the Democratic wisdom is once again nearly uniform: Democrats lose because they are not vicious enough. And once again, the Obama campaign has taken this advice without hesitation. "We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain's attacks, and we will take the fight to him," says Obama's campaign manager.

I expect Obama supporters will get angrier and angrier as Obama slips from a sure thing to a maybe and perhaps to a loser. If he loses, the Dems won't pick him again as their nominee just as Kerry, Gore, Dukakis and Mondale weren't given another chance despite some pleas to run. Convention wisdom will say America isn't ready for a liberal minority candidate so they won't make through the primaries. With a Palin VP, Hillary is sure to return for another shot at the White House.

What does it matter if they do? I am not sure what your point is here, or even if you have one. One thing is for sure, it's got ####### all to do with the OP's article.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Madame Cleo

[HAL 9000 96]

Now Obama has made his third major campaign decision -- to finally get really tough on McCain. In response to attacks and dropping polls, the Democratic wisdom is once again nearly uniform: Democrats lose because they are not vicious enough. And once again, the Obama campaign has taken this advice without hesitation. "We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain's attacks, and we will take the fight to him," says Obama's campaign manager.

I expect Obama supporters will get angrier and angrier as Obama slips from a sure thing to a maybe and perhaps to a loser. If he loses, the Dems won't pick him again as their nominee just as Kerry, Gore, Dukakis and Mondale weren't given another chance despite some pleas to run. Convention wisdom will say America isn't ready for a liberal minority candidate so they won't make through the primaries. With a Palin VP, Hillary is sure to return for another shot at the White House.

What does it matter if they do? I am not sure what your point is here, or even if you have one. One thing is for sure, it's got ####### all to do with the OP's article.

I think that's a classical example of a knee-jerk reaction.