One of the major arguments in this presidential campaign concerns who is more ready to be Commander In Chief. Hillary Clinton stakes her claim to unique readiness based on her 35 years of political experience. Here I would draw attention to an interesting analysis of Clinton's 35-year claim which can be found at politifact.com, in "Adding up Clinton's 35-year Claim" by Bill Adair.
Whether one accepts her claim as completely valid or not, Barack Obama responds in part by calling attention to Clinton's judgment, notably on the subject of the disastrous war in Iraq, pointing out that she voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which he opposed. Obama asserts that he has the superior judgment required by the job.
What constitutes readiness, if one can indeed be truly ready for the awesome responsibilities of Commander In Chief? Does experience trump judgment, which is rooted in character? What does it take to succeed?
In a Leadership Letter entitled Why and How Successful Leaders Get Derailed, are detailed some of the findings of researchers at the publisher's Center for Creative Leadership, who studied leaders who failed to succeed. A few of the traits and skills identified as most important to success or failure as a leader have been excerpted below:
Emotional stability and composure.
Leaders who eventually derailed were volatile under pressure, being more prone to moodiness, angry outbursts, and erratic behavior that undermined their relationships with others. In contrast, during crises, successful leaders were calm, confident and predictable. People knew how they would react and were thus enabled to plan their actions accordingly.
Handling mistakes.
Leaders who derailed were more likely to be defensive about failure, trying to keep it under cover while they fixed it, or blaming others for it. Successful leaders overwhelmingly handled failure with poise and grace. They admitted mistakes, accepted responsibility, and then acted to fix the problem. Afterwards they wouldn’t dwell on the failure, but turned their attention to other things.
Interpersonal skills.
The most frequent cause for derailment was insensitivity to others. Under stress, some leaders became abrasive and intimidating. This flaw had been tolerated at lower levels of leadership, especially when the individual had strong technical skills, but at higher levels, technical skills could not compensate for insensitivity. Some derailed leaders could be charming when they wanted to, but over time it became evident that beneath the façade of charm and concern for others, the person was actually selfish, inconsiderate and manipulative.
In contrast, successful leaders were able to understand and get along with all types of people, and they developed a larger network of cooperative relationships – perhaps because of the diversity of their backgrounds. Since they developed many contacts, there were saved from the single-mentor syndrome. When they disagreed they were direct but diplomatic, whereas the derailed leaders were more likely to be outspoken and offensive.
Integrity.
Many of the derailed leaders were ambitious about advancing their career at the expense of others. They were less dependable, because they were more likely to betray a trust or break a promise. In contrast, successful leaders had strong integrity. They were more focused on the immediate task and the needs of subordinates than on competing with rivals or impressing superiors. They demanded excellence from their people in problem solving and in so doing often helped develop them.
No Commander In Chief does it alone. It requires assembling teams of the best and the brightest advisors, guided by wisdom and understanding, and being able to work effectively with them. Relevant experience, it can be fairly argued, while obviously very important, is neither the only factor nor the most important factor in determining readiness to be effective and successful as the Supreme Leader of our nation and its armed forces. Judgment and character count for much more.