The Merriman-Webster Dictionary
defines “politics” as “the art or science of government.” A friend and mentor once explained to me, “Politics
is simply who gets what and when they get it.”
My friend’s
definition is much closer to what we find in an expanded definition on
Wikipedia:
Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, definition
"of, for, or relating to citizens") is the process of making
decisions applying to all members of each group. More narrowly, it refers to
achieving and exercising positions of governance
— organized control over a human community, particularly a state.
Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and
resources within a given community (a usually hierarchically organized
population) as well as the interrelationship(s) between communities.
I bring this up not to
rehash the Presidential election but to consider politics as part of
leadership. Politics is not in itself a bad thing. We usually think of politics as negative when
we are on the losing side of a decision or find ourselves having to live with
an unpopular decision. Most of us have
been in that situation as some point.
Whether one is a pastor,
a judicatory official, a not-for-profit CEO, or the leader of a committee or
team, she or he should be able to be political. In other words, a leader must know how to work
with people to achieve a desired result.
Although I am certainly
not on expert on the process of politics, it seems clear that a leader must be
able to do several things to be an effective politician and help determine “who
gets what and when.”
First, the leader needs
to know those he or she leads. This
means knowing their needs, aspirations, values, and goals. To do this effectively, the leader must put
aside his or her own presuppositions and goals, be a good listener, and develop
rapport that is more than superficial.
In doing this, the leader not only comes to understand what people want
but their aspirations and dreams. The
leader taps not only into the self-interest of people but their altruistic
inclinations as well.
Second, the leader must
understand how her or his goals line up with those of constituents or of those
who will make the ultimate decision. Is there common ground? If not, is the leader willing to invest the
time and energy to educate or persuade others to come around to the leader’s
point of view? On the other hand, if the
investment of time and energy to bring someone on board is too great, how
flexible can the leader be in adapting to the situation?
Third, is the leader
willing to learn and accept failure without bitterness and see this as a
learning experience? Good leaders fail
and learn from their failures. For
example, Dr. Seuss had his first book rejected by 27 different publishers. Most successful elected leaders have lost at
least one election. Part of being a good
politician is knowing what to do with failure.
Fourth, the ultimate
question for a leader, especially one who embraces a faith perspective, is, “Am
I doing this for myself or for a greater good?”
Sometimes we convince ourselves that a goal is good because it seems right
to us when it is only self-serving. This
is where the perspective of others—family, friends, and trusted advisors—can move
us beyond our own desires to perceive the greater good.
Politics is about
people. For leaders, people must be a
primary concern.
Comments