Forgive me; this post is nothing if not provocative. But I cannot help myself. Just yesterday I avoided referencing the #1 spots on each ticket for president when introducing my "New & Improved" blog, and this evening a quote attributed to Barack Obama is forcing me to take portable-keyboard-in-hand again. I really wanted to give this avocation a rest, but the junior senator from Illinois forced me back in (sort of). Here’s what happened:

Scanning Drudge I read a comment that Abdon M. Pallasch, a staff reporter of the Chicago Sun-Times, claims Mr. Obama uttered at a rally on his behalf in Wisconsin. Although Mr. Pallasch didn’t say so, the comment is a clear roadmap of what Mr. Obama’s leadership style would be were he to become the leader of the Free World. Mr. Obama stated:

“When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”

Please Mr. Truman; please stop spinning in your grave! I mean, Lord-a-mighty… aren’t American history courses offered at Columbia University? Everyone knows that whoever occupies the Oval Office should adhere to the notion, “The Buck Stops Here.” Or do they?

Believe me, every C-level coaching client of mine who did not know that and conveyed the sentiment that Mr. Obama did –essentially, “I intend to have the most participative democracy on earth since Plato was lecturing about The Republic— would be warned of dangerous times ahead.

Now before you accuse me of putting words into Mr. Obama’s mouth, he did not claim, “Why I’ll just put stuff out on the internet and let all 200+ million of you with access to computers let me know what you think…” However, despite the fact that Obama was not that far out to lunch, I do wonder: If he was not implying that he welcomed input from the entire electorate on the bills before him, what other possible implication can you draw from his statement, “… you will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”

Did Senator Obama mean:

1. “Look at the bill and, as they say in poker, ‘Read ‘em and weep’”?
2. “Go online, react, then go to hell”?
3. Or; “Go online, react, then notify your Senator or Congressperson regarding your feelings”?

I’m going with #3 and I’ll tell you why, were I coaching the democratic candidate for president, I would do everything I could to have him adopt a far more proactive (vs. passive-to-reactive), leadership style:

 The Buck Truly Does Stop On A CEO’s Desk: There are countless ways to support this sentiment, but let me choose one –the notion ofparalysis-by-analysis. Men and women are entrusted with leadership roles primarily because they inspire confidence in others. We all defer an astounding amount to leaders, nowhere more obviously than vis-a-viselected government officials. I mean, think about it: One day you are president of a union and a B-picture actor, the next, the most powerful man on earth (Ronald Reagan). Please do not insult my intelligence and tell me that when Reagan became the 40th. President there weren’t HUNDREDS of Professors of government or law (let alone politics) at our universities who were smarter and better negotiators than Ronny. But when, during a primary debate, Dutch Reagan barked, “Mr. Speaker; I paid for that microphone…” the country went wild.

RWR had charisma, presence, “stuff,” and above all, he convenyed the sense that he was in charge. This, in turn, inspired confidence. Dutch would never have said, “Hmmm; let me see how the people feel and THEN I’ll decide how to act,” even in jest.

No, not Reagan. When the air-traffic-controllers threatened a strike, Reagan fired-them-cold.

Now I hear your protest: A “bill from congress isn’t the same as a crisis.” I concur. But research demonstrates that leader’s tend to exhibit consistent behavioral styles across situations, and the one who hesitates is not only “lost,” he’s doing a bad job.

 “If You Try To Be Too Well-Rounded, You loose Your Point.” I first heard this old saw from the managing partner of a law firm when I was coaching one of his more successful (and narcissistic) partners. He used it as a warning to a group of incredibly successful attorneys at the firm who were threatening to split-off and form their own boutique. Actually, a better word for what my client did with that saying was to issue a threat: “Our firm can tolerate dissenting opinion and debate for only so long. That time has past; we must now function like a business since we sell a service, not give it away." Guess what? The dissident lawyers never protested again.

 Ambiguity Kills. Finally, what may be my biggest objection Senator Obama’s remark –and the main reason why his statement strikes me as indicative of poor leadership skill— is that it creates ambiguity. One thing most great leaders do is act swiftly and decisively. Roberto Goizueta was the former Chairman & CEO of Coca-Cola who, in addition to creating more shareholder value in his tenure than any CEO before or since, ALSO introduced “New Coke” (the Edsel of the soft drink industry). What did Mr. Goizueta do when people threw cans of the New Coke at his Atlanta offices in protest over its taste (and the fact that THEIR beverage was gone? He pulled “New Coke” off the market! That’s what leaders do; they act.

Am I really saying that Barack Obama is not fit to be President? C’mon.

What I’m saying is that should Mr. Obama emerge victorious on 11/5/08, he should give me a call. I’ll help him with the hard part of being a leader since his participating in the irrelevant stuff ended. Then again, I did say this post was provocative...