This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

In my career as a journalist, state government manager, and lobbyist, I often thought about leadership.

What did it entail?  What are its aspects?  How did good leaders go about their business?

All good questions, with no easy or pat answers.

I asked one of my friends, a business consultant, and he said the answer would depend on the specific situation in corporate life, which is where he consulted.  His basic answer, however, was that a good leader would know how to take appropriate advantage of the perspectives of those under him or her, giving them a sense that they had a stake in the outcome of any decision or operation.

As I thought about this issue, I reflected on a person for whom I worked in Oregon state government.  In corporate terms, he held the position of “chief operating officer” in the Oregon Executive Department and reported to the CEO, the governor of the State of Oregon.

It was huge job.  So, this manager surrounded himself with four leaders whose perspectives he valued and who, based on their individual attributes, could help him manage Oregon state government.

I was fortunate to be one of the four.

My skills revolved around communications.  The other three persons included those with expertise in budget management, personnel management, and executive recruitment.

Call this a team, for that is what it was.  To use an athletic image, the COO was the quarterback and the four of us played on offense under his direction.  We found ways to work together well, merging our various skills and the process produced results for the benefit of state government.

We often would gather in a room and talk about challenges we faced.  It was open communication.  Every one of us was free to talk, even argue.

I give the COO huge credit for the way in which he worked.  He was “in charge,” but knew he needed help, so gave all four of us a stake in the outcome.  As I look back on a 40-year professional career, this experience is clearly one of the highlights.  And, frankly, the dynamics of this experience was one of the major reasons I had mixed emotions about leaving state government in 1990.

Another highlight was when the State of Oregon was threatened with labor unrest, even a strike.  This COO was not sure how to proceed, so with three of us, all of us asked for help from another state agency head.  Before joining state government, he had a background in labor relations, so his advice was helpful and on-target.

He agreed to consult with us, he said, based on his desire that, rather than fight employees, we would try to find middle ground with their union negotiators.  That’s often to find, but this agency helped us greatly.  So, for a time, it was five, not just four!

For me, what appears below are not magic answers to the question of leadership.  Instead, they are standards I watched in action, such as in the examples above, and to which I aspired when I held leadership positions.

These are all important; they appear in no particular order of priority.  

• Place a priority on listening before talking.

• Think of the long-term, not just the short-term.

• Value the perceptions of those who report to you – and let them know it.

• Assume a main mantle of leadership, which is to set expectations with an open hand, not a closed fist.

• Honesty and integrity are always the best policies.

• Understand what you know AND what you don’t know, which often these days is a lost art.

• Don’t allow criticism to affect your leadership, though assess the criticism carefully, as to source and content.

• And, in whatever discipline, know there is always room for improvement.

Two other points I often made back in the day: 

1.  First, you know leadership when you see it in action, not when someone talks about having it.

•  Second, leadership works well when the leader doesn’t set out to get credit for good results.  He or she deflects credit to others.  [The best example I saw of this was when I had the privilege to work for Oregon Governor Vic Atiyeh, the last Republican to hold the state’s highest office.  He worked hard and well as governor, always deflecting credit to others.]

I was fortunate to see this kind of leadership in action and I hope I have been able, at least on occasion, to mimic it.