Interview by Chris Stanley
CNN Senior Political Analyst and As an advisor to four U.S. presidents, David Gergen has been privileged to observe at some of the most powerful leaders of the planet. In this exclusive interview with HSM, Gergen, now CNN senior political analyst, discusses some of the lessons learned from his time working in the Presidential office and offers us his perspective on some of the key challenges facing the current president, Barack Obama.
You served under the command of four different presidents. Who is considered more admired from the standpoint of leadership?
The most impressive leader I worked for was Reagan. He was a politician of conviction in the style of Margaret Thatcher. His deep-rooted beliefs and principles that guided him. The country and his team knew what he was ultimately achieved. Carter was his predecessor had no personality. You never knew from one day to another what direction would take. Reagan was very different in that respect, as they had been Thatcher and others. At the same time, in the struggle for these principles could be quite flexible in the means used. I could switch from left to right to achieve their goal. I have come to believe that "the constancy of the principles and flexibility in the media" is a very important aspect of leadership. Beyond that, Reagan had a contagious optimism that was very important. Even if one was not particularly agree with their policies, provided a sense of security, which meant that we have now achieved our objectives.
What gives more importance to the charisma of a leader compared to his intellect?
I am persuaded by the analysis of Jim Collins, saying that the charismatic leadership at the corporate level is overestimated. But I think it has an important role in politics. The whole theory of Good to Great is that people are not very charismatic who are humble and modest but very stable, steady and solid, tend to create better corporate leaders. Add to this emotional intelligence theories, we have the material for a good CEO. I think, however, that some of charisma in politics makes a difference. Politicians who have been more effective over the years have been those with some degree of charisma.I also think that in politics, as in corporate life, the intellect is important. I think we should have an understanding of the work. George W. Curiosity is the basis of intellect. Bush had a mind that worked perfectly well but was not very funny. So it did not begin to ask many questions about how the world worked until he took office. He struggled to learn, but are formed at work.I believe that the best leaders are those who have been working and by asking questions long and are more experienced at the time of taking office. His father, for example, was a much more curious about the world. He understood very well how the world worked before taking office and therefore was a very good leader in foreign policy.What I think is dangerous, however, that is to put all the emphasis on intellect and personality. I think the personality is still the heart of the matter. The two smartest presidents I worked for were completely waste their personality defects such as Nixon, or partially debris as happened with Clinton. He had an extraordinary capacity to be able to look 20 or 30 years into the future and act accordingly. Clinton had a different mentality, very tactical, a mind that was not as imaginative. It was good to integrate lots and lots of information. But obviously had some flaws in his personality and he was defeated. It did not become what might have been.I think that a leader also needs to be ambitious. You must have a fire inside. So for me the three main elements of leadership are professional competence, personality and level of ambition and inner fire that makes it possible to achieve the goals.
Bill George speaks of the need for a new style of leadership for the twenty-first century. Would you say that corporate leaders need different skills today than 30 or 40 years ago?
And if I think the XXI century has different needs. But I also think there are some things that do not change over time. From what I've been talking about is things have not changed. Personality is so important in the twenty-first century as it was in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. I think there are some things that are lasting. But there are also things that have changed. The XXI century requires teamwork capacity much greater than in the past. If you do not have a good team to accompany him as a leader and as a company, one is a fool. I also believe that a leader now more than ever needs a greater sense of international perspective, either the language and cultural appreciation. By the way, requires a desire to live in a more transparent with greater responsibility. We've gone from top to bottom area, to a model where the power is forced into the organization, and the leader knows all models. It asks people, especially the knowledge workers become more independent and to produce ideas rather than suppress them.
How Can business leaders restore confidence in its leadership and the company as a whole?
They will have to be extremely cautious in their behavior. Even while building the company, have to ensure that people are paid properly and competitively. They have to be very aware that if they pay a lot of money, they are betting that the government find a way to either whip or uploading you trying to taxation. I think we should be very careful to try to maintain not only good earnings in the quarter but also the corporate brand and reputation. Look what happened to Goldman Sachs. It is rare to see a company that has fallen so far and so fast in terms of corporate reputation. That does not mean they can not get through this and I think they do it, but you can be beaten very fast and very hard for symbolic things.
How would you rate the performance of President Obama so far?
I think there is widespread disappointment in the business community. There is concern that we will try to compensate for differences in the deficit taking money from companies and investors. You will see an increase in taxes on dividends, The rates of income tax will increase and there will be a big push to increase the rights of trade unions. So while employers will be relieved of the burden of the costs of health insurance, are in an environment who disagrees with the Administration on a number of issues. There are some companies that are working in a constructive way if solutions are not found, a number of electricity companies for example. But in general, the Chamber of Commerce representing a wide swath of companies in this country spent a ton of money to defeat Democrats at the polls this year.
How can a leader handle these difficult decisions?
Currently the country is quite divided. There are a significant number of individuals from the progressive side, especially young people, who are very happy with Obama, think that Obama is doing what is necessary and what is socially desirable, for example in terms of health system reform. After all, we were the only industrialized country without health insurance altogether. But he did so that there is very little confidence in the business community if you are able to control costs. The bill does not address this too. The Administration says it has measures to control costs, but there was disagreement as to the business community. There is a real fear about these deficits. The level of expenditure has been prodigious.
Is President Obama's relationship with the business community something that can be repaired?
This is the first administration that I can remember that has no business leadership in power. CEOs are not important in this Administration. Even in the Ministry of Commerce which is the stronghold where they are placed entrepreneurs. They Have economists who are very strong, but I think this is one of the problems. Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase has become a kind of ambassador for the business community banking community by the way, before the White House. But even he has trouble.
Do you have any indication that this is something that President Obama will change?
For the time being. If something is true, the White House is using a certain amount of popular rhetoric. I think this will be true until the fall election. But I think after the fall election we may see a transfer of a significant number of seats to the Republicans, will have to govern more toward the center. And that is perhaps a good thing. I also believe that there is no doubt that after this year will have to make serious efforts to deal with social assistance programs. I believe that if it stops the growth of social benefits will result in increased taxes. I think it's almost a certainty that there will be a drive to raise taxes. The most common conversation at the White House is of a value added tax . But the concern is that there will be a tax on consumption, in addition to the income tax already in place for one to replace him.
David, thank you very much for your time.