As a Swedish-American dual citizen, I have been anticipating the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election since the last election in 2020. In full open disclosure, this blog is biased by my own world view, which has developed from my early views as a Midwest mild Republican to someone who has voted Democrat in most elections since 2000 with a view of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Whatever your political views though, I think that this election shows how critical leadership development is, and gives a clear example of what happens when it isn’t done.
In 2020, it was clear that Joe Biden wouldn’t be able to manage two terms (eight years) from a fitness-to-serve perspective. He was old in 2020 and able to win at that point, but it became increasingly clear during his term that he would not be able to serve again.
But where was Kamala? Where were any potential successors? Why weren’t they built, developed, nurtured, and positioned to carry the country into the next presidential term? Why have the last four years not built and developed Democrat Party candidates who received the visibility and experience to fight a strong fight against Trump and the erosion of democracy in the United States and world?
I was incredibly fortunate in my early career, already as a co-operative education student during my undergraduate education, to work for a company (General Motors) that saw leadership development as a years’ long activity. The co-operative education program itself, instituted initially at General Motors Institute (now Kettering University) and later spread to universities across North America, was leadership development in itself. It exposed participants to different parts of the business, built their skill sets, and grew their networks.
After hiring on, I was targeted as a potential leader and further developed. I received a university fellowship for graduate school, building my knowledge and network, and had access to quite a few senior leader mentors. I was rotated through various assignments across different business areas (including a rather painful year of early morning shifts managing surface mount lines in a UAW radio manufacturing plant). I was sent overseas. I was thrown into managing an SAP/ERP transition that was entirely outside of my experience and scope. I was tested, developed, and learned a lot. The vision was that I, and many others in similar circumstances, were nurtured and developed from our earliest career for many years to have the potential to take the top leadership levels in the company.
This foresight and long-term strategy led to Mary Barra, the first Automotive OEM CEO in the United States taking the helm of General Motors and guiding it through demanding environments with steady leadership. She wasn’t placed there because she was a woman, she was placed there because she had developed the skills to lead the company. She spent time in its factories, she learned through many job rotations, she was challenged, developed, and came out with the knowledge, skills, and credibility to lead the company. (Read Road to Power: How GM's Mary Barra Shattered the Glass Ceiling by Laura Colby for more details on her career and GM’s leadership development program that both she and I were privileged to be a part of). I argue that leadership development is important no matter who you are. In fact, looking at many failures in companies today and in the past, they can be traced to leaders not understanding (nor wanting to understand) to companies and products they are managing.
However, leadership development is even more critical when the person is a minority. As well documented in Ruchika Tulshyan’s book, Inclusion on Purpose, women of color are at the intersection of bias and discrimination (gender and race/color) who need to be many times better than their competition to win.
It isn’t enough to be competent, to be skilled, to have experience. It isn’t clear whether it is twice as much, ten times as much, or a hundred times as much, but it’s definitely much more needed than the average white man. Especially white men who are exceptionally skilled about manufacturing an alternate reality about their actual accomplishments that have become increasingly accepted while becoming more fantastical.
Why wasn’t Kamala put front and center from Day 1 of Biden’s presidency? Why wasn’t she developed through the four year period? Why wasn’t she given increasing scope of responsibility and success? Why weren’t others developed too and given the Primary to let the strongest candidate come out on top?
I certainly wasn’t the only person in my age that GM developed. I don’t know how many there were for any given age, but I know that there were quite a few of us. I wasn’t cut out for top leadership at GM/Delphi. I left the race in my 30’s as I decided I wanted different things from my life than what senior executive leadership demanded. I wanted to raise my daughter myself, I enjoyed working at the lower levels in the company to develop talent, and I liked being closer to the customers and products we produced. But thankfully, there were many others developed and nurtured, many others who I have seen go on to senior leadership positions in GM, Aptiv (formerly Delphi), and many other companies. I’m proud when I read about them on LInkedIn or in the news, I know that they have earned their positions. I suspect that they are succeeding in their roles, because they were developed, nurtured, and tested through the last 20 years since we have graduated.
They weren’t thrown into a firestorm in the last few months and expected to come out on top.
As the Chinese proverb says, “"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."
If we want strong capable leaders in 20 years, we need to start now.
If you want to discuss any of my thoughts within this article please connect.
Comments