Continued: Crisis puts the candidates to the test

It's been a revealing debate season for observers of our country's presidential adversaries -- and not for the normal reasons.

Just when the rehearsed nature of modern debating seemed destined to turn campaign dialog into scripted monologue, the meltdown of America's financial markets and economy brought some interesting sweat to the brows of Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama.

Their very different responses to the economic crisis provided us, evaluators and developers of top executive talent, with a great chance to test our analysis of the candidates' leadership and decision-making styles.

Before talk of the bailout, we took some of the behavioral assessment tools we use in selecting, coaching and developing executive leaders and applied them to both presidential candidates and their records. In analyzing from afar, we asked: "Who are these candidates -- both publicly and in their personal styles of leading, thinking and learning?" We saw stark differences.

Both candidates come across as principled decision-makers, but they differ greatly in their propensities to quickly or analytically make judgments and home in on single vs. multiple courses of action.

McCain: 'uni-focused' thinker

Based on our research on hundreds of thousands of executives, McCain has all the markings of what we call a "uni-focused thinker" who zeroes in on one key principle or goal and tenaciously holds to a particular action rather than changing positions. When not in action mode, he shifts to a more complex style that's analytic as well as uni-focused, studying the facts, then deciding and sticking to what he senses is best. This highly focused mode of thinking appeared to factor into his desire to cancel the Sept. 26 debate, halt campaigning and focus entirely on bailout business in Washington. His tendency is to focus attention on one specific problem without distraction.

Obama: 'multifocused' thinker

Obama's response was quite different. He argued that Americans should expect both communication from their leaders and multitasking management from their chief executive during crisis. His decisionmaking style is analytic and integrative instead of action-oriented. Prior to making a call, he studies tremendous amounts of data and options, and then gradually forms strategies combining multiple objectives, actions and viewpoints. Multifocused thinking requires deeper reflection and synthesis prior to taking action. The result is an ability to see nuance and shades of gray, and a propensity for thinking things through before taking action.

Is one style right or wrong? Success from leaders resembling both candidates' profiles suggests there's no "one absolute approach."

McCain's admiration for Theodore Roosevelt, the progressive tackler of issues, and Obama's role model of Abraham Lincoln, the deep thinker whose rhetoric changed history, prove there's room for diverse leadership profiles in office. (Despite their different styles, history regards both as Top Five presidents.)

In the business world, McCain resembles Jack Welch, who brought new meaning to efficiency, productivity and shareholder value during his hard-charging days leading General Electric. Obama's analog may be Stephen Sanger, whose "steady as you go/stay connected" recipe for success with General Mills included building a culture attuned to the needs of its customer and employee bases, and achieving sustained growth through tough but valuable partnerships.

Emotional temperaments. Leadership is not only about analysis and action. Managing one's emotions and those of followers is a critical aspect of leadership, especially at senior levels. When principles are threatened, McCain is emotive and combative. He fights for principles and positions. Achieving high performance works best for him in high-octane action. Obama is cool, collected and introspective. He asks his staff to provide daily reflection time. His high performance results from reflection, synthesis and collaboration. When challenged, McCain gets hot and Obama gets cool.

Learning agility. Research shows that effective, sustainable leadership belongs to the most agile. Learning agility -- more predictive of potential and success than raw intelligence -- has multiple dimensions related to what we call mental agility, people agility, results agility and change agility. Critics question whether Obama's results agility is proven enough on a large-scale; however, he certainly demonstrates exceptional mental agility and people agility and a proclivity for change. McCain shows strong results agility and a measure of mental agility, but his history of commitment to tradition and protocol even in the midst of volatility may call his people agility and change agility into question.

"I" versus "we" leadership. Leaders can sometimes be simplified into heroic types who assert their "power of voice" versus leaders who employ interpersonal "power of connection." As someone who forcefully fights for results, McCain typifies the heroic, "I" leader. The downside can be a lack of relational connection ("I never won Mr. Congeniality"). Obama's social, collaborative approach characterizes "we" leaders, who leverage collaboration, relationship and synergy for results. In his acceptance speech, Obama used the words "we" and "together" many times more than McCain did in his speech. In crisis situations, however, sometimes more "I" is required.

Authenticity. In the end, the important thing is that a leader's actions are authentic, something we see as aligned and consistent with the genuine person. From Obama's March speech on race to McCain's "we are all Georgians" message, the candidates remained wed to their principles.

As we head down the election homestretch, we can thank both candidates for providing us with such markedly different choices. But voters beware: Our own personal thinking, leadership and learning styles will influence which of these two leaders we feel is better suited for the challenges now facing our nation and the world.