Next to hubris, anger will sink a leader quicker than anything.

Right now in the Democratic race, Obama has the upper hand not because of experience or even his superior speaking skills but because of his temperament. He stays calm, focused and seemingly unflappable even when he’s being attacked. He seldom returns the attack but more often deflects it.

Clinton is increasingly visibly angry. We like scrappy and feisty, but anger scares voters. It makes them wonder what might happen in a high pressure situation, especially one of international diplomacy.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, don’t blame me for her behavior. That makes as much sense as me blaming someone who points out John McCain’s occasional lack of enthusiasm and vigor. It is what it is.

But if you’re a leader, learn from the mistakes of the angry. It suggests character flaws like lack of control and entitlement.

I’ve read and heard for years that men tend to struggle with anger more than women. While that may be true, it is a potential pitfall regardless of gender.

One problem with anger issues in leadership is that people are increasingly unwilling to tell you the truth. You become viewed as someone with a hairpin trigger. Nobody wants to poke the bear. That’s why so many leaders I observe seem blissfully ignorant of the problems their unresolved or uncontrolled anger is causing.

Another problem is the some rationalize anger as righteous indignation. Generally anger has something to do with indignation, but it is seldom righteous. A person can be angry or upset about a situation but when he or she starts to take it out on others, any sense of righteousness disappears.

I’ve written and blogged on this subject before, that’s why I refer to this as “my broken record.” I write not just to instruct others but to remind myself.

Dallas Willard said anger never makes anything better. I’m not sure I agree completely–I believe anger can be appropriate at times–but I have benefited much from the spirit of his admonition.

The next president of the United States will be elected primarily on the power of his or her ability to communicate well.

This isn’t as it should be; it simply is as it is.

Regrettably, style often trumps substance. Recall some years ago when Dennis Miller famously ranted that V.P. candidate Stockdale committed the unforgivable sin in politics: looking bad on T.V.  The man’s experience, character and ability were negated by sound bytes and imagery.

The goal of leaders should be to communicate important ideas well. It is frightening to realize that bad ideas well-communicated often upstage good ideas communicated poorly.

Any of the current candidates have ideas that range from brilliant to troubling. Typically our assessment of those ideas will be less on accuracy or soundness than delivery and sizzle. Thinking is hard work; listening–at least superficially–is quite easy in comparison.

I hope we call vote for whoever we truly  believe the best candidate to be. I also hope we go beyond the rhetoric to the reality of what he or she stands for, and what he or she promises to do.

If we don’t, the next election will be won not by talent but by the tongue.

Yesterday Delta canceled a few hundred flights leaving travelers stranded. It was done in the name of “safety inspections” as if that should give Delta a free pass for not scheduling inspections previously or at least warning travelers in advance. (Wouldn’t you like a scapegoat in your business like “weather” and “safety” that could be blamed for just about everything?) I wasn’t going to waste my time blogging about that. After all, American Airlines did the same thing a few days ago.

But last night, on the heels of canceled flights, Delta raised prices on airfares.

What strategy! What timing! “Our service has inconvenienced thousands today so we decided to announce a fare increase!”

Disgruntled customers aren’t the airlines’ worst enemies. Airline management is.

In his excellent new book, The Breakthrough Company, Keith McFarland makes this point:

“A search of the Harvard Business Review web site revealed that nearly 50 percent of the articles published by the Harvard Business Review mention at least one of the following companies: IBM, GE, Dell, Wal-Mart, and Southwest Airlines.”

Is it surprising that best practices quickly become common practices? If we all learn from the same examples, won’t we all look, well, similar? What are the odds for distinction and innovation?

There is much to be learned from the success of the mentioned media superstars, but remember there is much more to be learned–and often lessons more innovative–from the less notices and less written about companies in the marketplace.

To be uncommon, look for uncommon lessons.

Last night my friend John and I attended the Denver International Car Show. We parked in the convention center parking deck which is seldom an enjoyable experience.

For some reason you get routed up a tight spiral ramp to one of the top two floors. I’m beginning to suspect that there are only two floors of actual parking in the whole structure.

Your parking space is numbered. You go to the nearest kiosk (which isn’t always that near), wait in line (which is long during events which happens to be the only time you’d be parking there) and then go through a laborious process of programming in your number and paying for the time you’ll be there either with cash or credit card.

In concept it seems like a system that would be efficient and quick. In reality it is a pain in the neck every time I’ve used it.

John said to me, “Guess these guys need to read The Fred Factor.” My response was that a book about skills wouldn’t help a screwed up system. No Fred-like employee could do much if anything to overcome inferior infrastructure. Once you build out a bad system that becomes part of the infrastructure, you’re stuck–unless you’re willing to spend the time and money to fix the system. Skills and motivation won’t overcome bad systems and machines.

Look at your business and figure out what problems are caused by poor skills and which are caused by poor systems.

Warren Wiesbe said, “Your heart grows by giving out, but your mind grows by taking in; both are necessary to a happy and balanced life of service.”

This explains the leadership balance between head and heart. Leaders who intellectualize their work have a difficult time connecting with and serving others. Leaders who give without growing eventually find their ability to be of service limited. Both are necessary to the leadership process.

And both are necessary to a fulfilling life.

Matt is a great bartender at one of my favorite brewpubs. One reason I like him is that he is very well informed on many things. He’s liberal and I’m conservative and it makes for great discussions (as I’ve said before, I respect someone who disagrees with me and is well informed more than someone who agrees with me and doesn’t know why).

Yesterday he and I were commiserating about the issues of this presidential campaign. “Why is it,” Matt asked, “we’re not hearing any candidates talk about $100+ barrel oil. The Saudis are supposed to be our friends, but they’re keeping the price of oil higher than market supply and demand ought to dictate.”

To which I responded, “For the same reason we’re not hearing much about Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security or border security. The candidates aren’t talking about what we need to hear; they’re talking about what they think voters want to hear.”

Clinton and Obama talk about uninsured health coverage like it was the most pressing issue facing our country. I know it is important, especially to people who don’t have coverage, but far more people (including those with health insurance) will be affected by social security and border security in the very near future.

Obama talks about penalizing companies who take jobs offshore and shows a dire lack of understanding business reality. Jobs are migrating to areas of the world where they can be done most cost-effectively. Penalizing companies for being efficient is stupid and won’t, despite Obama’s good intentions, keep or create jobs. Of course if you’re unemployed and want a scapegoat, Obama’s rhetoric is appealing.

McCain talks about the economy and Iraq, two important issues to be sure. Yet again, why aren’t we hearing about much else? Because each candidate is pandering to their constituency. Too many issues would confuse voters, and talking about scary or unpopular issues would alienate them.

The political model of telling people what they want to hear is broken and bad for everyone. The catch is that if you tell people what they need to hear–even if you do it well–you might not get elected.

Won’t the next president address these “other issues” I’m suggesting? Ideally he or she will; the rub is that the president who wins will be beholden first and foremost to the issues of their platform, whether or not those are the most important issues. Voters will say, “We put you in office, now give us what you promised.”

So the other issues become the monster in the closet that gets attention only after it breaks down the closet door and attacks. Then we move from “leadership by popular issue” to “leadership by crisis.”

And it stinks. And I don’t have any easy answer for fixing American politics. Smarter people than me have tried.

The best I’m hoping for is to sound a warning for leaders outside of politics who fall into similar traps. In the also imperfect world of non-political organizations, results usually count far more than popularity. Yet I’ve seen too many instances of “leadership by popular issue” and “leadership by crisis.” Business and other types of organizations aren’t immune from the same problem as politics.

If you’re a leader, be courageous enough to address needs, and not just wants. Don’t wait for a crisis that could have been avoided to shape your legacy.

Who? Tiger Woods.

He’s being called the best who ever played the game. At the age of 32 he’s earning $100 million a year and has won seven consecutive tournaments.

I don’t golf, but I learn from Tiger. That’s because truth is transferable. What makes for mastery and remarkable performance is applicable in any arena. The principles don’t change, just the application of them.

I quoted Hillary Clinton recently and surprisingly I’m now quoting what Donald Trump said recently about Tiger: “He is mentally tougher than perhaps anyone else in the sport. He wants more. We see greatness; Tiger sees another level.”

In my next book, The Encore Effect: How to Give a Remarkable Performance in Anything You Do, I talk about the 2LU strategy: aiming not for the incremental next level but going bigger by aiming two levels up. It stretches you more and draws upon more resources.

I’m not surprised that Tiger sees more than simple greatness. He’s aiming levels higher than most.

Couple that with the willingness to work harder and smarter than most and the results are remarkable.

I’ve always said that the stock market doesn’t make anybody any money. Only people make money in the market. The market doesn’t lose anybody’s money either. People lose money depending on how they invest in the market.

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported on some firms that made a great deal of money on Bear Stearns, the trading house that nearly tanked and was acquired by J.P. Morgan. The company was once worth $20 billion and was valued at $236 million at the time of sale; the stock had plummeted to $2 a share.

How did anybody make money on that investment? The winners shorted the stock; that is they sold stock in the company they didn’t own anticipating that it would go down in value at which time they could purchase the stock to cover their position and make money.

And boy did they make money.

It doesn’t matter if you invest in stocks or not; there is a bigger lesson here. Many tend to think that winners win because of circumstances. The reality is that the consistent winners in life often win despite circumstances.

There’s always a way to win. Find it.

Just because I don’t agree with Hillary Clinton on much doesn’t mean I don’t pay attention to what she says. And I’ll glady give her credit where due.

 After Obama’s speech on race relations, she said, “In the end, the test is not the speeches a president delivers. The test is whether the president delivers on the speeches.”

Well said.