Taking the Middle Road Can Get You Squashed

Taking the middle road seems peaceable but it can be quite divisive since no one’s expectations end up being met. The middle road used to be a fairly safe place for executive leaders and politicians to travel, especially when things got dicey. It is now fraught with danger.

When issues and interests divide people, splitting differences used to be a reasonably sensible and civil thing to do. Nowadays, this approach is more likely to intensify polarity rather than ease it.    

The middle road is logical if you have a couple of distinct camps, like liberals and conservatives. When you have dozens, it only succeeds in ticking off pretty much everyone. There simply is no middle road when you factor in special interest groups, bloggers, cable TV shows, talk radio, and fringe subcultures.

A perfect storm has developed that leaders and politicians are finding very difficult to navigate. Our organizations and citizenry have become increasingly diverse in terms of composition, constitution and interests. At the same time, people have become more impatient, demanding and pessimistic.

Many leaders and politicians try to resolve this by appealing to the common man or common woman. The problem is that this approach leads them in search of some type of mythical average. For example, say that the numbers 40 and 60 represent the interests of two diverse groups of constituents. The average of 40 and 60 is 50.  The solution, 50, closes the gap between the two groups to just 10 points. You get the same answer; however, if you have five groups represented by the numbers 1, 10, 30, 70, and 89. The solution appears to be a reasonable blend or compromise, but it is actually 20 to 49 points away from the interests of each group.

A strategy of appealing to the average employee or average citizen may only succeed in getting you voted out of office, fired or demoralized. This is the difficulty that President Obama and many members of Congress are facing. Corporate executives often find themselves in the same dilemma. So what’s a leader to do?

1. Realize that the faith most people place in their leaders is somewhat fickle and situational. Even the clearest leadership mandates and endorsements can disappear when people are experiencing severe loss or pain. People these days want instant relief. The long term perspective is slowing fading away. The wise leader accepts this and avoids knee jerk reactions to appease people who are quick to criticize.
2. Understand that technology and social media have given more people and groups a voice. Successful leaders need to listen carefully but then learn to filter out the noise. Noise is anything that the leader believes will ultimately harm the good of the organization and society. This requires that the leader have a clear moral compass and the courage follow it.
3. Gather a diverse group of close advisors who can effectively represent varying interests and perspectives but who will also work tirelessly to model mutual respect and mutual purpose. This will be a rare group indeed, but one worth developing.
4. Accept that emotions will play a stronger role than rationality, objectivity and logic when dealing with a broad base of constituents. Leaders need to make decisions based sound principles and research, but then sell them by weaving them into powerful stories that capture people’s attention and engage their emotions. President Obama won the last election by telling a compelling story about hope and substantive change. While the economic, political and social climate may be causing some fractures, the power of storytelling has not changed. Sometimes the story just needs to be edited and told again, and again.

Taking the middle road and seeking the average voice will lead only to frustration. Successful leaders will avoid attempts to appease noisy people, stay the course of their convictions, pay attention to trusted advisors and master the art of storytelling.