Promise, promises.
I think that the main element of the Sloan Distributed Leadership Model that we are going to see during the Australian election campaign is that of Visioning…this is what an election is after all, convincing people to vote for your vision of the future. As the campaign goes on though, there are a number of things you should look out for. But let me say first up that visioning, as a general rule, is not handled that well by anyone…politicians, business leaders, community leaders alike. It’s relatively easy to come up with a compelling image of the future…most people can do that…but convincing people to really buy in, especially for the long haul, is not so easy. And this is where the elements you should look out for come in.
Firstly a good vision is based on a core ideology…something that is central to very existence of the organisation. Core ideology is itself made up of two elements…core values (what you stand for) and core purpose (what you do). The important thing about these elements is that they cut to the very core of the organisation, so they are not so much based on activities that you are currently involved in but on the philosophies you believe in. I know I am probably talking in circles here so I’ll give you a couple of examples. One of Sony’s core ideologies is to use and develop technology for the re-construction of Japan and the elevation of it’s culture…no mention of making televisions or mp3 players. Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, says that they ‘… are in the business of preserving and improving human life … all of our actions must be measured by our success in achieving this goal’ and that they ‘…expect profits … from work that satisfies customer needs and that benefits humanity’…no mention specifically of pharmaceuticals.
You can see that both of these have strong values associated with them and that neither of them tie either Sony or Merck into a particular industry or product. Both companies could achieve these goals and satisfy these values in a whole range of industries. Ian Boudville, the guy who wrote the Leadership unit I teach, summed it up in a really succinct way…. a core ideology is something we would do even if we weren’t being paid to do it. 
So step one…keep an eye out and see if either party is expressing core ideologies through their election slogans, promises etc. See if they are expressing something they really stand for, something that is core to their own and their party’s existence. My fear is that politics has become so poll-driven these days that core ideologies have been pushed aside in the name of populist politics.
The second things to look for is whether the visions offered by either party have both push and pull factors. Good visioning needs to not only promise a better future (pull factors) but also explain why you need to move away from the current situation (push factors). This helps to create the tension needed to truly engage people in the vision. The problem with only using an envisioned future is that, while they can produce tremendous excitement, the enthusiasm generally fades if people don’t have a real incentive to improve on their current circumstance. This is especially so if the envisioned future is a long way off or if people perceive they personally have little to gain from it.
So step two…keep an eye out for both pull and push factors in during the campaign. In theory this should be more prevalent in the Opposition’s visioning because they logically have more to gain from pointing out why the current situation isn’t desirable.
The final thing to look out for is the way the parties seek to bridge the gap between the current situation and the envisioned future. This is the third element of good visioning….a good vision should identify a desirable future, explain why where we are now is unacceptable and then explain how we can get from where we are now to where we want to be. I guess a good word for this is the ’substance’ of a vision…can it realistically be achieved or is it just a pie in the sky.
So step three…keep an eye out for whether the parties identify how they are going to move the country towards their vision. It is realistic and does it reflect a genuine belief in the vision offered?
Obviously there is a lot more to deciding how to choose who will lead Australia for the next three years but I think this is a good start!