By Tong Kim
Having stumbled through the first six months of his presidency, President Lee Myung-bak is still undergoing a litmus test of leadership. His scheduled ``dialogue with the people'' on television tomorrow night (Tuesday) will be an opportunity to restore some public confidence in his leadership for ``reviving the economy.'' In his August 15 address, the president said his government was starting anew.
Recently I read an interesting analysis published in the Chosun Ilbo, which was based on a survey of political scientists and some senior staff members at the Blue House of their observations of the first six months of President Lee's governing.
His leadership was characterized as ``an able economic leader but lacking capacity to unite the people,'' ``determined to control and carry out policy but morally blemished and authoritarian,'' ``plain, friendly and resolute without governing philosophy and poor in judgment of personnel action,'' ``open-minded and reformative but lacking political leadership and uninterested in listening to others,'' ``unswervingly consistent but politically inflexible,'' ``good in speedy implementation but reluctant to delegate authority,'' ``creative and strong in details but talking too much,'' ``synthesizing efficiency and public interest but weak in handling national legislators,'' and ``adaptive to change for self-improvement but trying to do the work himself without delegation of authority.''
While most political scientists said only time will tell how the president will perform in the future, some were pessimistic about his future leadership: One respondent said, ``He will be a boxed president who serves only for his power base, which accounts for only 30 percent of the people.'' Another one said, ``There is no hope for the improvement of his leadership.'' But Lee's staffers offered an optimistic projection that Lee's ``real leadership'' will stand out from the end of next year, when, the government said this week, the people will start appreciating the fruits of an improved economy.
In American experience, a new president's first hundred days are critical to the success of his presidency ― as was the case for FDR and Ronald Reagan. A president should, quickly at the beginning of governing, set a clear goal and direction of his administration to show what it wants to accomplish for the people and to win their support and trust for that goal.
There is an abundant source of literature on presidential leadership. But to quote David Gergen, author of ``Eyewitness to Power,'' and who worked in the White House for four U.S. presidents, ``a sure, quick start'' is one of the ``seven keys to effective and responsible leadership'' along with ``leadership starting from within,'' ``a central, compelling purpose,'' ``a capacity to persuade,'' ``an ability to work within the system,'' including the public, Congress and the press, a team of ``strong, prudent advisers,'' and ``inspiring others to carry on the mission.''
President Lee had a quick but faltering start. What he was standing for as the national leader was not clear to the citizens. He had wasted his valuable two-month transition period, during which he should have prepared himself for governing by molding a strong team of good advisors. Instead he let his transition team delve too deeply into policy details over 190 issues. The public does not even remember what those issues were. Lee used up much of his political capital to reorganize the government even before his inauguration. The public is yet to see improved efficiency of the new government.
It is interesting to note that ``creative pragmatism'' was publicized as a guiding principle for the Lee government, but his people seldom use the term nowadays. By the same token, his experience as a business CEO was a strong selling point, which helped him clinch the election but they don't emphasize his CEO leadership style anymore. This is an implicit admission of his failure in governing as he was seen unconcerned first with the ethical issue of his appointees and then with the health issue of beef imports.
In my view, while he has many good leadership qualities, including energy, industry, intelligence, confidence, adaptability, willingness to accept responsibility, a capacity to win trust and understand followers, a sense of direction, etc., his major problem appears, as many others have pointed out, to be a lack of political skills or political leadership, a lack of capacity to work with those who do not agree with him.
For example, he still seems to have not gotten over the bitter experience with Park Geun-hye, who had fiercely challenged him and came close to defeating him during the party nomination process. Party nomination was the sure ticket to his victory in the election, as it turned out that his final competitors were no match for him. His political inability to accommodate supporters of his opponent within his own party even after he was elected president was the beginning of his trouble.
He seems to be able to ``inspire his subordinates in government'' but he seems to lack the ``capacity to persuade the public'' that can build support for his actions. It's not clear how good or poor his first team of advisors at the Blue House was, as they seemed to carry out orders from their boss who would not listen. From the beginning Lee had the authority that comes from his position of president, but it is not clear if his authority was reinforced by respect for his integrity and character.
Communication skills are also important to leadership. Not all effective leaders are great communicators as was Ronald Reagan. Lee seems prone to commit a gaffe when he talks without prepared notes ― his extemporaneous statements are often inconsistent or misunderstood. He is better off speaking less in public. The fact that he is not as good in oral presentation as his predecessors or Reagan should not matter as long as he is willing to carefully prepare his presentations and equip himself with the right comments or hold his tongue.
According to Gergen, Richard Nixon, notorious for Watergate but admired for his foreign policy success, told his speech writers that a public leader should say less, and ``less is more in public communication." He asked them to limit his public pronouncements to one hundred words. He looked for sound bites that would be picked up by television networks. Reagan thought a good speech should not exceed twenty minutes and no more than thirty minutes for a formal press conference. This way the audience would remember more and want more. All good speeches should include a memorable line or two.
Most of President Lee's major speeches so far are of good quality ― with brisk and crispy sentences, inclusive of positive substance and ``catch facts,'' but they seem to contain a long litany of issues like a campaign platform, or his transition team's final report, or a State of the Union message in the United States. The press picks up only a very small portion or a sentence or two for sound bites, most of the words ― verbiage ― wash over the public. If Nixon is right, effective communication should ``break though the babble, sinking your message to public consciousness.''
At this writing, President Lee has a few urgent issues ― a worsening economy, the issue of religious bias against Buddhists, and controversy over development restriction on metropolitan areas. For the economy his government is taking on a series of new measures first to alleviate the burden of the low-income brackets with tax cuts and other support programs. Economy is his mandate and ``the central, compelling purpose'' and he should carry out his economic policy the best he can. But he cannot succeed as an economic president without political leadership.
Challenges provide opportunities ― opportunities to improve his leadership style, which can contribute to the growth of his power. What's your take?
Tong Kim is a research professor with Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University SAIS. He can be reached at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.