In a New York Times column published on May 18, 2009, David Brooks writes about the effective traits of successful business CEOs. It seems that study after study confirms that dull is better. That is, flamboyant and some may say interesting creative traits do not add to the bottom line as much as persistence, attention to detail, and a dogged determination to be the best at what you do. This is dull? Essentially Brooks is arguing that emotive, charismatic types that the are the toast of dinner parties might not be the best people to lead companies. He cites Jim Collins' Good to Great among other studies and concludes that dull is better for business. Can you extrapolate these studies to community leadership as well? I think there are some definite parallels.
Communities need leaders who have vision and persistence: people who can see it and see it through. I am assuming that Brooks is not equating his definition of dullness with lack of creativity or imagination. Rather, what appeals to me about this article is that it makes clear that effectiveness is about constancy of purpose and staying on task. I think his description of too many CEOs as "flashes in the pan" (my words) really points to the turning point for community leadership. We look for quick fixes, easy answers, and miracle solutions. The most successful communities know that these are myths and are going deeper on issues, building in sustainability, and measuring the results as they go along. This is really the only way to get better in a company or in a community. Wall Street and Main Street are strewn with names of people and organizations that got a lot of press initially. What is making headlines today is who is still there, how well the company, local government, or organization is doing, and the strategic plans for the future. If that is dull, count me in.