Do Successful Long-Haul Politicians & Successful Corporate Leaders Have Any Key Traits in Common?
Jordan Kelly • 20 May 2024

Service-to-Customer and Service-to-Constituent: Similarities, Differences & Lessons

Customers can vote with their dollars and shareholder dissatisfaction can result in the removal of senior executives. 'Constituents', however, are stuck with whomever they've voted in and the consequences of that, until at least the next election.


Some politicians care. Some don't . . . until voting time rolls around again.


Some politicians seem perenially tone-deaf to the age-old complaint of constituents, i.e. that, "they're all very concerned about your opinions as a voter, until they're in power, and then they just do whatever they want and ignore the individual voters, anyway."


Having worked in both the public (Parliamentary media support, in my very early career) and the private sector (in executive PR, marcoms, and business development), I can see the hallmarks of similarity between a politician that's successful over the long-haul and an executive that makes it to the corner office (and gets to stay there -

through fair means rather than foul, of course).


Admittedly, it's not a foolproof formula and there's a boatload of variables (most especially in the political context), but it's worthy of consideration, for anyone interested.


Instead of a list of "similarities and differences", I'm going to lay them out as recommendations for a particular practice or attitude . . . and, importantly, I'll lay out my detailed observations and reasoning for each.


I'm going to do this in the format of a multi-article Series. In this article, Part One, I'll list the seven key operating traits of a successful C-Suite executive - as observed by me over the decades, and as included in a publication I wrote in circa 2015.


Here they are, to kick off our Series.


Enduringly successful senior executives demonstrate these qualities:


1)  They Listen Intently


One of the quickest, and wisest, ways to inspire trust in an individual (or a collective of individuals) is simply to listen . . . without an arrogant disposition and without an underlying agenda.


This is how the effective C-suite executive achieves early detection of dissatisfaction in the marketplace or dissent in the organisation.


2)  They Empathise Genuinely


If an executive has listened intently, and from the most neutral position he or she can manage, he or she is then in a good position to empathise . . . genuinely.


Empathy is based on the "why" behind the emotion or opinion of the other party. And an insightful executive knows well, that understanding the driving force behind the reaction of the market, the client, the board, the division, the employee, the community or any other form of stakeholder, is key to formulating the action plan or determining the solution.


3)  They Care Deeply


Yes, indeed, the most driven Alpha male or female, or even the A-grade predator, cares . . . if only because they have to care, in order to determine the best path forward towards the desired result.


They might not always take the path that reflects the desires of the parties in question, but a smart operator knows enough to care about what matters to those parties . . . maybe not every time, but they're aware of the cumulative result-over-time of whether or not they've cared.


4)  They Accept that the 'Buck Stops with Them'

'

Accepting that the "buck stops with (them)" is a troubling concept to those without the courage of their convictions or the intestinal fortitude to accept the responsibility vested in them by their position and those that installed them in it.


But a true leader knows that, by embracing the fact that they are He / She Who Is Ultimately Accountable, they retain the motivation to (a) fix problems fast and effectively, and (b) take actions, and put in place systems, to minimise the rate at which major issues arise in the first place.


5)  They Question Relentlessly


Strategically-minded operators know that superficial research or investigation nets superficial knowledge and hit-and-miss strategies or solutions.


Questioning broadly, deeply, and tenaciously, results in a deeper, more meaningful collection of intelligence upon which to base a well-informed marketing or any other form of strategy, or upon which to base an effective solution.


6)  They Strategise Collaboratively


They avoid any temptation towards arrogance and presumptuousness.


They know that the plan most likely to succeed is the plan for which multiple sources of intelligence have been consulted, and their inputs analysed and considered.


They also know that sourcing those intelligence inputs as directly as possible creates a sense of collective ownership, outcome motivation, and accountability.


7)  They Execute Consultatively


In an extension of (6) Strategising Collectively, they take those involved on the full length and duration of the journey.


They keep all parties engaged, in order to ensure that the afore-mentioned ownership, outcome motivation and accountability is of the most enduring quality possible.


This is the very essence of "buy-in" . . . and a wise senior executive team, a savvy marketing director. or any other senior operative will extend this, where appropriate and strategic, not only as deeply down the levels of the organisation as possible, but also outside of the organisation into the marketplace itself and/or into the broader stakeholder community. 


In Part Two of this Series, I'm going to investigate the ways in which these seven modi operandi of a successful C-Suite or similar senior executive, apply in the Parliamentarian-and-Constituent context.




Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 21 April 2025
AI & Robotics Expert Provides Commentary on Skinny's New 'Brand Ambassador'
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
Err . . . No Conflict of Interest Here, At All?
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
You Know It's Bad When Even Mainstream Medical Journals Are Forced to Report On It
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
More on the BUPA international chain of houses-of-horror . . .
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
I've Been Tracking Abuse-in-Aged-Care-Facilities for A While Now . . . and Something HAS to Be Done About this Almighty Horror Show
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
I'm SO Glad I Manage to Survive Without A Cell Phone . . .
by Jordan Kelly 5 March 2025
Breathing in Foul-Smelling Emissions from Over the Fence? House Filling up with Toxic Fumes? Getting Your Washing Smoked Out? Here Are Your Rights.
by Jordan Kelly 26 February 2025
Americans are in love with Karoline Leavitt, the new, 27-year-old Whitehouse Press Secretary. She is eloquent, has a razor-sharp wit and a speed-of-light response formulation time, is meticulously prepared . . . and is fiercely loyal to the boss. However . . . At this morning's press briefing she showed a crack - a potential big negative -in her otherwise impeccable and impenetrable modus operandi. The layman audience didn't pick it up; the glowing compliments continued to avalanche in. But I saw a hint of the old politician and traditional press secretary sleight of hand: When a reporter asked her about the seriousness of tonight's deadline for all Federal government staff to respond to Elon Musk's / DOGE's "send us 5 things you did last week" V2 email, she pulled out the old "reframe the question and monologue it back to something positive and be emphatic to take the emphasis off your redirection" trick. (It's between 9.47 minutes and 13.54 minutes in. Particularly note the clarity and simplicity of the second reporter's key question i.e. will Federal employees be fired if they ignore Musk's email for a second time ? Watch .) There it was . . . that tired old advice STILL given out to politicians by their media training PR consultant hacks. I've commented on this previously here . And while I think it's disingenuous to do it at all, it's wholly inadvisable to do it if you're not particularly good at it. Under the headline, ' Minister of Police vs Jack Tame ', I gave an in-action example, including with the link to the interview and the timestamp at which Mitchell embarrassed himself mightily (albeit he bulldozed on, completely oblivious). While Leavitt employed the technique (which I prefer to call a "tactic") skilfully, that skill was more of a mechanical one in her case.. Whereas, when Trump uses it (which he does frequently), he's a master at it. His charismatic natural slide into an alternative impassioned point or story is so natural. So, well . . . Trump. Trump will always get away with it. It's baked into his style. But Leavitt will only get away with it for as long as the puppy love phase lasts and her halo continues to shine so brightly. At some point, if she employs it too regularly, the average citizen out there in viewer land will realise that she's not actually answering the question. I don't think she'll ever be seen as negatively as Biden's "press secretary" (if you could call her that) Karine Jean-Pierre, of course, but Leavitt's podium is at such a currently great height that she has a long way to fall if she does. Notwithstanding her exuberant youth, captivating good looks and "don't fck with me" forceful manner, there's one thing that pisses off the press and the punters alike. And that's repeatedly not giving straight answers to straight questions. So it was a disappointment to see her pull this one out the bag so early in her tenure as hallowed Whitehouse Press Secretary - since its emergence doesn't augur well going forward. I mean, just to know that she would resort to it whenever she felt it expedient. The Observational Minutiae By way of further observation, watch carefully as the second reporter comes in with a determination to get the straight answer the first one didn't succeed in getting. At this point, if you're a keen observer of human behaviour and responses, you'll notice Leavitt is slightly pushed off her confident footing. She makes two grammatical stumbles: she first said "Elon come in" instead of "Elon came in". Then she transposed two words slightly further on. When the second reporter kept pressing her, she defensively snapped, "Are my press briefings not good enough for you, Jackie?" Not good. She doesn't like being pressed so hard. She needs to get used to it, or there'll be an increasing number of moments when she comes at least slightly unstuck behind the podium. 
by Jordan Kelly 25 February 2025
JUST IN: PRESS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF REPUBLICAN SENATOR MIKE LEE OF UTAH. Calling for the United States' complete withdrawal from the UN, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has introduced the Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act ,. The DEFUND Act "addresses grave issues of national sovereignty and fiscal accountability which have plagued US. involvement in the UN". Co-sponsored in the Senate by Republican Senators Marsha Blackburn and Rick Scott, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and Representative Chip Roy (also Republicans) the accompanying comments by Senator Lee read: "No more blank checks for the United Nations. Americans' hard-earned dollars have been funneled into initiatives that fly in the face of our values, enabling tyrants, betraying allies, and spreading bigotry "With the DEFUND Act, we're stepping away from this debacle. If we engage with the UN in the future, it will be on our terms, with the full backing of the Senate and an iron-clad escape clause." He said the UN had betrayed U.S. trust repeatedly, and that the country should not "to be their cash cow" while the UN undermines the U.S.'s own national security and interests. Meantime, Senator Blackburn said: “ The DEFUND Act will stop all forms of U.S. financial support to the UN and hold this wayward organisation accountable for placating Hamas terrorists and the Chinese Communist Party.” Meantime, Senator Chip Roy commented: “From UNRWA actively protecting Hamas and acting against our ally Israel, and delaying condemnation of Hamas, to China being elected to the 'Human Rights Council,' to the propagation of climate hysteria, covering for China's forced abortion and sterilisation programs . . . the UN's decades-old, internal rot once again raises the questions of why the United States is even still a member or why we're wasting billions every year on it."
Show More