Two of the most intriguing eulogies for Ted Kennedy were those of Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal and David Brooks of the New York Times. Although both mourned the death of Kennedy, both also mourned the loss of the craft of legislation, of deal-making, in today's congress.
As a consultant to business managers, far too often I find negative attitudes toward the competency of deal-making deeply entrenched in business professionals. Although a select group of managers in most organizations develop the needed skills of negotiation and deal-making, their lack often inhibits the careers of others. Just as successful business professionals must learn to do the politics of networking and managing up, so today's highly diverse business world requires the skills of negotiation and deal-making.
What drives the negative attitudes toward deal-making?
Seib focuses on the structural issues that work to prohibit congressional deal-making: the ideological polarization of the democrat and republican parties that began in the 1970s, and the "machines" in both parties that work against any middle ground.
Brooks emphasizes the role the Constitution plays in demanding an incremental or gradualist approach to congressional leadership. He sees the skills and crafts of the legislator as quite different than the skills of leadership. There is a craft to governance, which depends less on academic intelligence than on a contextual awareness of how to bring people together.
Seib concludes: Ted Kennedy could do that. Few remaining have the ability.
Whether you reject or embrace Kennedy and his politics, underlying his successes are two key lessons for business professionals for whom career achievement and personal success are a priority. After 1990, Kennedy developed a calculated and nearly compulsive drive for excellence: what today we call deliberate practice. He never failed to show up prepared for a committee hearing or debate. A major reason was the quality of his staff, renown throughout the senate for their brilliance and work ethic. David Brooks alludes to Kennedy's depth of knowledge:
I once ran into John McCain after a negotiating session with Kennedy on an immigration bill they had co-sponsored. McCain was exhausted by the arduous and patient way his friend negotiated. In my last interview with Kennedy, I asked about big ideas, and his answers were nothing special. Then I asked about a minor provision in an ancient piece of legislation, and his command of the provision and how it got there was jaw-droppingly impressive.
In addition, Kennedy was the epitome of the nice guy. With it's emphasis on competence and warmth, "nice-guyness overlaps deliberate practice. Kennedy was known as warm, fun, funny, friendly, what Joe Klein called a joyous Irish bull. Though it may have been in the genes, it had to be learned. In the 1970s, Kennedy had little to no political and relational instincts. Perhaps Klein's statement of a conversation with Kennedy in 2008 summarizes it best: I wanted to ask him about those awkward, awful times back when. But why mess with the mood? He had exorcised the demons. He was whole.
The gift of time
In his book, The Talent Code, Daniel Coyle calls attention to the fact that more than half of the best coaches are in their sixties and seventies. Time gives many gifts, but one of the most intriguing is the recognition, now supported by much research, that those of us in those age groups can see that competence and nice-guyness are not born. They're grown.