Next Level Blog
Simple, practical, applicable
Leadership and the Ground Zero Mosque August 16 2010
It looks like an emerging campaign issue this Fall will be President Obama’s position on building a mosque close to Ground Zero. At a Ramadan dinner at the White House last week, Obama said that Muslims have the right to build a worship and community center in lower Manhattan near the site of the World Trade Center attacks. While he made the distinction the next day between the right to build and the wisdom of building on that site, here is the main point that Obama made at the dinner:
“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the founders must endure.”
Obama’s remarks echoed those of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg at a public event following a city board’s approval of building the center. Speaking of the first responders on 9/11, Bloomberg said:
“In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, ‘What God do you pray to?’ ‘What beliefs do you hold?’… We do not honor their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights — and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.”
At the risk of igniting a debate among readers on the efficacy of building the Islamic center a few blocks from Ground Zero, I would argue that both Obama and Bloomberg have shown principled leadership on the issue. For a full discussion of the historical grounding of their positions, I encourage you to read this column by Simon Schama in the Financial Times and this one by former George W. Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson in the Washington Post.
For now, I would suggest that there are at least three behaviors that Obama and Bloomberg have both demonstrated that would well serve leaders who are navigating their way through a controversy and trying to decide what to do:
Consider the History: As Schama details in his column, Bloomberg's and Obama's positions are informed by a series of events in U.S. history. When determining what to do in a difficult situation, leaders should consider the historical precedents in their institution or organization.
Consider the Principles: In his column, Gerson makes this point, "A president does not merely have opinions; he has duties to the Constitution and to the citizens he serves — including millions of Muslim citizens. His primary concern is not the sifting of sensitivities but the protection of the American people and the vindication of their rights." Whether they’re stated or not, most organizations have operating principles. Considering and referencing the core principles of an organization can help leaders make an informed decision about how to proceed.
Consider the Long Term: This consideration poses the long term interests of the organization and its principles against short term concerns based on what the majority deems popular. Leadership can be lonely. Never more so than when most people disagree with the stand you’re taking. In times like that, it helps to consider the impact of your decision not over the next month or year, but the next five years, 20 years or even a hundred years.
As I wrote earlier, my intent in this post is not to hash out the pros and cons of the mosque in lower Manhattan. My goal is to stimulate some thinking and conversation about what can be learned about leadership through examining the situation.
What’s your take so far? Who’s exhibiting sound leadership in this case? Why do you think so? Who’s not? Why do you think so? What can we learn about leadership from observing either side of the ledger?
Scott Eblin is an executive coach, speaker and author of 
Great post. I like Scott Berkun’s take on this issue: The most vocal opponents of the mosque lack an understanding of NYC. It’s two blocks away. TWO BLOCKS is a whole other country on Manhattan.
I believe that “both” sides of this argument are exhibiting “Leadership” as a trait. Each group’s position reflects the opinions of their followers and each believes that their camp has the right answer. The leaders of each group have purposely and skillfully brought their opinions to the forefront and in some cases have each shown a degree of tact and diplomacy in voicing their arguments and positions.
As noted in your post, “Leadership is often lonely” and that is as true for one side of the argument as it is for the other. I would suspect that while each leader gains support in the eyes of their respective followers, that each looses an opportunity to change an opinion or alter a perspective as they each become more entrenched in their opinions. The argument concerning the actual value of this rigid posturing could fill several dozen pages of this post alone.
The losers in the end will be those who fail to exhibit the wisdom associated with free choice and the will to consider the value in each sides concern. The answer would be to both respect and to encapsulate the best of both positions and to move forward together on that path.
I believe in religious freedom and believe that Muslims have a right to build a Mosque in the United States. I also believe in sensivity and considering how so many feel about the sacredness of this location and the ongoing pain many feel – I question the wisdom of chosing this location at this time. Perhaps moving the location a few blocks or having a community center where representatives from the major faith perspectives represented in the United States might serve the community or provide spiritual support to family members and visitors – might be a better idea?
Thanks for the thoughtful comments everyone. The middle way seems like a very reasonable approach. One of my concerns about public dialogue these days is how quickly reasoned, solution oriented conversations get overwhelmed by polarizing comments and actions. Wonder what the leadership solution is to that?
Once aspect of strong leadership is speaking from knowledge, with thought and sensitivity. I have talked to people who are strongly against building this site, but when I asked them if they know where it is proposed to be built, they either don't know or are wrong (the proposed site is two blocks away from ground zero on Park Place). It is also stark and interesting to see how little many people know about Muslim people. To learn a little go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_… Nearly all of our government leaders are leading well and responsibly on this topic. Unfortunately, many media sources are not and have felt the need to make headlines with comments from the folks that are speaking with lack of knowledge or understanding.
Scott – I posted the above before I saw your question. The leadership solutions to the polarizing comments (fueled by sensationalist media)are as follows:
1. As a consumer of media, be a leader … find out the facts, don't just listen to sound bites.
2. Leaders in the media need to find ways to drive their business with more than just sound bites. They need to make the whole story interesting.
3. Political, business and institutional leaders need to call media leaders on irresponsible reporting. Write letters to the editor and call the owner of the newspaper. Don't argue with the point of view, just make a point about how the headline was deceptive or sensationalist and share facts that you thought should have been represented.
4. Lead as an individual, when you hear others making comments that sound like they are born in ignorance, ask a question. Find out if the other person really understands the issue, listen to their point of view and then, fill in the blanks without being condescending — just inform. I am amazed at how quickly some people that speak strongly and emotionally, mellow and are willing to come around when they find out something they didn't know from a person who is simply listening and informing, rather than trying to "win".
Stu –
Many thanks for both of your thoughtful comments. You raise some really important points about the role of the media in our culture. It seems like the only critical analysis we get on media coverage comes from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Somehow, I feel that's not enough.
What are your own favorite sources for getting the facts? What would you recommend to the rest of us?
Cheers –
Scott