Introducing Argentina’s soon to be Rock’n’Roll Vice President. Amado Boudou rides a Harley-Davidson and relaxes by jamming with rock stars. He also follows in a long line of Rock’n’Roll leaders – Junichiro Koizumi, Japan’s reformist President and heavy metal addict, Tony Blair, Ted Heath, Bill Clinton, David Blunkett and so on.
So, why am I writing about Mr Boudou? It seems that his lifestyle has become the focus of debate concerning his competence to handle the country’s economic affairs. This is encapsulated in the comment “We want a minister, not a guitar player”
I find this bizarre. Some people delight in picking out minor aspects of someone’s lifestyle and generalise that it adversely affects their competence to do their chosen job. I’m wondering if a similar reaction would have occurred if the media had pointed out that Winston Churchill suffered from depression? This is not confined to politicians. Some years ago a senior HR colleague working for the Police confided in me for some career advice. In his spare time he ran a disco and his boss had told him to stop running it if he wanted to get on. Why is this stuff so threatening to those in authority?
In defence of his hobby, Amado Boudou has pointed out that “Rock helps me communicate directly with the people because rock doesn’t lie, and people are fed up with lying politicians”. Unfortunately, he is right. If I had to choose between a cold analyst and a competent economist with a soul, I know which one I would choose as a leader. The people who lead need to brilliant technicians of their chosen disciplines, plus they need to have humility and soul to engage their followers. It’s a theme I explore in the book ‘Sex, Leadership and Rock’n’Roll’.
So, should we allow Amado Boudou to keep his hobby? Post your thoughts on why leaders should or should not be allowed to have a life or a hobby.
The title of the post reminds me of Madonna’s take on politics from the film Evita. Any excuse for a bit of Madge!