So, what do you think about this presidential race? Wild huh? Such strongly different personalities and perspectives. There is no lack of personality in this campaign cycle.

Unfortunately, personality alone doesn’t make a for good leader.

Locally, we just completed a municipal election cycle. Almost the opposite to the presidential race in terms of passion and personality. I like to consider myself relatively well informed – but there were still a lot of names on the ballot whom I had never heard of. Based off of the results, I have a sneaking suspicion that name recognition, alone, probably accounted for many of the wins.

Name recognition doesn’t make for a good leader.

We have the great fortune to live in a country where our voices matter. And even where the voting is indirect, as in the presidential race, there is some level of group consensus that agrees who the leader will be. As clunky as our processes might be, they’ve resulted in a stable government that retains the potential to be representative.

But what is our criteria for choosing?

Not all leadership choices are equal. Choosing a president or legislator is different than choosing a successor or filing the leadership bench in your organization. Our political system was designed to diffuse power and the ability to make decisions. Most private organizations operate better when decision making is clearer and simpler.

Here is how I choose. Now, I’m not partisan. Never have been. When I turned 18, I registered as “non-partisan.” I registered that way for two reasons: I was influenced by a quote from George Washington. In his farewell address, he warned the country against the “continual mischiefs” of political parties. He wasn’t wrong. The other reason was less notable (but perhaps more influential.) I wanted to tweak the teacher who registered me. He was an active partisan operative and hoped to sign up more followers. I’ve been a “super non-partisan voter” ever since.

Despite that, I try to be thoughtful about who I vote for. Here is the five-part algorithm that I’ve developed—it has been very helpful for me. Perhaps it will be for you:

1. Credibility: We all want this in a political leader. Despite this, our cynicism runs so deep that most of us assume that we actually can’t trust what any politician on a campaign trail says. Here’s my approach, the old “Trust, but verify” maxim. I look at someone’s history. Campaign promises may be all over the map – but past performance is the best indicator of future results.

I look for congruency between what they tend to say and what they’ve tended to do. The greater the alignment that I see – the more integrity I know the person has. Even when I disagree with someone – integrity is important to me.

Do I have good reasons to trust this person? Does history bear this out?

2. Servant Leadership: This is key for me. I prefer to only vote for people who have demonstrated that they are so committed to their communities that they can’t help but find ways to serve, be involved and to help out. This is different than someone who joins the right clubs and shows up for the photo ops.

 I recently discovered that a polarizing politician regularly, and quietly, serves at a local shelter. The fact of the consistent service combined with the fact that it hasn’t been used for political gain speaks loudly to me of this person’s integrity and desire to serve for the sake of service. One of my favorite politicians is someone I’ve never voted for. But he is always serving in some capacity – often in little known, low profile capacities. He cares about his community and will serve whether or not he is voted into office.

I will never knowingly choose a leader who only showed up to “serve” for the campaigns or cameras. Even if they say what I really want to hear. They don’t live it.

Is this person primarily running to benefit the country or their community? Or are they primarily fulfilling personal ambitions?

3. Capacity: This is similar to the credibility question. So many candidates have great sounding resumes and experiences. But often we fall victim to a common thinking error. We assume that because someone was effective or impressive in one area of life that they can legislate or execute governance well. I frequently encounter leaders with military backgrounds struggling mightily in the private sector. They don’t have a command and control backdrop to mask their poor leadership. Leaders from large institutions often fail in encore careers in a small non-profit – they mistake size for simplicity.

Again, I find that past performance is the best indicator of future results. Not, have they held office or have they done something impressive – but have they demonstrated an ability to be effective in a position that requires influence over power? Can they negotiate well? Can they manage themselves? Time? Others? Do they focus on underlying issues and priorities or do they get distracted by methods and approaches?

Does the person have the ability to do the job?

4. Principles: I have a few, tightly held moral principles that I will not compromise on. I try to shape my principles around outcomes – not around methods. For example, I believe there is a moral weight connected to how we relate to the most vulnerable in our population- whether the vulnerability is physical, economic, social or political. I look for leaders who seem to share that perspective. How that principle is expressed may be an area of disagreement. But it is important to me that my leaders recognize this and are motivated to act.

Does this person align with my core principles and values (even if their methods differ?)

5. Preferences: This is associated with Principles but, whereas I won’t compromise on principles, I will compromise on preferences. Using the example from above, I may disagree with someone else’s perspective about how we treat immigrants or address poverty. But it is more important to me that they share my principle that we should relate with compassion and seek to help. What that helps looks like may be open to interpretation.

There are also issues that are major political issues – but they don’t matter much to me. They don’t rise to the level of “principle” in my book. It’s great if candidates line up with my preferences – but I don’t allow preferences to take precedent over principles.

Do I like how they relate or get things done? Do I feel comfortable with their ideas and approach?

I’ll be honest, using this system has sometimes radically changed who I have ended up voting for. Some politicians say everything I want them to say. But their credibility is lacking. It is easy to mistake some platform positions as demonstrations of underlying principle.

Let me know if or how this article has been helpful for you. In my next article I’ll write about the different approach we should take choosing leaders within our organizations.