Blog

When I was a graduate student at Yale I received a master’s degree in Russian and East European Studies. So, though I did not ultimately concentrate (my doctoral work) on what then was the Soviet bloc, I stayed with the subject. I continued to follow it closely, making it a point to be up on the latest Kremlinology.

Imagine my surprise, then, when virtually overnight, virtually without warning by even the most esteemed Soviet experts, the Soviet Union collapsed and communism in East Europe along with it.  I was stunned at the time. And I remain stunned still that a series of events so momentous should have been so completely unforeseen.

In recent months have been two changes of cataclysmic importance, both of which fall into the same category. Both were wholly unanticipated, predicted by nearly no one.

The first is the rise of ISIS – ISIS, which scarcely anyone had even heard of as little as a year ago. The second is the drop in oil prices, which has been nothing short of vertiginous. But who knew six months ago? Who told us then what we know now: that the price of oil, which had been stable for over five years, would drop suddenly and precipitously, by over half in half a year?

Nobody – nobody told us. Why? Because nobody knows nothing.

 

 

It’s easy enough to understand why the attention of the Western world has been fixed in recent days on France. It’s less easy to understand why the attention of the world has not been similarly trained on Nigeria. Americans and others were stirred last year by the kidnapping and subsequent disappearance of nearly 200 girls from a Nigerian school. But since then our gaze has turned elsewhere, closer to home, as our anxieties about terrorism in America and Europe have overshadowed those about terrorism in Africa.

While we were watching the streets of Paris, a ten year old girl killed herself and some 19 others by detonating explosives (strapped to her body) in a busy Nigerian market. Moreover on the same Wednesday that the Kouachi brothers murdered some of the staff of Charlie Hebdo, the Nigerian militant group Boko Haram massacred an estimated 2000 in Baga, a city in Northern Nigeria.

This is not a game of numbers. Is killing 2000 people ten times worse than killing 200? A thousand times worse than killing 2? The point is that there is no obvious distinction between terrorism in France and terrorism elsewhere, including in Nigeria. In fairness, with France one has the sense that President Francois Hollande will attack terrorism with all the forces that his strong state can marshal. Nigeria, in contrast, is a weak state, with no evidence that President Goodluck Jonathan has the will, the skill, and the resources effectively to address the relentlessly growing terrorist threat.

But I wonder why the distinction, why the divide in American minds between terrorism in Europe and terrorism in Africa. From where I sit they are of a piece, the one as much of a threat to security in the 21^st century as the other. The fact that Abuja, Nigeria seems so much further from Washington than does Paris, France, does not mean that what’s been happening in the former is any less of a threat than what’s been happening in the later. I would argue, in fact, that in this super-small, hyper-connected world terrorism anywhere is terrorism everywhere.

The French can be among the best followers in the world. If by that is meant their engagement in public affairs. If by that is meant their willingness to speak truth to power. If by that is meant their readiness to fight for what they believe.

To be clear – the French can also be among the worst followers in the world. If by that is meant their passivity in the face of evil. If by that is meant their streak of extremism. If by that is meant their refusal to sacrifice private comfort for public good.

Today is testimony to the first. I cannot speak to tomorrow. But today has already been enshrined in French history, memorable not only for the million marchers in the streets of Paris, but for the overarching theme – unity.

Unity has not always been France’s strong suit. The French have a history of being antipathetic to outsiders, to those who fail to conform to their conception of what a Frenchman, or Frenchwoman, or for that matter French child, should look like.

Today, though, such differences seem secondary. Today everyone in France who is other than a terrorist is French. Today everyone in France is Charlie. Today everyone in France is a Jew.

Who – or, better, what – is a leader? And who – or, better, what – is a follower? Is it reasonable to refer to the two Kouachi brothers, who apparently were responsible for the massacre yesterday in Paris, as leaders? If a terrorist commits an act so heinous it changes our behavior – changes the behaviors of large numbers of people, including people in positions of authority – does that make him, or her, a leader?

It goes against our grain to think of terrorists as leaders – so completely has the leadership industry cajoled us into thinking of leaders as most of the time good, as opposed to some of the time bad. However, there are many different definitions of leadership, some of which encompass the behaviors of terrorists who commit acts so outrageous, offensive, and threatening to the general welfare, that they create change.

Here, for example, are three definitions that qualify:

• Leadership as the initiation of structure.
• Leadership as the capacity to induce compliance.
• Leadership as a power relationship between leader and led.*

I raise the question of whether or not a terrorist can by any measure be considered a leader not merely as an intellectual exercise, but to broaden our conception of how leadership is conceived.

I would argue that in the old days – up to the 21^st century – a leader was someone who as such was at least somewhat recognizable. I would similarly argue that times have changed, that in this shrinking, hyper-connected world a leader can be any anonymous someone who in the proverbial blink of an eye changes how millions think and what millions do. Similarly, men and women that we conceive of as leaders – say the president of France, Francois Hollande – can be transformed by terrorists into followers. They can be reduced, as it were, to being reactive rather than proactive.

I ask you, then, who exactly set France’s immediate priorities? And who exactly is obliged to go along?

—————————–

Bernard Bass, The Bass Handbook of Leadership (Free Press, 2008). p. 15 ff.

OK, OK, OK, I’m joining the crowd. I’m doing what everyone else does – naming the man of the year, the woman of the year, the movie of the year, the song of the year, the game of the year, the eatery of the year, the you-name-it-of the year.

Given my line of work, it’s only right that I should name a name. Two names, in fact, the best leader of the year and, yes, the best, or at least the most salient, follower.*

Leader of the Year: Petro Poroshenko

Against long odds, Ukraine’s president Petro Poroshenko stood up not only to his country’s obvious aggressor, Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, but to America and Europe’s indolence and indifference. Poroshenko rallied the majority of the Ukrainian people to his side, and he stood so hard and so fast that 2014 ended with him standing taller, Putin grown smaller, and both the U.S. and European Union more strongly supporting Ukraine both against Russian aggression and for closer ties to the West. While the last act of this drama has yet to be written, and the road ahead remains treacherous, there is no denying that in 2014 President Poroshenko rose to the occasion. Only a leader both smart and strong could have executed the formidable tasks with which he was faced as wisely and well as he.

Follower of the Year: Eric Garner

Until his death as the result of being put into a chokehold by an officer of the New York Police Department, the name of Eric Garner was, in effect, unknown. But, since then, since the footage of his apparently woefully unnecessary death was captured on film, Garner has become a symbol. His last words – “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe” – have become the slogan of the nation’s newest incarnation of a protest movement that goes back at least a half century. As I write, the most obvious manifestation of the tensions triggered by Garner’s death is a rift between New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio and the New York City Police Department. But in the wake of his own death, and also in the aftermath of racial strife in Ferguson, Missouri and subsequent civil rights protests around the country, Garner  became the human incarnation of a wound that America has yet fully to heal. He was rather an ordinary man whose extraordinary death has been stamped permanently not only on our collective consciousness, but on our collective conscience.

—————————————————————————————————-

*In my lexicon a leader is someone with obvious sources of power, authority, and, or, influence. A follower is someone without any obvious sources of power, authority, and, or influence.

 

 

 

 

 

You’re Barack Obama. You see yourself a leader who sometimes gets things done the way you wanted and intended.

On December 17^th, 2014 you announce that you have concluded a deal which after more than a half century will restore between the United States and Cuba formal diplomatic relations. You’re reminded of your power, authority, and influence.

You’re Barack Obama. You see yourself a leader who sometimes gets things done the way you wanted and intended.

The very same day, December 17^th, 2014, you are forced publicly to admit that a major American company was attacked by cyber-terrorists. You are forced further to admit (if only indirectly) that it was an attack for which your administration was inadequately prepared.  In fact your administration was so ill-prepared that for the moment you decide to do nothing. You decide that you need time to determine America’s response to North Korea’s aggression.

You’re Barack Obama. You see yourself a leader who sometimes gets things done the way you wanted and intended.

During your six years in the White House you have learned one Big Thing – the limits of leadership. You have learned how small your reserves of power, authority, and influence.  You have learned how even leaders as powerful as you are relentlessly beset by events beyond their control. You have learned how much of your time is spent being reactive as opposed to proactive. You have learned that even the likes of you are just one part of a system – the leadership system – in which parts other than you impinge on your ability to do what you want to do when you want to do it. You have learned that leadership is about much, much more than any single individual – no matter how singular.

——————————————————————

Note: This is my last post for 2014. HAPPY HOLIDAYS!    

• Dianne Feinstein’s been serving as Senator from the state of California since 1992.
• Dianne Feinstein’s racked up more popular votes (in 2012) than any Senator in American history.
• Dianne Feinstein’s 81 years old.
• Dianne Feinstein’s the oldest currently sitting Senator.
• Dianne Feinstein’s served as Chair of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence since 2009.
• Dianne Feinstein’s primarily responsible for the just released Committee Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation.
• Dianne Feinstein’s primarily responsible for releasing the Report at this particular time.
• Dianne Feinstein’s insisting that in spite of the anger engendered by the Report, “America is big enough to admit when it’s wrong and confident enough to learn from its mistakes.”
• Dianne Feinstein’s got a tart, tough response for anyone who criticizes the Report – their numbers are many – which boils down to “Read the Report.”
• Dianne Feinstein’s clearly at a point in her life where she’s indifferent to her political enemies.
• Dianne Feinstein’s clearly at a point in her life where she’s hell bent on leaving a legacy.
• Dianne Feinstein’s clearly at a point in her life where she’s reached the pinnacle of her power. On an issue of the utmost importance – America’s use of torture or, if you prefer, enhanced interrogation techniques – she’s taken the lead. For years to come the Report drawn up at her instigation and insistence will be critical to the conversation. .

One of the most memorable scenes in American cinema is in Paddy Chayefsky’s film, “Network.” Directed by Sidney Lumet, it features a sequence in which the news anchor, played by the late, great Peter Finch, unravels for all the world to see, live on network television.

Finch is consumed by anger at anything and everything – and he shouts his by now uncontrollable rage into the mike in front of him, with network executives looking on in disbelief. Finch’s fury – though maybe crazy – turns out to be contagious. It spreads to others, to ordinary citizens, who then do exactly as he tells them to do.

“You’ve got to get mad,” he screams. You’ve got to declare, “I’m a human being, God damn it! My life has value!”  And then he says to his viewing audience all across America, “I want you to get up now. I want you to go to the window and open it, and to stick your head out and yell, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

The exoneration of Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri was the match that lit the fire. The exoneration of Officer Daniel Panteleo in the chokehold death of Eric Garner in New York City was the fuel that spread the fire.

Many millions of Americans are by now mad as hell. Many thousands of Americans have by now followed Finch’s lead. They went to the window and opened it. Then they stuck their heads out and shouted loud and clear that they are mad as hell – and that they’re not going to take this anymore. Put directly, their, our, anger has congealed to the point where it will not go away until there is hard evidence of real change.