Blog

One of my overarching arguments is that, in general, leaders are weaker than they used to be and followers stronger. This seems to me to be so easy to see in politics, it’s little short of obvious. But, arguably, it’s less obvious in business. After all, for a constellation of reasons, strikes, boycotts, protests and the like are less frequent than at other points in history, certainly in the U. S. So, since employees at least seem on the surface to be relatively quiescent, leaders seem on the surface to be relatively secure.

But, as I wrote in the current issue of The European Business Review (EBR), while examples of encroachment by followers on leaders in the corporate realm may be less apparent, they are no less real.* Like their public sector counterparts, private sector leaders and managers are obliged in this second decade of the 21st century to tend to their various followers, stakeholders, in ways that historically are unprecedented.

In my particular parlance, “stakeholders are all those whom leaders need to align if they are to accomplish what they want and intend.” In this category are a range of players including, in addition to employees, shareholders, customers, competitors, and activists. As I put it in EBR, “Never before were CEOs told (implicitly or explicitly) to be so considered and considerate of their different stakeholders – followers. Never before were CEOs tasked with managing the web, social media, and other (present and future) mobile and interactive communications and information technologies. Never before were CEOs instructed to ‘orchestrate co-creative engagement’ … and to ‘support a participatory culture.’” Never before, in short, were so many corporate leaders rendered so anxious by so many cautions concerning corporate followers.

If you look – that is, if you train your lens not on leaders, but on followers, on those who once went meekly along – you’ll see what I mean. CEOs are more vulnerable than before, particularly perhaps to big shareholders, institutional investors, who, as Bloomberg Businessweek put it, had long been “dutiful supporters of management,” but who now “aren’t keeping quiet anymore.” (11/26-12/2)

Even when things are good, investors and analysts are at CEOs in new and different ways, demanding their time and attention, insisting they explain themselves and defend whatever their decisions. According to the Wall Street Journal, C-level executives are attending 64% more private investor meetings than they did just one year ago. Why? Because they feel they “cannot afford to decline a meeting request.” ** Moreover, when things are bad, the pressure on CEOs is that much greater. When WellPoint missed analysts’ earning estimates for the second time in three quarters, a group of investors promptly demanded the ouster of CEO, Angela Braly.

Boards have gotten into the act as well. When as it became clear that Groupon was in trouble, the pressure on founder and CEO Andrew Mason was on. Apparently the board had no compunctions about signaling its willingness to shift Mason’s role, even potentially to replace him. This was in spite of the fact that as Groupon’s founder, Mason and his company were until now one and the same.

Whatever the corporate veneer, beneath it lurk roiling waters, with leaders vulnerable to changing cultures and technologies in business just as they are in politics. As Harvard Business School professor Rakesh Khurana recently put it, “We’re seeing a radical transformation in corporate control and the relationship between management, directors, and investors. It used to be shareholders pushing against boards who were buffering the CEOs. But now investors are telling directors who should be the CEO and how management should run the company.”

———————————————–
*November-December issue.
** Leslie Kwoh, “Investors Demand CEO Face Time,” 11/28.

Follow up to blog of November 24th – “Works in Progress.”

Those elections last Sunday in Catalonia – that region of Spain of which Barcelona is capital – testified yet again to the decline in power of leaders and the rise in power of followers,

The leader of the ruling party, Artur Mas, who had pushed for a referendum for Catalan independence, suffered a setback. He political position was weakened because in the regional parliament his party lost 12 seats.

But, lest you think this means Catalans voted down the idea of separation from Spain, think again. Rather than handing Mas a victory on this issue, they rejected him personally and politically, opting instead to vote for a party on the left that similarly supports sovereign rights.

The bottom line? Mas himself was publicly humiliated even as his primary policy preference gained steam.

I gave a talk this week in Barcelona. Afterwards a man came up to me – I thought to praise the perspicacity of my presentation. Instead he asked an entirely irrelevant question, “Why do you hate Hillary Clinton?” “What?” I replied, surprised. “Where did you get that idea?” His response, “From a blog you wrote in 2008.”

Well, dear reader, I have no idea what he was talking about – not which blog or what was the point I made at the time. Still, because when one woman takes on another it can make an indelible impression, I am reluctant to do what I am about to do. I am once again naming Hillary Clinton Lame Leader of the Week – once again for the same reason.

Some of you will recall that back in September I named Clinton Lame Leader of the Week because, as I wrote then, Clinton’s “culpability” in the matter of Benghazi “had been sidestepped – both by her and by her natural allies.”

Now here we are, some ten weeks later, and the question of how and why Clinton has been able to continue to hide on this issue, even as it became chronic and contentious beyond anyone’s early imaginings, remains a mystery. What is not in the least uncertain is that her absence from the discussion has become evasive to the point of dereliction.

Who did and said exactly what just before and after the lethal attack on the American Mission in Benghazi in which four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. were killed on September 11th has become a fixation. Not only has U. N. Ambassador Susan Rice been fed, over and over again, into the meat grinder that is partisan politics, but the talking points that are at the center of the discussion have overshadowed those that should have been. They include but are not limited to questions like these:

• Were requests for greater security for diplomats in Libya ignored?
• Even if Al Qaeda in Pakistan has been decimated, how do terrorists elsewhere threaten Americans?
• How can and should diplomacy be conducted in the constant chaos that constitutes the current Middle East? (Scott Shane, NYT, 11/29.)

Even though she has said she will resign when Barack Obama’s first term as president has concluded, for now Hillary Clinton remains Secretary of State. As such it has been – or, better, should have been – her duty to weigh in regularly and reliably on all the issues surfaced by the Benghazi tragedy. Instead Clinton has been missing in action, and largely silent on this issue in particular.

Clearly this has been, for obvious political reasons, her preference. It is less clear is why the president has let her so easily off the hook, and why the press has given her a similar pass.

In matters of leadership and followership, some changes are so subtle they elude detection. But, then, there are other changes that are nothing if not screamingly obvious.

One such in the second category is what’s happened in Egypt in the last week – since Mohammed Morsi’s ham-handed power grab.

If there’s a more vivid recent example of the power of followers, it does not come immediately to mind. What’s remarkable is that the utterly predictable response to Morsi’s sneak attack was not foretold by Morsi himself.

Whether Morsi will ever again be trusted by anyone other than his own constituents is now uncertain, at best. A crying shame! For given the tensions in and around states including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, and, yes, Palestine, and given the implosion that now is Syria, it’s painful to think yet another Middle Eastern leader was so totally oblivious to the power of the follower.

Change takes time. Hardly ever does it happen overnight – almost always it happens over a period of months or even years. Issues need either to ripen naturally, to come gradually to the forefront of our collective attention. Or there is an outside intervention of some sort, a leader, say, or a fierce group of followers, or an unanticipated event, in which case change is created more hastily but, nearly never in the blink of an eye.

And so it happened that three stories I covered in this space previously made headlines again this Thanksgiving week.

First is what turned out an ongoing saga – the saga of Twinkies. In my most recent blog I wrote that Hostess Brands (manufacturer of Twinkies) bit the dust because of bad leadership, because the leaders of the company and the leaders of the baker’s union could not reach agreement. Among the many consequences of the failure to compromise was that most of Hostess’s thousands of employees were slated to be laid off.

Ride to the rescue the law! Well, maybe. The ultimate outcome remains to be determined. Still, when bankruptcy judge Robert Drain was charged with closing the company, he balked. Instead he asked both sides to join him for a mediation, in which he would try to broker a new contract. Judge Drain explained himself in court, “My desire to do this is prompted primarily by the potential loss of over 18,000 jobs.” Stay tuned.

Second are tomorrow’s regional elections in Catalonia. This is a story of which most Americans remain unaware. But it is an important one that in theory at least presents a threat to the integrity of Spain, which in turn presents a threat (yet another!) to the integrity of the European Union. Catalans – Barcelona is their capital – have long been of two minds about the central government in Madrid. On the one hand they have harbored, for decades, centuries, separatist sentiments, which surface when times are tough – like now. On the other hand Catalonia has never been independent. In fact, in 1978 Catalans voted overwhelmingly to support Spain’s new democratic constitution. Therefore tomorrow’s vote – which is to decide if a referendum on Catalan independence should be held in 2014 – is critical. Given the temper of the times – that is, given the temper of followers (voters) who want what they want now – I would not be surprised if Catalans vote yes on the referendum as opposed to no. Not that Spain would ever grant them independence…. Not that they would know what to do with independence if ever it were secured….

Third is the story of Wal-mart – that chronic chronicle of management against labor. For years Wal-mart has successfully fought off repeated efforts by workers to organize. This has not stopped various Davids from taking on the Goliath that is the nation’s largest employer and retailer. Sometimes the arrow in their quiver was the law. Sometimes it was rabble-rousing, protests, which was the case this Thanksgiving weekend. For weeks OUR Walmart, a union-back group trying to engage and enlist Wal-mart workers, had been threatening to protest on Black Friday, one of the biggest shopping days of the year. In fact OUR Walmart so thoroughly rattled the company that just before the holiday, for the first time in a decade it filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

If the filing was a warning shot – a warning to employees that they better not protest – it accomplished what it intended. Notwithstanding predictions by the insurgents that they would disrupt shopping at Wal-mart stores nationwide, the evidence a day later is that they failed to meet their goal. Wal-mart reported record sales and its stock went up yesterday, not down. To be sure, OUR Wal-mart claimed a victory of sorts, insisting that there were 1,000 different protests in some 46 different states. But the numbers were small, and their successes most modest.

Still, this story, like most in which followers take on leaders, is a work in progress. Whatever the short term outcome, Wal-mart is on long-term notice. Management is monitored by labor – which is precisely why the former felt it had better file a formal complaint against the latter.

In 2004 I wrote a book titled as above – Bad Leadership. I wrote it because I could not understand why the leadership industry was so obsessed with developing good leaders, when stopping or at least slowing bad leaders seemed every bit as daunting a problem. “Why,” I asked, “do we tend toward utopianism on matters relating to the importance of power and authority in human affairs? How did the word ‘leadership’ come to be synonymous with good leadership? Why are we afraid to acknowledge, much less admit to, the dark side.”? These are questions I posed then – these are questions I pose now.

Bad leadership and bad followership – they are indivisible – are endemic to the human condition. Moreover there is not the slightest sign – not withstanding the still burgeoning leadership industry – this is about the change.

Withal, there are some moments in time when bad leadership seems particularly prevalent, when it seems to smack us in the face, over and over again. These last several days have been such a moment. In the last week has been a spate of stories that remind us how bad leadership – whether bad as in “unethical” or bad as in “incompetent” – remains a hill we have not yet even begun to climb.

Arguably, for Americans anyway, the worst of these has been the so-called “Petraeus Affair.” Not because we are, or should be, stunned that a heretofore iconic general in the U. S. Army had a relationship with a woman other than his wife, or even that he might have done so while serving as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Rather it is that he, and his successor, Marine General John Allen, who has been at least slightly tarnished by the same brush, have in a single stroke blemished the reputation of the American military.

Why does this matter so much? Why would I argue that this is yet another sign of “the end of leadership”? It is because up to now the military has been one of the few, arguably the only, institution in America whose reputation remained into the 21st century relatively clean and pure. It might not seem fair to blight an entire organization because a couple of leaders were pushed from their perch. But these were no ordinary leaders – they were among the highest ranking in the American military. And so it came to pass, as the cover of Time made clear, that this became a story not only about David Petraeus, but about how his “Fall Exposed a System Failure at the Highest Levels of National Security.” (11/26.)

In fact, even the conduct of our two most recent wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, is now being scrutinized in new and different ways. Would the New York Times have published this Op Ed piece by Thomas Ricks even a couple of weeks ago? It’s titled “Questioning the Brass” and makes the following claim: “Our generals actually bear much of the blame for the mistakes in the wars. They especially failed to understand the conflicts they were fighting – and then failed to adjust their strategies to the situations they faced so that they might fight more effectively.” (11/12.) And would the Times have followed up Ricks’s piece with yet another one, just a few days later, this one by Lucian Truscott IV, that so directly attacks the only recently revered Petraeus? “The thing he learned to do better than anything else was present the image of The Man You Turn To When Things Get Tough…. He was so good at it that he conned the news media into thinking he was the most remarkable general officer in the last 40 years, and, by playing hard to get, he conned the political establishment into thinking that he could morph into Ike Part Deux …. The problem was that he hadn’t led his own Army to win anything even approximating a victory in either Iraq or Afghanistan”[

But of course my own overarching point is not about Petraeus or the military per se. It is about how bad leadership is ubiquitous – and about how our senses are serially saturated with stories of how those on high fall down on the job.

• Martha Stewart described as a “brand icon in need of some oversight.” (NYT, 11/9/12.) Turns out that she continues to collect “lavish multimillion-dollar compensation and perks,” while her company “teeters under the weight of huge losses.” James Stewart paints a picture of woman whose greed now overwhelms her ability to lead.
• Former Governor of the State of New Jersey, and former CEO of MF Global, Jon Corzine, blamed by a congressional committee for his abject failure to prevent the collapse of his company. He was charged with having created an “authoritarian” atmosphere, which inevitably exposed the company to risks it was “ill-equipped” to handle. Concluded the committee: “Choices made by Jon Corzine during his tenure as chairman and CEO sealed MF Global’s fate.”
• British Petroleum agreed to pay $4.5 billion in fines and other penalties, and to plead guilty to 14 criminal charges related to the deadly rig explosion two years ago in the Gulf of Mexico. More to the point, remarkably, atypically, a few individuals were actually held personally responsible for what went wrong. Three men, all on BP’s payroll and all closely associated with the disaster, were indicted on manslaughter charges relating to the deaths of 11 fellow workers. Key here is the distinction between an abstraction, holding an institution accountable, and a reality, holding an individual accountable.
• Clever leaders ensnared in traps of their own making – for example, Steven Sinofsky, second in command at Microsoft, out from one day to the next, reputedly because he was appallingly abrasive; and John Brock, CEO of Coca-Cola Enterprises, embarrassed because his wife Mary was suspected of abusing the use of Coke’s corporate jets.
• King Abdullah II of Jordan faced with violent protests in response to his government’s announcement that fuel prices would be raised. While Abdullah’s monarchy does not appear in immediate jeopardy, this was nonetheless an unparalleled show of anger directed at him and his kingdom. For the first time, protesters called for an end to his rule.
• Wal-Mart uncovered evidence that violations of a federal anti-bribery statute extended beyond Mexico, the original target of its internal investigation. As a result, said investigation has been extended to China, India, and Brazil.
• Ikea, the Swedish company known worldwide for its cheap but somewhat stylish furniture, was forced publicly to admit that in the 1980s it had knowingly used political prisoners in the former East Germany to keep its labor costs low. Accusations against the company started to appear in German and Swedish media about a year ago. Now that they have been confirmed, victims will be redoubling their efforts to be compensated.
• Lockheed’s incoming CEO, Christopher Kubasik, was ousted even before he could take over. Why? Because he violated Lockheed’s code of ethics by engaging in a “lengthy, close personal relationship” with a subordinate. Sound familiar? So does this. Mr. Kubasik said in a statement, “I regret that my conduct in this matter did not meet the standards to which I have always held myself.”
• George Entwistle, former director general of the BBC, left his job in the wake of a decades-old sexual abuse scandal, and several other executives were obliged to step aside as well. So far Mark Thompson, another former director general, whose hands are other than completely clean in this matter, remains in line imminently to take over as CEO of the New York Times Company.
• Labor talks collapsed – and Hostess Brands bit the dust. The 85 year-old company, which gave us national treasures including Twinkies and Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread, had declared bankruptcy in January, and this week it folded. More specifically, the breaking point was irreconcilable conflict between leaders of Hostess and leaders of the baker’s union. Because they could not be resolved the company went out of business – which means the large majority of its 18,500 employees will be laid off.
• There was renewed military strife in Gaza, between Israel and Hamas. On this particular subject, no more need be said, at least not here, not now.

One last thing – a final question. Can you tell me why this dreadful, sometimes even lethal, phenomenon, bad leadership, remains outside the purview of the leadership industry, outside the purview of leadership scholarship?

Ever since Tim Cook took over as CEO of Apple from the iconic Steve Jobs, it was evident that he, Cook, understood one big thing. He was not the iconic Steve Jobs. Since Cook could never hope to clone his brilliant predecessor, he would have to separate himself, and go on to forge his own identity as chief of Apple.

Arguably there is one domain in which this work has been done with particular care and deliberation – that of the follower. I am thinking of employees especially,, who either directly or indirectly, either at home or abroad, work for Apple.

This was first made apparent last January, when Cook was quick to respond to labor unrest at Foxconn, a major maker of Apple products located in China. Foxconn’s problems have by no means been solved . But, at least, Cook was quick to pay attention.

Moreover now it’s apparent that Cook is determined to do the same at home, at Apple headquarters in Cupertino, California. Whereas Jobs openly disdained the perks and niceties that gladden the hearts of employees, Cook has made a point of providing them with some of what they want. Recent benefits to Apple people include a greater degree of autonomy, that is, freedom to work on what they want when they want; discounts on Apple products; and a program to match charitable giving. Cook also is demonstrably nicer to those who work for him than generally was Jobs Cook goes out of his way to publicly praise their work – nearly unheard of during the previous reign.

Jobs got away with intermittent bad behavior because he was a genuine genius, On the assumption that whatever his various capacities, genuine genius is not among them, Tim Cook is playing it smart. He is a leader in full, which translates into a leader in tune with his followers.

According to the article in the Wall Street Journal under the above headline, the paper was given “rare access” to how this network of prostitutes operates. (11/10/12.)

It is not, however, the details that concern us here – but rather the overarching principle. What’s remarkable is that in this most conservative, most regressive, most feudal of societies – certainly so far as women are concerned – the apparently utterly powerless have found a way to exercise at least some power. They organized. They banded together only recently, and their network obviously is informal rather than formal. But their numbers are impressive, and they have clearly found they have more clout standing together than they could possibly have standing alone.

It’s the simplest possible principle – based on the power of numbers. But, though we have seen it work over and over again throughout human history, it somehow remains elusive. It is, apparently, difficult first for people first to see what they might achieve if they organize, and second for people to have the guts actually to do it.

Remember Occupy Wall Street? Remember how quickly it fell apart for lack of will? All the more impressive then that on the streets of Kabul, of all places, sex workers have got it together to establish a self-help network they claim is some 10,000 members strong (6,000 female; 4,000 male). There’s a lesson in this, or, better, a reminder, of what is to be done when the situation seems, if only on the surface, to be hopeless.

As regular readers of this blog know by now, it has several recurring themes. One of these is the ways in which at least some of the time, the law rides to the rescue. It speaks for followers first by pursuing bad leaders and then by prosecuting them – in a court of law.

Had the last week or two not be so full of sound and fury – Hurricane Sandy, the presidential election, not to speak of Petreus unzipped – the story of Graham Spanier would have got more attention. Spanier is the former president of Pennsylvania State University, who last week was charged with conspiring to cover up child abuse allegations against his long-time football coach, Jerry Sandusky. In brief, now that Sandusky has been convicted on 45 counts of molestation and put away for life, the long arm of the law has reached out to try to nail those up top, whose interest was in protecting him as opposed to the general welfare.

The parallels between this case and that of the Catholic Church are striking. Both the Church and the University had a vested interest in stasis rather than in change, in business as usual rather than risking disruption and diminution. The Church hierarchy was hell bent on securing its religious authority. The University was hell bent on securing its equally sacred status in Division I college athletics – which, it is widely agreed, has become a “frantic, money-oriented” enterprise that “defies responsibility and dominates the structure of big-time football and basketball.”*

But, in cases of child molestation, the law is much more aggressive now than once it was. A decade ago it played a central role in finally building a case against the Boston Archdiocese, so that Pope John Paul II was ultimately obliged to remove to Rome the resident Cardinal, Bernard Law. And now, in 2012, it is charging Penn State’s erstwhile president with, in addition to conspiracy, failure to report a crime, obstruction of justice, perjury, and endangering the welfare of children. Each count is punishable by up to seven years in prison.

In the old days, Spanier would have got away with doing nothing when he should’ve been doing something. He never would have been prosecuted for being a Bystander. But the old days are no longer. On the matter of child abuse, the law has become more dependably the voice of the people.

* The quote is from the 2012 report of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. I am grateful to John Hargrove for his assist with this story.

What?! The UNITED States of America? Who said?

Try these numbers on for size:

— 55% of women voted for Obama; only 44% for Romney
— 59% of whites voted for Romney; only 39% for Obama
— 71% of Latinos voted for Obama; only 27% for Romney
— 76% of gay, lesbian and bisexuals voted for Obama; only 22 % for Romney
— 60% of those aged 18-29 voted for Obama; only 37% for Romney
— 56% of those aged 65 and older voted for Romney; only 44% for Obama
— As to those voters who never attend any church of any kind, well, 62% of them preferred Obama; a mere 34% opted for Romney.

Let’s get real here. For all the soaring rhetoric about uniting the American people, the truth is this election confirmed the conventional wisdom. Americans are a people divided. Not hopelessly, irrevocably split – but seriously split.

For Obama this means he’s got his work cut out for him – so what else is new?

Here’s what’s new: a visceral sense of how deep the hole in which is mired the Republican Party. The seriously skewed Latino vote will necessarily give pause. But it’s that 18-29 year old demographic that presents Republicans with their greatest challenge. Unless they adapt to attract the young, their party will wither at the national level..