Blog

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..

Well, more precisely, once every four years – on the occasion of a presidential election. Exactly once every four years, our national obsession is not with leaders, but with followers, in this case with the American electorate.

Tomorrow is the exception to the general rule. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will be bit players – while the star of the show will be the American Voter. We the people will be poked, prodded, and polled at every turn, going into the voting booth and coming out; Democrats, Republicans, and Independents; old and young and black and white and and men and women – you get the picture..

It’s our moment in the sun, when anyone and everyone has the strongest possible interest in how we think and what we do – if only as it pertains to our vote.

So on the morrow enjoy that spotlight! It’s sure to be short-lived.

Not much blogging these days. I’m powerless – literally – in Sandy Land.

But for someone of my proclivities, this one’s irresistible. Impossible for me not to point out that the previously entirely intractable Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City has been obliged, for once,to retreat.

I take second place to none in my admiration for the Mayor’s many strengths. But the capacity for contriteness is not among them – nor is his ability to admit that it was remotely possible he was wrong. But this week was an exception. Hurricane Sandy brought millions to their knees – among them His Honor the Mayor.

Despite howls of protest, Bloomberg had originally insisted that notwithstanding the devastation wreaked by the storm, the iconic New York Marathon would go on as scheduled, November 4 .But when became blazingly clear that the death and destruction were too great, that to proceed as he had intended, would risk a rebellion against him such as he had never seen before, Bloomberg pulled back, changed his mind.

Well, to be precise, it wasn’t him exactly, it was his office. It was his office that did the painful deed for him, that announced the marathon was canceled.

For New York and New Jersey this has been a particularly painful week. For some though, there was satisfaction in seeing that when pushed, hard, by those below, Bloomberg was able to eat crow.,

Powerful they may be within their own realms, but when it comes to macroeconomics, even the most imposing CEO is powerless. No single CEO can do anything to change Washington to any meaningful degree. The nation’s top corporate leaders have been hapless and helpless in the face of a Congress and, yes, a President who have pushed us constantly closer to the fiscal cliff. Until now.

Now they finally got their act together – organized to urge Washington to get America’s economic house in order. The CEOs of more than 80 big-name companies joined to push Congress to reduce the federal deficit by increasing taxes as well as cutting spending. Together this band of mostly brothers issued a statement that was centrist in its tone, specific in some details, and organized around the recommendations of the widely praised but long ignored Simpson-Bowles Commission.

This is no revolutionary move. But it least it herds many of the nation’s top CEOs into a critical mass. Standing alone is tantamount to standing still. Only together do they have a prayer of making their voices heard, of actually affecting the national debate on deficit reduction. Of course their level of impact will depend on their level of aggressiveness and relentlessness. Unless they keep up the pressure loudly and clearly between now and the end of the year, their effort will have been in vain. For only the fiercest followers can lead leaders.

Of course

Asked yourself how Lance Armstrong’s armor was finally lanced? Asked yourself how it happened that cycling;s lying icon was finally felled?

Well, the answer’s plain to see in David Carr’s New York Times article titled, “Chasing Armstrong With the Truth” (10/29/12). Carr makes clear that it was all – and I do mean all! – fed-up followers who finally did the deed. As Carr put it,” This is a story of how a group of people at the low end of bicycle racing used the Web and social media to take back custody of their sport from powerful dopers and liars and their enablers in the media.”

Let’s be clear here: old media cravenly caved to the Armstrong myth. It was those on new media who created change – they are the heroes of this story. You will not know their names – Andy Shen, Alex Ostroy, and Dan Schmaltz. But it was they who blogged and blogged and blogged until word of Armstrong’s perfidy finally became gospel .

What weapons were in their arsenal? What allowed three nobodies to take on one Big Somebody? Try these: hard facts; the capacity to disseminate said facts,and the personal persistence that is the hallmark of any follower who morphs into a leader.

Change is not normally signaled by the stroke of a gong – but in this case it was. There was in fact a single set of events that gradually made it possible for suppressed and oppressed victims of sexual abuse to come out and speak out – the scandal that beset the Catholic Church.

The tipping point was January 2002, when the Boston Globe led with a headline, “Church Allowed Abuse by Priest for Years.” The article described how more than 130 persons had recently come forward with “horrific childhood tales” involving a former priest who had allegedly “fondled or raped” them over a thirty-year period. This single story set into motion a chain of events that tarnished the head of the Boston Archdiocese, Cardinal Bernard Law, and ensnared even the Pope, John Paul II. (Law was eventually forced by fed-up followers, primarily Catholic laity, to resign.)

It’s not too much to say that this particular scandal, which has since led to a slew of similar scandals in countries all over the world, changed the Catholic Church forever. The abuse itself, and then the persistent and pervasive attempts to cover it up to protect the church before the children, led over the last decade to 1) the diminution of institutional power (the church itself); 2) the devaluation of positional authority (the church hierarchy), and 3) the decline of personal influence (primarily papal).

Since then there has not been a torrent of related revelations – but there has been a trickle, and a steady trickle at that. Together they make clear that sexual predators are more ubiquitous and insidious a phenomenon than we had previously conceived, and that at least a partial solution to this widespread problem is transparency – victims who are empowered to come forward and tell the truth.

In the last week alone there were three related stories, each of which testifies to long years of silence, followed finally by a willingness to say what happened. First, Aaron Fisher, so-called “Victim Number One” in the trial of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, now describes in detail how he was abused by Sandusky beginning at age 12 and continuing for three years. Second, one of England’s best known television personalities, Jimmy Savile, now dead, was finally exposed as a long-term predator. The number of people who claim Savile assaulted them has grown from 200 to 300 in just the last week – and the scandal has reached deep into the bowels of the BBC, which had tried briefly to save Savile from posthumous humiliation by scotching a program suggesting a problem. Finally, the campus of Amherst College, one of the nation’s elite schools, was roiled when a woman came forth saying that she had been raped by a fellow student – a charge to which college officials apparently turned a blind eye and deaf ear.

What’s most interesting about the Amherst story – and the most telling of the temper of the times – is what’s happened since. The woman who claimed she was raped was willing not only to come forward but, more importantly, to sign her name to her complaint. Further, Amherst’s still relatively new president, Carolyn Martin, has changed college policies on sexual violence, and hired some experts trained to examine and adjudicate cases of this kind. Finally, students themselves are willing no longer to stay silent. Several women have banded together to create a web site that explores issues relating to sexual violence and misogyny more generally. They are hoping to stop the silence – to end once and for all campus crimes that go unpunished because they are unreported.