Blog

            Freedom House is a highly respected, non-profit research and advocacy organization focused on democracy and human rights. Each year it issues a report summarizing “Freedom in the World.” The report for 2022 was unequivocal – it was a warning that read in part as follows:

Global freedom faces a dire threat. Around the world the enemies of liberal democracy… are accelerating their attacks. Authoritarian regimes have become more effective at co-opting or circumventing the norms and institutions meant to support basic liberties, and at providing aid to others who wish to do this same…. The global order is nearing a tipping point, and if democracy’s defenders do not work together to help guarantee freedom for all people, the authoritarian model will prevail.

No one at Freedom House or anywhere else predicted that before 2022 was over three of the world’s most powerful and apparently secure authoritarian leaders would run into trouble. But they did, serious trouble. This is not for a moment to say any of the three are done and gone. Not by a long shot. But it is to point out that in the last several months Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, China’s President Xi Jinping, and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei each faced significant resistance to their rule. In each case followers who were supposed completely and indefinitely to succumb to their command refused.   

Most Ukrainians have resisted, many even risking their lives to fight against Putin’s unprovoked attack on their country. Some Chinese have rebelled against Xi’s unbridled attempt completely to control their lives ostensibly on account of Covid. And some Iranians have protested the oppressiveness of Khamenei’s regime, one that for three decades has silenced and suppressed them, especially women.

None of the three dictators has had much experience with dissent – which means that none know exactly how to respond or proceed. Because of their tyrannical leadership, and because of the length of their time in power, each now finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. Give an inch and the people will take a mile. Refuse to give even an inch and resistance will not shrink it will grow. In response to fear and loathing in Ukraine, Putin’s War is far larger and longer, and more brutal than any that Putin imagined. And in China and Iran while the resisters would go underground – they would though only to the naked eye disappear in response to police brutality – truth is that both Xi and Khamenei have already been nicked. Or maybe pricked. Or maybe pierced as one would an armor made of metal.

Impossible to know how this will all turn out. What is possible to know that each of the three leaders thought they had followers who would weakly and meekly follow. But they thought wrong.

One of the greatest television series ever is Succession. It centers on a leadership problem as old as human history – who will succeed the leader? Who can, who should, be the leader’s successor, especially if the leader is larger than life?

In Succession the leader is Logan Roy (played by the sensational Brian Cox), founder and chief executive officer of a global media empire, who is not only brilliant but dominant. So dominant his three most obvious successors – two sons and one daughter, each vying to succeed their father – effectively bow at his alter.

Succession capitalizes on a problem to which leadership experts have found no ready solution. One of the leaders’ most important tasks is to ensure continuity. To ensure that when they leave – either by accident or design, either suddenly or deliberately – they will be replaced by someone at least as competent as they. Given this, it’s remarkable how often it doesn’t happen, how often leaders fail to plan carefully, intelligently, for their exit.      

In some cases, the problem does not pertain. If the president of the United States must be replaced, there is a mechanism in place for replacement. There are however other countries that have no such provision. If, for example, the president of Russia had to be replaced, it’s not clear who would replace him. There would immediately be a scramble for power, probably a fight for power.

In the corporate world order is supposed to prevail. In publicly held companies are rules and regulations that pertain, intended to ensure a smooth transition. But given that politics, including corporate politics, is all about personality, the best laid plans are often mislaid, or at least waylaid.

Which is precisely what happened last week at Walt Disney Co. Bob Iger, one of the most highly regarded executives of our time, who stepped down as CEO two years ago, stepped back in as CEO immediately to take over from his hand-picked but demonstrably failed successor, Bob Chapek.   

I am not alone in suggesting the fiasco at Disney is as one expert put it, “the one black eye that Iger has.” The question is why. Why are leaders who are demonstrably good at apparently everything sometimes miserably bad at ensuring their own successful succession?

Iger is of course not the only example of a leader afflicted by this serious and sometimes even fatal flaw. Arguably the most famous case is General Electric’s Jack Welch. Welch, hailed not many years ago as the greatest chief executive officer of his generation, selected as his successor, Jeffrey Immelt. Immelt, in turn, presided over what became in time the near total downfall of one of America’s most iconic companies.

What then goes on here? What’s the matter with leaders like Welch and Iger – so extraordinarily capable in virtually all areas, so miserably incapable in this one?  Here three explanations for failed successions:

• The leader’s professional reluctance to pay the issue the requisite attention. Leaders are fixated on their successes in the present – not the successes of their successors in the future.
• The leader’s psychological inability to acknowledge they are replaceable. Not to speak of being replaced by someone as good as or, heaven forefend, better than they.
• The leader’s spiritual refusal to bow to death. Not death literally – but death metaphorically. Very strong leaders identify very strongly with their roles – they are leaders first and foremost. The idea that one day they will be leaders no longer is difficult if not impossible to accept – it’s a certain kind of death.

To these problems are no easy solutions. They are problems in the human condition to which leaders – especially strong leaders of extended duration – are vulnerable. This means it’s up to those around them to ensure they are replaced by their equals – or by those better than they.

Poor leaders. Poor leaders of liberal democracies. They don’t get no respect.

While I’ve been writing about this for years, it struck me again today, as I was listening to The Economist podcast which had a segment about Liz Truss. It’s impossible to argue that she, the fledgling Prime Minister of Great Britain, has performed well. She has not. However, the Economist pundit who was the expert took it a step further. He claimed that even now, just weeks after she took office (September 6^th), her “political and economic credibility” were “shot.” “Shot” as in she had none left, not even a smidgeon.  

To be clear, this was just one man’s opinion. Obviously there are others who hold different views. But The Economist is among the most respected of all British publications. Its experts are taken seriously even when the implication is dire – that soon after Truss moved into 10 Downing Street she better prepare to move out.

The point of this piece is not, however, about how failed a leader already is the Prime Minister. It’s the historical trajectory to which I point. The following late 20^th and early 21^st sequence speaks for itself. In order, beginning in 1979.

• Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for approximately eleven years.
• John Major was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for approximately seven years.
• Tony Blair was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for approximately ten years.
• Gordon Brown was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for approximately three years.
• David Cameron was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for approximately 6 years.
• Theresa May was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for approximately three years.
• Boris Johnson was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for approximately two years.
• Liz Truss has been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for approximately one month – but already her credibility is “shot” and already her poll numbers are mortifying. Hard to lead in such a circumstance. Or is it impossible?    

They came, as revolutionists usually do, seemingly out of nowhere. Something happens, a single thing, and suddenly the world is afire. In the case of Iran, that single thing was the death of a single woman in the custody of Iran’s so-called morality police. Her offense? Allegedly wearing her hijab improperly, or in a way the authorities deemed offensive.  

While revolutions are lit by one lone match, their pyre is way high. Revolutions can only even hope to succeed if they are fueled by a list of grievances that is very old, very long, and very deeply felt.   

So far of course the Iranian authorities have beat back, literally, and figuratively, the protesters. However, the demonstrations in Iran continue – and they continue to be led by women and girls. This is by no means the only wave of protests since the Islamic Republic was established in 1979. But even now it is arguably the most striking. Even now the protests have been relatively widespread and long lasting and, given how oppressed are women in Iran, to see them in the streets defying the authorities is as heartening as frightening.

Make no mistake about it. The regime has reacted harshly, even brutally to those at the forefront of this movement. Women of different ages have been arrested and beaten, and some have been killed. Journalists, meanwhile, those reporting on what’s happening, have been imprisoned by the dozens.

So far, participants in the protests have been, as I use the word, followers not leaders. They have no power, no authority, and up to now at least, insufficient influence to create meaningful change. But, if they turn not out to be successful revolutionists, not to bring down the regime they despise, they will almost certainly be foot soldiers in the slow, dreadfully difficult march from theocracy to democracy.

Followers always matter. They especially matter when they do something as opposed to nothing.  

In my recent book, The Enablers: How Team Trump Flunked the Pandemic and Failed America, I discussed at some length Senator Mitch McConnell. But I mentioned his wife, Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation for most of Donald Trump’s presidency, only briefly, as she was not involved in management of the pandemic. Still, if McConnell was among the most consequential of Trump’s enablers, his wife played a prominent part in sustaining his administration – which means that she as well as he was an enabler. (Chao resigned her post only weeks before Trump left office, after what she called the “traumatic and deeply troubling event” – the January 6^th attack on the U. S. Capitol.)

It’s impossible to discuss the enablement of President Trump at any point during his tenure without referencing the man who for the duration was Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. McConnell never in the least liked Trump – in style and substance they were poles apart. But McConnell clearly considered it in his political and ideological self-interest to aid and abet the president, and to protect him at every turn.

To say this this enablement continued after Trump left the White House is to say the obvious. So far as McConnell is concerned Trump out of office is like Trump in office – precious material constantly and carefully to be safeguarded.

This truism appears to hold even despite all the slings and arrows shot by Trump at McConnell – and even despite what was widely seen as a racist slur by Trump against McConnell’s wife. Of course, Chao is not exactly meek and mild. She herself could have come out and lacerated the former president for saying that her husband has a “DEATH WISH” because occasionally he voted for bills supported by Democrats. And she herself could have come out and lacerated the former president for referring to her as McConnell’s “China loving wife, Coco Chow.” But neither she nor he uttered a word in response to Trump’s foul language, abhorrent insult, and dangerous rhetoric. Instead, they did what they have done for years. They kept their heads down and said nothing.   

Mitch and Elaine are a power couple – but only on the surface. Beneath is a different species entirely. Beneath are cowards who cower. Beneath is a couple that is timorous and pusillanimous, fearful, and fainthearted. They are, both Mitch and Elaine, so desperate to remain relevant that they continue to enable a man who abuses them. Senator McConnell and Secretary Chao are not leaders. They are followers who are complicit in bad leadership getting worse.

The syndrome is by now familiar, foretold in my book, The End of Leadership, which came out in 2012. Since then, the evidence is constant, if complicated. This is not to say that followers – people without obvious sources of power, authority, and influence – invariably triumph over their leaders in, for example, the United States. Not by a long shot. But it is to say that in general leaders – defined here as people in positions of authority – have a hard time exercising the authority that putatively is theirs.

This has implications that are major not minor, and they are not only in theory, but they are also in practice. Among the other consequences, most leaders are aware of how relations between leaders and followers have changed during the last decade. Which means they are far more careful now than they used to be about exerting the power and authority that technically is theirs – for they know full well they risk being overthrown if they are too heavy-handed.

This appears to be precisely what happened in recent months at New York University. The school terminated its contractual relationship with a highly eminent professor of organic chemistry, Maitland Jones, Jr. Why? Because students did not want him to be their instructor. Because students said his course – considered by many a gateway to medical school – was too hard. Because 82 of his 350 students signed a petition against him. Because other conciliatory overtures made by the school to the students did not mollify them.

As the story was reported – by among other outlets the New York Times – there was modest blame on both sides. That is, the professor’s and his employer’s. The details do not, however, concern us here, whereas the overarching point does. Here is how the Times summarized it: “The entire controversy seems to illustrate a sea change in teaching, from an era when professors set the bar and expected the class to meet it, to the current, more supportive, student-centered approach.”

This “sea change in teaching” is of course representative of a sea change in the U. S. more generally. It is a sea change in the dynamic between leaders (professors) and followers (students). And, since everything is connected to everything else, it is also about a sea change in standards – standards for leaders.

Professor Maitland is old school. He has been an outstanding scholar and, judging by his several awards for teaching, also a good or even a very good instructor. But the days when he could count on being respected for his exceptional accomplishments are over. Leadership remains an occupation not a profession. Character is considered secondary or tertiary, not primary. And expertise and experience count for little or nothing as opposed to nearly everything. If you don’t think there’s a connection between the sad, sordid candidacy of Herschel Walker, Republican candidate for Senate from the state of Georgia, and what happened to Professor Maitland, think again.

Why the quote marks around “everything is connected to everything else”? Because I’m quoting … myself. I must have said it millions of times when teaching leadership and followership.

Examples: Leaders are connected to followers. Past is connected to the present. Past and present are connected to the future. What people think is connected to how people behave.  Social media are connected to political performance. Increasing freedoms are connected to growing constraints. Markets in Great Britain are connected to markets in the United States. What Vladimir Putin does is connected to what Xi Jinping says. What Xi Jinping says is connected to what Nancy Pelosi does. What Nancy Pelosi does is connected to American public opinion. And so on.

“Everything is connected to everything else” came to mind when reading Max Fisher’s New York Times column of a couple of days ago, titled, “Power of the Protest is Waning Worldwide.”* Fisher’s piece is obviously about relations between leaders and followers – about relations between those with power and authority and those without.

Based on research conducted by Harvard political scientist Erica Chenowith, Fisher writes about how the odds of success of political protests – such as the one currently in Iran led by women – have in recent years sharply declined. Whereas just twenty years ago these sorts of movements succeeded two in three times, now that success rate has been halved, to one in three. Put somewhat differently, as followers have become more demanding, leaders have become more controlling. The increase in the number of autocracies in the world is connected, directly, to the increase in the number of democracies in the world or, more precisely, to the increase in the number of democratic demands. Demands for rights, whether the rights of women in Tehran or transgenders in Chicago.

Bearing in mind that everything is connected to everything else, the reasons why the power of the protest is, at least for the moment, waning, are familiar: increased polarization which means people power is less likely to be a mass movement with widespread support; the impact of social media which are good at sending the message but bad at supporting the message with experienced leadership and effective organization; and a learning curve for autocracies hellbent on suppression – that is, they have learned to use to internet to scare people into silence, into obedience.

Given the present is connected to the past no surprise that more than a half century after the various rights revolutions – such as civil rights, women’s rights, gay and lesbian rights – is a backlash. A backlash represented by political leaders such as Donald Trump, Viktor Orban, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Jair Bolsonaro, hellbent on putting back into the box that which was let out of the box. Followers who refuse to follow.    

   ———————————————–

 *https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/30/world/middleeast/iran-protests-haiti-russia-china.html 

Most leaders become leaders when they are of a certain age – when they are not young. Of course, there are exceptions to the general rule, but they are just that, exceptions.  Even Emmanuel Macron, seen as young when he became president of France, was not a kid. He was 39. Moreover, many of the rest are positively elderly, Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden (both are over 75) are prime examples, as are JPMorgan’s CEO, Jamie Dimon and Target’s Brian Cornell (both are over 60), not to speak of Berkshire Hathaway’s geriatric if still iconic CEO, Warren Buffett (he is over 90).

Why does this matter?  Is it ageist even to suggest that it does? Maybe. But common sense suggests that when leaders are older as opposed to younger, when they are well into or even past middle age, getting them to change their ways is more difficult and less likely. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks – especially if the old dog has been top dog for a very long time.

Which brings me to Russian President, Vladimir Putin. He is 69. And, he has been president or prime minister of Russia for over 20 years. By every measure then he qualifies as an old dog – which suggests that he is set in his ways, that his past will forever be his prologue.

Assuming this logic applies, what is it that we in the West should best remember, place front and center? That he does not hesitate to be barbaric. That he does not hesitate to take risks. That he does not hesitate to play dirty. That he does not hesitate to be aggressive. That he does not hesitate to exercise power. That he does not hesitate to control. That he does not hesitate to remain in the game. That he plays to win – no matter the cost.

It’s possible of course that as it pertains to Ukraine Putin will change.  But given who he is, coupled with his longevity – both his advanced age and the length of his time in office – I wouldn’t bet on it. Does this have implications not just for the people of Ukraine but for people the world over? That I would bet on.

I’ve posted pieces about Russian President Vladimir Putin for almost a decade – usually under the title, “Putin Patrol.”

Why, I’ve wondered, my particular interest in him, given it began when he was just another Russian leader – not that impressive, not that different from most of his predecessors, not that distinguishable from other strongmen with whom the West was preoccupied. Perhaps it was just that he was leader of Russia, formerly of the Soviet Union, the country that in my lifetime has been the United States’ most obvious if not always most onerous adversary.

Now though is different. Now Putin has become an obsession. Now Putin is not just my obsession but everyone else’s – everyone everywhere in the world who is remotely aware of what’s happening in the international system.

We are fixated on what Putin thinks and why. We are obsessed with everything he says and everything he does. We worry about him staying sane and grasping that actions have consequences. We are convinced that cornering him is dangerous – we are equally convinced that he must be cornered.

But…even the best and brightest are reduced to reading tea leaves. This morning the distinguished foreign policy experts, David Ignatius (Washington Post) and Ed Luce (Financial Times), were together on television. Predictably they spoke about Putin. But not a single syllable they said – nothing, nada, zilch – was new or different. Either informative or enlightening. Because they have no idea what Putin will do in the future, they simply reiterated what we already know about him from the past.   

This is not to say that we have nothing to learn, or to relearn, from this case. We do. Here ten leadership lessons drawn so far from Putin’s War.

1. Leaders matter. But they matter more in some cases than in others.
2. Leaders matter a lot when they have great power and high authority.
3. Leaders matter a lot more when they have great power and high authority and when they lead countries or companies that are strong as opposed to weak.
4. Leaders matter most when they 1) have great power and high authority; 2) when they have great power and high authority in countries or companies that are strong as opposed to weak; and 3) when power is centralized.
5. Centralized power is power that is dangerous. Decision making tends much more often to be flawed and implementations of decisions much more often to be poor.
6. Followers matter. But they matter more in some cases than others.
7. Followers matter more when they do something as opposed to when they do nothing.
8. Followers matter however even when they do nothing. When followers do nothing, they support the status quo – they support the leader who already is in place.
9. Past is prologue. Anyone who has watched Putin over the years and is aware of how strongmen work, could have predicted that he would do what he did. That he would either invade Ukraine or try in another way to take a bite out of its hide. After all, he already took a bite, a big bite, in 2014, when he seized Crimea. But when he swallowed it whole what was the response? How did NATO and the European Union react? With piddling peeps of protest.
10. Dictators usually fall. I predict that Putin will fall, though like every other so-called expert I have no idea when or how. Still, I am persuaded that Putin’s decision on February 24, 2022 to invade Ukraine will be the death of his dictatorship. Literally or figuratively.