Blog

The crisis in Europe has been going on for weeks. Nevertheless, it seems somehow unreal. As if it cannot be possible the clock is being turned back to the height of the Cold War – or even to the last global hot war, to World War II.

Though it is not familiar to most Americans, Ukraine was at the center of European politics for most of the 20^th century.  In the 1930s it was the site of one of the most calamitous famines in modern history. (Courtesy of Stalin.) In the 1940s it was the heart of the bloodletting during the Second World War. (Courtesy of Stalin – and Hitler.) And in the 1990s when communism collapsed and the Soviet Union fell, it was the Soviet Socialist Republic whose loss was most keenly felt by Russian nationalists.

Nor did Russian fixation on Ukraine end there. In 2014 President Vladimir Putin stole from it the Crimea; since then Russian troops have strayed into its Eastern flank. And now Russia appears to be preparing for a major invasion, even, possibly, into Ukraine’s capital, Kiev.  

In recent weeks nothing has so preoccupied the West’s foreign policy establishment as the question of Putin’s motives for destabilizing Europe. The answers are several – to wit what I wrote on January 5^th, in my post titled, “Leaders of the Year – The Autocrats.” Putin is making trouble on Russia’s Western flank 1) because he longs to restore key parts of the old Soviet Empire; 2) because he thinks he can shore up his position at home by adventurism abroad; 3) because he wants to prove his manhood vis-à-vis the United States; 4) because he wants to prove his manhood vis-à-vis the European Union; 5) because he wants to prove his manhood vis-à-vis NATO; 6) because he wants to prove his manhood vis-à-vis Xi Jinping; and 7) because he longs to go down in history as one of the greatest Russian leaders ever.

But for students of leadership the matter of cause is less important than the matter of effect. What interests most of us most is not the psychological genesis of what Putin does but the political consequences thereof.  We cannot psychoanalyze the president of Russia. We cannot know what is in his mind, or in his heart. What we can know though, what we do know, is that one man has bent the West to his will. He has forced other leaders in other places, leaders of countries from Estonia to Romania, from the United States to the United Kingdom, to scramble to stop him. He acted. They reacted. So far therefore it is Putin who has won the war of attention. He has not however, at least not yet, won the war of attrition.    

His candidacy is unlikely. And his success as candidate for president of Italy is even unlikelier. Still, Berlusconi’s run for the office is not frivolous. Nor is he being laughed off the political stage. Instead, Berlusconi, whose on/off again tenure as prime minister lasted from the mid-1900s to 2011, is making one last, quasi-serious effort to play a prominent part in Italian politics.

Berlusconi is 85, and not in the best of health. More to the point, his public persona is so stained, and his political legacy so tarnished, it’s hard to fathom how anyone in Italy can take him seriously. Even at a time when leaders in liberal democracies struggle to be respected or even trusted, Berlusconi is a case apart. His long record in business and politics is an embarrassment, a national humiliation. Instead of being welcomed back into the political fold, he should be expelled from it, forever.

In Italy the prime minister is usually a divisive figure. But not so the president. The president, whose term is seven years, is generally expected to be a political centrist associated with probity and moral authority. What an absurd fit for a man whose record the New York Times recently summarized this way:  “There are the countless trials; the investigations over mob links and bribing lawmakers; the tax fraud conviction; the ban from office; the sentence to perform community service in a nursing home; his use of his media empire for political gain; his use of the government to protect his media empire; the wiretapped conversations of his libertine party guests regaling the Caligulian extent of his bung-bunga debaucheries; his close relations with the Russian president Vladimir Putin, who gifted Mr. Berlosconi a large bed; his appraisal of Barack Obama as ‘young, handsome and sun tanned’; his comparing a German lawmaker to a concentration camp guard; and his second wife’s divorcing him for apparently dating an 18-year old.”

Berlusconi was a central figure in the book I wrote with Todd Pittinsky, Leaders Who Lust: Power, Money, Sex, Success, Legitimacy, Legacy. While Berlusconi was lustful in several ways, in his prime he was most famous for, most infamous for, his lust for sex. He was on a constant prowl, specifically for sexual gratification, resulting in a series of scandals that ended only after he left the political scene.  But the wonder was always not what he did but how the Italian people tolerated, accepted, or even welcomed his behavior which sometimes went from antic to abusive. He was not, after all, a Roman Emperor. He was the late 20^th and early 21^st leader of a liberal democracy that was a member of NATO.   

Of course, the answer to the riddle of this leader’s longevity lies not with him but with the context in which he was embedded – and with his followers. Italy has long been considered the only country in Western Europe that after World War I failed to develop a reasonably effective and enduring political system. Further, in his heyday – which lasted many years – Berlusconi played the Italian people like a fiddle. He fed their illusions; played to their basest fears; set them against each other; lied and otherwise misled; and promoted corruption and cronyism. He lasted because he was a showman and a strongman, both of which are types long admired in Italian society.  (Think Mussolini.)    

Again, Berlusconi in his dotage is unlikely to get to the top of the greasy pole. Still, the fact that he’s trying, and is not being dismissed out of hand, should serve as a warning. Even leaders with wretched track records attract some of the people some of the time.   

In the old days, when leaders were not leading, they could play as they pleased. They were generally free to do what they wanted when they wanted. To nap as long and as often as they were tired or sleepy.  To indulge in games or in sport whenever they were inclined. To drink heavily, no matter the occasion or time of day. And, especially, given leaders mostly were men, to carouse – to bed as many women as they desired whether morning, noon, or night.

Now though things are different. Now leaders, especially in liberal democracies, have no choice. They must watch themselves at every turn. They must remember the technology – remember that their every move, their every sound might be recorded for posterity. They must remember the culture – remember that the culture no longer keeps secrets. And, above all, they must remember their followers – remember that today’s followers don’t look up to leaders. They see them as equals. In fact, many if not most followers lie in wait for their leaders – wait to pounce on their every misstep.

Consider the Brits. As I write their prime minister, Boris Johnson, has been obliged to grovel on account of his ill-timed partying. And, as I write, among the most prominent members of the royal family, Prince Andrew, a son of the queen, has been publicly humiliated, stripped of his military titles and royal patronages on account of his involvement in an American lawsuit charging sexual abuse.

Not a good look. More to the point not a good look for leaders at a time when people who are not in positions of power and authority have little tolerance for people who do.  Even under the best of circumstances – which these circumstances are not.

Anyone who reads this post and is familiar with my work is bound to be bored. For I return here to a familiar theme: the failure of the leadership industry. The inability of the leadership industry adequately to address our most pressing problems – and its refusal to be self-aware. To reflect and self-correct.

I take no pleasure in pointing out that this argument, which I have made for nearly a decade, seems now to have been prescient. For ten years after the publication of my book The End of Leadership, and for four years after the publication of my book Professionalizing Leadership, the deficiencies of the leadership industry have become blindingly clear.

How to defend the existing leadership industry in light of this history? A history in which its rise has precisely paralleled democracy’s decline. A history that is nothing if not a sorry trajectory.

I do not claim that if the leadership industry were reconceived it would be a magic bullet. What I do maintain that if the leadership industry were reconceived – reimagined and reconfigured from the bottom up – it would have a better shot, a much better shot, at contributing to our collective cause.

Democracy is not just about good leadership. It is at least as much about bad leadership. Democracy is not just about good leadership. It is at least as much about good followership. Until these lessons are learned, in the fight for democracy the industry will be a weak warrior.

By chance they’re both named Elizabeth – Elizabeth Holmes and Elizabeth Cheney. Holmes is, of course, the now thoroughly disgraced founder and CEO of Theranos, who was recently found guilty on four counts of fraud. (On other charges she was found not guilty, and on still others the jury was unable to reach a verdict.) Cheney, who is called Liz, is, of course, the congresswoman from Wyoming who is one of two Republicans on the House committee investigating the January 6^th attack on the U.S. Capitol.

To have followed Holmes’s career and, recently, her trial, is to be amazed by how she was able to do what she did. She started her company as a college dropout with no experience and no expertise. Still, she managed to persuade people that she could and would revolutionize the Big Business of testing blood.

How did she do it? How did she get rich and powerful people to give her buckets of money initially to fill, and then to replenish the coffers of her startup? How did she get members of the media to make her a superstar? How did she convince otherwise clever mentors, customers, and workers that she really was onto something, that she really would deliver what she promised?  

Holmes used her feminine wiles to sell her wares. Is it politically correct these days to talk about such attributes, especially in a leader? Probably not. But let’s get real. Despite her lack of experience and expertise, Holmes was able to raise almost a billion dollars for Theranos. Which must raise the question of how she did it. She did it on the strength of her public persona which was uncommonly appealing, attractive, especially to older men who early on supported her startup with large sums of money and gave her credence by lending her their names. (Nearly from the get-go her board, for example, was peopled by luminaries, again, mostly older men, who, it should be added, knew nothing about blood-testing.)

Holmes was alluring in the traditional sense. She was tall and blond; young and pretty; classy and composed; articulate and energetic; well-dressed and well put together; and she famously had large, unblinking eyes plus a voice that was uncommonly deep. When Holmes entered a room people noticed. When Holmes spoke people listened. When Holmes was on the cover of Fortune, people paid attention. And when Holmes promised, repeatedly, without much if any hard evidence, that she would change the world, people believed her. They bought what she sold because they wanted to hitch their wagon to her train.

The other Elizabeth, Liz Cheney, is altogether different. She seems to do what she can to distract from her femininity. This is not to say that she is plain, not at all. Rather it is to say that she never ever draws on what I earlier referred to as feminine wiles. Cheney dresses simply and straightforwardly, and wears little or no makeup. She speaks in a flat voice, with no emphasis or modulation. She virtually never smiles or pulls people in by any other part of her public persona. She is the opposite of obviously ingratiating, the contrary of obviously charismatic. It is, however, precisely this absence of any other sort of appeal that compels us to listen to what she has to say.

Cheney has other assets. Not only her illustrious father, Dick Cheney, the former vice president who, until recently, was a powerhouse in the Republican Party. But, additionally, her formidable mother, Lynne Cheney, about whom I wrote last year. (https://barbarakellerman.com/leader-mother-lynne-cheney/ ) Moreover, unlike Holmes, Cheney has experience and expertise. A graduate of the University of Chicago School of Law, she is personally and professionally exceedingly well equipped to play the part she has chosen for herself – Republican renegade.

Of course, Holmes crashed not on account of her style, but on account of her substance, her lack of it. Her house it turned out was a fantasy, a fiction. It was made of cards.

Cheney in contrast has long relied entirely on substance – on the whole truth and nothing but as she has seen it. For years this meant she toiled in relative obscurity, a conservative Republican from a rural state with no special claim to fame, certainly not on the national stage. Now though things are different. Because she is one of only a handful of Republicans not only to separate herself from former president Donald Trump, but forcefully to condemn him, repeatedly, she is front and center of our national politics.

Liz Cheney is matter of fact in her manner. And she is matter of fact in her facts. At this moment she is the most interesting woman leader in America. At this moment she is the most interesting leader in America.    

2021 was a good year for leaders who are autocrats. By comparison leaders who are democrats seemed hapless, feckless, disappointingly unable even to persuade large majorities of their own people that democratic systems are superior to autocratic ones.  Democratic leaders have, moreover, been unwilling to stand up to dictators around the world – leaving them mostly free to do what they want when they want.

Because the United States was the model of a democracy, it is now the most glaring example of a democracy as disappointment. Democracy as fractious and fractured; as unable to pass even legislation supported by most of the American people; as plagued by extreme inequity in income and opportunity; as riddled with petty players intent on undermining even that most fundamental of all democratic rights, the right to vote; and as led by a leader in trouble. One year after taking office President Joe Biden’s approval rating is close to an historic low.

Nor is the United States alone in its democratic descent. According to Freedom House, 2021 was the 15^th consecutive year of decline in global freedom. Countries experiencing deterioration “outnumbered those with improvements by the largest margin recorded since the negative trend began in 2006.” India is a striking, example. Once touted as the world’s largest democracy, in 2021 Freedom House concluded India went from being “Free” to just “Partly Free.” This because the Hindu government “presided over rising violence and discriminatory policies affecting the Muslim population.”  Prime Minister Narendra Modi did his part by muzzling the opposition and cracking down on those who anyway dared to dissent.

Meanwhile the autocrats had a good year. Men – they are all men – such as China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and, yes, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. Xi has swept China and now Hong Kong with his persona, his politics, and his policies. Effectively leader for life or, at least, so long as he wants, to all appearances he gets his way if not all the time then most of the time. Not a single domain lies beyond Xi’s grasp, not politics or economics, not education or culture, not the media or academia, not domestic policy, or foreign policy. Everything and everyone are being blanketed if not suffocated by the Chinese Communist Party, which Xi has revived as his primary instrument of power.      

Putin, meanwhile, has become Xi’s mini-me. Ever more repressive and oppressive, within Russia he has airbrushed history; demolished, or locked up most of his opposition; and tightened still further the reins of his power. He too wants to be leader for life and is doing what he can to give himself the option. Without Russia Putin has managed to drive the West nuts, most recently in Ukraine. Why is he making trouble on Russia’s Western flank? Because Putin longs to restore the old Soviet empire. Because Putin distracts from domestic politics by stirring up foreign politics. Because Putin wants to prove his manhood vis-à-vis the United States. Because Putin wants to prove his manhood vis-à-vis the European Union. Because Putin wants to prove his manhood vis-a-vis NATO. Because Putin fears being outdone by that other dominant autocrat, Xi.  Because Putin yearns to go down in history as one of the greatest Russian leaders of all time.  

Autocrats are not confined to the political realm – no reason they should be. The most outstanding example of an autocrat in the corporate realm is of course the inevitable, perennial Mark Zuckerberg. He too had a banner year – swatting away whatever came at him, ending 2021 more powerfully positioned than ever.  Notwithstanding an onslaught of damaging and widely publicized revelations about what Facebook had done in the past – courtesy of whistleblower Frances Haugen – Zuckerberg spent most of his energy on preparing for the future. His company’s name change – from Facebook to Meta Platforms, Inc. – was emblematic of where he was at. “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”

Once autocratic leaders are entrenched it is difficult if not impossible for followers to dislodge them. It’s why stopping them early on is critical, even essential. The insidiousness of incrementalism – unless, of course, you yourself lean not democratic but autocratic.  

Every year, researchers at the Drucker Institute (of Claremont Graduate University) compile a list of what they consider America’s best-run companies. This year’s list was published on December 13 by the Wall Street Journal, in a separate section on the “Top 250.”

Peter Drucker, after whom the Institute is named, has been called the “father of modern management.” His writings and teachings were prolific, and even posthumously (he died in 2005) his ideas remain influential. The Drucker Institute draws on his work to measure corporate effectiveness according to five criteria. They are 1) customer satisfaction; 2) employee engagement and development; 3) innovation; 4) social responsibility; and 5) financial strength.

This year the top five best-run companies are:

1. Microsoft
2. Amazon
3. Apple
4. IBM
5. Intel

What stands out initially is the top five are all the same breed – tech giants. What stands out secondarily is that two of the top five are led by successors of founders, in one case an immediate successor, in another an almost immediate one.

Microsoft’s CEO and now chairman, Satya Nadella, did not follow Bill Gates. Gates’s longtime associate, Steve Ballmer, did. He was CEO of Microsoft from 2000 to 2014. But the consensus is that Ballmer’s tenure was less than lustrous, which is why Nadella’s gets credit for returning Microsoft the top of the tech hierarchy. By the above measures and then some, he is one of the great corporate leaders of our time. 

The same holds for Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, who has led the company since 2011, when he took over from company founder and guru, Steve Jobs. It was Jobs who appointed and anointed Cook as his successor. In fact, it was Jobs’s last miraculous, humungous accomplishment at Apple, for Cook has turned out a master manager. He is, like Nadella, is a chief executive officer for the ages.  

What’re the odds? What’re the odds that one great leader will be succeeded or nearly so by another great leader? They are not high. For greatness is by definition rare. Which is why betting that a company or any other entity will hit on two in close succession is a long shot – a very long shot.   

In an article I posted on May 7, titled “Leadership… and Mother’s Day,” I predicted that, awful as it might sound, Covid will in some ways be good for women. Specifically, I wrote that there are some women for whom Covid will eventually be professionally advantageous.

Most of the reports about how the pandemic has had a great negative impact on working women than men are about women who are not in upper-level management. They are about women who are in the middle and at the bottom of the organizational ladder.

Women higher up, though, are likely to have a different experience – a very different experience. They are likely be advantaged… by the hybrid model that is the future of the American workplace….

Men with power will not now dare challenge women with power on the issue of working remotely. This means that women leaders will feel newly entitled to work from home part of the time and to maintain flexible schedules.

Time has confirmed my prediction. In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Harvard economist Claudia Golden, an expert on women and work, wrote the move back to the office has been slower and more uncertain than many had predicted. But, she went on to add, some changes are already crystal clear.

The new normal will be different from the old. More Americans, especially the more educated ones, will have greater flexibility in both when and where they work….

We will have reduced the price of flexibility, increased the productivity of flexible jobs, enhanced couple equity, and reduced gender inequality.

A silver lining for women? More like gold.  

Goldin does not single out women leaders as special beneficiaries of the changes in how we work. She does, however, write that “the more educated” women, as well as men, are those who will benefit most from the new professional paradigm.

Her point then is the same as mine. It is women at higher levels of management who have the most to gain from our newfound hybrid habits. Given that even women toward the top do significantly more caregiving and housekeeping than men, it is the female of the species who will be the biggest beneficiaries of any changes that ease their work/life balancing act.     

Howard Schultz is among the greatest corporate leaders of our time. Founder and, for years, chairman, president, and chief executive officer of Starbucks Coffee Company, he more than anyone else can claim credit for what became a coffee culture not just in the United States but worldwide. For his efforts Schultz has been well rewarded. He ranks among the wealthiest Americans, with an estimated worth of well over $4 billion.

One of Schultz’s particular points of pride has always been his ostensible concern for those in his employ. In his 2011 book titled, Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life without Losing Its Soul, he referred, as he always did, to Starbucks’ workers as “partners.” And he pointed repeatedly to how he cared for his partners, how he fostered a company culture in which they felt valued. When partners “feel proud of our company – because of their trust in the company, because of our values, because of how they are treated, because of how they treat others, because of our ethical practices – they willingly elevate the experience of each other and customers, one cup at a time.”   

But as it turned out, when some of Schultz’s “partners” wanted to extricate themselves from his clutch – wanted to free themselves from an employer they did not totally trust – he was not happy. The beneficent leader was not happy in the least with his recalcitrant followers.

Schultz is now formally retired from Starbucks. But he remains one of the company’s largest shareholders – and a looming presence. When it became clear that Starbucks baristas in Buffalo were hellbent on forming a union, Schultz swung into action. He did what he could to stop them striking out on their own.

The media has long seen Starbucks as an enlightened employer. Which for years, in some ways, it was. Still, whenever it came to collective bargaining, whenever Schultz’s “partners” wanted a measure of independence, the company was antipathetic, paternalistic. What Starbucks all along had really wanted, what Schultz all along had really wanted, were not “partners” but junior partners.

Starbucks did what it could to dissuade its Buffalo baristas from forming the first labor union at any of its American cafes. So did Schultz, who went so far as to invoke the Holocaust in arguing against unionization. (“Only a small portion of prisoners in German concentration camps received blankets,” Schultz told Buffalo-area employees, “but often shared them with fellow prisoners. What we have tried to do at Starbucks is share our blanket.”) All to no avail. As one barista activist put it this week, exulting in the vote to unionize, “We’ve done it, despite everything the company has thrown at us.”

Imagine that. Daddy’s aged out, the kids are grown up, and some decided to leave the nest.

Sometimes it happens that leaders once revered are no longer. Think, for example, of General Electric’s erstwhile CEO, corporate superstar and superman, Jack Welch.

Similarly, it happens, though less often, that leaders once revered are abjured. Rejected, renounced, repudiated, and finally disgraced. This week it’s happening not once but twice – once yesterday, once today.

Yesterday the City Council of Charlottesville, VA voted to donate a once dominant statue of legendary Confederate General Robert E. Lee to an African American heritage center. The center had made plain its intention to melt down the bronze monument and transform it into an entirely new piece of public art under the name, “Swords into Plowshares.”

So much for Lee – a man once seen by legions as a leader to be greatly admired.

Today will be a different sort of drama. The CEO of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, will testify before a Senate Subcommittee on the impact of Instagram on children and teenagers. The problem for Instagram is that today’s hearing will be hard on the heels of revelations the company’s own researchers found its app was harmful to large numbers of users, especially teenage girls. Said one slide summarizing the findings, “We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls.” Said another, “Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression.”

Instagram is owned by Facebook (Meta). For well over a decade Facebook has been led by two people: founder, chief executive officer, and chairman Mark Zuckerberg; and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg.

It is Sandberg who is relevant to this post because it is Sandberg who positioned herself as a feminist icon. Her 2013 book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, was a mega bestseller, and the nonprofit organization she founded, “Leanin.org,” was, is, dedicated to offering women “ongoing inspiration and support.” Now, however, it turns out she, apparently knowingly, has been running a company that, to maximize profit, has done significant damage to teenage girls.

Facebook continues to play down the negative effects of social media on teens. It further continues to hide the results of its own research. How then can Sandberg reconcile such corporate posturing with her self-painted portrait of someone who provides women and, presumably, girls, “ongoing inspiration and support.” She can’t.

So much for Sandberg – a woman once seen by legions as a leader to be greatly admired.