Blog

It has always had a strong appeal – being leaderless. There is something innately engaging about the idea that people might organize themselves in ways that are non-hierarchical, in ways that are totally democratic.  Imagine! Everyone is the equal of everyone else. Imagine! No single man or woman has more of a say than does any other single man or woman.

Since time immemorial utopias have been built on the idea of this ideal. And so have countless social movements including, most recently, the Occupy movement. Nor is the principle of being leaderless confined to the political sphere. It has found a niche in the corporate sphere as well. In their widely read book The Starfish and the Spider, Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom argue that whereas in “spider companies power and knowledge are concentrated at the top,” in starfish organizations “power is spread throughout.”

But, almost always, the dream of being leaderless is just that, a dream, a fantasy not a reality, at least not for any prolonged period of time. A recent case in point? Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, who has wanted nothing so much as to take his successful company and turn it into a successful democracy. In his quixotic quest, Hsieh embraced “Holacracy,” a system in which hierarchy and bureaucracy are supposed to be abolished or, at a minimum, drastically reduced. A system in which everyone has a voice – even an equal voice.

However according to a detailed piece in the New York Times (link below), two years into Holacracy, Zappos is anything but a workplace utopia. Among several reasons, those who are supposed most to benefit from it, don’t like it. While the majority of Zappos employees are willing to go along, most are unenthusiastic. And some number actually hate Holacracy. They complain it’s complicated and time-consuming, inefficient and unconducive to innovation. When Hsieh sent a 4,700 word e mail to everyone at the company accompanied by an ultimatum – embrace Holacracy or get out – fully 14 percent of the workforce up and left!

Of course Hsieh’s ultimatum conveys the conundrum: for all the talk about Holacracy being non- hierarchical, at Zappos it was imposed on those below by a CEO from on high. Hsieh did not exactly practice what he preached.

But there is another truth that has nothing to do with Zappos. Which is that history suggests that being leaderless is inimical to the human condition. The overwhelming evidence is that human animals, like other animals, prefer having someone at least a little bit in charge.

—————————————————————-

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/business/at-zappos-selling-shoes-and-a-vision.html?_r=0

For ten years Angela Merkel has been the undisputed leader of Germany. What has become clear during the Greek financial crisis is that Germany is now the undisputed leader of Europe. At every turn it has been primarily Germany leading the European Union, and it has been primarily the Germans with whom the Greeks are having to negotiate the terms of a bailout.

With Merkel at the helm Germany’s striking resurgence in recent years – especially in comparison with England and France – has not presented a major problem. Other countries in the European Union, and the United States, have been content to let Germany take the lead. Among other reasons, Merkel herself is low key, anything other than blustery and boastful; anything other than inclined in any obvious way to throw her weight around. Years ago she seems to have deliberately, if not necessarily consciously, adopted a leadership style designed not to give offense, either at home or abroad.

But even Merkel is mortal. What will happen when her days as chancellor are over is impossible to know. It’s not inconceivable however that her successor will be a different sort of German altogether, one whose style if not substance is more difficult for the rest of the world to swallow.

It’s been a bad week for women leaders. Two of the most prominent – Katherine Archuleta, Director of the Federal Office of Personnel Management, and Ellen Pao, CEO of Reddit – were summarily told to resign. (That’s leaderspeak for they were summarily fired.)

Only last Thursday Archuleta had rebuffed demands that she resign in the wake of revelations relating to a major breach of private information her agency was supposed to protect.  But by Friday morning the pressure on her grew too great – she went to the White House personally to submit her resignation to the president.

Pao, in turn, was in the news only recently for having filed a lawsuit against her former employer in a major gender discrimination case. While she lost the case, Pao was widely praised for having drawn nationwide attention to the perennial problem of diversity, specifically in Silicon Valley. Soon thereafter, however, over at Reddit, the social media site where she had worked for two years, Pao faced a revolt, supposedly for having dismissed an employee who was especially well-liked. Things got to a point where some 213,000 people signed a petition calling for Pao’s resignation! Finally she too had no choice but  to resign which, also on Friday, she did. For her to stay on as chief executive officer became impossible.

The two cases are more different than similar. But the similarities between them are worth noting. In both cases the women in question had been leaders of their organizations for brief periods of time – less than two years. In both cases the women in question could be considered dismissed for cause not directly of their own making. In both cases the women in question resisted the pressure to leave as long as they reasonably could. And in both cases the women in question  worked in a context within which women at the top were a rarity.

It is widely acknowledged that gender played a major role in what did and did not happen to Ellen Pao. It is less widely acknowledged that in virtually every other case in which there is a woman at the top – whether in government, business or anywhere else – gender remains a factor. So long as the number of women at the top of the greasy ladder remains so small they will have a harder time than men navigating the shoals.

Jimmy Carter, now 90, is reputed to have the best post-presidency ever. He has been enormously productive during the three and a half decades since he left the White House, fighting tirelessly for human rights, nearly eliminating at least one dreadful disease that most of us didn’t even know existed (Guinea worm), and writing a slew of books (at last count 29), a number of which are very good.

But for all his post-presidency accomplishments, what makes him great is not what he does, but who he is. Jimmy Carter is a man of such unimpeachable integrity, of such unusual modesty, of such simple tastes and plain habits that he seems to have dropped from another planet. If there is another American of his stature who has remained so determinedly what he was when he was young, a farm boy from Archery, Georgia (population 150), I can’t think who.

In most of the important ways, Carter’s life is little different from what it was before he entered politics. He has been married to the same woman, Rosalynn Carter, for 69 years. He and Rosalynn have lived in Plains, Georgia for 62 years. He and Rosalynn have lived in the same house in Plains for 54 years. Plains is only 2 miles from Archery, where in 1928, Earl Carter, Jimmy’s father, bought 360 acres of farmland on which Jimmy was raised.

By his own testimony Carter is a born again Christian. He not only professes his faith, he lives it. His life, his work, his demeanor, the content of what he says are all deeply informed by, influenced by, his Christian beliefs. Carter has long taught a Sunday School Class in Plains – and he still does. Go to the web site of the Maranatha Baptist Church and you will see that he is scheduled to teach Sunday school four times this August, and three times this September. He teaches whenever he’s not traveling, which he still does, regularly.

Finally while Carter is in some ways an intellectual – well-educated, deeply informed, and relentlessly curious – he is also, in the American tradition, a man who prides himself on working with his hands, on crafting things by the sweat of his brow. Both he and his wife have long supported, physically as well as financially, Habitat for Humanity, a Christian Housing Ministry dedicated to providing poor people worldwide with “simple, decent, and affordable housing.” And when he and Rosalynn are home, and he’s not at his computer, writing, he’s in his wood shop out back, painting and making furniture.

An extra-ordinary man who has chosen to live an ordinary life – which is extra-ordinary. Which is exemplary. Which is a welcome rejection of the restless materialism characteristic of our leadership class.

This is the last of four short essays about the man and his moment.  

Erik Erikson and Bruce Mazlish were pioneers in Leadership Studies. They had several things in common. Both were deeply interested in and informed by history. Both were deeply interested in and informed by psychoanalysis. And – notwithstanding their Freudian bias – both would never have looked at a leader separate and distinct from the context within which he was situated.*

Erikson and Mazlish were psychohistorians, a word now out of fashion. Still it accurately conveys my concluding point about Larry Kramer: that he cannot be understood separate and distinct from the context within which he was situated. Kramer’s success as a leader is not attributable only to him, to his persona in particular. It is attributable to the fact that he matched the moment. He was perfectly pitched and positioned to address a crisis – AIDS – that was dire in the extreme and that was especially threatening to men who, like Kramer himself, remained marginal, excluded from mainstream society.

When the “gay cancer” hit in the early 1980’s, Kramer was not a newcomer. He was already well known in the gay community as an irritant and provocateur, whose 1978 novel, Faggots, criticized the promiscuous lifestyle with which gay men had come to be associated. But while his particular persona was irritating when life was good, it was imperative when life was bad. The context had changed and so, inevitably, did leadership and followership. Kramer’s famously infuriating style of leadership was necessary and appropriate to the crisis of AIDS, and it was necessary and appropriate to those in Kramer’s community who were scared to death they might be next to die.

History is a trajectory. It is not too much to say then that the Supreme Court’s recent affirmation of same-sex marriage is in direct consequence of Kramer’s capacity to forge gay men and, yes, women, into a community. Kramer galvanized them into taking action, into becoming something they had never been before – activists. Activists protesting on their own behalf. Activists insisting that they had a right to be heard. Activists demanding that the government respond to their needs now, not later. Kramer used AIDS to unify the gay community and to give it a voice. Of course once that voice was registered, it was never again stilled.

Psychohistory teaches what the case of Kramer confirms: that great leadership cannot be understood by looking at leaders alone. Great leaders fuse with their followers. Great leaders along with their followers create change. It takes nothing away from Kramer to say that without an epidemic to eviscerate, he could not have done what he did.

————————————

*I write “he” because Erikson and Mazlish wrote exclusively or nearly so about leaders who were men. Erikson famously wrote psychobiographies of Martin Luther and Mahatma Gandhi, both of which were, are, considered exemplars of psychohistory.

This is the third of four short essays about the man and his moment.  

A new, first rate film about Larry Kramer – “Larry Kramer in Love & Anger” – made its debut on HBO a week ago. The film focuses on Kramer’s adulthood, not his childhood. Still it makes reference to the highly contentious relationship between Kramer and his father, even early on when Kramer was a boy. His father, disappointed, perhaps even disgusted by what he perceived his son’s insufficiently manly behavior, would taunt him and call him a sissy. Though he was shy, according to Kramer he would fight his father back, even when he was young, until he went to Yale, where after a year he tried to kill himself.

It doesn’t take extensive armchair analysis to suggest that the wellspring of Kramer’s anger in adulthood was the anger he felt in childhood – from his father toward him, from him toward his father. It’s not a small matter. For Kramer’s regular raging, his legendary contentiousness, his infamous impatience are the hallmarks of the man. It’s not that he lacks other notable traits. Kramer is many things to many people – including being greatly admired and well loved. But what sets him apart – what fuels his furious drive – is his unquenchable anger.*

Rage is hardly rare among those hell bent on getting others to follow where they lead – especially if they are outsiders, battling what they experience as obtuseness and oppression. In fact, many of history’s greatest leaders were just that: furious. Furious at unfairness and injustice; furious at those they thought unfair and unjust.

Among the most interesting examples is Martin Luther King, precisely because he is usually seen as a man of peace, a centrist not an extremist whose strength emanated from his moderation. But if you deconstruct some of his writings, such as the iconic “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” you find a man nearly consumed by impatience and anger – an anger that threatened to become threatening. “We know through painful experience,” King writes, “that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Think about his semantic choices: “painful experience” and “never voluntarily given” (italics mine) and “oppressor” and “demanded.” What does “demanded” denote? Clearly violence is on the table, not off it.

King and Kramer. Can we reasonably link them? Can we reasonably say their names in tandem?  I would argue that the answer is yes. I would argue that Kramer is not merely as HBO would have him: “one of the most important … figures in … gay America.”** I would argue, have argued, that he, like King, is one of the most important figures in America. Both King and Kramer used their righteous rage to effect change. Both King and Kramer used their righteous rage to liberate their own kind.  Both King and Kramer used their righteous rage to harness others to their cause.

This is not to equate them, to say they are one and the same. Rather it is to suggest that their similarities are as pertinent and powerful as their differences.

———————————————————————–

*Not for nothing the name of the film.

** From HBO’s web site. The italicization of “gay” is mine.

This is the second of four short essays about the man and his moment.

It’s the rare leader who is, simultaneously, a theoretician and practitioner. Most are one or the other, as it takes a certain kind of genius to be as good at deciding what is to be done as doing it.  In fact, the phrase “What Is to Be Done?” brings to mind one such leader, Lenin, whose pamphlet by that name, published in 1903, foretold the revolution he later led, in 1917.

Kramer’s first most important contribution to the gay rights movement was his insistence that in order successfully to fight “gay cancer,” AIDS, gay men would themselves have to fight. As in “1,112 and Counting,” Kramer continued to argue that gay men would have to become angry and assertive enough first to organize, and then to take on the establishment, primarily but not exclusively the medical establishment.

Kramer’s second most important contribution to the gay rights movement was his willingness to put his money where his mouth was – his willingness to act on what he believed to be right and good and true. Kramer was one of several men who founded the Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC), established in the early 1980’s to assist those stricken by AIDS, providing them with supports, including financial, medical, legal, and social. It was the first organization of substance and size to represent this particular population, which of course had up to then been marginalized.

But Kramer was not content with what he had crafted. Congenitally demanding and impatient under the best of circumstances, he quickly grew dissatisfied with GMHC, considering it too careful and conservative in the face of a health crisis that each year was more catastrophic. So Kramer quit the group he had helped to found, subsequently to establish a more militant one, ACT UP.

ACT UP became famous, infamous, for tactics that were, to put it politely, histrionic, in your face, rude to the point of being outrageous. To realize its primary purpose – to force the pharmaceutical industry and, more importantly, the Food and Drug Administration to develop and distribute drugs to fight AIDS – the group was prepared to risk all, including ridicule and arrest. Kramer himself was typically front and center. He was perfectly capable, for example, of standing in the street, megaphone in hand, screaming “President Reagan, your son is gay!” Just as he was perfectly capable of joining ACT UP when its members tried to dump the ashes of a young friend on the south lawn of the White House, or when they shut down the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, or when they chained themselves to the gates at the headquarters of pharmaceutical giant Hoffman-La Roche.

Kramer never however surrendered his pen. In fact, as the 1980’s dragged on, drugs made available only at a pace that he considered criminally sluggish, his pen and his protest merged, became one. In 1988 Kramer wrote an open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading AIDS researcher and high ranking official at the National Institutes for Health. It read in part:

I have been screaming at the National Institutes of Health since I first visited your Animal House of Horrors in 1984. I called you monsters then… and now I call you murderers. You are responsible for supervising all government-funded AIDS treatment research programs. In the name of right, you make decisions that cost the lives of others. I call the decisions you are making acts of murder.

No wonder Kramer was never the most popular guy in town. No wonder Kramer is a leader whose name will endure.

This is the first of four short essays about the man and his moment.

Seven years ago I developed a course at the Harvard Kennedy School titled “Leadership Literacy.” The idea behind the course was that contrary to the evidence of recent decades, there is a leadership literature that is great. Great as in seminal, timeless, and universal. Great as in Confucius and Plato, Machiavelli and Carlyle, Weber and Freud, Paine and Stanton, Lincoln and Lenin, Carson and King, Winston Churchill and Nelson Mandela. Every reading in the course was unquestionably in this category – in the category of a classic of the leadership literature.

Though every reading was at least two decades old, a few were relatively recent. One of these was by Larry Kramer, a man who even seven years ago was not nearly as well-known as he is today. Now, finally, his name has become widely familiar as that of the single most impactful gay rights activist ever. Now, finally, at the end of his unexpectedly long life (he has been seriously ill for years), he is being given his due. Now, finally, he is being recognized as a great American leader not only of the gay community, but as a great American leader period.

One of the most remarkable things about Kramer is that he was as strikingly effective a writer as he was an activist. At least one of his book, Faggots, continues to be one of the best-selling novels ever about gay life. At least one of his plays, “The Normal Heart” will indefinitely be part of the American theatrical repertory. And at least one of his essays “1,112 and Counting,” is widely regarded as a watershed. It was a clarion call to his own kind, gay men, Kramer sounding an alarm about the most devastating crisis ever to decimate them – the crisis of AIDS. In the early 1980s it was not yet fully understood or widely accepted that gay American men were being ravaged by an epidemic tantamount to a death sentence. In fact, gay people were like straight people: they continued to avert their eyes, ignoring or trying to a lethal disease that was attacking them in particular.

It was left to Kramer – fearless, furious, and ferocious – to issue the warning. “1,112 and Counting” was written in 1983. His use of foul language and invocation of repetition were intended to get the attention of gay men – and they did. Here is an excerpt.

If this article doesn’t scare the shit out of you, we’re in real trouble. If this article doesn’t rouse you to anger, fury, rage, and action, gay men may have no future on this earth. Our continued existence depends on just how angry you can get….I am sick of our electing officials who in no way represent us….I am sick of closeted gay doctors who won’t come out to help us fight to rectify any of what I’m writing about….I am sick of gay men who won’t support gay charities….I am sick of people who say “it’s no worse than statistics for smokers and lunch cancer”….I am sick of guys who moan that giving up careless sex until this blows over is worse than death. How can they value life so little and cocks and asses so much?…. I am sick of ‘men’ who say, “We’ve got to keep quiet or they will do such and such.”… And I am very sick and saddened by every gay man who does not get behind this issue totally and with commitment – to fight for his life.

One of the ideas I tried to convey in The End of Leadership was the end of the expert as aristocrat. The cultural shift to which I point is not only about the diminishment of leaders, but about the diminishment of everyone in a position of any kind of authority. This applies as much to doctors, lawyers and teachers as to presidents and CEOs. It equally applies to anyone who presumes an expertise to which others can reasonably lay claim. For example, in the second decade of the 21st century I can reasonably claim to be as qualified to rate a restaurant as a seasoned restaurant critic. I can even reasonably claim to be something of a medical expert, just by going on line and reading the relevant research. However, I cannot reasonably claim that I am as able to build a space ship as a trained rocket scientist.

There are then some exceptions to the general rule. But not many. In the main my claim on your mind is as legitimate as anyone else’s. This democratization of just about everything was explored in a recent article in the Financial Times titled as is this piece: “Everyone’s a Tastemaker.” The author describes a “far-reaching cultural shift,” with taste having gone from being “the property of the aristocratic few to the province of the democratic many.” So Vogue’s editor and dominance grise, Anna Wintour, still exerts an outsized influence on the latest in fashion. But she is rivaled now by people we’ve never heard of, including young people with no claim to fame other than having equal access to the channels by which fame is made – social media.

Of course the democratization of taste-making is hardly confined to the world of what we wear. It applies equally to what we see and hear, to what we taste and touch, to what we seek out and attempt to avoid, to high art as to low. As the tagline to the FT piece reads, “The power to shape cultural trends is now in the hands of the many instead of a select few.”

No wonder leadership and followership now are different from just a decade or two ago!

—————————————————

*Brendan Lemon, 6/20/15.

Ginny Rometty became IBM’s first female CEO in January, 2012. Since then, to lift a line from Forbes, it’s been “anything but smooth sailing.” Though the company’s stock price did slightly better in the first half of 2015, since becoming CEO Rometty presided over 11 consecutive quarters of declining revenues. Moreover, in 2014 IBM posed a shareholder return of negative 12.4%, and lower profits as well as lower revenues.

Still IBM’s board recently saw fit to boost her compensation 38.5 percent, to $19.3 million. In defending its decision the Board announced that the shortfall in IBM’s financial results were balanced against the “substantial strategic actions taken to balance the company.” Moreover, the board continued, Ms. Rometty’s increased package reflected its “strong confidence” in her “ongoing leadership.”

Ms. Rometty’s hike in pay is worth noting primarily because it is unusual these days to reward poor company performance. This is not to say that it never happens. It does. But the fact is that CEO pay is generally tied now to CEO performance. Chief executive officers do well when their shareholders do. According to the Wall Street Journal’s annual pay survey, “All 10 of the CEOs posting the best shareholder returns were paid more than they had been a year earlier, and all but two of the 10 worst performers got pay cuts.”*

So Rometty is clearly an outlier – her boost in pay in spite of IBM’s poor performance during most of her time at the helm is out of step with current corporate norms. The question is why. I have no reason to doubt the Board’s official statement: there are reasons for the nearly steady decline in IBM’s stock price and revenues; and the Board does continue to have confidence in Rometty’s “ongoing leadership.” But still I wonder if part of the explanation for Rometty’s significant raise in pay – up by over a third – in spite of her lackluster performance is reverse discrimination. To favor an individual – in this case the CEO of a computing giant who is female – who belongs to a group known to have been discriminated against previously is not exactly unheard of.

—————————————————-

* http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-the-best-and-worst-ceos-got-paid-1435104565