Blog

In 2006 I wrote an article for the Harvard Business Review titled, “When Should a Leader Apologize – and When Not?” The question of when it is wise publicly to apologize for a mistake or transgression came to mind again this week when, lo and behold, emerged from the woodwork a whole new army of apologizers.

Who might they be? What sin did they commit? What error did they make that was so egregious they deserve their humiliations and flagellations – most of them self-imposed? Weathermen! Weatherwomen! Meteorologists who predicted heavy snows in Philadelphia and New York when there were none – or, at least, not so much.

The facts are these: 1) some of the weather predictions were wrong; 2) some government officials made decisions based on erroneous predictions; and 3) some of these decisions were costly. Other of the facts are these: 1) some of the weather predictions were right; 2) some government officials made decisions based on correct predictions; and 3) some of these decisions saved lives. Of course the overriding fact is that predicting the weather – especially when it comes to precisely predicting just before and even during a blizzard the amount of snowfall in any given area – is a famously inexact science, with a large cone of uncertainty.

To be sure, this cone of uncertainty was never adequately conveyed by most meteorologists. Nearly without exception they seemed certain that this week’s storm would be of historic proportions, from Philadelphia to Bangor. But this flair for the dramatic, this brief show of hubris, does not merit their incessant self-abasement. It does not merit seasoned forecasters like Al Roker and Bill Karins going on about how abysmally wrong they were, and it certainly does not merit relative newcomers to the forecasting business such as Gary Szatkowski repeatedly tweeting messages such as “My deepest apologies to many key decision makers and so many members of the general public.”

Even since I wrote my 2006 article the pressure publicly to apologize for whatever the error has become greater. People who are visible – leaders, celebrities, experts – tend to feel obliged to apologize even when an expression of regret is unlikely in any way to be helpful, to anyone. So let me here reiterate some of the questions I raised earlier – questions that should be answered before deciding whether or not to issue a public apology.

First, what function would such an apology serve? Second, who would benefit from a public apology? Third, why exactly would such an apology matter? Fourth, what is likely to happen if you apologize publicly? And finally, what is likely to happen if you do not apologize publicly?

Making a public apology is like printing money. If you print too much of it – if you apologize too much or too often – inflation will set in. The coin of the realm will be diminished and devalued.

Charlie, a member of my immediate family, is a 21 year old student at a college in Boston. He is relentlessly nice and upstanding, known to every family member for his decency and disposition.

Which made his response to my question about deflate-gate – about the under-inflation of footballs used by the Patriots in Sunday’s victory over the Colts – the more surprising. To my query about who was responsible for the scandal, he replied, “I think it’s the most boring story and I couldn’t care less.”

What?! Are twenty-somethings so inured to cheating in professional sports – so jaded about corruption in America – that nothing has the power any longer to shock them? If Charlie is any indication, the answer is yes.

I didn’t ask Charlie to comment on the news that the feds had just charged New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver with abusing his office by taking millions in payoffs. Just as well. For though Silver is being accused of using his position over a period of many years to “obtain millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks,” the likelihood that Charlie would be exercised by the revelation is nil.

Pats quarterback Tom Brady is strong and large and handsome. Silver appears weak and small and, well, not so handsome. They are, to put it politely, radically different physically. But otherwise they are not radically different.  Both are clever and gifted and have been stunningly successful. But… both seem intent on winning at all costs. Both seem as attracted to power as fairness. And both seem emblematic of an America in which greed for money and power are pervasive.

I suppose this accounts for Charlie’s response. But the fact that deflate-gate bores him, and that he couldn’t care less that one of the greatest quarterbacks in the history of American football is suspected by many of cheating, is a downer. It’s a melancholy commentary on the temper of the times.

It’s one thing for a president of the United States of America to use his annual State of the Union address to accentuate the positive. It’s quite another for him to eliminate the negative.

President Barack Obama was right last night to take a victory lap on the economy. He had sufficient facts and figures to support his claim that the “state of the union is strong.” But he was not right to be less than fully forthcoming about the state of the world within which this union is situated. In the realm of foreign affairs he dissembled to a degree that was a discredit.

First, he gave America’s foreign policy short shrift, as if what happened outside the US was of minor importance. Second, more critically, his comments – especially on Putin and terrorism – were misleading and misinforming.

It is correct to say that Russia is more “isolated” now than it was one year ago. But it would have been important to add that the reason for this is the success of Putin’s foreign policy, at least from the vantage point of Russia. In the last year Russia seized Crimea, and there is no sign that anyone anywhere is prepared to seize it back. And, in the last year Russia made mischief in Ukraine, which, as I write, shows no sign whatsoever of abating. By sowing the seeds of conflict in Eastern Ukraine, Russia is accomplishing one of its most important foreign policy objectives: to prevent Ukraine from becoming a strong and independent state allied with the West.

On terrorism generally, and on ISIL specifically, the president was even more disingenuous. For him to claim that “In Iraq and Syria, American leadership – including our military power – is stopping ISIL’s advance” is contrary to all the evidence. Maybe the president knows something that the American people do not. But so far as I can tell it is Gideon Rachman, writing in the Financial Times, who is correct – and Obama who is not.  On January 20^th Rachman wrote that, “there are two specific ways in which the threat from militant Islamism has worsened over the past five years. First, jihadi groups are operating in more parts of the world. Second, the frequency of attacks and number of deaths are increasing.” In short, “the ‘war on terror’ is going backwards.”

Presidents cannot be blamed for using the State of the Union address to tout their presidencies and policies. But their feet should be held to the fire if they use the occasion to shade the truth.

As usual, the bloviating about the 2016 presidential election has begun way early.  And, as usual, the bloviating is focused on who will be a candidate for the nation’s highest office. In other words, as usual, the bloviating is leader-centric. Already we are fixating on a few individuals specifically – Clinton, Biden, Warren, Bush, Romney, Christie, Cruz, Kasich, Huckabee, Paul, Perry, Walker – rather than on the situation more generally.

But a good argument can be made for the proposition that the outcome of the next presidential election will be determined not by a small number of leaders, or, for that matter, by a larger number of followers.  Rather the outcome is more likely to be determined by the context within which by then we’re embedded.

Here is an example of context as key. If between now and November 2016 the United States is at peace, and if the homeland has remained free from attack, the Democrats will benefit. Barack Obama and his putative successor will be able to claim that for eight years the Democrats have kept Americans free from harm.

If, on the other hand, the U.S. proves vulnerable to terrorism, Obama’s earlier claim that extremism has been defeated will prove tragically hollow. It will prove, or appear to prove, that the Democrats did not take the terrorist threat sufficiently seriously. Further, given their willingness to be more militantly aggressive abroad, and more militantly defensive at home, the Republicans will profit. The Republicans will profit politically to the degree that the U. S. seems weak militarily.

Our proclivity remains the same – to fixate on leaders. But the smarter approach is the systemic approach. For leadership is a system with not just one part – but three. To get the present and project the future is to look long and hard at leaders. It is also to look long and hard at followers, at others. And it is to look long and hard at the context within which leaders and followers necessarily are situated.

When I was a graduate student at Yale I received a master’s degree in Russian and East European Studies. So, though I did not ultimately concentrate (my doctoral work) on what then was the Soviet bloc, I stayed with the subject. I continued to follow it closely, making it a point to be up on the latest Kremlinology.

Imagine my surprise, then, when virtually overnight, virtually without warning by even the most esteemed Soviet experts, the Soviet Union collapsed and communism in East Europe along with it.  I was stunned at the time. And I remain stunned still that a series of events so momentous should have been so completely unforeseen.

In recent months have been two changes of cataclysmic importance, both of which fall into the same category. Both were wholly unanticipated, predicted by nearly no one.

The first is the rise of ISIS – ISIS, which scarcely anyone had even heard of as little as a year ago. The second is the drop in oil prices, which has been nothing short of vertiginous. But who knew six months ago? Who told us then what we know now: that the price of oil, which had been stable for over five years, would drop suddenly and precipitously, by over half in half a year?

Nobody – nobody told us. Why? Because nobody knows nothing.

It’s easy enough to understand why the attention of the Western world has been fixed in recent days on France. It’s less easy to understand why the attention of the world has not been similarly trained on Nigeria. Americans and others were stirred last year by the kidnapping and subsequent disappearance of nearly 200 girls from a Nigerian school. But since then our gaze has turned elsewhere, closer to home, as our anxieties about terrorism in America and Europe have overshadowed those about terrorism in Africa.

While we were watching the streets of Paris, a ten year old girl killed herself and some 19 others by detonating explosives (strapped to her body) in a busy Nigerian market. Moreover on the same Wednesday that the Kouachi brothers murdered some of the staff of Charlie Hebdo, the Nigerian militant group Boko Haram massacred an estimated 2000 in Baga, a city in Northern Nigeria.

This is not a game of numbers. Is killing 2000 people ten times worse than killing 200? A thousand times worse than killing 2? The point is that there is no obvious distinction between terrorism in France and terrorism elsewhere, including in Nigeria. In fairness, with France one has the sense that President Francois Hollande will attack terrorism with all the forces that his strong state can marshal. Nigeria, in contrast, is a weak state, with no evidence that President Goodluck Jonathan has the will, the skill, and the resources effectively to address the relentlessly growing terrorist threat.

But I wonder why the distinction, why the divide in American minds between terrorism in Europe and terrorism in Africa. From where I sit they are of a piece, the one as much of a threat to security in the 21^st century as the other. The fact that Abuja, Nigeria seems so much further from Washington than does Paris, France, does not mean that what’s been happening in the former is any less of a threat than what’s been happening in the later. I would argue, in fact, that in this super-small, hyper-connected world terrorism anywhere is terrorism everywhere.

The French can be among the best followers in the world. If by that is meant their engagement in public affairs. If by that is meant their willingness to speak truth to power. If by that is meant their readiness to fight for what they believe.

To be clear – the French can also be among the worst followers in the world. If by that is meant their passivity in the face of evil. If by that is meant their streak of extremism. If by that is meant their refusal to sacrifice private comfort for public good.

Today is testimony to the first. I cannot speak to tomorrow. But today has already been enshrined in French history, memorable not only for the million marchers in the streets of Paris, but for the overarching theme – unity.

Unity has not always been France’s strong suit. The French have a history of being antipathetic to outsiders, to those who fail to conform to their conception of what a Frenchman, or Frenchwoman, or for that matter French child, should look like.

Today, though, such differences seem secondary. Today everyone in France who is other than a terrorist is French. Today everyone in France is Charlie. Today everyone in France is a Jew.

Who – or, better, what – is a leader? And who – or, better, what – is a follower? Is it reasonable to refer to the two Kouachi brothers, who apparently were responsible for the massacre yesterday in Paris, as leaders? If a terrorist commits an act so heinous it changes our behavior – changes the behaviors of large numbers of people, including people in positions of authority – does that make him, or her, a leader?

It goes against our grain to think of terrorists as leaders – so completely has the leadership industry cajoled us into thinking of leaders as most of the time good, as opposed to some of the time bad. However, there are many different definitions of leadership, some of which encompass the behaviors of terrorists who commit acts so outrageous, offensive, and threatening to the general welfare, that they create change.

Here, for example, are three definitions that qualify:

• Leadership as the initiation of structure.
• Leadership as the capacity to induce compliance.
• Leadership as a power relationship between leader and led.*

I raise the question of whether or not a terrorist can by any measure be considered a leader not merely as an intellectual exercise, but to broaden our conception of how leadership is conceived.

I would argue that in the old days – up to the 21^st century – a leader was someone who as such was at least somewhat recognizable. I would similarly argue that times have changed, that in this shrinking, hyper-connected world a leader can be any anonymous someone who in the proverbial blink of an eye changes how millions think and what millions do. Similarly, men and women that we conceive of as leaders – say the president of France, Francois Hollande – can be transformed by terrorists into followers. They can be reduced, as it were, to being reactive rather than proactive.

I ask you, then, who exactly set France’s immediate priorities? And who exactly is obliged to go along?

—————————–

Bernard Bass, The Bass Handbook of Leadership (Free Press, 2008). p. 15 ff.

OK, OK, OK, I’m joining the crowd. I’m doing what everyone else does – naming the man of the year, the woman of the year, the movie of the year, the song of the year, the game of the year, the eatery of the year, the you-name-it-of the year.

Given my line of work, it’s only right that I should name a name. Two names, in fact, the best leader of the year and, yes, the best, or at least the most salient, follower.*

Leader of the Year: Petro Poroshenko

Against long odds, Ukraine’s president Petro Poroshenko stood up not only to his country’s obvious aggressor, Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, but to America and Europe’s indolence and indifference. Poroshenko rallied the majority of the Ukrainian people to his side, and he stood so hard and so fast that 2014 ended with him standing taller, Putin grown smaller, and both the U.S. and European Union more strongly supporting Ukraine both against Russian aggression and for closer ties to the West. While the last act of this drama has yet to be written, and the road ahead remains treacherous, there is no denying that in 2014 President Poroshenko rose to the occasion. Only a leader both smart and strong could have executed the formidable tasks with which he was faced as wisely and well as he.

Follower of the Year: Eric Garner

Until his death as the result of being put into a chokehold by an officer of the New York Police Department, the name of Eric Garner was, in effect, unknown. But, since then, since the footage of his apparently woefully unnecessary death was captured on film, Garner has become a symbol. His last words – “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe” – have become the slogan of the nation’s newest incarnation of a protest movement that goes back at least a half century. As I write, the most obvious manifestation of the tensions triggered by Garner’s death is a rift between New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio and the New York City Police Department. But in the wake of his own death, and also in the aftermath of racial strife in Ferguson, Missouri and subsequent civil rights protests around the country, Garner  became the human incarnation of a wound that America has yet fully to heal. He was rather an ordinary man whose extraordinary death has been stamped permanently not only on our collective consciousness, but on our collective conscience.

—————————————————————————————————-

*In my lexicon a leader is someone with obvious sources of power, authority, and, or, influence. A follower is someone without any obvious sources of power, authority, and, or influence.

You’re Barack Obama. You see yourself a leader who sometimes gets things done the way you wanted and intended.

On December 17^th, 2014 you announce that you have concluded a deal which after more than a half century will restore between the United States and Cuba formal diplomatic relations. You’re reminded of your power, authority, and influence.

You’re Barack Obama. You see yourself a leader who sometimes gets things done the way you wanted and intended.

The very same day, December 17^th, 2014, you are forced publicly to admit that a major American company was attacked by cyber-terrorists. You are forced further to admit (if only indirectly) that it was an attack for which your administration was inadequately prepared.  In fact your administration was so ill-prepared that for the moment you decide to do nothing. You decide that you need time to determine America’s response to North Korea’s aggression.

You’re Barack Obama. You see yourself a leader who sometimes gets things done the way you wanted and intended.

During your six years in the White House you have learned one Big Thing – the limits of leadership. You have learned how small your reserves of power, authority, and influence.  You have learned how even leaders as powerful as you are relentlessly beset by events beyond their control. You have learned how much of your time is spent being reactive as opposed to proactive. You have learned that even the likes of you are just one part of a system – the leadership system – in which parts other than you impinge on your ability to do what you want to do when you want to do it. You have learned that leadership is about much, much more than any single individual – no matter how singular.

——————————————————————

Note: This is my last post for 2014. HAPPY HOLIDAYS!