Author: Barbara

Authoritarian leaders are not confined to the public sector, to government. They appear as well in the private sector, in business.  

In recent posts I provided three prominent examples of authoritarian, even dictatorial leaders of countries: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini; Russian President Vladimir Putin; and Chinese President and Chair of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping. Here three prominent examples of authoritarian, even dictatorial leaders of companies: Tesla’s, Space X’s, and Twitter’s CEO Elon Musk; Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg; and News Corps’ Executive Chairman, Rupert Murdoch.  

Like their private sector counterparts, each of the three corporate leaders faces one or more massive problems. Musk’s Twitter is crazed every which way, with most experts additionally predicting his ADD will result in Tesla and Space X being negatively impacted. The stock price of Zuckerberg’s Meta has dropped some 70% in the last year, much more than most of its major tech counterparts. Moreover, his megalomaniac leadership style is clearly not lending itself to smart decision making, especially as it applies to his fixation on the metaverse. As to Murdoch, in many ways he’s continuing his stunning run. But he’s under the wierd illusion that he’s immortal which explains why, though he’s not far from age 92, his plan for succession remains, shall we say, murky.   

What do all authoritarian – here dictatorial – leaders have in common? Ten key characteristics:

• Their power is near complete and their authority is extremely high.
• Their power and authority are centralized.
• Their flow of information is tightly controlled.
• They discourage or even punish independent thinking.
• They discourage or even punish dissent.
• They surround themselves with loyalists.
• They hold power so long as they want to hold power.
• Their governance structures become rigid and even sclerotic.  
• Their mechanism for succession is at their discretion.
• Their hold on power and authority is not total. Even they are vulnerable to forces they cannot wholly control such as, internal dissension or fractionalization; external restlessness and restiveness; events outside their sphere of influence such as natural disasters, collapses in markets, pandemics – and their own hubris.

What, in short, does a leader like Zuckerberg have in common with a leader like Xi? Turns out, quite a bit.

The longer they are in power the stronger they are in power.  

Dictators thrive on longevity. They eat it for breakfast – longevity allows them with every passing day, month, year further to gain control and further to do what they must to maintain it. They use their time in power increasingly to spread it, strengthen it, and secure it.

The present Iranian regime has held power for over four decades. The present Russian regime has held power for over two decades. The present Chinese regime has held power for over one decade. Think the men who’ve led these regimes have not used their many years in power to make as certain as they can their leadership roles remain intact? Think again.

Hard to convey the degree to which security – their own personal security, the political security of their regimes – is a priority. The priority. Nothing matters more to Ali Khamenei, to Vladimir Putin, and to Xi Jinping than maintaining the status quo so far as it pertains to their personal and political leverage.

China is the most extreme example of the leader’s craving for complete control. During the ten years that Xi has been president of the country and chair of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China has become much the most aggressive and intrusive surveillance state in the world. No expense has been spared, no technology has been excluded, no stone has been left unturned in the relentless quest to track the locations and behaviors of every single Chinese man and women. Nor have the children been left out. They are regularly socialized and educated from an early age in the virtues of the CCP, and in the ideas and ideologies of Xi Jinping.       

In the last several days the world has witnessed the following: First, Iranian World Cup soccer players – and their families – threatened by the Iranian government for failing perfectly to conform and perform at the games in Qatar. Second, Russian missiles relentlessly attacking Ukrainian power grids hoping to accomplish in the cities what they have been unable to accomplish on the battlefields. Third, the Chinese authorities now sweeping into areas that on the weekend were restive, tracking and threatening those who dared to participate in the protests.

I wrote yesterday that none of the three leaders – not Khamenei, Putin, or Xi – have had more than an occasional brush with dissent. They are inexperienced therefore in how to respond. So, they respond reflexively, out of habit. What is their habit? Completely to squash the opposition. Completely to stamp it out before it has a chance to spread.

But as I also wrote dictators can kill only what’s visible to the naked eye. They cannot crawl into hearts and minds. It’s why the longer dictators are in power the stronger they are in power – until they are not.  

            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