Author: Barbara

What is a leader? Who is a leader? How is a “leader” defined?

As every student of leadership knows, to these questions are hundreds of different answers. For the purposes of this piece I’ll keep it simple. I’ll assume – as most of us do- that leaders are people in positions of authority. For example, a CEO of a large company is a leader. But what if that CEO does not lead? More precisely, what if that CEO does not lead other than inside his or her own company? Does it suffice, in other words, for leaders of organizations in business, or in education, or in religion, or in any place else for that matter to say little or nothing about the larger context within which their organizations are located? Even if that larger context is being derailed, not to speak of despoiled?

In my book Bad Leadership, I developed a typology of bad leadership. One of the seven types of bad leadership was Insular Leadership. Insular Leadership is when “the leader and at least some followers minimize or disregard the health and welfare of ‘the other’ – that is, those outside the group or organization for which they are directly responsible.” My hypothesis was it will not suffice for leaders to lead only those who are their subordinates. Good leaders, have a larger, social responsibility. Which is why, to take an obvious example, leaders of fossil fuel companies should long ago have acknowledged, and acted on, their further obligations. Obligations that extend beyond the companies for which they are directly responsible. That extend to the preservation of the planet for the benefit of generations to come.

The syndrome of insular leadership came to mind again recently, when in the wake of the attack on the U.S. Capitol, the captains of American industry finally found their tongues. They finally found the fortitude to speak up and out against President Donald Trump who during the entirety of his time in the White House had been as obviously corrupt as incompetent.

Notwithstanding the unprecedented deficits of the Trump administration, leaders in American business were mute both on his ethics and effectiveness. They had struck a Faustian bargain, agreeing to scratch his back if only he would scratch theirs. Scratch theirs by, for instance, bestowing on them corporate tax cuts from which they stood handsomely to benefit. Presumably, some among America’s corporate titans were true believers. Steven Schwartzman, for example, CEO of Blackstone, was such an ardent Trump supporter it’s possible to imagine he meant what he said.  But, based on their public records as well as subsequent statements, most did not. Most corporate leaders did what Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, said they did. They subjugated their moral principles to what their perceived their business interests. But, as Walker pointed out, the compromises they made were “ultimately bad for business and bad for society.”   

No sense blaming only business leaders for being bystanders. As suggested, leaders in other places, such as in higher education, are equally to blame for their failure to be heard during a four-year period that, one could reasonably argue, led inexorably to an attempted coup. History has taught us that silence does not suffice. History has taught us that tyrants must be stopped before they start. History has taught us that leaders must lead lest they follow.

The argument that I made in my 2012 book, The End of Leadership, has been reconfirmed, and then reconfirmed yet again. The argument was basically this. That given the trajectory of history, and given the changes in culture and in technology, leaders were losing power and followers were gaining it.  This argument applied then as it does now to every liberal democracy. In fact, it applied then as it does now to every group or organization any place on the planet that is other than under a tyrant’s thumb.

In the month that so far is 2021, there have, for example, been these four significant displays of follower power. Of followers upending, or threatening to, leaders who seem on the surface to hold all the cards.  

• At great risk to themselves, protesters across Russia have taken to the streets to press against Putin-the-authoritarian to support the heroic renegade, Alexei Navalny.
• Republicans in the U.S. Senate have resolutely refused to follow their longtime leader, Mitch McConnell. As the New York Times put it, McConnell “carefully nudged open the door for his party to kick Donald J. Trump to the curb, only to find it slammed shut.”
• Experts have quit their posts rather than be humiliated by those ostensibly in charge. Whether these are former president Trump’s legal advisors or present governor Andrew Cuomo’s medical advisors, at least some subordinates prefer to leave rather than stay if their superiors insist on being stupid and, or, stubborn.
• Reddit’s WallStreetBets has taken the trend to which I refer to a new arena. In a direct challenge to the Wall Street elite, especially but not exclusively hedge fund managers, ordinary people are upending traditional trading models. As I write silver has surged, suddenly, to its highest price in years not because of Wall Street but because of Main Street. Because of a brigade of day-traders demanding finally to get in on the action.

“The Times They Are a-Changin’”

I cannot possibly describe what happened in Russia this weekend as well as Joshua Yaffa, who posted his eye-witness piece to The New Yorker.

Navalny’s Long-Running Battle with Putin Enters a New Phase | The New Yorker

What I can do though is this: Sketch on a larger canvas where we are in this long running and ongoing struggle between Goliath, Vladimir Putin, on the one side, and David, Alexei Navalny, on the other.  

• Navalny, who began his life as an activist on a platform of anti-corruption, has been a thorn in Putin’s side for at least the last ten years.
• Over time Navalny has evolved from political nuisance to Putin to political threat to Putin. Not yet, as Yaffa’s article makes clear, a mortal threat. But a palpable threat, nevertheless.
• For his troubles Navalny has paid a heavy price. In addition to being relentlessly harassed and intimidated, he has been repeatedly arrested and imprisoned. And, last summer, he was poisoned. So toxic was the attempt on his life – unquestionably with Putin’s complicity – that initially it was unclear he would survive.
• To recover his health in the wake of this last, worst attack, Navalny was moved to Germany. This transport could not, obviously, have happened without the approval of the Russian government.  No question Putin assumed Navalny would be gone, even if not dead at least out of Russia for good.
• But, for Putin no such luck. After months Navalny was restored to reasonably good health. And, almost as soon as he was able, Navalny announced, to the astonishment both his friends and enemies, that he would by absolutely not remain abroad, he would return to Russia.
• Which, last week, he did. Navalny – an internet expert and activist – had made sure the world would be watching his landing. But, still, he was arrested immediately upon setting foot on Russian soil.
• Navalny continues to drive Putin mad not just by embodying the Russian opposition, but by disclosing the extent of Putin’s lust, specifically of his endless, outsized greed. For at this point in his life Putin’s lust for money is greater than his lust for anything else. In fact, if Putin’s lust for power had rivaled his lust for money he would long ago have disposed of Navalny once and for all.

Ironically, by failing to kill Navalny the Russian government has created a hero. This weekend’s widespread protests, across Russia, all of which were pro Navalny and anti Putin, suggest that Navalny will long be remembered as singularly courageous member of the Russian opposition.

What has Putin learned from this experience? For that matter what have other leaders similarly disposed – similarly intent on holding on, permanently if possible, to power – learned from this experience?

It’s really very simple. If in the third decade of the 21^st century you are a leader who wants your followers to submit – to mildly and meekly toe the line – it’s up to you to keep them in line. Autocrats cannot afford to give their followers an inch, lest they take a mile. In other words, if you are an autocrat, and if you want to remain an autocrat, you cannot let up. You must continue without surcease to rule with an iron fist.     

The best way to avoid having a bad leader is not to hire a bad leader – not to bring on a bad leader in the first place. Of course, in many if not most situations who leads is out of our control. In the workplace, for example, most of us have no say in who leads or even manages. However, in liberal democracies we do have a voice. Might not be much of a voice but a voice – a vote – it still is. Which raises the question of what we do with that vote.

It is widely agreed even now that former president Donald J. Trump will be ranked by experts as the worst president, by far, in American history. Which raises another question: how did he become president in the first place? Obviously, he became the nation’s chief executive because though he never won most of the popular vote, in the 2016 election he won enough electoral votes to put him over the top. Americans always complain about the deficits of the electoral college, but they seem, so far anyway, incapable of doing anything about it. Further, in the 2020 election, notwithstanding Trump’s dismal track record as president, he still, famously, infamously, got some 74 million Americans to vote for him for a second term.

When we set out to hire a doctor or a lawyer, or for that matter a plumber or an electrician, we generally do so with caution and care. We might ask around, or maybe go online, to get someone who comes well recommended. Whose track record is of someone reasonably competent and honest. We would, in other words, want a doctor or plumber who is not a total novice. Similarly, a lawyer or electrician who is not a shyster or grifter.  

Somehow, though, when it comes to hiring a leader – in this case voting for president – our usual standards sometimes bite the dust. Last presidential election those 74 million Americans voted for a candidate who demonstrably was neither competent nor honest. In other words, their standards for hiring a leader were far below those they would ever use for hiring a doctor or a lawyer, a plumber or an electrician.

The implications of this are serious. In fact, as the deaths of over 400,000 Americans from Covid-19 attest, they are, or at least they can be deadly serious. What is to be done? How to educate Americans to the fact that their criteria for hiring a political leader should be the same as their criteria for hiring anyone else – competence and character? Two steps come immediately to mind. The first is to reintroduce into American schools, beginning at an early age, a considered and consistent civics curriculum. The second is to mobilize the leadership industry to set standards for leaders. Standards that attest to the rigorousness of leaders’ education and training, and their experience

The practice of leadership should, in short, mimic the practice of the professions – and the vocations. Would you hire a New York City real estate developer with no relevant experience to treat you for cancer? Would you hire a New York City real estate developer with no relevant experience to fix your toilet? If not, why hire a New York City real estate developer with no relevant experience to run the country?    

Whatever might be his deficits, about Joe Biden there is this to be said. He’s a pro. He’s been in the business of politics for many years. He’s had many previous leadership posts. And as near everyone who knows him concurs, he is a man who is decent.              

Given the turmoil and tumult of the last four years few things have stayed the same. An exception is Tom Brady. Now as before he is the most formidable force in American football. And, now as before he is a phenomenon – as singular psychologically as he is physically.  

Brady is a gift to the nation. Ambitious as ever, accomplished as ever, iconic as ever he is good for our national psyche. He reminds us of the virtues of determination and discipline. He entertains, energizes, and distracts. He models good leadership in a morass of bad leadership. And he soothes our savage breasts when they sorely need soothing.

In Leaders Who Lust: Power, Money, Sex, Success, Legitimacy, Legacy, Todd Pittinsky and I wrote that Brady’s stellar performance and extraordinary longevity were attributable in part to luck. Not every star athlete has his natural physical attributes and abilities, nor, obviously, are they all blessed with his enduring good health.

Still, it is Brady’s mind more than his body, specifically his astonishing work ethic, that has distinguished him from his counterparts. His work ethic has been the external manifestation of his internal drive – of his insatiable appetite, of his tireless lust to succeed. “It explains why he has been willing for so many years, eager for so many years, to push himself far beyond what the rest of us mere mortals can even begin to contemplate.”*

Last year when Brady quit the New England Patriots most football fans thought it likely he had seen his better days. It seemed a stretch for him to assume that he could replicate in Tampa Bay the success he had in New England. Not only was he old, old, old – 42 at the time, ancient for a quarterback – his cord to Pats’ coach Bill Belichick was considered too close to cut.

But while New England has clearly suffered in apparent consequence of Brady’s departure, he himself has thrived. Brady has brought to his new team, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, fresh energy and new hope. Tampa Bay has not won a Super Bowl since 2003. This year though they’re in the NFC Championship – so it’s possible they pull it off, again!  

Brady is as bright a star, as formidable a role model in Tampa Bay as he was in New England. Wrote a sportswriter recently in the Washington Post, “There’s something unique about the way NFL players talk about Brady. [He is] myth as much as man to players who dreamed about making the league while watching his games on TV.” Wrote another writer-admirer, this one in January in the Wall Street Journal, “He is leading the hottest defense in the NFL … and after years of diminishing play Brady has experienced a stunning rejuvenation.” Said Buccaneer’s head coach, Bruce Arians, of Brady just a few days ago, he’s the “consummate leader.”

Leaders Who Lust went to print before Brady moved to Tampa Bay. But his template had long ago been set. To lust for success – as Brady does – has little or even nothing to do with the trappings of success. With fame, or money, or power. Rather it is about success per se – success as its own reward. Which is why despite the risks of playing past his prime, Brady persists. In 2018 he was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey, who asked if he thought he had an “insatiable drive.” To which Brady replied, “Yeah, I do. To be the best I can be. Not to be the best what anyone else thinks. Just to be the best I can be. Why am I still playing now? Because I feel like I can still do it…. It’s just, I love it.”   

 ———————————————————-

*My thanks to Jack Greenwald for his considerable contribution to this post.

**Page 137, Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Bad leadership is toxic. Toxic not only within but without. Like a virus that’s highly contagious, bad leadership can spread, quickly and efficiently, from one place to another.

We saw this in Europe, in the years before the Second World War, when not only fascism but associated toxins such as anti-Semitism started first in one country and then spread to another, and then to still others. In fact, we have seen this in Europe even in recent years, especially in East Europe, where, to the astonishment of its West European counterparts, autocracies have replaced democracies.

The poisonousness contagiousness of bad leadership comes to mind again now, watching China’s behavior, Xi Jinping’s behavior, just in the last six months. I have written elsewhere about Xi’s lust for power.* Here I will point out only that in the recent past this lust has not only not been stilled, quelled, it has been revived, reinvigorated.

Why has this been so? Why after years in power did Xi decide recently to clamp down on Hong Kong? Why after years in power did Xi decide recently totally to squelch his political opposition? Why after years in power did Xi decide recently aggressively to take on China’s most powerful and prominent industrialist, Alibaba founder, Jack Ma? Why now? Why has Xi been far more aggressive and oppressive in the recent past than he was in the more distant past?

Paramount among the several reasons is one. Because the United States – the only country in the world that rivals China in power and influence – has been hobbled if not crippled by bad leadership. Bad leadership that has led to the U.S. now facing four crises simultaneously: 1) a public health crisis; 2) an economic crisis; 3) a social justice crisis: and 4) a governance crisis.

Bad leadership is why Americans have been consumed, completely, by themselves. This has allowed it, bad leadership, to spread. In fact, if this keeps up, look to Putin to copy Xi, to harden his fist not only at home but abroad.      

———————————-

*Leaders Who Lust: Power, Money, Sex, Success, Legitimacy, Legacy (Co-authored with Todd Pittinsky, Cambridge University Press, 2020).              

One of the longest standing of the many debates among experts on leadership is the so-called “hero in history” debate. The debate about the importance of single individuals. About how much of a difference any single leader can make.

At one end of the spectrum has been the British philosopher and historian, Thomas Carlyle, who wrote in 1841 that history is “at bottom the history of the great men who have worked here. They were the leaders of men, these great ones.” At the other end was another nineteenth century Brit, this one the sociologist Herbert Spencer, who thought that what Carlyle wrote was poppycock. Who thought that if you look more closely at history, you will see that Carlyle’s theory about the great man “breaks down completely.”

Leo Tolstoy was another skeptic – he did not believe that even the greatest of men made history. “The actions of Napoleon and Alexander,” he wrote in War and Peace, “were as little voluntary as the actions of any soldier…. We are forced to fall back on fatalism as an explanation of irrational events.”   

More contemporaneous was the American philosopher Sidney Hook, who in his 1943 book, The Hero in History, distinguished between “the eventful man” and “the event-making man.” The eventful man is the person, the leader, who is simply in the right place at the right time. The event-making man, in contrast, is the “Great Man.” The leader who is not merely, as Spencer and Tolstoy would have it, history’s pawn, but history’s piper. The event-making man is a mover and a shaker. He is a genuine leader who controls not only his own destiny but the destinies of others. Of his followers, maybe millions, caught voluntarily, or involuntarily, in his vortex.

Donald Trump is an event-making man. This is not to say that he is not also a product of the times in which we live. A reflection of the history that preceded him – and a reflection of his base. Of the 74 million Americans who voted for him in November, many of whom would follow even now, no matter where he led.

But, for the last four years Trump has sucked the air out of the room. He has consumed us, shaped the American experience and experiment. Moreover, he continues to so even now, notwithstanding he has been beaten and bloodied, with just a week left in office, if that.  Who then can counter Carlyle or for that matter Hook? Who can doubt that on rare occasion there is such a thing as a “great man”? An “event-making man”? Not me. 

————————————————————————-

 *The Hero in History debate has presumed the leader a man. For the purposes of this essay, I use this convention.

The original novel – titled Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus – was by Mary Shelley. It was about a young scientist named Victor Frankenstein who created a creature that was a humanoid.

Over time though the story was distorted. The first distortion was the creature – not the creature maker – came to be called “Frankenstein.” The second distortion was the creature became a monster. The third distortion was that Frankenstein, now a monster, had a mind of his own. He could no longer be controlled by anyone – least of all by the one, by those, who originally created him.

Shelley’s novel, then, evolved. It became in time a morality tale. Beware the monster you make for someday it might, likely it will, turn on you.

OK, they’re not twins. Jeff Bezos was born in 1964 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Elon Musk was born in 1971 in Pretoria, South Africa. Still, Bezos and Musk are strikingly similar in strikingly similar ways. They are leaders who lust. Further they are leaders who lust in just the same way for just the same thing.

In my recent book (coauthored with Todd Pittinsky) titled, Leaders Who Lust: Power, Money, Sex, Success, Legitimacy, Legacy, lust was described as a psychological drive that produces intense wanting, even desperately needing to obtain an object, or to secure a circumstance. But when the object has been obtained or the circumstance secured, whatever the relief, it is brief. Lust, then, suggests a fervor to acquire, achieve, or consume that is out of the ordinary – that is so extreme it is extraordinary.

As the subtitle of the book makes clear, six different types of lust were identified as especially applicable to people who lead. In other words, people who lead are sometimes driven to lead because they have an insatiable appetite for power, or money, or sex, or success, or legitimacy, or legacy. These types are not mutually exclusive. But one or another object of desire does dominate.     

In the case of Bezos and Musk it can safely be said that both lust for success. But success is not the type of lust – nor for that matter is money – that in their case stands out. If it did, they would be content, certainly now, to stick to what they know. In 2020 Bezos’s Amazon stock went up an extraordinary 75%. And in 2020 Musk’s Tesla stock climbed an astronomical 700%. But neither man is satisfied either with singular success or for that matter with a pile of money. Bezos and Musk both want more. What they want – in contrast to virtually every other living leader – is not merely to conquer the earth but the moon and the stars.     

In Leaders Who Lust the lust for legacy was defined as longing, effectively lifelong, to leave an imprint that is permanent. Which brings us to, in Bezos’s case, his other company, Blue Origin. And, in Musk’s case, his other company, SpaceX. Both were founded by men obviously not content to go down in history as among the greatest American entrepreneurs and business leaders ever. They are, after all, leaders who lust, to leave a legacy. Which is precisely why both are hellbent on leaving an imprint that is unprecedented – an imprint in space.   

Three years ago, Bezos announced that he would be selling a billion dollars a year of Amazon stock to finance Blue Origin’s research and development. (He founded the company in 2000.) In November 2020 Blue Origin launched (again) and then successfully landed (again) its New Shepard rocket and capsule for the purpose of verifying its safety – in preparation for one day having passengers on board.  Musk, in turn, “choked up with emotion” in October 2020 after SpaceX’s spacecraft, the Crew Dragon, with four astronauts on board, successfully arrived at the International Space Station.   

The striking successes of Amazon continue – and likely will for years to come – to overshadow Blue Origin. Similarly, the striking successes of Tesla continue – and likely will for years to come – to overshadow SpaceX. Still, make no mistake. To the end of their days both Bezos and Musk will be driven by their individualistic, idiosyncratic, and identical lust to leave a legacy – one that can more enduringly be satisfied in outer space than on planet earth.