Category: Digital Article

On August 16, in a similarly titled blog, I wrote how strikingly powerless was the American president not only at the national level, but at the international level as well. “American power has waned dramatically even in recent years, which means that the White House, the State Department, and even the Pentagon are generally unable to bend either individuals or institutions to their will.” I added that the American foreign policy establishment has been slow to understand how radical the changes to which I referred – and that with presidential power and authority so severely depleted, the only arrow remaining in Obama’s quiver was influence.

Little did I know then what I know now: that one month later, on September 14, would be announced an agreement between the United States and Russia, calling for the destruction or removal of Syria’s chemical arsenal within nine months. I will leave it to history to render a verdict on the agreement. I will leave to experts on weapons to determine whether the agreement is even feasible. And I will leave it to those more knowledgeable in foreign affairs than I to decide if the agreement is in the national interest.

However so far as leaders and followers are concerned, I will weigh in. Some preliminary conclusions:

• The Kremlin should be celebrating. Never in a million years would anyone have predicted that from one week to the next Putin would be transformed from a national figure in evident decline, to an international superstar who the U.S. was hustling to the negotiating table. Here was the view from Moscow a week or so ago: the regime was weakening, the economy was suffering, Putin’s popularity was dropping, and the Olympics (to take place in Russia next year) were being threatened by human rights activists. Now everything is different. Why? Because the American president has handed the Russian president a big fat gift: legitimization as full partner of the U. S. in a major international initiative. As Leon Aron summarized it in the Wall Street Journal: “Domestically, this turn of events has bolstered Mr. Putin’s image as someone who not only has unflinchingly confronted the U.S. – still the nation most feared and respected by Russians – but forced it to change its course. Internationally, it has established Mr. Putin as a kind of go-to broker who has scuttled a seemingly imminent military strike by the U. S. Most importantly, from Moscow’s perspective, Mr. Obama’s move has delayed or perhaps eliminated what Russia sees as the worst possible outcome: regime change in a faithful major client in a geostrategically crucial region.”
• The White House should be grieving. Never in a million years would anyone have predicted that from one week to the next Obama would be transformed from a figure of some stature into a something of a weakling – apparently feeling obliged by the situation of his own making into breaking bread with Putin. By entering into negotiation with the Russian autocrat, the U.S. lost ground on each of the following: 1) Though we insist that the possibility of unilateral American military force remains, in order for the Russians to agree even to begin to talk, the Americans took force off the table, leaving whatever the relevant language on the cutting room floor. 2) Obama was never able to persuade either the Congress or the American people that chemical weapons (which so far have killed fewer than 2,000 Syrians) are so much more atrocious than other sorts of weapons (which so far have killed more than 100,000 Syrians). Why, in other words, did he decide to enter into an agreement with the Russians at this time, over this issue, when he failed to do much of anything at earlier points, when so much bloodshed and heartache might have been avoided? 3) Whoever the Syrian rebels are or are not – we know that there are many different factions, some of them extremists, others moderate Syrians still desperate to get rid of their dictator – we just did them in, at least for now. By cozying up to the Kremlin, Assad’s ally, we have turned our backs on any and all Syrians who want nothing so much as for their president to disappear. 4) Given that Putin is our new found friend, various anti-Putin initiatives will suffer. They range from human rights activism to the U.N. as the court of last resort. The Russians have long threatened to veto any American proposal to the Security Council to check Assad. Now, suddenly, they’re amenable to talking about the Syrian problem, but only outside the parameters of the world body. 5) For the time being at least, Assad, who arguably is single-handedly responsible for the misery of millions (two million Syrian refugees alone), can rest easy. His friend, Putin, has morphed into our friend, which provides Assad with protection.

Look, I have no idea how any of this will turn out – just as I had no idea one month ago how in no time flat Putin would whistle and Obama would come. But what I do know is this. For the moment at least, Putin has been elevated and Obama denigrated. Not a pretty picture.

The turnout was low. The chances of him ultimately winning the election are zero. There will not be another contest like this one for years. And the city in which the drama played out was Moscow, the most liberal, if this word even applies, in Russia.

But Alexsei Navalny’s campaign for mayor was a stunner. It was the first serious challenge in many months to the autocracy of Vladimir Putin. And though he did not of course win, Navalny managed nevertheless to capture a remarkable 30 percent of the votes cast. (The final figure remains to be determined – if it ever will.) Moreover the story is not yet over. Exactly how this will all play out – in the near and far term – remains to be seen.

This much, though, we know for sure. First, that Navalny is now indisputable leader of the Russian opposition. Second, that Putin is scared of Navalny – scared to jail him on trumped up charges lest people (lots of people) protest. (Navalny was recently sentenced to five years in prison, only to be mysteriously released the next day.) And third, that the only way for Putin to keep a lid on the situation is to continue to walk that fine line between menace and promise.

I have been writing about Navalny for years, since he began his public life as a fly in Putin’s ointment. He came, in other words, out of nowhere, an ordinary if remarkably intrepid man who first made his mark as a particularly bold blogger, understanding early on that even in repressive Russia social media could create change. And now he’s evolved, from a follower (without power, authority, or influence) into leader (with,some power and some influence) – a daredevil leader at that, primed to take on a man who would like nothing so much as to throw him in jail and toss away the key.

Barack Obama is not the only one who’s had a bad week. Leaders across the board and around the world were under attack. This is not new – it’s the way things now are. But every now and then some single thing happens to remind us yet again, and in no uncertain terms, that leaders in 21st century America are contending with forces that are as powerful as they are new.

In this case I’m talking about leaders in business, specifically about chief executive officers who increasingly are being blindsided by those euphemistically called “activist investors” or, if you prefer, “shareholder activists.”

In the old days, CEOs and their largely handpicked boards were left largely alone to run their businesses as they saw fit. This held true even when times were tough, when the business was performing poorly. And it held true even if management was doing badly, if individual executives including those at the top were not up to the task. In other words, other than government, there has been no outside force, no entity organized enough and forceful enough, to challenge those on the highest rungs of the corporate ladder.

Among other reasons, unlike voters, who are relatively easy to organize, shareholders in large numbers are not. Even those among us who hold stocks do not typically pay much if any attention to how the companies that we own in part are run. We don’t understand the business. We don’t know who else is a shareholder. We are far flung and have zero sense of community. And we have no conception that our vote on any given individual or issue will make a difference.

This is not to say that the average shareholder has no voice at all. In fact on line technologies are slowly being employed to, for example, connect with and rally other shareholders, get people to participate in annual meetings, coordinate proxy votes, and complain loudly if not necessarily effectively about company policies, including executive compensation. Still, so far this approach has been scatter-shot, effective only infrequently – which explains why leaders in the private sector are still relatively free to lead as they see fit. (That is, leaders in the private sector are free to lead as they see fit – relative to leaders in the public sector.)

But when the Wall Street Journal’s main front page headline screams “Activist Storms Microsoft Board”, as it did just a few days ago, you can reasonably conclude that something’s afoot (August 31/September 1). Just a few days earlier Microsoft’s CEO, Steve Ballmer, had announced that he was stepping down. And now this! Now Microsoft was being obliged effectively to put on its board (late this year or early next) a hedge fund investor claiming to represent many other investors, all of whom were unhappy with the company’s recent performance. We need not lose sleep over Microsoft – it’s sitting on a pile of money and its business is healthy enough. But its stock price has languished, it has not been considered especially innovative, and now there is the new question of management succession.

The story of the assault on Microsoft’s management would not be so big if it were not indicative of a larger trend – but it is. Increasingly activists with huge war chests are taking on companies large and small – including blue-chip companies such as Procter & Gamble and Pepsico – which is why we can say the playing field has changed. Again, leaders, here CEOs, are getting weaker and followers, here shareholder activists with deep pockets and plenty of moxie, but no formal authority, are getting stronger.

As a result of the threats by outsiders, CEOs are being forced to play defense. They are taking activist investors more seriously. They are monitoring their shares for signs of an activist threat. They are hiring advisers when insurgent investors emerge. And, as the New York Times notes, they are willing to compromise, for example to offer a board seat or two, to try to avoid a bloody battle for control. As one hedge fund manager put it, “Companies are trying to engage with the activists early, below the radar, so that things don’t have to bubble up to the surface and become public, which is extremely disruptive to the company.” (New York Times, August 31.)

Another example of the end of leadership – at least as we have known it.

Dolly Madison, wife of the fourth president of the United States, James Madison, served as First Lady from 1809-1817. She is famous even now for her political savvy, social grace, and tireless hospitality.

For most of this nation’s history these last two attributes – social grace and hospitality in a First Lady – were considered icing on the cake. Nice if you can get them, but not in any way important. In fact, the term “First Lady” is itself something of an anachronism – it persists for reasons of tradition and the lack of something clearly better. Moreover in a time when women in many ways outstrip men, the very idea that the first function of a First Lady is to support her husband smacks of condescension.

But is it out of line or politically incorrect to insist that along with the privileges of being a First Lady, come responsibilities? Is it out of line or politically incorrect to insist that among these responsibilities is lightening the president’s load, making him better at what he does, supporting him politically as well as personally where he most needs it?

Not very First Lady is exemplary. In recent American history various First Ladies – Jacqueline Kennedy, Lady Bird Johnson, Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, Rosalynn Carter, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush – had their different strengths and weaknesses. Some were memorably effective, others eminently forgettable. The point is that the best among them were those who complemented their husbands – and compensated for their weaknesses.

This brings me to Michelle Obama. She is in several ways a standout. She is consistently ranked among America’s most admired women. She has become an icon of style – her hair, her attire, and the shape of her body all objects to be emulated. And she has devoted herself to good causes, most prominently military families, healthy eating, and childhood obesity. Additionally, from all we can tell she and her husband are deeply devoted to each other, and to their two daughters, and to traditional family values. So what’s to complain about?

This brings me to what Ms. Obama is not. She is not a First Lady who compensates for her husband’s glaring political weakness – introversion, a deep reluctance to be social for the sake of political expediency. (See my earlier blog, “The High Price of Social Distance.”) I recognize that there is debate about how important it is for presents to be inter-personally skilled, to be ingratiating, and to extend themselves to other political players, at home and abroad. But my own position is now and has long been clear. (See my earlier book, The Political Presidency: Practice of Leadership.) I have always thought that given America’s political culture and structure, in order for presidents successfully to lead they would have to be personally as well as political persuasive. This has always been true and, given the exigencies of leadership in the 21st century, it is now even more powerful a point.

Trouble is that neither Barack nor Michelle Obama seems to understand this. They are now what they always were: outsiders in Washington, in spite of their having resided in the White House now for over five years. The president never was disposed to chew the fat with fellow politicians, or to play golf with other than his own buddies. And the First Lady never was disposed to play the role of Dolly Madison, to use the White House as a resource, to play the part of hostess, even if for the sole purpose of being politically as well as personally supportive of her husband.

What’s involved is a two step process. Step number one is for husband and wife, president and First Lady, to understand, to appreciate the political importance of being personally ingratiating, of making friends to influence people. Step number two is for husband and wife, president and First Lady, to do what needs to be done in order to make such ingratiation more likely, not less.

Given Barack Obama’s personal proclivities, Michelle Obama would have done well to take a page from Dolly Madison’s playbook – to play hostess from day one, gladly, frequently, to throw open the White House doors to friend and foe alike. This traditional feminine role is not in any way demeaning or dated. To the contrary, when self interest is at stake, it’s simply savvy to embrace it.

Note: Sometimes “Dolly” is spelled “Dolley.”

It’s obvious that President Barack Obama read my blog posted this morning, “The High Cost of Social Distance.”

In consequence, he announced several hours later that he would try to exercise influence. He would try to persuade members of Congress that they should formally authorize him to use “force” in Syria.

Better late than never.

Walter Russell Mead recently argued that the Obama administration made five big miscalculations about the Middle East. It misread the political maturity of Islamist politicians. It misread the political situation in Egypt. It misread the impact of its strategy both on Israel and Saudi Arabia. It failed to grasp the new dynamics of terrorist movements. And it underestimated the costs of doing nothing in Syria. (Wall Street Journal, August 24-25, 2013).

To this list of five items I would add a sixth. In an era in which “foreign policy leadership” is almost an oxymoron, Obama misread the importance of cultivating allies. He misread the importance of cultivating allies not only abroad but at home. As a result, now, when he and his foreign policy team have finally decided they want to intervene in Syria – likely a limited strike – they stand alone. Conspicuously few abroad and conspicuously few at home are willing to stand in support of the administration.

In my last blog on this subject – “Leadership and Followership in Foreign Affairs” – I wrote the American foreign policy establishment does not get the necessity of deviating from previous conceptions of leadership in foreign affairs. “Leadership at the international level has little to do now either with power or authority. To the degree it can be exercised at all it is about influence – a different sort of skill set altogether.” (August 16th.) Even since then it became blindingly clear just how miserably the White House has failed this particular test. It has failed to understand that in order to accomplishing anything at all in the Middle East, without having to pay dearly politically, the U. S. must have the support of most if not all of these four constituencies: 1) its putative allies in the Middle East; 2) its putative allies elsewhere in the world; 3) the American Congress; and 4) the American people.

Ironically, Obama has replicated at the international level his failure at the national level. For all his intelligence and intermittent charm, he has failed to capture hearts and minds. He has failed to exercise influence. Or, more precisely, he has failed even to try to exercise influence, which with regard to Syria, he would have had to do years ago, when it became readily apparent it was a powder keg.

• In a region roiled in turmoil, the United States has few if any reliable allies (other than Israel), and none in open support of a military strike in Syria.
• In a world in which America’s allies are dwindling both in number and resolve, none of the usual suspects stands behind the American president. This week even British Prime Minister David Cameron was reduced by the House of Commons to saying that on the issue of a Syrian strike, he could do nothing to his great friend, Barack Obama.
• Members of Congress have lived up to their reputations. Most are critical of the American president and against his doing anything in Syria without congressional approval. But, at the same time, they show no signs of returning to Washington before their vacations are over to bestow on Obama their blessing or, for that matter, to withhold it.
• By an overwhelming majority – 80 percent – the American people do not want Barack Obama to lift a finger in Syria without Congressional approval.

What Obama will ultimately do in consequence of this mortifying lack of support for what he now wants and intends, is at this moment an open question. What is settled is his disinterest in making friends and influencing people – a trait that has cost him dearly.

If you know my work at all, you know I put a premium on being leadership literate – on being familiar with the classics of the leadership literature. As a member of the faculty of the Harvard Kennedy School, I developed a course titled “Leadership Literacy.” And a few years after that I edited a book based on the course – an edited collection of the great leadership literature titled, Leadership: Essential Selections on Power, Authority, and Influence.

Working with the great leadership literature yielded two surprises. The first was that there IS such a literature! Who knew?! For all the many thousands of courses on leadership and management that have been developed over the last thirty, forty years, nearly none make serious, rigorous use of what I consider the core of leadership learning – the great books.

The second surprise is that this work has real world, practical, implications. To be sure, “Leadership Literacy” and Leadership Essential Selections are, unapologetically, in the tradition of the liberal arts. They are not of obvious, immediate use, nor are they intended to be. This is not, however, to say that they are unimportant – not by a long shot. One might even argue that at a moment such as this one, when the liberal arts – subjects such history, literature, and philosophy – are under attack for not being adequately practical, anyone with any interest in the world of ideas ought to protect with special zealousness any effort in which the world of ideas is the coin of the realm.

All this came recently to mind when I read a short piece in the New York Times by Harvy Fierstein. Fierstein, an actor and playwright long familiar in the theater, has a way with words and this time, for the first time, he flat out, without question was aiming to lead. He was aiming to stoke the flame of fury in order to get others to do something, as opposed to nothing.

And so he did. There is no question that in the space of one month Fierstein’s article, titled “Russia’s Anti-Gay Crackdown,” has galvanized the gay community and communities more generally and globally into taking a stance against recent Russian laws that are patently homophobic. Since Fierstein’s piece appeared, on July 22nd, the conversation about the situation has been nearly non-stop – the issue being what if anything to do about the 2014 Winter Olympics, which are scheduled to begin in February, in Russia.

Only time will tell if Fierstein’s screed will endure, if it will ever be considered a classic of the leadership literature. At a minimum though, it gives evidence yet again that just the right words at just the right time can be, of themselves, agents of change. Thanks in good part to this single article the issue will not now go away. The 2014 Winter Olympics have already been branded by Fierstein’s pen – which took on not only Putin but the rest of us as well, insisting that we stand up and be counted.

I close by quoting Fierstein directly:

“Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, has declared war on homosexuals. So far, the world has mostly been silent.… Mr. Putin’s campaign against lesbian, gay and bisexual people is one of distraction, a strategy of demonizing a minority for political gain taken straight from the Nazi playbook. Can we allow this war against human rights to go unanswered?…With Russia about to hold the Winter Games in Sochi, the country is open to pressure. American and world leaders must speak out against Mr. Putin’s attacks and the violence they foster. The Olympic Committee must demand the retraction of these laws under the threat of boycott…There is a price for tolerating intolerance.”

For several years I have argued that, in general, leaders are getting weaker and followers stronger. I continue to make the case for two main reasons. First, I am persuaded that to understand the way the world works in the second decade of the 21st century, it is as important to account for followers as leaders. Leaders have less power, authority, and influence than they did before, and while followers as I define them have no authority, they do have power and influence – which has tended in recent years to accrue. This applies across the board, to the private and nonprofit sectors as well as to the public one, and to China and Brazil as to the United States.

The second reason I continue to make my case is because in my view the leadership industry is misguided – misguided to the degree it is leader-centric, as opposed to holistic. Put directly, the days in which focusing solely or even primarily on the leader are dead and gone. Instead, at this moment in history change needs to be seen as being inclusive, not exclusive. Change is in consequence of the leader, and the followers, and the context within which leaders and followers operate.

By and large I have made my case at the national level – I talk about, write about, what is transpiring within a particular nation state. But it is impossible to watch the events of the last week – I refer particularly to the events in Egypt – without being struck, yet again, by how dated is the old leadership model not only at the national level, but at the international level as well. Here is the paradox. Egypt’s leaders, the Egyptian military, have been powerless to control events within their own country, except, literally, at gunpoint. At the same time American leaders – the president, the secretaries of state and defense, and several senators – have been powerless to control Egypt’s leaders, the self same Egyptian military. In other words no one is able to lead, in any conventional sense of this word, anyone else.

This is the stuff of a book not a blog. But let me make three quick, additional points.

• The situation in Egypt is not singular. It is typical. American power has waned dramatically even in recent years, which means that the White House, the State Department, and even the Pentagon are generally unable to bend either individuals or institutions to their will. Russia’s president Putin has been unwilling to work with Washington on Syria, Iran, human rights, and Edward Snowden. China has refused to cooperate with Washington on a host of policy issues including trade, cyber-security, and intellectual property. Even Israel, arguably America’s staunchest (and most dependent) ally, chooses to go its own way, rejecting American blandishments to, for example, stop or at least slow the settlements.
• The American president is not only unable (easily) to lead leaders of other countries, he is unable completely to control what happens in the streets, people in other countries determined to take matters into their own hands. He is similarly unable to control small groups or cells, driven by their passions to go off on their own, outside the realm of formal authority, to conduct their own foreign policy – such as Al Quaeda. Finally he is unable to control individuals who are loners, individuals such as Edward Snowden, who single-handedly forced President Obama to change the conversation about privacy and national security.
• The American foreign policy establishment has been slow to understand how radical are the changes to which I here refer. It does understand that in 2013 the United States is “leader of the free world” in only the most limited sense. It does understand that in 2013 its still considerable military arsenal is usually useless. And it does understand that in 2013 the world is no longer uni-polar or even bi-polar – it is multi-polar. But what it seems to understand less well, much less well, is how important it is we deviate from leadership in foreign affairs as previously it was exercised. Leadership at the international level has little to do now either with power or authority. To the degree it can be exercised at all it is about influence – a different sort of skill set altogether.

The conventional wisdom is crime pays. The conventional wisdom is that in the wake of the nation’s most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression – a crisis brought on in large part by individual and institutional greed – nearly no one has been held personally or professionally responsible for what happened. Instead the rich got richer, the middle class dwindled, and the poor as usual got left behind.

I do not quarrel with this overarching assessment. The evidence confirms that what some allude to as “the filthy rich” broke away from the merely rich, that the middle class took a significant hit (it dwindled in size and income), and that the poor continue to struggle.

What I do however posit is that the picture is more complicated than what the conventional wisdom suggests. At least some of the high fliers are flying way, way less high than they did even a year ago. And slowly but certainly some stakeholders – especially the government and large, activist shareholders – are getting their pound of flesh. Hardly a day goes by without stories of one or another corporate executive having to pay the piper – if not necessarily in dollars, then in time and trouble, and in at least one other precious possession, reputation.

To make my point I provide two examples – both obvious as to be beyond dispute. But my overarching argument is far larger. It is that time will upend the conventional wisdom at least somewhat. Ten years from now we will be able to see in hindsight what we cannot easily see now – that a good number of corporate leaders were made to pay for their hubris and greed, if not, at least not necessarily, for crimes or misdemeanors.

First, the ever-newsworthy Jamie Dimon continues, well, to make news. For a long time he was seen as one of a handful of good guys – which is precisely why every time his company, JPMorgan Chase, is “in another pickle,” the press pounces. Here three recent headlines, the first two from the Huffington Post, the last from the New York Times:

• “JPMorgan Chase Nears Record Settlement Over Energy Market Manipulation Charges”
• “JP Morgan: We’re Being Investigated by DOJ Over Mortgages”
• “JP Morgan Reveals It Faces Criminal and Civil Inquiries”

An excerpt from the last of these articles, from an article written by Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Ben Protess:

“…Once a darling in regulatory circles, JPMorgan has become a magnet for scrutiny in recent years, drawing attention from at least eight federal agencies, a state regulator and two European nations. The authorities are investigating the bank in connection with its financial crisis-era mortgage business and a $6 billion trading loss in London last year, among other issues. As the investigations drag on, the bank is racking up significant legal costs. To help cushion against potentially hefty payouts to the authorities, JPMorgan recorded a $678 million expense of additional litigation reserves in the second quarter, up from $323 million in the same period a year ago…..”

Second case in point is the previously reclusive, now pervasive wizard of Wall Street, head of SAC Capital Advisors, Steven A. Cohen. For years, most of us knew nearly nothing about Cohen except what was rumored – he was as brilliant as Buffet, as rich as Croesus, and as fabled for his collection of art as for his money. But, things change.. Now Mr. Cohen is a fixture of the financial pages; now his face is familiar to anyone who pays attention; and now his pursuit by the government is relentless. Here three recent headlines, the first two from the Wall Street Journal, the last from the New York Times.

• “SAC Hit With Criminal Case”
• “SAC Braces for Investor Exit”
• “Towering Fine for Naught, as the S.E.C. Tracks Cohen”

An excerpt from the last of these articles, from an article written by Andrew Ross Sorkin:

“… ‘We’re willing to pay $600 million because we have a business to run and don’t want this hanging over our heads with litigation that could last for years.’ That’s what Steven A. Cohen’s lawyer told a judge just four months ago to justify why Mr. Cohen had agreed to pay $616 million to… settle civil accusations that his firm was involved in insider trading without admitting or denying guilt…. But it didn’t work. The S. E. C., having been shamed by critics for making what seemed like a deferential deal, returned with a new civil action against Mr. Cohen individually on Friday, seeking to bar him from the industry.”

Neither Mr. Dimon nor Mr. Cohen will ever go hungry. In fact, no matter what happens, both men will be forever be fabulously wealthy – among the 1 % of the 1%. Still how you judge the quality of their lives depends on how you assess success. At a minimum, it can never be said of them they escaped from the mess they made unscathed.

Past Predictable:

Barack cancels his scheduled face-to-face with Vladimir. Couldn’t possibly privately sup with with a president who’s so publicly personally petty.

Future predictable:

No way in hell the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi will take place without political protest. At an absolute minimum, L.G.B.T. rights advocates will successfully lobby for some sort of silent demonstration, testimony to solidarity in sympathy with their cause.

No way in hell those Olympics in