24 January 2011

Leading from the Soul (Part 1 of 4)


Part I: Introduction

When I think of great leaders I think of people like Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, and the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.  They were people whom against all odds and, moreover, against popular opinion, led society to places it would have never gone without them – to places that established new norms and higher expectations.  Their ideas and convictions were asserted thoughtfully and courageously and they never wavered from their purpose: to improve the lot of humanity.  These leaders spent a great deal of their time alone, reading and deliberating.  These leaders took risks that elevated everyone.  These leaders had a humble sense of self and a clear sense of mission.  When the history books are written about the early 21st century, I believe it will be claimed that while we suffered from economic malaise, global warming, terrorist acts, etc., the cause was not a housing or capital markets crisis, or an addiction to fossil fuels, or declining test scores, rising federal deficits, or even a broken healthcare system, it was rather a debilitating scarcity of leadership.  Leaders today show little, if any, of the characteristics of Lincoln, Gandhi, and King. 

            Affluence has had much to do with this dearth of leadership.  For the last twenty years or so, since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, we frankly have not needed much leadership. If a difficult question remained unanswered, the consequences were few. Prosperity assured enough slack in the system that mistakes could be absorbed with little pain and no devastation. Evolutionary pressures that might have selected for capable leaders were largely absent.  Foreign affairs columnist for The Financial Times, Gideon Rachman, writes that the post-Cold War days of optimism are over, replaced by a new “Age of Anxiety” that portends a “zero-sum future.”[1] The so-called “Great Recession” that started in August 2007, and the turmoil of a global rebalancing of power that calls into serious question the future of America’s superpower status, means that whatever slack existed in the system is now gone.  Roger Altman and Richard Haas outlined the brutal details of American profligacy and declining American power in the journal of Foreign Affairs where they claimed, it was a lack of political will at home, as opposed to imperial overstretch “that threatens American power and security.”[2] The fact is everything has a consequence again, and leadership is essential.

            Historians may also conclude that besides affluence, technology — in spite of all of its many benefits — played its own insidious role in the decline of leadership.  They may find that those digital conveniences we have come to love and dare not live without, which have forced upon us an incessant need to be connected, has pushed leadership aside in favor of distraction and trivialities.  Technology has produced a conversation that is fast, short, and shallow.  It has fooled us about friendship; convincing us we are just a click away from adding a new so-called friend.  Research has been Wiki-fied, which has led to a diminished capacity to search, contemplate, hypothesize, test, reconsider, conclude, and start the search again.  In the process we have lost our sense of method.  Debates – once like symphonies – have been reduced to sound bites and video snippets.  Solving complex problems is no longer the goal; increasing “click-throughs” and “going viral” is all that matters.
   
            These future pages of history can, however, be avoided if we take care to reclaim our capacity for solitude, courage, and moral purpose.  This requires that we shift our behaviors to those that produce depth of thought and origination – that we have the discipline to disconnect.  It requires that we become transcendently courageous and that we focus on the ‘why’ of what we do.  It means that we each must become our own Lincoln, Gandhi, or King.  We can begin by leading from our soul and embracing a conscious discipline of self-restraint and introspection, so that we may regain our purpose and our will.  The process starts with practicing solitude so that we may know ourselves; then summon the courage of our convictions; and remain steadfastly committed to our purposes.


[1] Gideon Rachman, Zero Sum Future (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011).
[2] Roger C. Altman and Richard N. Haas, “American Profligacy and American Power,” Foreign Affairs, 89, no. 6 (November-December 2010): pp. 25-34.

09 January 2011

A Time to Lead


The events in Tucson this weekend illustrate all too painfully what has become of leadership in America.  The events themselves raise many questions that can and are being debated with (mostly) appropriate vigor.  But what led to the murderous act of Jared Lee Loughner, concerning as it is, is unlikely to produce a clear evaluation of the state of leadership in America.  What will, however, is the careful observation of what comes now: the response of our elected officials.  The early results are not promising.

            The conservative Republican response was framed Sunday morning by Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona on Meet the Press, who made three basic claims: this is an act of a lone degenerate; we must not allow him to quell our freedom of speech; and, if we would all just turn our face to God, all will be well. In other words, it’s not our fault, and we must remain both stubborn and righteous.  Shame on you, Mr. Franks.  Demagoguery, however carefully coded, is not leadership.

            One thing is known about unstable persons like Mr. Loughner: they are easily led.  In fact, their instability is in itself a cry for leadership.  The good news is they can be led in most any direction – for ill or better. But, we must – all of us – take care to lead, to tip them in the direction of better.  For the most part, leaders today are followers who masquerade as leaders.  They wait to see which way the herd is headed then run fast to get to the front to claim they’re the ones being followed.  This inevitably produces what we see in Congress today and what happened in Tucson on Saturday: a nation at war with itself.

            The leadership this country needs now must have the intellect, courage, and moral purpose to move people in new directions; to acknowledge that where we are is dire, where we are going is disastrous, and that what we must do will be as painful as it is necessary.  Running to the front of the herd and spewing demagoguery won’t do it.  Pushing the unstable toward violence is itself culpable. It is time to transcend such foolishness and retire the political jesters who are leading our country closer to the abyss every day.