The Leadership that Brings Out the Best in Us

Our Leadership Paradox and the Only Leadership We Should Follow

May 25, 2024

Abraham Lincoln, February 5, 1865. Library of Congress.

We are in 2024, an election year, a year I call “the Year of the Precipice” for our democracy. To better equip Americans to exercise their civic duty this year, we have begun a series in Democraticus examining important ways of thinking and belief systems which can have a major impact on our democracy’s future.

The Leadership Journey We’ve Been On

Over the last weeks, Democraticus has taken us on a leadership journey. We have examined the question as to what leadership is and what type of leadership is it that a democracy requires? We have examined our leadership history, especially in electing presidents, and found our “batting average” is not very good. We have also delved into authoritarianism, including fascism and oligarchy. Ironically, authoritarianism is the antithesis of the type of leadership a democracy yearns for, yet is one that a sizeable number of Americans today seem attracted to, especially in times of uncertainty or great change.

Attracted to Bullies and our Leadership Paradox

Authoritarianism and its varieties are a form of leadership that author Arthur C. Brooks labels as “coercive”. Coercive leadership bullies and stays in power because no one wants to stand up to the leader. Nonetheless, we are attracted to bullies. Brooks supports that statement citing the work of Claremont Graduate University professor Jean Lipman-Bluman who says:

“…people complain about political dictators and tyrannical executives, yet nearly always remain loyal out of a primordial admiration for power and a need for security in an uncertain world.”[1] (emphasis mine)

While coercive leaders can persist for a long time, sooner or later they fail because their top-down decision making “begets mediocrity” by killing new ideas, stifling creativity, and empowering only the leader, who all the while belittles and blames others when things go wrong.[2] Is any of this sounding familiar to the reader?

That is our American leadership paradox. The leadership we often say we do not want- coercive, authoritarian leadership, is the very anti-democratic leadership we sometimes gravitate toward. And as we have seen, it does not take very much in the way of uncertainty or change to trigger that tendency. That is, until it fails, and we can then see the devastation this form of leadership has caused our nation. Unfortunately, sometimes we Americans must endure more than one iteration of this failed leadership before we are willing to consider a different style of leadership. Fortunately for us, there is a better way.

The Way Forward from Coercion

There is a style of leadership that as citizens in a democracy we should be equipped to recognize. The values it is built upon are congruent with as well as facilitate effective governance of a democracy. It is a leadership approach democracy requires, even craves. It is something far better than autocratic, demagogic, oligarchic leadership, which is not enlightened leadership and certainly not democratic- it is rulership.

But the question remains, what is this type of leadership that our democracy needs, even craves?

The Leader as a Servant First

It is something Ron Holifield, in his book 4^th Dimension Leadership[3], calls servant leadership. The concept of servant leadership originated with Robert Greenleaf (1904-1990) and has served as groundbreaking, paradigm shifting, and foundational for creating a new, more positive, and enlightened approach to leadership.

Holifield has taken this servant leadership framework and adapted it into leadership development in the public sector, especially in local government. Yet servant leadership as a concept adapts into any sector of our world, public sector at any level or the private sector. And, if one wishes to attribute servant leadership to one of the major world religions such as Christianity for example, one can do that as it is quite compatible.

However, Greenleaf’s conceptual framework for servant leadership came not from religion, but from his 1958 reading of Hermann Hesse’s Journey to the East, a story of a band on a mythical journey whose central figure is the story of Leo. Leo accompanies the band doing menial chores but sustains them with his “spirit and song”. Leo is a person of extraordinary presence.

All goes well until Leo disappears, the group falls into disarray, and the journey is abandoned. They cannot make it without the servant Leo. From this inspiration about leadership in Hesse’s novel, Greenleaf wrote “The Servant as Leader” in 1970 and from there this leadership philosophy has taken hold in leadership writings, lectures, and approaches ever since.[4] To quote Greenleaf:

“The servant-leader is servant first- as Leo was portrayed. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. The leader-first and servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.”[5] (emphasis mine)

What a Servant Leader Looks Like

Greenleaf’s servant leadership approach is grounded on twelve characteristics the servant leader should embody to his or her followers. They are:

· Listening

· Empathy

· Healing

· Nurturing the Spirit

· Building Community

· Awareness

· Foresight

· Conceptualization

· Persuasion

· Calling

· Stewardship

· Commitment to the Growth of People

Holifield develops these servant leadership characteristics further with seven unifying principles:[6]

Treat everyone with dignity and respect in every interaction.
Select team members who strive for excellence in every responsibility.
Prepare for the future by developing and empowering leaders at every level.
Prepare before you promote.
Continuous improvement in every aspect both personally and professionally.
Integrity matters the most in every circumstance.
It isn’t just about me - It isn’t just about now - And it never is.

Leadership That’s Authoritative, Not Authoritarian

Keeping in mind that leadership is about influence, Brooks has developed a leadership concept that meshes well with Greenleaf’s servant leadership concept, one he calls “authoritative leadership”. Notice very importantly, that Brooks calls his concept authoritative leadership, not authoritarian leadership for there is, as hopefully has already been demonstrated in this Democraticus leadership series, a gigantic difference. Brooks points to the work of social psychologist Amy Cuddy to build his leadership concept who says: “The way to influence- and to lead- is to begin with warmth. Warmth is the conduit of influence: It facilitates trust and communication and absorption of ideas.”[7] The authoritative leader, according to Brooks, influences their followers by:[8]

· Setting a course and inspiring others to take responsibility for getting to the final destination

· Garnering followers’ support by encouraging and trusting them

· Fostering an environment that affirms each team member’s importance and contribution and in so doing, gets team members invested in the long-term prosperity of the organization.

Yet, Brooks emphasizes this authoritative leader is not conflict averse. Instead, this type of leader wants “good conflict”- conflict which involves disagreement expressed strongly but agreeably among followers in order for the organization to distill the best ideas and best solutions. The authoritative leader will, when necessary, show anger, but it is not “negative anger” (anger on one’s own behalf), but rather, “righteous anger” (anger on behalf of others, those that have no voice). The authoritative leader is empathetic and kind, and willing to stand for the oppressed.[9]

Whether you subscribe to Greenleaf’s servant leadership concept, or to Brooks’ authoritative leadership concept, the point is- this is the type of leadership that advances democracy. Why is this? Simple- we all want positivity, warmth, vision, determination, collaboration, the ability to endure adversity, empathy, ability to express our views, as well as all the leadership attributes Brooks and Greenleaf have advanced, in the leadership our leaders provide us!

“Leadership Centric Leadership”

We want leadership that is not “leader centric” with the leader being “the center of our universe”. Rather, people want “leadership centric” leadership, which is principled, shared leadership at the center of our governance instead of the leader. We yearn for leadership that values all people, builds people up, and works to encourage us to be the best version of ourselves as a nation (especially in difficult times), not the worst we can be via a culture of contempt, hate, envy, lies, and derision.

Perhaps one of the best examples of servant-authoritative leadership came from President Abraham Lincoln. Historian Edward Achorn describes Lincoln’s approach to leadership in his first inaugural address, an address given amidst increasing calls by Southern states for secession as the clouds of civil war increasingly gathered. Lincoln said these remarks at his first inauguration:

“…Though passions may have strained, it must not break the bonds of our affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely as they will be, by the better angels of our nature…”[10] (emphasis mine)

Lincoln never lost hope that Americans’ love for their country and love for each other, even in Civil War, could be revived. Good leadership is being a servant first and authoritative in the best way, not autocratic, authoritarian, oligarchic, or demagogic (with some fascist thrown in for good measure!). At one of our nation’s darkest moments, our Civil War, Americans chose Lincoln’s selfless authentic leadership as the leadership that was best for the nation. It is time that we ceased treating leadership as some mysterious thing that “just happens” or wielded upon us, and teach the qualities of positive, servant leadership that our leaders, which We the People elect, must have to serve our democracy, and allow our representative democratic republic to reach its highest potential.

The Fatal Stakes of Bad Leadership

And, just as with poor governance, the stakes for poor leadership, or worse yet, leadership failure, are simply too high for a nation- they can mean life and death. As the pandemic set in, newspapers nationwide began to document the inept administrative and political response to it from the Trump Administration. This included Trump admitting that he was trying to “play down” the seriousness of the corona virus when he knew from the Intelligence Community that it was deadly.[11] Politico reported on the Trump Administration’s fatal ignorance of an extensive “pandemic playbook” prepared during the Obama Administration that one official described as being “left on a shelf”. It was never used, although it was extensive and could have expedited the government’s pandemic response, something it struggled with from its outset.[12]

According to Ben-Ghiat, because authoritarian leaders depend on corruption, censorship, and neglect of the public good to retain power, their leadership failures are put on full display when confronted by a public health emergency. As Ben-Ghiat puts it,

“…All crises are leadership tests that clarify the core values, character, and governing style of rulers and their allies. Yet public health emergency exposes with particular efficiency the costs of a perennial feature of autocratic rule: the repudiation of norms of transparency and accountability.”[13] (emphasis mine)

As Juan Williams, author and political analyst for Fox News, helps us recall:

“…We remember the shortage of vaccine when he left office. We remember there was no plan for getting Americans vaccinated. And who can forget that Trump lied from the start about the severity of the virus and later promoted a quack, phony cure? The bottom line is that he produced the greatest failure of presidential leadership in history…In January (2021), Trump’s last month in the White House, the nation had the highest number of COVID-19 deaths since the pandemic began. Shortly after he left office, the virus death toll topped 500,000…” (emphasis mine)[14]

Ben-Ghiat is even more specific about these pandemic leadership failures, saying Trump’s leadership failures:

“…have been emblematic. In the crucial early weeks of the coronavirus outbreak, the president sidelined the government’s Centers for Disease Control and other experts and unleashed a barrage of misinformation. He called COVID-19 no worse than the flu, peddled unproven or deadly cures, and obstructed mass testing. More tests would result in more reported cases, which would harm his claims of competency and delay the relaunch of the American economy, jeopardizing his reelection. Trump went to lengths to create a sense of normality, refusing to wear protective gear in public, although he is a noted germaphobe. The thousands who heeded his call and gathered, unmasked at indoor rallies in Tulsa, Phoenix, and other cities in June became fodder for his propaganda machine, letting him pose as a virile leader untouchable even by disease. By then, America had had the world’s highest infection rate for several months running.”[15] (emphasis mine)

The bottom line is that Americans must learn to value leaders who practice a “leadership centric” leadership style, not one that is “leader centric”. The stakes of poor leadership are too high as this pandemic has demonstrated. Our civic literacy and the success of our democracy depends upon it.

A Final Word on Presidential Leadership

Historian and author Jon Meacham identified a perspective on U.S. presidential leadership that goes beyond even servant leadership when he quotes Franklin Delano Roosevelt who astutely observed:

“The Presidency is not merely an administrative office. That’s the least of it. It is more than an engineering job, efficient or inefficient. It is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership. All our great Presidents were leaders of thought at times when certain historic ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified.”[16] (emphasis mine)

These are wise words. If ever there was a time our nation needed a president who is a thought leader providing moral leadership that clarifies our historic democratic ideas, it is now. A leader who brings out the best, not the worst, in us.

We will continue exploring topics like this that are not given near enough time and emphasis in our civic education efforts, if they are even taught at all. Democracy is so important. But it’s hard to keep, and it’s easy to lose. It’s up to us, and only us, to protect it. Support democracy, become a Democratist! Spread the word! Please share this Democraticus with others! For more information, go to www.tomthedemocratist.com

[1] Love Your Enemies, by Arthur C. Brooks, pp 74-77, Ibid

[2] Love Your Enemies, by Arthur C. Brooks, pp 74-77, Ibid

[4] Robert E. Greenleaf, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Greenleaf

[5] “The Servant as Leader”, by Robert K. Greenleaf, pg. 6, 1970, www.ediguys.net/Robert -K-Greenleaf-The-Servant-as-Leader.pdf

[6] 7 Unifying Principles of Servant Leadership, https://www.governmentresource.com/about-us/servant-leadership/7-unifying-principles-of-servant-leadership

[7] Love Your Enemies, by Albert C. Brooks, pg. 51, Copyright 2019, Ibid and “Connect Then Lead”, by Amy J.C. Cuddy, Matthew Kohut, and Jeff Neffinger, Harvard Business Review, July-August 2013, https://hbr.org/2013/07/connect-then-lead

[10] Every Drop of Blood, The Momentous Second Inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, by Edward Achorn, pg. 104

[11] “The Unique Incompetence of Donald Trump In A Crisis”, by Daniel W. Drezner, March 9, 2020, Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook.2020/03/09/unique-incompetence-donald-trump-crisis “ and “The System Was Blinking Red, US Intelligence Agencies Warned of the Threat Months Ago”, by Shane Harris, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey, and Ellen Nakashima, March 20, 2020 8:10PM, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-intelligence-reports-from-january-and-february-warned-about-likely-pandemic/2020/03/20

[12] “Trump Team Failed to Follow NSC’s Pandemic Playbook”, by Dan Diamond and Nahal Toosi, Politico, March 25, 2020, 8:00 PM EDT, https: www.politico.com/news/2020/03.25/trump-coronavirus-national-security-council-149285

[13] Strongmen, How they Succeed, How they Fail, by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, pg. 4, Ibid

[14] “Juan Williams: Trump’s Jealous Rants Can’t Hide His Failures”, by Juan Williams, March 15, 2021, 6:00 AM EDT, The Hill, https://thehill.com/opinion/whitehouse/543169-juan-williams-trumps-jealous-rants-cant-hide-his-failures

[15]Strongmen, How they Succeed, How they Fail, by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, pg. 256, Ibid

Democraticus- The Democratist

Discussion about this post