INTRODUCTION

Democracy, Leadership,
and Commitment

On May 22, 1782, just six years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Army Colonel Lewis Nicola, frustrated by the inability of the fledgling American Congress to raise funds to pay the army, wrote to President George Washington urging him to become king of the United States. Washington’s refusal was adamant. He wrote back to Nicola on the same day: “If you have any regard for your country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me . . . banish these thoughts from your mind, and never communicate, as from yourself, or any one else, a sentiment of the like nature.”¹

Nicola’s desire for a sovereign ruler and Washington’s rebuff reflect the early stages of a shift in human consciousness, and a revolution in human expectations about leadership. Nicola’s urgings were in tune with previous human experience and with the inclination of human consciousness at that time. Until the early years of the twentieth century, enthroning a sovereign, a king or perhaps an emperor, was the thing for new nations to do. Greece enthroned a king in 1829, Belgium in 1831, Norway in 1908, and Albania in 1913. The ill-fated King Faisal was installed by the British as the ruler of Iraq in 1921. Colonel Nicola was simply deferring to an impulse that continues in some places today, more than 200 years later. The impulse to sovereignty still holds sway in many organizations, and in recent years some business leaders have behaved like the worst of sovereigns, robbing the treasury to meet their own twisted needs at the expense of their “subjects.”

Democracy’s Century

A 1999 report by Freedom House pointed out that there were no true electoral democracies as late at the beginning of the twentieth century. Some countries, such as the United States and Britain, did have electoral systems, but large segments of their citizenry were denied the right to vote. Things had changed by the middle of the century, when 31 percent of the world’s population lived in 22 democratic nations. By the end of the century, 62.5 percent lived in 120 democracies, causing Freedom House to dub the 1900s as Democracy’s Century. Freedom House described this dramatic shift as one of “a growing global human rights and democratic consciousness.”²

This shift has demanded leadership that is increasingly more respectful toward those being led: from the dismissive declaration, “Let them eat cake,” which is most often attributed to Marie Antoinette, to Herbert Hoover’s patriarchal promise of, “A chicken in every pot,” to Martin Luther King’s as yet unfulfilled vision of all people singing together, “Free at last! Free at last!”

Ancient wisdom about leadership is generally immaterial to the democratic consciousness. For example, Sun-Tzu’s The Art of War, written about 500 B.C., advises leaders to regard their soldiers as their children. He and Renaissance philosopher Nicolo Machiavelli both extolled the virtues of deceit and firm discipline. But the volume and rapidity of modern communication, the ease of access to information and to varying opinions, along with an increase in literacy and sophistication in the world population, have all conspired to render humankind less susceptible to deceit. Democracy has made us less responsive to the firm discipline of those who would behave as sovereigns. Much of what the old texts advise does not play well today.

We have become more difficult to lead. Another consequence of democratic consciousness is that acceptance of any particular authority is more optional than it once was. Political leaders can be voted in or out of office, new jobs can be found, with new bosses, and there is a different brand of religion in a synagogue, church, or mosque just around the corner. Today, we no longer rely on only two or three authoritative network news anchors to translate the world’s events for us—cable television provides a plethora of authorities. The Internet has made it possible for each of us to develop our own authoritative voice by making ever more information and knowledge readily available, and by giving each of us a platform to reach the whole world with our own unique message.

The factors that have made us more difficult to lead provide, on the other hand, leadership opportunities. The ascendance of democratic consciousness is marked by liberation of the whole person—thought, feeling, and spirit. Thus, today’s leaders must be capable of dealing with all facets of the whole person. This complexity is sometimes problematic because people are so very complex, yet it is also an opportunity because people who are able to be so much more themselves are able to commit so much more. Followers have grown up, and leaders must grow up as well.

Where We Have Been

In the middle of Democracy’s Century, leadership theorists such as Warren Bennis, Kurt Lewin, Peter Drucker, Douglas McGregor, and Chris Argyris began to examine leadership in the context of the new democratic consciousness. The leadership thinkers of the middle and latter half of the twentieth century saw the relationship between a leader and his followers through eyes that were more resonant with the new reality.

Near the end of the century, however, in 1989, Bennis asked, “Where have all the leaders gone?” He answered the question with a refrain from a popular folk song: “long time passing.”³ Bennis decried the loss of such leadership greats as Churchill, Schweitzer, Einstein, Gandhi, the Kennedys, and Martin Luther King. It is as if a group of great leaders emerged in the middle of Democracy’s Century, then great leadership disappeared, and we have been trying ever since to figure out what they did so that we might replicate it.

Bennis also reminded us that we need leaders because they take responsibility for the effectiveness and integrity of our institutions, and because they serve as both heralds and beacons for our common purposes. We do need leaders, but we need a different brand of leader from those who governed as sovereign rulers and perhaps even from those who captured our imaginations during the time of transition from sovereignty to democracy.

Admirable leadership does still show up on the world stage from time to time when someone such as Rudy Giuliani leads New York City’s response to the September 11^th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. But this kind of leadership is driven by crisis. As dramatic and profound as it may be, it is also occasional and fleeting, riveting us for only a few days or a few weeks. A devastating conflagration in the dry mountains of Arizona introduces us to a dynamic hard-hatted master of fire management. When the fire is extinguished, he is gone. An imposing general emerges triumphant from a brief war to free a tiny country—Kuwait. When victory is achieved, he no longer commands headlines. The shooting-star brilliance of leaders such as these reminds us of what has passed from the fabric our lives, but is not enough to create and sustain change, nor to meet the many ongoing challenges of our time.

Like a long lost friend, in the absence of sustained leadership we are in danger of forgetting its face. Each Martin Luther King Day, we watch grainy black-and-white film footage of Dr. King extolling his dream. The setting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the rhythm of his speech, the power of his words, are still captivating—“Let freedom ring.” In cable programming and in films we watch actors portraying John and Robert Kennedy agonize over the Cuban missile crisis. We observe these images in much the same way we might page through an old photograph album. If we are old enough, we watch with nostalgia and a hint of longing. If we are young enough, we dismiss the relevance of the past, or we try to imagine what it was like to be among those giants. The images show us what has passed, but in our mind’s eye Gandhi looks like Ben Kingsley; not quite the real thing, only an approximation—an actor strolling the banks of the Ganges.

Where We Are

Since Bennis warned us that leadership was lacking, recovering it has acquired the aspect of a legitimate obsession. A recent Internet search for the term “leadership” turned up 10.3 million Web pages in a brisk twelve one-hundredths of a second. A search using the more narrow term “research about leadership” turned up more than 2.5 million pages: colleges and universities, institutes, consultants, foundations, training organizations, in business, communities, health care, government, education, the military, the arts, and the sciences. In short—everywhere. Another search for the term “leadership” at a popular online bookseller turned up more than 12,000 books.

With all of this attention, one might think we understand leadership much better than we once did. But some evidence does not support that assumption. A 1996 study of the use of the terms “leader” and “leadership” in a sample of both general interest and special interest American publications concluded that, “there is no specific definition of what a leader is, who the leaders are, what leadership is, or even if it is necessary to define these terms in only one way.”⁴

In addition, the researchers concluded, “There also appears to be an assumption of a common understanding of what a leader is and what characteristics are needed for leadership.” A more recent (but far less rigorous) scanning of newspapers and magazines gives no cause to believe these conclusions about our collective understanding of leadership have changed since 1996. For example, one newspaper uses the term “leadership” in headlines that accompany stories about people who speak out publicly about a controversial issue. Is the mere act of speaking out “leadership?” Or is something more required to earn that label? We have no consensus about what leadership means, but we think and act as if we do.

A Definition of Leadership

Leadership has become one of those phenomena we discuss while assuming we understand what it is we are discussing, and while assuming those we are talking with are speaking of the same thing. However, more often than we know, we and they have something quite different in mind. When we talk of leadership, we ought to be clear about what we mean. In this book . . .

leadership means inspiring others
to commit their energy to a common purpose.

This definition does not account for those leaders whose influence derives from their theories or talents in specialized fields—leaders such as Albert Einstein and Margaret Mead. This book is addressed to leaders and prospective leaders whose mission is change, and who pursue that mission by deliberately setting out to alter the paths of organizations, institutions, and lives. It contains practical wisdom to help leaders develop the competencies needed to lead people whose lives are imbued with democratic consciousness.

Who Are These Leaders?

The emphasis in this book is on how leaders can win extraordinary commitment from others. It was written primarily for leaders in business, but one feature of the book renders it also valuable for anyone with leadership responsibility or leadership aspirations. None of the twenty people interviewed for this book is a business leader in the traditional sense of the term, and none of them learned leadership skills in the traditional way that business leaders do—at a business school or a corporate university.

Those who were interviewed are all recognized leaders or people who, by virtue of a particular expertise, have something important to say about leadership. Each of them is thoughtful and articulate about leadership. Each of them has, in one way or another, achieved extraordinary results. They are an eclectic group of people. Three plow the field of education: Dawn Gutierrez, Marvin Israelow, and Jim Wold. One, Pat Croce, is a physical therapist and sports executive. Two are retired from military careers: Wesley Clark and Jim Ellis. Two are clerics: Monsignor Dale Fushek and Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi. Three—David Hollister, Vincent Francia, and Beverly O’Neill—are or have been mayors. One was chief of the Cherokee Nation—Wilma Mankiller. Three head or headed not-for-profit social service organizations: Alice Harris, Bill Strickland, and Bonnie Wright. One—Matt Catingub—conducts an orchestra. Two work in public service: Kathy Covert and Mary Ellen Hennen. Two have special expertise that is important to leadership: storyteller Odds Bodkin and pianist Michael Jones. Each of them will be introduced in more detail during the course of the book. A slightly more detailed list is included in the resources section at the back of the book. Except where otherwise noted, all quotes attributed to them are from interviews conducted by the author from January through June 2003.

The decision to focus on insights about leadership from leaders outside the realm of business arose from the belief that developing the capacity to lead in a business environment would benefit greatly from something other than more case studies and best practices of business leaders. We can learn only so much by studying what other people have done when the people we study are very much like we are, and when they inhabit environments very much like our own. Often, we can learn the most from people who are unlike us.

The people who are featured in this book, as a whole group, are less fettered by the prejudice of business, which favors intellect at the expense of emotion and spirit. Since those of us who live with a democratic consciousness are able to offer more of ourselves—higher commitment—leaders of businesses ought to capitalize more often on that bounty. They can do so by stretching themselves beyond their prejudice in favor of intellect. The people who speak in the chapters that follow know a lot about how leaders can win emotion and spirit as well as intellect.

A second feature of this book renders it especially useful now. While we already have a great deal of very wise thinking on the matter of leadership, it is fragmented and profits from being subjected to a synthesis. Leadership theory is fragmented because those of us who study it (including me) are peering through our own particular lenses. The best lenses on leadership, like any high-quality lens, provide unique pictures that are both accurate and incomplete. This book provides a synthesis of what has been seen through three different lenses; one looking at the intellectual aspect of leading, another at the emotional aspect, and the third at the spiritual aspect. Democratic consciousness allows for the possibility that people will commit mind, heart, and spirit to their leaders, so leaders who wish to win high levels of commitment must develop facility with all three.

How to Use This Book

At the heart of this book reside ten competencies for leaders to master in order to inspire mind, heart, and spirit in others—to win different levels of commitment. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the competencies and an examination of the lifeblood of leadership—commitment. Chapters 2 through 11 each treat one competency, defining it, describing it, and offering advice for leaders who wish to improve in that particular competency. Few leaders master all ten competencies; that task is truly daunting. However, when familiar with the competencies, any leader ought to be able to identify those which she needs to focus on or develop now. The final chapter offers additional general advice about how to go about mastering the competencies.

The book is organized sequentially, beginning with an overview of the competencies in Chapter 1, then describing each in turn, finishing with the last—centering—which is the competency that brings everything else together. Readers who prefer to see the whole picture before delving into details may want to read chapters 1, 11, and 12 first.

At the end of each of the ten chapters that describe a competency, there are four questions to contemplate or to discuss with trusted others. In general, these questions ask:

1.Who, in your life experience, was practiced at the competency?

2.To what degree are you practiced at the competency?

3.What is it about the competency that rings true for your current leadership role?

4.How important is the competency to your further development as a leader?

Where the answer to the last question is “very important,” you will find specific advice in the form of “development strategies” within the chapter, and general advice about learning to lead in Chapter 12. The lists of development strategies are not intended as comprehensive inventories, but as beginning suggestions.

While the book is grounded partly in the observation that the development of leadership must keep pace with the growing democratic consciousness, it contains no insinuation that all human organizations ought to be fully democratic. However, leaders of today’s organizations will be well served by acknowledging that people carry a growing democratic consciousness to the organizations that they choose, expecting leaders to behave less like sovereign rulers than they have in the past. Where business leaders behave like sovereigns they are likely to hear from employee satisfaction surveys that they are not communicating, that they seem remote, that they make decisions others either don’t understand or don’t support, that they don’t seem to have a vision or a strategy, or that they are uncaring and exploitive.

Colonel Nicola’s suggestion that Washington become king seems arcane and almost laughable today; the preponderance of humanity has relinquished the impulse to crown a sovereign. But still we struggle to know how to lead people who are free in mind, heart, and spirit. The following chapters provide a synthesis of recent investigations of how successful leaders win minds, hearts, and spirits, joined with new insights and practical suggestions for leaders everywhere.

Notes

1.Claremont Institute, “Rediscovering George Washington,” Public Broadcasting System Web site, 2002, <http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/multimedia/heston/lewis_nicola.html>.

2.Freedom House, “Democracy’s Century,” December, 1999, <http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html>.

3.Warren Bennis, On Becoming a Leader (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1989): 3.

4.Unabridged Communications, “Who Leads? A Report on the Usage of Lead, Leader, and Leadership in Selected Newsprint Media in 1996,” a report for Callahan, Smith & Gunter, Inc. <www.members.aol/breakthruz/leadership.html>.