I first came across Robert Greenleaf in the 1980s.  I was instantly drawn to him.  Who wouldn’t be:  a man who quotes Hermann Hesse, Albert Camus, Alfred North Whitehead, William Blake, Confucius and Robert Frost, he had to be worth reading.  Not just that, it was also his choice of case studies: John Woolman’s determined path to bring slavery to an end, Nikolai Grundtvig creating the idea of education for all in Denmark, and even Jesus, confronting a mob wanting to stone to death a woman accused of adultery.

Greenleaf had been an AT&T manager for some forty years, eventually a senior executive, but he retired early (at the age of 60, in 1964).  In 1970 he published an essay, ‘The Servant as Leader’, which was later published as the first chapter of a book on the same theme.[i]  Even today, I regard that essay and that book, idiosyncratic and meandering as they both are, as one of the truly great sources of thinking about leadership.  Indeed, if you are interested in leadership, you should read the whole of his essay, and the rest of his book.  However, for now I want to take just one of his observations.  Early on his essay, he asks: “What are You Trying to Do?”:

“A mark of leaders, an attribute that puts them in a position to show the way for others, is that they are better than most at pointing the direction.  As long as one is leading, one always has a goal.  It may be a goal arrived at by group consensus, or the leader, acting on inspiration, may simply have said, “Let’s go this way.”  But the leader always knows what it is and can articulate it for any who are unsure.  By clearly stating and restating the goal the leader gives certainty and purpose to others who may have difficulty in achieving it for themselves.”

“The word goal is used here in the special sense of the overarching purpose, the big dream, the visionary concept, the ultimate consummation which one approaches but never really achieves.  It is something presently out of reach; it is something to strive for, to move toward, or become.  It is so stated that it excites the imagination and challenges people to work for something they do not yet know how to do, something they can be proud of as they move toward it.” [ii]

Why is this on my mind?  Because today, I see a horrible failure in leadership by the Democratic Party in the USA.  As far as I can see, many are revelling in what they see as Donald Trump’s failures and lies, as they wait for his impeachment or disavowal by the Republican Party.  They are enjoying the snide comments from the intelligentsia about the world he inhabits, and console each other over the terrible things he is doing.  They watch from the sidelines as he obliterates everything that his predecessor did, as he savages society on behalf of the rich and the powerful.  And they are almost mute as he continues to achieve his agenda, delight his supporters, and denigrate the achievement so those who preceded him, whatever their political affiliations.

What did Greenleaf say: “the leader always knows what it [the goal] is and can articulate it for any who are unsure.  By clearly stating and restating the goal the leader gives certainty and purpose to others who may have difficulty in achieving it for themselves”, something to strive for, something that excites the imagination.  Leaders articulate, they are not struck dumb.

I don’t want to say it (and I was determined my next blog would not be about the sorry state of politics in this country), but Trump did articulate a goal that made sense to many people. ‘Make America Great Again’; save jobs, stem the tide of political correctness, restore the values of traditional Christian religion, and throw out everyone who doesn’t subscribe to the traditions and values of the past.  You might not like it, but he spoke to a bitter white (and significantly male) constituency, and gave them hope, something to strive for.  You know what he said.  And he’s doing it.  Make no mistake, he’s achieving his agenda.

Now tell me what we are saying.  What’s the Democratic Party’s view of the future, the goal we are seeking to realise, the ‘beacon on the hill’?  What is the party offering the American people on health care, on work, on relations between people, on education?  What are we offering people so that “they can be proud of as they move towards it’?  Where is some leadership?

Right now, the answer seems to be “it’s complicated” (though it was actually Trump who came up with that comment about medical insurance).  On health care, some Democrats want to argue for universal coverage, and others say no, that’s a step too far.  On education, some want to argue for free tertiary education, and others say no, that’s a step too far.  Abortion rights?  Complicated, and we don’t want to put the Christian lobby offside.  Gay rights?  The same.   Restrictions on guns?  Same again.  Articulating a goal, a vision worth striving for; no, what we see is a passive muddle of uncertainty, only sustained by the illusory belief that Trump is failing and he’ll be impeached.  He’ll self-destruct, and we’ll be back in control.

Perhaps we are in a listening phase.  Greenleaf was good on listening:

“Why is there so little listening?  What makes this example so exceptional?  Part of it, I believe, with those who lead, is that the usual leader in the face of a difficulty tends to react by trying to find someone else on whom to pin the problem, rather than by automatically responding: “I have a problem.  What is it?  What can I do about my problem?”  The sensible person who takes the latter course will probably react by listening, and somebody in the situation is likely to say what the problem is and what should be done about it.  Or enough will be heard that there will be an intuitive insight that resolves it.”

“I have a bias about this which suggests that only a true natural servant automatically responds to any problem by listening first.  When one is leader, this disposition causes one to be seen as servant first.  This suggests that a non-servant who wants to be a servant might become a natural servant through a long arduous discipline of learning to listen, a discipline sufficiently sustained that the automatic response to any problem is to listen first.  I have seen enough remarkable transformations in people who have been trained to listen to have some confidence in this approach.  It is because true listening builds strength in other people.” [iii]

Right now, I don’t see much evidence of listening.  A New York Times essay offered some disturbing insights, in a review of ‘A Post-Obama Democratic Party in Search of Itself’.[iv]  It outlined how the Party had responded to electoral defeat in 2016, and, in a disturbing commentary, looked at attempts to rebrand itself.  In the middle of this year, a new agenda was announced: ‘A Better Deal’, addressing jobs, wages and the future.  Quite apart from the weak agenda itself, one of the most telling remarks came from Nancy Pelosi who explained the new platform “is not a course correction, but it’s a presentation correction.” [v]  Get the point?  The Democrats had the right approach, it just wasn’t conveyed well.  ‘Yes we can”, “Change”, and “Forward”:  worked for Obama in 2008 and 2012; ‘Forward Together” and “Stronger Together” didn’t work for Clinton in 2016. But Trump’s “Make America Great Again” resonated with a disenchanted and disenfranchised white minority, and enough others, to get him across the line.

As I see it, the Democrats aren’t out listening to the electorate, they’re debating among themselves.  The ideological divisions about health, education, disadvantaged groups are preventing any kind of clear statement about what the party is seeking to achieve as it continues to believe it can recapture government by going forward strong together.  Where?

There is another problem, which is that they are caught up in some kind of fantasy about Trump.  Many seem to feel he is about to get impeached as a result of the Mueller investigation.  They also see him as ignoring his own supporters, building a wave of resentment that will see the same people who elected the Republications swept aside in the next round of elections in November 2018.  Right now, I think these are illusory comforts, distracting the Democrats from coming up with an electorally appealing alternative.

It may horrify you to read this, but I think that, so far, Trump is delivering to his constituency, both the party and the key minority that elected him.  Surely not?  Didn’t he fail on health care?  On immigration?  Isn’t tax reform going run into the sand?  That misses the point.  Trump never fails to work away at his agenda, and bring his supporters along with him.  How about a recent example?  After the murder of eight people in lower Manhattan by an ISIS inspired man on Tuesday 30 October, Trump didn’t waste time, immediately tweeting: “The terrorist came into our country through what is called the “Diversity Visa Lottery Program,” a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based”. [vi]  He’s on message, commanding the media, constantly reinforcing what he argues needs to be done, while you and I read the New York Times and shake our heads on the latest examples of manipulation and distortion.

I am not sure if I am explaining this clearly, so let me try.  Over the past twenty five years, a conservative agenda has been carefully executed.  It has three key components.  First, control of the media.  In the USA, and in other countries, governments have been persuaded to relax media ownership rules, allowing rich and conservative companies to buy up more and more national and regional newspapers, television stations and influential web sites. According to a report in Forbes, sixteen billionaires own America’s news and media companies [vii]: some like Murdoch and Adelson are very clear about their desire to ensure the election of conservative governments which will secure their interests, others are more circumspect.  There’s good reason to be concerned: try watching Fox News for a day!

Second, sell the virtues of liberty, the ability for each individual to be free to choose.  Based on the dreadful writings of people like Ayn Rand, conservative think tanks are carefully promulgating an agenda that promotes the free market, free individuals and freedom from government regulations and interference.  Funded by people like the Koch brothers, increasing thought leadership is coming from bodies like The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, The John Birch Society, The Discovery Institute, The Ayn Rand Institute, and many more:  these are not the home for dispassionate intellectuals (as was the case when someone like Michael Novak, a conservative for sure, explored these issues at the American Enterprise Institute), but homes for thought leaders, pushing their ideological mantras.  Funding curricula and textbooks in schools, establishing study centres and institutes in universities, and a producing a never-ending series of articles and commentaries in the media, the onslaught is overwhelming.

Third, work the politics.  The right wing of the conservative movement has steadily supported the right candidates at federal, state and even local government, quietly installing majorities that overturn government regulations, install conservative justices, and gerrymander electorates.  Look at electoral maps today, and the country is turning red (for readers outside the US, red means a Republican government, Blue a Democrat one).  Democrats might still hold some of the northeast and west, but the rest has gone!  Politics is about ensuring you get control!

Has the Democratic Party seen and understood this?  It is an approach to gradualism, small steps, one at a time, but with a clear direction in mind.  It reminds me of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who often upsets the left with her cautious approach to rulings, and unwillingness to endorse sweeping radical changes.[viii]  Where is the Democrats agenda, and what is it seeking to achieve?  How is it going to progress that agenda?  What initial steps to a larger goal?  Has it learnt?

This is about politics.  Politics are about getting votes.  Getting votes is about listening to concerns, articulating them, shaping them, and then promising to deliver on them.  The Republicans did that very well as the Obama period came to an end.  They heard the concerns:  jobs disappearing, wages insufficient, industries going offshore, immigrants taking over, morals adrift as minorities are supported and religious prescriptions abandoned.  They could see how Trump was selling the right message: make America great by bringing jobs back on shore, stopping immigration, winding back excessive government regulation and interference in personal lives, restoring military pride, preserving the key rights to liberty, guns and (traditional Christian) religion, and supporting big companies to grow the economy and create employment.

So, once more, what is the Democrats strategy in opposition?  Whatever it is, it is hard to see.  There might be two parts to reform that are hard to stomach.  First, some policies and views may be sacred cows, but now is the time to rethink.  Is a meritocratic immigration system bad?  Used in many countries around the world, together with a small refugee program, applicants under the visa and refugee programs are rigorously assessed.  Fair enough?  Is regulation to protect the environment and reduce pollution the only way?  Many countries use incentives as much as rules, nudging behaviour down the right path, rather than seeking compliance through more and more disclosures and requirements.  I’m not suggesting either of these ideas are answers, but I would like to think there was real debate in the Democrat Party to re-think key issues, instead of continuous requests for funds without any clear idea as to how they will be used, except to keep the past leadership in place.  We need new voices, new ideas, young people with passion.

Second, we need a return to good politics.  Where is the machinery ‘on the ground’ that Obama put in place?  Where are the candidates out listening, explaining, building commitment and support?  This isn’t about purist ideologically sound views, but about the real grubby task of getting people out to vote for you, because they believe you have their interests at heart, and you can show how your agenda will help them.

Am I angry?  Yes, I am.  I began this latest rant with Robert Greenleaf on Servant Leadership.  Vain and self-centred as he is, Trump wants to be loved, especially by New Yorkers.  More than that, while he’s rich (somewhere around 250th on the US rich list, but not in the top 500 among the world’s rich), like most political leaders he is a servant to the ultra-rich, members of an inaccessible exclusive club.  At the same time, intuitively, he has stolen from the servant leadership model: listen to people, articulate and reframe their concerns, then demonstrate how they will be addressed.  Good politics.  We need the same on our side, and less self-congratulatory talk about how we can see through Trump’s agenda, how he misleads and lies.  Hello everyone, this is about politics, and right now, Trump and the Republicans are winning.

Or is it too late?  Is this country so fractured that it is in the early stages of terminal decline?  There is a certain familiarity here.  A divided country, one successful minority looking after its interests, and the rest angry, disenchanted, and ever more aggressive.  It could be England writ large, where the rich bankers of London ignored the rest of the country.  One day the UK government allowed the people to vote on the future.  They chose Brexit, and ensured the UK will move further down the ladder, from a second-rate power to a third-rate country, irrelevant, and unimportant.  The British Empire was long gone; perhaps the American economic empire is now on a similar slippery slope.  Is it too late, or is decline inevitable?

In Robert Greenleaf’s world, the starting point in his view of leadership was the idea of serving others.  Let him have the last words.  On those who are true servant leaders, he argued the evidence was “the care taken by the … [servant leader] to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served.  The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?  And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, not be further deprived?”. [ix]

 

[i] Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness, New York: Paulist Press

[ii] Op cit: pages 15-16

[iii] Op cit:  page 17

[iv] Robert Draper, A Post-Obama Democratic party in Search of Itself, New York Times, Magazine, 1 November 2017

[v] Ed O’Keefe and David Weigel, Trump had ‘The Art of the Deal.’ Now Democrats say their economic agenda is ‘A Better Deal.’, Washington Post: Politics, 22 July 2017

[vi] Quoted in the Editorial Opinion, For Trump, New York’s tragedy means a new attack on immigration, Washington Post, 1 November 2017

[vii] Kate Vine, Forbes: Lists, 1 June 2016, https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-billionaires-own-americas-news-media-companies/

[viii] For a good analysis of her approach, see Christopher Slobogin, Justice Ginsburg’s Gradualism in Criminal Procedure, Ohio State Law Journal, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 867-887, 2009

[ix] Op cit: pages 13-14

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives