Kellerman - Professionalizing Leadership

The leadership industry, as Kellerman and some others refer to it, has been in a growth mode for nearly forty years. While she acknowledges successes here and there, her book (Professionalizing Leadership, 2018) raises deep concern about the resources that have been, and continue to be, poured into fostering leadership with little to show for it. The book is a challenging read for leadership educators. Whether one agrees or not, Kellerman raises many very important issues and she is courageous in raising the bar to advocate that leadership learning and practice needs to become more professionalized in the way it conceptualizes, delivers, and measures progress.

I had the unique opportunity to interview Kellerman about her motivations for writing and implications of Professionalizing Leadership. Spoiler alert - the interview, published by the International Leadership Association, might be read even before the book; it introduces and extends many of her most important points.

Professionalizing Leadership (2018) is a follow up to the End of Leadership (Kellerman, 2012) in which she first raised concerns. She indicates in 2018 that her cautionary voice of 2012 is now reinforced by other scholars and organizations that are saying that learning about leadership is making little difference among the millions of individuals who participate in what is estimated as a $50 billion per year investment.

The critique begins with a number of unsettled questions that hold leadership educators back (pp. 4-6) including; who is a leader, what if any is the difference between a leader and a manager, how to teach leadership, who should teach about leadership, and ultimately whether or not it can be demonstrated that leadership even matters. With no consensus on these questions, she calls for leadership educators to get serious by striving for professionalization, a topic that she explores throughout the book.

Beginning with the question of who is a leader, Kellerman relies on a number of classic authors and philosophers who have explored over millennia the question of what leadership is and how to learn to do it. The earliest treatise focused primarily on positional leading but shifted beyond position and status as a result of late 18th century "Enlightenment" thinking. Among those credited as particularly important during this shift were Mary Wollstonecraft in A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) and Thomas Paine in Common Sense (1776), both of whom advocated that women/citizens should free themselves of tyranny of all types. In Kellerman's view, this marked the first time that followership was noted as important and deserving of equal attention to leadership.

Confidence in all sorts of leadership began to decline in the 1960s and was the impetus for James MacGregor Burns in writing Leadership (1978). Burns called for a sharper focus on leadership in the wake of the American political leadership crisis of the time. Burns and others created an explosion of theoretical perspectives which offered definitions and models of leadership that are used in various approaches to teaching leadership in education, for-profit and not-for-profit, government, and other sectors. Student affairs (referenced as student services) was also acknowledged for providing much of what is available in undergraduate leadership learning and given credit for providing some coherence to the way leadership was approached - primarily targeting students who want to make a difference and informed by the "Social Change Model of Leadership Development." But Kellerman's critique is that the work in leadership studies, and in teaching and practicing leadership, lacked coherence and cohesion, thus contributing to a number of conditions (enumerated on pp. 57-58) that are wasteful and show minimal impact.

The idea that leadership should be professionalized ran throughout the book. Two of the reasons that she asserted this are; 1) fields that have professionalized (i.e. medicine and law) have a level of expertise and credibility that can be trusted, and 2) the one industry that she cites as having made a real difference in leadership training, education, and development is the U.S. military, which has clearly used a professional model. Professionalization would require that the leadership industry have; a common body of knowledge, a system to certify those who teach and practice leadership, a commitment to service beyond the benefit of the individual, and a code of ethics (p. 102). In other places in her book, she mentions additional criteria for professionalization such as recognized experts to teach leadership, pedagogies to guide its learning, standards by which to judge it, continuing personal and professional development, and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching and the practice of leadership. The accolades to the military are based on the broad availability to enlisted and officer ranks of the three distinctive areas of leadership training, education, and development and the long-term commitment to the unfolding of leadership development as a result of advanced learning coupled with experience. Perhaps most importantly, the U.S. military "assumes that no one ever would or should take on a leadership role without being properly educated, trained, and developed" (p. 154).

Adding to the thousands of leadership definitions in the literature, Kellerman proposed her own - "a leader is an agent of change, for good (a good leader) or ill (a bad leader)" (p. 77). Conditions that she identified as essential if the leadership industry and the practice of leadership itself are to gain credibility, thus moving toward professionalization, include: differentiate management from leadership; offer leadership training, education, and development, each with its specific focus on enhancing leadership capacity; recognize that bad leadership exists; give credit and equal attention to teaching and cultivating followership; make leadership learning urgent; and acknowledge that learning to be effective and ethical in leadership is a life-long learning and developmental commitment. Recognizing the ever-changing context that is so important to leadership, Kellerman indicated "You cannot be a leader in the twenty-first century, should not be a leader in the twenty-first century, without having some understanding of other people in other places, of other cultures in other countries" (p. 177). Other specific criteria that are more outcomes of professionalization include; "bestow on leadership programs a greater measure of dignity and respectability, restore to leadership a measure of the esteem that was presumed in the past, and elevate leadership in the eyes of the public" (p. 172).

Chapter 8, "Professionalization," begins with the assertions that the leadership industry:

• does not take sufficiently seriously its responsibility for teaching people how to lead,
• has the human and fiscal capital and pedagogical tools to improve, and
• includes experts and educators who must lead the charge (p. 162).

Hard to hear the critique but difficult to argue that a multi-billion dollar industry dedicated to leadership learning can't do better. And we should!

I have selected issues and perspectives from Kellerman's book, obviously choosing those that resonated for me. While I generally agree with her critique in calling for much deeper work in leadership training, education, and development (previously raised through my own book, Deeper Learning in Leadership, 2007), I regret that the work and literature of students affairs educators was not a body of knowledge with which Kellerman demonstrated deep familiarity. I was extremely grateful for her acknowledgement that differentiating training, education, and development purposes occurred "a few decades ago" (p. 59 & p. 63). To be accurate, it was copyrighted by Peg Anthony and me in 1979 and was published in Student Leadership Programs in Higher Education in 1981. While she advocated the TED framework as an essential distinction that leadership educators should make, she criticized those teaching leadership for not having seriously attempted to create a consensus about what matters in leadership learning (pp. 37-38).

Seeking consensus in the academy, let alone across the broader leadership industry, is not easy. The unfortunate reality of U.S. higher education is that faculty often do not know what student affairs educators do and of their scholarship. Thus, her book does not reference Student Leadership Programs in Higher Education (1981) nor the fact that it provided the basis for the CAS Standard for Student Leadership Programs; it also provided a model for leadership learning through multiple processes (courses, seminars, workshops, consultation, etc.), multiple purposes (TED), and for multiple populations (women, multicultural, positional/non-positional, adult learners, etc.). The larger body of research, scholarship, model building, and advocacy through journals and conferences that students affairs educators have contributed since the 1970s is substantial. Kellerman's vision of professionalizing leadership is already partially completed, or at least could be accelerated, if this body of knowledge were embraced.

Dasgupta - The demise of the nation state

Rana Dasgupta's recent article in The Guardian (Dasgupta, 2018) predicts the continued decline of the nation state and proposes new ways of relating globally are underway. While the decline of the nation state may frighten those from historically strong western nations, the reality of the world in which we live is that a new international order will emerge that includes:

• Global financial regulation - building systems to track transitional money flows, to transfer a portion of them into public channels, and seriously address global redistribution.
• Global flexible democracy - national governments themselves will be subjected to a superior tier of authority.
• New conceptions of citizenship - deregulating human movement will match the deregulation of capital: it is unjust to preserve the freedom to move capital out of a place and simultaneously forbid people from following.

Key quotes from Dasgupta's essay that substantiate the need for, and reality of, these changes:

• The most momentous development of our era, precisely, is the waning of the nation state: its inability to withstand countervailing 21st-century forces, and its calamitous loss of influence over human circumstances.
• ...the current appeal of machismo as political style, the wall-building and xenophobia, the mythology and race theory, the fantastical promises of national restoration - these are not cures, but symptoms of what is slowly revealing itself to all: nation states everywhere are in an advanced state of political and moral decay from which they cannot individually extricate themselves.
• Today's failure of national political authority, after all, derives in large part from the loss of control over money flows. At the most obvious level, money is being transferred out of national space altogether, into a booming 'offshore' zone.
• The destruction of state authority over capital has of course been the explicit objective of the financial revolution that defines our present era.

If Dasgupta is correct, the opportunities and mandate for leadership and citizenship will be inescapable. Those who will benefit most in the world-wide and connected community, and will create mutual benefit for all, will be those who understand leadership and citizenship in very different ways.

Wood - John Adams and Thomas Jefferson - Friends Divided

Citizens and politicians often debate American exceptionalism. Gordon S. Wood’s Friends Divided: John Adams & Thomas Jefferson (2017) explains that this debate goes all the way back to the founding “fathers” and how they viewed the basic qualities of humanity and how that would influence the structures and processes of governance.

As very influential figures in the days leading up to the American Revolution, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson came from very different backgrounds which led to divergent ideas about how to structure the new government of the American colonies. Adams arose from humble beginnings, strove for credibility, and was suspicious of those with privilege, believing that the power of money would corrupt. Jefferson was an aristocrat steeped in privilege, holding vast property and utilizing slave labor to work the land, and confident that the “Age of Enlightenment” would create a free and prosperous society. Even with their differences, the two men found ways to complement each other’s ideas as they drafted the ideals and structure of the young nation.

Once they moved into the Presidency, first Adams as a Federalist and then Jefferson as a Republican, their views changed and they drifted apart, often expressing deep disagreement with each other. The Federalist view was to create a strong executive branch and complementary legislative bodies committed to establishing services to benefit citizens. The Republican view was to minimize government’s role, leaving matters of citizen welfare to the individual or local government. Both opposed Hamilton who had created the financial infrastructure that formed the basis for the political power of the federal government and the fiscal-military state.

Both men had European appointments after the Revolution which biased Adams toward British culture and governance and Jefferson toward France, with a particular affinity toward its revolutionary inclinations. Adams preferred the British separation of powers to protect against abuses of privilege while Jefferson preferred open election to any and all roles (assuming that the candidate was a property owning male). This resulted in Adams being criticized as a “monarchist” while Jefferson was praised for his advocacy of education as a way to prepare citizens for their democratic responsibilities.

“Jefferson told the American people what they wanted to hear – how exceptional they were. Adams told them what they needed to know – truths about themselves that were difficult to bear.” (p. 7) Wood attributed this essential difference as the reason Jefferson was more highly regarded in his day and why his name is more revered today. Yet, the fact is that Jefferson held an inherently elitist idea of himself and America while Adams lauded direct labor and the emerging middle class it birthed.

It took many years after their terms for the two to reunite. The renewed bond of their last years was sealed when both died on July 4, 1826, the day commemorating the 50^th anniversary of the founding of country they shaped. Before they came to their deaths, both Adams and Jefferson came to a similar conclusion about the difficulty of democracy - that democracy required a great deal of its citizens, specifically that “each citizen must somehow be persuaded to sacrifice his personal desires for the sake of the public good.” (p. 115) In the end, owing to an overly optimistic view of humanity’s potential, Jefferson was apparently unprepared for the shortcomings of the country he had helped create. Adams remained resilient and hopeful that the systems he created would prevail, even in the face of inequities he believed were natural and persistent in human capacity.

As others have written (most recently Coates in We were Eight Years in Power, 2017), there is copious evidence that the United States has portrayed itself as exceptional but has failed in ways that disprove its claims. Reflecting on Wood’s skillfully crafted compilation of John Adams’ and Thomas Jefferson’s contributions to the founding of the United States, the question of the modern era is if Jefferson’s exceptionalism or Adams’ more cynical view is more defensible. Which is most likely to secure for its citizens a guarantee of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (as drafted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence)? Jefferson would have relied on the enlightened goodness of humanity while Adams would have advocated separation of powers and checks and balances to protect against the abuses of power and privilege.

National Geographic - Special Issue, April 2018

My typical posts on this blog are about books I've read, travel, and encounters that stimulate questions or insights about leadership. I don't often review magazines but was compelled to note the April 2018 Special Issue of National Geographic magazine, Black and White, because it is truly boundary breaking.

The introductory message, "To rise above the racism of the past, we must acknowledge it," by Susan Goldberg places this issue of National Geographic in context. After recounting 130 years of evidence that National Geographic has often exoticized or marginalized difference, Goldberg writes, "So let's talk about what's working when it comes to race, and what isn't. Let's examine why we continue to segregate along racial lines and how we can build inclusive communities. Let's confront today's shameful use of racism as a political strategy and prove we are better than this."

From the first page to the last, the story of race as a social construct designed to categorize and discriminate unfolds with data, pictures, and examples that inform in ways National Geographic has perfected throughout its history. I read every word and hope that other readers will as well. With a readership of 5,200,55 in the U.S.A. and 6,685,684 worldwide, National Geographic could make a real difference in shaping the views of race from previous notions that stereotyped and demeaned to one that affirms the diversity within U.S.A. borders and around the world. There is hope since it's "Advertising Opportunities" page indicates that "more opinion leadership read National Geographic than any other magazine."

Coates - We Were Eight Years in Power

I was initially attracted to Ta-Nehisi Coates’ writing when I read Between the World and Me (2015). His We Were Eight Years in Power (2017) is a collection of Coates’ Atlantic articles, contextualized within Coates’ reflections of his own experience surrounding each piece. It draws the sad parallels between the post-Civil War Reconstruction era (which was 8 years) and the election of the first African American President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama (who held two 4-year terms = 8 years).

As a privileged white American, it is hard to summarize the depth of despair conveyed in Coates’ Atlantic pieces and narrative that connects them all. I felt disappointment, disillusionment, and the loss of confidence that racial strife in America can change. Yet my life is not impacted in the same way as persons of culture living in the U.S.A. Still, and it may be my privileged perspective that allows me to see hope, Coate’s writing lifts up the resilience, perseverance, and continued resistance that are required to achieve the essential systemic changes necessary to bring about equity and justice in the U.S.A. and elsewhere.

We Were Eight Years in Power is organized in eight chapters and an epilogue. Some of the most stunning realizations from these chapters include:

• What white supremacists fear most is black respectability and good governance – because it proves the narratives of dysfunction to be false.
•  Lauding black Americans as descended from kings of Africa may be uplifting but is generally untrue – most black Americans came to America in slavery and it is their resilience under these circumstances that is most laudable.
• The founding of America used language of “liberty and justice for all” but did not intend this for any more than a privileged few – the journey of black Americans to respectability and forcing the U.S.A. to live its ideology could save us from continued hypocrisy.
• The economic system of the early immigrants to America relied on plunder – the land was exploited and people enslaved and abused while trade was pursued to benefit a select aristocracy.
• Barack Obama was a black American and much more – while clearly seen as exceptional, Barack and Michelle demonstrated that all racial and cultural group members can be so much more than the stereotypes that entrap them.
• The “twice as good” commitment of black Americans who satisfy the expectations of whites is part of the problem – while black families may encourage their children to be twice as good to succeed, it also requires that they harbor no anger toward those who oppress them.
• The sins of slavery did not stop with slavery – the systems and conditions that black Americans face are irreconcilable without the willingness for the U.S.A. to have the difficult conversation about reparations.
• Jim Crow laws and later illegal actions taken by the government and its business entities perpetuated disadvantage – not only must the achievement gap be closed but also the injury gap (i.e. - segregation, red-lining, predatory lending).
• "The idea of reparations is frightening not simply because we might lack the ability to pay" – not having the conversation threatens America’s heritage, history, and standing in the world. (p. 201)
• The incarceration of black men is an extension of previous wrongs – the number is out of proportion and far more severe; it can only be interpreted as intended to continue to oppress black men and families.

In the concluding chapter, “My President was Black,” Coates wrote, "Obama’s greatest misstep was born directly out of his greatest insight. Only Obama, a black man who emerged from the best of white America, and thus could sincerely trust white America, could be so certain that he could achieve broad national appeal. And yet only a black man with the same biography could underestimate his opposition’s resolve to destroy him.” (p. 324)

The resentment of many white Americans over a President who happened to be black, coupled with the trust of that very President in the goodness of American citizens, led to a “white tribe united in demonstration to say, ‘If a black man can be president, then any white man – no matter how fallen – can be president.’” Then they elected him...

Restoring trust

One of the greatest challenges anyone engaged in leadership faces is establishing trust. It's even harder to restore trust when evidence indicates that we or our systems have failed.

I've been struggling for months to figure out how to restore trust in evidence-based decision making in the age of Trump. Trump isn't the only one who assails the mainstream media, accusing journalists of "fake news," or creates alternative facts. Trump and others like him have created a world in which skepticism about pretty much anything we hear or read is justified. In this context, how do we find information, people, and aspiration that we can trust?

Barbara Fister references other scholars who have begun to explore how to help university students find trustable sources of knowledge. She used William Perry's Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development (1968) to describe the early dualism and the eventual rampant relativism of the typical young adult years. Relativism is a place where many university students settle as they are bombarded with so many different perspectives in their courses and experiences. Relativism becomes a refuge characterized by a belief that "everyone has a right to their own opinion and, after all, there isn't any real authoritative or defensible agreement anyway."

Those committed to broadly fostering leadership capacity throughout education and civil society must tackle this question - How do we restore trust? Not only are many students studying in universities trapped in cognitive cages of dualism, oppositionality, or multiplicity. The challenge of cognitive frames impacts all of us as we attempt to make sense of what we see and hear. Ultimately, a response that cultivates skepticism but recognizes the value of well-considered and documented perspectives appears to be the most promising path.

Ron Heifetz addressed the question of restoring trust during a program at the 2016 meeting of the International Leadership Association. Leaders and leadership educators will have to respond to Heifetz' challenge if we are to find a way of sorting information from disinformation and if we are to reassure students that there are those who can be trusted - and become trustable themselves.

Isaacson - Leonardo da Vinci

Leonardo da Vinci (Isaacson, 2017) is a deep analytic study of the historical figure who defines the “Renaissance Man” of the 15^th century and sets a standard for genius with which few of us would argue. With no formal education, Leonardo set out to explore various fields of knowledge from engineering and architecture to painting and sculpture. As he matured he began to explore “received” knowledge, but always by combining theory, experience/experiment, and handed-down knowledge.

Leonardo’s prodigious intellect led him to pursue opportunity from Florence to Milan to Rome and back again and brought him into contact with the most influential aristocrats, sponsors, and other artists of the era. The great thing about Isaacson’s book is that it starts with a list of the characters included throughout the book and a timeline of Leonardo’s life; both are extremely helpful when the reader gets lost in the details of his inexhaustible curiosity. And it is this curiosity about so many things that, in the end, is the mark of his genius. “With a passion that was both playful and obsessive, he pursued innovative studies of anatomy, fossils, birds, the heart, flying machines, optics, botany, geology, water flows, and weaponry” (Introduction). This curiosity was coupled with an ability to make connections across disciplines that triggered imagination and innovation in all his endeavors.

Leonardo was not privileged. He was the illegitimate child of Piero da Vinci, with whom he stayed connected while spending most of his childhood in the care of his grandfather and uncle. Illegitimacy was not an impediment at the time and was seen as allowing a free-spirited and imaginative lifestyle. Leonardo’s homosexuality was also relatively accepted and allowed him to have relationships, dress, and conduct himself in ways that were freeing and unconventional. Having spent his earliest days in the small town of Vinci, Leonardo blossomed under the Medici family in the artistic and commercial center of Florence. His early training in sculpture caused Leonardo to study the mathematical proportions of the human figure in ways that had never been considered before. This obsession with mathematical relations is best captured in the famous sketch of “Vitruvian Man” with circle, triangle, and square defining the proportions and placement of the perfect human figure. Isaacson reveals in the text that this sketch not only captures perfect proportion but represented a “metaphor of Renaissance humanism: the relationship between the microcosm of man and the macrocosm of the earth” (Loc 2382, Chapter 8). This connection between man and the cosmos would lead to the architectural cross configuration of temples and cathedrals throughout the world. His interest in harmonic ratios and proportions were evidenced not only in anatomy but also in other sciences, art, and music; he believed these ratios were an essential quality of what we recognize as beauty.

Although Leonardo produced many artistic and scientific analyses and projects, his evolving and spontaneous curiosity left many unfinished. Urban planner, designer of military weaponry and musical instruments, producer of pageants, and many other things, Leonardo is probably most noted for his critical innovations in painting. He is credited with innovating both the sfumato (a word derived from “smoke” in Italian) approach, characterized by blurred outlines and dark/soft colors that allow for a natural blending of forms, as well as chiaroscuro (dark shadows with striking illumination); these innovations portray the subject in ways more like the eye sees most objects. The list of paintings of greatest note include; Ginevra de’ Benci, Adoration of the Magi, Saint Jerome in the Wilderness, Lady with an Ermine, La Belle Berronniere, The Last Supper (in which he explored innovations in perspective), Leda and the Swan, Salvator Mundi, Saint John the Baptist, and the Mona Lisa. Leonardo started the Mona Lisa portrait in 1503 but he regularly revised and improved it through the end of his lifetime (1519); the Mona Lisa is viewed by many as the epitome of Leonardo’s attention to fine detail and artistry.

Isaacson gleaned several lessons from Leonardo’s life that we might emulate in order to be more creative and innovative (Chapter 33, Conclusion): be curious, relentlessly curious; seek knowledge for its own sake; retain a childlike sense of wonder; observe; start with the details; see things unseen; go down rabbit holes; get distracted; respect facts; procrastinate; let the perfect be the enemy of the good; think visually; avoid silos; let your reach exceed your grasp; indulge fantasy; create for yourself, not just for patrons; collaborate; make lists; take notes, on paper; and be open to mystery.  After acknowledging the tediousness of the research for the book and his own limitations to be as curious as his subject, Isaacson comments at the end of the introduction of this fascinating book, “But I did learn from Leonardo how a desire to marvel about the world that we encounter each day can make each moment of our lives richer.” Good advice for those of us in the 21^st century seeking to imagine and innovate our way to a better world.

Chile - culture and politics

As a life-long student of leadership, I can’t help diving into questions about how different countries and cultures view leadership when I travel. My recent first experience in traveling to Chile opened my mind to a beautiful country, people, and complicated history.

I traveled to Chile as the guest of Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile as a speaker for the Latin American Summit on Education. I stayed for a full week in the old Bohemian section of Santiago – Barrio Lastarria – a convenient location to the Summit site and an amazing center for blending culture, food, art, and humanity.

Chile’s history includes indigenous peoples throughout the country. Chile is the longest country on Earth with a coastline that extends 4,270 km (2,653 miles). The Andes mountains separate it from Peru and Argentina who have contested the present land borders through numerous wars in the past. The beautiful natural area of Patagonia is at the far southern tip of the country.

The Spanish colonized Chile when Conquistadors pushed south from Peru in 1535. Valparaiso was founded in 1536 and Santiago was established in 1541 by Pedro de Valdivia. Valparaiso, a multicultural center with seaman from many countries and social origins is known as the city where “everyone has a window on the sea” because of how the houses cantilever out from the steep hillsides surrounding the bay (see picture to right). Valparaiso was a vibrant center of trade as ships rounded the tip of South American all the way until 1914 when the Panama Canal opened and left Valparaiso bereft of traffic.

The political history of Chile includes a long and stable history of presidential and then parliamentary rule. The end of the previous oligarchies came with the rise of more liberal and socialist forces over several decades, eventually resulting in the election of Salvador Allende in 1970. Allende delivered on his socialist campaign agenda and disenfranchised the economic elite of Chile, which then spurred the U.S.A.-backed military take-over by Augusto Pinochet in 1973. A statue of Allende still stands among the central government buildings of Santiago, a reminder of the socialist period and the subsequent vicious dictatorship of Pinochet. These years (1970-73 with Allende and 1973-89 with Pinochet) resulted in lasting ambivalence about the military, police, and the role of public dissent. One of the most revered intellectuals from this period is  Pablo Neruda whose home in Valparaiso (picture to left) I had the chance to visit.

One of the results of Spanish colonization is that 70% of Chileans are Catholic. There was no separation between the church and state until 1925. The separation in 1925 reflected the growing number of immigrants from many countries around the world, particularly from Europe and Palestine during and after WWII. Although the U.S.A. often portrays itself as one of the most diverse and inclusive countries in the world, the evidence of Chilean diversity is quite visible, even in terms of religion. The most notable contemporary symbol of religious inclusivity was the opening in 2016 of the Bahai Temple at the foot of the Andes (pictured here).

The Mapuche indigenous people (and other tribal groups) are important today. They have been traditionally marginalized and now protest and even threaten terrorist acts to make their dissatisfaction known. The Mapuche and others like them have been underserved and are now the lower socio-economic strata of Chilean society; these groups are part of the challenge for educators as well as business and governmental professionals who strive to have Chile engage as a 21^st century international economy.

Reflecting on the historical context and current conditions of Chile, a fascinating blend of issues comes into focus regarding how leadership is viewed and embraced: 1) lasting impact of colonialism that established a clear hierarchy but one that deserved to be questioned, 2) tight and lasting bonds of family and tribe, 3) practical embrace of other cultures/religions based on the necessity of finding solutions to broad problems, 4) ambivalence about authoritative leading – whether for socialism or any form of government, 5) fear of public dissent turning to violence and terrorism, 6) recognition of the need to take risks and support for those who do.

Discovering Chile was a revelation for me and one that I regret not pursuing long ago. Americans are increasingly traveling, conducting business, and pursuing educational exchange with Chile and other Latin American countries but the public conversation about building relations and capacity is neglected in comparison to other areas of the world. I intend to continue to study, learn, and deepen my appreciation for the country and people of Chile.

Rosenberg - Nonviolent Communication

The effectiveness of leadership depends on numerous skills that vary in their importance across different situations. Communication is always on of the list and learning how to be effective by not raising defenses or imposing one’s will in leadership is a great asset. Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication: a language of life (2015) offers ideas about improving communication that are straightforward, with repetition of the principles in examples, which lock them into the reader’s thinking.

Deepak Chopra’s forward to the book references the nonviolent movement in India called Ahimsa, an idea originating from Mahatma Gandhi’s peaceful protests against the British. Ahimsa involves both action and consciousness, traits Chopra attributed to the way Rosenberg lived his life. There is a level of selfless awareness when we are able to feel one with nature, art, or music and it is this kind of peace that allows for a connection through compassion, even in situations involving conflict. This compassion is the foundation of nonviolent communication.

Nonviolent communication (the NVC model) involves four components; 1) observe what is actually happening in a situation without judgment, 2) state how we feel when we observe this action, 3) say what needs of ours are connected to the feelings we have about it, and 4) communicate the actions we request in order to make things better.

Rosenberg goes into much greater detail on what prohibits or helps to achieve honest and empathic communication. Moralistic judgments alienate by conveying a sense that something is right or wrong, compares things as better or worse, and also denies the shared responsibility that occurs in poor communication. Communicating through demand prohibits compassion. By contrast, the emotional liberation of being authentic in our communication allows us to respond to the needs of others out of compassion, something that becomes fulfilling both for us and the other person. Requests for concrete actions also help by avoiding vague, abstract, or ambiguous language. Empathy is then a result of respectful understanding of what others are experiencing, in effect getting into the mind and soul of the other person.

One might think that nonviolent communication would only be useful in mildly uncomfortable situations but Rosenberg indicates that NVC is most important when we are most distraught. He writes, “If we are truly angry, we would want a much more powerful way to fully express ourselves.” He asserts that NVC is a more powerful way to communicate our displeasure and move toward resolution for others and ourselves. Ultimately, the NVC process nurtures mutual concern and respect that honors the other person’s needs while helping both to realize their interdependence in the disagreement. Rosenberg reflects that this is the essence of Martin Buber’s “I-Thou” relationship where two individuals express themselves vulnerably and authentically, thus creating a deeper bond.

Corbett - You must change your life: The story of Maria Ranier Rilke and Auguste Rodin

Rachel Corbett’s book, You Must Change Your Life (2016), is a detailed biography of the shared artistic journey of Rainer Maria Rilke and August Rodin. While the biographical background of these very different artists is fascinating, the most compelling aspect of the book for me is the light it sheds on the idea of empathy. The popular use of empathy is primarily in counseling and psychology. However, according to Corbett’s analysis, “What we understand today as the capacity to feel the emotions of others is a concept that originated in the philosophy of art, to explain why certain paintings or sculptures move people.” (p. ix)

Rilke and Rodin struggled in their early artistic journeys, as many artists do. They experienced difficult childhoods, troubling times as they came of age, and disillusionment in striving for artistic fulfillment. The great thing for those who appreciate their art is that their tribulations allowed them to delve into their hearts, resulting in creative insight and genius that distinguished them from others.

Rilke began his adult years in Prague but moved to Munich, believing it was the intellectual center of Europe at the time. The Munich Secession of 1892 began five years before Gustav Klimt started the movement in Vienna. The dominant philosophical tradition in German-speaking countries was the study of how individuals functioned within broader societies – phenomenology. While phenomenology and psychoanalysis began to flourish, the study of art (aesthetics) emerged along side these disciplines. The combination of these three disciplines was used to explain what makes something a work of art, leading to the idea that a viewer was an artist as well as the creator when ‘einfuhlung’ (feeling into or empathy) allowed the viewer to literally get inside the art. Psychologists (including Freud) then turned this German art history notion into what is now recognized as empathy, or the ability to relate to or understand another person.

Rodin’s early sculptures were not well received. The first to be embraced was The Age of Bronze and it struck such a chord that the French government purchased a version of it for the city of Paris. This purchase came with a second commission to design the entrance for the new Museum of Decorative Arts; this commission would become Rodin’s life-long work, The Gates of Hell. A version of the sculpture for which Rodin is most noted, The Thinker, was incorporated into The Gates of Hell. The Gates of Hell depicts people absorbed in a “nightmare of their own passions. Love was war, desire undid reason. To him, hell had nothing to do with justice; punishment was the condition of the living.” (p. 51) Ultimately, it was Rodin’s own gallery at the 1900 Exposition Universelle (which the Eiffel Tower dominated) that brought him to unquestioned prominence as an artist, admired for his ability to portray the rough humanness of his subjects.

Rilke and Roudin were introduced by two women who were artists as well. Paula Becker, a former sculpture student of Rodin’s, and Clara Westhoff invited Rilke to join them at the German artists’ colony, Worpswede. Westhoff and Rilke became lovers and were later married, a decision that sidetracked Westhoff’s ambitions as a writer in similar ways that Rodin overshadowed Becker as her teacher/mentor. Rilke’s characterization of marriage was, “I consider this to be the highest task of the union of two people; that each one should keep watch over the solitude of the other.” (p. 72) As Rodin’s protégé and Westhoff’s dear friend, it was Becker who introduced Rilke to Rodin, eventually resulting in Rilke authoring a biography of the great sculptor. The introduction and study for the biography resulted in a period of deep connection between Rodin and Rilke, one which engendered in Rilke a belief that art emerged only through sacrifice and hard work. This was fundamental to Rilke’s literary works, which were informed by “einsehen,” a process going beneath the surface to the heart and deep emotional connection.

For those who want to more deeply understand the amazing artistic revolution of late 19^th and early 20^th century Paris, Corbett’s book is a treasure. Rodin and Rilke were associated with most of the Parisian intellectual and artistic elite of the day, many of whom congregated, or lived at, the Hotel Biron (now the Musee Rodin Museum in Paris). Corbett’s reflections also track the tempestuous relationship of the two artistic geniuses who sometimes connected deeply and at other times feuded and sought distance from each other. They lived at a time when art was representational yet mystical, providing those who view or read their work a glimpse both into themselves and others. Both men were ravaged by their own genius but it is unlikely either would have wanted it another way. Indeed, when Rilke considered psychotherapy with Freud, a colleague urged “that the risk that analysis posed to his creativity was too great. It might well chase out the angels along with the demons.” (p. 239)

Is the era of management over?

Leadership scholars often debate the difference between management and leadership. Some scholars become offended by the implicit (or not so implicit) message that management is focused on routine, control, and maintenance of the status quo while leadership tackles the more important concerns of unleashing human potential, addressing questions without a clear solution, and leading humanity forward through creativity and innovation.

The World Economic Forum takes the debate to another level by raising the question, "Is the era of management over?" The title reflects some hyperbole but the changing, complex, and flat world which we now inhabit is leaving far fewer opportunities for just management. Even the simple questions these days seem to take on much wider implication when the issues on the table have ripple effects that extend far beyond the immediate environment.

In an interesting and corollary article on investing in leadership, the responsibility of organization leadership is seen as building culture so that all "think, dream and act like a leader. It's about taking initiative and being unwavering in one's positive and constructive influence on her organization's attitude, excellence and outcomes."

I'm with those who see an increasingly narrow niche for management and call for greater attention and use of real leadership in a 21st century interconnected world.

Failure in leadership learning - the Trump Team

One of the more significant perplexities to the dysfunction in U.S. politics today is how the people who have become the disruptors of the Trump Team got where they are. Knowing Trump’s proclivity to family and other forms of loyalty, it is no surprise that most of those close to Trump have demonstrated fierce dedication to spinning the President’s story and to denying various things that Trump has done in full view of the public. The question that has haunted me as an educator is, “How could so many presumably well educated people have so little conscience, ethical standard, or regard for the common good?”

Although many things contribute to who we are, including everything from family to various forms of socialization, educators often claim that their institutions are significant in shaping intellectual acuity, critical thinking, values, and leadership. The Trump Team, both former and continuing, attended a select few elite private universities that are commonly assumed to produce the highest caliber of employees or public servants:

·      Donald Trump – University of Pennsylvania
·      Donald Trump, Jr. – University of Pennsylvania
·      Ivanka Trump – University of Pennsylvania
·      Eric Trump – Georgetown University
·      Steve Bannon (now gone) – Harvard University
·      Anthony Scaramucci (now gone) – Harvard University
·      Jared Kushner – Harvard University
·      Steven Mnuchin – Yale University
·      Stephen Miller – Duke University

Two other spokespeople from whom we hear a lot (Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Huckabee Sanders) or previously served Trump (Sean Spicer) attended less prestigious private institutions. The institutions attended by the first nine of the Trump Team are commonly regarded as representing the gold standard of higher education yet one has to ponder how graduates of these institutions could do what they are now doing – supporting “fake news” claims, denying occurrences that the public has seen with their own eyes, and deconstructing the institutions of democracy on which we count to keep U.S. and other citizens of the world safe, healthy, sheltered/fed, and productive.

A defense of these elite institutions of learning could be that 100% quality control and desired impact can never be guaranteed. However, how could five elite institutions collectively graduate nine individuals who are so profoundly aligned with an agenda that undermines the common good? Granted, these great institutions are open to various political perspectives and they do not attempt to inculcate a specific ideology or belief system. However, in the particular case of the Trump Team, not only do we observe a specific niched political ideology, we see a team that regularly contradicts the espoused broad aims of higher education itself; they lack critical thinking, self-understanding, awareness and appreciation of the rights and needs of others, and they denigrate those who oppose or embrace alternative views.

Higher education in general, and especially the elite examples of Penn, Harvard, Yale, Duke, and Georgetown, has failed the Trump Team and the citizens of the U.S. What are we to do as citizens who count on these institutions and perhaps more importantly, what are we to do as educators to learn from these failures?

As a career higher education administrator and someone who sought to contribute to the private benefit and public good by teaching about and writing on leadership, I take the failure that we observe very personally. Scholars such as Jean Lipman-Blumen and Barbara Kellerman cautioned about bad leadership, Kellerman also warned of the failures of the leadership education industry, and Ronald Heifetz offered evidence that the restoration of trust in leadership is the most compelling challenge we face today. Building on their work and reflecting on what we could contribute to education that might make a difference now, four questions come to mind that higher education and leadership educators must explore:

• How are students’ and graduates’ views of leadership and the privileges/responsibilities that it carries being influenced by the educational experiences we offer?
• How could those enabled by privileged education be more deeply confronted and challenged in their learning experiences so that it would be impossible for them to deny truth and implement policies that harm others?
• How could the cumulative and interconnected knowledge of academic disciplines be leveraged to resolve complex world problems that will improve the human condition?  
• Have graduates acquired an understanding of their responsibility as critical followers/constituents and are they encouraged to see their own deeper potential in leadership?

There are certainly more questions that could be asked at this important nexus of our public lives but these would be a good place to start. We face in the Trump Team a very real and profound failure of higher education in general and elite education more specifically. It’s time that higher education renew the commitment to deliver on its claims to transform individuals and contribute to the betterment of society. These nine Trump Team examples are too prominent to ignore and they cannot be dismissed as unfortunate ‘slippage’ in the critical process of higher learning and leadership cultivation.