LEADERSHIP

THOMAS CARLYLE

Leadership is an intangible quality that we recognize when we see it in others; but, most of the time, we would be hard-pressed to define it.  We can all think of good leaders, and we can also call to mind others who were in positions of authority who failed miserably.  Perhaps comparisons of successful and failed leaders would be helpful in arriving at a possible definition.

As for myself, I was always a much better teacher than a manager.  My skill-set was more appropriate for the classroom than for the boardroom.  Nevertheless, I served as a dean and a provost in collegiate settings, perhaps as  good an  example as  there was of the theory that those in organizations tend to rise to the level of their incompetence.

Looking back over a career of more than 40 years in higher education,  I served a myriad of  college presidents.  Some were wonderful examples of inspirational leadership who led their administrative teams to the heights of success, creating environments of innovation that provided opportunities for students to excel in many ways.  There were others, though, whose tenures were marked by bitter political games, perhaps reflective of their own tortured personalities.

Of the leaders that I admired, all were able to strike a balance between assertiveness and diplomacy. Those who did not have that balance generally failed. There was one president that I recall who was in a state of perpetual warfare with both his college's board and also with the local political leadership.  He was never able to strike a healthy balance; and, the more I think about it, that failing likely  stemmed from a terribly conflicted personality.

One of the most charismatic presidents I served under was always willing to go the distance in whatever there was that needed to be done.  She was a builder, communicator and a leader who expected that her administrators would display the same level of stamina and energy that characterized her leadership style. Under her supervision, the university grew to become the jewel of the community in which it was located. In many ways, she was a female Vince Lombadi; but, alas, over the years, her many successes turned her head, and she became dictatorial and authoritarian.

A perpetual issue for those who study leadership is whether leaders are born or made.  I personally lean toward the view that asserts that leaders are born with certain qualities that, combined with familial nurturing and experience, allow them to emerge and flourish in positions of great responsibility.  Of 3 American presidents within the last 60 or so years whose administrations demonstrated their  capacity to rise to the occasion with innate abilities and skills honed by drive, determination and experience,  Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan come to mind.  All three were accountable and had the strength of character to acknowledge their own failings.  As Truman so eloquently stated, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."  These three individuals also had a certain degree of humility, inasmuch as their greatness would not be recognized until they were out of office. They were not known for "beating their own drums." President Eisenhower's background in organizing the great allied effort that defeated Nazi Germany stood him and his country in good stead. And his genial personality led to 2 terms which are now remembered as a remarkable time of peace and stability.  President Reagan was an unflappable leader whose personality radiated trust and confidence.  He oversaw the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of the Eastern Bloc and was able, in large part,  to accomplish his goals by playing his cards close to his chest. All three of these individuals were products of traditional families which conveyed traditional American values.  In light of what now passes as leadership, Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan seem even heroic.

No, leadership is not just about how one parts his hair, creases his pants and phrases his speeches.  It is not about being admired by movie stars and celebrities. It is about making the hard decisions that determine, for example, if a nation declines or thrives, Sometimes decisions must be painful for all concerned.  And, also, it is about being a good judge of human character and surrounding oneself with staff members possessing the dedication and capability to unselfishly serve their country. It is certainly not about passing the buck!

Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881), the Scottish historian, philosopher and essayist, had definite ideas about leadership that might cause us to take pause these days as we contemplate the choices we have made for individuals who supposedly lead us.  Leaders (or, heroes, if you will), in Carlyle's opinion, rise up in a society almost by virtue of a mystical link between themselves and those they lead.  They are individuals who have no fear in believing in themselves and in ideas, but they are realists when it comes to adjusting goals to situations. In common parlance, they are not ideologues. They also possess the sensitivity and depth to establish a "moral culture" for their people. In fact, the very substance of these leaders is a spiritual reflection of the history, character and greatness of the society from which they have sprung. Combined with this is  vision, the ability to see the future and the willingness to sacrifice to make the future reality.  In other words, there would be no doubt in their minds that they themselves are exceptional, as are those whom they lead.

In an age of superficiality and a turning away from traditional mores and values, this may sound more than a little far-fetched to modern day Americans, many of whom seem irredeemably intoxicated by the popular culture.  However, using Carlyle as a base, along with Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, a comparison may enable us to have a better understanding of where we have been and where we are going.