I Will Follow You...

It's funny how you can tell how "scientific" -- or otherwise -- a given field of inquiry is by looking at the number of books, lecture series, tapes, videos, courses, consultants, theories, road shows, fads, crazes, rules, agencies, committees, task forces, etc., that are devoted to it. In short -- the more that is being spent trying to figure out how something works, and then explain it, the less "scientific" it actually is. The beauty of a field that is truly scientific is that, even if answers come along infrequently, they are real answers and they stay that way. A pseudo-scientific field, on the other hand, is replete with models, hypotheses, speculation, theories, and modes of inquiry -- but extremely short on answers. Now, the classic example of a pseudo-science, in my humble opinion, has to be economics, where -- to this day -- the worlds' experts will argue far into the night about the most basic principles. (Think of a group of physicists having a knock-down, drag-out fight about the validity of the periodic table, and you'll see what I mean.) But at least the economists are trying; some of them, at least. The most ineptly-named field of all, though, has to be "political science" -- a contradiction in terms that almost defines the term, "contradiction in terms". Politics -- which is all about greed, envy, and... well, let's just say all seven deadly sins rolled into one, with a few additional side dishes -- has to be far less scientific than poetry. If only it were as harmless (or as ignored)!

But aside from these classic examples of "serious fields of inquiry" that are mostly made up of fairy tales, we have some relatively new arrivals on the scene, without which -- I daresay -- the "Business" section of Barnes & Noble would be deserted, and thousands of government employees would have to find something else to do with their time (that is, assuming they don't have an actual job, which is a fairly safe assumption in most cases). And those are the fields of "Leadership" and "Management". Now, let's admit, at least, that these two subjects have a few advantages over Economics and Political Science. Generally speaking, we are allowed to judge the quality of leadership, and that of management, based on actual results. A good military leader, for example, is supposed to win battles while minimizing troop casualties and materiel losses. A good civilian (business, government, etc.) leader is supposed to accomplish the mission of his firm or agency in a passably efficient manner, while maintaining high morale, retention, etc. among his employees. Likewise, a good manager is supposed to seek out more advantageous and profitable ways of doing business, and to facilitate processes that enhance the operation of the organization, while phasing out procedures (and people, if possible) that do not. And these results are, if not entirely a matter of common sense, more than just "opinion". Most people can tell you the difference between successful and unsuccessful leadership, and ditto management -- and their criteria will be heavily weighted with objective results. In addition, it is not terribly difficult to "connect the dots" when it comes to analyzing _why_a given leader, or manager, achieved success. These things don't occur in a black box; they are, typically, out in the open for all to see (to the chagrin of the less-effective leaders and managers, of course). Now remember, we are talking about actual _success_ here. The issue of executive compensation, i.e. the leader's or manager's _own_ success, as measured by his income, is an entirely different matter, as we know only too well, from the sight of countless golden parachutes descending from firms that are about to crash. The roots of this particular form of insanity -- or corruption, or both -- could be analyzed, but I will defer that for a later time (if ever).

On the other hand, economic and political "theories" are seldom, if ever, judged on the basis of actual results. They are more likely to be assessed on the basis of intent, i.e. if we feel that the people who developed the theory and oversaw its implementation "meant well", then that is sufficient, no matter what catastrophes resulted. This way, the authors of the most destructive ideas, perhaps, of all time continue to get a pass -- Karl Marx being the first among them, but not forgetting Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao on the political side, and Keynes, among many, on the economic side, along with facilitators like FDR and LBJ.

So, that's what's "right" -- relatively speaking, at least -- about leadership and management as fields of inquiry. What's "wrong" about them is twofold. First, we haven't yet mentioned what may, in fact, be the most critical quality of good leaders or good managers. It's not intelligence, or subject-matter expertise, or "connections", or a "network", or experience per se. It's plain old charisma, AKA "leadership quality", and also social dominance. These are highly correlated, of course, but not synonymous. I challenge anybody to come up with an example of a truly effective leader -- even in government -- who did not have high social dominance, and at least a bit of charisma. But what, after all, _are_ those qualities, and how do they operate? How do they mix into the calculus of business, for example, in order to produce the desired results? And -- most mysterious of all -- how do people get that way (i.e., are they "made" or "born" leaders?), and if "made", then how? In short, is this something that can be taught -- and believe me, the government -- particularly the military -- and industry have been pondering this question for decades, if not centuries. So the first thing wrong with these fields is that they tend to ignore those least-scientific of all factors -- but those which have been associated with leadership since Odysseus' day -- charisma and social dominance. Remember that ad, "When E. F. Hutton talks, people listen"? The question is _why_ people listen, and it's not just about competence in managing mutual funds. It's something much more deeply-rooted in the human psyche, something more -- dare I say? -- primitive.

The question of how to "make" leaders, then, is the second thing that is "wrong" with the so-called "field" of leadership and mangement. The reason it's "wrong" is that everyone _assumes_ that, of course, leaders can be "made" -- they can be trained, and educated, and provided with appropriate experiences and "growth opportunities" and "developmental assignments" and sooner or later -- shazam! -- you have leader. Charming idea -- except it simply does not work. Oh yes, there are a few skills that can be trained or "enhanced" in people who are already on the upward track -- but all of that sort of training will never make a leader out of a non-leader. Besides which, a good leader can "hire" -- bring on board -- people who have just about any skill that he lacks. Team-building is a relatively simple affair (even George Bush can do it!) compared to making a person into something that he is not.

Thus, the endless aisles of "leadership" and "management" books at Barnes & Noble, and Borders, and on Amazon. Do you think any _real_ leader "types" ever waste their time reading those books? Hell no -- they are too busy leading. No, this vast field of literature is the equivalent of those "how to find the right girl (guy)" books -- they are for people with no natural talent who hold out some hope that just learning the right "technique" will save the day. (They'd be better off relying on plain dumb luck, in my opinion.) (And it would be cheaper.) The government -- and the military in particular, as I said -- spends billions a year on consultants, and courses, and workshops, and take-home materials, all designed to turn bullfrogs into hummingbirds. And of course the people who produce those courses and put on those workshops, etc., profit handsomely -- so don't try to tell me it's all "wasted". (NB: There is no such thing as "government waste". I'll deal with this point some other time.) But what it most assuredly does not do is produce leaders, or managers, who are much more effective than they would have been if they hadn't been harrassed by all those well-meaning "continuing education" geeks.

Now at this point, one might ask why we _need_ this emphasis on, and obsession with, "leadership" and "management", when most civilizations historically -- and many today -- seem to care not a whit. There are enough natural leaders in those societies to fill the important slots, and everyone else can just be a follower, as befits their natural talents (or lack thereof). Ah, but! We forget that America is a democracy -- not only in form but in the most radical sense, by which -- in theory (once again, regrettably) -- not only are all created equal, but all are entitled to "be the best they can be", which means -- for all but the most other-abled -- that they are entitled to be "leaders"! I challenge you (once again) to go into any school, or training center, in the land -- or, for that matter, many Protestant churches, social clubs, and welfare agencies -- and find one that is not offering, on a regular basis and for a nominal fee, "leadership training". I can walk into a place in a somewhat downtrodden part of any city in the country where young people are kept busy painting wooden blocks, and have that activity described to me as "leadership training". Our goal as a society seems to be to turn everyone into a leader, which means -- I guess -- eliminating not only all followers, but all follower-ship, i.e. the very _concept_ of following, which, of course, entails all the old-fashioned skills like understanding, obeying, and carrying out orders -- rare enough even in the military these days, and unheard of in civilian life. It also entails the recognition of, and recognition of the _value_ of, hierarchies -- from the most natural to the most arbitrary, since even the latter can contribute, at times, to the effectiveness of a group activity. You'll notice that all signs and manifestations, down to the most trivial symbols, of hierarchy, and order, and -- heaven forbid! -- merit, have been systematically expunged from our public schools in the last generation. It's true on playgrounds -- at summer camps -- everywhere there might be a threat of Person A being better than Person B at anything for any reason whatsoever. Which, I suppose, if you follow the logic, would make everyone into neither a leader _nor_ a follower, but just a "citizen" in what finally amounts to a state of anarchy, since no one has any claim of superiority -- even pro tempore -- over anyone else. This is, in fact, what communism and socialism attempted to do -- or at least that was the claim. But we're better than that; this is America! So, even though there are no followers left, it still makes sense for everyone to be a "leader". We now have anarchy of a different hue, and it is better for morale, you must admit. Problem is, not everyone is even _interested_ in being a leader. But for those who are, there is that aisle over at Barnes & Noble...