The most recent National Leadership Index 2012 from
the Center for Public Leadership (2012) at the Harvard Kennedy School
stated 69% of people surveyed believe we have “a leadership crisis in
the country today” (p.3). The survey also highlight 70% surveyed
believe, “unless we get better leaders, the United States will decline
as a nation” and that 68% disagree with the statement, “overall, our
country’s leaders are effective and do a good job” (p.3). These results
are alarming and unfortunately in alignment with several other surveys
whether about our political, business, or societal leaders. Why do we,
as a country, have such little faith in leadership today? What are the
contributing factors to a rising dismay with leadership? One area we
can rule out is the level of investment the country spends in aggregate
on leadership training. According to several recent business
publications, society at large spends approximately $12 to $15 billion
dollars annually on leader and management training just within the
business community. Leadership books, fads, acronyms, and processes
come and go. Each rising in popularity as the flavor of the month on
how to be a great leader. The latest trend and program for the
semi-retired is executive coaches. A tremendous opportunity for our
past rule of the mill leaders. There is no barrier to entry, hang your
shingle and you are a coach. The unbelievable paradigm is how
organizations expect that an average prior leader could coach their
rising potential executives as anything but another average leader. The
result, a multi-billion dollar industry of authors, coaches,
consultants, and speakers who are making a tremendous income continue to
produce anemic results.
So what are the casual factors to this overwhelming
poor performance by leaders at large? There are several based on
current research by the academic community, but a factor receiving
greater attention is the leadership crisis is mainly driven by cultural
dynamics – both historical and current. Within this construct, one
dynamic emerging critical issue is diversity. The United States is
changing dramatically in terms of a demographic and cultural
orientation, and yet leadership is in many ways still operating from a
historical cultural reference. Why? A dominant percentage of authors,
coaches and consultants come from an age which does not represent
today’s domestic and globally interconnected diverse society. According
to the U.S. Census Bureau online data base, in 1970 for example, 87.5%
of the population was comprised of whites versus 12.5% nonwhite. Passel
and Cohn (2008) from Pew Research Center communicated from a recent
study on U.S. Population Trends similar findings stating in 2005, whites
comprised 67% of the population and by 2050 white percentage in America
will be 47% (p.1). The emergence of a non-white society from one which
historically operated as a white centric society has significant
ramifications on why we are in a leadership crisis.
Leadership’s cheese has moved and it is my opinion
leadership has not responded. Two key voices in diversity, Avery and
Thomas (2004) in their integration of research discuss the various
dynamics including legislation in the U.S., diversity trends, and the
impact of immigration all which contribute to presenting a “premier
business issue” in the area of diversity (p.390). What impact is this
having on our leadership crisis? Why does diversity play a critical
role in this emerging crisis? Two dynamics; most leaders in the U.S.
continue to be white and a majority of citizens embrace worldviews which
have been established over the years on perception, fact less basis
which self-generates. The potential result is bias and misaligned
perceptions. Harms, Han and Chen in their academic inquiry into leading
from a distance state, “Although conventional wisdom tells us that we
should not judge a book by its cover, a great deal of research tells us
that we intuitively do exactly that”. (Harms, Han and Chen, 2012,
p.164) Peggy McIntosh (1990) quoting her colleague Elizabeth Minnich,
“whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral,
normative, and average, and also ideal, so when we work to benefit
others, this is seen as work which will allow “them” to be more like
“us”” (n.p.). The emergence of a non-white society from one which
historically operated as a dominant white centric society has
ramifications as history has provided us a lens of understanding.
Thomas S. Kuhn (2012) discusses the emergence of potential new
paradigms in his seminal work stating, “new paradigm emerges, at least
in embryo, before a crisis has developed far or been explicitly
recognized” (Chapter VIII, para.13). Diversity is an emergent new
paradigm which leaders today have not yet responded.
In reviewing our academic pedagogical approach in
multicultural leadership training, there is an apparent absence of
graduate pedagogy. Eagan and Bendick, Jr. (2008) state relative to
multi-cultural pedagogy, “has traditionally interpreted the term culture
to mean national cultures exclusively and has emphasized differences
among nations as a central, unique focus of the field … simple
stereotypes about national cultures have not prepared him to deal with
this culturally complex individual in a culturally complex situation”
(pp. 388,389). Thus our possible future leaders are not being taught or
sensitized to a multi-cultural U.S. leadership concept. Zoogah and
Abbey (2012) provide insightful research which relates to the emerging
dynamic in the U.S. These researchers found in their sampling of forty
organizations from emerging economies that self-complexity was a key
requirement for future leadership success. Zoogah and Abbey focused on
one aspect of self-complexity, the dynamic self. “Individuals with high
self-complexity are able to regulate themselves in multiple roles,
activities, and behave consistently with the norms of the given
context”. (p.324) In collaborative multicultural leadership style,
high self-complexity individuals, people with multi-cultural experience
were preferred by potential employers and “differed from that of
cross-culturally inexperienced individuals”. (p.337) How can we expect
leaders to be effective in leading individuals different from self if
they are not taught, not exposed, or not sensitive.
I fully realize the provocative statements
contained in this writing will evoke a level of resistance by ordained
social pillars, but an honest dialogue is required. Statements about
classism, meritocracy, and identity will most likely cause some to be
uncomfortable. So be it. Our leadership crisis originates from a lack
of willingness, or acknowledgement to be multicultural. Though not a
new phenomenon, classism has indeed been in existence in the U.S. for
many decades and arguably dates back to the formation of the country.
As Liu, Hernandez, Mahmood, and Stinson (2006) suggests “poverty,
classism and racism date back to the founders and authors of the U.S.
Constitution which were cognizant of the rich and poor residents of the
land” (p.66). What is new is the intensity. It is emerging in our
language with the narrative including divisive terms such as: takers,
makers, not one of ours, and so on. As Sue and Sue (2008) state,
“whiteness is transparent” (p.262). We, whether we admit it or not,
observe conversations which blatantly voice how white oriented we
continue to be. Could a Lincoln type leader emerge in society today as
one of our greatest leaders? His leadership principles would be a
lightning rod within society. Consider Lincoln’s leadership traits
according Donald Phillips (2009) where he lists among many; “Invest time
and money in better understanding the ins and outs of human nature.
Remember, human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature
cannot be changed. Showing your compassionate and caring nature will aid
you in forging successful relationships. When you extinguish hope, you
create desperation” (Part I – People, Lincoln Principles section,
para.1).
Society and thereby leadership must accept the fact
that our social structure is becoming fragmented. The income gap is
widening, classism is blatant, voices are muffed, and diversity is in
name only. What America needs is a luminary. A leader who will
galvanize a multicultural society aspiring us to a new frontier. A
luminary brings light. A luminary brightens the path forward. A
luminary harnesses his or her character in a culture of personality to
bring the masses to a new place. It is not about a book on the steps of
leadership. It is not average coaches coaching for unrealizable
results. It is not being taught in universities. It is not something
one can buy. Leadership is a leader’s personal proposition, a
proposition of character, a proposition of commitment, a proposition of
acting on one’s courage in the face of diversity. Leadership is
internal, where the light is the catalyst for people to gravitate and
follow. All leaders of today must ask themselves two questions; is my
inner light shining and am I in leadership for personal gain or to
contribute to the ALL people I lead? If for personal gain, get out of
leadership. Let someone committed to the calling and being a luminary
step into the position. Remember, one does have to be a Kennedy, King
Ashoska, or Mandela. If each leader lead the individuals within their
sphere of influence to a higher order for all independent of race,
color, or creed; leaders will be embraced at a higher level, the country
will rise and once again shine. If not, I fear the future possibilities
relative to social progress.
References:
Harms, Peter D., Han, Guohang and Chen, Huaiyu (2012). Recognizing
Leadership at a Distance: A Study of Leader Effectiveness across
Cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 2012
19(2) 164-172
Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012-04-18). The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition (Kindle Locations 2265-2266).
University of Chicago Press. [Kindle DX version}. Retrieved from
Amazon.com
Liu, W. M., Hernandez, J., Mahmood, A & Stinson, R. (2006). Linking
poverty, classism and racism in mental health: Overcoming barriers to
multicultural competency. In M.G. Constantine & D.W. Sue (Eds.)
Addressing racism: Facilitating cultural competence in mental health and
educational settings (65-103). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
McIntosh, Peggy. (1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible
knapsack. Peace and Freedom. July/August 1989.
Passel, Jeffrey S. & Cohn, D’Vera. (2008) U.S. Population
Projections: 2005–2050. Pew Research Center, Sociological &
Demographic Trends, Washington, D.C.
Phillips, Donald T. (2009). Lincoln on Leadership: Executive
Strategies for Tough Times. DTP/Companion Books. [Kindle DX
version}. Retrieved from Amazon.com
Sue, D.W., & Sue, D. (2008). White racial identity development.
Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (pp. 259- 283).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Zoogah, David and Abbey, Augustus (2012). Cross-cultural experience,
strategic motivation and employer hiring preference: An exploratory
study in an emerging economy. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management. 2012 10(3) 321-343