Blogs

A Crisis in Leadership

Michael A. Fotis

Please allow me to set the tone for my comments with 4 short quotes:

“Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get their jobs done.”  Peter F Drucker . “Hell, there are no rules here--we're trying to accomplish something.” Thomas Alva Edison. There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” Peter F Drucker.

And I really wish Colin Powell was a General back when I was an operations manager, and it seemed like all I did was help people to solve problems.

“The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.” Colin Powell

A crisis in leadership is far from a new concept. James McGregor Burns the Pulitzer Prize winning author of the book Leadership (1978) discussed this topic more than 30 years ago.  

Most readers are not managers and you are likely wondering “Why Should I Care?”   However whether you seek this role or not each of you serves as an informal leader when you work with students, residents, new practitioners, etc.  Some authors refer to an informal leader as an example of small L leadership.

Informal leadership is based on expertise- of course one needs to know what they are doing. Trust – such an important characteristic that we often treat casually. Empathy, listening, and courtesy to others are obviously critical components.  Informal leaders are always willing to share information with colleagues rather than play gotcha. They practice with integrity and fairness at all times. And of course they are able to keep their cool during stressful moments.  Losing it- under stress is another example of a failure of leadership. As a practitioner you will find that while your boss may appoint you as a manager, it is your co-workers who identify you as a leader, and once they do there is no escaping this responsibility.  

Maslow, Burns, White, and Deresiewicz are responsible for a number of very important works in this field.  Maslow a psychologist coined the term Self Actualization. Think of self actualization as an ongoing process in which one’s capacities are fully, creatively, and joyfully utilized.  We all reach this at times. When you are able to see through the spin, appreciate and anticipate another point of view, find that Ah-ha moment, recognize a root cause, move away from popular culture and form your own opinion, realize your profession offers privileges rather than burdens you have achieved this state for the time being.  (See Maslow, Abraham Harold. 1987. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.)

Burns is especially well known for the terms Transactional and Transforming Leadership. A transactional manager has a focus on the role of administrator or even as a bureaucrat. In Maslow terms he is alienated from self rather than self actualizing.  A Transforming leader elevates themselves and their group to achieve high level meaningful goals.

He considers leadership as a philosophical and developmental relationship between people who share common purpose, motivations, and values. For Burns leadership is certainly not about power.  It is easy to see the similarities between Burns’ transforming leader, and Maslow’s self-actualizing personality. (Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.)

White used Leadership as the topic for her Whitney address. Being a pharmacist she wrote a very practical piece. Leaders act as a catalyst and use creative dissatisfaction to promote change. Have you witnessed destructive dissatisfaction at work? She offers advice about setting priority, maintaining persistence, and when to say yes or no.  She closes by reminding us to enjoy the journey. (See: White, Sara J. Leadership Successful Alchemy.  Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006 63: 1497-1503.)

Most of us have heard of Stephen Covey.  He writes about the importance of trust and defines character behaviors that support trust and contrast them with their opposite behavior.  Why is Trust so Valuable?  It is easy to forget how difficult it is to earn, and how easy it is to lose trust. We should all take a moment to appreciate the trust we have earned from our families, and colleagues, and renew an oath to protect this trust.  As you read through the character behaviors it will be difficult to overlook Maslow’s self-actualization concept at work.

Character behaviors: talk straight rather than spin; demonstrate respect instead of withholding information; create transparency; right wrongs and admit mistakes; show loyalty rather than taking credit and selling out your colleagues. Deliver results instead of activities. Try to improve; confront reality rather than bury your head in the sand. Practice accountability rather than assume or don’t disclose. Listen first rather than pretend to listen. Keep commitments even when inconvenient rather than violate promises and withhold trust. By now I hope you noticed that personal power is a strong goal in the contrasting values. Of course most of the time all of us practice the character behaviors that support trust. We only rarely dwell on the other side, although it seems like that is where all the fun lies! The idea is to recognize when we drift to the other side, think about it and find a way to get back to the character side. (See: Covey, S. The speed of trust.  http://www.leadershipnow.com/CoveyOnTrust.html )

Dick Rooney (Pharmacy Chief at Jesse Brown VA Medical Center) told me about the next piece from The American Scholar by William Deresiewicz (an English Professor).  His work has the power to permanently change your way of thinking. http://www.theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/   If you read only one paper this year- choose this one, and thank Dr. Rooney. Deresiewicz poses the question- Why is it so difficult to define leadership?  Is having energy, accomplishment, intelligence, and ambition enough to make a leader? Does a 4 point GPA make you a leader? Leadership and aptitude, achievement, and excellence are all different things. He offers a meaningful yet circular definition of leadership: “The Qualities of Character and Mind that make you fit to lead.”  

Deresiewicz makes the case that our educational systems are training bureaucrats rather than leaders. That our students learn to answer questions but not when or how to ask questions. We teach them to meet goals but not when or how to set goals.  We all certainly can get things done, but we don’t always ask if these things are worth doing.  We learn to memorize information but can too easily avoid having our own understanding of these concepts. We become highly informed about a limited body of knowledge yet remain uniformed about the rest.

Bureaucrats are excellent hoop-jumpers and may have a remarkable list of achievements in their C.V.  He asks- “but have we trained you to be excellent sheep?”  Are we educating people for celebrity, to gain impressive titles, make it to the top? To succeed as a bureaucrat one must avoid risk, avoid questions, and get along by going along.  Bureaucrats keep the routine running, inspire no one, and generate only uneasiness. Have you had a preceptor who generated only uneasiness? You never knew what he wanted or if you were doing well. You only had a sense of uneasiness around him.

In contrast Leaders:

• Know when and how to ask questions
• Know when and how to set goals
• Can determine if things are worth doing
• Have interests beyond area of expertise
• Formulate new directions, new ways of doing things
• Have their own knowledge and understanding