Leadership “Crisis”
A couple mornings ago, I woke up and heard an interesting tidbit on the radio. One of the Ivy League schools – Harvard, I believe – conducted a study, and came to the conclusion that there was a “Leadership Crisis” in the United States. A large majority of those surveyed – approaching 65%, I believe – distrusted their state and federal leaders, business leaders and religious leaders.
What does this mean? I have several thoughts.
- Why is everything labeled a “crisis”? Why not “opportunity”? Why not “chance for improvement”? Easy, because those terms don’t strike people the same way “crisis” does. “Crisis” plays well in the media, grabs attention, points to a problem, no matter how truly large or small. It grabs headlines.
After all, wasn’t that the University’s point? They did release a PSA, of whom one of the recipients was the largest talk radio station in my market, whose morning personality read the PSA during morning drive time. The University grabbed headlines.
- So, only 35% of Americans surveyed think we do not have an issue with leadership. Why is anyone surprised? Think about it:
- The average American watches close to seven hours of television per day.
- We allow ourselves to be taxed so our communities can build larger sports venues, but we refuse to work to overhaul the public education system.
- We are one of the most obese nations on the planet, yet health clubs, running tracks, parks and bike paths exist within driving distance (how ironic) of most Americans.
- We are quicker to request a hand out (or just take it), than to pick up a shovel, a power tool, or book to better ourselves.
I agree that is the negative view, but we can all cite examples where we see these issues on a regular basis. Now, let me take this in another direction: I’ve am yet to work with an organization of any type over ten people in size – church, business, other not for profit, club, etc. – where the Pareto Principle has not proven generally correct. Extrapolating the principle to work, results, whatever you want to call it, the Pareto Principle says that 80% of the work will be accomplished by 20% of the people. I’ve seen it vary from 85/15 to 75/25, but as I said earlier, it’s been proven generally correct in every organization in which I have participated.
Knowing this, I think it is fair to say that only 25% of the American population consists of leaders, overachievers, whatever we want to call them. Why should we be surprised that the 75% of “non leaders” don’t trust the leaders? Those “non leaders” can:
- Pick up a book to learn new subject matter.
- Pick up a shovel, dig a hole, and learn a trade.
- Learn to use some technical device and benefit from its use.
Whatever happened to self-leadership and self-motivation?
- We assume that everybody has an equality of work ethic. This is not true. However, politically based discussions about work, outcome, results, etc. exclude the variable of work ethic, and they should not. It is the important variable indicating what people can do but refuse to do. Discussing work ethic brings us to the middle ground between the extremes of “man should do everything for himself” and “government should help everyone”, or between “man needs no help from me” and “man is helpless without me”. Work ethic, and its converse, laziness, are fair judgments to make on individuals when discussing activity and results.
- What does this study say about Activism? Not much that is good. For the last generation and a half, we have been taught that Vocalism is Activism. It is not. It is Vocalism. Let’s look at Harvard’s “willing accomplice” status in this study:
- They found a “problem”, and spent money to do so, all to produce a result that is no more than a sanity check.
- They published their findings on the “problem”, worded in a way to pique interest AND concern. Lots of concern.
- Then they waited.
- And will wait longer.
- And will continue to wait.
- Until someone else to picks up the baton and runs with it.
That is not activism. That is Vocalism with entitlement mentality. It sets the expectation that, because I am loud, someone will fix my problem. It’s the toddler with the temper tantrum. (Funny, I always learned to let the toddler work themselves out of the tantrum, instead of giving them what they wanted.) So, by using Vocalism, we allow the collective toddler to get the better of us, and we give them what they want.Vocalism does not work. Activism works. Let’s stop talking, and start doing. Otherwise, all we do is contribute to the problem of Vocalism – entitlement based collective whining.
Leadership is not about discussion, it’s about action. We have to start with ourselves and our communities. That’s where grass roots grow.
Be Brave…act!
March 19th, 2007 07:12
Hello Rick,
Several thoughts came to me as I read your essay.
The first was that I would love to read the original abstract of the study, and more likely even to read the full text. It would make a great deal of difference to know the population of the study. A bunch of students responding is quite a different kettle of fish than a cross section of Americans. That would be my first question.
Secondly, what were the questions and how were they phrased ?
For arguments sake however, and taking the study on it’s face as you related it, I have the some remarks.
While the average American may watch 7 hours a day, that is a statistical average. Few people I know watch anything near that number a day. Obviously, the extreme couch potatoes are making up for the rest of us.
I think the same reasoning is applicable to the obese. Most of us are active, and are not obese.
The overhaul of the school is an easy one … If only my philosophical and political opponents would just get out of my way, and let me get on with reforming the school systems. And I think they feel just as firmly about their approach. This point is a dynamic stasis due to political tensions being so finely balanced. This is not due to anyone’s inaction.
In spite of the media’s portrayel of our countrymen, this one is a canard. Most folks will go and do the chore themselves rather than wait to have it done for them.
I don’t take issue that there are those who won’t do it themselves, I only take issue with the 75/25 proportion. My experience is that the proportion is entirely opposite, if not even higher.
I do absolutely agree that pointy headed, nitpicking, studies “announced” for release to the press are not worth the paper they are printed on. More and more “studies” of angels on the head of a pin are in no one’s best interest.
March 19th, 2007 08:41
Rick, this is very interesting! I was just the other day reflecting on the USA; how it was such a great thing in the beginning, and how it continued to prosper for many years, but now it is becoming more and more a welfare state full of the fat, dumb, and happy.
Here are my thoughts:
At it’s inception, and through the heyday of immigration, the only people to come here were the hearty, hard working, take-action kind of people. They had the guts to sell everything and come over here with almost nothing in order to carve out for themselves a new live born of blood, sweat, and tears. If they didn’t, they would likely die.
Fast forward a few generations and we have folks who live in comfort provided by the industry of our forebears and/or living on the wealth afforded them by tax payers. Why *should* they take action? And the political system panders to them for two things: 1, to stay in power. Give them hand outs and they’ll keep you. Take them away and they’ll vote against you. This class has grown to such a large number that it is worth significant attention. 2, Keep them controlled. Keep them dumb and dependent, and you control them.
On the study, I don’t think a large number of people distrusting the government is a *bad* thing. On the contrary, it shows that somewhere deep down, they are “getting it.” Whether or not they can understand or express it is another matter, but everyone should be uneasy about government. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and that doesn’t mean outward vigilance only. We must also pay attention to what it happening within the country.
Regarding Vocalism vs. Activism, I think the two are distinct, but tied together. Without vocalism, nobody knows that which we should be active about. You need the vocal and eloquent to inform and motivate.
Re: the 80/20 rule, I have mixed feelings about it. It may be true, but then it may only take 20%. For example, if the board of admin is constitutionally defined as 12 seats, you’ll have those 12 people doing the majority of the work in the organization they admin, simply because it is defined and incorporated that way. When I hear the 80/20 rule invoked, it’s usually by neo-evangelicals as a way of guilting the “lazy-80″ into action, so I have an auto-response to it. (I know you’re not doing that here…I just had some thoughts.)
Dennis, re: your comments about the obese, I don’t know anyone who voted for Bill Clinton, either. Therefore he must not have been President…twice.
The CDC reports that “In 1990, 4 states had obesity prevalence rates of 15–19 percent and no states had rates at or above 20 percent. In 2005, only 4 states had obesity prevalence rates less than 20 percent, while 17 states had prevalence rates equal to or greater than 25 percent, with 3 of those having prevalences equal to or greater than 30 percent (Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia).”
(Link to Source)
Your anecdotal “evidence” to the contrary does not diminish the fact that “most of us” are indeed not as active as we should be, and it’s getting worse. The CDC information would suggest we do indeed wait for others to “do it for us.” No, we’re not at greater than 50% yet, but the trend should be alarming and obvious.
Re: School Systems, this is a problem because it is a big-money political business. And here again, we hand off our responsibility to others to handle. We vote for levy after levy after levy, each dollar is promised to make things better. When things DON’T get better, it’s because we need MORE money!! The Bureaucrats of the Edu-stablishment are getting rich off of keeping our kids dumb, and therefore helping to maintain control over the masses.
Here’s an idea: If you have kids in the schools, you have a say in their running…eliminate all of the Boards of Education in the country. Place every single school under the control of a board of trustees elected by the parents of the children at that school, and by nobody else. Take a few other cues from New Zealand’s reform government and the Problem is solved.
But involvement takes work, and we don’t want to work.
And finally, I guess we all agree on “studies.” What a waste of money, usually tax money!
March 19th, 2007 19:41
Hi Rick-
Very interesting post.
I do agree that many of us (possibly most) could and should become more active; I would encourage social and political action. I don’t think I was encouraged much to do that as I was growing up, and I spent far too much time just being lucky (white, middle-class American), and not enough time thinking about those who are less fortunate due simply to geography, skin color, low SES….
I think Denis’ points about the details of the study are good ones; knowing the sampling methods of the study helps one generalize correctly. Also, the format and style of questions can certainly skew answers.
However, I don’t agree that social science studies like this are a waste of time. Certainly, we all “know” that Americans have issues with their leaders…but you might be surprised at how many things people “know” that are really false. I see this fairly often in educational research (the field in which I am most familiar). For instance, “positive reinforcement” and incentives have for decades been a big deal in schools. But, as many studies have indicated, (including the study Gillian recently cited in her comment on “Nobody’s Perfect”) the not only don’t help in the long run, but they can actually hinder learning. But many teachers still keep using reinforcement and incentives. Why? I think there are a number of reasons, an important one being that it’s counterintuitive to think that such actions won’t help.
There is also the issue of incomplete information. I heard a conversation yesterday; somebody asked if an American needs a passport to go to Canada. The immediate answer was yes…but that’s not completely true. Right now, you need it if you’re traveling by air, but not if you cross the border by car.
So I don’t think studies should be dismissed because they have “obvious” results. Sometimes they do, and we know that it’s reasonable to believe what we do. Other times, however, it can be a real eye-opening experience.
Trying not to blink…
Susan
March 19th, 2007 23:26
I purposely didn’t delve into the details of the study, because they weren’t the context of my post. What was important was what was deemed newsworthy by Harvard. To all of your points, though, I would like to identify the difference between what was *studied* and what was *reported*. Oh, that would mean more internet time…less time with family…hmmm. Crum!
By the way, has anyone done a survey on the percentage of people that distrust academia, or is academia untouchable? Had to throw in that one.
Okay, enough of the asides.
Denis,
With the Pareto Principle, I can look around my place of work and other organizations, and speaking in terms of percentages, identify a “handful” of people who could keep the organizations running. They may not run those organizations effectively, but they would stay intact.
I’m not saying that all people are unproductive, but I am saying that there are handfuls of people that are more reliable or effective at what they do, and you would normally look for them first when needed. There are more, though, that do “just enough”, instead of looking to excel at what they do.
Scott,
Agreed on the immigration issue. Agreed also that both vocalism and activism are needed. My problem is when people make a noise, and expect someone else to follow it up with activity. That’s the collective toddler in us.
I also like your idea about reforming the local schools.
Susan,
I don’t consider myself lucky for how I was raised. My parents were nowhere near perfect. They divorced when I was thirteen; the mental scars still exist, but the physical ones are gone. I am blessed to not have fallen into that mode, and work hard every day to make sure that I don’t. I think you sell yourself and your resolve short to say you were lucky. It saddens me to think that you believe it was by chance that you were raised as you were. Your comments tell me that you don’t think people in those “other” situations can rise above them. (If it weren’t for politicians and other cults of personality, they probably could.)
I agree that some studies could pour cold water on our preconceived notions. This seems to happen regularly when pop psychology notions are involved. However, per the comments made thus far, the “news” was useless as delivered. But, boy did Harvard get their name out in the media again!
March 20th, 2007 07:27
Hi Rick,
Any time you want to have a discussion about academia I think you’ll find a few willing participants….:)
Seriously though, do you remember any further details of the report you heard? Yes, like every other human endeavor, much of what is done in the name of social science is crap, but you can’t tell where this study falls unless you know enough about it. At this point, I don’t. This is far from your fault. Most of these drive-by news reports are about as useful and informative as you think they are. But if you can give me a bit more to go on, I’d be interested in fleshing it out a bit. I’ve already done a quick Google search with no luck.
March 20th, 2007 07:37
Hi Rick-
I didn’t say that my parents or I didn’t work to get ahead. I didn’t say that people who are born in other circumstances can’t rise above them. I said I was lucky to be white, middle class, and American. I would never denigrate what my parents did. My mom was the first one in her family to get a four-year college degree. My dad worked for years at a job he hated because it provided well for his family. So please don’t put words in my mouth.
For me, the luck came from the circumstances of my birth. In being middle class, I certainly didn’t have everything, but I wasn’t deprived of anything I needed. In being American, I had automatically had access to thing that many in the world simply don’t. As far as race goes, I think that’s being covered in another post. I never had to worry about where food came from, walk miles to get water, or worry about being attacked.
There are plenty of people born white, middle class, and American who screw up their lives through bad choices. I didn’t, and that can be attributed to hard work and good guidance. But I did start off with an advantage over much of the world; I did get a head start. I child born in a 3rd world country has a lot more to overcome. That’s not fair; that’s life, but I can do something to help. For instance, during my daughter’s spring break we’re going to work with a local church group that provides food for developing countries.
I’m not ignoring what my family did for me; I’m not ignoring my own work ethic. I’m just recognizing that, when I was born, I went home to a house that my parents owned, in smalltown USA. That was one lucky baby.
Susan
March 20th, 2007 08:15
Grant,
My post spilled the beans on everything I heard in the survey. So, as you can tell, there wasn’t any real detail provided.
Let me check the radio station’s online news source. Maybe they have the sound bite or a link to the report.
(Note to self…look for this info tonight.)
March 20th, 2007 14:08
Susan,
You infer that, by your luck at being white, middle class, and American, that those that aren’t like you are unlucky. I don’t get that.
Rick
March 20th, 2007 16:55
HI Rick-
I’m sorry I’m not being clear. I understand what I’m trying to say; don’t know why I’m having trouble getting my point across. I’m not saying that white, middle class, and American is the ONLY way to be born lucky; I’m saying that for me, it was lucky because I automatically had so many advantages. There are plenty of other places in the world where kids start out well.
But lots of places where they don’t. Maybe an example will help; this is an excerpt from a CNN.com article today:
“Mustafa Karim, a fourth-grader, now lives with family members in a squalid camp in eastern Baghdad where displaced Shias go after fleeing their homes, often after relatives have been killed.
The young boy’s eyes fill with tears when he recalls the circumstances that led to his exile.
“They killed my father and uncle in front of my eyes,” he says.
He then breaks down sobbing. He can no longer speak. The anguish is unbearable.
Such stories are not uncommon in Iraq four years after the U.S.-led invasion. Health officials say the daily hardships — bomb blasts, gunfire, killings of family members and sectarian violence — are taking an increasing toll on Iraq’s children.
Hundreds of thousands of children no longer attend school. Others have been forced from their homes to camps, while others have fled the nation with family.”
I think these kids are unlucky to have been born into a such a volatile situation. They did nothing to cause it, but they now have to deal with it. I NEVER had challenges that even come close to what they are facing. To me it was the luck of the draw that put me in a happy home instead of a war-torn nation. What did I do to deserve it? Nothing, but I’m thankful.
Perhaps you thought I was implying white, middle class, and American was the best. Not at all. It was lucky for me. No automatic race problems, no automatic money problems, no automatic war.
Hope this helps.
Susan
March 20th, 2007 20:06
Grant,
Here’s the PSA, which itself has a link to the study.
Susan,
I do understand your point. The word “luck” rubs me the wrong way, as you can tell.
FWIW, though, yes, we are fortunate to have not experienced those things first hand. My goal for our country is that we never need to.
Thanks,
Rick
March 20th, 2007 20:53
Hi Rick-
I’m glad I was clear. Perhaps good fortune or chance works better? FEELS like luck to me, though.
I agree with your goal for the country. I would extend that throughout the world. Enormous task, I know, but it starts with small steps. The food bank my daughter and I are going to work at (now that I’ve checked it out more thoroughly) sends food to US locations and abroad. It’s a start.
Susan