Program Details
This week on Utah NOW we explore the nature of leadership. Just what is the essence of a good leader? In times of crisis or war – what are the characteristics people look to for direction and strength. From the founders to modern America – how does leadership play out in the country’s social and political climate?
Learn More
View or Post CommentsThe Center for Public Policy & Administration mission is to provide research, education, and services to public and nonprofit organizations that will strengthen administration, leadership and public policy making.
Mayor Peter Corroon is the subject of this week's In Focus segment. Visit Salt Lake County's website to find out more about the mayor.
Transcript
[Doug Fabrizio, Host]:
Throughout history people have looked to leaders in times of crisis…for guidance, assurance – for strength…today- as the United States faces the realities of war and a divided culture – who's providing the leadership to draw the country back together. Tonight on Utah NOW – we're examining the nature of leadership- the characteristics of a good leader – the changing structure of power and the need to find someone to get in front and lead…
[Fabrizio]:
Hello, and welcome to Utah NOW . I'm Doug Fabrizio . This time of the year often finds us reflecting back on the history of the country and the kinds of people who rose to the occasion and led. Leaders – who comforted the squeamish in the early moments of uncertainty – before anyone had settled on the particulars of boundary or government. So – what were the characteristics of such leaders? It's a relevant question today – as the country finds itself if not in a moment of crisis – at least at a time of uncertainty. Today – we're exploring the nature of leadership. Lots of questions come with the idea … just what is the essence of a good leader? What do we want or need in a leader – especially now – or do we really need one person to take the lead – has the notion become irrelevant or outdated in the social and political environment of today.
Let's start with one leader in particular. Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon is not your typical authority figure. In fact for a man who likes to fly under the radar – it's a little ironic he's been drawing so much attention for his leadership …
In Focus: Score One for Corroon
[Matt Burbank, Ph.D. , Political Science Department, University of Utah ]:
Part of it is simply that he comes across as somebody who is very competent, he's honest, he's able to communicate effectively, and for the most part that is what people have seen from Peter Corroon's administration, and one of the reasons why people give him fairly high public opinion marks. Also I think the soccer stadium issue, his handling of the question of funding helped him enormously because that was a topic that got a good deal of attention and in doing so, allowed him I think to come across as a very careful and thoughtful leader.
[Fabrizio]:
It could also be that Corroon's style of leadership, reserved, easy on the rhetorical flares is seen as a contrast to typical politicians. In fact his method challenges the basic structure of power.
[Mayor Peter Corroon, Salt Lake County ]:
A lot of times people think of leaders as people who come in and sort of dictate from above but my philosophy is that leadership is actually the other way, you ah set a tone and then listen as much as you can to your employees making sure what they're telling you, you're listening to and acting.
[Deputy Mayor Karen Suzuki-Okabe]:
I think he presents a different kind of leadership. I think he's quiet, soft spoken. When he says he doesn't care about credit he just wants to make sure that the citizens are well served.
[Nichole Adams Dunn, Intergovernmental Relations Specialist, Salt Lake County ]:
One word that we've really heard a lot from the constituents is “refreshing.” And I think what they're saying is that he's not politics as usual.
[Julia Madsen, Executive Secretary to the Mayor]:
He doesn't just overlook what they're saying, he tries to look at it from their point of view. And that's a real unique politician.
[Fabrizio]:
While most Salt Lake County residents had already taken to Corroon's modest manner, it was his leadership in the question of using public money to fund a professional soccer stadium in the county that really fixed his reputation as a leader.
[ Burbank ]:
What happened in the circumstance was that there were a number of proposals that were put forward dealing with placement of a major league soccer stadium. Essentially what was happening is that there were three sites that were competitive…one in Salt Lake City , one in Murray and one in Sandy . What happened over the course of events was that Sandy became the preferred site in part because there seemed to be support from the state legislature. What mayor Corroon had to make a decision about was whether it would make sense in terms of using public tax money to fund that site.
[Mayor Corroon]:
Is this something that I can go to the citizens with and say this is a good deal, that you are going to get a good return on your investment here with this money that's being asked for…and ultimately, I couldn't do that.
[ Burbank ]:
But he did this in such a way that he didn't foreclose the idea of funding the stadium some other way, if there was some other way to provide public funding.
[Mayor Corroon]:
Well, frankly I wasn't sure what the response would be, but I was pleasantly surprised and I think that what people saw was somebody who was able to make a decision that may not have been popular, but was willing to stand out there and say “this is what I think is best for the citizens,” which is what I did, and ultimately the citizens said “yes, we appreciate you're standing up and saying this is the best for the citizens.”
[ Burbank ]:
The sense was that this was a nice exercise of political leadership because what he was able to do was make a decision, make it clear why he supported that decision, and yet not necessarily antagonize people who would have come to a different conclusion.
[Fabrizio]:
So it is in an era when political leaders are often viewed with suspicion, Salt Lake County voters are giving their mayor high marks for leadership. Many of them convinced he's actually looking out for them.
[Mayor Corroon]:
Well, unfortunately these days I think citizens think a lot of things happen behind closed doors and that politicians are out there just trying to help their friends, or help big businesses who come and ask for money from the county…and not looking out for the little guy. So I think they saw somebody who was willing to say “this doesn't make sense for the average citizen.”
[Fabrizio]:
Of course built into any structure of leadership is the follower – for all kinds of philosophical and practical reasons we've always figured that someone has to lead the way or make the final decision – but why does that have to be. The static model of leadership in this country is evolving and in fact Jeffrey Nielsen is questioning whether any organization needs a leader.
Nielsen is a teacher and a consultant. He's also the author of a book called “The Myth of Leadership” and he's joining us this evening to talk about how the theory and the practice of leading and following is changing… Jeffrey – welcome…
Let's start with the idea of leadership. You say that the very idea itself is flawed, that it's created this belief in us that only certain people are really gifted enough to lead.
[Jeff Nielsen, Author, “ The Myth of Leadership”]:
Right. Well I like to talk about the myth of leadership to designate or identify that leadership is part of a very powerful story, and for a very long time has told us what it means to be a human being and how do we live and work together in organizations. And it's meant that we have looked to just a few powerful and strong individuals, generally men, to whom we surrender our moral autonomy and a vast control of our lives. And I'm wondering if that's a healthy or responsible thing to do in the 21st century.
[Fabrizio]:
You're saying this concept, this myth, as you call it, is it really deeply embedded in our psyche and who we are?
[ Nielsen ]:
We have from the beginning thought we needed a big chief leader or hierarchical leader to govern our organizations and make the decisions. And the vast majority of people have in many ways lost the ability or the opportunity to have a more meaningful life and to exercise their freedom and liberty in a way I think should happen in organizations.
[Fabrizio]:
You don't think, Jeffrey, that it's human nature, inherent in who we are, to look to someone else for guidance, for structure, for wisdom?
[ Nielsen ]:
I think human nature is very plastic and that's one avenue it can go. But I think there's another model a peer‑based model where we can learn to live together without rank based leaders in a way which we all share information and the decision making process. But it fundamentally challenged how we've organized ourselves since Moses.
[Fabrizio]:
What are the results of this structure? How is this structure of this hierarchical structure what has it produced?
[ Nielsen ]:
I like to look at three things, one authority, then information and decision making, and in the model of leadership what tends to happen is authority becomes very top down, it becomes very coercive or manipulative. And information is monopolized by those in leadership positions in most cases or at least they're justified in monopolizing information and decision making it controlled. So the vast majority of followers find themselves unable to really know or unable to be in the loop of information or in the decision making process. So the results are, I think, it breeds a vast majority of people who simply wait to be told what to do or what to believe.
[Fabrizio]:
But does it have to? I mean can't there be a benevolent leader who wouldn't be corrupted, inclined toward secrecy or corruption?
[ Nielsen ]:
Mayor Corroon is an example of a leader who has Democratic sense about how ability goes. We're beholden to an accidental leader like that. By definition it's a rank‑based concept which justifies secrecy, controlling decision making, and unless we're lucky to get someone like a Mayor Corroon who's more open and transparent we're going to run into eventual problems. It's not the character of the individual as much as that context. I think that unequal relationships breed abuse of power and corruption.
[Fabrizio]:
When you think about those moments of impasse, someone has, it's a peer‑based group and someone has one idea, someone has another idea and in the end they try to work it out they come to an impasse, doesn't someone have to finally make the call? Make the decision? That's the leader, no?
[ Nielsen ]:
Well, that's the way we've seen it for a very long time. I think there is a way to reach consensus in groups that allows everyone to have their voice heard, everyone the privilege to speak and comes to even more effective decisions when all those perspectives are taken in. But it does require very precise process, or it will lead to chaos and bad results.
[Fabrizio]:
If you think about, look at the social context of today, there are some tumult related to culture, questions about war, divided as a country, and I'm wondering if you don't think that some kind of leader, I mean how do we resolve it if you don't look to a leader to resolve the conflict?
[ Nielsen ]:
I think we can see we got into this mess because of our concept of leader. I think there's a fundamental disconnect between democratic values of openness and transparency and the actual practice of political leadership. In a political leadership position you feel justified in making decisions behind closed doors, and keeping secrets from the public, from the democracy. Our very concept of leadership in this instance shows where it's not healthy for democracy.
[Fabrizio]:
Less than a minute so maybe not a fair question but how would this idea of stripping away leadership, how would that transform our society? How would our lives be different?
[ Nielsen ]:
I think it would unleash a tremendous renaissance of American Democratic values.
I think if we were to learn a way to cooperate together as peers, as opposed to giving up control to some rank‑based leader we would find wonderful opportunities for everyone, for better self‑improvement, better decisions, more communication. I think it would be a wonderful renaissance in American values.
[Fabrizio]:
Okay, Jeffrey Nielsen thanks for joining us.
Vox Populi
[Fabrizio]:
So – this week for our Vox Populi…We asked people what they're looking for in a leader…
[Woman 1]:
I think what makes a good leader is sticking to your value system and what you believe is right and always doing the right thing
[Man 1]:
Intelligence, Honesty
[Man 2]:
Somebody with great people skills, somebody who understands the big picture, somebody who can see past the details
[Man 3]:
Humility, and empathy, good listener
[Woman 2]:
Somebody probably that can really excite you about accomplishing your tasks and getting to your goals
[Man 4]:
Strong communication skills
[Woman 3]:
Somebody who is a good leader is somebody who will listen to the people as a whole
[Woman 4]:
Stands up for what's right
[Man 5]:
Someone who will take responsibilities for their actions, be accountable, steps up and leads the way
[Man 6]:
Somebody that knows how to listen to people that have the answers, and surround themselves with good people that he can rely on and use their intelligence as well as his own.
[Man 1]:
My favorite would be President Lincoln, I mean for what he did in a time of crisis for how he had the foresight to keep the country together.
[Man 6]:
Probably Jimmy Carter
[Man 2]:
I would say Michael Dell
[Woman 3]:
Senator McCain
[Woman 1]:
Mr. John Huntsman
[Man 4]:
Probably Ronald Reagan
[Woman 4]:
President Gordon B. Hinckley
[Man 3]:
Martine Luther King, or people who are moving towards trying to make better social conditions for people.
[Fabrizio]:
People often feel the need for a strong leader in times of conflict or crisis. In the United States today – in the midst of a war and a brewing clash between cultures – Americans are either looking for leaders or debating the abilities of the ones they have. Joining us now to talk about leaders in the realm of American politics is Michael Lyons. Lyons is a professor of political science at Utah State University …David Patton is also with us – he's the director of The Center for Public Policy & Administration with the Political Science Department at the University of Utah ...Gentlemen – welcome. ..
I want to reflect back a little bit on what we just saw from people reacting to what they wanted in a leader. What do you hear from people? What is it that people want, in essence, from a leader? Michael Lyons?
[Michael Lyons, Ph.D. , Political Science Dept., Utah State University ]:
I think people expect the impossible, frankly. They underestimate the difficulty of leadership in a complex organization like United States government. This is the most complex and powerful and important organization created in the history of the human race. And they look back historically at George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and they see great leadership. But the task was much simpler in eras by gone.
[Fabrizio]:
What do they want?
[David Patton, Ph.D. , Director, Center for Public Policy & Admin., University of Utah ]:
Well, I think I agree with what Michael's saying it is a very difficult job. Some say the job of president is an impossible position. But people want the things that will satisfy their deepest needs. And so there are things that everyone feels, and some of those are collective that they can't do themselves so they need a leader to actually engage with so that they can do those things. But they want things, they want security on a national level, they want to be able to have a secure home and secure economy and a job, those kind of things. They want someone who can lead them towards that and be able to trust somebody to guide them there.
[Fabrizio]:
I wanted to get you to react to what Jeffrey Nielsen was talking about. The idea of throwing out the old model of leaders and having sort of more peer‑based organizations. Is that a realistic idea?
[ Lyons ]:
I'm afraid I don't think it is. I agree with him that I think we need to rethink our idea of what a leader should be, and I certainly agree that Democratic‑based leadership is ideal and preferable to hierarchical leadership. But throwing out the entire notion of leadership, I think, is, frankly, idealistic at least within the realm of politics.
[Fabrizio]:
What do you think?
[Patton]:
There are times when you can do, I think, what Jeffrey's saying. There are times when an organization can bring people together and say we need to collectively decide on something and they can go about doing that. Even in that case you need somebody to coordinate it, bring people together, to focus the attention. One of the big roles of a leader is to create a vision for the future and that's very difficult to do on a collective, consensus basis. It can be done but has to be led in order to be done. So there's a role for it, I think, and some of our ideas can change in that direction. One person said that you can't manage an army into battle. I would say you cannot by consensus go to battle that's called my rule. So there are limitations to that. That's mob rule.
[Fabrizio]:
I wonder if there is one leader in particular that you gentlemen look to who had that essential characteristic in what you regard anyway as a good leader? Do you have one in particular?
[ Lyons ]:
I would pick Winston Churchill among the 20th century leaders that I know best. I also think that Lyndon Johnson in some respects is underrated, certainly he escalated the Vietnam War and it was an enormous mistake but the accomplishments in civil rights, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965 are absolutely remarkable.
[Fabrizio]:
I'm trying to get what the relationship would be between a Winston Churchill and a Lyndon Johnson. Courage?
[ Lyons ]:
Courage, certainly. Pragmatism, also but those are divergent styles and I think there are many different good leadership styles. A person has to match their leadership style to their talents. Lyndon Johnson's talent was twisting arms on the floor of the senate. He was not a good effective communicator with the American people. I think Winston Churchill was far more skilled as a leader of the English nation and as a morale builder in World War II.
[Fabrizio]:
Who rises to the top for you?
[Patton]:
Let me comment on Churchill. He's a great example because Winston Churchill worked as the leader of the British people during the war. But immediately after the war they rejected him.
They sent him out of office. It's based on what the needs of the people are, inevitable to what the abilities of that leader are. And so when those two don't connect any more that leader is discarded. So for instance, in our side of that war, Franklin Roosevelt is often looked at as a great leader and he was one of the examples. More recently Ronald Reagan has been looked at. As to many of the people but not all of the people. That's because many of the people looked to Ronald Reagan who said he is demonstrating a clear idea for us, we will follow that. Others said that's the wrong idea and we're not willing to follow it. So it depends on the needs of the individuals.
[Fabrizio]:
So this is a shifting dynamic.
[Patton]:
Absolutely.
[ Lyons ]:
Yes, a great war time leader and great peace time leader might be very different kinds of people, and the requirements would be very different, I believe.
[Fabrizio]:
Do you think that the elements of leadership, these dynamics, have changed over time, in the sense that, I mean think about the Civil Rights Era of the '60's that Lyndon Johnson presided over, or even war time, Winston Churchill presided over. Are we different today in some ways? Are we less dependent on a figure like a Johnson, a Churchill do you think?
[ Lyons ]:
I think the difficulty of leadership steadily escalates in our society. And it appreciably more difficult to lead, at least politically as president, than it was just 40 years ago. And again, I am concerned about the future. And the increasing complexity of our society, and the entrenchment of interest groups in our government. A great deal has changed very rapidly in the last 40 years in the United States .
[Fabrizio]:
David Patton?
[Patton]:
We have changed over the years. And the big change is we have divided ourselves. So we're very small little units that are trying to be led by one leader. And that's not a good formula for leadership. Where consensus of followers can be found you can attach to a leader. But when everyone is so divided it's difficult to have consensus.
[Fabrizio]:
I don't think I need to get you to reveal anything ideological necessarily response to this question but what kind of leader is George W. Bush?
[ Lyons ]:
That's a difficult question, Doug. I think George Bush proved himself to be highly capable as a leader in the aftermath of the terrorist attack. And he might be a very skilled war time leader.
[Fabrizio]:
You're thinking of him standing on that pile of rubble?
[ Lyons ]:
Right, were this a time of war I think he might be very effective in this role. He communicates effectively with the average American voter. I don't think he is nearly as skilled in the domestic political arena as a leader. And struggles in his relations with congress, and struggles in other respects of the domestic political arena.
[Patton]:
Leadership is a relationship of trust. And when the trust breaks down then the leadership value of that individual breaks down. And I think George bush, after 9/11, did build up a great deal of trust with the people, because he demonstrated a resolve that the people also had. But as things developed in the Iraq war, where the weapons of mass destruction were not found and so forth, the trust level declined in that leader. And I think many people are looking at him even within his party and saying maybe we don't have the credibility that we'd hope we'd have in this leader.
[Fabrizio]:
So his fluctuating approval ratings are relevant in assessing him as a leader?
[Patton]:
Absolutely.
[Fabrizio]:
What do you think?
[ Lyons ]:
Yes. Part of being an effective leader is having the approval of the people. Especially the way our political system operates. Your credibility with the congress, your leverage with the congress depends on your approval and standing in the eyes of the American people. Right now members, Republican members of the congress are going to be distancing themselves from George Bush when they run for re‑election. That's not a situation that gives him leverage.
[Fabrizio]:
Finding the proper leader, I'm wondering if you think this is the primary dilemma for Democrats?
[Patton]:
Well I think it's a big issue with the Democrats right now. Because the Democrats are a divided party, again. What is it the Democrats really want in a leader? Right now I don't think you could get a room of Democrats and get an agreement on what that might be. And so I think they're going to be very hard pressed to find a leader who represents their views. You're going to have some who say we don't want to in the war, some who say we need to get out of the war correctly. So there are a lot of different things they want. On social issues they're so divided it's very hard for that party to come up with. The Republicans also face the same kind of an issue now.
[Fabrizio]:
What do you think?
[ Lyons ]:
I think the Democrats have a larger intrinsic problem with leadership because in the modern era Democrats are kinds of people who are intrinsically not very responsive to leadership. They're independent thinkers, whereas the personality that Jeffrey discussed more, the person who looks to leadership is more apt to be a Republican. So I think the task is a more difficult one intrinsically in the Democratic party just because certain kinds of people choose to be Democrats.
[Fabrizio]:
Let me ask you this finally. Are Americans, do you think, if they don't find them in political leaders are they looking for leaders elsewhere?
[ Lyons ]:
Yes.
[Patton]:
They look for them in organizations, religious practices, and I think where it comes out is in the political realm.
[Fabrizio]:
Final word?
[ Lyons ]:
I think that the experience of Mel Gibson making the religious movie I can't recall, as an example.
[Fabrizio]:
The passion.
[ Lyons ]:
The passion of the Christ, yes. A large group of people looking for a leader outside the realm of politics.
[Fabrizio]:
Thank you very much.
Speak Out Utah
[Fabrizio]:
In our speak out Utah section Paul Mero of the Sutherland institute parses that distinction of between being equal and being free.
[Paul Mero, editorialist]:
The French Revolution failed where the American Revolution succeeded because the French embraced equality whereas Americans embraced liberty. The ideology of equality is called egalitarianism, and egalitarianism is to democracy what Ashlee Simpson is to music: the voice of mediocrity.
An excellent example is the quest for gay marriage. Just last month a professor at Brigham Young University was fired for a very public tantrum about the LDS Church 's stand on gay marriage. In his opinion, he cannot see how gay marriage hurts anyone, and a handful of his supporters have argued the same thing. One man writing in the Salt Lake Tribune says that he has “yet to see a non-sophistry based argument, article or independent study that explains the harm that legalized gay unions would do to our society.”
Okay friend, listen up. In the aggregate, homosexual relationships are nothing to admire. Empirically, they set a very low bar for human interaction and fulfillment. So, as such, they are virtually meaningless to any thinking person looking for a strong example of life well-lived.
The real social threat of gay marriage is not found in its mere existence, but in the egalitarian ideal used to justify its existence: that all human relationships are equal. Its pathology weakens our collective resolve to discern and identify better ways of living that encourage social progress.
Several years ago, when homosexuals were pushing the case for gay marriage in the courts of Hawaii , they argued, “we are at least as good as the worst of you, and if the worst of you can get married or adopt children, then why can't we?”
And right there my friend, in that big, steaming pile of mediocrity, is your answer. I'm Paul Mero.
[Fabrizio]:
That's Utah NOW for this evening…Thanks for joining us …. Remember you can join the conversation with an e-mail… send us your thoughts to utahnow@kued.org
In the meantime - we'll be back next Friday with another edition of Utah NOW…until then, I'm Doug Fabrizio.
Viewer Comments
No comments posted yet. You could be the first.. Start a conversation now!
Post a Comment
(Your comment will need to be approved by the Utah NOW staff before your comment will appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
First name: *
Last name: *
Email address: *
Your city: *
URL:
Comments: *
To prevent "e-mail spam", please copy the text you see in the graphic into the textbox below:
Please type what you see in the graphic above:
|
Previous show, 06.30.06 « The Governor's Monthly News Conference |
Next show, 07.14.06 Skull Valley: Where do we stand? » |
