Jonathan Freeland in today’s Guardian takes the opportunity to connect Chris Christie (Republican Governor of New Jersey), “Bridgegate“, and the tempting dangers of strong leadership:
“Strong leader” is the medal every politician wants on his chest, pinned there by the voters. Those who have succeeded – Thatcher, Blair, Reagan – are those who’ve been branded strong, while weak is synonymous with failure: step forward, John Major. No matter what else the polls say, Conservative strategists draw comfort from the data showing David Cameron trumping Ed Miliband on the “strong leader” measure.
Yet the Christie affair suggests our desire for strength is a complicated business, that we want it but only up to a point. For a while, Republicans especially liked the fact that Christie seemed more Goodfellas than West Wing, happy to intimidate teachers or tell a disgruntled voter to “keep walking” (unless, one presumes, the voter wanted to get hit). But when that machismo turns into outright abuse of power, at the expense of large numbers of ordinary citizens, it loses its lustre. There is, it seems, a line that separates the muscular, decisive leader from the aggressive bully – a line Christie has crossed, to what could prove his fateful cost.
If only, Freedland muses, there were some scholarly work which could describe accurately and convincingly this danger, the transmogrification of leader into bully… Fortunately for Freedland he has the inside dope on just such a work:
In April, the veteran political scientist and former professor of politics at Oxford, Archie Brown, will publish The Myth of the Strong Leader, suggesting we should cure ourselves of our attraction to the alpha male model of leadership. Once a dominant single individual rules, the way is paved towards “important errors at best, and disaster and massive bloodshed at worst”.
Wonderful. Can’t walk to see Archie Brown’s book come out. Can’t wait to see how much of his argument, if not his examples, walks over the ground set out in this book, published a whole year before Brown’s book, and already warning about the dangers that seemingly have only just occurred to Freedland.
As well as fear a false view of people leads to hero leaders, who always fail. Put not your trust in new leaders, better systems, new organisations or regulatory reorganisation. They may well be good and necessary, but will to some degree fail. Human sin means pinning hopes on individuals is always a mistake, and assuming that any organisation is able to have such good systems that human failure will be eliminated is naïve.
I wonder if he has been reading an advanced copy of this?
The answer is on the cover, he says, modestly. Next summer, Continuum / Bloomsbury will publish “You are the Messiah, and I should know: why leadership is a myth, and possibly a heresy”. Based on my PhD research at the University of Kent1, YatM looks at the way “leadership” is used as method of social control and is described as the universal virtue in our society. It is the panacea, the solution to every social problem, and there is no organization, business, group or nation which does not need more of it.
The problem is, no one can agree on what “leadership” is. In the academic and business literature there are X2 definitions of what constitutes “leadership”. There is even no agreement about how the various different definitions of leadership relate to one another. In any other field, such a mass of contradiction and confusion would lead to suspicions about the intellectual credibility of the subject: however, “leadership studies” is different, because there is always the opportunity to package the latest insight into “vital”, “necessary”, “cutting-edge” leadership, and sell it to the desperate business men (and they are usually men) who seek an advantage over their rivals: “Follow the ABC method”, “Use the K1P approach to dynamic, integrative leadership!” and share prices will soar and women will swoon.
But, if “leadership” is not a coherent and credible discipline, why is it so powerful in our culture? The answer comes from two insights: a) understand leadership as a “Myth” (a story we tell ourselves to make sense of our world); and b) the most powerful mythic medium in our culture is Cinema, and, especially, popular Hollywood film. This means, in effect, it doesn’t matter how many text books on “transformative leadership” or “transactional followership” you buy, how many seminars on the “leadership lessons of Jesus Christ” you pay for, the dominating medium of leadership is film. You say “Mark Zuckerberg”; he says “Jesus Christ”; we all mean “John Wayne”.
I explore my idea in, roughly, the following structure3:
Section 1 The “Problem” of Leadership
Is Leadership a Problem? : How leadership is presented as a universal good, and yet how the secular advocates of leadership are unable to agree on a definition or even a family of definitions of leadership. How much is leadership a means of selling reassurance to worried businesses?
Jesus, MBA : How the Church in the late twentieth century began to incorporate the strictures of secular business consultants into church governance and ministerial formation. (I include a case study on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s “sharia law” speech).
Leading and Leaving the Dead : I examine the usual Bible passages usually described as the Scriptural justification for leadership studies and show that they are anything but.
Section 2 The “Problem” of Myth
The Morphology of Myth : I demonstrate that leadership is best thought of as a “myth”, and what this term might mean.
The Myths of the Mighty : Myths are always the expression of a particular society, and I explore what the myths of the dominant culture of our day, the United States of America, show us about the origins of leadership studies. R. W. Emerson’s role is explored.
Section 3 Leadership Myths in Movies
The Leadership Principle: Affirmation: I look at the films which advocate an uncritical acceptance of the “great man” model of leadership, and show how that is reflected in most popular thinking about leadership. Films include Patton, Triumph of the Will, and Star Wars.
Splitters! : Repudiation: a group of films, mostly made in the 1970s and 80s, attempted to repudiate the older model of leadership, but in doing so, they merely perpetuated Emerson’s idea of the sovereignty of the individual which is the root of the “great man” model. ‘Don’t follow leaders, don’t be a follower’, was their message. Films include Spartacus, Full Metal Jacket, Monty Python’s Life of Brian and Apocalypse Now.
Citizen Soldiers : Resurgence : in the 1990s attempts were made to reintegrate a healthier model of leadership/followership in films. Given that we have to have leaders, how should they behave? Unconsciously, these films (Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, The West Wing) merely reinforced the older mythic idea of the separation of the leader from his community. John Wayne’s persona is the root of all these.
Section 4 Conclusion
Mythos and Anti-Mythos : if leadership spills over into totalitarianism, then what is the Church to do? The life and ministry of Dietrich Bonhoeffer is the place to turn to, in his repudiation of “great man” leadership, and his modelling of the true Christian pattern of social organization, discipleship.