Grandma's Leadership Paradigm

I grew up in West Virginia deep in the hills next to a creek. Most of the people who lived around us were family. Often when we would get together to address a situation or engage in a project the entire enterprise dissolved into yet another exercise in futility and family feuds. My grandmother (the matriarch of the family) would usually assess the situation by telling us there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I don’t suppose that was politically correct, but then again, I doubt that she ever heard of the concept of political correctness.

Her comment reflected a strongly held belief that someone (emphasize “one”) should be in control. Other phrases like “too many cooks in the kitchen” and “too many hands in the pot” illustrated the idea that there should be a clearly identified, communally recognized, and perhaps even officially certified leader in charge. The feeling was that if this delineation between leader and follower were not clearly defined and respected then nothing would “get done”.

My grandmother was born in 1906 and she died in 2005 at the age of ninety-nine. Obviously, she came from a different era, a time when great men like Ford, Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy lived. It was widely believed that a “great man” could lead a nation, a church, or a business forward in pursuit of success. This was held to be true from the local church on the dirt road of Elk Lick, West Virginia, to the nation’s capital, to the Ford Motor Company that transformed her world from dirt roads and horses, to automobiles and pavement.

By the time my grandmother passed much had changed. Great men had experienced great failures, dramatically affecting the national psyche and bringing about a significant change in the way we view leaders. After Nixon’s Watergate, Clinton’s Monicagate, and the Enron debacle at the hands of a CEO, leaders having singular control is no longer viewed favorably. Now we want more cooks in the kitchen, we want more chiefs in the camp, and we expect to see leadership shared among teams and not held by a few elites at the top of some imaginary hierarchical structure.

There has been a shift of focus in leadership studies from the singular impact of the leader, to the significant importance of the followers. Assumed, perhaps, is that a collective is more trustworthy than an individual is, or that power distributed in the hands of many is less dangerous than a concentration of power in the hands of the few, or the one. This is, after all, the premise of democracy.

More recent leadership literature, such as the massive work by Bernard Bass, Bass & Stogdills’ Handbook of Leadership, or Gary Yukl’s Leadership in Organizations, has relegated the Great Man theories to the dusty pages of history. Even the Charismatic Leader theories have been abandoned in favor of Transformational leadership models where the leader empowers, inspires, and partners with the followers. The charismatic leader, or the benevolent dictator, might inspire, but he or she failed to empower or to partner with the followers.

The philosophical shift from a top-down model to a more egalitarian approach is a movement that continues to evolve as the Servant Leadership model popularized by Charles Greenleaf has come into prominence.

My grandmother was a devoutly Christian woman whose view of leadership was shaped by the times and by her experiences. It was her experience that too many people trying to take the lead on one project was a failure waiting to happen. However, she readily embraced the cliché espoused by many a preacher that “the ground is level at the foot of the cross.” Furthermore, in our church we regularly observed the practice of feetwashing as a sacrament of our church. Each time we participated in this ordinance we were powerfully reminded of the night Jesus, the Lord and Master, took on the role of a servant. As such, the concept of Servant-Leader was not foreign to her theologically; it was just that she never thought of it as a general model for leadership. One leader in charge with the followers in line behind him was her paradigm. (As a widowed mother of eight children this probably made sense.)

It seems that the modern idealism of an evolution of science and society taking us toward a utopian “Camelot” future died with Kennedy. Skepticism and post-modernity were born with the Vietnam War and Watergate, were nurtured in Monicagate and Enron, and is coming into their own in the light of CIA misinformation leading us into a war on a quest to destroy weapons of mass destruction that apparently never existed.

As the war against terrorism wages on and as the level of gridlock, partisanship, and vitriol escalates among the nation’s political “leaders,” we can only imagine where the paradigm of leadership will be 54 years from now when I turn 99. The trend has been to take the leader off the throne, down from the pyramid and into the masses. In fact, the paradigmatic shift now seems to place the leader under the followers, lifting them up and encouraging them to achieve their full potential. So where does the leadership model go from here? Is there an ultimate model, one model that will stand as the logical end to a quest for the perfect model?

If social trends continue and if the leadership paradigm sift continues in the direction it has historically gone, then leadership in 2050 will be problematic at best. The level cynicism and relativism may be as epidemic as the Avian Bird Flue by then. The family, a time tested laboratory for leadership, will be redefined and religious relativism will every man or woman their own Messiah. Perhaps it will all be academic by then. Could it be that the anarchy looming on the horizon of the societal sunset is the very sea out of which a worldwide dictator will emerge? Is this the beginning of the end of leadership? And if leadership is cast into the abyss with the last worldwide dictator (Antichrist), will the world then be ready for a King (Jesus)?