On Leadership
Video | PostLeadership | FedCoach | | Books | About |
Exploring Leadership in the News with Steven Pearlstein and Raju Narisetti

Coro Fellows
Young Leaders

Coro Fellows

As part of the Coro Fellows Program in Public Affairs, these fellows are engaged in a full-time, nine-month, graduate-level leadership training program that prepares individuals for public-affairs leadership.

Power to the people

Question: Egypt's unfolding political crisis raises a broader question: Can an entrenched, powerful leader, one who has resisted change, successfully lead a country or an organization in a different direction if circumstances suddenly demand it? Or is it necessary to bring in new leadership?

The following responses come from five of the fellows that make up the Coro St. Louis 2011 class.

Leaders must adapt

Perhaps a more appropriate question to be drawn from the current events in Egypt is, "What sudden change of circumstances would render a change in leadership necessary?" After all, the nature of the circumstances could make all the difference.

Theoretically, an entrenched, powerful leader who had resisted change in the past should be able to adapt to new circumstances and successfully lead a country or organization using a changed vision or new paradigm. Intentional change rooted in new ways of thinking is difficult, yet it happens all the time. Picture that stubborn boss who, after months of frustrating debate, finally agrees to give employees maternity or paternity leave after the birth of a child.

On the other hand, it's not hard to envision a situation in which there is no other solution than a change in leadership. For instance, if the sudden change in circumstances involved a situation in which the entire public demanded a new leader, then there is no way that the current leader could stay in power and still satisfy the shifting vision of the country. Therefore, new leadership would be necessary.
--Claire Glasspiegel


No easy task

I think one must be careful in assuming that changes in leadership will produce positive changes in the direction of an organization or country. It is reasonable to think of cases where leaving a leader in power is a poor option, and removing him would be worse. In these situations, the void left by a strong leader can turn into a vacuum where the future direction of an entity is left uncertain and ambiguous. Often, there are growing pains associated with new leadership--side effects that could negatively affect their pursuit for institutional or systemic change.

While the single act of removing an entrenched and ineffective leader may be enough to enable a country to pivot in difficult circumstances, remnants of the old leader may still remain. Processes, systems, culture and relationships are areas the new leader will have to repair or throw out completely. This of course, is no easy task.
--Matt Menietti

Power: Give it away

Perhaps Kanye West can claim to be the voice of this generation. It seems the often-maligned rapper was peering into the future when he wrote, in his most recent album, that "no one man should have all that power"--a mantra taken up, at least in spirit, by the millions of Egyptians protesting nearly 30 years of rule under President Hosni Mubarak. For maladaptive leaders like Mubarak who are faced with demands for a new direction, they must ask themselves how they can implement change and still retain leadership.

It's simple. If no one man should have all that power, he should simply give it away.

This solution doesn't just apply to political dictators, it applies to organizations suffering from founder's syndrome too. When leaders gives away power, they enable others to act. They develop new leaders, allow for new ideas and create a culture of shared accountability characterized by broad-based buy-in. In ceding power and dispersing authority, leader repair trust, restore integrity to broken systems and allow others to check and balance their power.

In Washington D.C. there's a common image around town, one that even adorns the top of the Capitol Rotunda. It's the image of George Washington with sword in hand, offering his free hand to the people--symbolizing his rejection of monarchical dictatorship and his willingness to return power to the people. Entrenched and change-resistant leaders can lead under new circumstances if they successfully and genuinely give power away (not just fire and replace their entire cabinet...). They merely have to acknowledge that, at some point, to truly enable others to act, they must give power away completely.
-Mark Micheli


Be the change

Leaders who were previously resistant to change can successfully lead a country or an organization in a different direction. The task requires a leader to be authentic--to lead by example and act with integrity. They must both mean and do what they say they will do--or, as Mahatma Gandhi put it, to "be the change [they] wish to see in the world."

Leaders who merely pay lip service to a request for change or a new direction in policy relinquish legitimacy and do damage to their integrity and ability to be trusted. Any lack of commitment and honesty on a leader's part can easily be detected and any intended change will fall short.
--Sam Nayman


Agent of the people, agent of change

Questioning a recognized leader's ability to adjust to the demand of changing circumstances brings forth greater questions surrounding the responsibility of change. Is a leader in charge of administering change? Should a leader in today's world serve as a source of familiarity, both representing and protecting an established social order--or rather, is it the responsibility of a leader to change along with circumstances, perhaps even serving as an agent for change themselves?

It would be easy at this point to rattle off a list of individuals who have demonstrated leadership on either end of this scope, weigh the pros and cons and suggest that the best solution to the questions above would be a hybrid approach. Instead, I would like to bring the conversation back to the people--those driving the demand.

A leader's primary responsibility is to serve and protect the needs, rights and interests of the people. Without them, this conversation would be pointless. Leaders must be able to look beyond themselves to see the needs of the people they serve--whether this need calls for a continuation of an existing system, social reform or radical change--and act accordingly.
--Rachel Winston


Return to all panelist responses

By Coro Fellows

 |  February 1, 2011; 7:46 AM ET
Category:  Crisis leadership , Failures , Government leadership , Making mistakes , Managing Crises , Political leadership , Presidential leadership Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: The president's State of the Union report card | Next: Strong leaders know when it's time to change

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



Mark, I greatly appreciated your connection to Kanye West.

A question I have, do dictators or any leader for that matter ever truly give their power in its entirety? Can't we make claim that power is merely transferred. I guess the situation in Egypt forces us to ask "who will assume power next?" and "what impact will mubarak have on the type of administration they will adopt?"

In my view, complete power is never turned over. Rather, it is merely transferred to the next guy who may adopt the same policies and principles depending how he is chosen.

Posted by: skepticLA | February 14, 2011 1:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

After spending some time away from the question, I came back to it and saw it in a different light. So here’s another response:

A Matter of Perception:

The original prompt talks of a “new direction.” My question is, how do we define a “new direction”? Is it when a leader changes one policy? Two policies? Three policies? Maybe a new direction has been achieved when a leader replaces the current Cabinet with a new one. I don’t know and even if I had an understanding of what a new direction meant to me, it could mean something totally different to the next person. What this ambiguity tells me is that a “new direction” is a matter of perception. Those who look for changes/a new direction will find it. Those who look for what’s not changing will find that nothing has changed. So to the question, “Can an entrenched, powerful leader, one who has resisted change, successfully lead a country or an organization in a different direction if circumstances suddenly demand it?” my answer is, yes it is possible. As far as how probable it is, that depends on who’s being led and what they are looking for.

-Sam

Posted by: Responder4 | February 7, 2011 12:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

After spending some time away from the question, I came back to it and saw it in a different light. So here’s another response:

A Matter of Perception:

The original prompt talks of a “new direction.” My question is, how do we define a “new direction”? Is it when a leader changes one policy? Two policies? Three policies? Maybe a new direction has been achieved when a leader replaces the current Cabinet with a new one. I don’t know and even if I had an understanding of what a new direction meant to me, it could mean something totally different to the next person. What this ambiguity tells me is that a “new direction” is a matter of perception. Those who look for changes/a new direction will find it. Those who look for what’s not changing will find that nothing has changed. So to the question, “Can an entrenched, powerful leader, one who has resisted change, successfully lead a country or an organization in a different direction if circumstances suddenly demand it?” my answer is, yes it is possible. As far as how probable it is, that depends on who’s being led and what they are looking for.

-Sam

Posted by: Responder4 | February 7, 2011 12:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment




characters remaining

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company