When I was on the City Council there was a move to install a City Manager as the Chief Executive of the City of Mitchell. Under the proposal then going before the voters, the office of Mayor would continue, but only as a figurehead and as the non-voting presiding officer of the City Council. The management and operational decisions would be made by a non-elected City Manager. That concept violated my sense of democracy and accountability to the citizens of a republic. It also smacked of possible avoidance of civic responsibility by city leaders as in potential future excuses like; “It was the City Manager’s decision. It has nothing to do with me. If you don’t like it, complain to the City Manager, etc.” I didn’t like the concept of a City Manager and so I did something about it.
I’ve always believed that one person can effect change and the time to do that is in the early stages of discussion, before a final decision is made. I took to the streets and spent my own money on the airwaves campaigning against this assault on democratic accountability. I was the only person who was publicly against the decision. The mayor in office then and many former mayors were all for it as were several prominent citizens and some on the City Council. Everyone told me I was out of step with the times and wrong on the issue. The City Manager proposal went to a vote of the people and was absolutely crushed at the polls.
One prominent businessman, who was adamantly for the concept of a non-elected City Manager unaccountable to the voters, invited me to coffee to discuss my opposition and “what went wrong”, after the voters had overwhelming voted down the proposed City Manager model of administration. He had been so sure that the City Manager system was the way to go and that the voters could be led like sheep into agreeing to cede their elective input over city government. I have no issue with a City Administrator, as Mitchell has now, but I thought then and I still think now that voters should have a say in who runs their government and spends their money so a democratically accountable mayoral form of administration is the best form of municipal governance. Something that prominent proponent of a City Manager said has stuck with me and strikes me as typical of those in authority. He said, in reference to his and others efforts to impose the City Manager form of government on the people of Mitchell, “Don’t you think people want leadership?”
The answer is, “Yes, people want leadership.” However, they also absolutely, positively, undeniably DO NOT want to be told what to do. There’s something in the human psyche, you see it especially in kids – particularly teenagers – that rebels against being told what to do, even if it is “good for them”. People aren’t stupid, ignorant sometimes but definitely not stupid. Voters often don’t know what they want but they always know what they don’t want.
I’ve been a leader across a number of forums and formats for decades. Some of that leadership has been institutional, I’ve been a high school director and coach, served on local and State Boards as well as in the legislature and on the city council. Some of that leadership has been in opinion making, Mel’s Musings and my public speaking fall into that category. Some of my leadership has been by example, by being a parent and as a teacher but also by being honest, sometimes brutally so, with the public in my various political roles throughout the years.
There are several different types of leadership and not all of them are appropriate, depending on time and place. There are “servant leaders” who meet the needs of the team. Often the clergy and those in education fall into that category as well as some corporate middle managers who need to motivate their employees to work above and beyond themselves to reach a goal and who do so by devoting their supervisory selves to the benefit and well-being of their employees.
Very few people are “transformational leaders”. Typically, large historical figures fill the role of transformational leaders. Abraham Lincoln was a transformational leader as was Martin Luther King Jr. There aren’t many examples of transformational leaders in business, but Sam Walton may be a good example of one. Simply being new, unique, successful or rich doesn’t make one a transformational leader or even a leader at all for that matter.
Some folks are “charismatic leaders”, they inspire people. Many cults have charismatic leaders. Some mega churches have charismatic leaders. One could argue that some political figures are charismatic leaders. The difficulty with charismatic leaders, and here again Martin Luther King Jr. qualifies, is that they can be inspirational to the masses for great good or, as in the case of Adolph Hitler – another textbook example of a charismatic leader, for great evil. The problem for organizations and movements with charismatic leadership is once that leader is gone, often the entire enterprise goes belly up.
Transactional leadership is the most toxic; it is quid pro quo you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours type of leadership. The organization is governed by the mantras, “What have you done for me lately?” and “Every man for himself.” This type of leadership tends to ignore long term goals as well as utilizing “the ends justify the means” mentality. Often one sees this kind of leadership in outright scams, the Bernie Madoff’s of the world or like Sam Bankman-Fried in the FTX crypto currency fraud case as examples.
There are the Laissez-Faire leaders who often are viewed askance by their superiors because they don’t appear to be “leading”. These Laissez-Faire leaders are often the best for an organization. They are good at hiring top quality people, training them well and then getting out of their associates’ way. These Laissez-Faire leaders check in on their team members offering assistance and counsel when asked for or needed but otherwise let their employees get on with what they were hired to do. After all, a leader isn’t hired by an enterprise to do every job in the organization, nor should they try. Too often executives view leadership as sticking their busy body noses into everyone else’s business which is frequently disruptive, distracting and sometimes destructive of productivity. Laissez-Faire leaders know why they have team members and have confidence in them and their abilities. Consequently, these Laissez-Faire leaders let their subordinates carry out assigned duties without undue interference or overblown “management”.
Democratic leaders are often very successful as well. These are leaders who actively involve their teams by encouraging them to participate in decisions. This type of dynamic leadership makes all those in the organization engaged in the goals, processes and successes of the enterprise as opposed to “just working there”. Of course, this presupposes that managerial leadership is encouraging of ideas without snarky dismissive putdowns and that employees have real input in the plans and processes eventually put into action. This type of leadership can be destructive of morale and productivity if the manager only gives it lip service without actually taking members’ contributions seriously. However, democratic leadership properly executed can lead to an energized, creative and a much more productive staff committed to the success of the business as opposed to a workforce just looking forward to payday, Fridays and the weekend.
Authoritarian leadership is seldom warranted. However there are times, the military being the best example, when it is the only way to go. Parenting in the early years must be authoritarian. Toddlers have to be warned off hot stoves, put to bed on time, made to eat their vegetables, bathe and do other things for their own good etc. Parents who remain authoritarian throughout childhood often end up having resentful, disobedient, distant offspring later in life. A business that uses authoritarian leadership may get the job done but frequently without any initiative, creativity, buy-in or willingness to “go above and beyond” by employees. Authoritarian leaders, along with transactional ones, usually see the most employee turnover and the least long term success.
Whether you think so or not, you are a leader. It may be at home with your children or in a more traditional leadership role (Sunday School Teacher, Scout Leader, service to the community on a church or other board or in an elective office of some kind, etc.) but you are a leader. People are watching you, to see if what you say matches with what you do. Communities cannot function without leaders and cannot be truly successful without role models. I suggest you choose your style of leadership wisely and follow the advice of President Theodore Roosevelt who said, “Do what you can, with what you’ve got, where you are.”