Strategy Workshop
Home | Members | History | Proposals | QPA | Archives | Links
A Series of Questions
What’s Wrong With Progressives
by Wade Hudson
The responses to my “Series of Questions” illustrate a major problem with progressive activism. That weakness is an excessive reliance on what Ronald Heifetz calls “the old definition of leadership” -- that is, “the leader has the answers, the vision, and everything else is a sales job to persuade people to sign up for it.”
My first question, which I sent to a number of progressive activists, was:
Most of the respondents accepted this “old definition of leadership,” which I excerpted from an essay by Al Giordano. Only one clearly rejected it.
Those who explicitly agreed commented:
- I think that it makes sense to test people before you really need them, but it might not be the first task. I think that the first tasks are to 1) listen to people to find out why they are interested, and 2) build on that by pointing out the benefits to them of a successful group or program. In other words, you need to make a strong "sexy" case, for why I ought to get involved….
- I think it is 'right on.'
- That builds legions of soldiers committed to going hoorah. It is necessary.
- Amen.
- I'd say it's not bad, though I think it confuses leaders (people with a following) with reliable volunteer workers (people who do what they say they're going to do, though they may or may not also be leaders or even potential leaders).
- Give important jobs to people who will do the work, and give less important jobs to people you think might not be able to do as much….
- If there's any failure here, it's far more likely to be the organizer in not crafting a clearer or more compelling message.
- I use existing obstacles or standard tasks to see how committed and how able people are to take part.
Several respondents touched on the underlying judgmental attitude in Giordano’s statement and proposed modifications. One, for example, pointed out “the strong power bias in this write up: the organizer issues calls to action, and judges people on whether they respond, with those who don't ‘failing.’ Attitudes like this are an obstacle to meaningful empowerment.” Though these respondents modified Giordano’s approach, they did not challenge his key assumptions.
The one individual who clearly rejected Giordano’s basic approach said:
At first, I completely agreed with his response, for I find Giordano’s approach to be dehumanizing.
But after further reflection, I more fully appreciate that Army-like methods are appropriate in certain situations, especially when there is little or no time to talk. Different styles of leadership are needed at different time. In fact, the same person can act differently in the course of one day.
Nevertheless, these exchanges indicate that most progressive activists are locked into traditional notions of leadership. Unfortunately, the old style of leadership is widely accepted and commonly employed. If we want to increase our membership and effectiveness, we need new strategies.
In his book Leadership¸ James Macgregor Burns described three types of leadership: transforming leadership which is reciprocal; heroic leadership which is charismatic, and; transactional leadership which is manipulative. Most activists understand heroic and transactional leadership, but are less familiar with transforming leadership. According to Burns:
In his writing and in an interview, Heifitz makes a similar argument:
Developing our ability to be transforming leaders will not be easy, for old habits are deeply engrained. The relentless, accelerating process of modernization impacts all of us.
In the modern world, to be “successful,” we are socialized to believe that we must specialize in a particular profession, stand out as more competent than others, be very productive, and do what we’re told to do. The result is extreme egoism, specialization, individualism, competition, power trips, elitist judgments, and dehumanization. This paternalistic programming undermines partnerships among equals as well as the growth of autonomous individuals. It promotes dependency, passivity, self-doubt, and other forms of internalized oppression.
One key method for perpetuating this inhumanity is to undermine self-esteem. Children learn that they have to “earn” attention, praise, and often love by out-performing their peers. As adults, the dynamic continues. Like a rat chasing cheese on a rotating wheel, we are always trying to prove ourselves – to our bosses, co-workers, family members, and, perhaps most importantly, ourselves. No wonder we call it “the rat race.” Though there are exceptions, progressive organizations often reflect this pattern by manipulating people with praise and exaggerating the value of “power.”
In these ways, modern society produces isolation, greed, and the lust for power. It becomes far too easy to just earn a living, hunker down in one’s nuclear family, accept that the wealthy and powerful have earned their wealth and power, and hope to strike it rich some day.
So long as these values are so deeply embedded, progressives will find it extremely difficult to win many victories. Impersonal, machine-like organizations led by power-hungry, status-oriented workaholics don’t do the trick. No doubt individuals feel empowered by being a “foot soldier” in a victorious campaign. But that experience is likely to be fleeting.
In particular, we need a more dynamic, reciprocal understanding of leadership that nurtures communities rooted in love and respect in which everyone has a real voice. In our eager determination to impact the external world, we often forget about the internal world, including our feelings and our personal needs. Even in the midst of a campaign, we can pause occasionally to share our feelings about how we’re doing and evaluate our actions, at least briefly.
Stoking populist anger against the wealthy and/or scaring people about the future is not sufficient.
We can inspire people with a positive vision and attract them with lively, fun-filled, caring communities whose members enjoy life, help each other become more effective human beings, and care for one another, as well as engage together in political action. With this approach, we can encourage more people to make an ongoing commitment to community organizing – that is, to exercise leadership. Then perhaps we can build the massive movement that is needed to truly transform the world.
Comments: To give feedback or make a suggestion concerning this page, click here.
COMMENTS:
Wade this is great stuff. Great essay. One of my fave books from college was The Leadership Challenge by Kouzes and Posner. They had some excellent discussion and analysis of "transformational leadership." http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0787984922/bookstorenow57-20
+++++
Wade, this is wonderful. I'm running a book study on Lakoff's The Political Mind, and this is a great supplement. Peace and love.
+++++
i found your essay very interesting. the following paragraphs particularly struck a cord with me.
In the modern world, to be “successful,” we are socialized to believe that we must specialize in a particular profession, stand out as more competent than others, be very productive, and do what we’re told to do. The result is extreme egoism, specialization, individualism, competition, power trips, elitist judgments, and dehumanization. This paternalistic programming undermines partnerships among equals as well as the growth of autonomous individuals. It promotes dependency, passivity, self-doubt, and other forms of internalized oppression
One key method for perpetuating this inhumanity is to undermine self-esteem. Children learn that they have to “earn” attention, praise, and often love by out-performing their peers. As adults, the dynamic continues. Like a rat chasing cheese on a rotating wheel, we are always trying to prove ourselves – to our bosses, co-workers, family members, and, perhaps most importantly, ourselves. No wonder we call it “the rat race.” Though there are exceptions, progressive organizations often reflect this pattern by manipulating people with praise and exaggerating the value of “power.”
In particular, we need a more dynamic, reciprocal understanding of leadership that nurtures communities rooted in love and respect in which everyone has a real voice. In our eager determination to impact the external world, we often forget about the internal world, including our feelings and our personal needs. Even in the midst of a campaign, we can pause occasionally to share our feelings about how we’re doing and evaluate our actions, at least briefly.
We can inspire people with a positive vision and attract them with lively, fun-filled, caring communities whose members enjoy life, help each other become more effective human beings, and care for one another, as well as engage together in political action. With this approach, we can encourage more people to make an ongoing commitment to community organizing – that is, to exercise leadership.