Introduction

“One of the most universal cravings of our time is a hunger for compelling and creative leadership.”  That view was expressed by James MacGregor Burns, an historian and presidential scholar, in 1978 in his groundbreaking book Leadership.  Likewise, in 1990, in his book On Leadership, John W. Gardner, formerly a cabinet secretary, later Leader of non-profit groups and finally Stanford University professor, asked “Why do we not have better leadership?” And, unfortunately, that sentiment is just as prevalent today. In his latest book, Running Alone, Presidential Leadership JFK to Bush II, Burns says; “America needs better leaders.”  And, confirming that, Harvard’s annual National Leadership Index most recently released in November 2008 shows that 80% of the American public believes that the nation is in a leadership crisis. That same year, former Chrysler Chief Executive Officer, Lee Ioccoca wrote his book, Where Have All the Leaders Gone?  And, according to Warren Bennis, University of California business professor, an early proponent of the study of Leadership and author of several classic leadership books, there is a “leadership meltdown” and the leadership vacuum will most likely persist.

All of those writers and the survey were talking explicitly about the need for Leaders and Leadership at the highest national and political levels.  Certainly the American public desires and expects those selected to the highest offices of the nation to be outstanding Leaders.  Likewise, at the highest levels of the Intelligence Community and other associated national security institutions those nominated to high level positions are expected to be Leaders and to exercise exemplary Leadership.  And, those who have been selected most recently, to compete for the Presidency have been proven Leaders.  Likewise, those selected to senior positions in the Intelligence Community—Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair USN (Ret.), and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Lieutenant General James Clapper USAF (Ret.)—are proven exemplary Leaders who have worked together before and have the intelligence experience and ability to Lead the Community.

However, the President can’t Lead the nation alone. The President can provide the vision and inspiration but he needs strong Leaders throughout his administration and, too often, some have not lived up to the standards of ethics, competence and energy expected of Leaders.  Likewise, in the Intelligence Community, a team of Leaders is required. The senior Leaders can’t Lead the Community alone.  They will be busy developing and instituting a broad vision for the future of the Community and working with the Leaders of the Services and Agencies of the Community to further develop that vision into one which all can share and will support.  They will be constantly involved with others in the Administration, developing national security policy and frequently will be before Congress testifying to gain the support required to implement the vision and policies. They only can provide the strategic-level Leadership needed by the Community.

Thus, at the national level, as historian David McCullough has recently said:

We need leaders in every field, in every institution, in all kinds of situations.  We need to be educating our young people to be leaders.  And unfortunately, that has fallen out of fashion.

Ambassador John Negroponte had the same view as he got his feet on the ground and sized up the job confronting him as the first Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

Almost 50% of our senior executives, senior managers and senior professionals are eligible to retire.…leadership is no longer the exclusive preserve of those of us with decades of public service behind us.  In the Intelligence Community we need young people who are ready to lead right now.

Thus, our top Community Leaders need deputies, chiefs of staff, and senior staff members who can Lead their peers in the Services and Agencies of the Community to develop the plans and programs needed to implement the new Community Vision and supporting policies.  And who, together, must provide the operational-level Leadership required to assure that all the organizations of the Community work together in the cooperative and collaborative manner now demanded by the threat faced by the nation. For example, Nora Bensahel and Anne M. Moisan, writing on “Repairing the Interagency Process” say that "True interagency leaders are needed who can focus on integrating the many elements of national power into coherent policy rather than representing the interests of their home agencies.  Leadership starts at the top”.  Some of you are soon to be assigned at this level as staff officers and your Leadership is needed.

But, where the rubber of Leadership meets the road of performance is at the direct-level of Leadership where junior and mid-level organizational Leaders interact with the people of the Community who are involved in the collection, analysis, technical and staff activities of the Community on a daily basis.  These are the Leaders who must guide and inspire the members of the Community to the outstanding performance now demanded and who must support them in all ways as they perform.  These are the leadership responsibilities most of you soon will have in your roles as “managers”, “staff officers”, “team leaders” or simply “senior members” of the lower and mid-level intelligence organizations.  As you go about your daily roles, Leadership is your most important responsibility.  

Developing your Leadership talent is important, because as William A. Cohen—who has been a military Leader, a civilian Leader and an academic—states “Leadership has an extraordinary power.  It can make the difference between success and failure in anything you do for yourself or any group you belong to.”   That is because, as Warren Bennis and his co-author Burt Nanus say “…leadership is the pivotal force behind successful organizations…to create vital and viable organizations, leadership is necessary….”  But most importantly, as Gardner points out: “Vitality at the middle and lower levels of Leadership can produce greater vitality at the higher levels of leadership.”  Patrick Lencioni emphasizes that lower to mid-level Leaders are the “greatest leaders”.

Our greatest leaders usually don’t aspire to positions of great fame or public awareness.  They choose instead to lead in places where they can make a tangible, meaningful difference in the lives of the people they are called to serve….

…the greatest leaders create a culture of fulfillment, thereby gaining such desired benefits as increased productivity, greater retention, lower costs….

Becoming a Leader 

If you want to become a Leader, first you should understand how Leaders are created.  Is the capacity for Leadership innate in some people, born in them or nurtured by the circumstances of early childhood? Or, can Leaders be developed by training and mentoring? Or, are Leaders “self-made”, with the capacity for Leadership developed by the people themselves?   Think about it.

          -Are there “natural born” Leaders?

-Can Leaders be developed by training?

          -Can Leadership be learned?  How learned?

-Are Leaders self made? How?

What has been your experience?  What have you observed? Stop for a moment and think about it.

This has been what Professor Montgomery Van Wart; academic, consultant on leadership in public organizations, and author of the principle textbook for this course; calls one of the “Perennial Debates in Leadership Theory”.  To peruse some of the views in that debate, go here_____

If you went there, as you saw, there are advocates for each approach to becoming a Leader.  Clearly, the answer to the question: “How are Leaders created?” seems to be: “All of the above.”

Montgomery Van Wart, himself believes that “…leadership is a largely learned phenomenon…improved through experience, self-analysis, and training….” But, he does not discount the role of “…innate abilities or hereditary advantage….”  He says that:  

Today the question is generally framed as one of degree, rather than as a strict dichotomy.  To what degree can leaders be “made” and “how”.  The developmental portion actually has two major components….While part of leadership is the result of formal training, this may actually be the smaller component.  Experience is more likely the more important teacher….

Thus, while the black-and-white debate about leaders being made or born is largely considered sophomoric, the more sophisticated debate about the relative importance of innate abilities, experience (unplanned or rotational), and formal training is alive and well.

To assess that relative importance, a panel of distinguished experts and practitioners, 50 CEOs and 150 other senior executives worldwide, was asked the question: “Where are leadership skills best learned?” On a scale of 1-10 where 1 was most valuable the results were: 

• "On the job = 2.8
• In childhood=2.8
• In mentor relationships=3.3
• Through sports and social activities=3.5
• At university=3.6
• In seminars=5.5"

Clearly, once a child is born with some innate personality characteristics or is nurtured to develop them and recognizes an interest and ability to lead others, that child will then realize the value of using Leadership “through sports and social activities”. It is also possible to get further experience by assuming leadership positions at school and “university”, and while doing so, see the need to learn something more “in seminars”.  Nevertheless, a person can really learn best “on the job” when forced by circumstances to draw on their leadership interest, past experience and learning to actually “do” Leadership while seeking “mentoring” to help through the rough times.  People learn best by doing, practice, success, failure, more practice experience and success.

Most likely, it has been and will be the same for you.  Certainly, each of you have already discovered your interest and abilities for Leadership. Now, as career professionals you have undoubtedly recognized the need to become a Leader as you have observed the accomplishments of your organizational Leaders or bemoaned the lack of Leadership on their part and recognized that you are expected to carry on and improve upon their efforts.  That process is how natural leaders are really born.  Hopefully, by training and mentor relationships in your organization you will discover when, where and how your leadership ambition and talent can be employed and “learn” some additional qualities and skills that you can use.  But, it is only “on the job” that you can become a Leader by demonstrating Leadership.

That is the view of Warren Bennis: “Leadership doesn't come from genes. It doesn't come from reading or listening to lectures. It comes from the hard earned experience in the arena....”                                                                                                                  

To see a sports analogy, go here____.

Whether and how you become a Leader is up to you.  As James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, the founders of the renowned leadership training program, “The Leadership Challenge”, say:

Because leadership development is ultimately self-development, in the end, the leadership challenge is a personal challenge.

And, it is a real challenge.  Linda A Hill says that: “Even for the most gifted individuals, the process of becoming a leader is an arduous, albeit rewarding, journey of continuous learning and self development.” She notes that it requires a “personal transformation”.

To sum up, Van Wart says that:

Three fundamental types of leadership development are possible: self-study, structured experience, and formal training and education.

It can certainly be argued that without self-study, which is to say self-recognition of the issues and skills of leadership, no leadership development can occur.

But, to undertake that self-development, something else is required.  As John C. Maxwell, Doctor of Divinity, Wesleyan Minister and more recently full time speaker and prolific author on Leadership says “...the raw materials of Leadership can be acquired. Link them up with desire and nothing can stop you from becoming a leader.”

So, Attitude is Paramount: To become a successful Leader you must Think and Live Leadership every day!

To start that process you need to begin your daily efforts with study of Leadership, then reading about Leaders and their Leadership, observing Leaders around you good and bad.  Soon you will be able to begin to practice some of the leadership techniques that you have learned.  Malcolm Gladwell, when writing about success, provides examples that “Achievement is talent plus preparation” and says “Practice is not something you do once you are good.  It’s the thing you do that makes you good.”   He also provides examples that “Ten thousand hours [of practice] is the magic number of greatness.”  Thus, if you begin spending two hours a day learning about Leadership and then practicing Leadership on the job in your early positions you will surely be given the opportunity to fill lower and mid-level leadership positions as a team leader, staff officer or manager.  In those positions, if you then spend four hours a day practicing what you have learned and observed about Leadership, when you are ready for Senior Executive you will be approaching the level of hours of practice needed for greatness.  As a Senior Executive by focusing on Leading you will soon achieve ten thousand hours and greatness as a Leader.    

To begin this process of becoming a Leader you need to understand what Leadership is and what it involves.

Differentiating Leadership and Management

Business school professor and editor of the foundation text for this course (The Leader’s Companion), J. Thomas Wren, states that “Unfortunately, leadership remains an ambiguous, amorphous, and frequently misunderstood concept.” He quotes James McGregor Burns that it is “...one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth”.

One of the major problems in understanding Leadership, is that, as  Wren says, “’leadership’ is often confused with ‘management’ to the detriment of both”. But, leadership educators and consultants, Lynne Joy McFarland, Larry E. Senn and John R. Childress, writing in 1985, noted that, while in the past; 

The distinction between leadership and management were blurred, and they were often used interchangeably. Not so today... It's only been in the last decade, really, that people have become aware that management and leadership are not the same thing at all.  And we are beginning to see the return of true leadership.

As John P. Kotter, Professor of Organizational Behavior at Harvard Business School, and one of the leading proponents of making that distinction, pointed out at that time and, repeatedly, since:

Leadership is different from management.

Rather leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of action. Each has its own function and characteristic activities. Both are necessary for success....

Since most of you were neither students of management or Leadership when that “distinction” between Leadership and management was made; now, as aspiring Leaders, you may be interested in how and why it came to be made.  If so, go here____.

But, having gotten your professional training and worked for and observed managers and Leaders since that distinction has been made, you probably already understand the difference between Leadership and management.  But, take a moment to clarify the difference in your mind.  Make a list of the words that come to mind when you think of management.  Then make a list of the words that come to mind when you think of Leadership.

If you are like most students, there will be two quite different lists.   If you are a civilian, your management list is probably the longer. That is likely the area that has been emphasized in your training and experience.   If you are military, your Leadership list is probably longer. That is the activity that has been emphasized most in your training and experience. At least that is what War College student, Army Major Paul Oh and Professor David Lewis found when they reviewed the responses to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) summer of 2002 and late fall 2004 surveys of federal employees. In the responses from employees in eleven agencies in the Defense Department proper and fifteen agencies in the military services, among other things, they found that:

What has been consistent over the history of the services is developing persons [for leadership] even at the expense of organizational performance.  Conversely, many civilian agencies have focused on organizational performance with little attention to the cultivation of Leaders.

Looking at your lists, ask yourself the following questions.  What are the “characteristic activities” of management?  Your answers probably reflect the classic business school definition of management—i.e., “planning, organizing, directing and controlling” the efforts and activities of an organization. (The course text Management of Professionals by Desmond D. Martin and Richard L. Shell provides an introduction to those four functions in chapters 2-5)  What do those activities focus on? 

What are the “characteristic activities” of Leadership?  What do all those activities focus on? 

To reinforce your understanding of the focus of Leadership and management, remember these cliches:

-RADM Grace Hopper USN: “You manage things, you lead people.” 
-Warren Bennis: “The manager focuses on systems and structure, the leader focuses on people.” 

To see some other views of the differences, go here _____ or go to wikipedia and search “leadership versus management”.

The classic definition of management has been cited.  But, what is the definition of  Leadership?

Defining Leadership

There is no single agreed definition of Leadership. James McGregor Burns found that  “A recent study turned up 130 definitions of the word.”  He is topped by Warren Bennis who states that “...there are more than 350 definitions, with more coined by the dozens each month”.  Bernard Bass believes that “There are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.” 

One of the difficulties in defining Leadership occurs because Leadership is an art.  Innovative businessman, Max DePree, emphasizes that by the title of his book, Leadership is an Art, and by saying that  “Leadership is much more an art, a belief, a condition of the heart, than a set of things to do.”  Likewise, the Army in Leadership for Senior Leaders starts to define Leadership with the words, “The art of....” Thus, the Army also recognizes that Leadership is an art rather than a science or set of things to do.  It understands that Leadership, unlike many of the other activities in which the Army engages, cannot be reduced to a doctrine, with associated tactics, techniques and procedures or checklists.

But, being more specific about exactly what Leadership is and what it involves is less widely agreed because, just like the wide divergence in peoples views of what “art” is—whether a book, painting, sculpture, or other creation of any artist is “art” or just “trash” or perhaps “pornography”—peoples’ views of what Leadership is are also very personal, subjective and situational.  When considering a painting, sculpture or other creation of an artist we say “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.  Likewise, as Kouzes and Posner say “Leadership is in the eye of the follower.”  Whether the efforts of a Commander or Executive are Leadership often depends on the eye and mind of the follower. And, the eye and mind of followers are often influenced by their own needs and desires for something from the Leader. Thus, we think we know what Leadership is when we see the Commander or Executive giving us what we want.

If we want to be inspired, when we see charisma we believe that is Leadership. That is what convinces some that Leaders are born.  But Leadership is more than charisma. While Charismatic Leaders can inspire people to follow them, they can also disappoint them. They can turn out to be “false prophets” who lead people astray. Or, they can turn out to “have feet of clay” and not someone who can stand on the pedestal of exemplary Leadership when they are seen to do something immoral, illegal, or inappropriate.

Or, often when we want to be acknowledged, praised and valued for our efforts, we see certain highly developed inter-personal competencies that the person has.  That is what convinces some people that Leadership requires an outgoing  personality.  But there is more to Leadership than highly developed inter-personal competencies.  While, the “hail fellow, well met” or the “super salesman” or those who can give a “pat on the back” can motivate people to do things, they can have a hidden agenda which may not be the right thing for the follower to do.

Likewise, if we want to be protected in a tough situation or want the Leader to recognize and respond to our personal and professional needs, we believe that “Leadership is taking care of your troops.”  But, there is more to Leadership than catering to the well-being of followers.

Finally, if we want a Leader who we can trust and follow,, we often say “Leadership is being out in front and setting the example.”

Certainly, each of those observations and frequently heard sayings does define some part of Leadership, but they also leave much out.  Therefore, if you understand the importance of following those cliches and others, your leadership development will be off to a good start, but only a good start. As Bernard M. Bass, a psychologist, Professor of Management and Director of the Center for Leadership Studies at the State University of New York, has said:

Leadership is a complex phenomenon; it varies from one situation to the next; and those wishing to study it must be willing to consider more sophisticated models if they want more than platitudes.

Leadership is, indeed, a complex phenomena.  There is no single model. There are many models of Leadership—Leadership that applies to national Leaders Leading policymakers and decisionmakers in conducting the affairs of nations on the world stage, or to political Leaders Leading the public to a consensus on the domestic affairs of a nation, or to moral Leaders Leading converts to adhere to the ideals of social or religious movements, or to business Leaders Leading employees to contribute to the growth and prosperity of corporations.  Of course there is the Leadership used by military Leaders Leading troops preparing for and going into battle which is increasingly being emphasized today.  “In response to the growing demand for officers who can command successfully under extreme conditions, the military schools, including West Point, the Air Force Academy and Annapolis, are taking unprecedented care to turn military students into leaders.” In doing so are changing the way military Leadership is defined and taught. Those are all different kinds of Leaders, engaged in Leading different kinds of people to do different kinds of things. They all certainly need to exercise Leadership and, thus, they all need to know what it is and what it involves for their purposes. As David Brandon said when stepping down as CEO of Domino’s Pizza to become the Athletic Director at his alma mater, the University of Michigan: “It’s leadership, but a different kind of leadership.”

Thus, the reason that there are so many definitions of Leadership is that some have tried to develop a specific definition of each of the many models of Leadership while others have felt the need to propose one all-encompassing definition for all of those models. To try to use an all-encompassing definition or one of the model-specific definitions to define Leadership for the Intelligence Community would generate an interesting discussion and healthy debate but would likely result only in an agreed definition either too broad or not appropriately specific enough to define Leadership as it relates to the work of the Intelligence Community and to be of use as guidance for your career.

Influence and Leadership

Professor Joseph S. Nye of the John F. Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University has recently re-invigorated an interest in the topic of Leadership and power.  Professor Nye has served as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, as an Assistant Secretary of Defense, a Deputy Under-Secretary of State, and as the Dean of the School.  Thus, his views should be especially relevant for intelligence professionals.   Recently, he has returned to the classroom to teach a core curriculum course on Leadership, resulting in a book on The Powers to Lead.   

Nye states that: “You cannot lead if you do not have power.”  And, says that “…leadership and power are inextricably intertwined.” And that “Leadership is a power relationship between leaders and followers….”   But, a caution!  Aristotle noted long ago that “Leadership involves power, but not all power relationships are instances of leadership.” Or  “Don't confuse leadership with power. Leadership gives power but power does not bring leadership”.    

Power means:

          -possession of control, authority or influence over others

Influence means:

-the power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct command.

-the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways.

Influence is one form of exercising power.  

Martin and Shell cite the long accepted taxonomy describing the five kinds of  bureaucratic power:

• Coercive power which is “based on fear and relates primarily to the ability of the leader to punish the subordinates for non-conformity.”
• Reward power: which “relates to the ability of the leader to provide positive rewards, such as income or other benefits, to people who cooperate.”
• Legitimate power:  which “relates to the position of the leader in the organizational hierarchy.”
• Expert power based on “unique expertise or skills in particular areas that are regarded as important to subordinates.”
• Referent power: “essentially the power of personality and relates to the leader’s ability to be admired because of one or more personal traits.”

Certainly, there is little need, utility or leverage to use “coercive power” in the government or intelligence community.  The second two kinds of power on that list are inherent in the “control” and “authority” given to the head of an organization over subordinates and are often needed and used to manage the organization by directing and controlling the efforts of the organization.  But, when the head of an organization needs to Lead the people of an organization to a consensus or gain their full support, it is the last two kinds of power on that list that work in “indirect or intangible ways” to influence others. 

Clearly, a Leader needs power to influence people as a group or their behavior as individuals. According to Martin and Shell “many authorities on leadership believe that the power position of the leader with regard to subordinates is a critical factor in determining leader effectiveness.” They also cite an early work by Kotter in which he says that “effective managers create, increase or maintain four types of power”.  Most likely he was referring to the last four kinds of power on the above list. And they cite others who say that a Leader must create a “pool of power” from among the powers on that list. 

Nye cites the same taxonomy of bureaucratic power and calls the first two kinds of power on the list—coercive and reward power— “hard” power.  And, calls the next three—legitimate, expert and referent power— “soft power”.  And, to those five he adds “persuasiveness and control of information” which he also includes as “soft power”.  In further describing his categories of hard and soft power, Nye refers to:

-hard power as “transactional” saying it “…rests on inducements (carrots) and threats (sticks).”  He says that “…for hard power, threats and inducements are related…” and, therefore, “Intimidation, manipulation, and negotiation are related to hard power.”  Nevertheless, in some circumstances “…hard power remains an effective tool for leaders.”

-soft power as “inspirational” saying “soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others to what you want.”  Thus, it involves “…getting the outcomes one wants by attracting others rather than manipulating their material incentives.  It co-opts rather than coerces.”  Because of this “soft power of attraction”, “Charisma or personal magnetism is an important dimension of soft power. ”  “In institutions with flat hierarchies ...soft power is often the major asset available to a leader.” 

But, Nye makes no definitional inference that either hard or soft power is a good or bad form of power.  He says that it is “not that hard or soft power is better”.  While the terms related to hard power such as “coercion” and “manipulation” may imply that it is bad, those things can be accomplished in political and bureaucratic ways that create consensus, and, certainly, “negotiation” is not bad  On the other hand, he points out that “…soft power is not good per se.  In terms of leaders’ goals, soft power can be used for good or nefarious purposes and it can produce good or bad consequences.”  Rather, he highlights that “Hard and soft power are related because they are both approaches to achieving one’s purpose by affecting the behavior of others.”  Thus, “Hard and soft power sometimes reinforce and sometimes interfere with each other.” But, “When the exercise of hard power undercuts soft power, it makes leadership more difficult….”

But, what kinds of power are most useful and appropriate for use by intelligence professional organizational Leaders today?  While recognizing that both kinds of power are useful, when discussing Leadership in the organizational environment of today, Nye highlights that:

Leadership is changing—or so we are told.  Hierarchies have become flattened and imbedded in fluid networks of contacts.  Most workers are knowledge workers and they respond to different incentives.  Polls show that people today are less deferential to authority in organizations….Soft power is becoming more important….

At least that is the new conventional wisdom….

But, perhaps reflecting on his career experiences, especially as a government senior executive in the Intelligence Community and national security positions, having to manage to get things done and hoping to Lead people to do them, he recognized that:

In ordinary circumstances they [people in organizations] have functional needs for meaning, group identity, and cohesion, order and the ability to get work accomplished.  Leaders fill these needs by a combination of fear, payment and attraction—hard and soft power.

Of course in many real-world situations peoples’ motives are mixed.  Moreover, the distinction between hard and soft power is one of degree….

In real world situations, hard and soft power are often combined, sometimes with a soft layer of attraction overlaid on an underlying relationship that rests on coercion or payment….

Thus, his useful bottom-line insight for organizational Leaders is that; “The ability to combine hard and soft power into an effective strategy is smart power.”

But, while emphasizing such a considered, flexible and combined approach to the use of the various kinds of power in an organization,  he states that:  

In today’s world…a moral case can be made that leaders should have a general preference for soft power options when possible.

Thus, given the “conventional wisdom” that “Soft power is becoming more important” in the organizational environment of today, and Nye’s suggestion that a “moral case” can be made for a Leader preferring “soft power options when possible”, and his identification of soft power as “inspirational”; it would seen that, in developing a definition of Leadership for the Intelligence Community, instead of “influencing”, it would be best to use the word “inspiring”, which  can be defined as the use of only “enlivening or exalting” means.

That is why: The real power of Leadership is the art of inspiring people.

Goals and Leadership

The definitions from which we have started to define Leadership for the Intelligence Community were definitions taught to aspiring military Leaders.  But, note that they do not define Leadership as being about accomplishing or achieving the “mission”.  Yet, military people often talk about Leaders and mission accomplishment. And, yes since “the buck stops there”, Leaders are ultimately responsible for assuring mission accomplishment.   But, it is the managers of the organization who actually are responsible for accomplishing the mission after the Leaders have set the goals for the mission.  

Any mission must be directed toward achieving certain goals.  And, setting those goals is the role of the Leader.  Military people will recognize those goals as “the Commander’s intent.” In a civilian leadership context they are often called the “vision”.  Once the goals are established, however, to accomplish the mission there must be a plan; the unit or organization must be properly organized, manned and equipped; someone must give orders or direction; and someone must control the effort to assure that it succeeds.  Those functions are the role of managers all up and down the chain of command or hierarchy as described in the standard business definition of management—(repeated) planning, organizing, directing and controlling.  So, when the organization leaves garrison, sets sail, takes off to accomplish the mission, or comes to the office for another day’s work, the Leader's work with regard to the mission is largely done. It is up to the management chain of command and the people of the organization themselves to assure that the organization accomplishes the mission. That is because the “mission” is what the people or the organization are supposed to be doing on a regular basis, today.

Accomplishing or achieving “goals” means something beyond accomplishing the daily mission.  Goals are where or the organization or people want to be or what they want to be doing in the future. The goals are set well in advance.  For example, in the Intelligence Community, goals must be set to guide the planning, programming and budgeting process which has a 2-5 year lead time.  The military Joint Strategic Capabilities Planning (JSCP) process is likewise long term. Goals imply aspiring to something beyond that which now exists—i.e., preparing the organization to accomplish the mission against new challenges in a way that is different or better than that which is being done now.

Thus, setting and achieving goals implies Leading change. Leadership means recognizing the need for change and introducing change into the organization.   

That is true for any Leader in any organization. Even the founding icon of conservatism, Edmund Burke acknowledged that “We must all obey the great law of change….It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation.  Thus, even if the organization just wants to continue to exist and successfully continue to carry out its mission there must be change.  As author Giuseppe di Lampedusa wrote when describing a group of people who were living contentedly but were faced with a growing threat.  “…if we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.”  But, change is certainly necessary if an organization wants to carry out its mission better.  As John C. Maxwell has said; “Not all change is improvement, but without change there can be no improvement.”  

Certainly, the Intelligence Community needs Leaders who can set goals and Lead the change required to achieve those goals. As observers of the international scene, you understand that, as Henry Kissinger said, “Change is the law of life.” in world affairs. The threat to U.S. national security is dynamic and ever changing.  Thus, every day, Leaders of the Intelligence Community will see the need and feel the pressure to accept and cope with change in the world international environment and refocus the efforts of their organizations on new threats and targets. But, that is not all the change faced by the Community. There is also pressure for organizations to accept change in how the Community should perform; for example, because of the need to “share intelligence” and “collaborate”, or the need to extend and improve the integration of information technology into the intelligence process.
Intelligence Leaders must set goals and inspire the people of the Community to recognize and accept the need to respond to those external and internal changes, and recognize and accept that they must change and improve the way they work as a group and the way they perform as individuals.

John Kotter says that Leaders “…don’t make plans; they don’t solve problems; they don’t even organize people.  What leaders really do is prepare organizations for change and help them cope as they struggle through it.”

To get an Intelligence Community organization to change means inspiring people to move as a group from here to a new goal, there: whether “here” is garrison and “there” is forward to observe the enemy movements and report, or whether “here” is a dysfunctional organization and “there” is a new organizational structure, or whether “here” is the way people are now doing things and “there” is an improved way. If you are going to stay in garrison and train, if you are going to keep the same old organization functioning, if you are going let people keep doing things in the same old way, then you can manage. But if you are going to find the enemy, reorganize, or get people to adopt an improved way of doing things, then you must be a Leader.

Here are some clichés to remind you.

-John Kotter: “Management is about coping with complexity, whereas leadership is about coping with change.”
-Warren Bennis: “If we worked in a stable environment...a manager would be a terrific thing....In times of change, there is no substitute for leadership.”

But, it is difficult to Lead organizations to recognize the need to change and to change the way they operate.

As Machiavelli advised the Leaders of his day in The Prince.

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly....from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything until they have had actual experience from it.

 As Ron Heifitz and Larry Lindsey warn Leaders of today:

To lead is to live dangerously because when leadership counts, when you lead people through difficult change, you challenge what people hold dear—their daily habits, tools, loyalties and ways of thinking—with nothing more to offer perhaps than a possibility.  People push back when you disturb the personal and institutionalized equilibrium they know.  And people resist in all kinds of creative and unexpected ways that can get you taken out of the game, pushed aside, undermined or eliminated. 

A corporate executive once told a Navy audience; “Change is a constant irritant in an otherwise predictable life.”    In fact Lou Gerstner who changed IBM from a computer manufacturing company into the information technology consulting and integration company that it is today, told Harvard Business School students that:  “No institution will go through fundamental change unless it believes that it is deep trouble and needs to do something different to survive.” 

Thus, John Kotter lists 8 reasons why organizations don’t change.  Peter Senge, MIT Professor of organizational development and leadership, and associate Katrin H. Kaeufer have identified 10 forces that impede planned change, even after it has begun. 

It is even harder to get people to improve their professional performance. That is because people resist personal change, so much in fact that, as T. S. Eliot wrote “We would rather be ruined than change.”  As one who has written biographies of Leaders in time of change,  Jon Meacham believes that “Human beings change their behavior only when danger is imminent or money is at stake.”  At the very least, people passively resist change or are reluctant to embrace it.   After all, people have worked hard learning and practicing how to do things the way they are doing them.  Any proposed change for improvement will bring uncertainty about their ability to perform and, therefore, be upsetting, stressing, and cause more work. And, as Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert says:

…its uncertainty that really bothers people: They feel worse when they think something bad might happen than they do  when they know it will happen.

Thus, James O'Toole is able to list 33 reasons why people don't want to change.

Thus, as President Obama has recently acknowledged, “Change is hard, and big change is harder.”  That is especially true in the public sector and in government organizations, as the President is finding out.

But, while change is hard, it is not impossible to accomplish.  To successfully Lead change a Leader should recognize that, although it is a common belief (above); people don’t really hate change and always resist it that is not really true.   By way of example, consider how  we Americans have all accepted and adopted great changes in technology.  We have done so because those changes have brought us the benefits of making our lives more secure and our daily lives easier or better and we have been able to accommodate to those changes on our own terms and schedule and with fairly good certainty that once we buy the product we can get it to work. Thus, actually people:

-just hate and resist change when they don’t know what the outcome will be.

-just hate and resist change imposed from above.

-just hate change that brings them no benefits.

-just hate and resist drastic, rapid change.

-just hate and resist change that seems to be change for change sake.

Accordingly, to successfully introduce and Lead change, the Leader must describe the intended results of the change in specific terms and set goals that are clearly achievable.   Then assure the development of a widely shared set of organizational goals, the achievement of which will bring concrete benefits to the professional and personal lives of the people of the organization in addition to improving the capabilities of the organization and which will be achieved at an incremental pace controlled by the managers and the people of the organization.   

Subsequent topics will discuss the personal traits that you will need, the type of Leader you may have to be and the styles of Leadership you may have to use, along with the competencies and skills required to successfully Lead change.

Further Development of a Definition of Leadership for the Intelligence Community

Thomas E. Cronin says;

Leadership can be exercised in the service of noble, liberating, enriching ends, but it can also serve to manipulate, mislead and repress.

There is no doubt that someone can Lead people astray or get them to change for the worse. But is that really Leadership?  To use Cronin's word, it is "Mis-Leadership".

Military Leaders and Intelligence Community Leaders are public servants and hold a public trust.  Thus, Leadership in the Intelligence Community, in addition to being about people and about inspiring them to accept change and change to achieve goals, must also be about assuring that the change and goals are the “right thing” to do for the people they Lead, for the organization of which they are a part, and for those to whom they provide intelligence support.  Of course, the “right thing” is hard to define and sometimes difficult to discern and decide when something that is right for the people of the organization conflicts with what may be right for the organization or when what is right for the organization conflicts with what is considered right by those the organization supports.  A future topic—“The Leader’s Character”—will discuss some of the ways of preparing yourself for discerning and deciding what is the “right thing” to do in such circumstances. 

But for now, suffice it to say that the “right thing” means that intelligence professionals must adhere to the oath of office that they have taken and to the highest standards of public service.  They must obey the laws and  follow the regulations of the organization of which they are a part, avoiding any appearance of impropriety.  They must treat those they serve and Lead with dignity and respect.  They must perform to the highest professional standards to provide timely, accurate and objective intelligence support.  In short, intelligence professionals must be persons of integrity with the highest personal and professional standards.

Thus, keep these additional cliches in mind.

-Warren Bennis: “Leading means doing right things and managing just means doing things right.”
-Stephen Covey: “Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is against the right wall.”
-Peter Drucker: “ Efficient is doing things right; effective is doing the right things.”

The Foundation of Leadership

As initially pointed out, only you can make yourself a Leader.  Only you can assess the best sources of  power that you possess.  Only you can decide which of those are most appropriate and useful to inspire the organization and the people that you must Lead.  Only you can scan the environment and identify the changes to which the organization must respond and propose the goals to which the people should aspire.  Only you can decide what is the right thing to do, given the laws, regulations and standards as well as the competing desires of the people, the organization and those the organization supports.   But, before you can expect the people of the organization to respond to your inspiration, or accept your proposed goals as the basis for organizational change or personal improvement, or do the right thing, something else is required.  You must underlay those leadership efforts with a solid foundation.

John W. Gardner has pointed out that:

One reason corporate and governmental bureaucracies stagnate is the assumption by line executives that, given their rank and authority, they can lead without being leaders. They cannot. They can be given subordinates, but they cannot be given a following. A following must be earned. Surprisingly, many of them do not even know that they are not leading. They mistake the exercise of authority for leadership, and as long as they persist in that mistake they will never learn the art of turning subordinates into followers.

Furthermore, as historian and author Gary Wills has written;

The main challenge to the military leader is not to attract followers - the modern state does that for him....The leader must keep followers.

As tennis star, Billy Jean King, said when she was interviewed after being honored by having the U.S. Open Tennis Complex named for her: “Followers choose leaders, leaders don't choose followers.”

What is it that will earn you a following, keep that following and have people choose you as their Leader?

Trust!   As John Maxwell says “Trust is the foundation of Leadership.”  To become a Leader, Warren Bennis emphasizes that you need to generate trust

…which is not so much an ingredient of leadership as it is a product.  It is the one quality that cannot be acquired, but must be earned.  It is given by co-workers and followers and without it the leader can’t function.

Think about it from your own personal perspective.  How would you respond to the hard power of tour boss’s directions to take on new responsibilities with an implied offer of a promotion if you did not trust the boss to deliver? Would you follow and take on the new responsibilities whole-heartedly and give them your best effort?   How would you respond to, even, the soft power of your boss’s legitimate authority to evaluate you if you did not trust the boss to do it fairly? Would you constantly seek to improve?  How would you respond to, even, the soft power your boss’s technical expertise and follow guidance to change the way you would normally approach a task if you did not trust that the boss would back you up if  new way failed to produce desired results?  Or would you hedge your bets?  How would you respond if your boss set goals for your performance if you didn’t trust the boss to have considered the intricacies and pressures of your job or if the boss hadn’t trusted you enough to talk to you about them?  Would you accept those goals as the basis for focusing your efforts and concentrate on achieving whatever the difficulties?  If you would not follow whole-heartedly, accepting the need to change and improve to achieve the goals that have been set for you, then, the boss’s attempted Leadership has failed. 

Others will react the same way.  So, when you reach a leadership position, achieve a senior rank, hold administrative power, become an expert, are considered a nice guy and have a fine professional reputation, if the people of the organization don’t feel that they can’t trust you, they won’t willingly follow your Lead, accept the need for change and improve to meet the organizational goals.  To inspire your followers to do those things you must first gain their trust. If you want them to continue to follow, then you must keep their trust. 

This is recognized as a requirement for all forms of Leadership.

In everyday life: Noreen Kelly points out that “Trust is the great intangible at the heart of every relationship.  Building an environment of trust is a leadership imperative.”

Military Leadership: Army Major Mark D. Rocke was awarded the MacArthur prize for writing that “...trust is the basic foundation a leader must have to be effective….It is seen to be a prerequisite to and a result of effective leadership.  Likewise, a former Sergeant Major of the Army, Richard A Kidd wrote that “...if the people you lead have not confirmed you as their leader, you are not truly one. The key to that confirmation is trust. Trust is essential to a good leader.

Public Leadership: Professor Richard Cuoto, reflecting on his work with non-profit organizations, states that a Leader is one who has gained “the truly distinguishing characteristic of leadership: the gift of trust bestowed by others with whom they work.” 

Business Leadership: Robert K. Greenleaf, a former business executive and advocate for ethical Leadership, says that people “...will freely respond only to individuals who are chosen as leaders because they are proven and trusted....”   While Peter Drucker, the foremost management synthesizer, conceptualizer and consultant to real-world Leaders says “Effective executives know that they have authority only because they have the trust of the organization.”

Sports Leadership: Basketball coach John Wooton says “Trust is everything.”

Remember that point as you strive to become a Leader in whatever you do, at home, at work, in the community. If people don't think that they can trust you, all of your sources of power will avail you little or nothing. The establishment of trust between leader and followers is the essential basis of Leadership. 
As Warren Bennis once said on Public Radio, “Trust is the emotional glue that binds followers to leaders.”

Continuing Bennis’ analogy, glue binds both surfaces together. Likewise, trust works both ways, the aspiring Leader must earn the trust of the people, but as part of doing so, the aspiring Leader must also demonstrate trust in the people.   Again, think about it, would you follow someone to accept change and try to improve if you didn't think that person trusted you? As Patrick L. Townsend and Jane E. Gebhart, two academics drawing on their military experience, say;

The glue that holds units together is mutual trust....trust is an essential trait...trust by seniors in the ability of their subordinates and by juniors in the competence and support of their leaders.

Kouzes and Posner say that in a study of leadership practices they found “...that of all the behaviors describing leadership, the most important item was the leader’s display of trust in others.”

So, to sum up and conclude; it is gaining and keeping the trust of the people of the organization and showing them that you trust them that permits you to exercise Leadership.

With regard to people: Trust is the ticket required for entry to Leadership.

Conclusion: The Leadership Responsibilities of the Intelligence Leader.

-To gain and retain the trust of the people of the organization.
-To identify the need to respond to external changes affecting the organization or the need for improvement in the internal environment of the organization by setting goals for that are the right thing to do for the people of the organization, the organization itself and those the organization supports. 

-To inspire the people of the organization to recognize and accept the need for change and make the improvements required in their personal performance, the organization’s processes or products to achieve the goals. 

NOTE: For the references for this topic text, use the link below,

STUDENTS: If you would like to provide comments or constructive criticisms of this topic text, use the link below.

PROFESSORS/INSTRUCTORS: To find some suggested student discussion points, please use the link below.