Leadership is not a matter of position but of relationships, and one-on-one, personal encounters are vital in building those relationships. In the end, people follow you because they believe it is in their interests to do so, not because you claim to be a leader, because others have designated you as leader, or because you have the resources and position of leadership. There’s no better illustration than the actions of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.
Unless you are a total megalomaniac, you recognize, readily or grudgingly, that many of the people you are supposed to lead are smarter, more talented, richer, or more powerful than you are. Many of the people you lead, whether you like it or not, are themselves leaders. This article describes the important steps leaders must take to lead other leaders, whether they are within their own organizations or on the outside.
Leading without authority
The challenge of leading leaders arises particularly in managing high-talent organizations — organizations with heavy concentrations of persons whose education, skills, wealth, and influence are substantially above the average. Managers of professional service firms face the task of leading leaders every day as they seek to manage lawyers, management consultants, physicians, investment bankers, research analysts, accountants, and portfolio managers, to name just a few, whose talents are the firm’s principal assets and who as partners may also be its owners. Heads of academic institutions, research organizations, and think tanks confront a similar task in leading professors, scientists, and scholars.
The challenge of leading leaders is also found in traditional corporations. Not only must CEOs learn to manage an increasingly educated and specialized work force, but as chairmen they must also effectively lead their companies’ boards of directors, leaders who have been chosen precisely because of their achievements, reputations, connections, wealth, or special expertise.
What characterizes all of these situations is that the leaders have limited authority over the persons they are supposed to lead. On the other hand, other situations require individuals to lead others persons over whom they have no real authority whatsoever. Chairpersons, presidents, and presiding officers of committees, commissions, boards, and numerous other deliberative bodies face the challenge on a daily basis.
Lack of authority does not necessarily mean lack of power. If power is the ability to determine the course of events, then your power to lead other leaders lies not in your authority but in your effective application of leadership techniques. The first step in mastering those techniques is to understand the special nature of the people you are trying to lead.
Leaders as different breeds of cat
Leaders are often called elites. While the term elite has negative connotations for many people in this democratic age, it refers to a diverse group of individuals who because of their education, talents, wealth, or power are able to exert significant, usually disproportionate, influence within their organizations and in society generally. One simple definition of an elite is a person who has “more,” — more education, more talent, more money, and more clout that the rest of us. Elites’ knowledge, skills, money, or power give them a special role in their organizations and often gain them special privileges, whether their managers and other employees like it or not. Elites are not troops that readily fall into line behind their leader, no matter how charismatic. From that perspective, trying to lead leaders is like herding cats, and one must admit that elite followers in organizations are indeed a different breed of cat in several respects.
First, elites’ brains, talents, wealth, and power always mean that they have many options outside the organization and that those options give them a strong sense of independence from both the organization and its leader. As C. Wright Mills wrote in his classic study The Power Elite, “[elites] are not made by their jobs…they can escape.” Their special attributes also mean that their organizations need them; consequently, an important task for their leaders is to prevent them from escaping.
Second, in many high-talent organizations, such as investment banks, consulting firms, and academic institutions, elites have a formal or informal proprietary interest in the institution and often have played a role in choosing their leader. As a result, they often believe that the leader is beholden to them and not the other way around.
Third, elites have their own followers and constituencies whose loyalties and respect powerfully influence their behavior. In fact, they usually depend on those constituencies in order to hold on to their positions as elites. For example, you will have little success in leading politicians, labor officials, community organizers, and department heads unless you understand the interests and attitudes of the persons they represent.
Fourth, elites often have strong loyalties to institutions outside the organization where they work, and the signals they get from those outside institutions often influence them more than anything the leader can do and say. For example, the kudos and criticism that professors and research scientists receive from their professional colleagues throughout the world may be more important to them the opinions of their university president or dean.
Fifth, elites do not conceive of themselves as followers. They see themselves as leaders and they want to be treated as such. They are therefore quick to challenge or belittle anything that suggests that they are being led. Traditional leadership techniques such as stirring speeches, emotional appeals to action, and directives from the top are likely to fall on deaf ears or worse yet become the subject of ridicule.
Finally, because of their special value to their organizations, elites believe that they are entitled to special benefits and privileges that other persons in the organization do not have, and they constantly negotiate with its leaders to obtain them.
Skills for leading leaders
The skills for effectively leading this different breed of cat are not the same as those used to manage in traditional hierarchical corporations. Otherwise successful leaders who did not understand this difference have often failed in managing elites. For example, an American banker, who had for ten years successfully managed a medium-sized European bank in London, returned to the United States to become executive head of an investment advisory firm. Instead of leading buttoned-down bank executives, he now had to manage 30 eccentric portfolio managers, all of whom had doctoral degrees in finance or mathematics. His management style that had been so effective in London proved to be a source of discontent and eventually rebellion in San Francisco. He left the firm after six months.
Scholars often look to corporate management, the military, and team sports for useful guidance on leadership. When it comes to leading leaders, these fields are of limited use because they assume an authority structure that simply does not exist in high-talent organizations. Rather, the field of politics, both national and international, where authority is often vague and even nonexistent, offers much better lessons for leading leaders.
Leading leaders against Iraq
Two instructive efforts to lead leaders occurred in 1990-91 and again in 2003, when the United States went to war against Iraq. The first was a success, the second a failure. In 1990-91, George H. W. Bush, the 41st President of the United States, skillfully organized and led a broad coalition of nations that drove Iraq from Kuwait with United Nations approval. That coalition did not spring into existence spontaneously. To create it, President Bush had to lead the leaders of the world’s most important countries. Twelve years later, his son, George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, believing that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was in the United States’ vital interests, also sought to put together a broad international coalition and secure the United Nations’ authorization for military action against Iraq. He failed to achieve either. While the two situations were different with respect to the historical moment and the problems the two men faced, the fact remains that Bush the father was successful in leading leaders but Bush the son was not. In comparing the two situations, a natural and important question is why the father succeeded but the son failed.
French-fried leadership
For many supporters of George W. Bush, the answer to that question is easy: the French. France not only refused to join the American coalition against in Iraq in 2003 but also urged other countries to oppose it. Before accepting that explanation, one should ask whether it merely seeks to blame followers for a leader’s own failure of leadership. Surely, directors of a troubled corporation would not be convinced by the CEO’s explanation that it was all the fault of middle managers who refused to “get with the program.” Failures by an organization or a country to achieve desired results lie as often in mistakes of leadership as in the intractable structure of the situation. Indeed, one of the tasks of great leaders is to change an apparently intractable situation in order to attain desired goals. An examination of the conduct of George H. W. Bush in 1990-91 and of his son in 2003 leads one to conclude that the father’s success was as much attributable to his effective leadership as to the situation, and that the inability of his son to lead leaders into a broad coalition against Iraq was as much due to his ineffective leadership as it was to the intractable French.
A comparison of the two cases illustrates some important lessons about ways to lead leaders. First, President George H. W. Bush strongly believed that if other nations were to join the coalition to drive Iraq from Kuwait, the United States had to take an active, energetic leadership role in convincing them to join. Leadership, in the 41st President’s view, required diplomacy across a broad front, and he proceeded to orchestrate a complex diplomatic effort on many levels – through direct contacts with the leaders themselves, through diplomatic missions by his deputies, through action at the United Nations and other international organizations, through foreign embassies in the United States, and through American ambassadors abroad – to build and maintain a coalition. All of this preceded his initiation of military action. George H. W. Bush’s leadership was based on persuasion before action.
In contrast to the importance Bush the father attached to creating a coalition in 1990-1991, the prevailing attitude in his son’s administration twelve years later was that other countries had no choice but to follow the United States. For George W. Bush and his associates in 2003, leadership by the United States seemed to flow automatically from its status as the world’s only superpower. Moreover, if other countries did not follow the United States, the Bush administration declared publicly that the United States would go to war alone. So in 2002-2003, President George W. Bush and members of his administration talked about “a coalition of the willing,” as if that coalition would come into existence simply though the desire of other countries to join it and without the need for the United States to actively work to create it through leadership. The prevailing attitude of the Bush administration was that unilateral action by the United States would lead to multilateral action by other countries, not that multilateral diplomacy should come first.
As things turned out, of course, many countries, such as France, Germany, Turkey and Egypt, countries that had participated in the war to liberate Kuwait in 1991, as well as long-time allies such as Canada and Mexico, refused to go to war against Iraq in 2003. One lesson to be drawn from this aspect of the two cases is that other leaders, in their capacity as followers, always have the option of not following you; leadership is not an automatic process that happens because of your status or resources. Rather leadership, particularly of other leaders, is a willed, deliberate activity to which even the strongest leaders must devote strong efforts.
Another important factor that explains the difference in results is that Bush the father had broad experience in international diplomacy and longstanding relationships with the leaders of the day. As a former Vice President for eight years, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, director of the CIA, and ambassador to China, he intimately understood how international diplomacy worked and was on a first name basis with national leaders throughout the world. In putting together his successful coalition, he relied on his vast experience and contacts and energetically and personally dealt with other leaders by telephone, often on a daily basis, an approach that caused members of his staff to call him “the mad dialer.” Bush the son, on the other hand, whose only previous government position was as governor of Texas, had no diplomatic experience and did not know personally the leaders that he was seeking to lead. Rather than deal directly with foreign leaders, as his father had done, he often delegated that task to other members of his administration, notably Secretary of State Colin Powell, and later to United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair. And instead of communicating one-on-one to persuade reluctant European leaders to follow him, George W. Bush often conveyed his messages through the media, a fact that tended to annoy the leaders he was seeking to lead.
Even Bush’s deputies did not actively undertake energetic efforts to lead other countries into the coalition. For example, whereas President George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of States James Baker visited forty-one countries on five continents to help forge a coalition for the Gulf War, Colin Powell hardly traveled anywhere in the months prior to the Iraq war. The Bush administration’s lack of intensive, sustained interaction and communication with other leaders sent a message that it was not really interested in their views and that ultimately the decision on launching a war against Iraq was for the U.S., and the U.S. alone.
This dimension of the comparison of the two cases yields other important lessons about leading leaders. First, leadership is not a matter of position but of relationships. To be a leader, you need followers. People follow you because of your relationship with them. Second, one-on-one, personal encounters are vital in building the relationships needed to lead leaders. The reason relationships are important is not because of the warm feelings they create but because positive relationships engender trust, and trust in a leader is vital in securing desired action from followers. Any proposed action by a leader entails risk. Persons perceive that following a course of action proposed by a leader whom they trust is less risky and therefore more acceptable than following the same recommended course of action by a leader whom they do not trust. World leaders, because of their personal relationship with and resulting trust in President George H. W. Bush, were more disposed to follow him than his son whom they did not really know.
The two cases also illustrate the importance of understanding and deferring to the interests of the embassies in the United States, and through American ambassadors abroad – to build and maintain a coalition. All of this preceded his initiation of military action. George H. W. Bush’s leadership was based on persuasion before action.
In contrast to the importance Bush the father attached to creating a coalition in 1990-1991, the prevailing attitude in his son’s administration twelve years later was that other countries had no choice but to follow the United States. For George W. Bush and his associates in 2003, leadership by the United States seemed to flow automatically from its status as the world’s only superpower. Moreover, if other countries did not follow the United States, the Bush administration declared publicly that the United States would go to war alone. So in 2002-2003, President George W. Bush and members of his administration talked about ‘a coalition of the willing,” as if that coalition would come into existence simply though the desire of other countries to join it and without the need for the United States to actively work to create it through leadership. The prevailing attitude of the Bush administration was that unilateral action by the United States would lead to multilateral action by other countries, not that multilateral diplomacy should come first.
As things turned out, of course, many countries, such as France, Germany, Turkey and Egypt, countries that had participated in the war to liberate Kuwait in 1991, as well as long-time allies such as Canada and Mexico, refused to go to war against Iraq in 2003. One lesson to be drawn from this aspect of the two cases is that other leaders, in their capacity as followers, always have the option of not following you; leadership is not an automatic process that happens because of your status or resources. Rather leadership, particularly of other leaders, is a willed, deliberate activity to which even the strongest leaders must devote strong efforts.
Another important factor that explains the difference in results is that Bush the father had broad experience in international diplomacy and longstanding relationships with the leaders of the day. As a former Vice President for eight years, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, director of the CIA, and ambassador to China, he intimately understood how international diplomacy worked and was on a first name basis with national leaders throughout the world. In putting together his successful coalition, he relied on his vast experience and contacts and energetically and personally dealt with other leaders by telephone, often on a daily basis, an approach that caused members of his staff to call him “the mad dialer.” Bush the son, on the other hand, whose only previous government position was as governor of Texas, had no diplomatic experience and did not know personally the leaders that he was seeking to lead. Rather than deal directly with foreign leaders, as his father had done, he often delegated that task to other members of his administration, notably Secretary of State Colin Powell, and later to United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair. And instead of communicating one-on-one to persuade reluctant European leaders to follow him, George W. Bush often conveyed his messages through the media, a fact that tended to annoy the leaders he was seeking to lead.
Even Bush’s deputies did not actively undertake energetic efforts to lead other countries into the coalition. For example, whereas President George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of States James Baker visited forty-one countries on five continents to help forge a coalition for the Gulf War, Colin Powell hardly traveled anywhere in the months prior to the Iraq war. The Bush administration’s lack of intensive, sustained interaction and communication with other leaders sent a message that it was not really interested in their views and that ultimately the decision on launching a war against Iraq was for the U.S., and the U.S. alone.
This dimension of the comparison of the two cases yields other important lessons about leading leaders. First, leadership is not a matter of position but of relationships. To be a leader, you need followers. People follow you because of your relationship with them. Second, one-on-one, personal encounters are vital in building the relationships needed to lead leaders. The reason relationships are important is not because of the warm feelings they create but because positive
relationships engender trust, and trust in a leader is vital in securing desired action from followers. Any proposed action by a leader entails risk. Persons perceive that following a course of action proposed by a leader whom they trust is less risky and therefore more acceptable than following the same recommended course of action by a leader whom they do not trust. World leaders, because of their personal relationship with and resulting trust in President George H. W. Bush, were more disposed to follow him than his son whom they did not really know.
The two cases also illustrate the importance of understanding and deferring to the interests of the persons you lead. People follow you because they believe it is in their interests to do so. They don’t follow you just because you claim to be a leader, because others have designated you as leader, or because you have the resources and position of leadership. In 1990-91, George H. W. Bush understood the interests of the world leaders he was seeking to lead and sought to accommodate them in building his coalition. The world leaders of the day believed that United Nations authorization was vital and that it was in their interests to seek multilateral solutions to serious international problems. They also needed a clear rationale for going to war against Iraq. These elements were essential if the leaders of coalition countries were to convince their own citizens on the rightness going to war to liberate Kuwait.
A further interest for many European and Arab countries was a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President George H.W. Bush accommodated this interest by emphasizing the importance of the United Nations, by pursuing diplomatic processes before embarking on military action, by articulating a single overriding reason for war as the protection of an independent nation’s sovereignty and the principles of the United Nations Charter, and by promising to launch a new diplomatic initiative to solve the Palestinian problem once Iraq was driven from Kuwait. He also provided certain countries with substantial aid packages in return for their participation in the coalition. Thus, throughout the buildup to the Gulf War, George H. W. Bush constantly sought to engage other leaders, to understand their interests, to listen to their objections and concerns, and to seek ways to accommodate those interests while pursuing his own overriding goal of building a coalition.
President George W. Bush in 2003, on the other hand, was not concerned about the interests of potential coalition partners and did little to accommodate them. He had no regard for the United Nations, was openly contemptuous of multilateral approaches to international problems, and constantly kept changing the rationales for war, all of which made it difficult for other leaders to sell the war to their own people. Unlike his father, President George W. Bush did not actively engage other world leaders and did not take their interests seriously. Instead, he chose to ignore resistant leaders, isolate them, and ultimately ostracize them diplomatically, to the point that the Air Force One started offering “freedom toast” for breakfast.
Lessons for leading leaders
In comparing the two cases, one can identify five principal lessons that help to explain President George H. W. Bush’s success in leading other leaders. While you may never have to build a coalition of sovereign states, these five same lessons may help you manage the top talent in your organization.
- Your ability to lead other leaders arises not just from your position, resources, or charisma but from your will and skill. If you want to lead other persons, especially leaders, you have to work at the job.
- The basis for leadership other leaders is your relationship with them. Trust in the leader is a necessary element of leadership. Persons are more disposed to follow a leader in whom they have trust than one they do not trust.
- Effective communication is your fundamental tool in building those relationships.
- The key process in leading leaders is communication through one-on-one interactions. If you would lead other leaders, you have to engage them and personally connect with them.
- In developing your leadership strategies and tactics, you need to take account of the interests of the persons you would lead. Leading leaders is, above all, interest-based leadership. Leaders will follow you not because of your title or your commanding presence, but because they consider it in their interest. Your job as a leader is to convince them that their interests lie with you.
