First, a pun about the X-factor. Want to know where to get it? Modern corporate science has solved your deepest needs!

I quote:

The chapters of Burns I have read so far have been very thought-provoking. Within the first four chapters, the most valuable statement he makes is on page 25. Here, he notes that the "basic leadership issue" is one of "agency versus structure." Although he doesn't carry this dichotomy very far, it's a useful way to understand the difficulties and ambiguities of the study of leadership.

Structure

Organizations, whether they are planned or not, are fundamental to leadership. Thus, the way people relate to one another enters into the question. So far in human experience, we have chosen to talk about such relations in terms of their structure. In the past, hierarchies have been used to understand organizations. Ideas about government tend to be very structurally-focused, under the assumption that a proper structure goes a long way to cause or encourage people to act (lead/follow) properly. In the 20th century, ideas about hypertext have changed how we think about structure and interrelationships.

Hypertext (most usually seen in the form of flowcharts and diagrams) gives us a way to map out complex groups of relationships and the nature of those relationships. However, such maps are only slightly useful, because they describe one of two things: a model of how things should be, or a model of how things are. They are a snapshot in time, and they don't reflect the reality of a situation through time. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies as well. By mapping and observing a structure, you may change it. By consciously attempting to reproduce natural structure, you may seal yourself off from the ability to cause that structure to appear.

These are quantifications, of the type that we see described in Navahandi, which shows us a very structural, observational-based mode of understanding. It is a scientific book, which attempts to use observations and tests to predict future occurrences or derive insights.

Agency

Burns, on the other hand, does not focus on structure much. Instead, he's interested in agency, the amount that an individual can influence a situation. Instead of thinking in static models, Burns thinks in terms of dynamics. Thus his ideas are harder to pin down. In some cases even, his list of Enlightenment moral ideals changes depending on the situation.

But Burns is interested in what we are interested in, how an individual within a system can influence the system around him. Notice that Burns is himself rather interested in systems. According to Burns, the way to accomplish good is not to actually work within a system to accomplish good. Rather, it is to change the underlying system to make it more likely to produce good. This is transformational leadership.

Thus Burns is not entirely concerned with individual agency or moral responsibility. He is more concerned about the actions of the aggregate and how their expectations/actions/ways of thinking are influenced by a transformational leader.

Oddly, this view doesn't really give us much hope. Or at least, for Burns, there is no ideal leadership. There is always room for change, and there are always enough bad things going on that continual, fundamental revamping is always necessary. He doesn't have much hope for the idea of getting it right the first time.

The Dichotomy

But I think Burns is right. When we start thinking about the questions of Leadership as a dichotomy of structure and agency, many of the confusions disappear. Sometimes, we're uneasy at talk of structure, and sometimes we're uneasy at talk of agency. By splitting them up and looking at them individually, we can begin to come to an understanding of how each works.

A New Kind of Science

Burns and Navahandi are both very interested in science and what scientific inquiry can teach us. Navahandi has classifications. Burns has the X-factor, which clearly points to his idea of some sort of formulaic element in leadership. There's only one problem. Until recently, no really good way of thinking has been capable of containing all of the factors (the X factor, if it exists, no doubt would the product of an extremely complex equation that itself is the product of an infinity of factors)

Enter chaos theory.

In A New Kind of Science, Steven Wolfram argues for a computerized model that comes closer than anything else in the history of humanity of quantifying reality. It's frighteningly complex, amazingly simple. While Wolfram's computer has not been able to deduce the existence of things such as rice pudding, slumber parties, or MTV, it has been able to model and mimic basic biological interactions and animal social patterns through the use of very simple Artificial Life components. Note, this is much different than Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence (AI) attempts to figure out thinking, and then program it into the computer. Artificial Life attempts to give software some basic rules for change, put it in an ecological environment with other simple software, and see which pieces of software evolve or go extinct. It observes how the software learns to interact with other pieces of software and watches as a mini-universe develops inside the software.

Instead of mapping out an organization in a slice of time, Artificial Life systems allow you to see development over time. They let you quantify and predict contingency.

Wolfram spent over 10 years in isolation planning his theories, which are themselves an example of transformational leadership. If Wolfram comes off as a success, we may never look at reality the same again.

Do I agree with him? Not really. But as a computer programmer, I always find the lack of precise systemization in sociology and psychology somewhat odd. If you're going to quantify, give me something that's good enough for me to turn into an algorithm. Otherwise, revise and rethink.

But Wolfram has figured out a way to take many of the ideas, assumptions, and goals of many social sciences, and turn them into a working computer model. I don't know if anyone could do any better -- barring the emergence of quantum computing.

X

Is the X factor really calculable? Probably not, at least not predictably so. It's too bad that Burns gives his ideas the veneer of science. But it's a tempting thought to think that we could derive that factor someday.

James MacGregor Burns finds a connection between Maslow's hierarchy and the American Declaration of Independence. He then tries to make the case that the all true leadership is moral. Burns believes that the great public values are:

• life
• liberty
• equality
• justice
• opportunity
• the pursuit of happiness

Burns believes that these great public values should be the goal of all leaders. In Burns's view, these public values overshadow other moral systems in importance. He strikes a difference between virtue and ethics. Evidently, one can lack virtue while still being an ethically good leader. Burns is correct on this point, but not for the reasons he thinks. Virtue refers to a type of absolute standard. Ethics refers to a codified definition of the good. Now, there also seems to be a popular meaning of the word "ethics" to refer to a general cultural moral median. I assume that this is the definition that Burns is going with, except that he would probably call it an absolute.

(I won't go into the idea of equality and liberty. De Tocqueville deals with the difficulty of reconciling these two concepts)

Machiavelli talks about this kind of thing in The Prince, in the section "CONCERNING THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A PRINCIPALITY BY WICKEDNESS". Here, Machiavelli tells about Agathocles, the Sicilian who was able to successfully save Syracuse from Carthaginian attack three times and thus prevent the enslavement of his people. The only problem? He got his position by killing everybody else in power. So Machiavelli notes: "his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickedness do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men. What he achieved cannot be attributed either to fortune or genius."

What Machiavelli says after a second example is very interesting:

As much as Burns would like to deny it, he is suggesting the same system as Agathocles. So long as the people who follow a leader believe he is faithfully serving their desire for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he can do anything. Because for Burns, ethics is a function of trust, and virtue is a personal option.

In Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Zaphod Beeblebrox, the two-headed president of the galaxy is an amazing person (Alpha Centaurian?).

Zaphod is a guy who likes to party. He likes to steal expensive space-ships. He has dined at the end of the universe (when did that happen?), can escape from the Ravenous Bugblatter from the Planet Traal, and even comes to himself in dreams to reveal his secret plans to himself (he would have told himself earlier, but they were secret).

Zaphod seems to spend a lot of time running from the law.

According to Adams, this makes him the perfect president, because Adams believed that the role of a leader is often to distract attention from the real source of power.

Adams (at least humorously), wrote that this is good, because the only good leader, in his opinion, is one who doesn't want to be one, which rules out anyone who actually becomes a leader.

Navahandi assumes open operation, where the leader has direct contact and communication with followers.

What does leadership look like when it is secret, or buried in hierarchies? (think Pyramid schemes, secret societies, Scientologists)

Part of leadership is setting goals, and the goals seem to influence the mode of leadership.

In Buddhist Economics, E.F. Schumacher suggests that one could look at the idea of leadership very differently than most Westerns do. Here in the West, organizations are production-focused. Capitalistic (I would say fallen-human, since greed and selfishness are pretty common everywhere) views of success cause us to seek imbalance: e.g. cost/revenue, attrition/new membership, freedom/ However, instead of thinking of an organization as externally-focused, one could think of an organization as internally-focused, as something that tries to establish equilibrium.

Thus, ideas like "keeping ahead" aren't as important as having workers that are satisfied, well-rested, etc. Risk is less important, unnecessary expendeture discouraged, etc etc.

What does leadership look like in such a setting?

In class, a number of profs came up with the following (approximated) definition of leadership.

Leadership is getting people to do what you want them to do under the impression that they are the ones who want to do it

I found this particularly fascinating, having myself been somewhat a fan of scifi, cyberpunk, and other utopia/dystopia literature. In a book like 1984, this is exactly what we have. We have people who think that they are doing what they want to do, when everything, even their thoughts are being fed to them. The Matrix is also another great example of good leadership under that definition.

I will grant the profs the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't hook our brain stems up to computers if it gave them power :-), but is this not the presumption of the Philosopher-King?

But I assume that we have read enough history to know that the Philosopher-King is not uncompromisingly able to see the eternal, unchanging truth, or that the Philosopher-King's love of knowledge will be, as Plato hoped, a perfect guide to what is true and good. Yet academically-focused people (myself included) have this habit of assuming that since we are questioning, thoughtful people, we are better at arriving to good goals than others. The 20th century perhaps has taught us differently.

Interestingly, we live in a democracy. But we live in a democracy where people have forgotten the idea of a democracy.

In a properly-run organization that follows any standard parliamentary code (Roberts, Sturgis, Jefforson, Parliamentary Common Law), the person with the least power is the chair. The chair is someone who relinquishes political power so he/she can be a coordinator, a facilitator to help the people express their goals, debate their goals, come to a common conclusion, and enact those goals. Most usually a chair should not vote, should not express opinions on an issue, etc etc.. Thus, the ideal chair is someone who the most people think is most likely to be serving the needs of the organization.

Democracy turns the idea of a leader on its head under the assumption that an interested, caring group is better at making and carrying out a decision than a single person. And yet the chair retains all the symbolic power of the leader. He *is* the organization, precisely because he has given up power to be a medium through which the organization can express itself.

This is the democratic ideal. I have seen it happen properly, but it most often fails. Why? Because a democratic system requires interested, educated, thoughtful members. In practice, the chair or the body don't understand or agree with the ideas of parliamentary procedure, and chaos reigns. Democracy is a fragile system.

In government, we get plurality voting, which results in political parties and elected officials who the majority may not want. In government, we also get people who feel more loyalty to a party than to the organization or the office. The government also does not follow standard parliamentary organization,so they can get away with things.

And yet I find it interesting that independent-thinking types would tend toward a system of leadership which encourages conformed thinking under the guise of independent thought (i.e. getting people to do what you want them to while they think they have self-actualization.

One of the groups pointed out the role of followers. In the last few hundred years, the role of followers has changed. Particularly in places where the basis of democracy is understood, followers expect to have rights to speak their ideas, to debate, to influence the organization, etc.

But most of what I have said relates to organizations in which there is equality. Many leadership situations don't involve equality.

I suspect that the definitions we are most likely going to find are going to be for relationships where the parties are not equal. In the classroom, the professor/teacher is higher than the students. In a family, the parents are higher than the children (imagine giving a 3 year old the right to vote!).

Other settings could involve people who are not equal, but for whom none is inherently higher than the other (we're not talking office at this point, since I am not assuming any given structure, and there are structures in which the offices are higher, lower, or at the same level as the members at large, if members at large exist). People may, for example have different skills, different roles, different assets, and thus be unequal (in a strict sense) while being considered as valuable and important to the organization (if it's an organization).

....etc....etc...etc. I will stop rambling now.