The tale of two Presidents: whose leadership will endure?

Leon Botstein, President of Bard College

The recent New Yorker piece about charismatic Bard College President Leon Botstein, asks whether Botstein, who transformed Bard College during his almost four decade long tenure as President, can insure that the institution outlasts him? It appears that Botstein - a genuine idealist who believes in the value of an affordable liberal arts education - has taken Bard College to where it is now primarily on the strength of his personal charisma. As the time for his retirement looms, the future of Bard College is uncertain because of its poor financial health. In the past most donors supported the College because of their personal affiliation with Botstein, rather than to the college.

Contrast Botstein to another charismatic president in the area, John Sexton at NYU. Sexton, with his strong Jesuit values, wants to create global citizens, and has over the last decade expanded NYU at a breathless pace not just in its neighboring NYC area, but also in Abu Dhabi and China. Except that he lost the confidence of his faculty in the process, and will step down in 2016 when his current contract expires. Sexton already has in place his post retirement plans - he will work for education for the needy. NYU has climbed up in rankings since he came in, has a solid reputation globally with its Abu Dhabi and China campus up and running. There seems to be no reason at this point to worry about its continuing rise in the rankings.

John Sexton, President of NYU

How will we judge these two men as leaders? In some ways comparing the two is akin to comparing apples and oranges - Bard has 2000 students, while NYU has over 50,00. Yet as individuals these men share remarkable similarities - both have strong values about the importance of  a liberal arts education, freedom of speech, are charismatic and larger than life, caring in their personal relationships (Sexton is a big hugger), great speakers almost in love with their own voices. Why has their appeal on their followers then been so different? Kouzes and Posner in their book on leadership rightly talk about credibility as the foundation of leadership. It appears that Sexton, was in part brought down by not walking the talk. Blinded by his desire to attract world class faculty to New York, murmurs are rampant about the outlandish pay and low interest loans to select faculty, while tuitions have skyrocketed resulting in an alarming rate of student drop outs. NYU faculty also accuse Sexton of non- transparency, and for establishing campuses in countries with dictatorial regimes- Sexton argues that he is respecting local traditions.While Sexton claims to not have any possessions other than his pension, the New Yorker article featuring Sexton, notes his perks, including a first among equal status with Emirates Airlines.

Another important difference between the two lies in their ability to make their followers buy into their vision, by letting them observe the fruits of their labor. Despite the grumblings of Bard college faculty about the abrasive style of Botstein, they see the difference they are making. One glowing example is the Bard Prison Initiative (BPI) which runs "college in prisons" programs in nine states, and offers the same course content to prisoners as the regular students receive, and has an admirable ratio of graduation to enrollment. The guiding philosophy for this initiative is that critical readers learn to be better self critics, which in turn reduces recidivism. NYU faculty on the other hand do not see the immediate purpose of their seemingly meaningless expansion except in rising student tuitions and drop out rates. 

This is a story of two leaders whose legacies are in question for different reasons - Botstein's because of the uncertain future of the organization he leaves behind, Sexton's because of his personal leadership style. Aristotle rightly points out that we cannot judge a man's life until they are dead, or in some cases even after they are dead. Thus it is too early to pass judgment on Bonstein or Sexton. But Bonstein seems more likely to prevail because his personal values have not yet come under the scanner. Sexton seems to have lost his credibility along the way, and the NYU faculty will try everything in their control to erase his legacy when he is gone, and perhaps even undo his vision. Sexton, like may other charismatic leaders seems to have overlooked his most important constituency - his faculty. Perhaps he will learn from this experience and redeem himself in his future projects. Watch this space for updates.      

Friendship as an important virtue

Aristotle in his Nicomachean ethics considers friendship as the most necessary in our life. Friendship could even hold cities together, because the desire for harmony would trump all other motives. Further, he wisely suggests that friends don't need justice since it's an inherent part of their relationship, but the just need friends, and - justice that is most just is friendship. Aristotle defines friendship as reciprocated goodwill, and states that the most complete friendship occurs between two good people similar in virtue, because they are good people in themselves and also good for their friend. Somewhat controversially, although he could be forgiven for expressing the views of his times, Aristotle suggests that one cannot have true friendship with a slave because the relationship would be that between a master and a - tool with a soul. But even here the master can have as much friendship with a slave as much as he is human.  Justice, as reciprocated goodwill,  is therefore the foundation of Aristotle's definition of friendship.

Aristotle's ideas of friendship could not be more relevant today. Newspaper headlines are replete with unimaginable instances of mass cruelty where even the status of others as- human beings- is not respected. Human traffickers intentionally drowning scores of Hamas refugees, the mass flight of Kurds from Syria to Turkey fearing the IS, the atrocities of the Boko Haram in Nigeria are but a few examples of the sad state of our race. It is easy and even perhaps partially correct to blame the root of this evil on poverty.

But even the wealthy seem to be have lost touch with the joys of friendship, at the risk of adeverse social consequences, as evidenced by David Brook's op-ed about the dwindling friendships among adults. The world seems to be incessantly focused on the one aspect of love - romantic love, which while splendid is also limiting. One cannot survive on love and air, as many couples quickly realize,- but friendships can.

The benefits of nurturing our lives with meaningful friendships are clear. But we need to aim for the highest form of friendship, as suggested by Aristotle. When a group of terrorists wreak havoc on the innocent, they fail both tests of Aristotle. They are neither good people, nor are they good for their friends!      

Picture credit http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/opinion/david-brooks-there-are-social-and-political-benefits-to-having-friends.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

Are introspective leaders narcissistic?

David Brooks' recent op-ed in the New York Times, asking whether introspection is just narcissism in sheep's clothing, unsurprisingly drew some harsh criticism - including some personal jabs. Although it's easy to poke holes in Brooks' arguments, it is important to poke these holes.

Brooks suggests that the dangers of self-examination are rumination and over-simplifying. Rumination is a solitary process which can lead to the ruminator spiraling into greater depression, or unnecessary self aggrandizement- depending upon their initial state of mind. Over- simplifying is similar to rationalization, and used to justify -to ourselves-, our obviously poor choices. Brooks offers some examples from research in psychology to illustrate how one can move away from a self-immersive form of reflection to a more detached, critical form -which is likely to result in a more accurate and therefore healthy self-perspective. Finally, Brooks suggests quite ambiguously that rather than focusing on our strengths and weaknesses, we must gain perspective by focusing on a broader empathetic view of the world.       

First, it is important to not go overboard in criticizing Brooks- it's after all just an op-ed and not a research paper. Plus, what better way to strengthen our convictions than to counter the arguments against them?  The first flaw in Brooks' reasoning is that self reflection through self-immersion and from afar are mutually exclusive. Instead they are two sides of a coin. Even research in organizational behavior recognizes the importance of 360 degree feedback (or evaluations from multiple sources) for a more accurate final picture. Another major concept in organizational behavior - emotional intelligence- is a combination of self-awareness and "other" awareness, with empathy being an important component of other awareness.

The gaping hole in Brooks' op-ed is right in the title. Narcissism is actually the absence of introspection, and refers to self- absorption with a blinding desire to be admired. Self-introspection on the other hand is a concerted effort to understand oneself, and to better fit in with society. For example, self-reflection and self regulation in emotional intelligence refer to an attempt to understand one's emotions to better manage them in the larger social context, like not losing one's temper. How is that narcissism?

The fundamental problem in the op-ed is the compartmentalization of the various forms of self-reflection. For example, understanding one's strengths and weaknesses is crucial in pursuing the right career; a decision which has a significant effect on our well-being. Surely Brooks'  good understanding of his strengths as a writer landed him his prestigious Times job. The problem lies when self-reflection and self-acceptance do not go together. I overheard a conversation between two perfectly fine looking women vehemently agreeing with each other that they hated what they saw in the gym mirror. Introspection should come from a deep desire to know and accept, and not be confused with mere self-evaluation.

So, are introspective leaders narcissistic? No, narcissistic leaders are not introspective!