PATERNALISTIC ELITE VS. EMPOWERED INDIVIDUALS

June 16, 2001 - As the last Presidential election made painfully clear, there are two irreconcilably opposed views of America in the 21st Century: those who see Government as the Great Solver of Social Problems and those who believe in the empowerment of individuals to solve their own problems and influence social change. There is a fundamental divergence between these "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches to leadership of social and public institutions.

At a recent workshop organized by Leadership Kitsap (www.leadershipkitsap.org), a local foundation in Bremerton, Washington, whose stated mission is to produce "effective leaders in public service," this top-down approach was evident. At the heart of their training is the notion that benevolent leaders can improve the condition of the masses. This was most clearly expressed by one panel member who said leadership has the responsibility to "enlighten and activate."

Bottom-up leaders, by contrast, proactively counsel and guide, empower and model. The emphasis in bottom-up leadership is finding win-win solutions rather than "enlightening" from the top down to reach "consensus." In a nutshell, bottom-up leadership is based on principles, not manipulation.

Panel members urged themselves to "think outside the box" during their role-playing. Yet during the second exercise, which was to merge many school districts into one mega district, panelists were so focused on their failure to reach consensus -- a classic top-down concern -- that they failed to explore actual solutions. (A "think-outside-the-box" solution that comes to my mind is, since school districts have already studied consolidation and concluded it is not cost effective, "just say no" and sue the Legislature for not fulfilling their State (not Federal) Constitutional fiduciary obligation to fund (not micromanage) schools.)

Thomas Sowell uses the term "anointed" when he describes top-down leaders as "a whole class of supposedly 'thinking people' who do remarkably little thinking about substance and a great deal of verbal expression." Top-down is not a new approach. The Chinese Communists used a similar technique to brainwash POWs during the Korean War. In the "civilized" Western world, the Delphi Technique has been used extensively by "the anointed" for several decades to "enlighten" the masses.

Top-down leaders think social problems can be solved if only we have the will, if only we spend the money, if only we try a bit harder. The bad parent will improve with education. The career criminal can be reformed. Unmotivated shirkers simply lack training. Pupils in public schools will learn more if we reduce class sizes and pay teachers and administrators more. The masses will follow us if we can just enlighten and activate them.

Over the past four decades, the top-down management of most public institutions has failed to manage those institutions effectively. One example is school districts that religiously practice top-down leadership, even when it leads to alienated voters and repeated levy failures. Yet many well-meaning organizations continue to promote top-down leadership training.

Why? If top-down leadership works, why did panelists lament that it is hard to get the community involved? And why do so many citizens feel alienated from their government?

Good leadership requires honesty, character, dignity and trustworthiness. Good leaders earn the trust and respect of those who are willing to follow. A community will passively tune out and reject leaders who do not meet their needs and goals (they sense when leadership doesn't "ring true"). If top-down leaders assume the uninvolved are inherently ignorant, unenlightened or even inferior instead of investigating why people's aspirations are not being met, they alienate people even further.

Undoubtedly organizations like Leadership Kitsap have enhanced the leadership capabilities of many of their alumni, but the top-down "compromise" approach can also lead to a sense of "anointing" by some who desire to dictate the lives of those they view as "witless."

America is engaged in a culture war between those who support a "mommy" state and those who encourage individual responsibility. The battle must be fought through open and spirited debate in the public arena of ideas, not stifled by "consensus" or "enlightenment."

My notes from this seminar can be viewed at http://www.geocities.com/padapple/Mtg_Notes.htm

This commentary may be distributed as long as it is unaltered.