chapter 1 - greenleaf university online degree programs · web viewa ceo is expected to increase...

Surfing the Leadership Wave


By

Peter R. Ramsaroop, MBA

UNEDITED VERSION

Peter R. Ramsaroop, MBA - 1 -


Contents AcknowledgementPreface

Chapter 1: The Art of Surfing - getting to the beach (setting a solid

foundation) paddling out to the waves (endurance); jumping to your feet

(timing); don’t let the wave make your choices for you (setting priorities);

angling (directing your path); judging the waves (adaptive capacity); in the

freedom zone (never fail, but don’t hold on) Where are you on the leadership

wave?

Chapter 2; Choosing your Beach and Going Surfing - The Ocean is a wilderness, thriving on chaos, are you really ready for the 10foot waves of Malibu. Chaos,

ambiguity and change: these are the difficult conditions in which true leaders

thrive. Chapter 3: Wiping Out–And Getting Back on the Wave – Don’t lose your head, losing focus, poor communication, fear, the loss of ethics, the lost spark,

expect the unexpected and yes the bold new stroke.

. ==================================================================

Chapter 4: The Terrorist Wave – are we prepared? George W. Bush, suddenly the leader; Robert Mueller, the man who saw no evil. Rudolph Giuliani, the blood,

sweat and tears of a New Yorker. We all have to be able to prepare for this 10

foot wave. Israel, how do they keep surfing?

Chapter 5: The Technology Wave - Amazon endurance, the Apple of Steve Jobs eye,

and David Pottruck goes digital, Chapter 6: The Political Wave - Reagan Years – a great surfer; Al Gore – wipeout,

Chapter 7: The Business Wave - Oprah, still surfing every day, , Jamie Dimon, Straight-Shooter. Enron/Worldcom – Rough Waters Anderson Consulting – 85 years

Chapter 8: The Global Economy Wave – European Union just got to the beach, China – are they learning to really surf? Soviet Union cannot surf again, Cuba –

surfing or floating; Argentina – are they alive?

Chapter 9: Leadership by Choice – Do I have the Courage? How Do I surf? Chapter 10: Sources



Acknowledgements

I owe sincere gratitude to many individuals that have assisted me with

writing this book. Dr. (Lt. Colonel, USAF) Detlev Smaltz, who helped me shape

my ideas during the early stages of the book and contributed to the preface. My

researcher, Yaacov Shulman who took my ideas, material and assisted me in the

structure, research and editing of this book. I thank my company, EVOLVENT

Technologies Inc., (www.evolvent.com) who funded the publishing of this book.

My many years in the United States Military have allowed me to work with

many great leaders. Serving in Europe and then in the Persian Gulf War of

1990/91, made me realize how important leadership was in executing the mission.

Some individuals that I have worked with in the past come to mind, that I

believe to be leaders and played a role in my career. Early in my career, I met

Jack Simpson, we were both Captain at the time and realized that between the two

of us, we could take our areas of responsibilities to a much higher level. His

creativity, determination and early mentoring were a great inspiration to me. I

credit him for teaching me entrepreneurship. General Chip Roadman, M.D. who

vigorously encouraged (commanded) me to read and practice leadership principles

at a very junior rank, preparing us for success as leaders. To Brigadier

General Klaus Schafer, who I consider a great friend for his confidence in me

during my military career in Washington D.C. A Captain, by the name of Robert

(Bob) Hardie who has thought me, that leadership is earned. To my partner,

Roger Stull, whose dedication to the leadership principles has allowed our

company to far exceed expectations. Finally, to the former President of Guyana,

the late Honorable Hugh D. Hoyte, who in the Guyana S.A 2001 National Elections,

selected me to be a parliamentary candidate and more importantly, allowed me

throughout the campaign to address the population, sometimes to crowds of over

90,000 at one gathering, on leadership principles for economic and social reform

needed to reshape the failing infrastructure of my birth country. Finally a

famous author, Dr. Marion Ball, who coached and mentored me in my first

publishing effort “Advancing Federal Sector Healthcare – Model for Technology

Transfer”, Springer-Verlag 2001.



A special tribute to my, my children, Dawn, Shawn, John II, my

granddaughter, Alayah, my dearest Mom, Ena, and to my late father, Dr. John

Ramsaroop I, who was by far my greatest inspiration.



Preface

This book is about leadership and for a wide and diverse audience. It will

describe practical examples of the leadership wave and those who survive to surf

another day. Many of us rode the dotcom wave, riding high, enjoying the surf,

but didn’t see the thunderstorms coming. Anderson Consulting surfers were

engulfed by a giant wave nicknamed “Enron”. AOL created the “Safe Surfin” to

ensure parents teach their kids the dangers of the Internet. George Bush Senior

was riding high in the polls a few months prior to the 1992 elections and loss.

Al Gore realized that he could not surf again in 2004 after his 2000 wipeout.

How do you assess your ability to surf the leadership wave as it relates to

Business, Personal, Political, Technology and the Global Economy?

Without a doubt, one of the most important attributes of leaders from Sun

Tzu to George Patton to Jack Welch is their keen ability to be in tune with

their strategic environments. Management and leadership theories have come and

gone like fads. Often these theories attempt to treat organizational symptoms

rather than actual causes of dysfunction and ineffectiveness. Recently the

unlikely field of life sciences and the work of Stuart Kauffman of the Sante Fe

institute have shed new light on how organizations and leaders can be more

effective by, in essence, becoming complex adaptive systems (CAS). Since Stuart

Kauffman’s ground-breaking book, At Home in the Universe, the field of

complexity and chaos have been useful lenses with which to look at any highly

turbulent dynamic environments, to include the highly turbulent dynamic

environments that business leaders find themselves in today. Effective leaders

of tomorrow must ensure that organizations that they lead have enough slack

resources to encourage experimentation as the foundation for innovation and

ensure that they survive to ride the leadership wave another day.

In today’s dynamic environment, leaders that seek to bring their

organizations into a state of relative calm and stability are setting themselves

up for failure. While there certainly are some industries where equilibrium may

be achievable (monopolies, oligopolies), they are the exception rather than the

rule. Rather than seek out equilibrium, today’s leaders must constantly seek

new organizational structures and processes even when their current structures

and processes seem to be working just fine. In fact, to an effective leader, a

situation where everything seems to be humming along just fine is a signal to

start to look for new ways of getting the job done.



I have isolated seven leadership principles that work effectively for the

experienced surfer and preparing us to be able to understand our environment,

being prepared and foremost enjoying what we do.

On the Beach: Setting a Solid Foundation practice leadership, share your vision with subordinates, encourage dissent, build trust, plan, encourage risk,

develop credibility, build relationships, build enthusiasm, show passion,

motivate others, build momentum, create a vision, communicate, take care of

people, motivate, compromise, communicate, delegation, build a team

be visible, align goals on all levels, counsel, reward, build coalitions

Paddling Out to the Waves: Endurance ego strength, integrity, optimism,

energy, practical, sense of humor, open minded completion factor, willingness to

take responsibility, character and moral principles, courage, endurance, hard

work, law of magnetism: who you are is whom you attract

law of the inner circle, motivated

Jumping to Your Feet: Timing is Everything sense of urgency, manage time,

prioritize, initiative--not rushing, swift action

Don't Let the Wave Make the Choices for You: Setting Priorities law of

priorities, have goals

Angling: Directing Your Path always keep learning, leadership lid, law of influence, law of buy-in, chart the course, plan, mental toughness, keep one's

own counsel, people listen, don't tolerate, incompetence, manage risks,

conviction, control, reward, waging war, ambition, be in charge, no tolerance of

lack of morale, discipline, don't tolerate others with ambitions, expect

continual improvement, law of E.F. Hutton

Judging the Waves: Adaptive Capacity be aware of your environment,

unconventional solutions, flexible, respond to new challenges, innovate,

mastering deep change, be a first-class noticer, tune in to the environment,

vision–maintain a dream, thrill of challenge, constructive spirit of discontent,

systemic thinking, direction, knowledge, awareness of the environment

In the Freedom Zone: Never Fail, but Don't Hold On

In presenting the analogy of surfing, I know how difficult it is to stay

on the surfboard and be able to ride wave after wave, and most importantly being

able to surf another day. Leadership requires constant attention to the

environment, the politics, the human capital, and the vision.

Through out the book, I have focused on known individuals who either were or

were not great leadership surfers. The book also is not intended to give



"correct answers" but to demonstrate mature thinking in shaping one’s ability to

ride the leadership wave to success.



About the Author:Peter Ramsaroop is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of EVOLVENT Technologies

Inc., (www.evolvent.com) a Falls Church, Virginia based Technology Company. He

has served in the US Military including leadership roles in the Desert Storm

Gulf War and now a retired military officer. He is also an active politician in

Guyana, South America (birth country) with a goal of bridging the racial divide

that stagnates the economy. (www.guyanapolitics.com) Mr. Ramsaroop is the

Senior Editor of the first federal sector healthcare book “Advancing Federal

Sector Healthcare, Springer-Verlag 2001” with forewords by Senator Inouye and

Secretary Principi.


http://www.guyanapolitics.com/


Chapter 1: The Art of Surfing

I. The Art of Surfing

You can see the surfer prone on the surfboard, paddling madly toward shore

as the hump of an incipient wave rises up behind him. As the wave lifts the

surfer up and is about to swing him down into its declivity, he leaps up to his

feet in an instant. Now he is surrounded by roiling foam. But the surfboard

swings down and to the side, and as the wave curves over and its long humped

line starts to foam, the surfer races before the wave, inches from the foam at

his side, barely outpacing the crash of the wave. He is one small figure on a

huge, elemental force of nature crashing toward the shore. Yet at this moment

he is in sync with that powerful, overwhelming, awesome force. Racing before

the wave, he even seems for that moment to be the master of the sea. That moment

of power, of energy, of bravura performance is the essence of the sport–the art–

of surfing.

And there are such heady moments in the career of every leader: whether

political, economic, technological or business. The many hours of management,

organization and planning coalesce at the moment that leaders and their

organization come up onto the wave.

Case in point: an executive's company is making all the right moves:

instinctual decisions, lightning fast pacing of trends and the company's success

reaches phenomenal levels.

Case in point: an office-holder moves together with the mood of the

public; and is swept into higher office and there puts their policies into

effect smoothly, with intuitive brilliance, and the approbation of the public

flows along with them.

Case in point: a woman becomes the CEO of a failing business. Within a

few years, she has turned the business around. She is in control of a huge

conglomerate and has executed the correct moves to keep it productive,

profitable, ever-growing and forward-thinking.

All of these leaders are riding the wave.

But then there are the failures as well. Just as surfers can rise too

soon and watch the wave pass before them as they float dead in the water, some

leaders rise to their moment too soon, and watch as exactly nothing happens. Or

a surfer can pop up a moment too late, and find a brutal wave, the one that they

were going to ride victoriously, crashing down upon them without mercy. Or as

the surfer may find him or herself shooting straight to the shore, for a mere



brief moment upon the wave. Or they may ride the wave and then, because of the

wave's turbulence or their own misstep, lose their balance, wipe out and remain

bobbing in the water as the wave rides before them, without them. Similarly,

leaders can flub the moment of the wave, rising too late to the occasion, not

riding the wave correctly and so quickly ending their exhilarating moment of

success, or suddenly being overturned by the powerful forces that they are

attempting to ride.

What can the sport of surfing tell us about why leaders either ride the

wave or are thrown by the wave? What can we learn from surfing that will give

us insight into the dynamics of leaders in all fields: industry, war, economics,

technology, and politics?

There are many aspects of leadership that have been discussed by previous

authors. For the purpose of this book, I have isolated seven key leadership

aspects that I believe in and correlated them to the art of surfing:

(1) on the beach (setting a solid foundation); (2) paddling out to the waves (endurance); (3) jumping to your feet (timing); (4) don't let the wave make your choices for you (setting priorities); (5) angling (directing your path); (6) judging the waves (adaptive capacity); (7) in the freedom zone: never fail, but don't hold on.

Let us take a look at two brothers, Dick and Maurice, who opened a

restaurant and parleyed it into one of the most successful restaurant

enterprises in the country. They were successful–but to a point. When a man

named Ray Kroc approached them with a vision of franchising their restaurant

business across the country, they didn't share his vision. In fact, they sold

him the exclusive rights to their restaurant in 1961 for $2.7 million dollars.

The name of the restaurant was McDonald's. The vision of these two brothers,

the extent to which they were prepared to be leaders, was limited. And so they

got off the surfboard long before they had ridden to the end of the wave. They

failed in "paddling out to the waves," for they lacked endurance. They failed

in "jumping to your feet," because when the magic moment came, they did not even

recognize it. They failed in being "on the beach," for they never established

their vision.

Or there was the case of Shakespeare's Coriolanus, a man with strong

military skills and moral integrity, who failed, nevertheless, because he could

not be a leader of men, a leader sensitive to the desires and needs of his



followers. He failed at being "on the beach," for he never established rapport

with his followers.

Here is a brief description of the seven aspects of surfing and leadership

that I believe will help you become a better leader in whatever field you are

in:

One. On the Beach: Setting a Solid Foundation.

A surfer first chooses the conditions that will allow him/her to reach a

peak experience.

(a) They look for the type of beach that will produce the large, smooth

waves that can produce the most successful ride. A leader knows that before

taking any steps forward, they must have already prepared the ground by bringing

key members of the organization to their way of thinking, and must have planned

their steps in detail.

(b) Once the surfer has chosen a stretch of beach, they must examine it

for hidden dangers, such as dangerous currents. The surfer must be aware of rip

tides and other anomalies that can unexpectedly appear. The leader must also

choose the safest environment and, even there; maintain a constant awareness of

sudden, often unexpected and unseen dangers.

(c) The surfer chooses a surfboard, with the knowledge that different

surfboards have different characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. Leadership

also demands that a person honestly assess their own strengths and weaknesses

and choose that style that best exemplifies their abilities. “If you want to

know why people are not performing well, step up to the mirror and take a peak”

– Ken Blanchard.

(d) The wetsuit is what keeps the surfer warm. A leader must create

emotional warmth in his followers. It is not enough to lead with commands or by

persuading the mind. One must also persuade the heart.

Two. Paddling Out to the Waves: Endurance.

(a) The most grueling aspect of surfing is paddling. It is difficult,

unpleasant, and frustrating–but it gets the surfer to the waves. A leader too

may find that the majority of their time is spent not on the thrill of success

but on the endurance and strength required for constant of purpose and

unremitting effort.



(b) The surfer knows that the wind can be a friend or enemy, and that

from the wind one can learn important things about the condition of the water.

Similarly, a leader can gauge the prevailing trends in their organization, and

can make best use of momentum to keep a company profitable.

(c) Surfing, the experts tell us, is all about balance. Balance is

something that a surfer feels in their bones, who’s needs they respond to

automatically, without thinking. Similarly, a leader must possess a leader's

intuition. One must view reality with the eyes of a leader and constantly have

a sense of where they are succeeding, and where there is a need to change, of

when one is being heeded and when one is being ignored.

(d) A consummate surfer conforms to the ethics of the sport. One does

not, for example, grab a wave that another surfer is about to take. Similarly,

a true leader is also an ethical leader. They do what is right and tells the

truth. In this way, they are a leader in all senses of the term.

Three. Jumping to Your Feet: Timing is Everything

When the surfer is positioned exactly right on the wave, he jumps to his

feet. If he is too early, he will be left behind, bobbing on the sea. If he is

too late, the wave may crash down on him–wipe-out. A leader's transition from

preparation to action must come at the exact right moment. Too soon, and they

will find that no one is following them–not members of the organization, nor

consumers, nor voters; too late, and may find that they have crashed. Someone

else has galvanized the organization, won the loyalty of consumers or voters.

Four. Don't Let the Wave Make Your Choices for You: Setting Priorities

If a surfer does not control the direction of the surfboard, it will head

straight for the beach, and her ride will soon be over. Similarly, a leader

must have a long-term vision and a strategy of how they will attain it. If not,

even if they are able to get up on the wave, her ride of success will

precipitately be finished.

Five. Angling: Directing Your Path

The proficient surfer knows how to angle their surfboard so that they will

ride alongside the wave, for the longest possible ride. A leader must also know



how to navigate their way forward. Before they undertakes the actual work, they

have already conceptualized it and vividly visualized it in their mind's eye.

Six. Judging the Waves: Adaptive Capacity.

Now the surfer is on the wave. But even now, things are liable to change

at any moment. Will the wave that they are riding on maintain its shape? And

if it changes shape, are they ready to adjust their strategy with it? In the

same manner, the leader who is riding the wave must be vigilantly aware of any

changes in a given situation: in their own organization, in the economy, in the

mood of the voting public, and so forth.

(a) A surfer must recognize which waves are good and which are bad.

Similarly, a leader must be a "first-class noticer," aware of the dynamics of

their environment, knowing which situations to avoid and which circumstances

will be most conducive to their plans.

(b) At all times, the surfer must know where they are in reflation to

the wave, to the beach, and–not least–to other surfers. The leader too must

always maintain an awareness of the larger picture, and how it relates to them.

Seven. In the Freedom Zone: Never Fail, But Don't Hold On.

Riding the wave, racing alongside the breaking foam of the wave, the

surfer feels an effortless freedom. He is now, in a sense, one with the wave.

A leader can also feel this rush of headiness as they shoot forward into

success. At the same time, as a leader of others, they too experience a sort of

sacrifice of themselves: a sacrifice for the sake of actualizing the vision, the

goal.

II. The Leadership Wave

What does it take to be the CEO of a company or the President of the

United States or a general in the armed forces? What dangers do one face? What

strengths does one need?

The apex of experience for the surfer is riding the wave, riding it as

long as they can. What is the apex of experience for the CEO of a company, the

President of the United States, or a general in the armed forces? It is

certainly not getting one's staff enthusiastic, nor perfecting one's



organizational structure, nor grooming managers, nor improving one's accounting

procedures. It is, rather, the peak moment, the moment of supreme performance.

The CEO takes charge of a company that was losing millions of dollars a day and

turns it into the industry leader. The President forges a foreign policy in a

process that involves the careful positioning and influencing of members of

American politics, the military, and tens of countries across the globe. The

general prosecutes a battle that shows careful planning, brilliant execution and

the ability to make lightning quick responses in deviations from the original

plan.

How does the surfer keep from getting thrown by the wave they are riding?

How does the leader keep from failing?

If we look at the surfer, we can see, broadly speaking, two main areas of

characteristics. First, there is a set of characteristics that they possess.

Second, there is a set of skills that they have acquired. Thus, we may say that

the champion surfer has muscular strength, endurance, and a superb sense of

balance. They have acquired the skills specific to surfing: guiding the

surfboard, maintaining their balance and stance, interpreting correctly the

appearance of waves.

Similarly, a successful leader also has a set of characteristics that they

possess and a set of skills that they have acquired.

Frank Gibbons lists the following as the attributes of a leader. A leader

possesses integrity and ethics. They have a keen analytic intelligence and are

able to identify potential problems. They are able to make decisions and do so

with an underlying sense of urgency. They are able to cut to the core of a

question, reducing complexity to simplicity, and analyzes issues utilizing a

"creative questioning" approach. They are willing to take unqualified

responsibility; willing to take the lead; yet at the same time able to ask for

help. They possess endurance and has a strong drive coupled with a guiding

vision. And finally, is open, communicates easily, and empathizes with others.

As for skills (ibid.), a leader possesses knowledge–for instance, a CEO

possesses knowledge of the market and their customer. They not only have a

vision, but are able to articulate and champion that vision. That vision is

exceedingly down-to-earth. The CEO, for instance, is focused on profitability

and market share. To reach that vision, they set down a series of clear

objectives and establish a strategy to reach it. At every step of the way, they

are focused both on short- and long-term goals. And they recognize and deal with

problems at an early stage. They are able to build a team, identify its members'

core competencies, and deploy those competencies. They establish and enforce



the team culture, encourage continuous growth and learning at all levels, and

removes obstacles from the team.

A vastly different description of the skills that a successful leader must

possess is propounded in Wess Roberts' "Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun"

(cf. MegaLinks in Criminal Justice North Carolina Wesleyan). His list of

qualities and skills is based precisely on a model opposite to what we have

cited above.

The praiseworthy and important qualities of leadership mentioned up to

this point are those of a good and ethical leader. Indeed, there is a strong

implication that an evil leader–such as Mao, Stalin or Saddam Hussein–is not

truly a leader, since by the definition those authors give, a leader must have

integrity and a moral compass. In this vein, Dwight D. Eisenhower commented that

"you do not lead by hitting people over the head–that's assault, not

leadership."

Mr. Roberts (in the persona of Attila the Hun) offers a set of amoral and

even immoral suggestions for good leadership practices. One suspects Mr.

Roberts of writing tongue-in-cheek. Nevertheless, this Machiavelli for the turn

of the twenty-first century is making a serious point: a great deal of

leadership is more than just inspirational, enlightening guidance, but must

involve some measure of toughness, at times ruthlessness (even in those

organizations that do good). Surely no general runs his army merely by

nurturing the soldiers. No business CEO limits her leadership to the project of

bettering her workers and making them a more enthusiastic team. So let us have

a brief look at Roberts' eleven principles for effective leadership.

1. YOU'VE GOT TO WANT TO BE IN CHARGE. [This will inspire confidence in those

you lead]

2. ALWAYS APPEAR AS THE ONE IN CHARGE. [Be marked with armament that

distinguishes you from the masses]

3. MAKE OTHERS ADAPT TO YOUR "CUSTOMS." [This will extract tribute and praise

from those you lead]

4. NEVER CONDONE A LACK OF MORALE OR DISCIPLINE. [Discipline will build

morale]

5. NEVER TOLERATE ANYONE WITH THEIR OWN AMBITIONS. [The spirit of unity must

prevail]

6. PERPETUATE A LEGEND OR REPUTATION FOR YOURSELF. [You are your reputation]

7. PICK YOUR ENEMIES WISELY. [Do not make enemies unless you mean it]

8. EXPECT CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT. [This fulfills most of a leader's duties]

9. USE TIMING IN MAKING DECISIONS. [Time your decisions]



10. EXPLOIT THE DESIRE TO ENJOY THE SPOILS OF WAR. [Never underestimate the

ability to buy obedience]

11. ONLY ENGAGE IN WARS YOU CAN WIN. [Waging war is a natural condition]

The majority of this book, however, will deal not with these stark

reminders of realpolitik but with principles of leadership that are commensurate

with a worldview grounded in morality and integrity.

Leo Tolstoy began his masterpiece, Anna Karenina with the oft-repeated

aphorism that "Happy families are alike. Unhappy families are unhappy, each in

its own way." Similarly, we can say that although the experience of riding the

wave, of being a successful leader, may be one shared by all sorts of leaders in

a variety of areas, each failure has its own particular conditions. Did one

fall from "the wave" because of a lack of adaptive capacity, endurance, training

of staff, misinterpretation of data, or some other possibility? There is no one

answer to explain a leader's fall from success. In this book, I will address

this question and provide a variety of scenarios.

III. Where are you on the wave?

Any surfer worth their surfboard will analyze their performance; will

dissect the mistakes they made so that they can train themselves not to make

them again. More than that, a true surfer will be interested in every aspect of

surfing and in every aspect of what makes a good surfer. They will have a self-

reflective awareness of technique, skills, and attitudes.

Similarly, a leader in any field must engage in at least some kind of

leadership self-assessment. Let us take a brief look at some of the questions

that you can ask yourself as a leader (as propounded by the National School

Boards Association).

In the realm of attributes, ask yourself:

Do I view problems as opportunities? Do I set priorities? Do I focus on

the beneficiaries of my actions? Am I courageous? Am I a critical and creative

thinker? Do I tolerate ambiguity? Do I have a positive attitude towards

change? Am I committed to helpful innovations?

When it comes to your skills, ask yourself:

Have I made my values and beliefs clear? Can I inspire others with my

vision? Can I communicate strategic planning at all levels? Do I ask the big

picture questions and entertain all possible scenarios? Do I encourage dreaming



and thinking the unthinkable? Do I engage in goal setting? Can I develop and

implement action plans?

And finally, in terms of knowledge, ask:

Do I know the roles and extent of powers of all those with whom I must

deal? Do I have the tools for effective short and long term planning tools? Am I

familiar with the budget available to me? Am I familiar with the laws and

regulations germane to my project? Do I know the best practices and research on

attaining my goal? And do I know the strategies to involve and communicate with

others?

Are you ready for the next wave?

Are you ready for the next wave? Are you ready to go out and pro-actively

confront each new challenge?

When the next wave comes, will you have the attitude and skills to get on

it and ride it to the end? Do you have the ability, the attitude, and the sheer

intestinal fortitude, to get on the next wave and stay the course? Do you have

the resolve, the drive and the single-minded determination–of a new-born

giraffe?

In his book, A View from the Zoo, Gary Richmond describes how a newborn

giraffe learns its first lesson.

The mother giraffe lowers her head long enough to take a quick look.

Then she positions herself directly over her calf. She waits for about a minute,

and then she does the most unreasonable thing. She swings her long, pendulous

leg outward and kicks her baby, so that it is sent sprawling head over heels.

When it doesn't get up, the violent process is repeated over and over

again. The struggle to rise is momentous. As the baby calf grows tired, the

mother kicks it again to stimulate its efforts. Finally, the calf stands for the

first time on its wobbly legs.

Then the mother giraffe does the most remarkable thing. She kicks it off

its feet again. Why? She wants it to remember how it got up. In the wild, baby

giraffes must be able to get up as quickly as possible to stay with the herd,

where there is safety. Lions, hyenas, leopards, and wild hunting dogs all enjoy

young giraffes, and they'd get it too, if the mother didn't teach her calf to

get up quickly and get with it.



The late Irving Stone understood this. He spent a lifetime studying

greatness, writing novelized biographies of such men as Michelangelo, Vincent

van Gogh, Sigmund Freud, and Charles Darwin.

Stone was once asked if he had found a thread that runs through the lives

of all these exceptional people. He said, "I write about people who sometime in

their life have a vision or dream of something that should be accomplished and

they go to work.

"They are beaten over the head, knocked down, vilified, and for years they

get nowhere. But every time they're knocked down they stand up. You cannot

destroy these people. And at the end of their lives they've accomplished some

modest part of what they set out to do."

Or take the example of this person's life (as told by Neil Chadwick

Holisticonline).

"At the age of seven, a young boy and his family were forced out of their

home, and the boy was forced to go to work. When the boy was nine, his mother

passed away. He had a job as a store clerk, but lost it when he was twenty. The

young man wanted to go to law school, but had no education. He went into debt

when he was twenty-three, to become a partner in a small store. It was only

three years later that his business partner died, and left him with a debt that

took years for him to repay.

"He dated a girl for four years and, at the age of twenty-eight, decided

to ask her to marry him. She turned him down. Thirty-seven years into his life,

he was elected to Congress... on his THIRD try. He then failed to be re-elected.

This man's son died when he was only four years old. At age forty-five, he ran

for the Senate...and failed to be elected. He persisted at politics and ran for

the vice-presidency at age forty-seven, and again lost. Finally, at the age of

fifty-one, this man was elected President of the United States. His name was

Abraham Lincoln."

Have you failed? Have you been knocked down from your wave? Once? Twice?

Dozens of times? What does that convey to you? What lesson in life have you

learned from that? To grow despondent? To reconcile yourself to your place in

life? Or do you have a vision and a goal that take you beyond your experiences

of failure? Do you have the determination and skills to get back on the

surfboard, to go back and speed alongside the next magnificent wave?

"My great concern is not whether you have failed," said Abraham Lincoln,

"but whether you are content with your failure."



I grew up in a third world country, the Guyana. I remember the days of

having one toy for the entire year at Christmas time to brushing my teeth with a

bark of a tree to finally getting a chance to ride a wave of opportunity after

coming to the United States as an eighteen year old. Even though much of that

credit goes to my late father who basically brought me to the beach to

experience the waves for myself. Getting to surf the waves, building the

foundation, and selecting the right surfboard by enlisting in the United States

Air Force to receiving my commission and holding an historical four ranks in one

year to serving in the Gulf War. Yes, timing and endurance were critical

factors in my successful career. Being able to ride the next wave is thrilling.

There is a lot to be said for determination and persistence.

In the following chapter, I will return to the seven-part surfing and

leadership model, discussing each step in greater detail.



Chapter Two: Choosing Your Beach and Going Surfing

Introduction. The Ocean is a Wilderness: Thriving in Chaos

When the surfer moves from the beach to the ocean, they are moving from a

tamed and civilized world to the realm of the ocean, a realm of vast forces that

move according to their own laws, with no concern for the. If one is inept, or

unlucky, they can cast them aside or crush them. But the surfer has come out

here to master the waves, to ride the elemental forces of nature, to live with

the great, unforgiving, exhilarating beast called the ocean.

Here there are no rules of civility and order. The ocean follows its own

rules. Those rules are the laws of chaos, of the unexpected. They are the

rules of great waves suddenly collapsing, of invisible rip tides suddenly

occurring, of the forces of wave, wind and tide. There at the shore, life is

wonderfully organized and predictable: the towels laid out on the beach and the

umbrellas, the life guards sitting on their high seats, and the children running

into the shallow waves, young men and women swimming in the waves whose force is

spent, which are merely bobbing, amusing, enjoyable. But here out in the deep

water, the surfer has paddled out to meet the ocean on its own terms: its

mighty, driving, unalterable waves driving forward, the culmination of even

thousands of miles of movement on the surface of the sea bunching up as it comes

to the shallower ocean floor along the dry land, humping up, ready to rise,

crumble into foam and roar down, speeding with locomotive force to the beach,

where its force is spent. There, alongside that shore, children play on the wet

sand, sand pipers skitter across the mud, and the drama of the waves is a

different, a distant reality.

The ocean is a wilderness. The ocean respects no human conventions, no

rank, no wealth, no talent, and no accumulated merits. The ocean does not play

favorites. It is not fair. It is not forgiving. It is not kind, it does not

give second chances, it does not follow government regulations, it is not bound

by safety rules or union rules or flight safety rules. It does not recognize

you, it does not consider your friends, those whom you love, your abilities and

your aspirations. The ocean merely is: it is the last, wild, untamed forest.

When you enter the ocean with no more than a surfboard, ready to play according

to the ocean's mercurial moods and ever-shifting rules, you have gone beyond the

illusion that you can be sheltered by your human rules. But here, if you have

the control, the experience, the swift-footedness and quick mind, you can ride

that unmeasured power of the waves ;you can be its master; you can make it your



servant, so that it obeys you, taking you where you want to go. You can ride

upon its waves in triumph, riding the wild horses of the sea with their white,

foam manes.

But you do not have to venture onto the ten-foot waves of Malibu to

experience the "stoke," the joy, of the surfer. Every leader in business, in

politics, in the military is also riding the wave. The ocean of the leader is

made up of the multitudinous and unpredictable dynamics of their own

organization, its currents, its eddies and undertow, and the ocean of the vast

world of forces around them: competing businesses, economic cycles, political

bodies, social movements, military powers and maneuvers. The leader also is in

the midst of a force of tremendous, uncontrolled forces. They too can be

controlled and crushed by them, or, with verve, courage, swiftness and the

ability to anticipate, lightning swift change, the unexpected, and the chaos of

untempered forces, they can control their movement, or can ride the wave of

leadership.

Chaos, ambiguity and change: these are the difficult conditions in which

true leaders thrive. They thrive in an environment where the staid rules of the

rules-follower, of the salaried employee do not apply. The more power the

leader has, the more capability and possibilities, the more does one rise beyond

the convenient rules of systems and organizations, and have to deal successfully

and brilliantly with the turbulence, unpredictability and sheer danger of their

environment.

In this environment, why do some people thrive, while others fail? Why do

some people control the wave, while others are controlled by it? Why can some

people rise from defeat after pounding defeat, while others, crushed once or

twice, slink back to the tame shore to nurse their bruises for the rest of their

lives? What makes one person a leader and another a "wannabe"? What makes one

person a proficient handler of the protean forces about him, while others, often

equally determined, equally talented, lose the moment of possibility and fail,

dragging their corporation, their political party, their army, with them into

defeat and dissolution?

A leader has to have a specific set of attitudes, of skills and of

knowledge. These are their expertise, their surfboard, their mastery of the

waves. If they are lacking any of these, their leadership capabilities will be

impaired. If they lack enough of these in great enough measure, they will be

thrown down from the wave ignominiously and without compunction. So will the

vast and unhesitating forces about them sweep them down.



A leader requires the ability to flourish in the midst of

unpredictability.

A leader requires courage, the willingness to take risks and accept

responsibility for the outcome of their actions.

A leader must contain within themselves a mixture of disparate abilities:

a delicate mix of sensitivity with steely determination and drive.

A leader must be unorthodox, creative, innovative, initiative-taking.

A leader must have intuition. One must be able to see that which others

cannot see, and to take action before others are even aware of what is taking

place. A leader must be a leader of many, yet feel the concerns of their

followers as individuals. A leader must have a vision, yet see everything in

its most basic fundamentals: money, raw materials, technology, and people.

A leader must trust their gut instincts. Where do these abilities come

from? Without natural abilities, no man can become a leader. Yet that is not

enough. "Intuition," states Kip Tindell (cofounder of The Container Store),

"comes to a prepared mind." A leader draws upon the hundreds and thousands of

hours of experience and knowledge.

A leader is a person who has learned the lesson taught by Stuart Hoffman

(At Home in the Universe) that complex adaptive systems cannot be controlled to

perform in a predetermined manner. Unforeseen consequences are inevitable in

complex environments, and therefore, effective leaders must expect to take non-

linear paths toward their respective strategic objectives.

Just as the surfer loves the power of the waves, so does the leader love

the power of the forces that they are riding. Ultimately, the essence of

surfing is balance: balance is what keeps the surfer riding the wave. So too

must a leader, in whatever field they are in, maintain a balance amidst the

tumultuous forces of their own organization as well as of the unfriendly, even

hostile environment in which their organization is operating. Together with one

welcoming of the unexpected, of the forces beyond their control, a leader also

has discipline, the discipline of the tested and proven techniques that

thousands of leaders have employed before them.

The person who is not prepared, who is not sufficiently trained, whose own

inabilities, imprecisions and limitations hamper them, will, like the inept

surfer, be thrown from the wave, perhaps driven into the unforgiving, hard sand,

bruised, crushed, cast up onto the gritty sand, deposed from the kingdom of the

waters. But the leader who has the natural ability, the training, the

experience, the excitement and enthusiasm, can ride the wave of success; can

ride alongside the crest of the most fundamental forces, over and over again.



What are some of these abilities that the successful leader possesses?

Step One. On the Beach: Setting a Solid Foundation

There are many conditions that must be met before the surfer can ride out

on the waves. The surfer knows that although all that really counts is that

heady rush upon the lip of a careening wave, there is a backdrop of many other

factors on the beach that must be right to make that peak experience a

successful one.

What is the quality of the beach? Is it smooth, without hidden troughs

that can cause devastating collapses of waves and life-threatening rip tides?

Does the sea floor consist of sand or of jagged rocks?

What about the winds? Do they blow onto land from the sea (onshore winds),

or do they blow from the land out to sea (offshore winds)? You can surf in

either case, but offshore winds are by far the better. Onshore winds disguise

the condition of the sea, hiding treacherous rip tides. Offshore winds make the

position of those rip tides visible.

And have you picked a spot where rip tides, rivers headed out to sea, are

located? You cannot predict where these rip tides and when these rip tides will

disappear. But do you know how to look out for them?

And then there is your gear. You must choose the kind of surfboard you

will ride. Will you choose a short board, which allow you to make quick, sharp

maneuvers? Or will you pick a long board, which demand footwork but which can

paddle faster and catch waves sooner? I remember, while on the flight over to

the Gulf War in 1990, sitting on the rope seats on a C-141, the voice of the

pilot came on about an hour before landing telling us to get our Gas Masks

ready. All the training I had started flashing back, was I prepared, did I know

what to do now that the situation may be there?

And don't forget your wetsuit. This important piece of equipment will

allow water in, where your body will heat it up like a hot water.

A leader also needs a supportive environment that will make it possible

for them to lead. Just as a surfer needs a beach that will produce, large,

smooth waves, so must a leader ensure that their ride will be easy and smooth by

training members of his organization and planning his strategies in careful

detail.

Just as the surfer needs to have the winds assisting them, so does a

leader need the momentum that keeps their projects going forward?



Like the surfer who chooses a surfboard, so must a leader choose that

operating style that fits them best.

The surfer is enveloped in the warmth of a wetsuit. A leader also must

bring warmth to their organization, creating a friendly and supportive

organizational culture.

Teddy Roosevelt, twenty sixth president of the United States, was in

addition a Nobel Prize Winner, an archeologist, a preservationist, a historian,

a boxer, a big-game hunter. He was one of the most extraordinary figures of his

generation. To what did he in the end attribute his success? "The most

important single ingredient in the formula of success," he said, "is knowing how

to get along with people."

To lead people, you need to gain more than their shared vision of your

goal. You need as well to gain their hearts. It is because you have won their

hearts that you will truly move them to action.

How do you do that? First of all, you must feel genuine warmth for your

subordinates and communicate that warmth. "I have seen competent leaders who

stood in front of a platoon and all they saw was a platoon," said General Norman

Schwarzkopf. "But great leaders stand in front of a platoon and see it as

forty-four individuals, each of whom has aspirations, each of whom wants to

live, each of whom wants to do good." Greet people when you enter their work

areas; engage them in small talk; solicit their opinions; send them notes of

appreciation. These small gestures, when genuine, will result in invaluable

rapport.

Inspire people. Show them that you truly want to help them. Zig Ziglar

has famously said that "People don't care how much you know until they know how

much you care about them."

Make yourself visible. Get out of your office and walk through your

organization. You will make everyone feel that they are a part of your team, an

important resource toward attaining your vision. And be approachable. Treat

others with respect, act with integrity, project support and appreciation, not

anger and blame, project a feeling of expectation, not denunciation, and you

will see your subordinates truly become your support and team. Different people

have different personalities, different wishes and different needs. Be

sensitive to these things when you interact with your staff.

Provide inspired enthusiasm. This will ignite the enthusiasm of those

around you as well. Show passion, and your organization will become impassioned.

Your assets are your people. Treat them well. Inspire them to "be the best

that they can be." When you exhibit no passion, when your own performance is



routine and tired, how can you expect passion and dedication from others? The

leader is the lid of his organization. The organization can only rise as high,

go as far and be as enthusiastic as the leader.

Show confidence in your people. Treat them with respect and dignity. Do

not treat them in ways that you yourself would resent. Do you rule through

fiat, insult and rudeness? If so, then people might show you respect but they

will not give you respect.

Communicate your appreciation of people's contributions to your vision.

They will grow willing to take risks in order to perform. Recognize people's

strengths and make use of them. Ask of each team member to give what he is

uniquely qualified to contribute to your cause. People have a need to feel that

they are achieving something important. Help them: give them meaningful work to

do work that is interesting and challenging. Delegate authority and

responsibility. Assign tasks that people understand and that they will

accomplish. "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they

will surprise you with their ingenuity" (General Patton). Practice "centralized

control and decentralized execution." Then get out of the way.

When your people do a job well, recognize them. When they have grown

beyond their position, increase the scope of their responsibility. Your will

have attained an inspired and motivated staff.

And as you support your staff, build them into a team. Clearly communicate

the ethos and the mission of your organization. Communicate your expectations

of your staff. Make them understand how they fit into the big picture; how they

are each contributing to the mission.

And replace blame with supportive evaluation. That evaluation itself can

provide a basis for trust and further growth.

Create a vision. Ignite others with your passion. The founder of

Jefferson Standard Insurance Company, created a team of the greatest experts in

insurance with the invitation, "Why don't you come and help me build something

great?"

No, you are not surfing yet. In fact, at this point you haven't even gone

into the water. But you have attained the proper environment in which you will

be able to surf the great waves with the greatest success.

And now you are ready to paddle out to the waves.

Step Two. Paddling Out to the Waves: Endurance



The surfer spends most of their time paddling out to the waves. There are

two phases to paddling. Paddling is how one gets out to catch waves. And

paddling is how one aligns themselves with the waves.

Paddling is not glamorous. It is hard work, necessitating brute exertion.

But it also demands a combination of a delicate sense of balance and lightning-

quick reflexes. There are no short-cuts. There is no way to get onto the wave

without a great deal of difficult paddling.

A leader also needs the endurance, the lightning reflexes, the deft sense

of balance that make it possible for them to at last ride the waves. A leader

requires strength and ambition, competence and optimism, energy and openness to

learning new things. Even as a leader is building their organization, creating

momentum, shaping one’s vision, and positioning oneself is using and practicing

many of those qualities that will be invaluable to them in all stages of their

leadership experience, of them riding the wave.

The leader must have strength. They must possess the ego strength to

believe in themselves before others do. When Thomas Alva Edison began school,

the teacher called him "addled." Had Thomas Edison and his mother accepted this

judgement, the name Edison would today be as unknown as that of his teacher.

Leaders must understand themselves, their own needs and personality traits. And

knowing these, they must have courage: the courage to face danger and criticism

and, despite their fear and discomfort, to proceed upon their own path calmly

and firmly.

As a leader, you must be able to identify which ideas are practical and

which are not. Sometimes, a highly-original person makes a poor leader because

they cannot distinguish between a fine idea that will work and a brilliant idea

that bears little relationship to reality.

Together with practicality, a leader must possess the ability to

creatively solve problems. And in order to solve problems, They must be able to

recognize them. "If you think there are no problems in your organization, you

are ignorant," goes the saying. Search out problems. The problems that you

shun will not fade away but, to the contrary, grow ever larger.

You must be competent. And you must be ambitious.

The military speaks of "completed staff work." The leader must have the

ability to complete their work. There are times when you have little besides

your will power to keep you going, to keep on track and reach your goal. Some

people will do what is required or expected of them. But the person who can

hold on and carry on is the person who has the quality of a leader. In the



words of Dale Carnegie, "I know men in the ranks who will not stay in the ranks.

Why? Because they have the ability to get things done."

Imagine that in your organization, the janitor and the vice president

received the same salary. Which one would you prefer to be? The janitor has no

responsibility and thus no worry. When they leave the job at five o'clock, they

leave all concerns about the job behind them as well. The vice president does

have responsibility and, with it, the joy that comes from the knowledge of

accomplishment. A leader possesses the willingness, if not the eager, to take

responsibility.

And, possessing ego strength and confidence, a leader must possess

humility. You must be able to admit to the things that you do not know; you

must be able to admit that there are things that you can learn from your

subordinates. Be willing to see things from different points of view. A private

in the trenches sees things that a general cannot. The leader of a corporation

does not know first-hand the dynamics and tensions in the lower echelons of

their company. Be the sort of leader who knows what they do not know and is

eager to learn even from those who are beneath them in rank.

As a leader, you must also possess endurance. This includes the simple

physical stamina as well as the mental ability to handle pain, fatigue, stress,

and hardship. You must possess high energy and perseverance. You do not grow

exhausted dealing with petty issues. And you possess a certainty that translates

itself into the proper performance of your duty.

A leader is optimistic and self-confident, tenacious and hardy. A leader

is prepared for the day-to-day stresses, for the unexpected difficulties, for

the complications and surprises that will bedevil the clearest game plan. Like

the surfer paddling out to where the waves are, the leader doggedly pushes

forward, recognizing and dispatching with his current difficulties while never

losing sight of his goal.

As a leader, you must possess character and integrity. First, be honest

with yourself. Assess your leadership qualities. Analyze your strengths and

weaknesses. Be the type of person whom you would like to be leading. Next, be

honest with others. To be an effective leader, you must be trustworthy and

credible. You must demonstrate reliability and truthfulness. When you do so,

you will create an atmosphere of confidence and trust.

You must have the strength of character to reward and punish

appropriately, to administer a system of reinforcement and penalty that is

consistent and impartial.



Trust is the bedrock of leadership. And when you possess a cluster of

traits, you generate that trust in your subordinates. What are these traits?

You must be competent. You must have a vision and take risks. You must learn

from your errors and refuse to lose. You must inspire rather than coerce. You

must be honest and fair. You must be utterly reliable. And you must be

consistent. Don't punish one person for misconduct, while ignoring the same

misconduct in someone else. Don't set up a standard for advancement and then

give a raise to someone who has not met that standard. Ultimately, everything

rests upon your integrity. No one will believe in your vision, no one will care

for your competence; no one will be impressed by your strong efforts to lead the

organization.

And to be trustworthy, you must also possess inner strength. No one can

rely on a leader whose ability to perform changes from day to day. If you wish

to be respected, you must possess strength, for people naturally follow a leader

who is stronger than they.

Your trustworthiness will bring out the best in others. When people trust

you, they will show you greater commitment. When they trust your leadership,

they themselves will take greater risks. They will be loyal to you and they

will allow themselves to be accountable to you.

And another important leadership trait of character is a sense of humor.

Laugh at yourself, laugh with your subordinates. Your personality is reflected

in the personality of your organization. Your sense of humor keeps your

leadership from tiring. Without any sense of humor, you risk growing dull and

ineffective. With humor, you can communicate effectively. A smile can soften

criticism, and a cheerful remark can fill a room full of enthusiasm.

Always create a favorable impression in your bearing, appearance and

conduct. You will be a role model to others. And do not forget what

motivational coach John Maxwell calls the "law of magnetism": who you are is who

you attract.

So you are building your organization, strengthening its cohesiveness and

morale, grooming yourself and proving yourself as a leader. You are paddling

out to the waves. You are definitely coming ever closer to that peak moment:

riding the wave!

Step Three. Jumping to Your Feet: Timing is Everything

The surfer has paddled out to where the waves are. Now he turns his board

around so that he is facing the shore. He now shares the point of view of the



waves. Now he starts paddling quickly toward the shore, together with the

waves. But the waves are quicker than he is. As he paddles, he feels himself

lifted up by the swell of a wave and then just starts to pitch down and forward.

At that exact instant, he leaps to his feet in one instantaneous, swift motion.

This is not an easy maneuver. At first, everything that can go wrong will. If

the surfer jumps up a moment too soon, the wave will just move forward, knocking

you off the board or, at best, merely leaving him behind. If he is a moment too

late, if he catches a wave when it is just about to break, the nose of the

surfboard will dip below the surface of the water, or pearl, and he may find

that he is disastrously too late, and the wave is crashing down upon him.

When the surfer leaps, or "pops up," he must leap into a stance, a stance

that he has practiced hundreds of times.

And now the surfer is standing on the surfboard, the wave is rushing

forward, and the ride is about to begin.

Timing is everything. The answer you get to the question, "Will you marry

me?;" the price on the new home that you are buying; whether you will make a

profit or lose your shirt in the stock market; whether you will hit a home run

over the fence or pop up a foul ball into the stands all depend on your timing.

There are two factors to consider: when to make your move, and what that

move will be. The right move at the wrong moment will result in resistance.

The wrong move at the right moment will is a mistake. The wrong move at the

wrong moment is a disaster. And the right move at the right moment leads to

success.

Timing is everything. Timing is the crux of every strategy. It is the

central concern of every commander going into battle and of every agency

inaugurating a new product. It is chief in the plans of every political

campaign and in the designs of every reformer. Every child learns timing when

he wants something from his parents. Every spouse learns timing when he wants

his spouse to agree to some new scheme of his. Every teacher knows that timing

is key to the growth and development of her students. Every car salesman knows

that timing will make or break the sale, and timing will determine the quality

of the sale.

When the timing is right, a quiet man becomes a hero. When the timing is

wrong, a hero becomes a buffoon. When the timing is right, a quiet man becomes

a moral leader. When the time is wrong, a moral leader becomes an anachronism.

When the timing is right, an idea changes a generation. When the timing is

wrong, the same idea molders and is remembered only by scholars of the arcane.

Timing is everything.



Winston Churchill, looking back on his career at the age of eighty,

stated, "It was the nation and the race dwelling all around the globe that had

the lion's heart. I had the luck to be called upon to give the roar." In

another era, in another world, Winston Churchill would have been a secondary

leader or he would have been a totally irrelevant irritation, a militant crank.

With timing, Winston Churchill became great.

A leader is aware of timing at every instant. If a leader makes their

move one moment too soon, before conditions are ripe, they may find themselves

failing ineffectually. If they makes their movement a moment too late, they may

find himself thrown violently down by the press of events. The press of

circumstances may push them aside, and may find themselves a failure, an

irrelevancy.

"Look before you leap." A leader must invest the time necessary for

research, planning, and preparing a campaign. But once the moment comes to act,

they may hesitate no more than a parachutist standing at the open doorway of the

airplane. Procrastination is deadly. Nothing difficult today will be any

easier tomorrow. To the contrary, the moment that is ripe today will have

decayed tomorrow, and the casualties that you can avoid today will be inevitable

in the coming days. Therefore, "take time to deliberate," stated President

Andrew Jackson," but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in."

"He who hesitates is lost." A leader does not hesitate, he does not

procrastinate, he does not engage in pointless activity-generating decisions.

"If you see a snake," states Ross Perot, "just kill it. Don't appoint a

committee on snakes." A leader is a leader because he has the foresight and the

courage to take bold steps, to take risks where a host of worriers, of second-

guessers, see only risk and defeat at hand. A leader conceives a plan, and he

puts it into effect without hesitation and lack of purpose. A leader does not

wait for circumstances to grow favorable. He strides into circumstances and

grasps that which is favorable to him. "Things may come to those who wait, but

only the things left by those who hustle," asseverated Abraham Lincoln.

Make your decision. Make it forcefully and announce it forcefully. And a

leader does not allow the energies of himself or those about him to grow lax.

He maintains a strong sense of urgency. He maintains momentum and feeds it with

action. He maintains action to create a sense of inescapable success.

"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next

week." So stated General George Patton. When action is called for, act. Do

not wait for the most perfect moment imaginable and the most perfect action

imaginable. When the surfer leaps up on his surfboard, he does the best he is



able to with the best wave that at present exists. The surfer does not spend

weeks practicing his pop ups, and weeks in the water awaiting the perfect wave.

The perfect action and the perfect wave do not exist. Act now, as best you can,

making best use of the circumstances that you can. As poet Verne Romans has put

it,

"The hand that held that flag

Did not tremble, although it was old,

And the flag, although tattered, still blew.

The gray eye of the hard-faced foe

Glinted with promise of gold

And laughed at that torn, flapping rag.

But the old soldiers schemed, and as night dipped to dawn,

They struck while their moment was true."

A leader takes hold of time. They do not waste time, no more than a

refining plant should waste ore, and no more than a prisoner would waste the few

moments they have to look at the sky. "The thing I lose patience with the most

is the clock," lamented Thomas Edison. "Its hands move too fast. Time is really

the only capital that any human being has, and the one thing that they can't

afford to lose."

And once you have made your move, stay firm. Do not loosen your grip, do

not take things for granted. Like the surfer who has just caught the wave, and

who now must be more alert than ever, the leader too, once they have gone into

action, once they have set their plan into action, must be more alert than they

have ever been. If something is broken, it must be fixed now! If something can

go wrong, don't make pollyannaish assumptions. Keep an eye on it now!

A leader takes initiative. They do not wait for others to guide them, to

give him hints as to where to turn and when to turn. A leader paddles out to

the waves for that, after all, is where he wants to be. He turns and rides with

the wave. And when he feels that the moment is as perfect as it will ever be,

he leaps to his feet, into the stance that he has practiced so many thousands of

times, which has prepared him for this moment. He has leaped up at precisely

the right time, and now he has now begun to ride the wave.

Step Four. Don't Let the Wave Make Your Choices for You: Setting Priorities



The surfer has paddled with the wave and at the critical juncture leaped

to her feet. Now she is at last surfing, riding the wave. But in which

direction will she ride it? Usually, the wave comes into shore breaking at an

angle. Thus, the surfer can head into the direction of the wave that has not

yet broken. And, keeping pace with the wave as it breaks or crumbles into foam,

the surfer glides along its slick quickness, almost parallel to the seashore.

But if the surfer does not have control, if she does not have technique

and ability, she will not be able to ride the wave in this fashion. True, she

might not fall and wipe out. But she will allow the wave to drive her straight

to shore, directly perpendicular to the shore. This is called surfing straight

off. The surfer has ridden the wave, but for a frustratingly brief period of

time. Perhaps this is not abject failure but neither can it be called success.

"If you don't know where you are going, it makes no difference what path

you take," states Helene Dykes, principal of Marian Bergeson Elementary School,

in Laguna Niguel, California. If the leader does not have a clear vision, a

concrete goal, something she can point to as "success," then even if she is

adroit enough to ride the wave, it will be a short ride indeed. When you do not

clearly know your goal, then circumstances take over. You become irresolute,

you follow the wave rather than using the wave to take you to your goal.

"Without clear vision," Dykes continues, "you have no way to prioritize what is

most essential." And when a leader does not prioritize, then priorities will

force themselves upon her. She may be riding the wave, but those able to

recognize her true situation will see that she is not truly riding the wave

rather, she is maintaining herself on the wave, and that not for long. "A clear

vision," she concludes, "allows you to focus energy on the most important things

to do."

A leader's first commandment is, therefore, "Thou shalt find a purpose for

thyself and for thy organization" (source). A great leader has a quality that

can be called "goal orientation." When a leader is strongly focused on a goal,

when that goal is almost a tangible object to her, then she is filled with an

energy that drives her through difficult moments and guides her during confusing

moments.

Prioritization belongs at all levels of organization. The central goal is

the main priority. But each step to meet that goal is composed of a series of

actions that also must be prioritized. Trivialities and side issues appear at

every moment, at every level. The leader who is led astray will find that long

before her ride on the wave could take her very far, it already deposited her

upon the beach, along with all the other pedestrian professionals and quotidian



managers. And there never comes a time when a leader is so expert that she no

longer needs to prioritize.

It is true that in and of itself prioritization does not suffice.

Prioritization must work hand in glove with the ability to work. If you know

where you want the wave to take you, but you do not do anything about it, you

will end up straightening off just as surely as if you had no plan whatsoever.

A person who does no more than prioritize is just a dreamer. The person who

couples their priorities to action is a leader.

How does a leader determine her priorities? Simply, she considers, "What

is required of me?" A CEO is expected to increase company sales and earnings.

A husband is expected to be a loving spouse and a responsible parent. A

military leader is expected to keep the army effective and win certain

objectives. If there are goals and responsibilities that the leader themselves

is not required to engage in, then they should either be delegated to others, or

entirely eliminated.

Secondly, the leader must ask, "What will give me the greatest rate of

return?" If a senator has the goal of putting through as many pieces of

legislation as they can that support their party's platform, then they have to

assess their own strengths and weaknesses. Then they should chiefly engage in

those activities that employ their greatest strengths for instance, speech-

making or committee politicking or drafting legislation. How do you make that

determination? Here the "Pareto Principle" is of utmost importance. The Pareto

Principle states that 20% of your activities will provide 80% of the results

that you are seeking. For example, if this senator has ten activities seeking

their attention, two of those activities will garner for the 80% of the results

that their are seeking. Therefore, as a leader, work as much as possible in the

area of that 20%. If possible, delegate other activities. If someone else can

perform a certain activity to achieve results that are 80% as good as the

results that you could have attained, then delegate that as well. If you are a

gifted speaker, speak. If you are a brilliant politicker, then by all means

politick.

Thirdly, the leader should choose goals that ignite their passion. They

will be most successful at attaining such goals, rather than goals that they are

responsible for but which have little meaning for them.

And a truly successful leader can bunch up their activities so that one

activity is fulfilling a number of priorities. For instance, by selling off a

branch of their organization, a CEO can achieve the priorities of streamlining

their corporation and focusing its goals.



In short, the successful leader prioritizes what needs to be done

constantly whether or not they have a desire to do the job, and no matter how

difficult the job. What counts is the attained outcome not the difficultly or

unpleasantness. What counts is getting from prioritization to completion in the

shortest period of time.

When you prioritize, you are putting yourself in control. Just as the

surfer must make choices rather than allowing the wave to do so for them, so

does the successful leader shape their choices. When you prioritize, you

clarify to yourself and to others the direction that your corporation is moving

toward. On the wave, the surfer must be instantly aware of what factors are

urgent, what factors must be taken into account immediately, and what factors

are of secondary importance. The leader must also prioritize their actions.

What circumstances and issues must be dealt with urgently? What issues are not

urgent, but critically important? And what issues are of a secondary, if not

trivial, nature? The surfer who is in charge of their situation will deal with

urgent situations before they grow out of hand. They will then immediately deal

with upcoming important simulations. In the end, because one has dealt with

situations before they grew to a state of urgency, they have less emergencies

and crises to deal with. When a leader is pro-active, dealing with emergencies

and anticipating the important issues that are coming up in the future, they too

will reduce the amount of emergencies that they have to deal with. And as a

result, will be more in control. And a leader who is in control is a leader who

is likely to successfully ride the wave for as long as possible.

The surfer has leaped to their feet and is riding the energy of the wave.

And is not merely going to allow the wave to hurl them shore wards for a brief

ride. Rather, with forethought, skill and a plan, the surfer is now ready to

ride the wave in the direction that they wish to go, accompanying the wave for

as long as possible. They have determined that they will not allow the wave to

make their decisions for them. But now they have to put that decision into

practice. The technique that allows them to ride the wave to the very end is

called "angling."

The leader too must now exercise abilities to stay the course. They too

must stay the course. They too must master the art of "angling."

Step Five. Angling: Directing Your Path

The surfer is now standing on his board. The wave breaks, and the foam

froths at their feet. Now he must ignore the fact that the wave is heading for



the beach and that its momentum will carry them along with it. Their goals are

different: to ride alongside the wave, to ride the "surface of blue diamonds"

(Learn to Surf). This is the essence of surfing. To do so, they require

technique, flexibility, mental agility and mental toughness. Only an attitude

of determination and unimpeded drive will give them the momentum and the surety

to ignore the overwhelming push of the wave and instead maneuver their way upon

it so as to make them will supreme.

The leader too must at times display mental toughness and resolve. Not

every moment is an opportunity for consensus-building, team consolidation,

gaining the hearts of the staff and earning their trust. At times, a leader

must take strong action, make difficult decisions, not go along with the flow of

the corporation structure, the political givens, the pundits' wisdom. One must

go it alone, make decisions that others disapprove of, decisions that others

might find hurtful, decisions that might arouse the greatest opposition in

subordinates, colleagues and rivals. Sometimes there is a moment when a leader

must make the crucial decision: will appear to lead, or will truly lead?

A leader has to have the quality of mental toughness. Mental toughness is

not meanness and cruelty. A tough-minded CEO does not enjoy laying off staff.

But if they know that it is necessary to do so, they face certain opposition. A

politician who is truly a leader will make the tough decisions despite the

certain criticism and flack that will be leveled at them from all quarters.

A leader is tough with their subordinates. They do not tolerate

incompetence either in themselves or others. A leader encourages those who are

doing good work, they support the people who are contributing to the

organization. But a leader insists on excellence. They set their standards

high and makes those standards known. And having done so, they hold their

people accountable. A leader does not hold on to those who are lazy,

uninterested, people who are holding on to their position but who are not

getting the job done. A leader has the courage to get rid of these people and

replace them with productive staff.

A leader has to have the mental toughness to exercise the self-discipline

appropriate to his position. A leader is in some regardslonely. There is no

one around them solicitous of their welfare. If they are doing their job right,

those around see them as almost superhuman, incapable of fatigue, inured to

difficulties, never hampered by frustration, insightful and intuitive, always

fresh and dynamic. The leader must take care of his needs without the support

system that others have. They cannot complain to subordinates or colleagues



about all the pressures that the feel. "Be polite to all," said Thomas

Jefferson, "but intimate with few."

A leader cannot discuss everything openly with their subordinates or their

peers. They must keep their own counsel until the proper moment for sharing it,

until his ideas are properly formulated. One leader, the president of an

architectural firm in Columbus, Ohio, came to realize that his fear of

loneliness was ruining his ability to function well. "My organization's always

confused," he reported, "and I didn't know why. It's because I don't like to be

lonely; I've got to talk about my ideas too the rest of the company. But they

never know which ones will work, so everybody who likes my idea jumps to work on

it. Those who don't work against it. Employees are going backward and forward

when the idea may not even come about at all."

The leader must display confidence and conviction. People follow a person

who is sure of themselves and shows that there are confident of the course of

action. And so a leader is decisive. They assess the situation and then take

action, prepared to accept responsibility whatever the outcome may be.

A leader must have the courage and discipline to be able to deliver what

they have promised. If you have stated a goal and a plan, stand behind it.

Believe that you can achieve it, and indeed achieve it. Have the discipline to

stay the course.

A leader has that self-confidence and assuredness, demonstrated mastery

and competence, and an aura of leadership that makes other people listen to

them. When a leader speaks, people listen. Do you want to know who the real

leader in an organization is? Go to a meeting. See who is speaking a great

deal, but who has not grasped the attention of everyone in the room. That

person is not the leader. Look at the managers of the organization. They are

not the leaders either. A manager maintains systems and processes. But leaders

influences people to follow them. What about the man in the organization with

the greatest amount of knowledge about the organization, its goals, its progress

and its problems? This man is not the leader either. "Knowledge is power,"

said Sir Francis Bacon, but it is not necessarily the power of leadership. An

organization is filled with people who have intimate and vastly detailed

knowledge of a great many ideas, processes, and facts. They may be managers,

scientists and analysts but they are not leaders. What about the pioneer, the

man leading the crowd, the man heralding or anticipating the new trend? He is

not necessarily the leader either. It is not enough to be out front. You must

have people coming behind you, following your vision. And the leader is not

necessarily the man at the head of the conference table: the one with the title,



the position, and the salary. "It's not the position that makes the leader;

it's the leader that makes the position" (Stanley Huffty).

If you want to know who the leader is, see who it is that people listen

to. Some people give speeches. A leader displays leadership. When the real

leader speaks, people listen. One needs no proof that thier is a leader, no

outside support, no title, no formal legitimization. "Being in power is like

being a lady," said former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. "If you

have to tell people you are, you aren't."

Do people buy into who you are and what your vision is? If they buy into

neither, they need a new leader. If they buy into your vision but not you,

again, they need a new leader. What if they buy into you but not into your

vision? Then you must get a new vision. Only if both are true are you a leader

that people will be willing to get behind and to work on behalf of your cause.

When you are a leader, you are a role model for others. You lead not only

by your pronouncements but, much more significantly, by your example.

And sometimes, a leader can be ruthless and manipulative. Of course, this

is no challenge for an unprincipled leader. But even a leader in a good cause

must at times undertake what is for him a difficult role. Sometimes there is no

avoiding realpolitik. It was in this vein that John F. Kennedy stated, "Forgive

your enemies but never forget their names." Franklin D. Roosevelt advised, "Put

two or three men in positions of conflicting authority. This will force them to

work at loggerheads, allowing you to be the ultimate arbiter."

At the end of the day, however, you must be able to look in the mirror and

respect what you see there. Ultimately, a leader with integrity leads because

of their support, not because of rudeness. They inspire because people wish to

emulate them, not because people fear to anger them.

Once the surfer has demonstrated the quality of mental toughness and,

rather than following the shortest route toward the shore, is flashing alongside

the ever-unfurling wave, they have a new challenge. Waves do not remain static

and ideal. Often, they change shape, and the surfer must immediately adjust to

the new situation. It is not easy work, remaining on the wave.

Step Six. Judging the Waves: Adaptive Capacity

The surfer is now riding alongside the wave. As she does so, the wave

"peels" it curls over and crumbles into foam in a continuous line, as the surfer

shoots forward on the water, matching the pace of the wave's peeling. But waves

can lose their good shape. There is, as Bob Dylan states in the title of one of



his songs, "no time to think." The surfer must make split-second decisions,

sometimes faced with a barrage of shifting, difficult new realities. To the

surfer who can handle the onrush of shifting situations and complex information,

the experience is heady and intoxicating. But it is here where many people find

themselves overloaded. They cannot handle the complexity, the swiftness of

response that is demanded of them. They cannot handle the decision-making

process at this high level of performance. The person who can do so, who

discovers their joy in doing so, is a true surfer.

The leader of any organization also faces situations of extraordinary

complexity, swiftly changing and demanding lightning responses and flexibility.

The leader's ability to respond will determine the level of competence which she

is capable of attaining.

A leader requires adaptive capacity: the ability to apply creative

solutions to an oncoming problem. A leader must be flexible and resilient,

eager to solve problems even if that solution should prove disagreeable. One

responds with nimbleness to crisis. One seizes opportunity where others see

only difficulty. They leap into the unknown, confident that they will land

safely and if no safety net exists, they will devise a safety net for

themselves.

A true leader is not stuck in old patterns of thinking, assuming that a

new situation matches those they have experienced in the past. They are a

master at recognizing context, at understanding the uniqueness of every

situation.

A leader has mastered "deep change." One does not deal with a problem

superficially, but looks deeply into it, reorients their thinking, and acts on

new insights. To be such a leader, you must be (in Saul Bellow's fortunate

phrase) a "first-class noticer." Tune into your environment. Collect

information through a network of listening posts. Rubbermaid goes as far as

operating its own stores in order to be able to listen to and learn from its

customers.

Be eager to change, and make your organization adept at changing as well.

Explore new technologies, model for your organization how to learn and grow from

difficult challenges, acquiring new mastery and skills. Do not dwell on the

past, unable to recognize the uniqueness of the present moment. Process new

experiences. Find their meaning and integrate that meaning into your

leadership.

Develop "kaleidoscopic thinking": take the data available to you and

arrange it in different patterns. Do not assume that the pieces will fit



together only in one pattern: that your organization or environment can only be

understood in one way. When you see that there can be many patterns, then you

will recognize that a problem can have many solutions.

An effective leader grows even more effective when faced with a crisis.

When such a leader is at the edge of chaos (Hoffman), they respond by engaging

in heightened levels of experimentation.

A leader must thrive in a swiftly changing environment. They must feel the

thrill of the challenge. Even on a physiological level, as they engage in

solving problems, their brains are flooded with pleasure-providing endorphins.

An effective leader is not satisfied with the way that things are done.

Others may see a leader as a critic. But they are not engaged in the activity

of discouraging, criticizing, and fault-finding. Their discontent is

constructive. Lesser souls cling to the status quo and defend it as a sign of

their loyalty to the corporation, unable to understand that dissatisfaction with

that same organization is a much more sophisticated form of loyalty to and

support of the organization. The critic notices that there must be a better way

to do things. If in addition, has thought of what that better way might be,

then there are leaders (or at least potential leaders). The person who is

defending the status quo may be a loyal worker but will never be a leader. The

leader is the person who is dissatisfied, who is always asking, is there a

better way to do this? "It is not the critic who counts, nor the person who

points out how the strong person stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have

done getter. The credit belongs to the person who is actually in the arena;

whose face is actually marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives

valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows great enthusiasm

and great devotions, whose life is spent in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows

in the end the triumph of high achievement and at worst, if failure wins out, it

at least wins with greatness, so that this person's place shall never be with

those timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat" (Theodore Roosevelt). A

leader "wins with greatness" when they go beyond criticism to vision, conviction

and action.

A follower looks at a stream and sees the same water flowing over the same

rock. A leader sees that the water is always different and that the pattern of

its flow is always new. A follower looks at the sky and notices that it is

cloudy, as it was yesterday. A leader looks at the sky and sees a pattern of

clouds that never existed before and never will exist again. A follower learns a

set number of responses to certain situations. One may pigeon-hole each new

situation they encounters, and reacts by mechanically implementing the response



that they were taught. A leader possesses these basic skills, but realizes that

each situation is unique, and thus they can respond creatively and more

precisely and appropriately.

A leader needs vision. But to attain that vision, they also need the

ability to fit the pieces of the reality they have to work with into new and

often unexpected shapes. Nothing could have been more unexpected that Gandhi's

response to the British colonization of India. His vision of an independent

India was linked to his ability to view the situation and respond in a novel

fashion: not with violent revolution, nor with resignation, but with massive

civil disobedience.

Communicate your compelling aspirations to other members of your

organization. Overcome resistance with your enthusiasm. Overcome doubt with

your conviction. Overcome the desire to maintain the status quo with compelling

evidence that change is necessary. Make it clear that you are not merely looking

forward to reaching an ideal future. Rather, you and your organization will

work together to create that future. The source of your vision is the aspiration

for improvement, for the creation from the patterns of today a new structure

that has never yet come into existence.

The reality of the leader is the reality of change. They recognize the

changes that are going on about them, and they themselves are an instrument and

catalyst of change. Leaders are clearly aware that when they cease to change,

when they cease to be aware of change around them, they will become at best an

anachronism, at worst an utter failure.

In the same way, the surfer riding the wave is engaged in a highly dynamic

process. They must be alert at every moment, trained, skilled, and aware.

Change is their reality, and the response to change constitutes his successful

riding of the wave.

Step Seven. In the Freedom Zone: Never Fail, But Don't Hold On

When the surfer is at the peak of his performance and ability, he is

surfing in the "freedom zone." Here he has the maximum ability to maneuver.

Here, at this ultimate point of mastery, he has no need to grasp onto any stock

technique or laboriously remembered strategy to keep riding the wave. He can

let go of all these and simply ride the wave with pearly ecstasy.

When a leader is truly in charge, truly in control, when they just have to

act without the difficulty, the effort, the intense thought of the tyro, then

they too can let go. They no longer have an ego need to prove that they are



really a leader. They no longer have the self-protective need to keep a

position by denying other people the ability to rise to their own natural level

of ability. A great sage taught, "When you want to rise above others, do not

dig a hole for them, but raise yourself." To keep other people down, you have

to go down with them.

There is a time as a leader that you must step back and invite others to

share the leadership with you. "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do

not care who gets the credit," Harry Truman said. Do not hold onto your

position fearfully by making sure that everyone else in the organization is a

follower. Rather, develop other leaders. Develop leaders of leaders and leaders

of leaders of leaders (Dale Galloway).

Do you need to be needed? Or do you want to be succeeded?

Do you focus on people's weaknesses, or on their strengths?

Do you hoard power, or do you give it away? (John Maxwell).

Once you have set a process in motion, once you have made others in your

organization leaders, then step back. Allow the coalitions that you have built

take on their own momentum. "The best executive is the one who has sense enough

to pick good men to do what he wants done, and the self-restraint enough to keep

from meddling with them while they do it," said Theodore Roosevelt.

If you are weak, you will worry about your job security. If you are

fearful, you will resist this change. If you lack a feeling of self-worth, you

will feel threatened by the idea of giving others credit. The paradox, however,

is that by giving away your authority, you gain even more.

You actively see to it that you have created potential leaders who will be

able to take your place when you leave the organization. You have truly been a

great leader when you have made it possible for the organization to do great

things without you.

Ultimately, when you become a leader, you give up the right to think about

yourself. 21. You realize that you are in a position of responsibility, and that

what counts is not how you hold on to power, but how you do your best for your

organization. Because you are a leader with integrity, a leader with a moral

compass, you have gone beyond one-upmanship and power plays for their own sake.

Because you are a leader with a conscience and a vision, you are no longer bound

and limited by a constant concern for keeping others beneath you.

Congratulations! You have entered the freedom zone.



Chapter Three: Wiping Out–And Getting Back on the Wave

The surfer is angling alongside the wave, when she notices before her a

"section"–part of the wave is "closing out," or breaking prematurely. The

chances of a vicious wipe-out are good. The prudent surfer cuts her losses by

"straightening off," ceases her angling along the wave and heads straight for

the beach. The surfer controlled her entire ride–she controlled as much as she

could–but circumstances changed, disastrously so, and she had to cut her losses

as best she could.

Other times, for many reasons, the surfer wipes out. Waves are not tame

beasts. There can always be a surprise: an unexpected undertow, a shift in the

wind, uneven ocean floor–all of these can turn a ride into a spill. If the

surfer puts too much weight on the front of the surfboard, it will pearl, or

dive–result: wipe-out. A surfer might be "caught inside"–inside the breaking

waves–and notice that she is about to be crashed by another surfboard. There is

only one safe response, and that is to dive into the water.

What knocks a leader off their wave? What are the conditions to look out

for–in yourself, in your organization, in outside forces? How can you keep from

wiping out when others around you are wiping out? And if you do wipe out, if

your ride on the wave does end prematurely–even disastrously–how do you get back

on the wave? How do you intelligently respond and rebound?

What are some warning signs that disaster is looming?

1. Don't Lose Your Head

The surfer functions in a wild, uncontrolled environment. One element of

that environment is the existence of treacherous rip tides, a powerful current,

almost like an independent river, that pulls the surfer out to sea. This

current can be deadly. But its deadliness lies more in the reaction of the

surfer than in the rip tide itself. The surfer may typically panic and begin

paddling back to shore frantically. Such a response is useless and will quickly

tire the surfer out. At last, he may find himself far from shore, worn out and

unable to continue.

If the surfer keeps their head, there are two ways in which they can

easily escape the rip tide. The first is to paddle perpendicular to the

direction of the rip tide. Soon enough, they will pop out of the current, and

be able to return to shore. Or even if this fails, they should simply conserve

his strength and allow the rip tide to carry them out to sea. Sooner rather



than later, the rip tide will peter out. At this point, not having frittered

away their energy, the surfer will find it relatively easy to return to shore.

The leader too functions in a wild, untrammeled environment. They may

suddenly find themselves being pulled out to dangerous depths. It is vital that

the leader not panic, that they not merely react, but with foreknowledge and

self-control, respond intelligently. To do so, the leader must have information

and calm nerves. They must possess the self-confidence that will make it

possible for them to keep his wits about him. Even as events seem to be

careening out of control, they must be calm, deliberate and assured.

In battle, the difference between a live soldier and a dead soldier may be

very simple: the soldier who remains alive is the one who, when under attack,

took deliberate, slow breaths, so as not to react in fear and panic. The

soldier who mindlessly responds is unlikely to survive. It is no different in

the world of leadership. The wilder and more bewildering circumstances, the

more must the leader slow down, acting with deliberation and even wisdom. In

Rudyard Kipling's famous words,

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,

And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;

If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with triumph and disaster

And treat those two imposters just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,

And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings



And never breath a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,

And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

2. Losing Focus

A surfer riding the wave is–must be–intensely focused. As soon as she

loses her focus, as soon as she is not intensely alive to the necessity of

keeping just a bit ahead of the breaking wave, she flounders and wipes out. The

lesson is stark and obvious. Lack of focus equals disaster. The relationship

is not as clear-cut in leadership. Yet it is just as inevitable. A leader who

loses focus is on the way to wiping out.

Life at the top can be distracting. It can be accompanied by highly

pleasant trappings: a phenomenal salary, fame, adulation. To get to the top, to

become a leader, the CEO or senator or general had to be intensely focused on

their goal. Now, when they have reached the ability to truly pursue that goal,

they are in danger of spinning out–losing control of the surfboard.

Another corollary of the failure to keep one's vision focused is the shift

from viewing the larger picture to concentrating on details, to getting involved

in management rather than in leadership, and bad management at that, management

that does not allow your people to be as independently productive as they can

be–and have been, in order for you to have reached your present level. Instead

of having your "eye on the prize," you can start to focus on trivialities, on

incidentals. You can take care of the pennies, but find that the dollars are

far from taking care of themselves. The leader can lose sight of the fact that

his principle task is to lead, and that jobs that can be done as well by others



should in fact be given to those others. Do whatever it takes, but do not do

what someone can take.

Related to this, as you lose focus, you can substitute for your vision an

emphasis on activity: activity that generates movement, but not the grand sweep

toward your desired goal. It is as though the surfer began concentrating on

moves within riding the wave, such as "hitting the lip" or performing a

"floater" but forgot the central goal of riding alongside the breaking wave.

They temporarily impressive maneuvers are only the entree to an even more

impressive spill. Similarly, the leader might lose touch with their character,

with who they really are, from which flowed original vision of what they

want to be. When the leader now substitutes activity, no matter how grand, for

the earlier openness to their character and vision, they will soon be taking a

fall. Besides anything else, it is your character that will give you staying

power. When your job is difficult and the goal elusive, and the hardships and

stumbling blocks close to overwhelming, it is the self-discipline of your

character that keeps you going. With character, leadership grows easier to

sustain, as your leadership attracts the best people and the best in those

people. Without character, leadership grows increasingly difficult, as you lose

your vision and you lose the loyal support of worthy colleagues and

subordinates.

A leader must have the focus of dreams and passion. A leader must have

the focus of core values and priorities. A leader must have the focus of self-

awareness. And a leader must have the focus of a healthy balance of elements

within their own life.

3. Poor Communication

"If you can't convince them, confuse them," said Harry Truman. And if you

do not maintain a clear sense of your goals, short-, medium and long-term, then

you will not have a vision to clear communicate to those about you. The upshot

will be that they will be confused, because, behind all your dynamism and formal

title, you yourself are confused. You may find that your communications, once

crisp and unambiguous, have now grown turgid, vague, filled with cloudy tufts of

words that have no clear meaning and focus. When you are not clear about your

goals, no one else will be either.

Sometimes the leader grows arrogant. They begin to believe that their

subordinates should of their own accord understand what they want. "Don't do

what I say. Do what I meant to say, and think that I said." When those about



them grow confused and tentative, rather than re-examine their own

miscommunication, they grow angry at them, thus exacerbating the poor

communication.

Start with a vision and continue with that vision. In all your leadership

communications, that vision should be at the core, whether overtly or covertly.

"You can have brilliant ideas," Lee Iacocca stated, "but if you can't get them

across, your ideas won't get anywhere." When you maintain your vision, your

communication is bound to reflect its clarity.

4. Fear

One reason for the breakup of the Beatles was, paradoxically, their

tremendous success. It became an overpowering burden. Every new musical effort

of theirs was judged by superhumanly exalted standards of success, based on what

they had previously achieved. It is no wonder that for his first solo album,

Paul McCartney released tunes that he had created while doodling about on a home

music studio, and John Lennon released a poorly recorded live album of himself

playing old rock hits, and featuring Yoko Ono doing extended screaming solos.

It was a relief to be able to produce something without having to live up to

incredibly high standards, to be able to fool around, to be able to fail.

But as a leader, you cannot indulge in failure. Nor can you be frozen by

your previous triumphs, afraid to take a step forward, lest this time you don't

succeed. When a leader is more concerned about avoiding risk than she is about

carrying her organization forward, then she is on the way to wiping out. Her

leadership grows stereotyped, the innovation and originality that marked her

career heretofore are replaced by rigid and repetitious patterns. Like a film

studio that, having produced a smash hit, insists on reproducing that same type

of film over and over again, so does the leader frozen by fear cease to take

reasonable risks, and her prudence is overtaken by paralysis.

There is a Navajo tale about the fox who grew afraid that his

peregrinations would accidentally lead him into the territory of the mountain

lion, which would devour him. Therefore, the fox ceased his long ambles, but

restricted himself to the same exact route, day after day. His path became so

trodden and worn that it attracted the attention of the mountain lion, which

otherwise would have been unaware of the fox. And so the fox's desire to avoid

risk created the very calamity that he had hoped to avoid. "The dancing fox

eludes the lion's claws. The cautious fox displays his weaknesses."



5. The Loss of Ethics

The ways that a surfer can exhibit a lamentable lack of ethics is quite

specific and limited. The most egregious crime is to take the wave that

etiquette demands should have gone to someone else. No matter how technically

proficient that surfer is, he will no longer have the good will and cooperation

of others. It is hard to ride a wave triumphantly when the people around you do

not even let you get to the best waves.

A leader can display a lack of integrity in many ways. They can act

dishonestly, violating the ethical position that they have modeled until this

point. Honesty can give way to shoddy tactics, a corporate environment of

telling the customer the truth can be replaced by falsehood and dishonesty.

Perhaps you think that you can replace character and integrity with charisma.

That will work for a limited amount of time. But ultimately, those around you

will see clearly the gap between what you do and what you are. When you lack

integrity, your ability to maintain meaningful relationships will be vitiated.

Your relationship with those about you will become merely manipulative. You

will move people around like chess pieces, and believe that you are exercising

leadership skills. Your entire leadership career will become a matter of

manipulating people: manipulating them through fear, the hope to gain wealth,

the hope to gain influence. Your leadership will grow less and less attached to

values, until it will be an evanescent soap bubble of charisma, floating

aimlessly, only able to make a good impression, but unable to accomplish

anything positive and meaningful on its own. (This observation must be tempered

with the observation made earlier that at times toughness of leadership can

demand a certain amount of manipulation of others.)

Integrity promotes excellence. Lack of integrity in you will result in an

organization full of people who lack integrity. Integrity long, bright and hot,

like blazing logs on a campfire. Lack of integrity can flare momentarily, and

then leave everyone in darkness. Anderson is such an example. It flared with

ersatz success for a brief moment before crashing to utter ruin.

As a leader, do you have certain core beliefs that, you see, you violate

in your actions? Have you fudged and compromised your values for the sake of

perceived successes? When you take a shortcut and do not stand by your own code

of ethics, everyone notices. And that tactic that seemed to help this time

around will later be used against you by others, who will see that lack of

integrity as your weak spot. Therefore, always take stock of your beliefs and



your actions. When your actions do not square with your beliefs, remind

yourself that the ends do not justify the means–and that in the long run, action

without integrity will throw you from the wave.

6. Proper Care and Maintenance of the Leader

When stewards and stewardesses deliver their set speech on what actions to

take in case of an emergency, they always say that you should always put on your

own oxygen mask before putting on that of your child. Why? Because should you

only last long enough to put a mask on your child before you succumb, you will

no longer be available to help him; whereas if you put on your own mask first,

then even if your child has succumbed, you can still do things to save him.

Leaders must take care of themselves. As a leader, you are not

invincible, invulnerable or the possessor of super-strength. True, you might

have the drive that keeps you in the office almost twenty-four hours a day.

Perhaps at intense periods, you even slept in the office, living on little more

than caffeine and adrenalin. Nevertheless, you are a mortal like all others,

and with the frailties shared by all mortals.

This, unfortunately, is a truism that might not be recognized by your

subordinates, who may see you as having super-human stamina and drive. You

cannot rely on those who look up to you, idealize you and depend upon your

energy and vision to be aware when you are running on empty, running on fumes,

and, despite your on-going display of energy, liable to collapse instantly and

suddenly.

You yourself must be the one to manage yourself, to replenish yourself.

Dedicated as you may be to your organization, there are other areas of your life

that need attention as well: your physical health, your emotional well-being and

your spiritual amplitude. Without these, you are on the way to being thrown

from the wave. Sometimes the best attention you can give to your leadership is

to set it temporarily aside in order to renew and revivify your depleted

wellsprings.

7. The Lost Spark

Is your love-light extinguished? A couple comes to a marriage counselor

with the complaint that their marriage is in trouble. No one has done anything

egregious, but it is no longer pleasant, in fact it is quite dull. Things get

taken seen to, children are cared for, social engagements are met, and



everything seems to be going fine, except that it isn't. The marriage counselor

takes them back to the time that they were engaged and newly-wed. How were

their feelings then? Loving, hopeful, excited, ecstatic, optimistic, joyful.

What did they envision then? A life together, a life of companionship and

intimacy, sharing strengths and sorrows. Perhaps, suggests the marriage

counselor, they are no longer living the life that had been their goal and

passion during the courtship and the first years of their marriage. Although

they are doing everything correctly, they no longer recall why they married.

Everything is taken care of but the core of their lives.

Are you that sort of a leader? You have been in your position so long,

you are so accustomed to the daily responsibilities of your office, you know so

well how to take care of things and see to things, that you do not even

recognize that there was once a dream, and that you have lost it. Think back to

that dream and reclaim it, for without it, your leadership is in jeopardy. If

you are not enjoying your leadership role, if it has grown wearisome and stale,

perhaps what is wrong is not the role but the fact that the vision that gave it

light and heat is flickering. Rekindle and strengthen that light. Ask

yourself, Why did I become a leader? Rekindle the vision that will give your

leadership strength, commitment and long-lasting stamina.

On a smaller scale, this scenario can play out in the course of every

project. All new beginnings are in a sense easy. There is the excitement of

the new, there is the initial impetus, the glittering plans and golden

expectations. Leaders, teams and staff dream of the goal and of attaining that

goal steadily and without too much difficulty. But then–and it should be no

surprise, although often it is–the project runs into difficulties. There are

unexpected complexities, sudden shifts in the environment, the realization of

difficult realities, and new challenges and obstacles that must be overcome

before returning to the original long-term goal.

This can be especially daunting for the leader. You asked for information

and help, but it is not forthcoming. The teams you are leading are not working

with harmonious efficiency. In fact, they are embroiled in conflict and bitter

feelings. People are feeling discouraged; cynics are gaining people's ears.

Your project is about to lose all momentum and slide into the slough.

This is a dangerous moment as, in the middle of your efforts, the critics,

the pessimists, the skeptics all emerge to predict your doom and failure. It is

here that those who fear change see that a tangible change is approaching. This

itself is a setback to your project and a regrettable diversion of your time and

energy. But–of course, you already anticipated this, or at least, were prepared



for the unexpected. And so you apply yourself to work through these issues as

well.

So do not drift off into oblivion along with an embattled project.

Instead, revisit your original mission, take stock of what has been accomplished

and what still remains to be done, and turn the conflict of your teams into a

harmonious group of people with different strengths and viewpoints working

toward a common goal.

Whether or not you do so will determine whether or not you are likely to

ride the wave to its end.

8. Expect the Unexpected

The Great Wall of China was a project undertaken over 2000 years ago. It

is not clear how long xx thought that the project would take. It was a massive

undertaking, involving the labor of hundreds of thousands of slaves. Perhaps he

thought it might take a few decades, as much as fifty years. As it turned out

there were a number of delays and, no doubt, cost overruns. It was fully xx

before the Great Wall of China was at last completed.

Generally, projects do not overrun quite so extravagantly. But it is true

that forecasts almost invariably fall short. A perspicacious leader takes this

fact into account–especially when they are innovating a new and untested

program. They recognize that there may be significant overruns of cost and

time. They realize that there might be significant deviations from the original

plans.

What happens if the leader is rigid? Then they are more concerned with

schedule than with progress, more dedicated to cost containment than to

achievement. She ceases to be a leader and becomes instead a manager. Worst of

all, they become poor judges of those around them. Although on the one hand

they expect innovation, on the other hand they expect people to deliver the

goods according to a strictly preconceived schedule, one that could not possibly

have taken into account many factors, since those factors were not yet known.

Such a leader is headed for a fall. They were able to get on the wave with a

grand proposal. But if they are not open to the unexpected, if they cannot

adjust to the volatile, they will soon be cast down from the wave.

When you encounter a problem, do not freeze in your tracks. Make

adjustments and continue forward. When your clear path disappears into the

depths of darkness and brambles, do not panic. Take note of your new

circumstances, adjust accordingly and proceed. As much as you can beforehand,



anticipate the unexpected; plan for digressions from your initial forecast.

Most of all, though, be prepared to encounter and even to welcome the

unexpected.

By definition, a successful organization must be flexible, must be dynamic

and developing. In the midst of a dynamic environment, only an ever-changing

organization will survive and thrive. A static organization that does not engage

in experimentation and innovation is doomed to failure. This was the case with

IBM when it slowly sank into the past, with all its staff neatly dressed in

three piece suits and white shirts, clinging to a vision of a calm and stable

environment. The goal of the leader therefore is not to seek out equilibrium.

It is to continue looking for new organizational structures and processes. When

things are coming along fine, the leader who knows how to ride the wave is

already looking for ways to change and improve them.

In the days of the horse and buggy, change took place at a sedate, horse

and buggy pace. Today, change is the basic reality we live in, not a

permutation of our reality. Almost as swiftly as the pixels flickering on our

computer screens, it seems, our environments, our cultures, our economic and

geopolitical verities transform themselves instantaneously. The leader moves

with these changes, while at the same time keeping before themselves the

unchanging goal. There may no longer be an unwavering path beneath one's feet,

a path that has been trodden by generations following generations. But there is

still an unwavering star that can serve as a leader's goal. The pole star of

integrity, character, achievement and success still stands firmly fixed in the

sky.

9. The Bold Stroke

Sometimes a surfer executes a sudden, dramatic move. He may fade, taking

off against the shape of the wave, and then turn back the other way. Or, more

acutely, in a cutback, he may reverse his direction completely. When

undertaking such a dramatic move, the surfer must keep the larger context in

mind: advancing on the wave.

A leader too may wish to exercise his power by undertaking bold strokes:

sudden changes of direction, reorganization, streamlining or changing the focus

of the organization.

Sometimes, however, taking bold strokes is not truly the mark of

leadership but the display of the symbols of leadership. It is a substitute for

what must truly be gained. Like fades and cutbacks, these movements result in



swift change. However, they do not necessarily benefit the organization in the

long run. They only are useful if the leader, like the surfer, keeps the larger

context in mind. This bold stroke must be part of a long-term strategy to push

the organization forward–not a tactical substitute for real growth and change.

And such a bold stroke is certainly of little value if it is used to address an

underlying problem in a superficial manner, solving a problem only temporarily

and even then perhaps only apparently.

But even if that is not the case, there is another drawback to bold

strokes. A leader does not effect change on their own: They must influence a

great many people to shift their paradigms and actions as well. Often, a bold

stroke leaves others behind. Other members of the organization do not

participate in this action, nor does it enhance their understanding of how the

organization is to proceed. To the contrary, a bold stroke may at times be

little more than a distraction and disturbance to those essential subordinates

and colleagues upon whom the leader so heavily relies.

The leader should in the majority of cases eschew the flashy, snazzy,

attention-garnering maneuver for the on-going, sustained effort of the entire

organization. It may feel good in the short run, but ultimately it is (in most

cases) more agitating than assistive.



Chapter 4: The Terrorist Wave

The world is now facing a large wave of terrorism. How will countries and

administrations deal with this massive wave that affects one’s basic freedom of

security?

George W. Bush: Suddenly, a Leader

Andrew Jackson famously stated that "one man with courage makes a

majority." Sometimes it is not one man among many. At times, it may be one

country among others. The months following the enormity that has become known

simply as 9/11 saw a world, and more particularly, an America, reeling with an

air of dazed confusion. Who America had been attacked by, what to do or not to

do, questions of strategy, prudence, disguised venality and cowardice posing as

statesmanship, tinged the political air.

And at the head of the America government was a man who many critized as

having no vision, no compelling force, in foreign policies. He was blamed by

the media for his lack of understanding on foreign issues, for an inability to

cite one instance to recall the name of the leader of Pakistan. George W.

Bush's lack of "gravitas" had become the cliche and accepted wisdom of pundits

and politicians alike.

Some men are quietly great. Faced with no particular crises, they forward

their agendas quietly, so unobtrusively that their contemporaries and historical

review offer them little appreciation. Such was the case with Present William

McKinley, who has been described by William Rove, advisor to George W. Bush, as

one of the great, unacknowledged presidents of the United States.

Some men, thrust onto the stage of greatness, cannot rise beyond

themselves. Adequate, perhaps outstanding, at what they had been before, they

are overwhelmed by their limitations. A man who had been corrupt uses the

privileges and possibilities of his office to engage in even greater corruption.

A man who could deal with the pressures of a lower level position is

overwhelmed. He loses his sense of purpose and his ability to stick up for his

principles in the face of what is for him unbearable pressure. But some rare

men find that the pressure of new circumstances brings out the best in them,



brings out that which had been hidden deeply within them, or even brings forth

and creates something that had not yet existed within them.

Such was the case, states Norman Podhoretz, with George W. Bush. Before

9/11 an indifferent president with no discernable foreign policy , President

Bush was transformed to a forceful, visionary leader, a leader with a foreign

policy based not on expediency but on principle, based not on shifting political

strategy, but on moral clarity.

Norman Podhoretz calls this new vision of George W. Bush the Bush

Doctrine, and he discerns in it four principles.

The first principle is a rejection of moral relativism. This attitude was

introduced with Bush's description of terrorist states as an "axis of evil."

Bush took a firm stand, not waffling indecisively or substituting unctuous

diplomatic phrases for a stark differentiation between good and evil.

The second principle is the recognition that terrorism is not merely the

expression of individual criminals or groups akin to organized crime mobs.

Terrorism is sponsored by terrorist states entities that resemble normal

governments. And thus to attack terrorism it is necessary to militarily attack

those governments that sponsor and produce terrorists.

The third principle is that America does not have to wait to be attacked

by an unambiguous enemy in order to take action. America does not need evidence

considered to be given the stamp of "material" by the representatives of

dictatorships in the United Nations before it will act.

The fourth principle, claims Podhoretz (although whether this is ongoing

is open to debate) is that after initially claiming substantive differences

between Israel's struggle with Palestinian terrorism and America's struggle with

Al Qaeda, George W. Bush saw the two as essentially one battle against a common

enemy.

At every step of the way, the Bush Doctrine has faced opposition, carping

and ridicule. Not only is the Bush Doctrine attacked on practical terms, but as

the product of a man lacking sophistication, a man with a dangerously simple

mind tinged with old-fashioned rigidities that can lead to unnecessary military

adventurism. To this way of thinking, Bush's greatest gaffe has been to refer

to Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an axis of evil. The concept of evil is seen

as an outmoded concept, fit to be relegated to the dustbin of history together

with superstition, bigotry, religion, patriotism and moral absolutes.

Yet President Bush has persisted on his course and thus done more than

confound his critics: he has gained respect, be it unspoken and grudging, both

domestically and internationally.



What has President Bush done right?

Like the surfer controlling the direction of the surfboard, not merely

allowing the wave make the choices for him, President Bush has shown that he has

a long-term vision. The man who originally lacked "the vision thing" now began

making forceful speeches that showed determination, clarity, vision and

direction. "The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and

the great hope of every time, now depends on us," he stated. "Our nation, this

generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our

future. We ill rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage.

We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

Like the proficient surfer hanging tough in order to stay on the wave,

President Bush abjured the moral fuzziness of previous administrations and of

other world leaders to state starkly, "Every nation in every region now has a

decision to make: either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

Now, like the surfer riding on an unpredictable, wild sea, President Bush

must demonstrate great adaptive capacity. Already we have seen him falter when,

in his desire for coalition-building, he has pressured Israel to refrain from

self-protective measures and has cozied up to such sponsors of terrorism and

anti-American hatred as Syria and Saudi Arabia. The situation promises to grow

ever more difficult and complex as Al Qaeda and its alliances change, and as

geopolitical facts develop.

And, like the surfer paddling out to sea, President Bush will as all

presidents do have to endure the grueling, unending pressure of daily events and

put forth the maximum effort needed for the day to day business that provide the

context for successful operations.

Protecting the Homeland – Was the FBI at the Beach?

In regard to homeland security, there is not so demonstrably one man in

charge of a general policy. As of now, that policy seems at best conflicted and

sometimes simply incompetent. Let us look at some instances of homeland

security procedures and analyze them in terms of the leadership skills of those

implementing policy.

The role of the FBI in homeland security is curiously ineffective inept to

the point of obstructive. John Muhammad, alleged sniper in the DC area in the

fall of 2002, had previously been reported to the FBI for alleged terrorist

links on two occasions. Yet this information was ignored.



On the Fourth of July, 2002, after numerous warning that terrorist might

use the symbolism of the day to perpetrate a terrorist attack, an Egyptian

immigrant at the Israeli airline counter at Los Angeles International Airport

pulled out a gun and murdered two Israeli Jews before being gunned down by

security forces. The immigrant, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, entered the airport

carrying a .45 caliber semiautomatic Glock pistol, a 9 millimeter Glock handgun

and a six inch hunting knife, as well as extra ammunition and magazines. He

grew infuriated at the sight of American and Marine Corps flags in the balcony

above his apartment building, which had been put up after September 11. He went

up to the airline counter of El Al, Israel's national airline, and began

shooting.

The FBI's response to these facts was that, in the words of special agent

Richard Garcia, "It appears to be an isolated event....There is still no

indication that it is tied to anything that may be going on in the country."

The events of 9/11 seemingly caused no change in the attitude of the FBI

since it had insisted that the murderer of Meir Kahane, Egyptian El Sayyid

Nosair, was also an isolated murderer. Since then, it has been demonstrated

conclusively that he was a member of the terrorist group that bombed the World

Trade Center in 1993 and that, had he been sufficiently investigated at the

time, that bombing might well have been averted.

More than this, the FBI has actually obstructed investigation of terror

suspects, to such a degree that field agents suspected key officials at FBI

headquarters to be "spies or moles...working for Osama bin Laden."

As reported in news stories in May, 2002, before September 11, FBI

officials in Washington frustrated an investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui at

that time a flight school student. More unbelievable still, after the events of

September 11, these officials, under the direction of Mueller, attempted to stop

field agents from linking Moussaoui with the terrorist hijackers. In the words

of whistle-blower Coleen Rowley, the FBI's chief lawyer in the Minneapolis field

office, "I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading and skewing of

facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and

is occurring."

And she reported that even after the September 11 attacks had occurred, a

supervising agent in Washington "was still attempting to block the search of

Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere

coincidence with Minneapolis's prior suspicions about Moussaoui."

From 1994 to pre-9/11, the United States intelligence had learned of a

dozen plots involving scenarios similar to what occurred on 9/11, some



specifically mentioning the Twin Towers and the White House as targets. In the

weeks preceding 9/11, the CIA learned that in Afghanistan "everyone is talking

about an impending attack." Yet in May of 2001, Condoleezza Rice stated, "I

don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an

airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." According to then Senate

Majority Leader Tom Daschle, both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney

lobbied him "not to investigate the events of September 11" an investigation

that would include looking at the related activities of the FBI.

And the improvement of homeland security has been lax, at best, as has

been made shockingly clear with the release of the report, "America Still

Unprepared America Still in Danger," the result of a bipartisan task force

headed by Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, with the involvement of leading

politicians, strategists and FBI agents. The report concludes that "the next

attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to

American lives and the economy.

Action can only be undertaken with proper Federal funding. "The states

are in dire straits and the federal government has to step in," says Mr. Rudman.

"We have to do something: give up a tax cut, pay a surcharge, something. This

is a damn war we're involved in. We can't expect all this to materialize out of

the air." Yet this money has not materialized whether out of the air or

otherwise. Although it is estimated that $2 billion is needed to adequately

police US ports, only $92 million dollars 5% of the necessary amount has been

allocated by the Federal government.

In this area, men like Robert Mueller, FBI Director fail the test of

leadership on two main points.

They are not able to expect the unexpected. They lack the vision to see

not only the future, but the present as well. They are stuck in a present way

of being that has now no longer even exists: the reality that existed before

September 11. Their understanding of present challenges and of possible future

challenges and crises is woefully out of sync with present reality.

H.G. Wells told the story of a man who awoke one morning to find that he

was seeing the landscape of some island unknown to him, and was unable to see

his actual surroundings. In the same way, these people look at present-day

reality and unlike H.G. Wells's unfortunate character appear to be seeing it.

But instead they are looking at an altogether different landscape.

The imaginations of these people has been beggared by the reality of

events, events so outlandish that they conceptually have been unable to accept

them. They cannot accept that life in the United States is no longer safe; that



there is a real threat; that there can be men as bent on the murder and torment

of Americans as are the leaders and operatives in the extremist Moslem network;

and that these men can be so ruthless and resourceful. Like Neville Chamberlain

standing at the airport with his umbrella, incapable of understanding the evil

that Adolf Hitler represented, these people as well fail to realize that reality

has changed: that the United States is in the midst of a war that is being

fought with new rules, mercilessness, cunning and effectiveness on the part of

the enemy. They fail to understand that there is nothing nice, rational,

reasonable, pleasant or self-effacing that anyone can do to avert this

situation.

In the words of Senator Gary Hart, there's "no sense of urgency, and we

have slipped back into business as usual."

These men are riding a wave that is breaking up about them. Huge freak

waves threaten to crash down upon their heads. Before them, the wave they are

riding has crashed down and will violently pull them down. Everything is

suddenly violently unexpected: rip currents, submerged rocks, winds ripping into

and distorting the sea and serenely these leaders continue surfing, looking and

acting as if they have picked the most tranquil day of the year and are riding a

benign, typical wave.

And they are involved in the great cover-up. Those who lived through the

final years of the Vietnam War recall vividly how often the claim of national

security was prostituted to cover up incompetence and misadventure. Here too

humans being humans there is the appearance of lack of candor based not on

national but on self-protective grounds. No doubt to many a leader the

statement, "I have sinned" seems as difficult and self-destructive as leaping

out a window. But to those watching such a leader's performance, his inability

to make that statement resembles the dilemma of a man trapped in a burning

building who is frightened to jump out of the window to his safety.

A surfer who tried to conceal an error so vigorously that they lost

cognizance of their present situation on the waves would not last more than a

few seconds before wiping out. An organizational leader will last longer but

the result will be the same: wipe out. Sometimes, however, it is the

organization that experiences the wipe out, while the leader continues surfing.

Rudolph Giuliani: The Blood, Sweat and Tears of a New Yorker

Even more than President Bush, Rudolph Giuliani, then-mayor of New York,

embodied for Americans and the world the strongest values of leadership, as he



strove to lead a shattered New York through its grief and to renewed optimism

after September 11.

But even before that tragic date, Rudolph's extraordinary career presaged

his elevation to the status of a world leader.

As a New York prosecutor in the 1980s, Giuliani was one of the most

successful prosecutors in the country, with a record of only 25 reversals out of

4,152 convictions.

His accomplishments as Mayor were equally impressive. Strongly focused on

concrete goals, he succeeded beyond New Yorkers' fondest expectations in

reducing New York's burgeoning crime statistics and reviving New York's fiscal

health. Within two years, Giuliani reduced crime by a third and murder almost

in half. He went on to reduce crime to a full two-thirds of what it had been in

the days of the previous Dinkins administration. He reduced or eliminated twenty

three taxes (lowering taxes by $2.5 million dollars), created a record number of

jobs, and lowered the personal income tax. He redeveloped vast sections of the

city, boosted property values, privatized city assets and functions, and cut the

welfare rolls in half (removing 691,000 recipients).

And he achieved all this as a conservative Republican in a city whose city

council is 45 to 6 Democratic.

Rudolph Giuliani had a bold, aggressive style of leadership. "People

didn't elect me to be a conciliator," he stated. "They wanted someone who was

going to change this place. How do you expect me to change it if I don't fight

with somebody?"

And confrontation, turmoil and anger there was. Even as Rudy Giuliani

brought about the remarkable results cited above, his approval ratings plunged

to 32%, as he grew embroiled in caustic confrontations. He was considered

obstreperous, authoritarian, controlling, easily angered, politically

vindictive. Giuliani himself reflected, following September 11, "I spent my

first seven and three-fourths years as mayor living out my father's advice that

it's better to be respected than loved. But I had forgotten the last part of

what he used to say: 'Eventually, you will love me.'"

That love did not come until after September 11.

One reason that Giuliani was so effective at that time was that he had

anticipated it and prepared for it. With the memory of the attack on the World

Trade Center by Muslim terrorists in 1993 (before his term as mayor), Giuliani

created an Office of Emergency Management, whose emergency command center was

ridiculed as "Rudy's bunker." He increased security around City Hall, and held



drills in preparation for possible anthrax attacks, truck bombs and poison-gas

releases. Although the command center was destroyed by the September 11 attack,

Rudy Giuliani was already prepared psychologically and with information.

And, even more important: those traits that had irritated and angered New

Yorkers when Rudy had been mayor now found their proper element. Now he was

seen as a strong and dynamic leader, taking firm control, providing direction

and policy, and leading the city back to normality. But it was not only a

strong personality that made him a consummate leader at this time: it was also a

warmth that had been largely hidden from public view until that time, an

unwavering optimism and a clear moral vision.

Rudolph Giuliani arrived at the World Trade Center just after the second

plane hit the towers, and saw people leaping to their deaths. When the second

tower imploded, Giuliani and his staff were nearly trapped and inside their

makeshift command center. "There were times when I was afraid," Giuliani later

said. "Everybody was. But the concentration was on. If I don't do what I have

to do, everything falls apart." When they tried escaping through the basement,

but found that the doors were locked, "that's when I kept saying to myself,

you’ve got to keep your head, and you've just got to keep thinking, What's the

most sensible thing to do next? Something I learned a long time ago, also from

my father, is that the more emotional thing get, the calmer you have to become

to figure your way out."

When they finally succeeded in breaking out, Giuliani led a group of city

officials, reporters and civilians north through the soot that was called "gray

snow," and reinstated a makeshift government center in a firehouse whose door a

detective forced open. From here, Rudolph Giuliani took to the air waves to calm

New Yorkers, and then made a few hundred decisions about security and rescue

operations.

Giuliani himself suffered personal tragedy. Many of the senior police

officers that he saw on a daily basis were all dead, killed in the line of duty.

Terry Hatton, husband of Beth Patrone-Hatton, Giuliani's executive assistant,

was dead as well. But Giuliani did not falter. "He was probably the mot 'on' I

have ever seen him," Patrone-Hatton later recalled. "On the one hand, he was

devastated, destroyed. He knew he'd lost a lot of friends. But he also knew he

had to calm the city down....It was so well-orchestrated that you would have

thought he had prepared for it forever."

Giuliani was busy making more policy decisions. He toured hospitals,

comforting those grieving for their missing relatives, and returned to the site

of the attack another four times.



As he did so, in his mind Giuliani turned back to another great leadership

for guidance: Winston Churchill, who led England through the dark years of World

War II. "I was so proud of the people I saw on the street," he recalled. "No

chaos, but they were frightened and confused, and it seemed to me that they

needed to hear from my heart where I thought we were going. I was trying to

think, Where can I go for some comparison to this, some lessons about how to

handle it? So I started thinking about Churchill, starting thinking that we're

going to have to rebuild the spirit of the city, and what better example than

Churchill and the people of London during the Blitz in 1940, who had to keep up

their spirit during this sustained bombing? It was a comforting thought."

That night, when Giuliani went to bed at 2:30 a.m., he picked up a newly-

published biography, Churchill, by Roy Jenkins. He turned to the chapters on

World War II and read them eagerly, particularly Churchill's vigorous words.

The next day, Giuliani became the man whose words kept a city from falling

apart, whose words comforted and strengthened, consoled and inspired not only

New Yorkers but millions of Americans. His tone was strong and confident.

"Tomorrow New York is going to be here," he said, "and we're going to rebuild,

and we're going to be stronger than we were before...I want the people of New

York to be an example to the rest of the country, and the rest of the world,

that terrorism can't stop us."

Months later, when asked if he had truly been as optimistic as he had

sounded, Giuliani replied, "In a crisis, you have to be optimistic. When I said

the spirit of the city would be stronger, I didn't know that. I just oped it.

There are parts of you that say; maybe we're not going to get through this. You

don't listen to them."

Giuliani was in fact, if not in title, America's chief of homeland

security. He made tough decisions (he decided to re-open the Stock Exchange and

other major institutions), acted as crisis manager (bringing together scores of

organizations to cooperate with each other), and gave a human face and eloquence

to America's leadership and response.

Roy Jenkins, author of the book that Giuliani had read the first night of

the crisis said that "what Giuliani succeeded in doing is what Churchill

succeeded in doing in the dreadful summer of 1940: he managed to create an

illusion that we were bound to win."

In the weeks to come, Giuliani showed himself to be not only an

inspirational leader but a man intimately involved with the details of recovery.

He dealt with everything from structural engineering to using DNA on

toothbrushes to identify bodies.



And he not only reacted to the attack that had occurred, but planned

readiness procedures for possible attacks to come. As he later said, "I think we

have to assume that in both cases the terror attacks on the World Trade Center

and the anthrax, which may be either terrorists or nuts we're not finished with

them. We have to assume that they are going to do other things." Before any

anthrax spores had been sent to media targets around Manhattan, Giuliani

convened meetings with the Centers for Disease Control and the FBI to discuss

the threat of anthrax, in the process gaining more expertise on the subject than

either Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge or Human Services Secretary Tommy

Thompson had.

And Giuliani spoke and acted in ways that showed a firm moral clarity and

courage that many other leaders at that time lacked. He visited a terrorist-

struck Israel to demonstrate support. And a month after September 11, he

returned a $10 million check from Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, who

accompanied his payment with the suggestion that America retreat from its

support for Israel.

And at the same time, Giuliani found the time to help and comfort

individuals. He tracked down Terry Hatton's dental records and razor so that a

positive identification of his body could be made. He made sure to give his own

children attention, attending his son's football games and daughter's school

play. In Giuliani's last conversation with his father, they had spoken about

courage and fear. "I said to him, 'Were you ever afraid of anything?' He said

to me, 'Always.' He said, 'Courage is being afraid but then doing what you have

to do anyway." Now Giuliani reflected on his own role as a father and mentor,

"It's my job to do for my kids what my father did for me: try to help them

figure out how to deal with fear. How to live life, even though you are afraid."

And he appeared at funerals of those who had died, unannounced, so that

his visits and eulogies meditations on honor, courage, sacrifice and loss would

not become publicity events.

New York City residents reacted to Giuliani's leadership, "He didn't show

any panic. He's on top of things, and I admire that he's giving the city hope

that we can get through this, that we can keep going." And "he's protecting the

city. He is calming us down. I think he has proved to the city that he cares

about us." And he "fields impossible questions from the news media with

humor...He knows each and every subway line."

In retrospect, many people see Rudolph Giuliani as a man whose personality

and leadership style was too strident for daily politics, but found its perfect

medium in the emergency conditions following September 11, a man reminiscent of



Churchill. Giuliani consciously modeled Churchill, even before September 11.

"Imagine," Giuliani once commented during a bid for office, "if while the bombs

were falling on London during the Battle of Britain, Churchill had said, 'You

know this is really beyond our control. We can't do much about this.'" Rudolph

Giuliani was not going to say that this is beyond our control. He was not going

to abdicate in the face of grave existential threats to the city.

But it was not only that Giuliani's strong side found its perfect outlet.

Another side of Giuliani, one that he had not demonstrated in public, also now

emerged: warmth and caring. Giuliani himself expressed such sentiments when he

said that he would devote the last eighteen months of his time in office

breaking down "some of the barriers that maybe I placed. I don't know exactly

how you do that, but I'm going to try very hard." And regarding his previous

pugilistic nature, he stated less than a week after September 11: "All those

little fights we have, they don't mean anything."

Before we analyze Giuliani's leadership strengths and weaknesses, let us

listen to how Giuliani himself views successful leadership.

(1) You must have a set of beliefs. "You can't still be wondering who you

are and where you're going, because you'll get confused and go in all kinds of

directions."

(2) You must become an expert. "When people come to you to ask for advice

and information because you know more about a subject than they do, that's a

sign f great leadership.

(3) Respect others. "People know when you're talking down to them, and

they will not respect you."

(4) Encourage independent thinking. Put together a team of people who

complement your strengths and weaknesses.

In analyzing the leadership style of Rudolph Giuliani, let us first look

at his one glaring weakness: a rough, aggressive style that created enemies and

fostered alienation. This trait was not merely an unfortunate incidental trait

that Giuliani possessed. It was (paradoxically) a trait that had served him

well. "You don't change ingrained human behavior without confrontation,

turmoil, anger," he stated. Yet the success of such a strategy could only be

limited. And Giuliani himself came to realize that it was not always necessary

to be confrontative in order to be effective.

In our surfing analogy, we can say that, until September 11, Rudolph

Giuliani was like a surfer who had not taken care of the fundamentals: choosing

the conditions that will allow him to reach a peak performance. Giuliani had not

set his foundation. He had not learned how to gain people's hearts. True, he



had succeeded famously, and done so with little recourse to Theodore Roosevelt

prescription that "the most important single ingredient in the formula of

success is knowing how to get along with people." But in the opinion of

psychologist Aubrey Immerman, had not September 11 taken place, this roughness

would have caused Rudolph Giuliani's career to catastrophically self-destruct.

Giuliani's persona was dramatically different following September 11. His

speeches were tinged with grief and empathy. He was able to take the warmth

that he possessed and could share privately to the public sphere. He showed

genuine warmth for the citizens of New York and communicated this in his words,

his manner and his actions. He made himself visible, going to funerals,

hospitals, grieving families. Rudolph Giuliani, the crabbed curmudgeon, became

transformed into a "people person." And this gave the people of the city and the

United States what they needed: comfort and resolve. And incidentally, it

gained him a wild adulation that greeted him wherever he has gone, here and

abroad.

Now let us turn to Giuliani's leadership strengths, of which there are

many.

From the start, Giuliani engaged in a leadership style that focused on

precise and concrete goals. He was the surfer who does not let the waves make

his choices for him. He set priorities and bent all the forces of his

organization to meeting them and succeeded brilliantly. He had a vision of what

he wished to accomplish. But this was not only a vision in managerial terms.

Rather, Giuliani had a set of beliefs.

That set of beliefs gave him a strength that took him beyond the

circumstances of his day, a strength that lent his actions and pronouncements

the depth of those things that enter the realm of human posterity. With these

that strength there came an enduring optimism. This was a tenacious view of a

promising future even in the midst of wrenching day-to-day difficulties.

And thus he had moral clarity and the courage that came from his deeply-

felt convictions.

But he did not lose sight of facts, and in addition anticipated problems

and situations, preparing for them even as other people scoffed at him. The

ocean is a wilderness, wild, chaotic, full of surprises. The wise surfer

mentally maps out what he wants to accomplish. He does not hide from possible

difficulties but takes full cognizance of them, and rehearse how he will meet

with every contingency that he might encounter. In the same way, Rudolph

Giuliani was a leader who did not deal with problems that happened to come up.



He was a leader who had already prepared, sometimes years in advance, for

problems that would some future day emerge.

When he took control, he acted as a strong and dynamic leader the

roughness that sometimes showed was the corollary of a dogged determination, a

mental toughness to take on the tasks and achieve the goals that he had set for

himself. Rudolph Giuliani was the surfer who, once on the wave, navigates his

way forward with a laser intensity. All his mind is focused on his task, even

if he must, at times block out the sound of others' advice. The more emotional

the scene became, the more others about lost control of a situation, floundered

or panicked, the more did Rudolph Giuliani focus and grow calm. He was the

surfer riding calmly, navigating a sea of foam and crashing waves.

And Rudolph Giuliani displayed endurance, the endurance of the surfer

paddling out to the wave. "If I don't do it," Rudolph Giuliani knew, "everything

falls apart." He displayed endurance in dealing with personal and communal

grief, and physically, going almost without sleep for days on end.

Like the surfer who must judge the waves and make split-level decisions,

Rudolph Giuliani showed a high measure of adaptive capacity. He gave no sign of

being overwhelmed by events. He always seemed to know exactly what was going on

and what issues needed to be dealt with. He was a detail-oriented, hands-on

manager. He was the surfer who takes into account, respects and deals with

every difficulty, actual or potential, that will be his to deal with, the surfer

who recognizes the changing shape of the wave and adjusts instantly to deal with

the new situation.

To summarize:

Rudolph Giuliani was the surfer who chooses his stretch of beach so that

he knows that his foundation is firm. Rudolph Giuliani created a sense of

warmth, of comfort, in the midst of anguish.

Like the surfer steadily paddling out to the waves, Giuliani displayed

amazing endurance during a time when exhaustion and despair threatened the

stability of the city.

The surfer must know when to jump to his feet and get on the wave: timing

is everything. In the case of Rudolph Giuliani, it was not so much that he

chose the time to act as it was that the time appeared and he was prepared. He

leaped to his feet instantaneously, without hesitation, without musing or a slow

inward gaze, like a Hamlet stained with the sickly hue of irresolution. The

moment chose Rudolph Giuliani, but Rudolph Giuliani chose and made use of his

moment.



The surfer must succeed in riding the wave to the end. Rudolph Giuliani

made sure that he was not thrown by the wave by setting priorities, small and

great, managerial and existential.

The surfer must direct their path, and Rudolph Giuliani directed his path

with firmness and tenacity.

The surfer must have a seemingly infinitely flexible response to the

changing circumstances of the waves. Rudolph Giuliani had that flexibility as

he dealt with the constantly changing conditions of post-catastrophe New York.

And the successful surfer enters the freedom zone, where their are at one

with the wave. Rudolph Giuliani too seemed at one with the situation, entirely

in his element. And, like the surfer who is able to give up preoccupation with

self and experience the ride, Rudolph Giuliani became a seemingly selfless

spokesman and agent for the city. He truly seemed to be, as the mayor is

supposed to be, a servant of the people. And because he dedicated himself so

fully for the good of the city, paradoxically his own standing and leadership

grew stronger.

The War Against Terror: Israeli and American Style

How has Israel fared in its strategy against terrorism? Has it been a

successful leader? Or does the ongoing terrorism launched against it argue that

Israel's policies are less than optimally effective?

The answer to such questions is, not surprisingly, very much dependent on

one's broader political point of view. And it is not even sufficient to say

that everyone desires an end to terrorism, although different people envision

different paths to that goal. According to one point of view in Israeli

realpolitik, a certain amount of terrorism is a necessary evil (perhaps even a

preferable phenomenon!) because it acts to release terroristic and hostile

tendencies that otherwise would burst into full force. Furthermore, the extreme

left in Israeli politics counsels Israeli guilt in allegedly depriving

Palestinians of their homeland and subjecting them to oppressive foreign rule

contentions that are, to say the least, highly controversial. The Israeli far-

left is much more vocal, main stream and entrenched in the major political

parties than is the United States far-left. Therefore, such a self-flagellating

point of view, with the danger that it may result in policies that will threaten

the actual existence of the State of Israel, is much more powerful than is the

voice of the left wing in American politics.



On the right side of the political spectrum, Ariel Sharon can point to

some impressive gains. By attempting to forge a joint broad-based government,

he has largely side-stepped the danger of becoming a demonized right-wing

government, its policies hamstrung at every step. By linking his policies

deeply with United States policy, he has deflected much American criticism and

instead gained American support. By undertaking a variety of military actions,

may of them non-spectacular, he has been making steady gains in eliminating

important sources of Palestinian terrorist power.

On the other hand, argue his critics from the right, Sharon's policies

have not prevented terror attacks from continuing unabated. His support for a

Palestinian state appears to some utter folly, for it would be infinitely more

difficult to cross the borders of a sovereign state in hot pursuit of terrorism

and in preventative measures than is now the case. This is a particular concern

now that documentary evidence has shown that Arafat is directly coordinating

activities with all the known terror groups, such as Hezbollah, and has smuggled

Al Qaeda operatives into the West Bank. In addition, Sharon's dedication to full

coordination with United States strategy often means that his hands are tied

when it comes to taking firm, meaningful steps to wiping out nests of terrorism.

Besides this, Sharon has made no move to put an end to the anti-Semitic,

anti-Christian, often genocidal vitriol that is broadcast by the hour on

Palestinian television and radio. What is astonishing here is that Palestinian

electronic media must be licensed by Israel and Israel continues to grant that

licensing. In addition, Sharon's government keeps transferring tens of millions

of dollars to the Palestinian Authority.

What can Sharon's reasoning be?

One way of understanding the Israeli response to terror, whether from the

left or the right of the political spectrum, is to note that almost all points

of view accept the premise of the necessity for "realpolitik." That is to say,

there is an idea that although a moral vector is good to have, ultimately

morality must take second seat to real-world maneuvering. A moral stance might

be that one does not negotiate with another party who is actively engaged in

terror (a la Rudy Giuliani). But, says the realpolitik point of view, what

choice do we have? Or, as Israeli politicians have consistently put it, "It's

true that Arafat is not worth talking with. But if we don't talk to him, whom

will we talk with?"

The realpolitik point of view has brought about acts of extraordinary

riskiness, the result of a hubris that maintains that brilliant maneuvering can

achieve Israel's goals. Thus, in past years, the Israel government resurrected



the career of Arafat, brought him back to the West Bank, gave him leadership and

supplied his "policemen" 30,000 of them for a population of just a couple of

million with tens of thousands of guns, and training in weaponry and tactics.

To the surprise of no one but an Israeli politician, these guns have in the past

few years been engaged in shooting at Israeli men, women and infants.

Why would Israelis do such a thing? The reasoning was that Arafat would

be made the leader of a state and as a result would (for his own self-interest)

realize that he must act more responsibly. Unfortunately, Israel could not have

been more wrong.

For the same reason, incitement against Israel including Arafat's unending

Arabic stream of invective even as he speaks words of peace to the English-

speaking media has been ignored and even suppressed by the Israeli government.

But realpolitik is not governance. It is merely an attempt to manage

without having a vision and goal. That is why, paradoxical as it might seem, a

firm moral stance is often more "realistic" than a "realpolitik" stance. In

addition, realpolitik often is merely a label for the avoidance of unpleasant

truths. Those who boast of their realpolitik skills are often naive. Even as

they imagine that they are controlling world events, they are being toyed with

by their adversaries. Who was more a master of realpolitik than Neville

Chamberlain, who triumphantly sealed an agreement with Adolf Hitler and assured

cheering Englishmen that war had been successfully averted?

Therefore, it would seem that the Israeli fight against terror has been

hampered by the adaptation of the point of view that a firm vision and adherence

to that vision is secondary to the use of realpolitik compromise with terror.

No more clear expression of that viewpoint can be found than an episode at the

very beginning of the present Intifada (or, as the Israeli right-wing dubs it,

the "Oslo War"). Palestinian terrorists near Nablus gunned down Rabbi Hillel

Lieberman, who lay wounded on a hillside. Although Israeli troops had the

manpower and firepower to overwhelm Palestinian forces and save Lieberman, they

did not do so, out of a desire to prevent the battle from escalating. Instead,

Israelis attempted to contact Palestinian leaders and obtain permission to

evacuate Lieberman. For a few hours, Lieberman lay dying on a hillside in full

view of Israeli forces. Yet now the Israeli army, which had once travelled a

thousand miles to rescue a planeload of hostages from Ugandan leader Idi Amin,

was unable to travel a hundreds yards to rescue a rabbi bleeding to death of

gunshot wounds.



The United States has begun pursuing a firm campaign against international

terrorism. The question is how long it can do so with proper vigor, focus and

vision.

Israel and the United States have with some reluctance stood up on the

surfboard and begun riding the wave. In order to do so successfully, they must

not falter in seeing that task as important, and not be dissuaded from

concentrating on the task, despite the many conflicting and confusing messages

that they may be hearing from a variety of quarters.



Chapter 5: The Technology Wave

Going by the Book (and Other Consumer Items): The Amazon Saga

Amazon, purveyors of books, CDS and, now, just about any other item you

could ask for with the possible exception of mustache cups, has had a remarkably

bumpy ride on the Internet superhighway. Lately, however, there has been a rise

in Amazon's fortunes and a growing optimism about its future prospects.

Jeffrey Bezos, Amazon's CEO, has been lately credited with having business

smarts a description that, in the past, would have been severely questioned by

many. In 1999, Bezos was Time's Man of the Year. In 2000, his company was at

risk of running out of money and a Barron article suggested that Bezos was a

fraud.

But Bezos has since been impressing people as a businessman with a long-

term vision and a clear grasp of realities so that, even though Amazon has still

not broken even after having lost three billion dollars it is rebounding with a

remarkable spring in its step.

Amazon incurred debts as a result of two related strategies:

(1) It placed customer-pleasing ahead of money-saving, so that, in an

effort not to lose possible customers, Amazon was content to spend more than it

made. "Our initial strategy was very focused and very unidimensional," says

Bezos. "It was GBF. Get big fast." Once Amazon grew large enough, it was

believed, it would reap the benefits of being a virtual store and make money.

(2) It branched out from books and CDS to everything from large-screen TVS

to crockery. Experience here provided a bitter lesson in the difference between

optimistic theory and grim reality. The Bezos vision was that, not being a

brick and mortar store (like Wal-Mart), Amazon could expand its inventory

indefinitely without having to incur the heavy costs endured by brick and mortar

stores when they expand inventory. What Amazon found, to its distress, was that

the theory was wrong: new distribution centers, problems packing odd-shaped

items, acquiring items that manufacturers did not want to deliver directly (for

fear of hurting relations with other buyers) all pulled cash out of the depths

of Amazon's deep pockets.

But Bezos responded by taking the right steps. He cut the generous,

almost-uncontrolled spending (Amazon did not have a formal budget), laid off

employees, hired business experts to teach him about managing inventory, and

worked on saving money in other ways as well for instance, switching its



computer operations from Sun machines to the Linux operating system. And in so

doing, he has transformed the company culture. The new motto is "Make some great

cash, baby." Brian Birtwistle, product manager of the online software store,

states, "Now we have discipline. You map out everything with marketing you'll do

for the year, what initiatives you'll launch,; what you have to do to make those

numbers realistic." Amazon employees are sent to Seattle headquarters to take

courses in Finance 101 and Finance 102.

Bezos's idea that e-commerce is based on technology, whereas retail

commerce is based on real estate has not yet fared well in the marketplace. Now

Bezos falls back on a more classical notion. He states, "Our mission is to be

earth's most customer-centric company. We well raise the worldwide standard of

what it means to be a customer-obsessed company." And in order to do that, Bezos

is aiming at another classical goal: acquiring customers for the long-term. "If

you focus on what customers want and build a relationship, they will allow you

to make money."

How does a company whose only connection with the consumer is a screen

full of pixels build a relationship with that customer? That very goal is

reachable precisely because Amazon is technology-based. Amazon has made clever

use of the technological tools at its disposal to make the on-line shopping

experience easy and appealing. It has individualized that experience, so that

Amazon can offer customers those particular items they are likely to have an

interest in buying. In the age of mega-stores, Amazon has led the way back to

an old-fashioned virtue: personal service.

In this sense, Amazon (and companies like it) are transforming the nature

of business. "Human relationships are declining in the selling game," states

Jack Welch. Amazon now sells items that in the past customers would only have

bought after personal contact with a salesperson.

As of August, 2002, Amazon was the year's best-performing stock on the

NASDAQ. Amazon is still not profitable. But it is headed in the right

direction.

Like a surfer having to paddle out to the waves over and over again, Bezos

has shown the power of endurance as his company has made remarkable commitments

followed by spectacular disasters. More, Bezos has been like the surfer who

adapts at every moment to the changing wave. Like the surfer jumping up to

catch the wave, Bezos timed his entry into the cyberworld with forethought and

decisiveness. But when he saw that things were not proceeding well, he

immediately switched tactics, overhauling his company and its culture, in order

to conform to the forces that control sales. And in doing so creatively and



with a vision, by wedding old-time sales values with the new technology, he has

helped inaugurate new and important changes in sales and customer relations.

The Apple of Steve Jobs's Eye

At 46, Steve Jobs wears the same black turtlenecks and jeans as he did

twenty years ago, when, by the age of 25, he had launched Apple Computers and

had a net worth of $100 million. But, he said in a Forbes interview, "I decided

then that I wasn't going to let it ruin my life."

And Steve Jobs has had fun. After leading Apple Computers, Steve Jobs

left to form his own company, NeXT in 1985. Later in 1996, he returned to Apple

Computers (to which, incidentally, he had sold much of what he created and

produced at NeXT), working for the salary of $1 per year. "I didn't return to

Apple to make a fortune," says Jobs. "I've been very lucky in my life and

already have one." Then why did he return? "I just wanted to see if we could

work together to turn this thing around when the company was literally on the

verge of bankruptcy. The decision to go without pay has served me well."

Apple in-between Steve Jobs fared poorly indeed. Three CEOs attempted to

run Apples as it veered drunkenly between reckless restructurings, inventory

gluts, and layoffs, and as its stock price fell by about a fifth–at the same

time that the Nasdaq composite more than tripled.

Then Steve Jobs returned, a knight in a black mock turtleneck and shining

showmanship. The showmanship was backed up by substance: innovative and

managerial. Despite some notable rockiness, due in part to some inept sales

operations and overestimation of the demand for a pet project of Jobs's (the

Power Macintosh G4 Cube), Apple has, to everyone's surprise (including the folks

at Apple) rebounded with surprising strength. Although never likely to

challenge Microsoft's massive domination of the computer market, Apple is once

again a serious player in the field, and not a meandering and faded town drunk.

What magic hath Steve Jobs wrought?

Steve Jobs brings with him, first of all, passion. Starting a company is

hard, he says, so hard that "if you don't have a passion, you'll give up." And

he confides, "There were times in the first two years when we could have given

up and sold Apple, and it probably would've died."

The other side of passion is commitment and belief in what one is doing.

"The problem with the Internet start up craze isn't that too many people are

starting companies," Jobs goes on. "It's that too many people aren't sticking



with it. That's somewhat understandable, because there are many moments that

are filled with despair and agony, when you have to fire people and cancel thing

and deal with very difficult situations. That's when you find out who you are

and what your values are."

So who is Steve Jobs, and what are his values?

Steve Jobs is a tantalizer and showman. He dazzles his trade show

audiences and his consumers with not a computer but a vision, a style, almost a

culture. And this is because he himself believes in and is swept up by the

magic that computer technology can bring. Steve Jobs is a purveyor of style and

of taste. He sells not only utility, but aesthetics. He presents not only

computational ability but elegance and finesse. He is not a salesman–he is a

connoisseur. If Microsoft and IBM are Arthur Millers, wearily trudging from

door to door with their suitcase of models, Steve Jobs is a psychedelic guru and

LSD salesman of the sixties, bounding colorfully through computer shows and

before the public with psychedelic styles and mind-bending innovations.

Steve Jobs is a showman who astounds his audience–and then delivers

content that matches the tantalizing flamboyance. His innovation goes beyond

the outside of the computer to its core. In fact, the innovation begins at the

core, and flows outward from there.

"We don't have good language to talk about this kind of thing," Jobs

states. "In most people's vocabularies, design means veneer. It's interior

decorating. It's the fabric of the curtains and the sofa. But to me, nothing

could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a

man-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of

the product or service. The iMac is not just the color or translucence or the

shape of the shell. The essence of the iMac is to be the finest possible

consumer computer in which each element plays together.

"On our latest iMac, I was adamant that we get rid of the fan, because it

is much more pleasant to work on a computer that doesn't drone all the time.

That was not just ‘Steve's decision' to pull out the fan; it required an

enormous engineering effort to figure out how to manage power better and do a

better job of thermal conduction through the machine. That is the furthest thing

from veneer. It was at the core of the product the day we started."

Steve Jobs is not only a general visionary and inspirational coach. He is

involved in the smallest details of production, making sure that what he calls

the "fit and finish" of the consumer's Apple experience will be up to his

standards. And he is as exacting in advertising, marketing, manufacturing and

supply.



But in addition to his flair and individualism and his hands-on management

strategy, Steve Jobs has proven himself the consummate talent recruiter and

manager. He has assembled a stellar executive team, perhaps the best Apple has

ever had, and in consequence Apple has increased its cash reserves from $280

million (when Jobs took over) to $4.1 billion. In operations, engineering,

marketing, manufacturing, customer support, product development, Apple has

turned into a tight, sleek and very efficient machine. The once-dysfunctional,

punch-drunk company, a company whose artistic flair translated itself into the

most glaring stereotypical flaws of the creative artist–melodramatic, emotional,

unreliable, manic depressive–is now as sleek and shiny as the most well-oiled

corporate machine. Innovation has joined hands with sleek competence and

excellence.

And so nowadays, Steve Jobs runs a tight ship–a skill that has been born

of necessity. Apple has many things going for it: an excellent product, a clear

strategy, enough money to generously fund 2,000 software and hardware engineers

to come up with new, winning technologies. But Apple is not sitting pretty. It

still must deal with the fact that it must continue to grow, satisfy investors

with an appreciating stock price and at least stabilize (if not increase) its

market share of customers. And so Steve Jobs, the enfant terrible and wunderkind

of the 1970's, is today the master of the lean and rational organization.

"I''m actually just as proud of what Apple hasn't done as what it has

done, because it hasn't squandered resources since I've been back. And that's

really easy to do in our industry. Believe me, we take our share of risks, but

you want to think things through carefully." And today the dean of innovation

and creativity can say "The most important thing is to never get paralyzed by

shooting for something totally original."

Steve Jobs has also had the courage to take firm steps when he thought it

necessary. In September of 2000, when, on the basis of slowing apparel sales,

he thought that the economy was weakening, Apple director ill Campbell recalls

that "Steve was the one who said we had to grab the situation by the throat and

make an announcement. Some of us thought we should wait and see. But he insisted

that things were going to get worse before they got better. He was right."

Steve Jobs has learned to combine innovation and competence. Furthermore,

he has learned to combine the passion of a start up company with the resources

of a large corporation such as his own. "We're trying to use the swiftness and

creativity in a younger-style company, and yet bring to bear the tremendous

resources of a company the size of Apple to do large projects that you could

never handle at a startup. A startup could never do the new iMac. Literally



2,000 people worked on it. A startup could never do Mac OS X. It's not easy at a

big company either, but Apple now has the management and systems in place to get

things like that done."

Not only are Apple's conceptions and solutions often in advance of what

Microsoft can deliver, but Apple's product performs from the moment it comes out

of the box. And the very structure of Apple products is an integrated part of

the whole. Each Apple product is of one piece–not a composite of different

elements, shuffled together. Apple's new OS X, says Steve Jobs, "is like a

software space frame made out of titanium. It is so strong and light and well-

designed that it lets us spend all of our resources innovating, not reinforcing

the foundations." This is in marked contrast to Microsoft operating systems,

known for their rather haphazard structure, in which flaws are patched over, new

additions are precariously piled on top of old foundations, and which are always

on the brink of tottering over, unless they are propped up with yet more

software struts. At Apple, style and functionality are (when things are going

well) as one.

Steve Jobs has found his place. And so, although he came back to Apple as

"interim CEO," the "interim" has been dropped.

But his leadership is not without flaws.

The flip side of Steve Jobs's concern for style is that he can grow

enamored of a project, much the same way that a creative artist is enamored of

his work, without heeding consumer apathy and other market forces. Steve Jobs's

enthusiasm for the G4 Cube was boundless: it was the culmination of a dream, of

a vision he had had since the last time he had been with Apple. As a result, he

downplayed the effect that its relatively high price–more than $3000–would have

on sales. Jobs was right: the engineering was superb, the style was stunning.

But his projections of selling over 200,000 units were painfully inflated. In

the third quarter, only 12,000 were sold. End of dream.

Jobs is a compelling salesman: an enthusiast, a visionary, an infectious

believer. But sometimes his minimalization of possible roadblocks and his

talking away of problems (after the G4 Cube debacle, when revenues declined by a

full billion dollars, he referred to this episode as a "speed bump") make it

questionable as to whether there is substance behind the words, or whether he is

part con man, part true believer in his own visions. In regard to the G4 Cube,

Jobs states, "We were hoping that there was a space between the consumer

products we sell like the iMac and the professional products we sell. It turns

out there isn't."



Sometimes hope is another word for false vision and self-deception. Or, in

the words of one of his associates, "In his eyes, all his geese are swans."

And Steve Jobs's concern with details sometimes falters, particularly in

the areas of sales and distribution. A case in point was how he dealt with a

switch over from third party salespeople to an in-house sales force, in regard

to school sales (a crucial market). As Jobs admits, "The problem was, we were

very straightforward and told these third-party salespeople ahead of time that,

‘Hey, in four months we're going to switch and you're going to be out of a job.'

Obviously these folks did everything they could to sell as much as they could by

June 30, when we let them go, and did absolutely nothing to build for sales in

the July quarter. So when our new sales folks got there, they found there was no

pipeline work at all; they had to start from scratch. And, duh, this was during

the peak buying time for schools. It was just stupid on our part to do this

then, and that was my decision. It was a train wreck, and it was totally my

fault."

How has Steve Jobs been riding the wave? The answer is, quite well.

Like the surfer making sure that conditions are right, Steve Jobs makes

sure that conditions are optimal by gathering around him an outstanding team. He

plans his steps in detail. And he ignites passion in his employees, colleagues

and potential customers with his own excitement and enthusiasm.

The surfer knows that the bulk of his time will be spent paddling, and

that this requires strength, determination and endurance. The passion that Steve

Jobs has gives him a strong commitment and faith in what he is doing, making it

possible for him to apply himself and stick with it even during the most

difficult, agonizing times. As part of his own-going endurance, he makes sure

that resources aren't squandered. And this commitment also gives him the

strength to take reasonable risks.

Once on the wave, the surfer must take control of his ride, not allowing

the wave simply to push him back to the beach. Steve Jobs has a strong vision

that makes it possible for his company to follow its own idiosyncratic path.

And the strength of that vision makes it possible for him to take bold,

imaginative steps. The core of Apple is its independence and innovation–but not

merely for its own sake. Therefore, he does not–in his own words–"get paralyzed

by shooting for something totally original."

The peak experience for the surfer is riding in the zone. Steve Jobs

showed his ability to ride in the zone when he came back to Apple for the annual

salary of $1.



On the negative side, Steve Jobs is at times like the surfer who lacks

balance, who is not really responding directly to the reality around him but

instead is reacting more to what he would wish the reality were. A surfer who in

his enthusiasm found it hard to distinguish good waves from bad would find

himself taking spills with uncommon frequency. This is a tendency that Steve

Jobs must struggle against.

And, like a surfer who is so entranced by the joy of the ride that they

takes their mind off the all-important details, at times Steve Jobs does not

attend sufficiently to the all-important sales details in his business.

Despite these failings, however, it is clear that Steve Jobs is one of the

experts, one those who are able to successfully, sometimes spectactularly, ride

the wave.

David Pottruck Goes Digital

In his Leading Up: How to Lead Your Boss So You Both Win, author Michael

Useem (professor of management at the Wharton School, University of

Pennsylvania) takes the unusual tack of discussing the relationship between the

leader and not those under him but those still above him. Most leaders do have

someone else to answer to, and all leaders had to make their way to their

position by dealing with others equal to them and higher than them in rank. How

does one act a as a leader and succeed as a leader in an environment where one

is still subordinate to others?

One case in point is that of David Pottruck, second in command at Charles

Schwab & Co., Inc., one of the nation's largest brokerage firms, who brought the

age of the Internet to that venerable establishment. In doing so, he had to

persuade others to risk a precipitous slide into calamity, and he had to present

a plan so well-worked out that it went beyond anyone's expectations in bringing

the company back to financial vigor.

Gaining the cooperation of others did not come easily or gracefully to

Pottruck. He began his career working for Citibank brashly, taking the fast

track by accepting assignments for areas of work that he knew nothing about. By

moving into areas of ignorance, he forced himself to learn, and propel his

career forward. Thus, he became director of marketing for Citibank's home

mortgages and lines of credit, then took charge of a technology group consisting

of fifty full-time programmers–knowing nothing of either promotion or

technology.



David Pottruck's fast track approach, however, irked his peers, who were

irritated by his ambition. "My peers were not very fond of me," Pottruck says.

"They were troubled by a guy that flew up that fast. They just saw me as very

ambitious. I was very ambitious."

In addition to ambition, David Pottruck had an idealistic side to him that

was unable to develop and blossom as long as he remained at Citibank. When he

received an offer to work for Charles Schwab in 1984, Pottruck was drawn

irresistibly, because here he could do good not only for himself but for others

as well. "We're on a mission to save people from full-commission brokers ripping

them off," a Schwab representative told him. Typically, investors would rely on

brokers to advise them on when to sell and buy, unaware that the broker's

interests didn't coincide with theirs. Whereas their interests were served by

seeing their investments accrue as much value as possible, the brokers made

their money whenever a transaction was made. Therefore, they were prone to

initiating transactions that did not necessarily enhance the value of the

customer's portfolio, and sometimes actually damaged it. Now this human

resources executive speaking to Pottruck told him, "We're here to help them

achieve their financial goals and dreams, and if you want to be part of that,

great!"

Pottruck was deeply impressed. "Everybody talked about customers," he

says. But this company was actually doing something on their behalf. "I loved

it. It was joining a revolution. Schwab was a revolution."

Initially, Pottruck clashed with other executives at Charles Schwab–

particularly its president, Larry Stupski, who was only three years older than

Pottruck. Pottruck's style was blunt, powerful, and overwhelming. Pottruck

himself was a former wrestler and football player, tall, with a hefty, beefy

frame, and his presentations were reminiscent of a linebacker mowing down

members of the opposing team. The result was that although he succeeded in

imposing his decisions and viewpoints on others in management, he left behind

him an aura of resentment and alienation.

At one performance appraisal, Larry Stupski confronted Pottruck. "You're

too persuasive," he told him. "You're colleagues don't trust you."

When Pottruck asked him "Why?," Stupski told him, "Because you're so

persuasive."

"Aren't I supposed to be persuasive?" Pottruck exploded.

Stupski told him, "Well, yes and no. When you come in to present an idea,

you present all the reasons why that idea should happen and none of the reasons

why it shouldn't happen. You never present both sides. You sell. You come in and



you say, ‘Here's what we have to do, it's life and death, and here's why we have

to do it.' T h e r e 's no room for any dialogue, Dave. That's completely

disrespectful. You have an agenda and you give no one a chance to own the

decision with you, and there's no way to argue with you because they don't have

enough facts to argue, and you're such a powerful guy that it's overwhelming.

It's not fun for anyone to work with a guy like that."

More than that, Stupski told Pottruck, he was acting on the basis of

instinct, not planning, intuition rather than knowledge. Instead of running

with an initiative, Stupski told him, he had to ask some basic questions: "Are

we on course of off course? Are we getting where we want to go? What's the

impact?"

Pottruck's initial reaction was to Stupski's blunt words. "I rebelled. I

hated it. I wanted to move and I wanted to move now." But over time, Pottruck

appreciated the valuable balance that Stupski's insight brought to his own

approach. "He taught me to be more thoughtful and less impetuous," Pottruck

says. "He taught me the importance of planning, even when I knew instinctively

what I wanted to do and there was no doubt I was going to do it." And as for

his overpowering presentations, he began to understand the importance of

"bringing everybody on board and getting everybody lined up."

Unfortunately for Pottruck, this was not to prove the end of his learning

process. Pottruck was soon second in power only to Stupski–Pottruck was CEO of

Schwab's operating company and Stupski headed the parent company. But Pottruck

was still vociferous and brash, and as result of the frequent clashes that he

instigated with Stupski, Charles Schwab himself stepped in and demoted Pottruck.

The result was that Pottruck made himself more difficult, defiant and

oppositional than ever before. Board meetings turned into open warfare between

the two men. Pottruck's strenuous arguments gained him few followers. Most of

their associates sided with Stupski.

Pottruck saw that his attitude and behavior were dysfunctional strategies.

Why was he alienating his associates? Why was he alienating his superior,

Stupski? He knew that this could not go on and arranged a private meeting with

Stupski. One option he had already conceived of was that he would resign his

post. Over dinner, Stupski mirrored Pottruck's feelings:, "This is not much

fun. I'm not going to work any more." Stupski then told Pottruck, "This

company is not big enough for the two of us, David. One of us is probably going

to have to leave." Pottruck knew who that one was going to be. Two separate

styles had clashed, two opposing visions of how the company would prosper. One

company could not proceed in two opposite directions.



But Charles Schwab saw beyond this. He saw that companies are enriched by

dialogue, differing points of view, disagreement and discussion. He knew that

he had two excellent men working for him, and both had much to contribute to

Charles Schwab & Company's success. But they too had to know that their

opposing points of view constituted an asset to the company and not a deficit.

And they had to learn how to blend their opposition for the good of the company.

Schabb called the two men into his office and told them, "I need both of you,

and I need both of you to work together. Larry, I want you to let Dave run his

part of the company, and Dave, I want you to recognize that Larry runs the firm.

I am holding both of you responsible for making sure your teamwork is effective.

I need you both to be successful."

This time, Pottruck responded with a softer, more mature and appropriate

attitude. He approached Stupski and told him, "I realize that I have argued with

you in public, so our meetings end up being a two-way dialogue with seven

onlookers. It simply polarizes our team. So I'd like to make the following deal

with you: I won't ever, ever argue with you. I might ask a question, but I will

never argue with you and try to persuade a different point of view in our

meetings. But I would like the opportunity to discuss these kinds of issues with

you privately. My acquiescence or lack of debate shouldn't be viewed necessarily

always as agreement because I will quickly let you know when I don't agree. But

we have to have one person running the company, and you're the one person, not

me."

In his mid-thirties, Pottruck was learning the humbling lesson that

despite one's brilliance, energy, dynamism and record of success, hierarchy

counts–and not only because hierarchy is a system of levels of authority and

power, but because hierarchy is also a marker of human relationships. And when

hierarchy is rebelled against, people's feelings are hurt, resulting in anger,

and unhappiness–and then no one is a winner. Instead, human relationships are

degraded. Pottruck learned the importance of human dignity, of saving face. He

learned that power is wielded not only in noisy staff meetings, in full view of

everyone else, but as much (if not more) in quiet, private conversations.

He demonstrated a true effacing of ego when he stated, "My job is to make

you the most successful executive I can. I'm here to make you look good."

And to his even greater surprise, Pottruck learned that by abandoning his

policy of conflict with Stupski he grew even more influential, and the mutual

respect that the two men had for each other grew greater, not less. With the

issues of insubordination and personal challenge no longer existing, Stupski

listened with greater interest and respect–and accepted some of his suggestions.



Soon after Pottruck reached this rapprochement with Stupski, Larry Stupski

retired. Pottruck now became the company's chief operating officer, second in

command only to Charles Schwab himself.

But now, in 1997, Pottruck faced his greatest challenge yet: a challenge

that involved not only his own career but the well-being of an entire

organization and the influence that this organization had upon the well-being of

many other thousands of people. To face this challenge, Pottruck had to employ

clear thinking, the ability to see beyond the present moment to the future, the

ability to go beyond the complacency born of wishful thinking, the ability to

take a deep risk and incur personal ruination, the ability to keep to his vision

when others doubted its wisdom and the necessity for any change, the ability to

persuasively bring people over to his side.

The cause of all this consternation was the advent of the Internet.

Charles Schwab & Company provided brokerage service, for a fee. But now the

Internet allowed customers to freely access information that until now only

brokers and been privy to, and, in addition, made it possible for people to buy

stocks without paying the relatively high fee that brokers charged. Where was

the place of Charles Schwab & Company in this new and challenging reality?

Initially, Charles Schwab & Company's entry into the world of the Web

garnered great financial success. But that very success was troublesome, for it

drew in its wake fierce competition. The company was facing a dilemma that

seemed more and more unavoidable. It could either outpaced its competition by

offering extremely inexpensive Internet trading–but at the price of curtailing

the expert help and advice that had made its reputation; or it could continue to

provide sterling service–but at a price that any competitor could easily and

significantly beat.

To deal with the problem, Pottruck was instrumental in establishing a two-

tiered system: providing one track for full-service customers and another for

Internet customers. But neither of its two customer bases was pleased. The

full-service customers desired the low prices that Internet customers paid, and

Internet customers were jealous of the attention that the full-service customers

could call upon.

In 1997, Pottruck concluded that the two-tiered system would have to be

replaced with a single Internet-based service, with fees significantly lower

than those previously charged to full service customers. Pottruck realized that

the risks were enormous. Yet at the same time, the risks of doing nothing were

also enormous. He decided that the time to act decisively was now. "Our choice



was to slowly erode our position or to make this bold move and hope that the

positive effects would kick in reasonably quickly," he says.

Initially, there would be a $100 million shortfall. The company would

place itself and its employees at great risk. Charles Schwab himself, for

instance, stood to lose hundreds of millions of dollars should the company stock

lose its value.

Pottruck's first step was to persuade his directors of the wisdom and

necessity for this plan, and of how to make it work.

Next, he had to persuade the top tier of the company of the rightness of

his vision and its implementation. This time he did not make the mistake of

attempting to get his way through harangues and by bull-dozing others into

silence. He knew the importance of persuasion. To this end, Pottruck not only

argued his case, but made a powerful appeal for it by bringing 130 executives to

the Golden Gate Bridge. There a historian described the tumultuous and

controversial building of the bridge, of the arguments against its construction

and the incredible technical challenges that had to be overcome. Pottruck then

led the executives in a walk across he bridge's two mile length. This, he told

them, was Charles Swabs's challenge: to have a vision and to have the commitment

and willingness to take a risk that the builders of the Golden Gate Bridge had

had seventy years earlier. "To be successful," Pottruck told them, Schwab could

not continue business as usual. "We have to reinvent our company around the

Internet," and "embrace the Internet in the core of everything we do." This was

not only a shifting of focus. "This was not a new product or a new website.

This the beginning of the reinvention of our company."

Pottruck's great gamble worked. Although the company did initially lose

value, within a year it had rebounded. The decision to placing Charles Schwab &

Company on the Internet was the result of a vision that others did not have: the

awareness that the Internet was now becoming the financial heart of the nation.

Charles Schwab more than made up in volume for what it had lost in its fees. By

the end of 2000, the company was valued at $36 billion–$35.5 billion dollars

more than its value had been in 1987, when it had gone public.

A great deal of David Pottruck's success lay in his ability to lay the

groundwork. This was an ability that Pottruck had to learn, sometimes

painfully. It was difficult for him to shift from his strategy of impetuous

brilliance to one of careful analysis and thoughtful discussion.

He was thus able to take the next step: communication. He was able to

persuade others to take radical, risk-laden action. "I used to be a John Wane



leader," Pottruck states. "I wanted to be the first guy up the hill." But now

he learned the importance of a team that can "take the hill together." He

learned how to work with people, not against them. "You have to be able to move

the group without overwhelming the group." Like the surfer who chooses his

environment carefully, Pottruck made sure that before anything else he had a

solid plan and organization fully behind him.

At some point, building a solid foundation becomes something else:

endurance. David Pottruck spent a great deal of time, years of work that laid

the groundwork for the knowledge and persuasive ability that he demonstrated

when he was faced with the fateful decision of how to adapt to the Internet.

Most of a surfer's time and energy is spent on paddling: on the daily grind, the

difficult but essential work to get out to the wave, and the work of attuning

yourself to the wave. David Pottruck learned, in Michael Useem's words, that

"persistence often pays, but it requires an extra willingness to stay a rocky

path when you have persuaded those above and below you to embrace the course.

The crux of David Pottruck's successful strategy was his awareness of the

right time to make his move. To do this, he had to look beyond where he was.

He had to have an eye on the present and an eye on where the present was

leading. He was like the surfer who is paddling to shore, waiting to jump up

and catch the wave. The trick here is that the surfer actually jumps up before

he is assured of the wave beneath him. He seizes the moment because he is able

to foretell what the coming moments will bring.

David Pottruck made his decision in the face of opposition and initial

lack of understanding. Like the surfer who does not let the wave take him

wherever it happens to be going, willy-nilly, David Pottruck clung to his vision

and his strategy until he prevailed.

Like the surfer who must employ mental toughness to proceed forward on the

frothing wave, David Pottruck reached a conclusion and stuck with it, no matter

how difficult and challenging it was. David Pottruck faced grave dangers and

risk. He dealt with this by acting decisively and without hesitation, taking

the responsibility on his own shoulders rather than just allowing the problem to

drift along.

When David Pottruck took action by being the first to call for the

dismantling of Swab's two-tier system even though it was he who had been

instrumental in putting it in place, he demonstrated clearly his capability for

swift and appropriate adaptation to rapidly changing circumstances. He was

acting the same way that the surfer does, shifting and adapting his stance to

the changes around him, in order to continue riding the wave.



David Pottruck had to learn to over-ride his considerable ego and

egocentric concerns before he could rise to the status of being a truly

effective leader. He had to learn how to appeal to and respect the decisions of

his colleagues; how to deal with his superiors; and how to effect positive

changes in the organization quietly, in private conversation, without anyone

taking any notice of him. It was only a state of mind that the well-being of the

company and others was of paramount importance, even if it meant taking a

dangerous position that might backfire and harm him that made it possible for

Pottruck to think of, propose and lead Swab's dramatic metamorphosis. He was

like the surfer who reaches a state of awareness in which he loses his

concentration on self and ego.

Throughout his career, David Pottruck demonstrated the ability and

willingness to learn. He was willing to admit ignorance and thus accept the

humility that comes in the wake of such admission. In fact, he thrived on such

admission and awareness, at times using it to drive his career forward. Thus,

when he worked for Citibank, he specifically entered fields that he knew little

about. David Pottruck consistently evidenced the willingness to admit his

errors, and to learn from them. More, he was able to learn from others–even when

he was experiencing conflict with them, as he did with Larry Stupski. In the

same way, a surfer can only reach his full potential when he does not allow a

tender and easily bruised ego stand in the way of admitting failures and seeking

to correct them, and admitting ignorance and seeking to correct it, with the

help of others, even if that should be difficult and humbling.



Chapter 6: The Political Wave

What Made Reagan Run?

What made Ronald Reagan run? Initially the press thought him a boor. Some

of his own advisors and cabinet officials viewed him as simple-minded. This

remind us on how our current President started. Many thought him as primitive,

unsophisticated, dangerously apt to provoke global crises with undiplomatic,

unnuanced statements and policies. In addition, he barely seemed to be

president; delegating authority, leaving aides puzzled as to his strategies,

content to allow distortion of his views in the press and in-fighting within his

own administration.

How is it that this former actor, a man with few intellectual credentials,

was president at the same time that America saw a resurgence of its economic

health and the world watched as Soviet communism collapsed and the spirit of

democracy spread across the globe? What made this man a leader? I should also

state here, I consider President Reagan the great president of my time.

French president François Mitterand said that Reagan's power was "primal:

like a rock in the Morvan, like plain truth, like the wilderness of Nevada."

What was the nature of that power? A rock is simple, stark. It is not

complex, but it has weight, solidity, presence. Plain truth is not

sophisticated, it does not necessarily speak well, it is blunt, unembroidered,

it is direct, sometimes embarrassing and discomfiting, it tells the truth, no

matter how socially wrong that truth may be so that in its power, the emperor's

nakedness is revealed. The wilderness is not a man-made artifice, with the

artificiality that that implies. And Nevada is part of the fabled "new world,"

a world that extended beyond the social protocols and hypocrisies of the

European royal courts. The Nevada wilderness speaks of new frontiers, new

vision, of something primal and close to God, for it is God's creation. It is

rough and those who wish to live there must be rugged. Most basic of all, they

must possess a code to live by that is not necessarily polite, but allows them

to survive even to thrive.

Or, as Edward Kennedy, often-times nemesis of Ronald Regan, told a Yale

University audience, Reagan "stood for a set of ideas . . . he meant them, and

he wrote most of them not only into public law but into the national

consciousness."

A code to live by, a set of ideas: this was the essence of Ronald Reagan.

He possessed the qualities that he praised in his description of statesmanship:



"the vision to dream of a better, safer world, and the courage, persistence and

patience to turn that dream into a reality."

Ronald Reagan had a firm, clear vision. And as a result of that vision,

he was a leader, not a follower. He made firm decisions on the basis of inner

certitude, not on the basis of polls. And when he did consult the polls, it was

to get a sense of the public's readiness to accept a policy of his, not in order

to fulfill its stated wants. "He consulted the polls to identify areas were a

majority of his fellow citizens disagreed with him," states Reagan's pollster,

Richard Wirthlin, "so that he could use his power of persuasion to change their

minds."

And as so often happens, when Reagan took action based on principle, not

"realism," he showed a bedrock strength that resulted in far greater gains than

could have been attained otherwise.

In 1986, Reagan responded vigorously when Libyan agents bombed a West

Berlin discotheque, killing several Americans. The next morning, United States

airplanes attacked military targets in Lybia, including some where Kaddafi was

purported to be hiding. This response was met in many quarters with fierce

criticism. Many, such as Senator Robert Byrd, proclaimed that this act would

lead to an escalation of Libyan terrorism. But Reagan was unruffled by such

predictions: "Today, we have done what we had to do," he stated. "If necessary,

we shall do it again."

Robert Byrd and his compatriots were wrong. Libyan terrorism did not

increase. To the contrary, in the face of Reagan's tough, principled stance, it

faded to nothingness.

Where did Ronald Reagan acquire his remarkable aplomb? Was it from his

Hollywood background, when he had hobnobbed with America's idols? Or was it

some quality that he had imbibed in his childhood. Wherever it came from, this

complete self-assurance was not only part of his character, but part of his

decision-making process and part of his success in dealing with critics and a

largely hostile media. Reagan's placid response to that criticism made him a

difficult target, showing him to be a man entirely in control who is faced with

rude, aggressive antagonists.

When, during Reagan's term as governor of California, columnist Herb Caen

attacked him unrelentingly, Reagan's response was, "What's that guy's problem?"

It was that guy's problem not his own. Reagan reacted to the most stinging

criticism with humorous good will. If he was attacked as being a fool, he went

along with the criticism, treating it as a gag. When challenged by a reporter,



"You said that you'd resign if ever your memory started to go," he replied,

"When did I say that?"

Reagan's opponents might have won points on the basis of their criticisms

but Reagan's bemused, pacific response to them his simply ignoring their carping

and speaking with confident directness to the average American made him the

winner to that American. After TV reporter Lesley Stahl featured a news report

harshly critical of Reagan, which featured much footage of Reagan given to her

by his staff, a Reagan appointee, Richard Darman, thanked her for her

"commercial" on Reagan's behalf. When she asked him, "Didn't you hear the

things we said about him?," Darman replied, "Oh yes, but nobody paid any

attention to what you said. Those shots of Reagan were absolutely priceless."

Reagan's management style was summed up in a comment he made to Fortune

magazine: "You surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate

authority, and don't interfere."

But Reagan did something else: he made his presence seemingly invisible in

formulating policy so much so that senior staff were often highly perturbed.

Yet this was his very effective style of management.

At meetings with his senior advisors, Reagan would say little while his

advisors would discuss some issues and argue for various courses of action

before, at the end of the discussion, he would summarize the discussion and

present a course of action. By not speaking until the end of the discussion,

Reagan encouraged his advisors to speak openly and forcefully. Reagan employed

a similar approach to dealing with disputes between different members of his

staff, who could be split into two main factions: the true believers, who agreed

with Reagan and were expert at implementing strategy but who themselves had

little vision, and the pragmatists, who (like the press) often had little

respect for Reagan and were often bent on saving him from himself. To the

frustration of many of Reagan's supporters, he refused to get rid of those

pragmatists, even when they were undermining his objectives. Apparently, Reagan

saw the value that all of these people had for him (much as Charles Schwab

appreciated both Larry Stupski and David Pottruck).

And when formulating policy, Reagan often only made vague comments, such

as "let's go ahead," or "uh huh."

The result was that, although frustrated by his elusive style, Reagan's

staff invested their own creativity and motivation far more than they might have

otherwise done.

Reagan saw himself as a visionary and as a teacher as well: thus, his

clear and informal talks to his fellow citizens. He never spoke with rancor



because he saw beyond party politics to a greater, more inclusive vision. And

behind his self-deprecating manner he often saw more than those around him not

because he was more intelligent or sophisticated or learned, but because his

gaze was always directed toward the broad, long-term view.

Many of those who had initially dismissed him came to see him as a

powerful force who had achieved much good, while eschewing many of the expected

characteristics of a political leader.

Ronald Reagan was a remarkably successful surfer.

Like the surfer who makes sure that all the conditions are correct, Ronald

Reagan surrounded himself with the staff that he needed. And he nurtured with

his staff members, delegating responsibility to them and relying on their

implementation of his goals.

Like the surfer paddling to the waves, Reagan possessed persistence and

patience. And like the surfer leaping onto a large wave, Reagan demonstrated

courage as well.

Like the surfer who conforms to proper ethical behavior, Reagan was, at

the core, a man of ethics of bedrock beliefs and an unswerving adherence to

truth as he saw it.

Because he had a clear and strong vision, Reagan never let any waves make

their priorities for him. To the contrary, he knew that the waves are there

only for him to use in order to get to his destination.

Most of all, Ronald Reagan succeeded because he knew where he wanted to

go.

"We thought he was a lightweight," states ABC White House correspondent

Sam Donaldson, "and maybe he didn't know everything. But he was a tenacious

fellow who knew what he wanted. He reminds me of the Gila monster: when it grabs

you, you can't get away. He came to Washington to change the world for the

better, and for the most part he did."

Al Gore: Death of a Political Salesman?

One year after the terror attack of 9/11, Al Gore delivered a speech that

was meant as an important policy statement, and that was viewed widely as the

beginning of a campaign for the 2004 residential race.

To understand Al Gore's approach as presented in this speech, it may be

useful to examine his campaign of the year 2000 and why it ended in failure.

Setting aside the claims that Gore really won by a tiny handful of votes (if

only they had been correctly counted), it is clear that Ralph Nader leached



90,000 Florida votes away from Gore which, if they had gone to Gore, would have

given him a decisive victory over George W. Bush. Why is it that these votes did

not go to Gore?

From the 1980's, Al Gore has had a principled and passionate commitment to

our globe's environmental health. Long before the subject was fashionable, Gore

was speaking of ozone depletion, mercury pollution, acid rain, depletion of

global resource, global warming and other subjects.

Yet over time this confident, knowledgeable Gore would seemingly disappear

during election campaigns, because of a fear that these concerns would not

interest and might even antagonize voters.

When, in his 1987 bid for presidency, Gore promised to make environmental

issues and global warming the "principal focus" of his campaign. The response

was derisory. The New York Times referred to his cause as "esoteric," George

Will described it as "not even peripheral," and even his fellow-Democrats

dismissed his cause. Jesse Jackson stated, "Senator Gore just showed you why he

should be our national chemist."

In response to this, and following the advice of two consultants, Gore

lost his nerve. "I began to doubt my own political judgment, so I began to ask

the pollsters and professional politicians what they thought I ought to talk

about. As a result, for much of the campaign I discussed what everybody else

discussed."

And as the years passed, as Gore grew discouraged about the lack of

interest his statements on the environment engendered, he withdrew from the

topic. "I simply lacked the strength to keep on talking about the environmental

crisis constantly whether it was being reported in the press or not."

In 1992, Gore ran as vice president running mate to Bill Clinton. Again,

Gore tread carefully on environmental matters, as political opponents stung him

with such epithets as "ozone man" (George Bush) and "bizarre" (Dan Quayle). Once

in office, Gore became the most effective and hands-on vice presidents in

American history. And an important part of his efforts concerned work on the

environment.

Yet when, in 2000, he stepped forward as his party's choice for

presidential candidate, Gore failed again to speak up for his environmentalist

principles. Time magazine urged Gore to "stir up a tempest about climate

change," but noted soberly that "so far, it appears unlikely that Gore will do

so. His strategists figure, quite rightly, that he can't be elected President

solely as Mr. Environment and Technology."



And as Al Gore stepped back from who he truly was in order to present an

image that he thought the American public wanted to see, he presented the image

of a man who did not know what he believed and indeed of a man who did not know

who he was. This was never demonstrated more explicitly than in his series of

television debates with George W. Bush. In the first debate, Gore was

aggressive, rude, sarcastic. When this proved unpopular with the public, he

reverted to a kinder, gentler Gore. Who was Al Gore really, and what were his

true views? The answers to these questions seemed to be growing progressively

blurrier.

And because Gore backpedaled from his earlier environmentalist ideals and

positions, he was outflanked from the left. Ralph Nader stepped into the

presidential race as candidate of the Green Party, attacking Gore on

environmental issues. And, in the words of the New York Times, Nader "succeeded

in driving home the notion that Mr. Gore's true colors are far less green than

he has made out." Indeed, Gore had been unable "to delineate the deep

differences over the environment between himself and Mr. Bush." So far had Gore

retreated from his defining position that it had become all but invisible. And

thus on election day, November 3, 2000, Gore lost those fateful 90,000 votes to

a candidate who did speak forcefully on environmental issues.

Why? Why did Al Gore not remain Al Gore but tried to transform himself

into the mirror in which every voter would see himself? David Maraniss,

Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Gore, says, "Gore was often persuaded by

the voice of caution, even on the environment, the issue that meant the most to

him and for which he promised to take the most political risk....There were good

reasons for this...but those good reasons bred timidity."

Some political figures, such as Ronald Reagan, weren't affected by self-

doubt. Others, like Abraham Lincoln, suffered self-doubt, and mastered it.

When Al Gore faced the crucial decision, he neglected his principles and lost.

Al Gore had done everything right. He was like the surfer who chooses the

right beach, paddles out to the waves, leaps up at the right moment but then

loses the self-confidence in his ability to chart his course. He loses his

vision, and his sense of priorities grows clouded. He no longer is angling on

the wave. His mental toughness has eroded, and the surfboard was knocked out

from under him. Too unsure to go forward on principle, yet too principled or

inept to emulate his manipulative mentor and empty suit, Bill Clinton, Al Gore

shuddered off the wave and fell out of sight.

"I have become very impatient with my own tendency to put a finger to the

political winds and proceed cautiously," Gore wrote after his 1988 defeat. He



noted that "the voice of caution whispers persuasively in the ear of every

politician, often with good reason." But, he said, "When caution breeds

timidity, a good politician listens to other voices. For me, the environmental

crisis is the critical case in point."

Yet at the moment of crisis, Al Gore again retreated from his principles.

Again he pandered to what he thought the public wanted to hear. But Al Gore was

at best an indifferent Bill Clinton-imitator, for Bill Clinton never seemed to

lack conviction he was certainly never timid. Al Gore instead heeded the voice

counseling timidity, and lost. He was not a leader because he retreated from

leading. He seemed a hollow man, one who seemingly had made a conscious decision

to abandon the path of principle in politics and adapt the path of manipulation

and the willingness to do whatever seems necessary to win votes.

This seamy aspect of Al Gore's political personality again came to the

fore during the Florida election confusion. Initially, Gore took a principled

stance: he suggested that the votes of the entire state be recounted. But then,

following the advice of his political advisors, he ungracefully backtracked and

insisted that recounts take place only in three particular counties counties

that he thought that he could rely on to have voted for him. But Gore gambled

wrong. And it is very likely that a statewide re-count would have put Gore in

the president's seat.

How does Gore's 2000 election bid connect to his 2002 speech on global

politics?

The speech was largely seen not primarily as the concerned voice of a

national leader during a time of global crisis, but rather as the canny voice of

an unseated politician seeking to run for office in the year 2004. He was

perceived to be purposefully carving out his own position independent of Bush's,

in order to set forth his own recognizable platform. In doing so, however, he

had to do violence to his own earlier-stated convictions. Only two years

earlier, Gore had stated, "We have made it clear that it is our policy to see

Saddam Hussein gone," and added, "And if entrusted with the presidency, my

resolve will never waver."

Yet now his resolve had more than wavered. Now he seemed positively

opposed to military action against Iraq. And that position itself seemed

incoherent, for in the same speech Gore acknowledge that "Iraq's search for

weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we

should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Then

why would Gore be willing to tolerate Saddam Hussein's continuing rule?



In the view of Bill Bennett, this speech "was an act of political self-

immolation." Gore "made himself irrelevant by has inconsistency, by his

separation from the mainstream of public opinion, and by creating dissension in

the ranks of a party trying to muster unity in support of war on Iraq. Al Gore

has shown he is not fit to lead." And Bennet derided what he called Gore's

"ironically craven attempt to appear courageous."

Certainly, in Bill Bennett's view, Al Gore is no longer a leader.

Whatever principled backbone Gore might have had no longer existed. Worse,

rather than retreating into ineptness and timidity, Gore was thrusting himself

before the public with a phony persona. No longer aiming for courage, Gore now

had as his goal the appearance of courage only.

James S. Robbins, writing a column in the National Review (9/30/02), has a

very different opinion of Gore's speech: "as a political document, from the

perspective of a student of the electoral art," he writes, "it is superb."

Robbins sees the speech as a calculated play to regain the Green Party

voters and distinguish himself from all other Democratic presidential hopefuls

while allowing himself enough wiggle room so that whatever happens, he can snipe

at Bush's policies. If the war goes poorly, for example, "Gore can claim to

have taken an ethical stand, a lonely but righteous position based on sober

foresight, and can assert a mandate for new leadership."

In this view, Gore is not a fumbler, but a master politician. Yet xx has

this in common with Bill Bennett: both believe that this speech was in no sense

authentic. Rather, it was an attempt to appear courageous, a way to appear

ethical.

By analogy, Gore is the surfer who has broken all the ethical rules of

surfing: he pushes in front of other surfers, grabs waves that belong to others,

puts others at risk of wiping out and injury all so that he can ride the wave.

In the world of surfing, such boorish behavior is taken care of summarily. In

the world of politics, such an attitude may be seen as a winning strategy.

Whether or not Al Gore would have been a viable candidate for 2004 will

not be known. His decision not to run, indicated that he realized he cannot

surf the wave, he did not have the persistence needed for 2004. Also, what

perhaps is growing clear is that Al Gore's vision of what a leader is has been

transformed and degraded. Once, a leader was a man who had a vision that he

tried to make others share. Now a leader is a man who gains power, cynically

exhibiting whatever vision he thinks the public wishes to see.



Chapter 7: The Business Wave

Oprah Winfrey: Excellence in Broadcasting

Oprah Winfrey, a woman who discovered that her most successful quality is

her ability to empathize with others and reveal her own inner struggles, is also

a hard-driving deal-maker. In the words of a television analyst in 1993, "Nobody

gets a deal like Oprah nobody." Oprah is "a woman who's done it all right, who

has been able to build her own business into a one-woman empire," states another

Oprah-watcher. How did Oprah do it?

She herself claims that the qualities that propelled her to her stellar

position today were instilled in her by her grandmother (with whom she lived)

when she was a small child. "I am what I am today because of my grandmother: my

strength, my sense of reasoning, everything, all of that, was set by the time I

was six years old." (Her grandmother also beat her with a switch, a practice

which Oprah did not find value in.)

Even before that, beginning at the age of three, Oprah was performing in

church. And when, as a high school student, she visited Hollywood, she says

that "I got down on my knees there and ran my and along all those stars on the

street and I said to myself, 'One day I'm going to put my own star among those

stars."

As a high school senior, Oprah landed a job at a radio station. At the

age of nineteen, as a freshman at Tennessee State University, she applied for a

job as a news anchor for WTV-TV, Nashville's CBS affiliate. "I was such a

nervous wreck," Winfrey says. "I had no idea what to do or say. And I thought

in my had that maybe I'll just pretend I'm Barbara Walters. I will sit like

Barbara. I will hold my head like Barbara. So I crossed my legs at the ankles,

and I put my little finger under my chin, and I leaned across the desk, and I

pretended to be Barbara Walters.

Winfrey got the job, and in short order won over her co-anchor, who at

first had resisted having to share the camera with her. "She was a natural,

completely at ease in front of the camera," he says.

Winfrey went from this job to co-anchoring with a man called "the Walter

Cronkite of Baltimore" for WJZ-TV. But this was a big, tough environment, and

Oprah didn't shine. "I needed to do a lot of growing," she admits. "I was

twenty-two when I came here and sitting down with the god of local anchormen

intimidated me."



But besides this, she was discovering through experience that TV news was

not her métier. When covering stories about victims of tragedy, she found

herself unable to be objective and obtrusive. "You're at a plane crash and

you're standing right there and you're smelling the charred bodies," she

provides an illustration, "and people are coming to find out if their relatives

are in the crash and they're weeping, and you weep too, because it's a tragic

thing."

In 1977, a perceptive station manager gave Winfrey a show of her own:

"People are Talking," a local show based on the format of the Donahue talk show.

She was in her element. "I came off the air and I knew that was what I was

supposed to be doing."

From "People are Talking," Winfrey went on to host a Chicago talk show,

"A.M. Chicago." She had her own internal schedule for success. As she told a

Sun-Times reporter, "I had my own little game plan for Chicago. In one year, I'd

walk down the street and people would know who I am. In two years people would

watch me because they'd like me. In three years I'd gain acceptance you know,

I'd see Phil Donahue getting and pizza and I'd say, 'Oh, hi, Mr. Donahue. I

watch your show sometimes.'"

Winfrey was more than successful in meeting her goals, and sooner than she

had thought she would. At first, her program followed the typical format,

featuring celebrity guests who moved from talk show to talk show. Then she

began to focus on the area in which she excelled: personal self-revelation. She

had guests who bared their souls to her audience, and she soon followed suit. "I

allow myself to be vulnerable," she says. Her show often veered from a serious

mood to lubricious pandering. "Does sexual size matter?" was the title of one

less-than-edifying program.

Winfrey again was clear about her goals: "I want to be syndicated in every

city known to mankind." In the meantime, she discovered that her agent was

gaining a reputation with her employers as an extremely nice person. "Three

separate people [at the station] stopped me to tell me what a great guy my agent

was" as a result of which, reasoning that he was not advocating vigorously

enough for her, Winfrey fired him. Instead, she hired a Chicago lawyer, Jeffrey

Jacobs, with a reputation for toughness. "I'd heard Jeff is a piranha. I like

that. Piranha is good."

In 1986, "The Oprah Winfrey Show" premiered nationally and soon

outstripped its rivals. Still, Winfrey had goals before her. She told USA

Today, "I'd love to go up against [Donahue] head-to-head in all the markets at



once. It would be so glorious to win!" In fact, Winfrey's audience soon was

double that of Donahue.

Winfrey took more and more control of her economic life. She bought her

own studio (thus becoming only the third woman to do so), and she persuaded King

World to pay her an increasingly large percentage of its revenues.

Oprah's show floated up in terms of quality as well. She moved from

simply displaying people in crisis to presenting solutions to the problems that

they were experiencing, emphasizing inspirational messages and books that she

had read. To her surprise, she became one of the most important influences in

the book publishing industry. Any book recommended by Oprah Winfrey was sure to

be a very hot seller.

By the mid-1990's, in the words of one analyst, she was "certainly one of

the most influential people in the country because of her ability to reach so

many people. Here's a woman who's done it all right, who has been able to build

her own business into a one-woman empire. She's as big as Dan Rather, Tom

Brokaw, Peter Jennings. She's sort of like the Barbara Walters of daytime

television, only bigger."

For Oprah Winfrey, not surprisingly, there were still further goals before

her. She began starring in films, and getting increasingly lucrative deals with

King World, to the point that she became the highest-paid figure in show

business, edging ahead of Steven Spielberg.

Like the surfer who has learned her art from a teacher, Oprah could look

back to her grandmother as a mentor from whom she gained her strength and

reasoning. And again, like the surfer who develops her style by modeling

herself on a great surfer, when Oprah came up to a new level of professionalism,

she consciously modeled herself after Barbara Walters.

Like the surfer who must paddle even though it is frustrating and takes so

much time, so did Oprah Winfrey work her way forward even when she met difficult

challenges, and the work seemed too difficult for her, even when she was a

nervous wreck and beyond her level of expertise.

Like the surfer who does not allow the wave to set hr priorities but has a

clear goal fixed in her mind, throughout her career, Oprah Winfrey has always

had a clear and tangible sense of where she wants to get to both in her career

and in her income. And whenever she has reached one goal, she has not been

complacent, but has gone on to place yet another goal before her.

Like the surfer who angles to stay on the wave, Oprah has had to be tough-

minded in order to gain the kind of economic independence that she had set her

sights on.



Like the surfer who has a sense of being "in the zone," Oprah Winfrey has

been very sensitive to what is natural for her, and worked to do only that. In

so doing, she has been engaged in the work that she is best at and not tried to

succeed at some task that she is not suited for.

One may say that Oprah Winfrey is a successful leader but whom is she

leading? Unlike the other leaders dealt with so far, Oprah Winfrey is not

primarily the head of an organization (political or business). She is a leader

to her audience. And she is a leader to other people, showing them how one can

succeed in the entertainment world, despite challenges and difficulties. She is

a leader in the sense that she is a model for others to emulate.

Jamie Dimon, Straight-Shooter

In the post-Enron era, any straight-shooting, principled business leader

is bound to catch people's attention. One such man is Jamie Dimon, CEO of Bank

One in Chicago, whom Arthur Levitt has described as "the un-Enron." But he is

more than that: he is, in the words of his CFO, "the best leader I've ever

seen."

Jamie Dimon began as a young man as an assistant to Sanford Weill at

American Express. Weill was more than his boss he was his mentor. When Weill

was fired, Dimon went with him. Weill then took over Commercial Credit, a

Baltimore firm making high-interest loans to miners, nurses and factory workers.

For the next sixteen years, Weill and Dimon formed a spectacularly

successful partnership. In 1993, they bought Primerica, Shearson and Travelers,

adding to it Aetna's property and casualty business and Salomon Brothers. Their

strategy was solid, conservative management, and looking to make lucrative deals

during downturns in the economy. Whereas Weill was the strategist, "Jamie ran

tough, realistic numbers on every deal," Jim Boshart, who heads banking at Bank

One, says. And Steve Black notes, "Jamie was incredible at execution. He did a

large part of the nuts-and-bolts integration that made those deals such big

successes."

But the very different styles of the two men led them to clash. Soon

after Travelers bought Citicorp in 1998 and created Citigroup, Weill fired

Dimon. Dimon recalls, "I was part of the reason the relationship deteriorated.

I was pretty nasty to Sandy, very tough on him. We argued so much he probably

got tired of listening to me." A year later, Dimon invited Weill to lunch, and

the two were personally reconciled.



For the next sixteen months, Dimon was unemployed. Then, in early 2000,

Dimon was invited to become the CEO of Bank One, a position he eagerly accepted.

"This was my one big shot. How many times will big banks change their CEOs in

the next three or four years, and of those, how many will hire an outsider?"

To demonstrate his confidence in Bank One, Dimon bought $58 million of its

stock, at $25 pre share. "I didn't know if the stock was worth $35 or $20 $20 is

more likely. I just thought I should eat my own home cooking."

Unfortunately, the ingredients for that cooking were in sorry shape. Bank

One was the result of a 1998 merger between Banc One and First Chicago NBD, and

the new corporation had never forged its own identity. Neither was in charge.

Furthermore, each of the original corporations had also been formed of mergers

in which no central authority had ever been imposed. Thus, different branches

had different standards in a variety of areas, and the two main corporations

could not accommodate themselves to each other. David Donovan, an insider,

tells, "The two camps would argue for months over whether retail or corporate

should get the big resources, which people from which former bank should run the

business, and everything else."

In addition to internal problems, First USA (the credit card business

owned by Bank One), mistreated its cardholders egregiously, raising interest

rates from 4.5% to 19.9% if a customer paid one day late on two occasions.

Predictably, there was a large stampede of customers, and Bank One's stocks fell

precipitately.

When Dimon came to the firm, his letter to Bank One's 2000 annual report

stressed strict financial accountability and responsibility, winning the

approbation of Warren Buffett, who wrote to Dimon, calling his statement "just

about the best I've ever witnessed."

Dimon was interested in solving Bank One's problems one at a time. "I'd

rather have a first-rate execution and second-rate strategy anytime than a

brilliant idea and mediocre management," he states.

Dimon realized that Bank One was making a variety of loans without

analyzing if they were earning money, but rather relying on the economy to

remain in robust shape. Dimon responded, "You don't run a business hoping you

don't have a recession!"

Dimon began demanding fiscal responsibility, and management that planned

for the worst. "People thought he was nuts," states Donovan. "He'd yell, 'How

can you run your business without knowing that!'" Dimon realized that many of

Bank One's executives were not ready to change with him. He tells, "The worst



ones showed up at my door the first day to b.s. me. They were pretty good at

it, by the way. They had thirty years's experience."

Dimon has replaced 12 of his top 13 managers. Prudential's banking

analyst, Mike Mayo, states, "This is a topnotch team that could run a far bigger

company than Bank One. Bank One's got plenty of problems, but Dimon has built

the team to make it a success."

Dimon got to work. He shrank Bank One's portfolio by 33%, or $50 billion,

mainly by cutting down on high-risk credit. As a result, when the telecom

disaster took place, Bank One avoided about a billion dollars in losses.

He looked into Bank One's auto leasing business. Bank One officials

estimated that they could sell their cars for $25,000 each. But Dimon went into

great detail, and discovered that the cars were way over-valued. "These were

smelly, stinky old sed cars! I found out used-car prices had dropped 10%, and

that we'd overestimated their value in the first place."

Dimon also began to rigorously monitor and tighten up middle market loans,

and regain credit card customers by wooing them with advertising and excellent

customer support.

And finally, Dimon has set a goal of coordinating Bank One's patchwork

computer network, composed of a variety of systems. "Unless the computers talk

to each other," he states, "you can't do acquisitions. You can't build a great

bank."

The result of Dimon's leadership has been a dramatic improvement in Bank

One's health. In 2000, Bank One had a $511 million loss. Last year, it earned

$2.6 billion. It's share price has risen by 34%, compared to the BKX bank index

gain of 3%. And he has cut Bank One's expenses by 16.6%, or $1.8 billion.

The Dimon style came as a shock to the staid corporate culture of Bank

One. Jim Boshart says, "He's got his hand in absolutely everything. He can't

help himself." And he is ruthless about eliminating time-wasting activities as

exemplified by his "one-minute meetings." Dick Wade, head of Bank one's middle-

market business in Michigan and Ohio states, "Once he strips all the information

he wants, you're no longer sitting there in his eyes. If you're still there

physically, that's your problem."

James Dimon has demanded the impossible and often gotten it. He is

passionate and afire: "Talking to Jamie is like drinking from a fire hose," says

Linda Bammann, head of risk management.

He has also been described as curt, rude, and aggressive, demanding,

emotional, tough and intolerant of failure. Despite this and because of this he

commands the respect and enthusiasm of his employees and colleagues. "What do I



think of our competitors?" Dimon shouts at a Bank One pep rally, "I hate them! I

want them to bleed!" To which he adds, "Winning isn't about patents or your IQ

or where you went to school. It's about one thing: how much you want it!" And

the crowd roars its approval.

Like the surfer who prepares the best possible environment in which to

practice their sport, Jamie Dimon prepared himself by learning from a mentor,

Sanford Weill. This was a complex relationship, in which Dimon was at first the

novice and then the colleague. Indeed, one reason that Weill fired him was that

people were saying that for all practical purposes, Dimon was the true leader.

In classic development of mentor and disciple (often seen in the parent-child

relationship), Weill proved incapable of allowing Dimon the space in which he

could shine. (Weill was afraid to give up his own power he was unable to enter

the "zone.") Dimon rebelled, was dismissed and, once the two men were separated

and no longer a threat to each other, were reconciled (it was Dimon who sought

out Weill, Dimon was able to go through the stages of mentor and growing

disciple, whereas, apparently, Weill could not).

Once Dimon came to Bank One, he demonstrated personal responsibility by

investing his own money in the bank. In this way, like the surfer who has

confidently chosen his beach, Dimon demonstrated his own confidence in what he

was doing.

And like the surfer who makes sure that their environment is supportive,

Dimon has built up warm support from his colleagues and staff as a result of his

principled stance, enthusiasm and capability. In addition, he has gathered an

excellent team around him.

Like the surfer who knows exactly when to jump to their feet, Dimon knew

that he had to take the opportunity offered him to head Bank One. And once on

the job, he presciently cut down Bank One's high-risk credit, thus avoiding

possible bankruptcy when the telecom meltdown took place.

Like the surfer controlling their ride with strength and toughness, Jamie

Dimon has been very tough at Bank One, firing incompetent managers and shaking

up the entire relaxed corporation atmosphere with a sometimes brutal,

confrontational style. And his management style has been tough, concentrating on

hard facts, rejecting hope in favor of strict realistic appraisal of the

figures.

Like a top-notch surfer who has rigorously learned the craft and applies

it with attention, vigor and expertise, Jamie Dimon applies his expertise to

improving the fortunes of Bank One. The goal is not merely self-aggrandizement,

but the betterment of the organization, based on a strict system of honesty,



true accounting, no fudging, and serious company self-appraisal. Jamie Dimon is

surfing in the freedom zone.

Enron: The Goose That Laid an Egg

In the 1990's, as Enron Corporation's success was astonishing the world,

CEO Kenneth Lay stated, "We like to think of ourselves as the Microsoft of the

energy world."

In 2001, Enron was a spectacularly successful multinational corporation,

employing thousands with a turnover in the billions of dollars. Then, within

three months, the entire organization imploded into America's largest bankruptcy

in history. All that was left was financial ruin and financial chicanery that,

it became increasingly clear, left its stain across the breadth of corporate

America.

In 1985, the merger of two pipeline firms, Houston Natural Gas and

InterNorth, resulted in the creation of a corporation called Enron. At that

time, an economist named Kenneth Lay was arguing vigorously for the deregulation

of the energy business.

Lay became the chairman and chief executive of the new company.

As the government eased restrictions and competition increased, the price

of energy grew more volatile. Jeff Skilling at that time an employee of the

consultancy firm, MicKinsey saw that Enron could make a profit from those

fluctuations. Enron would act as a broker to energy consumers, guaranteeing

them in return for a fee that prices would remain stable.

This venture met with great success in this venture, and so Enron branched

out to other energy-related markets, such as hedging against adverse price

movements in steel, coal, and other commodities, and against external factors

such as weather risk.

As Enron grew, its top executives were in close touch with government

officials Democrat and Republican alike advising them on energy policies,

lobbying and supporting election campaigns. Kenneth Lay (dubbed "Kenny Boy" by

President George Bush) was closely involved both with Bush and his son, George

W. Bush. Lay became an advisor to Bush's transition team, meeting Vice President

Cheney several times following which Vice President Cheney made suggestions

regarding the energy industry that were congruent with Enron's interests.

By the late 1990's, Enron was the United States' seventh largest company

and the world's largest energy trading firm.

Then in the year 2000, Enron began cooking its books. Some techniques,

such as passing assets to an independent partnership in order to remove losses



from its books were legal. Other sophisticated tricks were not. Truth and

transparency were exchanged for fudging facts, papering over unpleasantness and,

finally, actively working to conceal information through subterfuges of a

fantastical complexity.

On August 14, 2001, the first public indication of problems occurred when

Jeff Skilling resigned as chief executive, leading Enron's shares to drop

significantly in value.

A few months earlier, Enron executive Clifford Baxter, concerned about

ethical lapses in partnership transactions, had resigned. Now, with the

resignation of Jeff Skilling, Sherron Watkins went to Kenneth Lay and relayed

Baxter's concerns to him, adding that Enron was on the verge of "imploding," and

speaking of "an elaborate accounting hoax."

In October of that year, Enron's accounting firm, Andersen, realized that

since Enron had hedged against its own stock, now that its share price was

falling, it could not recover its losses. It was then that officials at

Andersen's Houston offices shredded documents incriminating Enron.

In November, Enron admitted that its profit statements of the past four

years had been inflated. Kenneth Lay made the understatement, "Uncertainty has

severely impacted the market's confidence in Enron and its trading operations."

In December, Enron, once worth almost $62 billion, was filing for bankruptcy.

Its share price, which had once been as high was $95, now was selling for less

than $1 a share. Soon afterwards the Justice Department announced a criminal

investigation of Enron's business practices. In illustration of how deeply Enron

had become entrenched, Attorney General John Ashcroft and the entire staff of a

hundred investigators in Houston recused themselves, due to conflict of

interests.

Enron's own investigation into its crash resulted in a report that stated

bluntly, "We found a systematic and pervasive attempt by Enron's management to

misrepresent the company's financial condition." This, stated William Powers

(who carried out the report), resulted in "a fundamental default of leadership

and management."

As Enron's bubble collapsed, investors lost billions of dollars, and

thousands of employees lost their jobs and retirement savings.

Meanwhile, top executives of the company apparently had advance knowledge

of Enron's imminent collapse and cashed out to the tune of millions of dollars.

Called before a Congressional hearing, four of Enron's senior executives Andrew

Fastow, Richard Buy, Michael Kopper and Kenneth Lay pleaded the Fifth Amendment

against self-incrimination. Sherron Watkins defended her employer, Lay,



claiming that he had been "duped" by Fastow and Jeff Skilling. The government

continues to look for evidence of fraud and insider dealing.

Enron is not moribund, however. Filing for bankruptcy gives the company

the opportunity to reorganize. New executives have been brought in to help

restructure the company. Analysts estimate that Enron will earn between $40

million and nearly $3 billion from its old business of supplying energy to

customers a still highly profitable, if smaller company.

Kenneth Lay grimly insists, "I want to see Enron survive."

Enron was able to suborn and corrupt scores of accountants, lawyers,

bankers, legislators and regulators. Conflict of interest became the company

culture. Accounts knew, for instance, that by concealing Enron's financial

difficulties they themselves would profit. Auditors hid financial shenanigans

rather than disclose them.

Enron influenced government on the highest levels to bend policy not for

the good of the country but for the benefit of Enron. It argued for the

benefits of deregulation and then exploited that deregulation toward its own

ends.

The Enron scandal has also made clear how legal accounting practices can

be used to conceal the truth rather than explicate it.

The result of all this has been a massive loss of investor confidence a

confidence that is the bedrock of the United States' financial system. Following

the Enron crisis, any whiff of financial double-dealing sends investors fleeing.

"People have become fearful of complex accounting," says Matt Greenberg of

Iridian Asset Management LLC. "Confidence has been shaken," states, Gerald I.

White of Grace & White Inc., an institutional investor. "And it's a lot bigger

than Andersen and Enron."

Like a surfer who knows exactly when to jump to his feet, Enron began by

sensing new trends and taking immediate advantage of them. And like the surfer

who adjusts to the changes of the wave he is riding, Enron adapted to changing

trends and conditions without hesitation. The result was a sustained and

spectacular success.

But Enron abandoned its true success for the success of fraudulent

practice. So important had Enron become in the economy that we can say that it

was not surfing alone. Rather, the figure on its surfboard incorporated

elements of all segments of American life, involving tens of thousands of

employees and investors. When Enron defaulted, all of these people were badly

damaged. More than that, the pillars of America's corporate and political world

were shaken. It was as though a surfer would have deliberately slammed his



surfboard into a wave. Enron had tried to ride the wave by cutting corners and

deception. Its failure was colossal.

What was the role of Kenneth Lay? Was he deeply implicated in the scandal

or, as Sherron Watkins would have it, was he a mere dupe of others? If the

latter is the case, then he plays a somewhat noble role in this sordid episode,

for he is determined to put Enron back upon its feet, even though his own career

is in ruins. He might be compared to the surfer who has extraordinary endurance

and, once he is on the wave, experiences a genuine feeling of selflessness.

The surfer tried to fly but surfers cannot fly, and he slammed with bone-

breaking force into the beach floor.

The role of Andersen is also a tawdry one. Once one of the world's top

five accountants, Andersen acted as an enabler to Enron, most notoriously

shredding thousands of documents and computer-records. These and other actions

resulted in a guilty verdict on the charge of obstruction of justice. Andersen,

originally Enron's outside auditor, in the 1990's became its internal auditor as

well. The problem, as Joseph E. diGenova, former United States Attorney for the

District of Columbia put it is that "this is a simple issue of honesty." Honesty

was a trait that was rapidly slipping away from Andersen. In this and other

ways, Andersen lost its objective status and fell prey to the temptations of

falsehood. Although this initially resulted in financial gain from Enron, the

end was, effectively, the end of Andersen as a company with any importance.

Here again the surfer lost his footing on the surfboard, lost the sense of

the wave, lost his awareness of the right and wrong way to act. The result was

an utter wipe-out.

It is relevant to mention Worldcom here: a business that also acted

vigorously and aggressively, always sensitive to the latest trends to earn

extraordinary profits in Worldcom's case, in the field of the telecom market.

And, like Enron, Worldcom collapsed when its financial chicanery was discovered,

and which also used the auditor, Andersen. But Worldcom's collapse, following

one year after that of Enron, was even greater, exceeding Enron's losses six-

fold.

The principle, however, is the same. Worldcom engaged in auditing

practices that inflated its apparent worth. This made its profits appear larger

and inflated its value.

With Worldcom's fall, as in the case of Enron, tens of thousands of people

have been hurt: employees, investors, the entire telecom and technology sector,

and people with pension plans. Investor confidence was again dealt a heavy



blow, and this is likely to adversely affect the economy for a long time to

come.



Chapter 8: The Global Economy Wave

The European Union: Traveling at the Speed of History

In January 2002, the euro became the shared currency of the twelve member

states of the European Union: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany,

Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

What is the relationship between this development and the possible

formation of a unified, pan-European government? What bearing does the

formulation of the euro have on the United States and the world economy? What

consequences could a more unified Europe have for the well-being of the United

States and the world?

And in taking this dramatic step, how has the European Union demonstrated

its leadership capacities?

In 1950, the European Union (EU) was created: the foundation for a

European federation. In 1957, the European Union's Treaty of Rome declared as

its goal a common European market. A year later, this market was formed, and

trade barriers began to be struck down.

Although these new rules of the game made trade and investment between EU

members much easier, there were still significant issues raised by the fact that

each country was using its own currency. Any time money had to be transferred

from one currency to another, transaction costs were incurred. In addition, the

values of investments and purchases changed together with fluctuating exchange

rates.

Therefore, in 1991, the Maastricht Treaty presented the firm commitment of

European leaders to introduce a single currency by the year 2000.

Even before the euro came into being, the goal itself had positive

consequences. The criteria promulgated in 1997 for being able to use the euro

were quite demanding. As a result, a number of governments (including those of

Italy, Spain and France) reduced their deficit spending dramatically, resulting

in a reduction of inflation and interest rates. Listen to Mario Abate, an

Italian corporate lawyer: "One of the immediate effects of joining the euro is

that of doing what I call 'in-house cleaning' it really is forcing the

government to come to grips with its huge deficit, with its inflation and

spending. They are forced to do so. And in doing so, naturally, there will be

advantages to the economy."

In 1999, the euro entered circulation as an electronic currency. It was

used by banks, foreign exchange dealers, large firms and stock markets.



Transnational mergers that had not been possible before flourished now, and the

euro-dominated bond market came to rival that of the United States.

Nevertheless, all was not well. By the end of 2001, the euro's value had

dropped from its initial $1.17 to $0.90.

In 2002, the euro became the sole paper currency of European Union

members. With the introduction of $12 billion in notes and $50 billion in coins

in 2002, the euro economy became the second-largest economy in the world, after

the United States.

Yet the euro is still performing sluggishly. In the view of Justin Fox of

Fortune magazine, the euro is at present probably a "net zero," due to the

slowdown in global economic activity following the events of September 11.

And how well is the euro expected to do in the future? This question is

generally met with skepticism or, at best, cautious optimism.

Respected monetary economist Anna Schwarz is among the skeptical. Her view

is that because the euro is new and untested, people will not easily turn to it

for international transactions.

George Will, another skeptic, has declared that the euro "will not 'work,'

even understanding that narrowly as producing economic efficiency." And Clive

Crook of the National Journal compares the introduction of the euro to

Argentina's "adventures in monetary union."

Two years after the introduction of the European Union's paper currency,

Malpass, chief internal economist for Bear Stearns, has also seen nothing that

causes him easy optimism. European productivity and economic growth have

dramatically slowed down, and the EU is plagued by high inflation and an

interest level twice that of the United States. Malpass sees a solution

possible only after of a slew of massive overhauls: labor reform, lower tax

rates, less government, lower interest rates and a new monetary policy.

Others, however, have a more rosy attitude. John B. Judis of Fortune

magazine is positively enthusiastic about the euro, claiming that "the euro's

launch could easily prove the most important economic event of the decade."

He believes that cross-border trade and investment will increase as a

result of the euro's ability to cross borders without monetary disincentives

such as tariffs and competing currencies.

He does not agree with Clive Crook that the European Union will succumb to

the fate of Argentina. In fact, he argues quite the contrary: that the euro will

protect the European Union from such an outcome. Argentina's economy suffered

as it did because it was tied to the dollar at the same time that other members



of the free-trade zone to which it belonged (called Mercosur) were not. As a

result, when Brazil devalued its currency against the dollar and Argentina did

not, Brazil's exports grew cheaper, and Argentina's grew more expensive. This

is very different from the eurozone, in which everyone is using the same

currency and no one is tied down to another currency.

But what if the naysayers are wrong, and the euro were to become the

world's currency (as the dollar presently is)? It could then reap a multitude of

benefits all of which would tend to weaken the dollar. But even here Judis sees

a silver lining: a strong euro could introduce a stable international economy,

from which the United States would also benefit.

Justin Fox, also of Fortune magazine, agrees. If Europe becomes more

competitive, he argues, its citizens will be able to buy more items, and thus

the world will benefit. And were the euro to displace the dollar as the safe

currency of choice, although it would diminish the range of United States

monetary and fiscal policy, it would (in his view) bring about a salutary

discipline.

One hope of the europhiles is that a common coinage will help unite

disparate countries.

This is John Judis's view. He welcomes such a development as something

that would prevent the re-emergence of war-like national rivalries. In addition,

he argues, Europe would emerge as a powerful democratic partner for the United

States.

Others, however, are more cautious. Anna Schwartz, for example, doubts

that countries can be united by a shared monetary unit.

Martin Feldstein, writing in Foreign Affairs, agrees. He sees little that

the euro can do to bring countries together. If one EU member has high

unemployment, for example, the European Central Bank is unlikely to lower

interest rates to help that member. And so use of the common euro will give

scant benefit in that way. Instead, tensions may be exacerbated, leading to the

dissolution of the euro or even to warfare.

But the European Union is not relying only on the euro to foster European

cooperation and prosperity.

At present, the European Union's European Parliament has little real

authority. Thus, on April 29, 2001, German chancellor Gerhard Schroder put

forth his vision for the European Union: a federal European state with a single

government and a real, authoritative parliament.

President Chiraq seconded the idea: "Is it not the moment to grace the

European Union with a constitution?"



And Robin Cook, British foreign secretary, signed a declaration calling

for "a new definition of the role of national Parliaments in the building of

Europe, while strengthening the European Parliament."

Some would welcome the political unification and strengthening of Europe.

This, they think, could simplify relations between Europe and the United States,

and give the United States a powerful ally.

But others see things very differently: by 2004, the United States might

be reduced to second class status as an economic and political world power. It

would have lost Europe as an ally, and instead gained it as a competitor the

most formidable since the Soviet Union.

Andrew Sullivan is one of those alarmed by the prospect of European unity.

As a sign of what may be in store, he points to the European attempt in 2001 to

have the United States removed from the UN Human Rights Commission. What other

such mischief, he wonders, could a united European bloc cause? What could the

European Union do to frustrate United States policy vis a vis the Middle East,

or China?

Sullivan is also troubled because the European Union is, essentially, a

non-democratic body. Thus, the decision to switch from national currencies to

the euro was opposed by a majority of Germans and almost half of the French.

Yet their governments made the decision to go ahead.

Even with the reforms suggested by Schroeder, a stronger European

Parliament would, Sullivan believes, still be no substitute for the Parliament

of an actual nation. It would give no more than illusion of democracy. And such

a powerful, non-democratic structure, he broods, bodes no good for the United

States.

Besides policy and plans, there is also the matter of execution. How well

has the European Union done in introducing the euro?

In brief, the Growth and Stability Pact, which underpins the euro, has

been called "stupid" by none other than Romano Prodi, chairman of the European

Commission (the executive branch of the European Parliament), and talks are

underway to revise it.

Europeans watched with amusement as the United States went through its

Enron scandal. But the European Union has its own scandal to deal with. An audit

of the European Union's accounting systems revealed glaring flaws. "In

constructing this system," the report stated, "no account has been taken of

generally-accepted accounting standards, mainly double-entry bookkeeping." The

report went on to say that "the final data it produces may be inconsistent, so

that different line of expenditure can have two different values."



The great difference between the European Union scandal and the Enron

scandal is that the Enron scandal was dealt with openly. The European Union, on

the other hand, is merely denying the report, asserting that it contains

"inaccuracies," and that "the tone of the language [is] inappropriate."

In addition, the introduction of paper currency has led to charges that in

effect the European Union is soliciting the drug- and money-laundering trade.

This is because the European Union has printed bills in 500 euro denominations.

By contrast, the largest dollar bill is $100. What this means is that a drug-

or money-launderer can carry five times the amount of money in euros than he can

in the same volume of dollar bills very handy for putting into suitcases and

sliding along to fellow launderers.

The European Union and its policies of economic and political integration

may be compared to a surfer who has taken an incredibly long time making sure

that all conditions are right, proceeding slowly, step by step, and from the

very first having a vision of taking the most spectacular wave and riding it

impeccably. He has paddled out to the waves that itself has been taking him four

decades. He has leapt to his feet but it was more like a slow rise, actually it

took him almost a decade just to stand up straight. And now he has just gotten

on the wave. It is a great wave, but it is a very slow wave, moving at no more

than the speed of history. And as he rides slowly by, a month at a time, he is

being analyzed by a team of observers. Is he doing well or not? Is he likely

to continue doing well or not? Is any of that due to his own skill, or does it

all depend on factors completely beyond his control? Are his gaffes minor or

major? And even if he could ride the wave successfully, do we really want him

to?

In other words, the saga of the European union and its plans is not a done

deal that can be analyzed in retrospect. It is an ongoing process, and all view

are colored by what one's hopes and expectations are.

But at least it can be said now that the European Union has been like a

surfer who keeps his goal before him constantly, has incredible staying power

and stamina, works to reach his goal step by step, not expecting to ride the big

wave immediately, and who at last has begun to ride the wave and is making a

fairly credible showing. Yes, there may be significant imperfections in the

surfer's performance, you might say but the fact that he has succeeded s he has,

and the fact that he is riding this gargantuan wave at all, is certainly a

measure of success.



Whatever the European Union's ultimate goals are, we can certainly agree

that for the past forty years Europe has been at peace and prosperous certainly

no mean feat.

The surfer is riding the wave no one truly knows what will happen next.

China: The Rice-Paper Tiger

China has just celebrated the transmission of power to its "fourth

generation," led by a former hydroelectric engineer named Hu Jintao. This

particular transfer of power supposedly demonstrates China's core strength,

confidence and unity, because it was the Communist Party's first peaceful

transfer of power in all its fifty-three years.

At the same time, foreign investors are singing the praises of the Chinese

economy. "I have invested my assets here," states one businessman. "I have

invested my assets here. If I had more money, I would put it here too. China's

economic development is just mind-boggling" (Fortune magazine).

Yet some analysts are skeptical. They deride the present enthusiasm for

China and call it in the words of Graeme Maxton, a specialist on China's auto

industry a "lemming effect." Maxton goes on to explain, "They have convinced

themselves they have to be in China or their competitors will overtake them, so

they ignore economic fundamentals." These skeptics are more than critical they

are frightened at what they see is a looming economic and social catastrophe

with worldwide ramifications.

A second glance at the "fourth generation" can shed light on China's

problems. Hu and his colleagues are described in an analysis by Fortune

magazine as "an extraordinarily timid lot." In the sardonic words of one China

analyst, Hu "hasn't mistimed a single move . . . largely because he hasn't made

one." The success of the pragmatic Hu and his fellow government leaders is based

more on their ability to follow the directives of their powerful elders and

maintain the authority of Communist Party and social order.

Still, some businessmen see the change represented by Hu's leadership as a

good thing. Christian Murck, chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in

Beijing, calls it "a big plus . . . If anything, a lot of people here see the

possibility that change will breathe new energy into the process." But others

are doubtful. As one businessman who has worked in China for years exclaims,

China needs "decisive leaders" with "backbone, vision, and guts." A colorless

cadre that has toed the party line and has now been rewarded by being put into

power does not have these characteristics.



Chinese spokesmen tout an economic revolution that has transformed China.

Disposable income for the middle class has risen from the 340 yuan in 1978 to

6300 yuan in 2000. Mao suits have been replaced with the latest Paris fashions.

But the Chinese government's figures are exaggerated. Although it claims

a growth rate of 7 to 10 percent for the past two decades, the figure is

actually 4 percent. Analysts caution that a growth rate less than 7 percent will

fail to keep unemployment levels at manageable proportions. And domestic debt

has reached 60 percent of GDP, an unsustainable figure.

The Chinese themselves privately admit that its GDP figures are

fraudulent. In 2000, Zhu Rongji, former premier, baldly stated that

"falsification and exaggeration of statistics are rampant."

Although the foreign press is censored, Chinese language newspapers speak

frankly of economic stagnation, falling wages and deflation.

Chinese companies are doing poorly. It is almost impossible for them to

obtain loans. Instead, they rely on illegal lenders who charge rapacious

interest rates. State-run enterprises are bloated and burdened with

unproductive workers, false accounting, corruption and theft.

And the bad news has hit multinational companies as well. Joe Studwell,

editor of the China Economic Quarterly, estimates that less than ten percent of

these companies are making profits.

What is the role of the Chinese government in this worrisome business

environment?

It continues to favor state-run enterprises without adequate controls,

pushing banks to lend to them and protecting them.

It props up the otherwise untenable economy with massive spending. During

the first three quarters of 2002, government expenditures rose by nearly 20

percent.

Although it has promulgated many laws, ostensibly to insure fair business

practices, at the same time it has removed independent-minded judges. The

result is that the laws mean little, and cases are won as a result of political

favoritism.

China's ruling establishment is equally obstructive in the area of free

trade. Although China recently entered the World Trade Organization, it is

states Philip Lancy of the American Soybean Association "playing technical

games." As a result, although China claims to be complying with regulations, it

is in fact choking off imports.

The result of this continued state control will likely be to put a

sustained drag on the economy, resulting in the failure of the Chinese economy.



Rising unemployment and a banking crisis resulting in insolvency could lead to

chaos and overwhelming social unrest.

And that, in turn, could lead China to turn on the United States and its

allies. Even today, the Communist Party nurtures xenophobia. In a Communist

Party-approved video, as the camera displays the ruins of the World Trade

Center, the commentator intones, "Blood debts have been repaid in blood...This

is the America the whole world has been waiting to see." China could again

become an active enemy of the West this time an enemy that possesses weapons of

mass destruction.

The "fourth generation" is not riding the wave. It has not even managed

to find the beach.

The successful surfer needs an environment that will support them.

China's leaders make no effort to gain the support of foreign companies and

independent Chinese companies. They unfairly restrict free trade and engage in

stoking up hatred against their trade partners.

Unlike a surfer, this government has no sense of balance, no intuitive

awareness of where dangers and opportunities lie. Instead, it just works to

protect itself.

Unlike the surfer who leaps to their feet at the right moment, this

government merely continues the failed and corrupt policies of the past.

Unlike a surfer who controls the surfboard, these men have no vision.

They merely have the limited goal of keeping the Communist Party in control.

They are pragmatists, functionaries, men who know how to control, not lead; how

to suppress, not develop.

Unlike the surfer who angles the surfboard alongside the wave, making

tough decisions, these party hacks make the safe decisions that will protect

them for the present, but which will lead others and perhaps themselves to ruin

in the near future.

Unlike the surfer who knows where they are in relationship to the wave,

and who displays adaptive capacity, these leaders only know how to follow the

corrupt and oppressive policies of the past.

Unlike the surfer who rides in the "freedom zone," these functionaries

allow no freedom. They do not give up control. They do not set aside their own

self-interest in favor of advancing the welfare of their country and fellow-

citizens.

In short, Hu Jintao and his fellow-rulers are doing no good and a good

deal of harm. Men of small vision, without the capacity for vision and

leadership that empowers anyone but themselves, they will find it increasingly



necessary to depend upon the use of force and falsehood to prop up themselves

and their government. They are surfers who have been thrown down by the wave,

but who still grasp their surfboards tightly.

Argentina: Land of the Sorry Pragmatists

The sorry spectacle of Argentina illustrates the principle that moral and

responsible behavior is inevitably more pragmatic than behavior based on

sophisticated analyses and coldly realpolitik interventions that brush aside as

inconsequential the effects on ordinary human beings. That so-called

pragmatism, mixed with a solid dose of unvitiated corruption, has brought

Argentina to unprecedented calamity.

Argentina's troubled modern history goes back to the military junta that

ruled from 1976 until 1983, during which time tens of thousands of its opponents

were kidnaped and murdered. Toward the end of the regime, in 1982, Argentina

suffered humiliating defeat to Britain in the war for control of the Falkland

Islands.

However, with the end of the military junta a new spirit of hope seemed to

infuse Argentina. Following decades of stagnation, the decade of the 1990's

began an era of economic growth.

This success was attributed to Argentina's strategy of pleasing foreign

markets even at the expense of the endogenous economy. Argentina was determined

to reduce sovereign risk the risk that one nation (in this case, Australia)

might refuse to fulfill its economic obligations to another. When sovereign risk

declines, the worry of investors that their money will be expropriated by a

foreign government naturally declines. As a result, money flows from wealthy

nations (where yields are low) to poor nations (where yields are high).

Contrarily, when sovereign risk is high, money flows in the opposite direction,

since investors want their money to be relatively safe, even if its earning

potential is limited. For instance, wealthy individuals in developing nations

deposit their money in Western bank accounts in order to keep it from being

expropriated.

This strategy one advocated by neoliberal economists was the guiding light

of Argentina's economic policy during the 1990's. Argentina dutifully carried

out the recommendations of American economists, the United States Treasury, the

World Bank and the IMF. The hope was that as Argentina's sovereign risk

decreased, foreign capital would come pouring in.



Unfortunately, after initially optimistic developments, a series of

external economic crises dealt Argentina body shaking blows. These crises

included the Mexico peso crisis in 1994 and 1995, the Asian crisis in 1997 and

1998, and, most brutal of all, Brazil's devaluation in 1999.

In 1999, economic growth turned negative. By 2001 despite IMF's agreement

to provide a bail-out package of nearly $40 billion Argentina's risk was rising

steadily.

In March of 2001, Domingo Cavallo, a man with a strong economics record,

became Argentina's economy minister. (Fernando de la Rua replaced the corrupt

Eduardo Duhalde.) But Cavallo's new policies failed. By the summer, foreign

markets feared that Argentina might default. This became a self-fulfilling

prophecy: interest premiums were increased, and that increase virtually ensued a

default.

In their efforts to please foreign markets Cavallo and President Fernando

de la Rua took drastic domestic steps, abrogating their financial commitments to

public employees, pensioners, provincial governments and bank deposits. For

instance, they cut government salaries and pensions by up to thirteen percent.

The result was a series of mass protests and riots, which, in December 2001,

forced Cavallo and de la Rua to resign.

But if Cavallo strove so valiantly to adhere to his commitments to foreign

creditors, why did they abandon Argentina with such unseemly haste? Was it

because Cavallo's draconian austerity measures were still insufficient to

warrant international confidence? According to this view, the neoliberal model,

Argentina should have achieved full dollarization and, in general, become more a

ward of the United States a faux Puerto Rico. Or perhaps it was because foreign

creditors abandoned Argentina because of the disequilibrium that Cavallo's

domestic policies were inspiring. It would seem that paradoxically, Cavallo's

desperate attempt to attain foreign confidence so destabilized Argentina that

those foreign creditors lost all confidence.

On December 23, to no one's great surprise, Argentina defaulted on its

$132 billion. It followed this up by devaluing the savings accounts of seven

million people to less than a third of their worth.

On January 1, 2001, Eduardo Duhalde was elected Argentina's fifth

president in two weeks. This was the same Duhalde who had been notorious for his

corrupt governance of Buenos Aires during the 1990's.

It is perhaps no coincidence that a country whose economic policy has not

hesitated to deprive millions of their livelihood should also tolerate massive

amounts of corruption in all segments of society including the judiciary, police



and civil service. That itself constitutes an impediment to foreign confidence.

In the words of former United States Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, "It's no

use sending money down there if it's going to end up in a Swiss bank account."

More than half of Argentina's population is impoverished. Twenty percent

of Argentinians are unemployed. Savings accounts have been decimated in the wake

of the conversion of dollar accounts to pesos whose inflation rate is sixty

percent and rising. Every month's paycheck is worth less than the previous one.

Each evening, 100,000 scavengers enter Buenos Aires from adjoining shanty towns

to tear through garbage bags before the garbage trucks can get to them. Once a

model of safety and civility, Buenos Aires has become a city in which "express

kidnaping" are a common occurrence. (People are no longer being forced to

withdraw money from ATM machines at gunpoint, because the banks have no money.)

The situation is grim and shows no signs of improving.

Which way will Argentina turn? Will it continue to tolerate massive

corruption while at the same time employing clever and sophisticated economic

schemes that take no notice of the suffering of millions of Argentinians? Or

will it adapt the vision that the path of moral and fiscal responsibility is

also a true path of pragmatism that can lead to economic robustness?

Dani Rodrik, professor of international political economy at the John F.

Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, states, "Separating politics

from economics is neither easy nor even desirable. Proponents of this view,

including myself, would not be embarrassed to claim primacy for democratic

politics over the electronic herd, no matter what the implication for sovereign

risk. They would concede that economic mismanagement by sovereign governments

has been very costly for the developing world, but would argue that the

appropriate response to mismanagement is not a lack of management, but better

management...[T]he historical record shows that the solution to underdevelopment

lies not with the adoption of foreign institutional blueprints or the

undermining of national autonomy. It lies with enhanced state capacity to

undertake institutional innovation based on domestic needs and local knowledge"

(The New Republic).

The story is told about a man who was walking along the road when a

carriage stopped and the passenger told him, "Come in. This carriage is

traveling a lot quicker than you are." But the man demurred. When the

passenger asked him why he didn't want to ride in the carriage, the man said,

"It's true that you are going much faster than I can walk. But you are not

going to my destination."



Argentina went on a fast track of economic improvement following the

neoliberal model. But unfortunately, that policy did not lead Argentina to its

destination.

Argentina could be compared to a surfer who lets the wave make choices for

them. Rather than having a goal and a strategy of their own, they follow the

wave ans imitates others, at their own expense. This surfer has no independent

strategic sense nor even an independent ethical sense. They have a goal that of

riding the wave yet they do not seem to truly be aware of the wave, of its

dynamics.

They cannot let go of focusing on themselves enough to truly focus on the

wave. Ultimately, this surfer does not care about surfing they are only

interested in gaining the accolades and pecuniary rewards. But because he is at

best an indifferent surfer and at worst colossally incompetent, they succeed in

nothing.

They have no endurance. As soon as they begin one strategy, they change

their mind and begins another.

They have no mental toughness, and no vision merely a hope for self-

aggrandizement.

Their ability to shift and change with the shifting waves is minimal,

because the actuality of the wave is one of the last things that they are aware

of.

And the hope that this surfer can soon reform their ways and dedicate

themselves to sportsmanship, vision, endurance and selfless mastery is a pale

one indeed.

Cuba and the Unconvertible Castro

"I was born a guerrilla," Fidel Castro, president of Cuba, has said of

himself. Guerrilla, liberator, or dictator, he has led his country for forty-one

years longer than any other living national leader. And as Castro goes, so goes

Cuba. How has Castro kept his control of Cuba, and what has been the

consequence of his long rule?

Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz was born in 1926 to a well-off sugar farmer. In

1933, when Castro was seven years old and working on his father's plantation,

the brutal dictatorship of Gerado Machado was overthrown by Sergeant Fulgencio

Batista.

As a small boy, Fidel had a fascination with violence and physical danger.

He tried to burn his parents' home and his father's car, and he would regularly



hang by his arms from train track ties over a canyon as trains clattered

overhead.

In Jesuit high school, Castro deliberately studied the European fascists.

From Mussolini he learned to make the grand gesture, and from Hitler he learned

about how to build a power base to lead a revolution. As Hitler had used the

German lower classes, so did Castro later find his base amongst the Cuban

workers and farmers.

In 1944, Batista retired. Castro went to Havana University from which he

graduated with a doctorate in law in 1950. He established a law practice,

refusing to take money from poor clients.

Castro planned to run for parliament in 1952, but Batista seized power for

a second time and canceled the election. Castro went to court to challenge

Batista's seizure of power, but was unsuccessful.

A year later, Castro organized an armed rebel force of 165 men and

attacked a garrison. The revolt was a disaster. Half of the revolutionary force

was killed, and Castro himself was captured and put on trial. But the military

failure became a political success. Castro turned the proceedings into a show

trial, delivering a five hour speech in which he boldly denounced Batista.

Castro was given a fifteen year sentence, and in prison he gained his

first exposure to the teachings of Karl Marx. Two years later he was released in

a general amnesty. He went to Mexico, and organized another small rebel force

called the 26th of July Revolutionary Movement. In 1956, they launched an

attack, and met with overwhelming defeat. Of the original eighty-two men, only

twelve survived. They retreated to the Sierra Maestra Mountains and waged

guerrilla warfare against Batista. Their ranks began to swell. Batista's

corrupt regime was becoming increasingly unpopular, and Castro's cause had

general popular support. Castro's army won victory after victory until Batista

fled the country, and Castro and his men triumphantly entered Havana in 1959.

Almost immediately, Premier Castro began reshaping Cuban society. He

nationalized industry and collectivized agriculture, restoring land to the

peasants, and set up free education and health care. Castro did not honor his

promises to restore the constitution of 1940 and respect civil liberties.

Instead, he seized the land of the upper classes and then the middle classes,

expropriated their privileges, and executed thousands of political adversaries.

The middle and upper classes were disenfranchised and terrorized, and many fled

the country.



In 1960, Castro seized oil refineries, sugar mills and electric utilities

that belonged to the United States, and in response the United States and broke

diplomatic relations and placed an embargo on Cuba.

In 1961, after Castro nurtured relations with the Soviet Union and

declared his allegiance to Marxist-Leninist principles, the United States

launched a botched coup attempt called the Bay of Pigs Invasion. The attempted

coup failed because the United States had erred, thinking that disaffected

Cubans would join the rebellion and overthrow Castro.

A second crisis came a year later, after the United States discovered that

the Soviet Union was setting up long-range ballistic missiles in Cuba. After a

tense face-off during which the United States blockaded Cuba's coast, Soviet

Premier Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles.

Castro ruled a communist dictatorship lacking civil and religious freedom,

and actively persecuting political opponents. His economic policies were a

disaster for Cuba, and for many years Cuba survived only with massive annual

injections of four to five billion dollars a year by the Soviet Union. During

the sixties and seventies, Castro sent troops to support communistic causes in

Latin American and African countries. In 1979, the Sandinistas triumphed in

Nicaragua, and from 1975 to 1989, he sent troops to help defend Angola against

attack by South Africa, UNITA and the FNLA.

In 1991, Cuba suffered a blow with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Now lacking Soviet money, Cuba grew ever more impoverished and financially

dysfunctional. The government began rationing energy, food and consumer goods,

and in response popular unrest grew. At the same time, Cuba began cautiously

relaxing its strict communist principles and invited some foreign investment and

tourism. But none of this has been enough. Cuba has continued to experience

increases in prostitution (including child prostitution), black marketeering,

and other forms of corruption. Recent figures indicate that nearly half the

Cuban workforce is unemployed, and most Cubans live on a scant 1400 calories a

day.

And in recent years, Castro has also come under pressure even from his

allies to relax his political suppression. At a summit held in Cuba in 1999,

Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo stated, "There cannot be sovereign nations

without free men and women, who can fully exercise their essential freedoms:

freedom to think and give opinions, freedom to act and participate, freedom to

dissent, freedom to choose."

If Castro's record has been so negative, how has he managed to survive and

even thrive for so many years? Fidel Castro is a charismatic figure who is



adored by millions of Cubans and whose fiery rhetoric has gained the support of

elite intellectuals across the globe. To many, he has remained the same young

and glamorous revolutionary who overthrew Batista and proclaimed the beginning

of an era of justice and freedom. His early reforms of forty years ago gained

him a loyalty then that has continued until this day. Because he promised so

much, people have been loath to admit to the tawdry ordinariness of the reality

that he actually engineered. There is still a desire to believe, to close one's

eyes and see the messianic vision despite the grim and sordid reality.

Yet the continuing oppression and economic hopelessness have also led

many, even some of his closest followers, to abandon him. Castro's own daughter,

Alina Fernandez, fled Cuba in 1993 after years of unsuccessful efforts. In an

interview in 1997, she stated, "I hate what he has done to Cuba. He never

fascinated me. I don't understand why, I can't explain why. That is something I

can never explain. I believe that this charisma is something magical, it touches

whomever it touches."

Fidel Castro has been riding on the wave for a very long time. Perhaps the

most important part of his success has been that he chose his beach well and set

a solid foundation. Castro began as a popular rebel against a corrupt dictator

and improved the lives of many impoverished people. Even as his revolution

metamorphosed into a dictatorship, Castro continued talking the language of

freedom and revolution, and thus retained his charismatic hold on his nation's

people.

But how did such a genuine idealist become the leader of a regime perhaps

as corrupt and dictatorial as the one which he had bravely faced and overthrown?

In response to remarks of Mexican President Zedillo and others in 1999 calling

for Cuban democracy, Castro angrily responded, "Why don't they respect what we

are doing? Do we or do we not have the right to give ourselves the political,

economic, and social system we believe to be correct?" Perhaps Castro has

persuaded himself as completely as anyone else that his ideals are being served

by his government that the ends justify the means.

From that point of view, Castro's ride upon the wave is bound to end in

failure. His endurance, his timing, his mental toughness and his adaptive

capacity have been superb. But his priorities, his vision of where he wants to

wave to take him and his country, have been painfully compromised. Castro is

riding a wave into oblivion, the same oblivion into which the Soviet Union rode

so abruptly and surprisingly.



Unpeeling the Soviet Onion

In 1991, after 74 years of existence, the Soviet Union disintegrated into

fifteen separate states, which now have only a loose economic or military

connection as the Commonwealth of Independent States.

There are of course many theories vying to explain the reason for this

extraordinary phenomenon. But whichever factors one wishes to stress as having

led to the collapse of this political structure, they will be familiar:

persecution and oppression; economic plans that lead to impoverishment;

inefficiency and corruption.

By the time Mikhail Gorbachev took power in 1985, the Soviet Union was

suffering dep economic malaise and political problems. Gorbachev proposed a

two-tiered approach to deal with these.

The first was glasnot, or freedom of speech. Gorbachev's intent was to

help restore the economy by making information available. Because the Soviet

leadership had so strictly controlled information to maintain power, claims

journalist Scott Shane in his book Dismantling Utopia (1994), it had blindfolded

itself, one result of which was a moribund economy. Gorbachev hoped that by

beginning to release information he could begin to destroy the oppressive

bureaucracy and encourage economic growth.

Second, Gorbachev initiated a policy of economic reform called perestroika

("rebuilding"). Perestroika was aimed at achieving technological modernization

and an end to corruption. Here too it was believed that greater efficiency and

success would prove a boon to the Soviet state.

But these initiatives became the incarnation of what Hegel referred to as

the "cunning of history": the tendency for plans to have vastly unexpected and

unintended consequences.

Instead of streamlining the Soviet system and strengthening it, glasnost

and perestroika proved to be powerful weapons in knocking down the facade of

what had become an increasingly termite-ridden system, bringing it down with the

swiftness of the collapse of the rotting shell of a tenement slum.

According to one view, as propounded by historian Martin Mali in his "The

Soviet Tragedy" (1994), the seeds of the Soviet Union's collapse existed in its

very foundation. The untenable nature of the Soviet system predetermined its

eventual rot and disintegration. Mali points to what he calls "Sovietism": a

unique system held together by the triangle of Communist Party, plan (the



command economy) and the use of brute force and terror (almost 35 million people

executed, besides the Stalin-engineered famine and other atrocities).

In seeking the cause of the Soviet collapse, Walter Laqueur prefers to

look at a number of discrete factors rather than find one central ur-cause: a

stagnating economy; defense spending as high as 30% of the GNP; alcoholism

levels reaching 37% for working-class men; ecological disasters such as

Chernobyl; deep and enduring poverty; and a deeply-entrenched system of cronyism

and corruption. All this, asserts Laqueur, led to a spiritual or moral crisis, a

disintegration of the spirit.

Looking toward external causes, there is great debate as to the effect

that Ronald Reagan had on the collapse of "the evil empire."

Many factors of Reagan's policy have been cited as contributing to the

fall of the Soviet Union. But his decision to employ Pershing missiles in Europe

was, most of all, an economic challenge to the Soviets. They could not afford

to respond in kind without disrupting their economy possibly to the point of

bankruptcy.

As Gorbachev's policies took effect, the speed of the ensuing changes

outstripped his ability to control them. A new liberalism and tolerance of

dissident voices dissipated the fear under which Soviet citizens had lived for

seven decades. And once freedoms were given and people were empowered, there

was a massive flood toward self-determination. In August of 1991, a group of

hard-line Communists staged a coup d'etat. They kidnaped Gorbachev and

announced on television that he was too ill to rule. When massive protests burst

forth, the army was brought out to quell them but the soldiers refused to fire.

Without the army, the engineers of the coup lacked power, and they were forced

to step down. The masses of people had no more interest in socialism, communism

and sovietism, and the rulers of the state lacked the will and the ability to

contain them. The Soviet Union existed no more.

The Soviet Union rode the wave of history for seven decades. But in an

important sense the Soviet Union did not function as a leader. A leader

inspires, is the object of respect, helps people fulfill their own potential.

The Soviet Union was rather the opposite of a leader: a force that oppressed and

caused mischief and suffering in order to maintain itself. Although it spoke

the language of leadership, it employed the techniques of suppression and

control. At most, one could speak of Soviet leadership in terms of how the

Soviet system succeeded in gaining the cooperation of millions of citizens in

imposing its will, or in terms of how the Soviets dealt in international

politics. But when viewing the Soviet Union fared as a movement, an ideology, a



social force, it can at best be compared to a surfer who rides the wave no

matter how many people he must get out of his way first. And this surfer keeps

riding and riding, and fails to notice that as he is gliding along, the wave is

actually thinning out beneath him. He keeps riding, looking forward, taking all

the actions that a surfer must in order to keep on the wave without any

awareness that there is barely any wave beneath him. Then there is one bump,

one jostle and to his amazement the wave disintegrates beneath his feet and he

collides into the sand. The ride is over.



Chapter 9: Leadership by Choice

A Leader in All Things

Joel Horowitz, chief executive of Tommy Hilfinger is by all accounts a

successful business leader: savvy, tough and determined. But at home, his

business acumen abandoned him. Confronted by his teen-aged daughter's sulky

moodiness, he refused to look the facts square in the face. "I was in denial.

Nobody wants to admit their child has a problem, that they aren't the perfect

parent." That ended when he came upon her stumbling about drunk at a family

party. Ripping open her backpack, he found hashish, marijuana and heroin. The

next day, she was on an airplane headed for a wilderness program for troubled

youth, followed by a stay in a therapeutic boarding school.

His daughter, Leigh, says in retrospect, that her father "was always

working and traveling, and then when he came home, he'd just lay down the law."

Today, at 22, she speaks with her father every day. She reflects that "you have

to be open and honest with your kids early enough to where they want to talk to

you about things."

One problem that wealthy, successful leaders face, says M. L. Anderson,

executive director of Natsap (National Association of Therapeutic Schools and

Programs, is that "many successful parents have invested more time in their

businesses than in their children." The culture with its stress on gaining

millions has led to a neglect of one's most important, non-monetary treasures.

In the words of Carol Kauffman, who teaches clinical psychiatry at Harvard

Medical School, "We've all gone a little nuts in the past decade with the mirage

of fabulous wealth. Children can know how important they are to their family,

but if it isn't backed up with consistency of presence, they can feel valued and

dismissed, indulged yet deprived."

Leigh Horowitz was not abused by her father, nor neglected by him. He

tried to speak with her, grounded her, sent her to a therapist. But as he

painfully discovered, being a leader at home takes more effort and attention

than that. And being a successful leader at business while suffering at home

with a self-destructing child is ultimately no success at all.

Previous chapters have naturally addressed themselves to the environment

of the leader, which is an exoteric, external environment: the world of public

interface, of commerce between nations and organizations. In that world of the

outer self, there are true leadership and false leadership: principled

leadership that contributes to the world and benefits others for decades to



come, and selfish leadership that is destructive to others in this and in

generations to come.

But even a person who is a benevolent leader in the world of public

discourse can be a failure in their leadership with their home life and those

whom they love best. Martin Luther King fought courageously against the

mistreatment and violation of man against man. Yet at the same time, he was

engaging in casual affairs, betraying the most important relationship in his

life. Robert Frost was the poet laureate of America. Yet his relationship with

his daughter was such that it contributed to her attempting to take her own

life. Shlomo Carlebach, the Jewish troubadour, electrified and inspired hundreds

of thousands of people across the globe. Yet he neglected his own family, and

his wife sued him for divorce.

What are our priorities? How do we balance success on the outside and

success on the inside? What are our values, and how do we express them in our

lives? What part do our own families really play in our lives? How much time

and attention to we devote to them? Are we more committed to a commodity, a

business deal, a profit, or to a public ideal, than we are to nurturing the

lives of those who are deeply intertwined with us and dependent upon us? What

do we say to ourselves when we look into a mirror and ponder: "How am I acting

as a leader? How am I riding the wave not just the wave of my business, of my

passion, of my career, of my mark in the world? But: how am I riding the wave

of the entirety of my own life? How am I riding the wave of my

responsibilities? How am I riding the wave of my greatest personal challenges?"

Pragmatist or Altruist?

In the long run, principled behavior is as a general rule more pragmatic

than taking steps that offer easy, immediate solutions but ultimately harm

oneself as well as others.

In 1995, when Malden Mills in Lawrence, Massachusetts, burned to the

ground, CEO Aaron Feuerstein vowed that he would not abandon his workers and

community. "It would have been unconscionable to put 3000 people on the streets

and deliver a deathblow to the cities of Lawrence and Methuen," he says. For the

next three months, Feuerstein kept his employees at full pay with medical

benefits, until the factory was again running.

Feuerstein tells that when he was a seven-year-old boy, his father told

him the following story. Feuerstein's grandfather, a Jewish-Hungarian immigrant

who had founded the factory, used to circulate among the workers at the end of



every day and give them their pay. When Feuerstein's father objected that this

was not the American way, the old man responded that doing anything else would

constitute a violation of the Torah.

The seven-year-old Aaron consulted with his mother's father to learn if

this was true. The old man replied that it was indeed, and cited the verse from

the Pentateuch, "You may not oppress the working man, because he is poor and

needy." Young Aaron memorized that verse in Hebrew.

At the same time, Feuerstein readily acknowledges that his altruistic

behavior makes good business sense. "In the long term," he says, "doing the

right thing adds to the profitability of the corporation." And: "When you do the

right thing, you'll probably end up more profitable than if you did wrong."

Yet this is a truth visible only to those whose primary values are

honesty, responsibility and decency, and to whom human beings have intrinsic

worth , not a merely exploitable worth. This was not a truth visible to the

executive staff of Enron, for example, nor to the wily accountants at Andersen.

Feuerstein comments, "The fundamental difference [between myself and other

CEO's] I that I consider our workers an asset. Not an expense. I have a

responsibility to the worker, both blue-collar and white-collar. I have an equal

responsibility to the community." And he tells, "We try to treat employees the

way we'd want them to treat us. As a result, we have a great deal of devotion

incredible. It was my people who rebuilt the company, not me."

Feuerstein's vision reaches further than that, encompassing a view of

policies that benefit the economic well-being of the entire nation. Regarding

those who have moved their businesses out of urban America, he demurs, "If we

don't [remain committed], we won't have our cities in another twenty to thirty

years. And if we don't have our major cities, we won't be the leader of the

financial world."

The model that Feuerstein presents of a leader goes beyond the models

portrayed in previous chapters. The ultimate vision of those models of

leadership seems to hover on the bottom line. Feuerstein's reality seems to

rest on a bedrock of philanthropy. He claims that he is merely acting in a

pragmatic way. But would he act any other way if it could be proven to be less

pragmatic than exploitative methods?

Ecclesiastes laments that "the race is not always to the swift." Yet his

ultimate counsel is that we "fear God and keep His commands, for that is the

entirety of a human being."

What is our bottom line and our ultimate commitment? When principle

collides with expedience, where do our loyalties lie?



We can ask ourselves if we are ready to ride the wave.

A deeper question is: Which wave is it that we want to ride?

The Philosopher King

Until now, we have discussed leaders of various kinds.

But we have not yet discussed that category of leader who might be called

the philosopher king. Such a person may be a political leader, an economic

leader, an administrative leader, a cultural leader, at times a military leader

yet none of these titles encompasses and defines him. His essence is that of a

man of the spirit. He might be a secular philosopher or a religious priest.

What makes him different from an ordinary leader is that what he does is not

identified with who he is, but is only one expression of a deeper self within.

As in all other areas of life, such philosopher kings have often abused

their positions, so that institutions ostensibly dedicated toward a this-worldly

implementation of spiritual values became merely another self-interested

political power. A case in point has been the historical evolution of the

papacy, which became essentially merely another temporal power, although one

with spiritual pretensions.

Although not all of us can become philosopher kings, we can reach to such

a prominence at least to some degree. We do not have to become so completely

identified with our jobs, with our this-worldly goals, with our bottom lines,

our corporation reports and our political statements, the stuff of which our

day-to-day lives are composed. We can step back and view our lives as an

expression of a greater truth and a greater principle. We can ask the great

questions without abandoning our positions in this world. Why are we upon this

earth? Why does the world exist altogether? What is our connection to a

greater good? How do we relate to a sense of divinity? When we die, what do we

want our legacy to have been, in the broadest sense possible? What is truly of

value?

One contemporary example of such a philosopher king is the Dalai Lama,

spiritual and temporal leader of the Tibetan people. In his youth, the Dalai

Lama was groomed principally to be a master of Buddhist lore, and to become

monarch when he turned eighteen, But in 1950, when he was sixteen years old, he

was forced to take political power prematurely as a result of the Chinese

invasion of Tibet. "We had reached a state in which most people were anxious to

avoid responsibility rather than to accept it," he states. "We were more in need



of unity than ever before, and I, as Dalai Lama, was the only person whom

everybody in the country would unanimously follow."

In 1959, following an abortive Tibetan uprising, the Dalai Lama fled

Tibet. Since that time, he has gone across the world arguing for his country's

liberation from China's grasp. He has met with kings, presidents, and religious

leaders. He has been an inspiration to his people and an example of his people

to the world. He has formulated peace plans that could end the occupation of

Tibet, and campaigned tirelessly for a goal to be reached by non-violent means.

Throughout all this, the Dalai Lama has not identified himself as a man of

political action but rather as a spiritual figure. "I am just a simple Buddhist

monk," he says, "no more, no less."

And his goals are therefore spiritual goals. His vision for Tibet is not

only political freedom, but that it should be a "peace zone" in his words "a

place where people form all over the world could come to seek the true meaning

of peace within themselves, away from the tensions and pressures of much of the

rest of the world. Tibet could indeed become a creative center for the

promotion and development of peace."

At the same time, the Dalai Lama is transforming the traditional

relationship of the Dalai Lama to his followers so that it not be autocratic.

He supports a democratic model, and has worked for reform in the Tibetan

Buddhist structure, including the upgrading of the status of women. Also

startling is his ecumenical attitude: "I always believe," he states, "that it is

much better to have a variety of religions, a variety of philosophies, rather

than one single religion or philosophy. This is necessary because of the

different mental dispositions of each human being. Each religion as certain

unique ideas of techniques, and learning about them can only enrich one's own

faith."

Perhaps as significant is how the Dalai Lama presents himself: not as an

almost inhuman flawless repository of wisdom, but as a man who like others has

fears, self-doubts and imperfections. By presenting himself in this fashion, he

presents a model for his own followers as well as a persona for the world that

encourages candor, and discourages the type of outward-directed persona that can

unfeelingly project violence and hatred into the world.

Being a religious or spiritual philosophical king is not a role that

everyone can fill nor one that everyone should aspire to. Everyone one of us has

his or her own path in life. Yet we can expand that aspect of leadership in

ourselves as well. We too can resonate to the Dalai Lama's words, "I pray for a

more friendly, more caring, and more understanding human family on this planet.



To all who dislike suffering, who cherish lasting happiness, this is my

heartfelt appeal."

Are we riding that wave of a more transcendent meaning that enriches us

and those around us as well?

Let Freedom Ring!

Another model of leadership is that of the dissident whose moral strength

crumbles an evil empire and an immoral regime. It is the leadership of a person

whose voice awakens others to realize that they are in chains and to gain the

strength to challenge oppressive authority so that even if they fail, the next

generation or the generation after that will be liberated. This was the

leadership of a Martin Luther King, a Nelson Mandela. This unstoppable impetus

toward freedom and human dignity was the kernel and inspiration that drove the

men of the American colonies to revolt against Great Britain. It was the triumph

of a vision.

Why do some revolutions succeed in liberating people, while other

revolutions only imprison them in yet greater servitude? What differentiated the

American Revolution from the French Revolution and its grisly guillotine? Why

did a Vladimir Lenin bring only suffering, bloodshed and oppression to his

people while Havlac Havel (president of Czechoslovakia) has brought democracy

and freedom to his? Why did a Fidel Castro deteriorate into a mirror image of

the man whose dictatorial regime he had overthrown, while on the other hand a

William DeClerk transforms himself from an advocate of apartheid into a man who

hands his government over to Nelson Mandela?

These are questions that we cannot answer here. But we an look inside

ourselves and ask ourselves if we are leaders who have a vision fixed on a star,

if we live by the spirit of freedom, if we are congruent with the striving

spirit of human dignity, self-expression, tolerance, resilience and fortitude.

Natan Sharansky, one of the "refuseniks" whose defiance of the Soviet

Union inspired millions across the world, is such a man. His was a rebellion

for the sake of human dignity. He brooked no compromise with evil. The KGB

never seduced him into backing away from his convictions for the sake of

possible gain, such as the ability to exchange letters with his aging mother or

his wife, or even to gain freedom. This was indeed the goal of the KGB: to

demonstrate to the world that no man cannot be corrupted at some level.

Sharansky's tireless resistance, his repeated hunger strikes, his spirited and



even humorous resistance mocking his interrogators and tormentors to their face

all helped shatter the Iron Curtain.

At the conclusion of his show trial (he was sentenced to thirteen years'

imprisonment), Sharansky stated, "From the start of my investigation, the heads

of the KGB told me often that given my position with regard to this case, I

would receive either capital punishment or, at best, fifteen years of

imprisonment. They promised that if I changed my mind and cooperated with them

in their struggle against Jewish activists and dissidents, I would receive a

short, symbolic sentence and the opportunity to join my wife in Israel. But I

did not change my position either during the investigation or at the

trial...These five years [of struggle] were the best of my life. I am happy that

I have been able to live them honestly and at peace with my conscience. I have

said only what I believed, and have not violated my conscience even when my life

was in danger...."

In prison too, even as his health deteriorated to a frightening extent,

Sharansky never wavered. Once, when asked in a friendly way by Zakharov, a KGB

agent, "How's your health, Anatoly Borisovich? How's your heart?," Sharansky

brusquely replied, "What do you care about my heart? You're a specialist in

brain transplants, and my brains are clearly beyond your competence." Sharansky

reflected in his autobiography, "My refusing to deal with [the KGB officials]

was especially important...as I had no desire to be part of the pious atmosphere

of fear and submission they had created." And, he adds, "Before long, my

recalcitrance began to yield remarkable fruit." The strength of his resistance

and not compromise with his principles, which, his tormentors promised, would

yield him freedom brought him his ultimate triumph.

How are we riding the wave of our allegiance to our conscience, of living

our lives according to an ideal and not mere self-interest? Where are we on the

wave?

Happy Surfing!

Everyone is a leader to some degree: a leader of children, spouses,

clients, patients, employees, colleagues, citizens, consumers, readers,

television-watchers.

In this book I have attempted to look at how prominent people in a variety

of fields lead, and to discern from that what true leadership is and is not. I

have tried to elucidate and isolate the ingredients of leadership and to show

how, by adhering to the principles of leadership, a person can ride the wave. I



have investigated those traits and circumstances that challenge leadership, that

throw a person down from the wave.

I have looked at the nature of leadership itself, to ask the greater

questions: not only if a person is leading in a narrow sense, but what

constitutes true leadership, and what is the relationship between principled and

unprincipled leadership. My conclusion has been that leadership as properly

defined must include the ingredients of morality and concern for others that any

other kind of leadership, no matter how temporally successful, is fatally

flawed.

I have focused on leaders in the war on terrorism, technology, politics,

business, and the global economy. We have used the metaphor of surfing as a

powerful tool to help us uncover the secrets of great leadership and to analyze

world figures by the elements of that metaphor: preparedness, endurance, timing,

priorities, mental toughness, adaptive capacity and selflessness.

I concluded by a survey of other models of leadership: in family,

altruism, the deeper meaning of life and freedom of conscience.

At all times, I have inquired: how does one succeed at leadership? How

does one stay on the wave? How does one become a master surfer?

It is my hope that you, the reader, will ponder these questions as well.

It is also my hope that you will gain cognizance of the techniques and

ingredients of leadership, and apply that knowledge to your own life so that you

will become a more effective and powerful leader. It is hoped that you will use

this information and these tools of analysis as means whereby you will empower

yourself to succeed and be a true leader in all your endeavors. I anticipate

that you will ride the wave and that, should you wipe out, you will go back and

ride the wave again.

May you be the best surfer you can be!



CHAPTER 10: S0URCES

CHAPTERS ONE - THREE

Surfing

MacLaren, James, Learn to Surf (Guilford, CT Lyons Press, 1997)

Werner, Doug, Surfer's Start-Up: a Beginner's Guide to Surfing (San Diego, CA, Tracks Publishing, 1993)

Leadership

Bennis, Warren G., and Thomas, Robert J., Geeks & Geezers: How Era, Values, and Defining Moments Shape Leaders (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002)

Explorer Leader Handbook (Irving, TX: Boy Scouts of America, 1995)

Gibbons, Fred, "CEO Skills Inventory," Leadership Principles and Traits (http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee353/ceo.htm)

Hoover, John and Cox, Danny, "Ten Leadership Characteristics," Leadership When The Heat's On, (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1992) Hopkins, Gary, editor-in-chief., "Top Ten Traits of School Leaders," Education World.com (Sept. 22, 2000)

Jarvis, Chris, "Niccolo Machiavelli 1469-1527," (http://sol.brunel.ac.uk/~jarvis/bola/ethics/mach.html)

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, "The Enduring Skills of Change Leaders," Leader to Leader (Summer 1999)

Leadership Self-Assessment, National School Boards Association, (http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit/LeadSA.html)

Manske, F.A., Secrets of Effective Leadership (Columbia, TN: Leadership Education and Development, Inc., 1990, 2nd ed.)

"Marine Corps Leadership Principles" (http://uspharmd.com/usmc/mcleader.htm)

Maxwell, John C., 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998)

Monzingo, Al, "The Ten Points of Leadership" (http://www.withthecommand.com/mozingo/10points.html, Aug. 26, 2002)

"Leadership Self-Assessment," National School Boards Association (http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit/LeadSA.html)

Peterson, M., "Thomas Edison, Failure," American Heritage of Invention & Technology (Vol. 6, No. 3)

Price, Bette, "Ten Timely Leadership Traits For Transitioning Turbulent Times," International Association of Assembly Managers (http://www.iaam.org/Facility_manager/Pages/2002_Mar_Apr/Feature_2.htm, 2002)



"Review of Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun," MegaLinks in Criminal Justice, North Carolina Wesleyan (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/417/417lect02a.htm, Feb. 8, 2000)

Sanborn, Mark, "Why Leaders Fail," Sanborn & Associates, Inc. ("http://www.marksanborn.com.)

Farkas, C. M., & DeBacker, P., "Ten Leadership Commandments," Maximum Leadership (New York, NY: Holt, 1996)

Sieverling, Lt. Col. John, "Ten quotes that define leadership," (http://www.dcmilitary.com/airforce/beam/7_22/commentary/17261-1.html, June 7, 2002)

Smith, Fred, "Ten Ways to Identify a Promising Person," Leadership Journal (Fall 1996)

"Techniques for Effective Practice Leadership," Dynamic Chiropractic (http://www.chiroweb.com/archives, Sept. 23, 2003)

"Ten Commandments of Leadership," NASPA Journal (Spring, 1988)

Walton, Sam, "Ten Commandments of Leadership" (www.SmartLeadership.com)

"Ten Qualities of a World-Class Leader" Eagle's Flight, Creative Training Excellence Inc. (http://www.eaglesflight.com, 1997)

CHAPTER FOUR

George W. Bush

Podhoretz, Norman, "In Praise of the Bush Doctrine," Commentary (Sept. 2002)

Robert Mueller

Knight, Peyton, "Immigration Insanity," American Policy Center (Oct. 29, 2002)

Malkin, Michelle, "Please, President Bush, Another Soft-on-Crime Beltway Back-Slapper Won't Do," Jewish World Review (Aug. 21, 2002)

Meyer, Josh, "FBI chiefs so lax agents felt they were spies," Sydney Morning Herald (May 28, 2002)

Mowbray, Joel, "Visa Express No More?" National Review (June 21, 2002)"Catching the Visa Express," National Review(June 25, 2002)"Closing Visa Loopholes," National Review (June 27, 2002)"Open Door for Saudi Terrorists: The Visa Express scandal," National

Review (July 1, 2000)"Visa Express Axed," National Review (July 10, 2002)"Visa Fraud, Uninterrupted," National Review (July 11, 2002)"Visa Express, Expanded?" National Review (July 16, 2002)"Visas for Suspected Terrorists?" National Review (July 17, 2002)"Visa Express, History," National Review (July 22, 2002)"Mary Ryan Redux," National Review (Aug. 7, 2002)"Visas that Should Have Been Denied," National Review (Oct. 9, 2002)"State's Culture Rot National Review (Oct. 11, 2002)



"Three Killed in LAX Shootout; FBI Investigates Gunman's Motive" (abcnews.com, July 5, 2002)

Rudolph Giuliani

Alter, Jonathan, "Grit, Guts and Rudy Giuliani," Newsweek (Sept. 24, 2001) "America's Mayor, 1999-2002," Salem State College (http://www.salemstate.edu/series/SER-giuliani.php, May 1, 2003) "Leadership: Real-Life Lessons from Rudy Giuliani," CIO Magazine (Jul. 15, 2002)

McBride, Jessica, "A Dominant Giuliani Keeps New York's Fear Under Control," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Sept. 16, 2001)

Murdock, Deroy, "Rudy's Legacy: A Model for the Right," National Review Online (Dec. 21, 2001)

Pooley, Eric, "Mayor of the World," Time (12/31/2001)

"Rudy Giuliani: 'The day is here,'" CNN (Sept. 11, 2002)

The War Against Terror

Ganor, Boaz, "The LAX Shooting: Isolated Criminal Incident or Terror Attack?," ICT (http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articles.cfm, July 15, 2002)

Krauthammer, Charles, "Don't Go Wobbly," Washington Post (Nov. 1, 2002)

Podhoretz, Norman, "Has Israel Lost its Nerve?" Wall Street Journal (Sept. 10, 1999)

Powell, Colin, Interview, International Information Programs, US Department of State (usinfo.state.gov)

Rich, Frank, "What Al Qaeda Learned in D.C.," New York Times (Oct. 26, 2002)

CHAPTER FIVE

Apple Computers

Jobs, Steve, "Apple's One-Dollar-a-Year Man," Fortune (Jan. 24, 2000)

Mardesich, Jodi, "Steve Jobs, iCEO," Fortune (Jan. 6, 2000)

Schlender, Brent, "Steve Jobs: The Graying Prince of a Shrinking Kingdom," Fortune (May 14, 2001)Schlender, Brent with Chen, Christine Y., "Steve Jobs' Apple Gets Way Cooler," Fortune (Jan. 24, 2000)

Charles Schwab & Co.

Useem, Michael, "Convincing a Company to Turn Inside Out," Leading Up: How to Lead Your Boss So You Both Win (New York: Crown Business/Random House, 2001)

Amazon



Alsop, Stewart, "I'm Betting On Amazon.com," Fortune (Apr. 30, 2001)

Brooker, Katrina, "Beautiful Dreamer," Fortune (December 18, 2000)

Chaplin, Heather and Smith, Sasha, "Surviving Barnes and Noble," Fortune (Aug. 20, 2001)

Clifford, Lee, "Kmart?" Fortune (Jan. 22, 2002)

Cohen, Alan, "eBay vs. Amazon.com Marketplace," Fortune (Nov. 1, 2002)

Cole, Joanne, "One-Click Giving," Fortune (September 19, 2001)

Colvin, Geoffrey, "Shaking Hands on the Web," Fortune (May 14, 2000)

Creswell, Julie, "AOL's Big Loss," Fortune (Apr. 24, 2002)

Green, William, "It's Bill Miller's Time," Fortune (Dec. 10, 2001)

Kahn, Jeremy, "The Giant Killer," Fortune (June 11, 2001)"Dr. Feelbad," Fortune (Nov. 12, 2001)

Serwer, Andy, "Climbing Back Toward 10K," Fortune (Nov. 26, 2001)

Vogelstein, Fred, "Amazon's Second Act," Fortune (Sept. 2, 2002)

Warner, Melanie, "Can Amazon Be Saved?" Fortune (Nov. 26, 2001)

Wheat, Alynda, "How to Burn a Bridge," Fortune (Aug. 13, 2001)

CHAPTER SIX

Ronald Reagan

D'souza, Dinesh, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader (New York: Touchstone, 1997)

Al Gore

Bennett, William J., "Al Gore's Political Suicide," The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 26, 2002)

"Gore Assails Bush's Iraq Policy" (text of Al Gore's speech before the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco) eMediaMillWorks, The Washington Post Company, (Sept. 23, 2002)

Lambro, Donald, "Gore Accuses White House of Ignoring 9/11 warnings," The Washington Times (Sept. 27, 2002)

Morris, Dick, "Al Gore Runs Away from His Environmental Beliefs...and Loses as a Result," Power Plays: Win or Lose How History's Great Political Leaders Play the Game (New York: ReganBooks 2000)

Robbins, James S., "Al Gore on the War," National Review Online (Sept. 30, 2002)

CHAPTER SEVEN



Oprah Winfrey

Brands, H. W. Masters of Enterprise : Giants of American Business from John Jacob Astor and J.P. Morgan to Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey (New York : Free Press, 1999)

Jamie Dimon

Tully, Shawn, "The Jamie Dimon Show," Fortune (July 8, 2002)

Enron

"Andersen guilty in Enron case Saturday," BBCi (June 15, 2002)

Byrnes, Nanette, "Paying for the Sins of Enron," Businessweek (Feb. 11, 2002)

Byrnes, Nanette; McNamee, Mike; Brady, Diane; Lavelle, Louis; Palmeri, Christopher and bureau reports, "The Enron Scandal," Businessweek (Jan. 28, 2002)

Carney, Dan with Thronton, Emily and bureau reports, "Enron: The Morticians Move In," Businessweek (Jan. 21, 2002)

Gahan, Mary, "Enron restructures to survive," BBCi (May, 6, 2002)

Nussbaum, Bruce, "The Enron Scandal: Can You Trust Anybody?" Businessweek (Jan. 28, 2002)

Schepp, David, "Analysis: Verdict signals Andersen's end," BBCi (June 15, 2002)

Weber, Joseph, "The Lingering Lessons of Andersen's Fall," Businessweek (July 1, 2002)

"WorldCom: Why It Matters," BBCi (June 26, 2002)

"WorldCom's Star Falls to Earth," BBCi (July 22, 2002)

CHAPTER EIGHT

European Union

Bartlett, Bruce, "The Euro Challenge: Taking on the Dollar," National Review (Dec. 19, 2001) "EU Set to Reform Budget Rules," BBCi, (Nov. 27, 2002)

Fox, Justin, "Introducing ... the Euro," Fortune (Dec. 10, 2001)

"History of the Euro," BBCi (Nov. 12, 2002)

Joffe, Josef, "Envy," The New Republic (Jan. 17, 2000)

Judis, John B., "Purchasing Power," The New Republic (Feb. 11, 2002)"Don't Be Afraid of The Euro," The New Republic (Feb. 11, 2002)



Lane Greene, Robert, "Why the European Union Should Admit Turkey," The New Republic (Nov. 19, 2002)

Malpass, David, "These Dollar Drops Are Okay . . . But Washington Needs to Chime In," National Review ( June 26, 2002)

Malpass, David, "The Euro's Broken Promises," National Review (Oct. 22, 2002)

"Q&A: Euro Basics," BBCi (Nov. 14, 2002)

Stuttaford, Andrew, "Euro Enronitis," Wall Street Journal (July 28, 2002)

Sullivan, Andrew, "Union Due," New Republic (May 21, 2001)

Fox, Justin, "Using the Euro," Fortune (Jan. 3, 2002)

Vibert, Frank and Richards, Susan, "History Will Not Stop for Europe," openDemocracy.com (May 17, 2001)

Warner, Melanie, "The Euro to the Rescue," Fortune (Feb. 18, 2002)

Wright, Robert, "Continental Drift," New Republic (Jan. 17, 2000)

China

Kurlantzick, Joshua, "Is China's Economic Boom a Myth?" The New Republic (Dec. 16, 2002)

Meredith, Robyn, "So You Really Want To Do Business In China?" Forbes (July 24, 2000)

Chandler, Clay, "Who's Hu?" Fortune (Oct. 27, 2002)

Argentina

Country profile: Argentina, BBCi (Nov. 30, 2002)

Friedman, Thomas L., The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization (New York, NY: Anchor Books, 2000)

Hausmann, Ricardo and Velasco Andr‚s, The Argentine Collapse: Hard Money's Soft Underbelly ( Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Apr. 26, 2002)

Krueger, Anne, "Crisis Prevention and Resolution: Lessons from Argentina," International Monetary Fund, National Bureau Of Economic Research (NBER), Conference on The Argentina Crisis (July 17, 2002)

News Brief No. 02/80, International Monetary Fund, IMF External Relations Department (July 29, 2002)

O'Donnell, Santiago, "Argentina May Be Down But I Don't Plan to Get Out," The Washington Post (Aug. 25, 2002)

Rodrik, Dani, "Trade Rout," The New Republic (Nov. 2, 1998)

Cuba



Birnbaum, Jeffrey H., "Cuba Libre," Fortune (May 9, 2002)"Business to Bush: Let Us Into Cuba!" Fortune (May 13, 2002)

Carris Alonso, Cynthia, "The Dough in Trading with Cuba," Businessweek (Aug. 6, 2002)

"Country Profile: Cuba," BBCi (October, 13, 2002)

"Fidel Castro, a Dictator with Charisma?" Cuba Front Page, Out There News (http://www.megastories.com/info.htm)

"Fidel Castro, Cuban Leader," CNN (1998)

Geyer, Georgie Anne, "Fidel Castro: a Study in Long-term Manipulation of Power," Universal Press Syndicate (1998)

Henderson, David, "Why Our Cuba Policy Is Wrong," Fortune (Oct. 13, 1997)

Maroney, Tyler, "The Spy Who Loved Cuba: Agee, Philip Agee," Fortune (May 15, 2000)

Smith, Geri, "Even Fidel's Friends Are Saying 'Enough,'" Businessweek (Nov. 18, 1999)

"Timeline: Cuba," BBCi (July 27, 2002)

Soviet Union

Lovell, Tom, "The Fall Of The Soviet Union: Whys And Wherefores," The Raleigh Tavern Philosophical Society (www.raleightavern.org)

CHAPTER NINE

Families of Leaders

Brown, Erika, "When Rich Kids Go Bad," Fortune (Oct. 14, 2002)

Altruism

Feldscher, Karen, "Feuerstein Touts Corporate Ethics," Northeastern Voice (www.voice.neu.edu/970123/ethics.html)

McGrory, Mary, "A CEO Who Lives By What's Right," The Washington Post (Dec. 20, 2001)

Fluge, Jane, "Aaron Feuerstein"(www.free-essays.us/dbase/b1/utv11.shtml)

Philosopher King

"Brief Biography of the Dalai Lama" (www.moreorless.au.com, May 28, 2002)

Dalai Lama, Wikipedia.com

Dharlo, Rinchen, "Introduction," Ocean of Wisdom: Guidelines for Living by the Dalai Lama (Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers1989)



"Fourteenth Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso)," The Nobel Foundation Web Site (2002)

Freedom Fighters

Sharansky, Natan, Fear No Evil (New York: Random House, 1988)


chapter 1 - greenleaf university online degree programs · web viewa ceo is expected to increase...

Documents