heifetz leadership without easy answers

1

LEADERSHIP WITHOUT EASY ANSWERS

Condensed from Leadership Without Easy Answers by Ronald E. Heifetz. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap

Press of Harvard University Press, 1994. 342 pages.

Introduction

his book, the product of a decade’s research and teaching at the Kennedy School of Government at

Harvard University, where I direct the Leadership Education Project, answers questions about leader-

ship, authority, and the challenge of tackling hard problems.

Today we often attribute our problems to politicians and executives, as if they were the cause.

Instead of looking for someone who can make hard problems simple, we should be calling for leadership

that will challenge us to face problems for which there are no simple answers. We need to promote our

adaptive capacities, rather than inappropriate expectations of authority.

As a psychiatrist, musician, and lecturer in public policy, I carry several biases:

1. As a physician, I believe that many problems are embedded in complicated systems: we

want to know how the body will react to the opening in its defenses when illness sets in.

2. Also, biology assumes that much of behavior reflects an adaptation to circumstances. Bio-

logical adaptation often enables new species to thrive in changing environments. Adapting

socially means developing the organizational and cultural capacity to meet problems suc-

cessfully according to our values and purposes. Clarifying and integrating competing values

is adaptive work.

3. I think of authority in terms of service. This means having a practical and prescriptive view.

Prescription requires analyzing the problem in the larger system. I also believe that people’s

defenses deserve respect. Their behavior is their effort to adapt. I intervene in their lives and

social system to increase their adaptive capacity.

4. As a musician, I have learned that dissonance is an integral part of harmony. Without con-

flict and tension, music lacks dynamism.

My practitioner students have directed my attention to their difficulties in exercising leadership

and have slanted my theory towards the kinds of adaptive work that generates perceptions of loss, real

or imagined, by people facing change.

My view of leadership distinguishes between technical and adaptive problems (routine problems

and those that demand innovation and learning), and between leadership and authority (a leadership

strategy may be developed depending on whether one has or does not have authority). My conception

of leadership is also most suitable to a democratic society.

Part I presents an overview of the meaning of leadership, focusing on the concept of adaptation

and authority. Parts II and III present strategies of leadership with and without authority. Part IV recom-

mends ways of leading and staying alive.

T

LEADERSHIP WITHOUT EASY ANSWERS Ronald Heifetz, 1994

Ateneo School of Government

2

Part I. Setting the Frame

1. Values in Leadership

The term leadership is value-laden. It involves our self-images and moral codes. Yet the way we

talk about leadership betrays confusion. We use the word to denote people and actions of merit (we

admire the courage and commitment of Gorbachev, Walesa, Mandela). On the other hand, we call Pablo

Escobar, head of the Medellin drug cartel, a “leader.” The media use the term to denote people in au-

thority who have a following—e.g. the leader of the gang—regardless of the values they represent.

We cannot have it both ways. The contradiction clouds our thinking and shapes the quality of

the leadership we get. Imagine the differences in behavior when people believe that “leadership means

influencing the community to follow the leader’s vision” versus “leadership means influencing the com-

munity to face its problems.” In the first instance, influence is the mark of leadership. In the second,

progress on problems is the measure. This second image of leadership—mobilizing people to tackle

tough problems—is the image at the heart of this book.

1.1 Hidden values in theories of leadership

A number of theories attempt to define leadership objectively, but in effect introduce value bi-

ases without explicitly explaining them. (a) The trait approach is concerned with the personality charac-

teristics of “great men” (women are excluded)—their personal talents, skills, and physical characteristics.

(b) Situationalists suggest that the times produce the person and not the other way round. (c) The con-

tingency theory synthesizes the first two: it posits that the appropriate style of leadership is contingent

on the requirements of the particular situation—e.g., some situations require controlling behavior, and

others democratic behavior. (d) The transactional approach values the specific interactions between

leaders and followers—the transactions by which an individual gains influence and sustains it over time.

Certain values are implied in these theories. The trait approach places value on the history mak-

er. The situationalist assumes leaders to be those who gain prominence in society: People become prom-

inent because the times call them forth. The contingency theory values the decision-making style, and,

implicitly, influence and control. The last focuses on how influence is gained and maintained, without

evaluating the purpose to which influence is put. Still, each approach sheds light on how to think about

practice. The first teaches us that individuals can make a difference, the second and the third call on us to

examine the context of leadership, and the last contributes the basic idea that authority consists of reci-

procal relationships.

1.2 Toward a prescriptive concept of leadership.

In this study I use four criteria to develop a definition of leadership that takes values into ac-

count: the definition must resemble current cultural assumptions; it must be practical; it should point

toward socially useful activities; and it should offer a broad definition of social usefulness.

Leadership suggests playing a prominent and coordinating role in an organization or society. To

lead is to “mobilize”—i.e., motivate, organize, orient, focus attention.

Defining leadership as an activity—rather than a position of authority or a personal set of cha-

racteristics—allows for leadership from multiple positions in a social structure. A President and a clerk



3

can both lead. Leadership is the activity of a citizen from any walk of life mobilizing people to do some-

thing socially useful. It is not merely “getting people to do what you want them to do.”

But what is the socially useful something? What mode of leadership is likely to generate socially

useful outcomes? Socially useful goals not only have to meet the needs of followers; they also should

elevate followers to a higher moral level. Leadership is more likely to produce socially useful results when

defined in terms of legitimate authority, based on a set of procedures where power is conferred from the

many to the few.

What about effectiveness—i.e., reaching viable decisions that implement the goals of the organ-

ization? Effective at what? This study views leadership in terms of adaptive work—the learning required

to address conflicts in the values people hold, or to diminish the gap between people’s values and the

reality they face. Adaptive work requires a change in values, beliefs, or behavior. The exposure and or-

chestration of conflict within individuals and constituencies provide leverage for mobilizing people to

learn new ways.

One should ask: Which stakeholders have to adjust their ways to make progress on a problem?

How can one sequence the issues or strengthen the bonds that join the stakeholders together as a com-

munity of interests so that they withstand the stresses of problem solving?

Values are shaped and refined by rubbing against real problems, and the inclusion of competing

value perspectives may be essential to adaptive success. The hardest task of leadership may be advanc-

ing goals and designing strategy that promote adaptive work. This view emphasizes the act of clarifying

and articulating a community’s guiding values.

There are several advantages to viewing leadership in terms of adaptive work. (a) It points to the

importance of reality testing in producing socially useful outcomes—the process of weighing one inter-

pretation of a problem against others. To produce adaptive work, a vision must track the contours of re-

ality; it has to have accuracy, and not simply imagination and appeal. (b) Focusing on adaptive work al-

lows us to evaluate leadership in process rather than wait for the outcome. (c) Using the criterion of

adaptive work, we need not impose our hierarchy of human needs on the expressed needs of the com-

munity. We would ask instead: Are its members testing their views of the problem against competing

views within the community, or are they defensively sticking to a particular perspective and suppressing

others?

Leadership helps us push the society to do the hard work of clarifying its competing values and

purposes, and of facing the painful trade-offs and adjustments required to narrow the gap between cur-

rent conditions and purposes.

In this study, leadership is oriented by the task of doing adaptive work. Influence and authority

are factors in doing adaptive work, but they are instruments, not ends. Tackling tough problems—

problems that often require an evaluation of values—is the end of leadership. Getting the work done is

its essence.

2. To Lead or Mislead?

Living systems seek equilibrium. They respond to stress by working to regain balance. Knocked

out of equilibrium, living systems summon a set of restorative responses.



4

Adaptive processes have produced human beings with the capacity to learn. We can invent, re-

flect, and develop social systems that carry the lessons of the past. Not only can we learn. We can even

temper our visions. Yet many societies in human history have died rather than adapt. Clarifying aspira-

tions, facing problems, and developing a set of socially adaptive responses is not easy. Just as individuals

resist the pain that comes with changing their attitudes and habits, societies resist learning as well.

2.1 Adaptive work

In biological evolution, species change as the genetic program changes; cultures change by learn-

ing. But evolution is a matter of chance; societies, by contrast, can respond to new pressures by delibera-

tion and planning. Evolution’s only purpose is survival; societies generate purposes beyond survival.

The concept of adaptation applied to culture raises the question: Adapt to what? For what pur-

pose?

Adapting to human challenges requires us to go beyond survival. Adaptive work in human socie-

ties consists of efforts to close the gap between reality and other values beyond survival. Adaptive work

involves the assessment of reality and the clarification of values.

A social system will honor some mix of values, and the competition within this mix explains why

adaptive work so often involves conflict. People with competing values engage one another as they con-

front a shared situation from their own points of view. The mix of values in a society provides multiple

vantage points from which to view reality. Conflict and heterogeneity are resources for social learning. In

this light, adaptive capacity requires a rich and evolving mix of values to inform a society’s process of re-

ality testing. It requires leadership to fire and contain the fumes of invention and change, and to extract

the next step.

2.2 Disequilibrium dynamics

Social systems under threat try to restore equilibrium—stability in which the levels of stress

within the political, social, and economic areas of society are not increasing. Yet there is nothing ideal or

good about equilibrium per se. Achieving adaptive change probably requires sustained periods of dise-

quilibrium. How to manage sustained periods of stress is a question for the exercise of leadership.

The patterns of disequilibrium in a social system take three forms. (a) The problem presents no

new challenge, and a response from the current perspective may restore equilibrium—e.g., if there is

snow on the highway, the road can be cleared. (b) When the society has no ready solution for the situa-

tion, the social system may still try to apply responses from its repertoire, but may only restore equili-

brium in the short term at the cost of long-term consequences. (c) The society may learn to meet the

new challenge; it may mobilize to produce a new adaptation sufficient to meet the challenge. We are

interested in knowing how to turn the second possibility into the third outcome.

Why do people fail to adapt? (a) They may misperceive the nature of the threat. People can re-

spond only to the threats they can see. (b) They may perceive the threat, but the challenge may exceed

the culture’s adaptive capacity. (c) They avoid distress. The distress provoked by the problem and the

changes it demands activates their work avoidance mechanisms. They blame authority, deny the prob-

lem, and look for a scapegoat. Often, they do this unconsciously.



5

Thus the question for leadership: How can one counteract the expected work avoidance and

help people learn despite resistance? The SDI case illustrates the dynamics of disequilibrium and work

avoidance

2.3 The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)

SDI, which President Reagan announced in March 1983, was a plan to develop a technological

shield that would protect the U.S. from nuclear attack. Popularly known as Star Wars, it was to be a

space-based, anti-ballistic missile defense system.

Reagan embarked on the project with little input from his Defense and State advisers. He consi-

dered the U.S.’s vulnerability to attack a problem; with SDI, in his view, the nation would no longer be

hostage to any foreign power. But most arms control experts believed security lay in mutual vulnerabili-

ty, and that SDI was overrated. At best, it would protect the U.S. from ballistic missiles only. However,

they saw SDI’s use as a bargaining chip in dealing with other powers.

Reagan’s advisers knew the public would be inclined to buy Reagan’s view of SDI. The President

cast the public debate in his own terms.

SDI was a response to America’s vulnerability to nuclear attack. Reagan would not accept this

reality or the distress it generated. Mutual vulnerability was a threat to the American value of self-

reliance, which would have to be tempered by the reality of interdependence. Was SDI an adaptive re-

sponse? The answer may vary depending on the time-frame for analysis. But Reagan may have misled

the public unwittingly. He shielded himself and the nation from adapting to the reality of interdepen-

dence.

3. The Roots of Authority

3.1 The functions of dominance in primate and human societies

In animal societies, dominant animals take a prominent stance. They dominate the attention of

the band. The mountain gorillas of Central Africa focus attention on one adult male, called the silverback.

In the social activity of human societies, context and culture come into play. Our capacity to con-

struct a wide array of societies with different authority structures suggests that we can shape the inclina-

tions for dominance and deference.

Studies of young children show that “high-ranking” children dominate the attention of others.

Like the silverback, they direct activity, orient the group to role and place, protect at the boundaries of

the group, and resolve conflicts within the group.

Studies of small adult groups show that when people who do not know each other form a group,

they set a hierarchy of roles, authorize one member to chair the group, then look to this person for cer-

tain services—providing orientation, directing attention, handling crises within the group.

3.2 From dominance to authority

As power relations, dominance and authority are distinct but often overlap. Dominance relation-

ships are based on coercion or habitual deference; authority relationships are voluntary and conscious.



6

Many of us are so conditioned to defer to authority that we do not realize that we are the source of an

authority’s power. When Gorbachev attempted to restructure Soviet society by giving local businesses

and governments responsibility for solving their problems, he met with resistance. The Soviets were

more comfortable with the old system, where their authorities provided security and equity.

3.3 Authority and culture/ Stress and charismatic authority

Unlike animals, we do not have to have authority figures in sight. We internalize competing au-

thorities, each with a different voice and perspective. Our capacity to internalize enables the formation

of culture, and large and flexible societies. Cultural norms fulfill in many ways the social functions of au-

thority, but a robust culture cannot entirely replace the need for an authority system.

At the beginning of an organization’s life, the authority’s job of directing, protecting, resolving

conflict, and establishing norms is paramount. At this stage, the authority is invested with charisma. Over

time, norms are established, and the charisma is transferred from the person to the office.

What happens when the organization faces a new challenge and the usual norms don’t work?

When the stress is severe, the tendency is to grant extraordinary power and give away one’s freedom. A

study of 35 dictatorships showed that the dictators emerged during times of social distress: the capacity

of authority relationships to contain the stress provides a key backup system. But dependency on author-

ity discourages people from engaging with problems when they must.

Part II. Leading With Authority

4. Mobilizing Adaptive Work

Authority relationships are productive. Appropriate dependencies arise every day, such as the

one between manager and subordinate. They are critical to doing routine work, and, applied properly,

can be useful in more challenging situations.

4.1 Distinguishing adaptive from technical work

Medicine distinguishes between technical and adaptive problems and the dynamics they gener-

ate. In a Type I situation, a patient comes to a doctor with symptoms, and the doctor can “fix” the prob-

lem without any life adjustment on the patient’s part. A Type I situation is technical. In a Type II situation,

the problem is definable but no clear-cut solution is available. The patient has to take responsibility for

his health by making life adjustments. A Type III situation calls for leadership that induces learning: the

problem definition is not clear-cut, and technical fixes are not available.

Table 1. Situational Types

Situation Problem defini-

tion

Solution & im-

plementation

Primary locus of respon-

sibility for the work Kind of work

Type I Clear Clear Physician Technical

Type II Clear Requires learning Physician & patient Technical & adaptive

Type III Requires learn-

ing

Requires learning Patient > Physician Adaptive



7

4.2 Buchanan’s illness

When Steve Buchanan, 42, felt a pain in his back, he and wife Connie saw Dr. Barbara Parsons,

whom they had known for 10 years. Parsons’ routine study suggested cancer of the stomach. Further

tests called for surgery. Surgery revealed that cancer had spread beyond the stomach. The situation was

a Type III. It demanded leadership. Parsons had to help the Buchanans adapt to the reality that Steve

might die within the next few years.

Parsons switched from operating as a technician to being an agent of adaptive work. She con-

tained the Buchanans’ anxiety, giving only as much information on Steve’s condition as she felt they

could handle at the moment. She responded in a hopeful way, without lying. She postponed the tough

questions. She used her authority not to give answers but to hold the Buchanans. In time, they devel-

oped the ability to deal with Steve’s condition.

4.3 Tacoma

The American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) near Tacoma, Washington, was using

copper ore with a high content of arsenic, which had been found to cause cancer. The plant was a major

pollutant, but it had provided employment to the local community for generations. Closing it would be a

blow to the employees. Most viewed the situation as a battle as between jobs and health.

What to do? And who should decide? Everyone looked to William Ruckelshaus, head of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the answer. But Ruckelshaus refused publicly to make a unila-

teral decision. Instead, he said, the EPA would hold public workshops and hearings to inform the people

of the technical issues involved. Ruckelshaus was criticized for giving the problem back to the people, but

he chose to engage people in facing the challenge.

Both the EPA and the public learned from the workshops and hearings. Rather than view it solely

as a conflict between jobs and health, the community began to consider the diversification of the local

economy, an idea that came to light by the process of debate. When ASARCO announced it would close

the plant the following year, the community was distressed but better prepared for change.

In these two cases, the adaptive challenge—the gap between aspirations and reality—was iden-

tified, and attention was focused on the crucial issues. The level of distress was regulated by confronting

the issues: Parsons and Ruckelshaus gave structure to the process. And the authorities involved devised a

strategy that put responsibility on the primary stakeholders.

5. Applying Power

5.1 Authority as a resource for leadership.

Leading from a position of authority requires knowing how to use the power that comes with the

position. There are two forms of authority. With formal authority come the various powers of the office.

In turn, the authority is expected to meet a set of explicit expectations. With informal authority comes

the power to influence attitudes and behavior beyond compliance. Informal authority comes from prom-

ising to meet implicit expectations. Authority is a resource for leadership. A leader’s formal and informal

authority provides several capabilities, as the Buchanan and Tacoma cases show.



8

5.2 Managing the holding environment.

A holding environment consists of any relationship in which one party has the power to hold the

attention of another party and facilitate adaptive work. The holding environment can generate adaptive

work because it contains and regulates the stresses the work generates.

Parsons’ relationship with the Buchanans, built on trust and respect, provided a holding envi-

ronment that supplemented the family's support network. She paced and sequenced the flow of infor-

mation depending on how much pressure the family could take. Ruckelshaus also tried to contain the

distress generated by asking the public to face their problem. He went to Tacoma, talked to the people.

The EPA, his agency, demonstrated respect for the people and earned their trust. His formal authority

within the EPA enabled him to use it as a resource for adaptive work. The public workshops also served

as a holding environment to contain emotional issues and provide structure.

5.3 Directing attention

Attention is the currency of leadership. Being at the focal point of attention, the authority’s task

is to redirect attention from her person to the hard issues. Parsons directed attention from technical is-

sues to the issue of adaptive change. Ruckelshaus took the heat on Tacoma, but directed attention to the

trade-offs between jobs, health, or an alternative.

5.4 Reality testing

People in authority positions are expected to know, so they are given access to information. A

doctor can order tests on a patient’s physical condition and ask the patient’s family personal questions.

The EPA was equipped with investigative authority. Authority figures are agents of reality testing. They

have a vantage point which enables them to investigate problems more objectively than those in the

problem’s grasp.

5.5 Managing information and framing issues.

Parsons decided which issues her patient was ready to face, then framed those issues so that

adaptive work could proceed. She also managed the information that came from other sources, profes-

sional and personal. Ruckelshaus framed the Tacoma issues so that people would see the opportunity

and challenge to them. He chose the issues he thought were ripe.

5.6 Orchestrating conflicting perspectives.

Parsons’ authority gave her two key resources for resolving conflict: the right to mediate and the

power to arbitrate. The Buchanans disagreed on certain issues. They argued a lot, but Parsons provided

perspective. She could also resolve conflicts among the team of doctors. Ruckelshaus worked across

boundaries involving the EPA, ASARCO, the workers, and the larger public. He unleashed the conflict by

calling on the public to bear the weight of deliberating on the issue, then, with the help of his staff, he

orchestrated the conflict.

5.7 Choosing the decision-making process.

A leader becomes more autocratic when the issue is likely to overwhelm the current resilience of

the group or society given the time available for decision. Initially, Parsons was on autocratic mode, then



9

shifted to a participative style as the Buchanans adjusted to Steve’s condition. By choosing the workshop

process, Ruckelshaus gave the decision away. His delay represented a decision to let the stakeholders do

the deciding, although he did not relinquish his authority as EPA head.

6. On a Razor’s Edge

In spite of the resources that come with it, authority is also a straitjacket. Constituents confer re-

sources in exchange for services. In adaptive situations, fulfilling the social functions of authority requires

walking on a razor’s edge. Challenge people too fast, and they will blame the authority figure for instabil-

ity. But challenge them too slowly and they will throw him down when they see no progress has been

made. Table 2 outlines the shifts that adaptive situations require of authorities.

Table 2. Leadership with Authority in Adaptive Situations

Social Function Technical situation Adaptive situation

Direction Authority provides problem

definition and solution

Authority identifies the adaptive challenge,

provides diagnosis, produces questions on

problem definitions and solutions.

Protection Authority protects from exter-

nal threat Authority discloses external threat

Role orientation Authority orients

Authority disorients current roles, or resists

pressure to orient people in new roles too

quickly

Controlling conflict Authority restores order Authority exposes conflict, or lets it emerge

Norm maintenance Authority maintains norms Authority challenges norms, or allows them to

be challenged

To bring to light the focus of this book--the short-run task of making progress on an adaptive

challenge--we focus on President Lyndon Johnson’s strategy of leading from a position of authority.

When Johnson assumed the presidency, he moved immediately to repair the containing vessel

that had been weakened by Kennedy’s assassination. He acted to reduce the public’s disorientation, and

established trust.

Of his many initiatives, perhaps Johnson’s most successful were in civil rights. He listened to the

nation, he encouraged Martin Luther King’s vision, and he encouraged what he viewed as George Wal-

lace’s populist vision of economic justice. He made people do the work He pushed them to adjust their

views or reach compromises. He put the pressure on black leaders to persuade reluctant conservatives,

especially those in the Senate. This way, the issue was made to ripen.

Johnson’s strategy of leadership—mobilizing the nation as a whole to work on issues that had

been avoided for nearly 200 years—is illustrated by his handling of the case in Selma, Alabama.

6.1 Selma: eight days in 1965

On March 7, 1965, black Americans set out to march from Selma to the state capital at Mont-

gomery in an all-out drive for voting rights. For the longest time, the county had used time-worn me-

thods to prevent black citizens from registering to vote. In response to the voting-rights march, Governor

George Wallace, a segregationist, sent the state police against the 600 unarmed black people as they



10

reached the city limits. The marchers were beaten, stricken with tear gas, and bullwhipped by troopers

on horseback. Americans throughout the country witnessed the scene on TV. In reaction, there was mas-

sive pressure for President Johnson to mobilize the national guard.

Johnson refused to move. He was faced with a conflict between two constituencies with two op-

posing values: states’ rights (representing white supremacy) and voting rights. Some people wanted him

to protect the marchers; others wanted the federal government to keep out of state affairs. The conflict

dated back to the Civil War era.

After the televised beatings, Martin Luther King Jr. announced a ministers’ march on Montgom-

ery. In anticipation of the march, the pressure on Johnson grew. The White House was deluged with calls

and telegrams. The public looked to the President to restore order.

As talks were held among the parties concerned in the interest of public safety, tension re-

mained high. Johnson held steady. After over a week, Wallace asked to meet the President, and Johnson

granted the request at once. The arrangement: Johnson would rescue Wallace from his obligation to

maintain order and protect innocent black people—for which he would have paid dearly with his own

white constituents—but Wallace would have to ask Johnson publicly to mobilize the national guard.

Johnson announced, in Wallace’s presence: “If local authorities are unable to function, the federal gov-

ernment will meet its responsibilities.”

6.2 Principles of leadership.

Identifying the adaptive challenge. Johnson confronted a familiar conflict of values: freedom

and equality on the one hand, and traditional, local white cultures on the other. No presidential decision

could “fix” this problem—it existed in the minds and hearts of citizens, and only adjustments there would

resolve the conflict. What the President could do was prod people across the nation to address the inter-

nal contradiction between what they espoused and what they lived.

Regulating distress. In the midst of a crisis, the first priority is to evaluate the level of social dis-

tress, and if it is too high, take action to bring it into productive range. Johnson saw that the bonds hold-

ing the nation could withstand his holding steady for a time. He contained distress by containing himself.

By inaction, he raised the level of tensions so that people could no longer ignore their own responsibility

for the harsh reality of racial justice.

Directing disciplined attention to the issues. By waiting over a week to make a move, Johnson

allowed television images of racial brutality to settle into the public consciousness. He wanted to address

the issue of racial justice, and not merely diffuse the dissonance. The point was not the right to march,

but the right to vote. Had he intervened immediately, the issue might have been understood the wrong

way—the easy way. Work avoidance mechanisms might have arisen.

Giving the work back to the people. Johnson waited for Wallace to ask for federal troops, thus

persuading the nation that he had acted reluctantly and out of necessity. He let everyone know he was

acting on Wallace’s initiative. He made sure the debate focused on civil rights, not states’ rights, and that

Wallace had borne the burden.

Protecting voices on leadership within the community. Johnson protected King and his col-

leagues in the form of encouragement, but made clear to King the limits of the cover he could provide.



11

Johnson eventually had to provide a clear focal point to restore a sense of order to the nation.

He did this in a televised speech before Congress, at a time when people were ready to hear what they

needed to hear. He told them that the challenge of civil rights would require ongoing work: the attitudes

and structures of society would have to change. He identified the nation’s vision and put it into words. As

the nation clarified its values, so did he. Johnson’s leadership lay in his wherewithal to give meaning to

the crisis and avoid the common pitfall of restoring order prematurely. On August 6, 1965, Johnson

signed the Voting Rights Act into law. Six months later, 9,000 black people were registered to vote in

Selma.

7. Falling Off the Edge

7.1 The sources of autocratic action.

Lyndon Johnson’s successes on domestic issues contrast sharply with his failure on the Vietnam

crisis he had inherited. In foreign affairs, he took the autocratic stance—leaders lead and followers fol-

low. In assuming that authorities have little to learn, this stance limited his ability to test basic political

and moral assumptions. On Vietnam policy, he fell off the razor’s edge, acting authoritatively when no

authoritative decision-making was appropriate.

In setting Vietnam policy, Johnson crept up in stealth not only on his enemy but also on his con-

stituents. He increased economic aid to South Vietnam and approved covert operations. His advisers sent

large numbers of troops and made secret drafts of legislation authorizing war, but to both Congress and

the public, Johnson denied extensive involvement.

As a political calculation, Johnson felt compelled to bear the weight alone and deceive the na-

tion. He believed he could not afford to offer his policies up for debate, as some of his advisers sug-

gested. But beyond being a personal error or failure of character, his actions required a permissive con-

text. As other Presidents before him had done, Johnson relied on his status as commander in chief to

exercise greatly expanded authority. There had been historical trends favoring presidential autonomy in

making war. During Johnson’s term, Congress avoided responsibility for policy design. Except for Senate

Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, the other heads of Congress let Johnson bear the burden—they agreed

to more forces without stirring up a big debate in Congress.

7.2 Technical reasons for autocratic action.

Given the complexities of foreign affairs, autocratic action makes some sense. Dealing abroad

with friends and foe can be compromised by lack of unity behind the President. Military crises require

dispatch. The intricacies of foreign affairs require the expertise of experienced professionals. And the

President needs to be able to maintain secrecy.

In the case of Vietnam, however, these requirements for autocratic action did not apply. By

treating Vietnam like a technical problem, Johnson failed to create a holding environment for getting

others to share responsibility for tough issues and for protecting voices of dissent. By suppressing Senate

leaders like Mike Mansfield, he deterred those who might have usefully provoked debate.

At home, Johnson had been a master of the politics of inclusion. But he viewed foreign policy as

a job for technical experts. He was carried away by his personal need to dominate foreign affairs and the

prevailing trends in foreign policymaking.



12

Part III. Leading Without Authority

8. Creative Deviance on the Frontline

We see leadership too rarely exercised from high office, and the constraints that come with au-

thority explain why. People generally look to authorities to solve problems with a minimum of pain, and

when pain is involved, they are often unwilling to bear the cost (Raise his taxes, not mine). The scarcity of

leadership from people in authority makes it critical to adaptive success that leadership be exercised

without authority, by people within the system who see through the blind spots of the dominant view-

point.

Because we are not used to distinguishing between leadership and authority, the idea of leader-

ship without authority is new and perplexing. Nearly all studies of leadership focus primarily on figures of

authority. Leadership may emerge from the foot of the table, but that is not where our gaze is fixed.

Can someone exercise leadership from the foot of the table without any authority, formal or in-

formal? I think the answer is yes.

8.1 The Benefits of leading without authority

Leadership means engaging people to make progress on the adaptive problems they face. With

or without authority, it requires an educative strategy. Senior authority carries with it the resources for

such a strategy, but the constraints of authority suggest that there may be advantages to leading without

authority. (a) The absence of authority allows one to deviate from the norms of authoritative decision-

making. Instead of providing answers that soothe, one can raise questions that disturb. One has more

latitude for creative deviance. (b) Leading without or beyond one’s authority permits focusing on a single

issue. One need not worry about meeting multiple expectations. (c) Operating with little or no authority

places one closer to the experiences of the stakeholders in the situation. One has frontline information.

8.2 Mohandas K. Gandhi in India

Gandhi developed the technique of nonviolent civil disobedience to show the British public the

moral contradictions in its colonial policies. He focused attention on that to which few British wanted to

pay attention. He identified the adaptive challenge and used various methods of creative deviance to get

people to face it.

Gandhi gained informal authority from much of the Indian population and led India using the re-

sources of that authority. He also generated adaptive work among the British, over whom he had no au-

thority whatsoever. He used a strategy to provoke learning targeted at the values, attitudes, and habits

of his adversary. He used himself to dramatize the issues. He embodied the British values he demanded

the British to live by. When he fasted for justice, people paid attention: he practiced what he preached.

Gandhi saw that the Indian people had their own adaptive work to do. Colonialism was a way of

life not only to Britain but also to India. Breaking up that way of life required enormous adaptive work.

The British could just leave India, but getting them ready to leave and getting India to rule herself were

adaptive challenges of the first magnitude.

Gandhi used his informal authority with skill. He held no formal authority, but Indians and non-

Indians granted him moral authority. He dramatized that the aspirations of his people were consonant



13

with the moral underpinnings of the West. He stayed close tot the frontline of life in India and learned

about the values of his people. If he had held a political office, he would have felt the constraints of a

formal role. Outside the center, he had the freedom to present a focused message, and to embody it.

8.3 Margaret Sanger in the United States

Margaret Sanger identified an adaptive challenge—an internal contradiction in American life:

millions of people were using birth control by the turn of the century, yet the laws prohibited its discus-

sion, research, and prescription. A nation that valued self-reliance and autonomy rendered half of its

population dependent and out of control. Sanger mobilized people in the U.S. and abroad to face the

relationship between poverty, the status of women, and the need for women to plan their families.

Sanger’s awakening, when she was starting her career as a nurse, came while caring for a young

Jewish immigrant, Sadie Sachs, who was suffering from infection from a self-induced abortion. Her doc-

tor had responded to her plea for reliable contraception by telling her to have her husband sleep on the

roof. Sanger told Mrs. Sachs about condoms and coitus interruptus, the commonplace contraceptives

then, though she found them unacceptable: they ceded the power of birth control to men. Seeing Mrs.

Sachs get worse, she resolved to leave “the palliative career of nursing in pursuit of fundamental social

change.”

She gave speeches on the lives of poor women, wrote columns on sex education and health, and

started her own magazine, where she challenged prohibitions against discussing contraception under a

woman’s control. She was arrested for sending “indecent” material through the mail. She wrote a

pamphlet explaining in a simple way the common forms of contraception. Women were secretly using

these methods, but the ban on discussion prevented their proper use. Sanger fled to Europe, but en

route, she asked her printer to release 100,000 copies of the pamphlet. Her husband was arrested for

handing out a copy. When she heard of this, she came home to face trial.

These developments brought the issue to public attention. Reputable publications were writing

on the subject. As support widened, Sanger shaped the debate by distinguishing between contraception

and abortion and advocating only the former. By the time her trial came in 1916, public opinion had

shifted. The charges against her were dropped. Her victory led to speechmaking and publicity across the

country. Then with her sister, a nurse, she started the nation’s first birth control clinic. They were ar-

rested and jailed. After serving their sentences, Sanger worked for a court ruling that would affirm the

right of physicians to prescribe contraceptives in case of medical need. She got it.

Sanger’s activist colleagues felt it was a mistake to get the cooperation of the male medical pro-

fession, but Sanger saw this as a necessary concession: she wanted birth control on as scientific a footing

as possible, while promoting research into new, safer methods. She wrote, traveled, spoke for years—

educating, provoking, organizing women. In the late 1950s, contraception became an accepted idea.

Sanger had the latitude to address the issues because no one had asked her to. She provoked

public engagement with the issues. By creative deviance, she prodded those in authority to continue the

debate. And she never forgot that women were her primary constituency.

8.4 Two Lieutenants in Vietnam

Lack of authority may provide opportunities for leadership, but only for those who recognize and

seize them. Sometimes, habits and procedures obstruct adaptive work.



14

Air Force Lt. Chuck Adams talked to his fellow pilots and his ordinance officer about an observa-

tion: every so often, a bomber would blow up in the sky while still beyond the reach of anti-aircraft fire.

He figured: the bombs, a new type designed to explode at a preprogrammed altitude, were defective.

The theory made sense to the pilots; the ordinance officer brushed it aside. Adams and company went to

the commanding officer, who, finding no authoritative backing for the theory, dismissed it and ordered

the pilots to fly. Adams saw his case as follow or disobey. He followed. Only when another plane blew up

did the commanding officer halt the use of the new bombs, which were later found to be defective. Look-

ing back at the situation 20 years later, Adams realized that a whole range of options for leadership were

available to him then, but he did not see them.

Lt. John Richards was charged with assignments to search out the enemy when it was obvious to

his men that the war had been lost. Following orders put his men at risk. He talked to them and allowed

them to break into two groups: those committed to military norms, and those who were not. He headed

the committed group, which continued to fight. The uncommitted group, with the help of those fighting,

stayed out of combat. Each group respected the other’s choice. Most of them came home.

9. Modulating the Provocation

The principles of leadership discussed so far apply to leaders with or without authority. Howev-

er, those who lead without authority must adopt strategies that are more subtle. (a) Without authority,

one has very little control over the holding environment. One can spark the debate, but cannot orches-

trate it. (b) In directing attention to an issue, a leader without authority can easily become targeted for

attack. He can become a lightning rod. (c) Since people in power often change their ways when the

sources of their authority change the expectations, it may make more sense to mobilize the stakeholders

than to challenge authority.

9.1 Selma, 1965

(From the perspective of those at the frontline). In the first stirrings of the Selma voting rights

movement, those who first exercised leadership had no authority to organize for voting rights. Fred

Reese, a science teacher; Marie Foster, a dental hygienist; and Bernard Lafayette, a student, all did some-

thing to educate their fellow black citizens on voting rights.

Unlike these activists, Martin Luther King Jr. had a great deal of authority, most of it informal. His

strategic challenge was to dramatize the question: Would the country live according to its professed val-

ue of equal opportunity? The movement would have to expose more fully the hidden brutalities of rac-

ism. In the civil rights demos, the authorities’ strategy was to maintain civility. King escalated the cam-

paign. When horses, tear gas and billy clubs were used on March 7, the demonstrators had won.

9.2 Reading the authority figure as barometer.

In leading people who gave him no authority, King’s success depended on his sensitivity to the

stress he generated and the pace at which he did so. He had to take into account the level of distress the

larger system could withstand. One barometer of systemic distress is the behavior of people in senior

positions of authority. King had to keep his eyes on Johnson, and the local activists had to keep their eyes

on the state authorities. At the local level, they aimed to move beyond the limit of tolerance. But at the

national level, they had to keep the distress within the proper range—below the breaking point.



15

9.3 Becoming a lightning rod of attention.

Attention has its costs and benefits. Although attention is a major tool of leadership, it also

makes one a likely target of attack. A major challenge of leadership is to draw attention and then deflect

it to the issues that need to be faced. King became the lightning rod of attention on civil rights. His every

move became subject to scrutiny. King turned this to his advantage. He became the living embodiment of

the issue. Yet however much he embodied civil rights, he never became the issue. He only represented it.

By dramatizing the contradictions within the nation, King made people feel the contradictions in their

own attitudes.

9.4 Mobilizing the stakeholders.

Any challenge must mobilize the real stakeholders. One must ask: Who are the primary stake-

holders in this issue, and how might they need to change their ways? What expectations do they have of

their authority? How can the authority figure begin to reshape those expectations to provide himself

with latitude to take action? The leaders in Selma did not take on the authority system in Selma directly.

They took on their own public—black citizens whose compliance with the system helped to keep it in

place. King avoided the trap of directing the challenge at the top authority figure. Instead, they targeted

the nation.

Part IV. Staying Alive

10. Assassination

Leadership is dangerous, with or without authority, because of the stresses of adaptive work.

Severe distress can make people cruel: there comes a desperate desire for order. People who lead often

bear scars from their efforts at adaptive change. Often they are silenced. Sometimes they are killed.

Adaptive work often means loss, and leaders are attacked because they come to represent loss, real or

imagined, to those who feel short-changed. The authority figure’s double bind: upon meeting an adap-

tive challenge, he is expected to give direction, but is pressured not to provide direction that generates

pain or loss. The common resolution of this dilemma is to couple boldness with protection—e.g., by act-

ing boldly on side issues while restoring order.

10.1 The politics of inclusion.

Even the best efforts at inclusion can rarely prevent the experience of loss by some. As a result,

one often cannot shield oneself from the outrage of parties who must face loss and are unwilling to

change.

10.2 Pacing the work.

Because challenging people to face hard realities can be brutal work, the pains of change de-

serve respect. People can only sustain so much loss at a time. Leadership demands respect for people’s

basic need for direction, protection, and order in times of distress. Knowing how hard to push and when

to let up are central to leadership.

To pace adaptive work, it helps to focus on an issue, frame it, and manage the flow of informa-

tion. It also helps to ask: How stressful is the problem being raised? How resilient are the people chal-



16

lenged? How strong are the bonds of authority that give one the power to hold people’s attention to the

hard questions?

Leadership requires an experimental mindset. A leader stays alive not by “playing it safe” but by

taking deliberate risks based on his own assessment of a situation. Adaptive situations demand that

people discover, invent, and take responsibility.

10.3 The temptation of martyrdom.

Sometimes, people in authority confuse courage with the temptation of martyrdom. Martyrdom

is a role created by the community. It is often reserved for charismatic authorities who are assassinated

in the service of their cause. The personal temptation to martyrdom becomes particularly strong when

the problem comes to its full complexity, swaying the capacity of the charismatic to maintain the illusion

that he has the answer.

11. The Personal Challenge

To lead and yet sustain the personal stresses that come with leading requires inner discipline. So

far, we have focused on a strategy for managing the social environment. Now we address the capacity to

manage oneself.

11.1 Getting on the balcony.

Leadership is both active and reflective. One has to alternate between participating and observ-

ing. It is one thing to dance on a dance floor and another thing to stand on a balcony and watch other

people dance. To discern the larger patterns on the dance floor, we have to stop moving and get to the

balcony. The right questions can help one get above the fray to see the key patterns.

Identifying the adaptive challenge. (a) What’s causing the distress? (b) What internal contradic-

tions does the distress represent? (c) What are the histories of these contradictions? (d) What perspec-

tives and interests have I and others come to represent to various segments of the community that are

now in conflict? (e) In what ways are we in the organization or working group mirroring the problem dy-

namics in the community?

Regulating distress. (f) What are the characteristic responses of the community to disequili-

brium—to confusion about future direction, the presence of an external threat, disorientation, internal

conflict, or the breaking up of norms? (g) When in the past has the distress appeared to reach a breaking

point? (h) What actions by senior authorities traditionally have restored equilibrium? What mechanisms

to regulate distress are currently within my control, given my authority?

Directing disciplined attention to the issues. (i) What are the work and work avoidance patterns

particular to this community? (j) What does the current pattern of work avoidance indicate about the

nature and difficulty of the present adaptive challenge and the various work issues that it comprises? (k)

What clues do the authority figures provide? (l) Which of the issues are ripe? What are the options for

tackling the ripe issues, or for ripening an issue that has not fastened on people’s minds?

Giving the work back to the people. (m) Changes in whose values, beliefs, or behaviors would

allow progress on these issues? (n) What re the losses involved? (o) Given my role, how am I likely to be

drawn into work avoidance?



17

11.2 The role/self distinction.

Exercising leadership and bearing personal responsibility requires seeing the difference between

oneself and one’s role. When a teenage son slams the door in his parents’ faces, they will usually know

better than to take it personally. This distinction enables them not to be misled by his emotions.

11.3 Externalizing the conflict.

Martin Luther King Jr. externalized the civil rights conflict. He repeatedly reinforced the message

that the conflict was not between white Americans and him, nor even black and white Americans. It was

a conflict between American values and American reality. Internalizing the conflict causes serious difficul-

ties. It leads to a misdiagnosis. The issue becomes personalized and gets interpreted as a personal prob-

lem even when it is not.

11.4 Partners.

Leadership cannot be exercised alone. The lone-warrior model of leadership is heroic suicide.

Each of us has blind spots that require the vision of others. Each of us has passions that need to be con-

tained by others. A leader needs partners. A partner may be a confidant, a person to whom one can cry

out or complain (e.g., Robert Kennedy, during the Kennedy presidency), or an ally, a partner usually op-

erating across a line of authority or organizational boundary. Forming alliances with various authority

figures played a central role in the strategies of Johnson (in civil rights), Gandhi, Sanger, and King.

11.5 Listening: Using oneself as data.

The balcony is also a vantage point from which to observe oneself and the way one listens. To in-

terpret events, a person who leads needs to understand his own ways of processing and distorting what

he hears. To maintain an adequate level of self-examination, we can reflect on the daily actions, suc-

cesses, and failures of ourselves and others. We can also use partners as a hedge against self-deception.

11.6 Finding a sanctuary.

Listening to oneself requires a place where one can hear oneself think. A leader needs a sanctu-

ary. Leadership requires a strategy of deploying and restoring one’s spiritual resources.

11.7 Preserving a sense of purpose.

Leadership is a passionate and consuming activity. So strong are its emotions, they can over-

whelm the person who has not developed a sufficiently broad sense of purpose. A sense of purpose

enables one to step back and review the orienting values embedded in a particular mission. Preserving a

sense of purpose helps one take setbacks and failures in stride.

Conclusion

Leadership requires a learning strategy. A leader has to engage people in facing the challenge, adjusting

their values, changing perspectives, and developing new habits of behavior. To an authoritative person

who prides himself in his ability to tackle hard problems, this may come as a rude awakening. But it also



18

eases the burden of having to know the answers. The adaptive demands of our societies require leader-

ship that takes responsibility without waiting for revelation or request. One may lead perhaps with no

more than a question in hand.

heifetz leadership without easy answers

Documents