Warren Bennis (1925–2014)

I discovered the work of Warren G, Bennis in a journal article in which he explored the role of the continuing education of adults in a rapidly changing society. Particularly, he focused on the need for occasional retreats—brief, intense, personally engaging, group experiences, in which participants would be isolated for a short time from routine, workaday conditions. The term retreat, at the time, was derived from religious organizations, but Bennis was applying it to the need for growth show more and adaptation among professional and managerial workers, who were in constant need of rethinking their roles and expanding their horizons. Curiously the retreat Bennis envisioned would ordinarily have involved strangers brought together for a common goal and achieving a sense of community quickly, then dispersing. This became for him an epitome of “the temporary society,” but also a satisfying, positive response to its conditions.

The book, The Temporary Society (1968), which he produced with his colleague Philip E. Slater, addressed some of these critical issues in more detail. The book focused on what the authors called “chronic change” as a defining characteristic of modern society (“temporary systems, nonpermanent relationships, turbulence, uprootedness, unconnectedness, mobility, and above all, unexampled social change”). Slater’s chapters dealt with personal relationships, especially marriage and family; Bennis, with organizations and leadership. Their joint theme, stated directly in the first chapter, was that such cultural conditions wouild not only encourage but actually require a global transition to a democratic way of life. In their first chapter, entitled “Democracy Is Inevitable,” they insisted that “democracy becomes a functional necessity whenever a social system is competing for survival under conditions of chronic change.”

It is important to understand that by “democracy” they were referring to a system of government but perhaps more important to a culture of interaction. “Democratic” values, hence, included free and open communication regardless of rank or office; reliance on consensus rather than coercion to manage conflict; the influence of people with ideas and competencies rather than “prerogatives of power”; attention to affective, emotional dimensions of experience; and willingness to cope with differences and uncertainty rather than eliminate them.

The authors recognized that the transition to such a “democratic” society would not be easy or sudden. In the US the ideals of democracy were held aloft almost as a religion; however, corporations, educational institutions, and families tended still to be basically autocratic. “Feelings about [democracy] are for the most part affectionate, even respectful, but a little impatient. There are probably few men of affairs in America who have not at some time nourished in their hearts the blasphemous thought that life would go much more smoothly if democracy could be relegated to some kind of Sunday morning devotion.” (Does this sound like something we might hear in 2007?)

Bennis and Slater’s implicit, underlying theme, however, was one they emphasized often. It identified a factor that must be dealt with in marriages and families as well as businesses and institutions. In a temporary society, the quality of experience was likely to become more important than continuity; relationships were likely to become more intense but less stable. Patterns of work and behavior, even thought processes, were likely to change several times during one lifetime and, thus, to require adaptability and the ability to live with ambiguity, uncertainty, and impermanence.

Slater envisioned the future of the “democratic” family as involving greater independence of the generations (and the tensions that might engender), perhaps even “serial monogamy” as a model for marriages, and the enculturation of children in kibbutz-like public education rather than exclusively by families.

However, it was Bennis’s investigation of leadership and management styles that was more interesting to me, particularity its implication for continuing education. He listed six main tasks of leadership within a “temporary society” and its “democratic” culture: [1] the integration of self-development, self-expression, and meaningful associations in a work environment, “the blurring of the boundaries between work and play, between affiliative and achievement drives”; [2] the development of “executive constellations,” that is, leadership teams or cabinets instead of single, autocratic authorities; [3] collaboration, with participants in the group having “a high degree of autonomy and a high degree of participation making key decisions”; [4] adaptability, avoiding both rigidity on the one hand and “a spastic, unreliable faddishness” on the other; [5] commitments to “supraorganizatonal goals,” a sense of community, and a shared identity; and [6] revitalization, that is, a continuous remaking of the organization through data generation, feedback, and action planning.

Seeking a metaphor for these new concepts of leadership, Bennis ultimately chose what he called “an agricultural model.” A smooth-running organization would be more like a garden or greenhouse than a machine. It would be organic, rather than mechanistic, a process, not a structure, “an active method for producing conditions where people and ideas and resources can be cultivated to optimum effectiveness and growth.”

Now, looking back over the past forty years, has Bennis’s “democratic” vision of the future proved to be accurate? Perhaps. Globally, totalitarianism seems on the decline, and free and open elections have been held in several new countries. Domestically, families are more flexible and democratic, and—yes—less stable, required by fewer individuals. Through the internet and other agencies, education is available more democratically; yet school systems in the US are certainly no less autocratic nor are democratic habits taught or modeled there. In our government and corporate culture, the ideals of democracy are extolled (the Sunday morning devotion), but the power of an elite class is tending toward oligarchy.

It could be argued that there are two major flaws in Bennis’s analysis: (1) Though he knew the work of Marshall McLuhan and cited Vance Packard’s Hidden Persuaders, he did not calculate the powerful influence public media would have over the masses nor the control over the media that would be exerted by a corporate elite. (2) He underemphasized the continuing importance of economic incentives and overstated the importance of other rewards, such as opportunities for self-development, professional dialogue, advanced learning, and communal respect. The growing discrepancy between CEO’s salaries and benefits and those available to their employees indicates the failure of egalitarianism in the corporate world. “Avarice,” Bennis said, contradicting Hume, “is not the spur of industry.” Tell former Enron employees that story! For the unemployed, the underemployed, and the growing number employed in service jobs. part-time, without benefits—indeed, for the working class as a whole—it would be hard to see much of “a blurring of boundaries between work and play.”

Politically, Bennis did not foresee the alliance of the corporate elite with religious fundamentalists, both of whom tend to be autocratic, nourishing “in their hearts the blasphemous thought” that democracy is an inconvenieuce. Nor did he or Slater foresee the apathy of the non-elite nor the consequences of addictiveness in a “temporary society”: addictions not only to drugs and alcohol but also to entertainment, fast foods (with resulting weight and health problems), spectator sports, physical comforts, materialism (at the Wal-Mart level), restlessness, sexual promiscuity, and personal latitude. Being free now to all too many people means personal license (‘doing it my way”), not political liberty.

So, “chronic change”? Yes. Democratic egalitarianism? Hardly. Not yet, at least.

Has education about and for an egalitarian society improved? Hardly. Even Bennis’s favored “retreats” have often become excuses for CEO’s, the professional and managerial elite, and government officials to spend taxpayers’ and shareholders’ money, registering at exclusive golf clubs, for Caribbean cruises and international travel. Tax-free. For their blue-collar compatriots—well, there’s a night out at McDonald’s, hours watching the tube, and a shopping spree at Sam’s. Their leading educators and visionaries? Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and James Dobson, sportscasters, celebrities, and charismatic evangelists.

Change indeed is chronic, but in some instances the more things change the more they stay the same. show less

Many leadership books talk about the characteristics of great leadership but few give us a glimpse into how leaders become who they are. Bennis, who I believe is the finest writer of leadership of our time, draws from his vast experience as a leader and as a mentor to other leaders and peeks into the process of learning and discovery that results in great leadership. Equally as importantly, he puts a human face on leaders to show that they too have fear, anxiety, and self-uncertainty just show more like the rest of us. It is not the absence of these things that make them great, but their equanimity in the face of them. show less

What makes a good leader? This book attempts to provide suggestions on how to be a successful leader.

I truly don't understand why this book is so popular unless the higher star ratings are among people who haven't picked it up in 20 years. It's outdated at best, citing as examples of success companies that have since gone under or lack relevance today (e.g., Motorola, Intel, etc.). The examples of great leaders are almost exclusively male and white, which is acknowledged only in a small show more footnote stating how difficult it was to find leaders who were women or people of color, which feels like a cop-out to me.

Beyond that, the book spends a whole lot of time saying nothing. The authors admit from the outset that defining leadership is hard to do. Okay, then why write a book about it if you can't even define it? Stories that supposedly support the vague statements made by the authors don't really seem to have anything to do with the point trying to be made and just left for a 'huh' feeling.

Honestly, I'm not sure I got a singular piece of useful information out of this title. It's often the case that these types of books are designed for corporate or other for-profit organizations so it's harder for me in a non-profit setting to derive applicable lessons but usually there's something, unlike the nothing of this book. I certainly won't be seeking any further advice from either of these authors. show less

It put emphasis that you cant learn leadership just by reading, it is mainly practicing it, which is what I'm lacking at the moment, and it helped me realize that, that I need to put theory to practice. Book will give you a lot of real-world examples, sadly sometimes you are lost about what should you learn from it until the very end of the story. He listed all masteries or abilities that a perfect leader should possess and again with examples and told you how to get better.
Overall show more enjoyable reading and will come back to some text in the future. show less