FLDP.org

In a group of equals working together to solve a mutual problem, another type of leadership will emerge. Ideally, and most commonly in actual practice, this will be democratic leadership.

The democratic leader evolves out of the group of which he is a part, rather than by creating a following of his own. There are inevitably those whose ideas influence the others more than theirs are in turn influenced by others. In such a group a tradition builds up that certain individuals are the most capable for certain tasks. When a crisis arises the membership turns to these individuals more readily than to untried personnel. These members are leaders, and they are democratic leaders.

In general, a leader of a democratic group is one who epitomizes the values and norms of his group. The group considers that his judgment is most in line with that of the membership, that the alternatives which he proposes fit in with the value system of the group. Often it may be said that he usually puts the well-being of the group ahead of his own desires where they conflict.

The democratic leader has the ability to perceive the direction in which the group is moving and to move in that direction more rapidly than the group as a whole. His foresight into the means and ends which will help the group is superior and for this reason he is chosen, or becomes a leader.

Democracy moves slowly. One of the reasons for this is that a democratic leader is seldom one who is far superior to his group. Groups which form tend originally to be made up of peers, or equals. If such a group happens to consist largely of average citizens, it is unlikely that they will select a member who has far superior qualifications as their leader. They will select one who is somewhat ahead of them in qualifications, but if the gap is too great they fail to communicate and thus fail to make use of this leadership material which exists within their group. In our general culture the distrust of one of superior ability is anti-intellectualism, and it pervades all levels of group behavior. This tendency has made some persons impatient with democracy, but as expressed in the previous chapter, the alternatives are worse in the long run. Someone has expressed the problem like this: “In a democracy the ideal solution to a problem is almost never achieved, but some solution is eventually reached, and it is a solution with which everyone can live.”

Pure types of leadership seldom exist. An historical anecdote may help to point up this fact. In the summer of 1832 there was a minor Indian uprising along the Mississippi known as the Black Hawk War. As was customary at the time a company of volunteers was raised and according to the custom of those more democratic days they held an election and chose their captain. Thus the young man selected was obviously a democratic leader, but by virtue of the military organization now became a bureaucratic leader. The interesting speculation is whether or not the soldiers of that company really recognized the personal magnetism of the man who was to become one of the greatest “charismatic” leaders in American history, Abraham Lincoln.

Up to this point the personalized term leader and the abstraction leadership have been more or less intermingled without regard to certain subtle differences. Paul Pigors, in his book Leadership or Domination, says: “Leadership is a process of mutual stimulation, which by successful interplay of relevant individual differences, controls human energy in pursuit of a common cause.” If this is a logical definition, then a leader is anyone whose ideas are helping to give direction toward the common goals of the group. Or to paraphrase once more: An individual is a leader in any social situation in which his ideas and actions influence the thoughts and behavior of others.

It may readily be seen that acceptance of this concept de-emphasizes the leader and emphasizes leadership. And in the highest development of the democratic group leadership is not concentrated, but is diffused throughout the membership. The greater the degree of this diffusion, the more effectively democratic is the group.

Such a view of leadership has little to do with the formally elected leaders of the small democratic group, the chairmen, presidents, and other officers. In a group of this kind these officers recognize that their formal leadership is situational and that other group members may perform functions equal to or superior to their own.

If leadership is, as we have said, the process of influencing people by ideas, then there is no limit to the number of leaders that can function within a group. In fact the more the better because the very act of leadership, in whatever form observed, develops initiative, creativity, and mature responsibility.

Furthermore, leadership of this kind is not a mystic something or other that one individual has and another has not. It is learned behavior and anyone can improve himself in it by proper study and application. Such leadership is also situational and in the ideal group will shift from person to person depending upon the task at hand.

In a truly democratic group, leadership is diffused.

Every member is a leader whenever he contributes an idea that is needed at a particular time. Leadership passes from person to person as each member contributes something needed in the process of achieving group goals.

It has been stated that the democratic group succeeds on the assumption that people, given the necessary facts, can make better decisions than others can make for them. One of the weaknesses of group democratic action is embodied in the phrase “if given the facts.” All too often decisions are made emotionally, on a basis of ignorance. This raises another point. Since every member of a democratic group is a leader or a potential leader it becomes his duty to inform himself regarding the problems of that group. If he is to make intelligent decisions and suggestions for action which will provide leadership for his group he must accept responsibility. Responsibility calls for knowledge: knowledge of the group and its goals, knowledge of alternate means by which the goals may be sought, and general knowledge of the area in which the group operates. Thus we come full circle in pointing up the relationship between democracy and education.

Proper answers must often be sought beyond the group – from experts and resource people. Willingness to seek outside information is often a true mark of maturity in either an individual or a group. The anti-intellectual approach tends to belittle special knowledge and ability, to the loss of everyone.

Democracy is vitally important in American life. Many of the decisions which culminate in national policy begin at the “grass roots,” where ideas tend to originate. If we are to have maximum benefits from this fact every individual should have some insight into the processes of leadership. He should recognize the great importance of having every group member feel himself a leader, or at least a potential leader, with a willingness to accept the responsibilities this entails.

It is probable that without leadership no group can produce worthwhile action in the direction of its goals. But what is leadership? This word, like democracy, means many things to many people.

Just as our concept of democracy is a growing and expanding one, so is there a parallel growth and development of the meaning of leadership. The expansion of the democratic principle has demanded that new types of leadership arise.

It is easy to credit a leader with both the successes and failures of a group. Perhaps the true virtues, or faults, were those of the group itself. Many believe that the leader casts his personality over the group, but more frequently the opposite situation occurs. Much of this vagueness arises from the looseness of the meaning of the term leader in the English language. It is used to designate both one who commands and one who guides. In actual practice these may be as widely at variance as the chairman of the P.T.A. meeting and a Marine platoon leader in combat. Yet both are leaders.

The myth of the “born leader” is one common idea of the past which will not stand up under modern research. It was no doubt perpetuated by those with hereditary authority and was given support by the frequency with which sons succeeded fathers as leaders. One must remember that these sons were given training in leadership almost from birth. It was no accident that Aristotle went from Athens to Macedon to instruct the young Alexander. It was planned that way. In the early days of our culture, leadership was of necessity confined to the few, since knowledge and freedom from superstition were only available to a few.

Frazer, in The Golden Bough, states that the rise of despotic leaders was a necessary concomitant to emergence from savagery, since in primitive societies there was no mechanism by which large numbers of persons could become simultaneously enlightened. Hence history is replete with stories of the military leader who seized power and subsequently affected great civil and economic reforms. So the “great man” theory of history arose, culminating in the eulogies of Carlyle in the nineteenth century. Only more recently have historians begun to question this concept and to consider whether leaders might have automatically arisen in response to forces at play too complex for man to control. Even Toynbee – popular protagonist for the interplay-of-forces idea of history – concedes Frazer’s point that leaders must arise, and at least in the emergence from savagery to civilization they must be despotic.

Many great leaders of the past were military leaders. The military leader functions in a predetermined organization so complete that all the duties and responsibilities of each level of leadership are spelled out in advance. The “chain of command” is inviolate, and within such a framework an individual with very few qualities of leadership may function efficiently and even effectively. This is the entire basis of the bureaucratic organization. Many organizations follow this pattern, though the military one is the most characteristic. The leader of such a group has been very aptly termed the bureaucratic leader. In our modern organizations, particularly governmental, he often seems to be the indispensable man, even when ostensibly and basically other philosophies of leadership should prevail.

Another type has been termed the passive leader. He has developed a following because he happens to possess certain talents, skills, or traits which are much admired, not by any deliberate effort toward leadership on his part. Contemporary examples of such leadership might include Mickey Mantle in sports or Pablo Picasso in the world of art.

The leader who achieves his role almost entirely through personal magnetism has attracted the most interest in the writing of the past and still dominates some of the most fascinating chapters in history. He has been called the personal power or charismatic leader. All the great religions were founded by leaders of this ilk and many political leaders have possessed the same ability. Most dictators begin as this kind of leader, though it soon becomes necessary for them to solidify their power by developing a bureaucracy. They are followed because of their original attractiveness or “charisma” and most of their followers soon become convinced that such leadership will maximize the ends which they seek.

Everyone pays lip service to democracy. It has become a “status” word and anything which can attach itself to the word thereby attains status. Surely what the Russian Premier means when he alludes to a “democracy” is a far cry from what the President of the United States has in mind when he uses the same phrase. Each may sincerely believe that his is the only “true faith” and that his concept of democracy is the only valid one. Even within our own national culture there are many meanings of the word. Hence a definition of some length and detail is necessary.

The Term “Democracy”

The Greek root Demos, the people, is combined with the word Kratos, authority, to imply that all authority stems from the people. Under such a definition of democracy all who must abide by rules, regulations, and controls are entitled to a voice in their creation.

Democracy, then, is the means by which individuals are able to determine what they may ultimately expect in the way of freedom without impinging upon the rights of others. The degree of democracy achieved is not measured by the degree of such freedom to act, but by the extent to which those whose acts are thus abridged possess the authority to do the abridging.

It is right and proper that we should return to the founding fathers for the origins of our own democracy. Too frequently this means we believe that they presented it to us complete, with power steering and brakes, automatic turn signals, and electronic headlight dimmers. Not so. Our present concept of democracy is a product of many years of evolutionary growth. As a matter of fact it probably would horrify most of the founding fathers.

In general, these creators of our political system were obsessed with the idea of personal and political liberty and were not at all interested in democracy. Many of them were monarchists, or at least oligarchists and our nation developed along those lines until the direction was changed by the one man who did have an abiding faith in democracy, Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson recognized the evolving nature of democracy, the necessity for an ever broadening base, and the importance of universal education. He believed in the perfectibility of man. But let us permit him to speak for himself; few have said these things better:

To better appreciate the expanding concept of democracy it is worthwhile to examine the context in which the founding fathers spoke when they referred to “the people” or to “the electorate.” We have become accustomed to thinking of the beginnings of our democracy in the New England town meeting, or in the deliberative bodies of the various colonies. We seldom remember that these groups were made up of “the people” only as they were freemen as opposed to slaves, only if they were not indentured or apprenticed, only if they could read and write, and only if they owned real property. Most of all, no recognition as citizens was accorded women!

Even Jefferson, with all his insight, idealism, and faith in the future, was unable to project his ideas nearly so far as we have come. He did not believe that man would ever become truly responsible in his behavior unless he owned property. When he made the Louisiana Purchase this was uppermost in his mind, for he foresaw a vast nation of small landholders. Even his advanced thinking failed to visualize the day when ownership of an automobile or of common stocks would serve the same purpose. He surely did not envisage the possibility that vested rights such as pension security or collective bargaining would do the same thing.

We have discussed chiefly the political aspects of democracy, since the origins of the term are in our political past. As democracy has grown and expanded it has become more and more apparent that this concept invades every aspect of our lives, not only in our political thinking but in the way we carry out all our joint ventures.

Free men everywhere work hard to maintain their common institutions: their churches, schools, businesses, and governments. Many of the most important activities relevant to solving common problems take place at the community level – often by means of the social structure which we call the formal democratic group. The essence of democracy may be observed in these groups – small entities composed of people who interact in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect. It is a part of the American dream that by the devotion of time and energy the group can solve problems and satisfy needs with which the solitary individual could not hope to cope.

This penchant of the American people was first documented in the early 1800’s when Alexis de Tocqueville, that astute observer of American life, wrote:

A citizen may conceive of some need which is not being met. What does he do? He goes across the street and discusses it with his neighbor. Then what happens? A committee comes into existence, and then the committee begins functioning on behalf of their need, and you won’t believe this, but it’s true . . . all of this is done without reference to any bureaucrat. All of this is done by the private citizens on their own initiative.’

If then, we have somehow approached the true meaning of democracy, and if it is best implemented by the formal democratic group, then how may this group be described?

It is the voluntary association of a group of equals into an entity capable of action – and recognized as such by both members and nonmembers. Further, it is a social structure within which the members partake of a pattern of interaction based on the premise that each individual has both the right and the responsibility to contribute to its tasks.

Such a definition, by its nature very broad, only begins to describe the formal democratic group. Usually such an organization has a name; often there is a constitution and set of bylaws. Elected officers are the general rule, regularly scheduled meetings are held, and a wide variety of activities are carried out. There are literally thousands of such groups and many examples come readily to mind.