FILM CRITICAL REVIEW : My Own Private Idaho, 1991; Directed By Gus Van Sant

/in /by

Questions:

1. Develop a thesis sentence pertaining to the assigned film text and whether or not it, the film, in your view has the power to transform one’s political sensibilities. Your argument should express your point of view regarding the politics of difference, political sensibilities, and political transformation(s) as related to the film. Remember, you’re writing (developing) an analytical essay. 

2. Develop three (3) topic sentences that articulate the major ideas that will comprise the body of your essay. Remember that your topic sentences should clearly state the argument or point to be made in the respective paragraphs and must map back to your thesis statement. 

3. Identify three (3) scenes from the film that support your thesis statement. Briefly explain your choices of scenes and how the scenes specifically support your thesis statement. Also, provide the exact time the scenes begin and end within the film text. 

4. Lastly, fully develop your introductory paragraph. Remember that the best possible thesis will answer some specific question about the text. In this case a question related to the film’s power to transform political sensibilities regarding difference. Your thesis sentence should appear parenthetically within the paragraph you present. 

Rubric:

Did I answer, directly, the professor’s question: “Does the film have the power to transform one’s political sensibilities?“  Is it clear to the reader (the professor in this case) that I have taken a stand/made an argument pertaining to the assignment prompt? Again, “Does the film have the power to transform one’s political sensibilities?” Students should be sure to address: POWER, POLITICAL SENSIBILITES, and TRANSFORMATION in their thesis sentence/statements. Did I do this? Students who do not properly address this direct question will see a reduction in points for this assignment 25/50.

Did I provide the start and end times for each of the three scenes I chose in support of my thesis sentence/statement? And, did I explain explicitly why I chose those scenes?  It is not sufficient to list scenes only.  Did I explain clearly (and briefly) why I chose the scene that I did and how they specifically advance my argument/thesis? Is it clear to the reader (the professor in this case) why I chose the scene I did? For example, did I write something like: “I chose the scene because it advances my argument by ….” or “I chose the scene because it clearly makes my point that …” Students who did not provide start and end times and/or explain their scene choices will see a reduction in points for this assignment 25/50.

Did I fully develop an introduction paragraph? And, in that paragraph did I insert my thesis sentence/statement?  Did I use parentheses (to bracket my thesis statement/sentence) within the introduction paragraph? Students who did not fully develop this introduction paragraph and use parentheses (to bracket their thesis statement/sentence) will see a reduction in points for this assignment 25/50.

Marshall, Reagan, And Zinn

/in /by

9/2/2020 A People’s Constitution, by Howard Zinn

https://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS21/articles/zinn.htm 1/2

A People’s Constitution: Some Truths Are Not Self-Evident by HOWARD ZINN

The Nation, August 1, 1987, volume 245, pp. 87-88

This year Americans are talking about the Constitutionbut asking the wrong questions, such as, Could the Founding Fathers have done better? That concern is pointless, 200 years after the fact. Or, Does the Constitution provide the framework for a just and democratic society today? That question is also misplaced, because the Constitution, whatever its language and however interpreted by the Supreme Court, does not determine the degree of justice, liberty or democracy in our society.

The proper question, I believe, is not how good a documentis or was the Constitution but, What effect does it have on the quality of our lives? And the answer to that, it seems to me, is, Very little. The Constitution makes promises it cannot by itself keep, and therefore deludes us into complacency about the rights we have. It is conspicuously silent on certain other rights that all human beings deserve. And it pretends to set limits on governmental powers, when in fact those limits are easily ignored.

I am not arguing that the Constitution has no importance; words have moral power and principles can be useful even when ambiguous. But, like other historic documents, the Constitution is of minor importance compared with the actions that citizens take, especially when those actions are joined in social movements. Such movements have worked, historically, to secure the rights our human sensibilities tell us are self-evidently ours, whether or not those rights are “granted” by the Constitution.

Let me illustrate my point with five issues of liberty and justice:

First is the matter of racial equality. When slavery was abolished, it was not by constitutional fiat but by the joining of military necessity with the moral force of a great antislavery movement, acting outside the Constitution and often against the law. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments wrote into the Constitution rights that extralegal action had already won. But the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were ignored for almost a hundred years. The right to equal protection of the law and the right to vote, even the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 underlining the meaning of the equal protection clause, did not become operative until blacks, in the fifteen years following the Montgomery bus boycott, shook up the nation by tumultuous actions inside and outside the law.

The Constitution played a helpful but marginal role in all that. Black people, in the political context of the 1960s, would have demanded equality whether or not the Constitution called for it, just as the antislavery movement demanded abolition even in the absence of constitutional support.

What about the most vaunted of constitutional rights, free speech? Historically, the Supreme Court has given the right to free speech only shaky support, seesawing erratically by sometimes affirming and sometimes overriding restrictions. Whatever a distant Court decided, the real right of citizens to free expression has been determined by the immediate power of the local police on the street, by the employer in the workplace and by the financial limits on the ability to use the mass media.

The existence of a First Amendment has been inspirational but its protection elusive. Its reality has depended on the willingness of citizens, whether labor organizers, socialists or Jehovah’s Witnesses, to insist on their right to speak and write. Liberties have not been given; they have been taken. And whether in the future we have a right to say what we want, or air what we say, will be determined not by the existence of the First Amendment or the latest Supreme Court decision but by whether we are courageous enough to speak up at the risk of being jailed or fired, organized enough to defend our speech against official interference and can command resources enough to get our ideas before a reasonably large public.

 

 

9/2/2020 A People’s Constitution, by Howard Zinn

https://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS21/articles/zinn.htm 2/2

What of economic justice? The Constitution is silent on the right to earn a moderate income, silent on the rights to medical care and decent housing as legitimate claims of every human being from infancy to old age. Whatever degree of economic justice has been attained in this country (impressive compared with others, shameful compared with our resources) cannot be attributed to something in the Constitution. It is the result of the concerted action of laborers and farmers over the centuries, using strikes, boycotts and minor rebellions of all sorts, to get redress of grievances directly from employers and indirectly from legislators. In the future, as in the past, the Constitution will sleep as citizens battle over the distribution of the nation’s wealth, and will be awakened only to mark the score.

On sexual equality the Constitution is also silent. What women have achieved thus far is the result of their own determination, in the feminist upsurge of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the more recent women’s liberation movement. Women have accomplished this outside the Constitution, by raising female and male consciousness and inducing courts and legislators to recognize what the Constitution ignores.

Finally, in an age in which war approaches genocide, the irrelevance of the Constitution is especially striking. Long, ravaging conflicts in Korea and Vietnam were waged without following Constitutional procedures, and if there is a nuclear exchange, the decision to launch U.S. missiles will be made, as it was in those cases, by the President and a few advisers. The public will be shut out of the process and deliberately kept uninformed by an intricate web of secrecy and deceit. The current Iran/contra scandal hearings before Congressional select committees should be understood as exposing not an aberration but a steady state of foreign policy.

It was not constitutional checks and balances but an aroused populace that prodded Lyndon Johnson and then Richard Nixon into deciding to extricate the United States from Vietnam. In the immediate future, our lives will depend not on the existence of the Constitution but on the power of an aroused citizenry demanding that we not go to war, and on Americans refusing, as did so many G.I.s and civilians in the Vietnam era, to cooperate in the conduct of a war.

The Constitution, like the Bible, has some good words. It is also, like the Bible, easily manipulated, distorted, ignored and used to make us feel comfortable and protected. But we risk the loss of our lives and liberties if we depend on a mere document to defend them. A constitution is a fine adornment for a democratic society, but it is no substitute for the energy, boldness and concerted action of the citizens.

Explain what it means to have a political ideology

/in /by

Question 3. Explain what it means to have a political ideology, and how ideology is distinct from party identification. Then, discuss the motives for adopting an ideology (not specific ideologies, but any ideology in general). In 1964, Philip Converse published a study of political attitudes, in which he claimed that very few people were ideological. Do you think things have changed since then? What are the reasons for changes or the lack of them? Is party identification or ideology a larger determinant of people’s political attitudes?

Question 4. Conscientiousness, openness, and authoritarianism are three personality traits that have been shown to impact political attitudes. First, describe each trait and how it affects a person’s attitudes and behavior in general. Then, explain how each is linked to one’s political attitudes, ideologies, and views on particular political issues

Question 5. Two potential problems with surveys are double-barreled questions and sensitive questions. Explain what a double-barreled question is and why it would be a problem. Then, give an original example (i.e., not the one from the lecture) and explain how to fix it. Next, explain the ways in which survey takers can see a question as being sensitive and what the risks are of including sensitive questions in surveys. Finally, explain one technique for improving responses to sensitive questions.

Question 6. Throughout the course, we have compared three theories of democracy: democratic elitism, pluralism, and participatory democracy. Describe each of these views and explain how they are different from one another. Then, discuss how these three viewpoints affect opinions on political socialization, the necessity of political knowledge, and the role of the mass media

Each question must be answer as esay format (3 paragraph or more) with a minimum of 300 words count

Please answer each question based on the book attach

YOU ONLY NEED TO ANSWER 3 OUT OF THE 4 QUESTIONS POST

PUBLIC OPINION Fourth Edition

 

 

To my parents, Dale and Janice Clawson, for all their love and laughter.

To my mother, Rachel Oxley, whose encouragement and optimism never wavered, and to my entire family for supporting my endeavors.

 

 

Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support the dissemination of usable knowledge and educate a global community. SAGE publishes more than 1000 journals and over 800 new books each year, spanning a wide range of subject areas. Our growing selection of library products includes archives, data, case studies and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our founder and after her lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures the company’s continued independence.

Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

 

 

 

PUBLIC OPINION

Democratic Ideals, Democratic Practice

Fourth Edition

Rosalee A. Clawson

Purdue University

Zoe M. Oxley

Union College

 

 

Copyright © 2021 by CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc. CQ Press is a registered trademark of Congressional Quarterly,

Inc.

All rights reserved. Except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, no part of this work may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by

any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

All third party trademarks referenced or depicted herein are included solely for the purpose of illustration and are the property of their

respective owners. Reference to these trademarks in no way indicates any relationship with, or endorsement by, the trademark

owner.

FOR INFORMATION:

SAGE Publications, Inc.

2455 Teller Road

Thousand Oaks, California 91320

E-mail: order@sagepub.com

SAGE Publications Ltd.

1 Oliver’s Yard

55 City Road

London, EC1Y 1SP

United Kingdom

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

 

 

B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area

Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044

India

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.

18 Cross Street #10-10/11/12

China Square Central

Singapore 048423

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Clawson, Rosalee A., author. | Oxley, Zoe M., author.

Title: Public opinion : democratic ideals, democratic practice / Rosalee A. Clawson, Purdue University, Zoe M. Oxley, Union College.

Description: Fourth edition. | Thousand Oaks : Sage / CQ Press, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: LCCN 2020017438 | ISBN 978-1-5443-9020-8 (paperback) | ISBN 978- 1-5443-9016-1 (epub) | ISBN 978-1-5443-9018-5 (epub) | ISBN 978-1-5443-9015-

4 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Democracy. | Public opinion. | Political socialization. | Mass media and public opinion.

Classification: LCC JC423 .C598 2021 | DDC 321.8—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020017438

Printed in the United States of America

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Acquisitions Editor: Scott Greenan

Editorial Assistant: Sam Rosenberg

Production Editor: Rebecca Lee

Copy Editor: Colleen Brennan

 

 

Typesetter: Hurix Digital

Proofreader: Sally Jaskold

Indexer: Integra

Cover Designer: Janet Kiesel

Marketing Manager: Erica DeLuca

 

 

 

BRIEF CONTENTS Tables, Figures, and Boxes Preface Acknowledgments Part I What Should the Role of Citizens Be in a Democratic Society?

Chapter 1 Public Opinion in a Democracy Appendix to Chapter 1 Studying Public Opinion Empirically

Part II Are Citizens Pliable? Chapter 2 Political Socialization Chapter 3 Mass Media Chapter 4 Attitude Stability and Attitude Change

Part III Do Citizens Organize Their Political Thinking? Chapter 5 Ideology, Partisanship, and Polarization Chapter 6 Roots of Public Opinion: Personality, Self- Interest, Values, and History Chapter 7 Roots of Public Opinion: The Central Role of Groups

Part IV Do Citizens Endorse and Demonstrate Democratic Basics?

Chapter 8 Knowledge, Interest, and Attention to Politics Chapter 9 Support for Civil Liberties Chapter 10 Support for Civil Rights

Part V What Is the Relationship between Citizens and Their Government?

Chapter 11 Trust in Government, Support for Institutions, and Social Capital Chapter 12 Impact of Public Opinion on Policy

Part VI What Do We Make of Public Opinion in a Democracy? Chapter 13 Conclusion

Notes Glossary Index About the Authors

 

 

 

DETAILED CONTENTS Tables, Figures, and Boxes Preface Acknowledgments Part I What Should the Role of Citizens Be in a Democratic Society?

Chapter 1 Public Opinion in a Democracy Theories of Democracy What Is Public Opinion? Defining Key Concepts Empirical Assessments of Public Opinion Themes of the Book Appendix to Chapter 1 Studying Public Opinion Empirically

Public Opinion Surveys Experiments Interviews Focus Groups Content Analysis Conclusion

Part II Are Citizens Pliable? Chapter 2 Political Socialization

Childhood Socialization Parental Transmission of Political Attitudes Generational and Period Effects Genetic Inheritance of Political Attitudes Conclusion

Chapter 3 Mass Media What Should Citizens Expect from the Mass Media in a Democracy? What General Characteristics of the Mass Media Shape News Coverage? What Specific Characteristics of the Traditional News Media Shape the Reporting of Political Events? What About Fake News? Are Citizens Affected by the Mass Media?

 

 

Media Effects in a Changing Technological Environment Conclusion

Chapter 4 Attitude Stability and Attitude Change Are Americans’ Attitudes Stable? Presidential Approval Psychological Approaches to Attitudes Conclusion

Part III Do Citizens Organize Their Political Thinking? Chapter 5 Ideology, Partisanship, and Polarization

Converse’s Claim: Ideological Innocence Ideological Identification Party Identification Polarization Conclusion

Chapter 6 Roots of Public Opinion: Personality, Self- Interest, Values, and History

Personality Self-Interest Values Historical Events Conclusion

Chapter 7 Roots of Public Opinion: The Central Role of Groups

Race, Ethnicity, and Public Opinion Rural Consciousness Gender and Public Opinion Conclusion

Part IV Do Citizens Endorse and Demonstrate Democratic Basics?

Chapter 8 Knowledge, Interest, and Attention to Politics How Knowledgeable, Interested, and Attentive Should Citizens Be in a Democracy? Are Citizens Knowledgeable about Politics? Measuring Political Knowledge Why Are Some Citizens More Knowledgeable Than Others?

 

 

What Are the Consequences of Political Knowledge? Are Citizens Interested in and Attentive to Politics? Conclusion

Chapter 9 Support for Civil Liberties Support for Democratic Principles Are Americans Tolerant? Sources of Tolerant Attitudes Contextual Influences on Tolerance Judgments Are Elites More Tolerant? Civil Liberties Post-9/11 Conclusion

Chapter 10 Support for Civil Rights Public Opinion and Presidential Candidates Support for Civil Rights Policies Conclusion

Part V What Is the Relationship between Citizens and Their Government?

Chapter 11 Trust in Government, Support for Institutions, and Social Capital

Trust in Government Support for Institutions Social Capital Conclusion

Chapter 12 Impact of Public Opinion on Policy Should Public Opinion Influence Policy? Is Public Opinion Related to Policy? Do Politicians Follow or Lead the Public? Public Opinion and Foreign Policy Conclusion

Part VI What Do We Make of Public Opinion in a Democracy? Chapter 13 Conclusion

What Should the Role of Citizens Be in a Democratic Society? Are Citizens Pliable? Do Citizens Organize Their Political Thinking? Do Citizens Endorse and Demonstrate Democratic Basics?

 

 

What Is the Relationship between Citizens and Their Government? What Do We Make of Public Opinion in a Democracy?

Notes Glossary Index About the Authors

 

 

 

TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES Tables

A.1 Question Wording and Response Options Matter 31

A.2 Support for the Death Penalty in a Survey-Based Experiment 39

2.1 Children’s Descriptions of the President’s Duties 52

3.1 Making Sense of Subtle Effects 108

4.1 Stability of Individual Political Attitudes from 1958 to 1960 119

4.2 Aggregate Opinion Can Be Stable While Individual Attitudes Change 124

5.1 Key Components of Black Political Ideologies 163

5.2 Measuring Political Ideology 164

6.1 Measuring Authoritarianism 189

6.2 Big Five Personality Traits 194

6.3 Ten-Item Personality Inventory 195

6.4 Measuring Egalitarianism and Individualism 201

6.5 Measuring Moral Traditionalism 203

7.1 Measuring White Identity 223

7.2 Latino and Asian American Party Identification among Registered Voters, 2018227

 

 

8.1 Political Knowledge, June 2017 242

8.2 Political Knowledge, 1989–2007 251

8.3 Measuring Political Knowledge 253

8.4 Traditional and Gender-Relevant Political Knowledge 255

8.5 The Perils of Measuring Political Knowledge: Short-Answer versus Multiple-Choice Questions 258

8.6 Demographic Differences in Political Knowledge 262

9.1 Assessing Public Tolerance of Atheists: Stouffer’s Survey Questions 281

9.2 Least Liked Political Groups, 1978 and 2005 286

10.1 Religion and Likelihood to Vote for a Presidential Candidate, 2016 311

10.2 Measuring Hostile Sexism 317

10.3 White and Black Support for Reparations, 2019 325

11.1 Assessing Public Trust: Survey Questions from the American National Election Studies 347

11.2 Focus Group Discussions of Members of Congress 365

Figures

1.1 Party Identification, 1952–2016 23

A.1 Public Opinion toward the Death Penalty, 1991–2018 34

 

 

2.1 Children’s Evaluations of the President’s Job Performance 53

2.2 Parent-Child Correspondence of Party Identification by Family Politicization and Parental Attitude Stability 62

2.3 Stability of Party Identification Over Time, Overall and by Preadult Parent-Child Correspondence 64

2.4 Generational Differences in Attitudes, 2019 70

2.5 Genetic Versus Environmental Factors Influencing Political Opinions 73

3.1 Where Do Citizens Obtain News Daily? 84

3.2 Sorting Out Causal Relationships 102

3.3 Political Tolerance by Framing Condition 105

4.1 Opinion Toward Government Spending, 1971–1989 122

4.2 Presidential Approval for Barack Obama and Donald Trump 126

4.3 Political Awareness in Zaller’s Attitude Change Model 133

4.4 Zaller’s Mainstream and Polarization Effects during Vietnam War Era 136

5.1 Levels of Conceptualization among the American Public, 1956 and 2000 154

5.2 Relationships between Issue Opinions for the American Public and Political Elites, 1958 157

5.3 Attitude Constraint and Attitude Stability among American Public and Elites 160

 

 

5.4 Ideological Identification over Time, 1972–2016 165

5.5 Symbolic and Operational Ideology Classifications, 2008 167

5.6 Party Differences in Issue Opinions, 2016 170

5.7 Hypothetical Portraits of the American Public 173

5.8 Public Attitudes toward Government Provision of Services, 1984 and 2016 175

6.1 The Effect of Authoritarianism on Political Attitudes, 2016 191

7.1 Black–White Differences in Party Identification and Issue Opinions, 2016 214

7.2 Racial Resentment among Whites, 1986 and 2016 217

7.3 Political Attitudes of Millennials by Race and Ethnicity 222

7.4 Gender Differences in Party Identification and Issue Opinions, 2016 232

8.1 Misperceptions by News Source 248

8.2 Interest in Politics and Current Campaign, 1964–2016 267

9.1 Importance of Democratic Principles 277

9.2 Tolerance of Political Minorities, 1954 282

9.3 Tolerance of Speechmaking, 1954–2018 283

9.4 Tolerance of Least Liked Groups, Communists, and Atheists, 1978 and 2005 288

9.5 Public Opinion: Civil Liberties versus National Security 296

 

 

9.6 Public Support for Counterterrorism Policies, 2009 and 2010 300

9.7 Counterterrorism Policy Opinions Vary by Identity of Target 301

10.1 Support for Presidential Candidates, 1937–2019: Religion 310

10.2 Support for Presidential Candidates, 1937–2019: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Sexual Orientation 313

10.3 Support for Same Schools, by Race 320

10.4 Support for School Busing, by Decade and Race 321

10.5 Support for Preferences in Hiring and Promotion for Blacks 323

10.6 Support for Gay Rights, 1977–2019 329

10.7 Support for Transgender Rights, 2017 and 2019 335

11.1 Public Trust in Government, 1964–2016 348

11.2 Trust in Government for Specific Demographic Groups, 2016 355

11.3 Racial Differences in Views Regarding the Police, 2016 356

11.4 Confidence in the Supreme Court, Executive Branch, and Congress, 1973–2018 361

11.5 Approval of Institutions and Members of Institutions, 1992 363

11.6 Membership Declines for Civic Associations between Peak Year of Membership and 1997 369

 

 

12.1 Public Opinion and Guns 379

12.2 Support for Gun Control Measures, by Partisanship 380

12.3 Consistency between Public Opinion and Public Policy 386

12.4 Citizen and Interest Group Influence on Public Policy 390

12.5 Foreign Policy Preferences of the American Public, 2014– 2019 404

Boxes

Box 1.1 Gendered Nouns and Pronouns 11

Public Opinion in Comparative Perspective

Box 2.1 Childhood Political Socialization in Europe 58

Box 3.1 Social Media in China 90

Box 4.1 Political Discussion in Social Networks 138

Box 5.1 Party Polarization across the Globe 179

Box 6.1 Authoritarianism across the World 193

Box 7.1 Attitudes toward Immigrants around the World 229

Box 8.1 Gender and Political Knowledge in Canada 256

Box 9.1 Support for Democracy around the Globe 278

Box 10.1 Support for Gay Rights across the World 331

Box 11.1 Levels of Public Trust in Other Nations 359

 

 

Box 12.1 Comparing Opinion-Policy Congruence across Democracies 391

 

 

 

PREFACE When we first tell people that we are political science professors, the most common reactions are to launch into a discussion of politics or to politely acknowledge our jobs and then change the subject. An especially memorable encounter happened to Zoe in the early 2000s. Upon re-entering the United States after a trip to Montreal, the U.S. border official asked about her job, which was expected. He proceeded to ask a most unexpected question: What did she think about then-president George W. Bush’s foreign policies? After babbling for a few sentences, she changed the subject!

Ever since the 2016 U.S. presidential election, different reactions have been common when people learn what we do for a living. “These are interesting times to teach politics” or “You sure have a lot to talk about these days” have become typical responses. Interesting political times these certainly are, and we have attempted to capture some notable political developments and trends in this fourth edition. These include partisan disdain and polarization, fake news, white racial identity, rural consciousness, and support for the norms of democracy. We have also incorporated exciting and important new public opinion data or scholarship on childhood socialization, Millennials and Generation Z, the effects of media ownership, news habits, the role of social media, ideological identification, polarization, the lingering effects of slavery, racial and ethnic opinion differences (including in the domain of athletics), immigration attitudes, interest in politics, transgender rights, disability rights, trust in the criminal justice system, public support for gun control, and foreign policy opinions. All the while, we maintain a focus on enduring questions in the study of public opinion.

Our pedagogical goals for this edition remain the same. We want students to grasp how fascinating and important it is to study politics generally and public opinion more specifically. What better way is there to attain that goal, we think, than to discuss public opinion in the context of democratic thought? After all, it is the particular salience of public opinion within a democracy that makes its study so

 

 

vital and interesting. To that end, we situate the field’s empirical research within a normative framework, specifically theories of democracy, and focus on especially important and revealing studies rather than tediously summarizing every available piece of research. We organize the text into six parts, each of which poses a normative question that is significant for democratic theory: What should the role of citizens be in a democratic society? Are citizens’ opinions pliable? Do citizens organize their political thinking? Do citizens endorse and demonstrate democratic basics? What is the relationship between citizens and their government? What do we make of public opinion in a democracy? The chapters in each part present evidence to help students answer the question at hand, giving them both the content and context of public opinion. This organization encourages students to understand and interpret the empirical evidence in light of normative democratic theories, thus enhancing their critical analysis skills.

We want students to appreciate the thrill of conducting research and producing knowledge and to learn that conclusions about public opinion emerge from original scholarship on the topic. Yet we also want them to understand that no one piece of research is perfect and that the ability to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of research is a vital skill. So we devote attention to explaining specific studies in some depth throughout the text. Rather than presenting only the conclusions that are drawn from a study, this approach lets students see how those conclusions were reached, exposes them in a fairly organic way to the range of research methods used in the study of public opinion, and illustrates how the choice of method influences the conclusions that researchers draw. We thus use an “embedded” research methods approach throughout the book rather than consigning methods to one stand-alone chapter. In addition, we provide an Appendix to Chapter 1 that encapsulates the basic information students need about key public opinion methods.

This book includes other important pedagogical features. We focus heavily on American public opinion, but Chapters 2 through 12

 

 

contain feature boxes called “Public Opinion in Comparative Perspective” that highlight public opinion issues in a variety of countries and serve to deepen students’ understandings of American public opinion. A wealth of data is presented in more than eighty tables and figures throughout the book to help students grasp important research findings. Key concepts appear in bold in each chapter and are listed at the end of each chapter. The key concepts are also defined in the Glossary at the end of the book. Each chapter also contains a list of suggested sources for further reading. Brief explanatory annotations are provided with each suggested source to guide students as they delve deeper into a topic.

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS With each edition of this book, we find we require assistance from fewer people as we revise. Having said this, the help we did receive was extremely valuable. Rosie’s Human Basis of Politics students and students in Zoe’s Public Opinion and U.S. Politics Seminar on Partisanship courses provided useful feedback on the book, most especially pointing out when material was not crystal clear or organized well enough. For thoughtfully reviewing a chapter for this edition, we thank Molly Scudder. Thanks goes to Walter Schostak as well for helpful feedback along the way. Since the publication of the first edition, we have been approached by many professors who have used the textbook in their classes. We were heartened to hear their (mostly!) positive comments, were happy to learn we were on the right track with our approach, and welcomed their suggestions for areas in need of improvement.

Everyone we worked with at CQ Press was supportive, professional, and friendly, as had been the case with our previous books. We especially thank Monica Eckman and Scott Greenan for their enthusiasm for the project and guidance. Kate Scheinman and Sam Rosenberg carefully and efficiently managed the submission of our chapters as well as the preparation of material for publication. They were supportive and cheerful throughout, even as we kept missing our deadlines. For the excellent copyediting of this edition, we thank Colleen Brennan. As our production editor, Rebecca Lee shepherded the book through the final prepublication stages with ease. We also thank Elaine Dunn for her diligent and speedy copyediting on the first edition. Her initial feedback continues to shape our work. We worked closely with others at CQ on earlier editions of the book. For their never-ending encouragement and wonderful advice, we thank Brenda Carter, James Headley, Elise Frasier, and, most especially, Charisse Kiino.

We also thank the professors that CQ Press commissioned to review the book as we were preparing to revise it for the fourth edition. Their feedback was extremely helpful. They include Davida J. Alperin

 

 

(University of Wisconsin–River Falls), Ray Block Jr. (Penn State University), Gar Culbert (California State University, Los Angeles), Brian Frederick (Bridgewater State University), and David Kimball (University of Missouri–St. Louis). We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the invaluable guidance provided by the faculty who reviewed the manuscript for our earlier editions, including Scott Basinger, Mark Brewer, John Bruce, Erin Cassese, Gar Culbert, Johanna Dunaway, Howard Gold, Paul Goren, Richard Hofstetter, Ted Jelen, Mary Fran T. Malone, James Monogan, Kimberley Nalder, Tom Nelson, Shayla Nunnally, Kurt Pyle, Andrea M. Quenette, Adam Schiffer, Robert Y. Shapiro, Mike Schmierbach, and Matt Wilson.

Along with these CQ-commissioned reviewers, many others provided valuable and specific feedback on material for prior editions. Their suggestions then continued to shape this edition of the book. For that, we thank Ben Bauer, George Bizer, Richard Fox, Cary Funk, Ewa Golebiowska, Mike Grady, Jennifer Jerit, Suzanne Parker, Evan Reid, Walter Schostak, Keith Shimko, Bas van Doorn, Ryan Whelpley, Jeremy Zilber, John Zumbrunnen, and, most especially, Janice Clawson. For prior editions, we also received all manner of help from many others, including Carol Cichy, Michelle Conwell, David Hayes, Lisa Howell, Katsuo Nishikawa, Andrea Olive, Bill Shaffer, and Helen Willis. We must also mention our many Ohio State friends, who have supported and encouraged us throughout. John Clark, Larry Baum, David Kimball, and Staci Rhine, in particular, have shared their suggestions and wisdom along the way. Finally, we will always owe a debt of gratitude to our graduate school advisers—Paul Allen Beck, Thomas Nelson, and Katherine Tate—and to our undergraduate mentors—Janet Martin and Bruce Stinebrickner. Bruce Stinebrickner also gave us helpful feedback on Chapter 1, which strengthened that chapter.

Throughout this book, we present results from many published academic papers and books. We also incorporate public opinion data from organizations that, at great care and expense, conduct surveys of the American public. Fortunately for us and for all students of public opinion, they make their results and, at times, their

 

 

raw data publicly available. Thus, we gratefully thank the American National Election Studies, General Social Survey, Pew Research Center, Gallup Organization, and Bright Line Watch, as well as many news organizations, academic institutions, and commercial firms that conduct opinion polls. Without the public opinion data these organizations have gathered, our book would be much less rich.

Although it does not quite take a village to raise our children, we have needed help from many to care for our sons. Knowing that they were in the hands of loving and responsible caregivers and friends enabled us to write without worry. For this, Zoe thanks Anna Ott, Samantha Couture, Heather Hutchison, the talented teachers and staff in the Schenectady City School District, and a long list of former Union College students. Rosie thanks Pauline Wein, the wonderful staff at the Patty Jischke Early Care and Education Center, the dedicated teachers in the Lafayette School Corporation, numerous coaches, and most especially her parents, Dale and Janice Clawson, who are always willing to keep their grandson for days on end. Rosie also thanks Lori Norris and Sharon Phillips for their assistance with household matters.

Finally, we owe special thanks to our families. We were both raised by parents who placed priority on education and who encouraged us to pursue whatever channels most interested us. Their faith that we would succeed in our chosen career paths provided us with the confidence to try to do just that. Sadly, Zoe’s mother passed away before this book was first completed. She was very pleased to learn that we were writing a book, and we know that she would have been proud to read it. When writing the first edition, Rosie’s husband was deployed much of the time. He was around for most of the later revisions, although Rosie is quite sure there were times he would have preferred Iraq or Afghanistan to yet another conversation about public opinion. When he’s not around (and even when he is), Rosie depends heavily on her family—a big thanks to Dale and Janice Clawson; Tammy, Mike, Troy, and Jared Harter; Jill, Scott, Liv, and Sadie Castleman; and her Cleveland cousins. Our sons Alonzo and Owen bring us tremendous joy. We are thrilled to say they enjoy

 

 

discussing with us their views of the world, political and otherwise. We are fortunate to have very supportive husbands. Des and Dale not only enjoy talking about politics and have useful computer skills that we have put to good use, but they also do a disproportionate share of the household and parenting duties when we are immersed in writing. And they provide us with many needed distractions from our work. We don’t know how we got to be so lucky.

 

 

 

PART I WHAT SHOULD THE ROLE OF CITIZENS BE IN A

DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY?

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 PUBLIC OPINION IN A DEMOCRACY AMERICAN NATIONALISM. Populism. Nativism. Identity politics. Racism. Sexism. Antidemocratic impulses. Support for authoritarianism. These are among the perspectives and attitudes of some members of the American public that received significant attention from political commentators and journalists during the lead-up to or since the election of Donald Trump as the U.S. president in 2016. Over this same time period, others have commented on the rise of political interest and attention, engagement in political protests, support for democratic socialism, and tolerance for diversity that have characterized some segments of the American public. These dueling characterizations of the citizenry also hint at other features of the contemporary political landscape: division and polarization.

Placing so much high-profile attention on the views of the public reminds us that in a democracy, such as the United States, what the people think matters. Describing and analyzing citizens’ political perspectives is a worthy endeavor. More broadly, in democratic nations we expect the public to have a role in governmental decision making. Yet the precise role that citizens should play in a democracy has been argued about for centuries. Whether the public actually can and really does live up to democratic expectations is also a debatable topic. In the pages that follow, we explore the normative issues related to how the public ought to function in a democracy. Throughout this book, we review empirical studies of public opinion that describe how the public actually functions in America. We then link these studies back to the normative theories of how citizens should behave in a democracy. Focusing on public opinion from these two angles will, we hope, provide you with a broad understanding of this important topic. We will also devote attention to most of the views of the public mentioned in the opening paragraph, in particular describing whether these trends are unique to today’s political world or were present before the 2016 presidential election.

 

 

THEORIES OF DEMOCRACY A simple definition of democracy is “rule by the people.” What exactly, however, does rule by the people mean? Answering this and related questions about democracy is neither easy nor straightforward. In fact, many people across many centuries have devoted their lives to examining democracy and delineating the proper characteristics of a democracy. Democratic theory is “the branch of scholarship that specializes in elucidating, developing, and defining the meaning of democracy.”1 Among other topics, democratic theorists deliberate over how the people should rule in a democracy (by voting directly on all laws or by electing representatives for this task) as well as who should qualify as a democratic citizen (all adults, only those who are educated, or some other group). Democratic theorists also focus on citizens’ ruling capabilities and the role of the public in a democracy, as indicated by the following overview of major democratic theories.

 

 

Classical Democratic Theory The earliest Western democratic societies emerged in the city-states of ancient Greece. In Athens’s direct democracy, for example, governing decisions were made by the citizens, defined as all nonslave men of Athenian descent. All citizens were eligible to participate in the Assembly, which met at least forty times per year. Assembly members debated all public issues, often at great length, before making any final decisions. The Assembly tried to reach a consensus on all matters, and unanimous decisions were preferred, under the belief that the common interest would only be realized when everyone agreed.2 When unanimity was not possible, decisions were made via voting in the Assembly. The implementation of the Assembly’s decisions was conducted by smaller groups of men, who had been selected by lot or directly elected by the Assembly. These officials served for short periods of time and were not allowed to serve multiple terms in a row. These procedures ensured that many different men would serve in this executive capacity and that all citizens would have an equal chance of fulfilling these roles.3

One of the few surviving descriptions of Athenian citizens and their democratic participation is contained in Pericles’s oration at a funeral for fallen soldiers:

It is true that our government is called a democracy, because its administration is in the hands, not of the few, but of the many; yet while as regards the law all men are on an equality for the settlement of their private disputes, as regards the value set on them it is as each man is in any way distinguished that he is preferred to public honors, not because he belongs to a particular class, but because of personal merits; nor, again, on the ground of poverty is a man barred from a public career by obscurity of rank if he but has it in him to do the state a service. … And you will find united in the same persons an interest at once in private and in public affairs, and in others of us who give attention chiefly to business, you will find no lack of insight into political matters. For we alone regard the man who takes no part in public affairs, not as one who minds his own business, but as good for nothing; and we Athenians decide public questions for ourselves or at least endeavor to arrive at a sound understanding of them, in the belief that it is not debate that is a hindrance to action, but rather not to be instructed by debates before the time comes for actions. For in truth we have this point also of superiority over other men, to be most daring in action and yet at the same time most given to reflection upon the ventures we mean to undertake; with other men, on the contrary, boldness means ignorance and reflection brings hesitation.4

As Pericles portrays, Athenian democracy was characterized by the active participation of public-spirited men. In fact, he labeled “good for nothing” those men not taking part in public affairs. This passage also alludes to other key characteristics of democratic citizenship that appear in classical models of democracy, such as high levels of attention to and interest in political matters and the capability of deciding matters in favor of the general interest rather than only to advance one’s own selfish interests.

Writing centuries later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed a theory of democracy that has much in common with the classical model. Rousseau strongly advocated popular sovereignty, the principle that citizens hold the ultimate power in a democracy. He argued in The Social Contract that “sovereignty [is] nothing other than the exercise of the general will” and “since the laws are nothing other than authentic acts of the general will, the sovereign can act only when the people is assembled.”5 Rousseau also distinguished the “general will” from the “will of all”: “the general will studies only the common interest while the will of all studies private interest, and is indeed no more than the sum of individual desires.”6 In other words, the general will is not determined by simply adding up every person’s individual opinions but, rather, reflects what is in the best interest of the entire society. Procedurally, Rousseau favored a direct democracy in which all citizens (restricted to property-owning free men) were to meet, discuss, and decide on the content of the laws. As in the Athenian Assembly, Rousseau envisaged vigorous

 

 

legislative debate with a preference for unanimous decisions. Active political participation by the citizenry served multiple purposes for Rousseau. It was the only method by which the general will could be reached and enshrined in law. Active participation was also beneficial for the individual participants; in other words, political participation had “intrinsic value … for the development of citizens as human beings.”7

Rousseau’s theory did depart from classical democratic theory in two important ways. First, Rousseau preferred that the citizens not be as involved in implementing the laws as they were in crafting legislation. He placed less faith in the public’s ability to execute laws and proposed that a body of administrators be selected for this duty.8 The administrators would be selected by the citizens and would be expected to follow the general will but would be distinct from the citizen assembly. Second, Rousseau’s vision of democracy relied on relative economic equality among citizens, as enshrined by all free men having only a limited right to property. This does not mean that Rousseau favored strict equality of property but, rather, that he opposed unlimited accumulation of wealth. Short of this, some inequality was acceptable. Further, according to Rousseau, a citizen would not be able to make decisions for the benefit of all if he were motivated by fear of losing his economic independence. The right to enough property to make each citizen economically free from other citizens would prevent the formation of groups motivated by economic self-interest. Rousseau feared that the existence of such groups would undermine the creation of laws benefiting the common good.9 In short, economic inequality could produce undemocratic effects.

Later democratic theorists and practitioners have criticized classical democratic theory as unworkable for most societies. First, the city of Athens and Rousseau restricted citizenship rights to a degree that has become unacceptable for many democracies. In both cases, only free men were citizens; women and slaves were not given political rights. Further, the existence of a slave economy in Athens and the reliance on women for unpaid domestic labor created much leisure time for the free men to participate in government.10 The amount of time necessary to participate in the Assembly debates (forty times per year!) is simply not feasible for most contemporary working adults. Second, most democratic polities are larger than were the Greek city-states or the eighteenth-century towns of Rousseau’s Europe. In fact, both the Greeks and Rousseau assumed that “[only] in a small state, where people could meet together in the relative intimacy of a single assembly and where a similarity of culture and interests united them, could individuals discuss and find the public good.”11 One of the primary reasons more modern democratic theories, including those that follow, departed from the classical variants was to accommodate popular rule in large, diverse, and populous nation-states. In fact, and as will become clear as you proceed through the chapters of this book, some democratic theories have very much evolved away from classical democracy in an attempt to speak to actual conditions in present-day societies. In contrast, other theorists emphasize that classic democratic features are possible, even needed, in modern-day complex societies. Finally, contemporary democratic theorists differ along other criteria as well, such as their trust in the capabilities of the public.

 

 

Theories of Democratic Elitism and Pluralism In contrast to classical democracy, theories of democratic elitism and pluralism do not allocate to citizens direct involvement in governmental decision making. Rather, the citizenry exerts indirect control by electing officials to represent their views and make decisions. This, of course, is the defining characteristic of a representative democracy. Democratic elitists view frequent competitive elections as the primary mechanism by which citizen preferences are expressed. Voters select their preferred candidates, and the elected officials deliberate over and vote on the nation’s laws. These officials (or political elites) are accountable to the public in that they must periodically run for reelection. Thus, the elites have an incentive to represent the wishes of the public, and the will of the public will be reflected, to some degree, in governmental decisions. Yet the daily decisions are made by the elites, who, by their knowledge and expertise, are better able to make these decisions. Joseph Schumpeter outlines his theory of democratic elitism as follows:

Suppose we reverse the roles of these two elements [the selection of representatives and the decision-making power of the voters] and make the deciding of issues by the electorate secondary to the election of the men who are to do the deciding. To put it differently, we now take the view that the role of the people is to produce a government. … And we define: the democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.12

Pluralists also view competitive elections as one important mechanism by which citizens hold elected leaders accountable. Unlike democratic elitists, however, pluralists emphasize the essential role performed by groups in representative democracies. Interest groups are collections of like-minded individuals that attempt to influence elected officials and other governmental decision makers regarding issues of concern to them. As intermediaries between the public and the elites, such groups are especially important for transmitting the wishes of the citizenry to government officials in between elections. According to pluralists, when many groups are actively engaged in debating public issues, bargaining ensues among the groups and the public policies that result are compromises among the various groups’ preferences.13 Because interest group leaders have the desire and knowledge to lobby government officials, members of the public do not need to be actively involved to have their views represented in lawmaking. For example, citizens who care about human rights do not need to write letters to their elected officials but can, instead, have their concerns vocalized by an interest group such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch. Leader responsiveness to public concerns should result, argue pluralists.

Why have democratic elitists and pluralists proposed a more minor role for citizens in democratic politics? Simply put, “the individual voter was not all that the theory of democracy requires of him.”14 In practice, much evidence suggests that not all citizens are interested in or knowledgeable about politics, that levels of citizen apathy run high, and that many do not participate in politics. This evidence, collected by social scientists beginning in the 1940s, contributed to the development of democratic elitism and pluralism.15 Indeed, it was the disconnect between dominant democratic theories and the reality of life in existing democracies that focused theorists’ attention on actual democratic practices.16 Put another way, the theories of democratic elitism and pluralism were constructed by examining contemporary democracies to determine what features they shared, particularly the levels of political involvement and interest among the citizenry.17 Note that deriving a democratic theory based on observations from existing democracies results in a very different theory than that which emerged from ancient Athens. Having said that, other democratic theorists, such as the participatory democrats we profile in the next section, interpreted the same social science evidence rather differently.

Contemporary democratic elitism and pluralism can trace their intellectual roots to earlier theorists of representative democracy, such as the English philosophers Jeremy Bentham and James Mill and the

 

 

American James Madison.18 These earlier theorists, especially Madison, advocated that most people are not capable of the democratic citizenship captured by Pericles in his funeral oration. In Federalist No. 10, written in 1787, Madison argues that humans are self-interested and will pursue what benefits themselves rather than the nation as a whole. In societies where the liberty of individuals to form their own opinions and pursue their own goals is ensured, groups of similarly interested people will form. By Madison’s definition, such groups, or factions, consist of citizens “who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”19 To overcome the negative effects of such factions, the causes of which are “sown in the nature of man,” Madison proposes a republic in which a few citizens are elected by the rest of the public to serve in the national government.20 In his own words,

The effect of [a representative democracy] is … to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.21

Similar beliefs in the decision-making superiority of elite officials are reflected in the writings of contemporary democratic elitists and pluralists. In an especially uncharitable view of the public, Joseph Schumpeter states as fact “that the electoral mass is incapable of action other than a stampede.”22 More broadly, he argues that the public is capable of voting but little else and that therefore the elites should be allowed to make decisions in between elections without public interference. Elite control over decision making should also result in more stable governments, with fewer changes in policy due to public impulses. Some theorists also emphasize that elites are more supportive of democratic norms and values, especially the civil rights and liberties of marginalized and/or unpopular groups, than are members of the public. In general, they suggest, this support for rights and liberties is beneficial to a democracy where decision making is in the hands of the elite.23 The elites are not immune from public pressures to restrict individual liberties but will typically sort out such issues among themselves, with a preference toward maintaining such liberties.

Critiques of democratic elitism and pluralism have come from many quarters. As previously mentioned, participatory democrats interpret the empirical evidence related to citizen participation vastly differently than do democratic elitists and pluralists. Others have contradicted the pluralist assumptions that interest groups will represent all points of view and that governmental officials are responsive to these groups. Government officials can choose to ignore a group’s demands, especially when they believe the group lacks widespread public support. For example, public outcry in favor of the principle of net neutrality contributed to decision making at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In the spring of 2014, the FCC proposed rule changes that would have permitted the content on some websites to be transmitted more quickly than on other sites. Initially, a few interest groups and Internet companies were active in opposing the proposed rules. Once word of these possible changes spread more broadly, thanks in part to coverage on John Oliver’s HBO show Last Week Tonight, the FCC received millions of public comments. Most people advocated for an open, neutral web whereby Internet service providers cannot speed up or slow down the delivery of a website’s content. The FCC changed course. In February 2015, they dropped their original proposal and instead voted in favor of new regulations that promote net neutrality.24

Further, some groups possess more resources than others and thus have more influence over policymaking. As well stated by political scientist E. E. Schattschneider decades ago, “The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.”25 This fact did not go unnoticed by pluralists. Some accepted the inequality of political resources and argued that the inequalities did not accumulate within certain types of people but, rather, were dispersed throughout

 

 

society. In other words, “individuals best off in their access to one kind of resource are often badly off with respect to many other resources. … Virtually no one, and certainly no group of more than a few individuals, is entirely lacking in some influence resources.”26 Pluralists, however, did not fully develop the implications of group inequalities, an oversight that has been somewhat rectified by more recent theorists in this area.27 Assumptions about noncumulative inequalities have also been challenged. Business groups, these critics contend, occupy a privileged position in U.S. politics due to their wide array of resources28 and indeed are more likely than the public or other types of interest groups to have their wishes enshrined in public policy.29 For an example, let’s return to the topic of net neutrality. After Donald Trump was inaugurated as president in 2017, he appointed a new chair of the FCC, one who favors business deregulation. In pursuit of this goal and with the support of interest groups representing the cable and telecommunications industries, yet despite millions of public comments that urged the opposite, FCC members voted to overturn the net neutrality rules that had been adopted in 2015.30

Finally, Jack Walker’s assessment of democratic elitism takes quite a different form. He charges the democratic elitists with changing “the principal orienting values of democracy.”31 Earlier democratic theorists stressed the importance of citizen participation and the personal benefits that accrue to individuals from this participation. In contrast, under democratic elitism, “emphasis has shifted to the needs and functions of the system as a whole; there is no longer a direct concern with human development. … [Elitists] have substituted stability and efficiency as the prime goals of democracy.”32 Participatory democracy, the final democratic theory we examine, represents a shift back toward the developmental functions of democracy that Walker supports.

Servant Leadership DQ Post

/in /by

 Essent ia ls of Servant Leadersh ip :

Principles in Practice

Ann McGee-Cooper, Ed.D. Duane Trammell, M.Ed.

Revised by Matthew Kosec, M.A.

Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc. 4236 Hockaday Drive Dallas, Texas 75229 214.357.8550 • e-mail carol@amca.com • http://amca.com

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

The Essent ia ls of Servant Leadersh ip : Principles in Practice

by Ann McGee-Cooper, Ed. D., Duane Trammell, M.Ed (revised, 2013 by Matthew Kosec, M.A.) An organizational and spiritual awakening is currently taking place. More people in the new millennium are seeking deeper meaning in work beyond financial rewards and prestige. The desire to make a difference, to support a worthwhile vision, and to leave the planet better than we found it all contribute to this new urge. At the same time, the sustainability movement is helping raise a new awareness of tremendous waste in our current ways of doing business. Perhaps no greater waste exists than the loss of a true sense of community, human imagination and creativity, shared vision, and empowered teamwork found in many of our organizations—all of which ultimately undermines individual productivity and corporate performance.

We must pay attention to these trends because of the tightening labor market and the new generations—with different values and expectations— moving into our working ranks. If companies want to attract and keep top talent, the old ways of recruiting, rewarding, and leading won’t get us there. A different type of leadership is required to succeed in the future.

Servant leadership is one new model that has proved successful in a growing number of organizations. Companies ranging from a large airline, a retail store chain, a mechanical/electrical construction and service company to an engineering/construction partnership with a public hospital are experimenting with unprecedented and accelerated changes in whom Employees choose to follow, how they lead, and how they come together to address constant flux. This article includes stories from these workplaces, differentiating servant leadership from traditional, hierarchical leadership models. It also offers suggestions for putting servant leadership principles to work—any time, any place.

 

Contents The Roots of Modern Leadership Models . . . . . . . . . .2

A New Kind of Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

How Servant Leadership Serves Organizations . . . . .6 Capitalizing on Employee Knowledge and Total Engagement Building Strong Interdependence Meeting Stakeholder Needs Making Healthy Decisions Maintaining a Clear Awareness of Paradox

TDIndustries: Embodying the Art of Servant Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

How Servant-Leaders Grow More Servant-Leaders Building a Shared Vision of Servant Leadership The Payoff Linking Learning Organizations: SLLC

Parkland…Building the Largest Public Hospital in the World Using Servant Leadership. . . . . . . . . . .16

Southwest Airlines: Keeping Servant Leadership Alive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

The Power of Internal Motivation The Culture Committee

How to Begin Practicing Servant Leadership . . . . . 19

Why Leadership Styles Matter! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

 

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

The Roots of Modern Leadership Models

What are the roots of the predominant leadership models of the 20th century? Start with the machine metaphor and managers who believed that people in organizations should operate like cogs in a well-oiled machine. Businesses in the Industrial Revolution sought workers who could complete repetitive tasks in the most efficient way possible. To that end, factories, railroads, mines, and other companies adopted a top-down view of leadership, where those at the top—the “head” of the organization—controlled all the information, made all the decisions. Leaders called those at the bottom of the hierarchy “hired hands,” and rewarded them for conformity and unquestioned obedience. In fact, many viewed any questioning of the boss as insubordination or grounds for dismissal.

Over the last 50 years, our ways of preparing new leaders have stemmed directly from these roots. For the most part, we still employ the terms “manager” and “leader” interchangeably, with no apparent recognition that things are managed, but people are led. Leadership training in MBA courses continues to rely on a case- study approach, in which students study patterns of how others solved business problems in the past. This process assumes that if you learn enough from successful case studies, you can match your company’s challenges against these templates and superimpose similar solutions.

However, as the pace of change accelerates and the world becomes increasingly complex, many companies must unlearn the mindset of basing the future on the past in order to handle emerging problems that are different from anything they’ve faced

before. Instead of breaking issues into parts to understand and control, today’s leaders must learn to step back and involve

others in looking at connections, relationships, systems, and patterns.

As a result, the leader’s role has changed from that of omniscient boss to that of coach. In this new business environment, managers find that they are more successful in accomplishing their goals when they practice the arts of deep listening, persuasion, and trust rather than rely on the exercise of power. Some describe this transformation as turning the pyramid of power upside down. Others have termed this new paradigm “servant leadership.”

A New Kind of Leadership

Servant leadership is one model that can help shift traditional notions of leadership and organizations—and prepare companies to face the challenges of an uncertain future. Robert K. Greenleaf, a lifelong student of organizational change, came up with the term “servant leadership” after reading Journey to the East by Hermann Hesse. Greenleaf was reading the book as part of his effort to help university leaders deal with the student unrest of the 1960s. In trying to understand the roots of the conflict, Greenleaf put himself in the students’ shoes and began to study what

2

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

consumed their interest.

In Hesse’s story, Leo, a cheerful, nurturing servant, supports a group of travelers on a long and difficult journey. His sustaining spirit keeps the group’s purpose clear and morale high until he disappears one day. Soon, the travelers lose heart and disperse. Years later, the storyteller discovers that Leo is the highly respected leader of a spiritual order. The narrator comes to recognize that Leo was important to the survival and shared commitment of the travelers precisely because he served others. From this story, Greenleaf gained insight into a new way to perceive leadership—leading by serving. In Greenleaf’s mind, this approach represented a transformation in the meaning of leadership.

What is servant leadership, as it has evolved from Greenleaf’s early musings? Greenleaf described it in this way: “[Servant leadership] begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. This is sharply different from the person who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. . . . The

best test for servant leadership is: do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or at least, will they not be further deprived?” Jesus, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Cesar Chavez, and Mother Theresa stand out as compelling examples of this model.

Servant leadership contrasts sharply with common Western ideas of the leader as a stand-alone hero (see “The Heroic Leader Versus the Servant-Leader” on p. 5). Hollywood glamorizes the image of the lone warrior who overcomes tremendous adversity. The movie industry feeds a national—and growing international—public

hunger for this model. We all love to see the “good guys” take on the “bad guys” and win. Our movie heroes act quickly and decisively, blowing up buildings and wrecking cars and planes in spine-tingling chases. This diet of high drama can fool us into believing that we can always depend on one or two “super-people” to solve our crises.

Our collective longing for a savior to fix the messes that we have all helped create spills over to our work life. Even in impressive corporate turnarounds, we look for the hero or heroine of the success. We tend to see anything other than decisive quick fixes as too slow or “wimpy” to be effective.

But perhaps we are celebrating and rewarding the wrong things. In action movies, although the heroes always win at the end by annihilating or capturing the bad guys, they leave behind a path of blood and destruction. In business, a new leader may come in, implement a dramatic downsizing, and show a quick profit. But he or she may then move on before the impact of the broken trust that results from these actions shows up in loss of productivity, damage to customer loyalty, and poor

3

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

“A servant-leader is a person who begins with the natural feeling of wanting to serve first – to help, support, encourage, and lift up others. And because of their noble role model, others begin to lead by serving.”

─Robert K. Greenleaf

stock performance.

A leader who sees him- or herself as a servant above all else, however, plays quite a different role than does the traditional hierarchical leader. Rather than controlling or wielding power, this person (1) first listens deeply to understand the needs and concerns of others; (2) works thoughtfully to help build a creative consensus; (3) honors paradox (searches out the balancing truths from within opposing views); and (4) works to create “third right answers” that rise above the compromise of “we/they” negotiations.

 

Thus, servant leadership focuses on

• sharing vital “big-picture” information essential for holistic understanding,

• building a shared vision,

• managing self, • fostering high

levels of interdependence,

• learning from mistakes,

• encouraging creative input from every team member,

• spending time to question present assumptions and mental models,

• modeling and building shared trust, and

• embracing a humble spirit.

To paraphrase Greenleaf, servant leadership is not about a personal quest for power, prestige, or material rewards. Instead, the

servant as leader begins with a true motivation for nurturing others. This leader lifts up others and actively engages in growth and development of those being served, as well as

their own. Servant leadership comes from a mature motivation, which for many emerges later in life. As we begin to recognize our own mortality, we may begin to wonder: “What can I contribute that will continue long after I am gone?”

For some, this quest to leave behind a legacy involves having their name on a library or some other form of public recognition. For servant- leaders, it’s about lifting others to new levels of possibility and accomplishing as a team much more than what one person might accomplish alone. These individuals find that the magical synergy that results when they put aside their egos, share visions, and nurture true organizational learning brings collective joy, deep satisfaction, and amazing results!

 

4

Robert Greenleaf and Ann McGee-Cooper

 

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

The Heroic Leader Versus the Servant -Leader

TRADITIONAL BOSS OF POWER-BASED LEADER

SERVANT AS LEADER

1. Begins with a personal drive to achieve top position of power

1. Begins with a desire to serve others from any place in the organization.

2. Operates in a highly competitive manner. Possesses an independent mindset. Finds it important to receive personal credit for achievement.

2. Operates in a highly collaborative and interdependent manner. Knows that all can gain by working together to create win/win/win solutions. Gives credit to others.

3. Uses personal power, fear, and intimidation to get what s/he wants.

3. Uses personal trust, respect, and unconditional love to build bridges and do what’s best for the “whole.”

4. Focuses solely on fast action. 4. Focuses on gaining understanding, input, and buy-in from all parties on essential issues. Understands that faster is often slower because people support what they help create.

5. Relies only on facts, logic, and proof. 5. Uses intuition and foresight to balance facts, logic, and proof.

6. Controls information in order to maintain power

6. Shares big-picture information. Coaches others by providing context and asking thoughtful questions to help them come to decisions by themselves.

7. Spends more time telling and giving orders than listening.

7. Listens deeply and respectfully to others, especially to those with dissenting views.

8. Derives a sense of confidence and personal

worth from building his or her own talents and abilities.

8. Derives a sense of fulfillment from mentoring, coaching, and growing collaboratively with others.

9. Sees supporters as a power base. Uses perks and titles to signal to others who has power.

9. Develops trust across constituencies and sees the ability to facilitate interdependent solutions as a core value. Breaks down needless barriers caused by hierarchy.

10. Speaks first and believes that his or her ideas are the most important. Often dominates the conversation and intimidates opponents.

10. Listens first. Values others’ input, invites others into the conversation, and is able to build strength through differences.

11. Understands internal politics and uses them for personal gain.

11. Is sensitive to what motivates others and balances what is best for the individual with what is best for the group.

12. Views accountability as assigning blame. 12. Views accountability as creating a safe environment for learning. Ensures that lessons learned from mistakes are shared.

13. Uses negative humor (often put-downs and sarcasm) to control, ridicule, or exclude others.

13. Uses inclusive humor to lift up others and make it safe to learn from mistakes. Is the first to let themselves become vulnerable.

5

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

The practices of servant leadership challenge

some basic assumptions often held about the roles different people play in

helping a company achieve success.

How Servant Leadership Serves Organizations

But what benefits can businesses glean from the practice of servant leadership? Servant-leaders naturally awaken and engage Employee knowledge, build strong interdependence within and beyond the organization’s boundaries, truly meet and exceed the needs of numerous stakeholders, make wise collective decisions, and leverage the power of paradox. We explore each of these capabilities in greater detail below.

Capitalizing on Employee Knowledge and Total Engagement

Servant leadership is a powerful methodology for organizational learning because it offers new ways for an organization to engage the knowledge and wisdom of all its Employees, not just those “at the top.” Servant-leaders share big-picture information and business strategies broadly throughout the company. By communicating basic assumptions and background information, they empower each person to participate in decision-making and creative problem solving. By encouraging innovation and making it safe to make and learn from mistakes, these

leaders help individuals grow from being mere hired hands to having fully engaged minds and hearts. Workers then feel safe to widely share the lessons they’ve learned from mistakes in the spirit of seeing the patterns or systems in all that they do. People become leaders and partners within the team as their

valuable insights become vital to continuous improvement and learning.

For example, as part of its commitment to servant leadership, for the last 15 years, TDIndustries, one of America’s premier mechanical construction and facility service companies headquartered in Dallas, Texas, has taught its Employee-owners (called “Partners”) to understand financial statements. Partners take this responsibility seriously; after all, they own the company. TDIndustries and others have found that sharing this kind of information significantly increases Employees’ job satisfaction and engagement

with their jobs. It also supports eliminating the “that’s not my job” syndrome.

The practices of servant leadership challenge some basic assumptions often held about the roles different people play in helping a

company achieve success. When we shift our perspective, common management expressions such as

“subordinates,” “my people,” “staff” (versus “line”), “overhead” (referring to people), “direct reports,” and “manpower” no longer seem useful or accurate. The standard way of thinking fails to encompass a respect for people, a desire to support others in fulfilling their potential, and the humility to understand that the work of one person can rarely match the work of an aligned interdependent team.

Building Strong Interdependence

Servant-leaders see all people as having the capacity to grow, take initiative, both lead and support others, and come

6

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

together around a shared vision. They know that a team with mediocre talent but high levels of trust can typically far outperform a group of stars trying to outshine each other. Servant- leaders work to build a true community, knowing that close relationships bring people together in tough times. This approach contrasts sharply with the competitive models that pit teammates against each other.

Phil Jackson, coach of several world-champion basketball teams, knows the importance of fostering supportive relationships among team members. In his book, Sacred Hoops (Hyperion, 1995), he writes, “Good teams become great ones when the members trust each other enough to

surrender the ‘me’ for the ‘we.’ As Bill Cartwright puts it: ‘A great basketball team will have trust. I’ve seen teams in this league where the players won’t pass to a guy because they don’t think he is going to catch the ball. But a great basketball team will throw the ball to everyone. If a guy drops it or bobbles it out of bounds, the next time they’ll throw it to him again. And because of their confidence in him, he will have confidence. That’s how you grow.’” Interdependent teams succeed because they build confidence in members by showing them trust, even when a member occasionally “drops the ball.”

Highly successful coaches who understand the potential of interdependence is not

limited to basketball. Consider Herb Brooks, the celebrated coach who led the monumental upset of the then- Soviet hockey juggernaut by the 1980 United States Olympic Hockey Team. As critics pointed out, none of his young players were recognized as the best of the world. Brooks was unfazed by the criticism: “You’re looking for players whose name on the front of the sweater is more important than the one on the back. I look for these players to play hard, to play smart and to represent their country.” Brooks’ team soared to the unexpected “Do you believe in miracles?” gold medal because an interdependent team focused on the overall goal will always outperform an assembly of individuals who lack trust and are only concerned about their personal agenda.

Meeting Stakeholder Needs

A servant-leader is also keenly aware of the needs of a much wider circle of stakeholders than just those internal to the organization. For instance, Ray Anderson, former chairman and CEO of Interface, one of the largest international commercial carpet wholesalers, challenged his company to join him in leading what he

7

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

called the second Industrial Revolution. He defined this new paradigm as one in which businesses find ways to operate that respect the finiteness of natural resources. His vision, which his Employees embraced, was never again to sell a square yard of carpet. Instead, the organization challenged itself to lease carpeting and then find ways to achieve 100 percent recycling—“zero to landfill!” Ray’s legacy continues as Interface embraces Mission Zero. “We’re going for zero. Mission Zero. Zero emissions. Zero waste. Zero oil. It is our promise to eliminate any negative impact our company may have on the environment by the year 2020. That’s right. ZERO oil. It’s a tough challenge since carpet is made from oil, and we’re more than halfway there.”

Thus, the principles of servant leadership define profit beyond financial returns to include meaningful work, environmental responsibility, and quality of life for all stakeholders. As a result, Employees feel a deeper personal commitment to their work as they truly make the world better in the process of earning a living. As Robert Greenleaf said, “If a better

society is to be built, one that is more just and loving, one that provides greater creative opportunity for its people, then the most open course is to raise the capacity to serve and the very performance as servant of existing institutions by new regenerative forces operating within them.”

Making Healthy Decisions

Too many people in organizations today suffer from “hurry sickness.” When we focus on doing everything faster than before, our bodies flood with adrenaline. As the effects wear off, we crave more of this addictive substance. To feed this hunger, we neglect proactive tasks such as coaching, mentoring, planning ahead, and quiet reflection. Instead, we seek out more reasons to stay reactive and highly charged.

Servant-leaders model healthy decision-making by taking the time to withdraw, to reflect, to gather input from a diverse group of stakeholders, and to allow experience, intuition, and wisdom to surface. They operate under the premise that “If you want to create sustainable, safe, consistent results, slow down!” Servant- leaders spend far less time in crisis management or fighting “fires” than do traditional

managers. Instead, they use crises as opportunities to coach others and help teams learn from mistakes. You can see the results of servant leadership in some of America’s most interesting and progressive companies (see “Servant leadership at the 100 Best Companies to Work for in America”).

Maintaining a Clear Awareness of Paradox

“Wholeness is possible only via the coexistence of opposites. In order to know the light, we must experience the dark.” —Carl Jung

Servant leadership operates with a number of paradoxes:

• Two opposing perspectives can be true at the same time.

• We lead more effectively by serving others.

• We arrive at better answers by learning to ask thoughtful questions rather than providing solutions.

• We often gain a greater understanding of a situation through fewer words (a metaphor or story) and learn to build unity by valuing differences.

8

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

What can we learn from the concept of paradox? The main lesson is that there is usually another side to every story. Maintaining an awareness of paradox alerts us to an opposite and balancing truth in most situations that might otherwise remain hidden. Servant-leaders know to explore what is not being said or what might be overlooked, especially when solutions come too quickly or

with an easy consensus. They learn to honor and leverage paradox to ensure sustaining balance in decision-making, problem solving, and planning. Where many leaders feel trapped by paradox for fear of having to choose between apparent opposites, servant-leaders are comfortable in paradox. Servant-leaders may even seek paradox as they know the best course is contained within. As Neils Bohr stated, “How wonderful that we have

met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.”

TDIndustries: Embodying the Art of Servant Leadership

On average, the companies on Fortune’s 100 Best Companies list operate at approximately 50 percent higher return to shareholders than do competitors that did

Servant Leadership at the 100 Best Companies to Work for in America

TDIndustries (TD), Southwest Airlines, Synovus Financial Corporation, and The Container Store have all appeared within the top ten on Fortune Magazine’s list of 100 Best Companies to Work for in America. All four serve as excellent examples of servant leadership in action. At TD, Employee-owners are called “Partners”. The company’s founder, Jack Lowe Sr., decided to make the organization Employee-owned in the early 1950s after discussions with Employees about converting an annual cash bonus plan to a stock bonus plan. All agreed that it would be fair and desirable for those doing the work to share in the benefits of ownership.

At Southwest Airlines, the words “Employees”, “Customers”, and “People” are always capitalized, to emphasize their importance. A part of the company’s philosophy is that Employees come first and Customers come second, because “we as leaders must treat our Employees as we want them to treat our Customers!” Another unique feature is that every team member is seen as a leader and a follower, eager and ready to support others and take responsibility for his or her unique part of the business.

In its 122-year history, Synovus has never had layoffs. The atmosphere of trust and personal caring within the organization is evidenced by the 80 percent of Employees who say they want to retire at Synovus. Said James H. Blanchard, former chairman and CEO, “We have learned some humbling and inspiring lessons from our peers in this group (100 Best Companies), and every year we work harder to assure that the Synovus experience continues to be fulfilling and enriching for our team members, customers, and the communities we serve.”

One of the six guiding principles of The Container Store is that one average person can do the work of three mediocre people; one good person can do the work of three average people; and one great person can do the work of three good people. Based on that premise, the company seeks to hire only great people and pays them well (50-100 percent above the industry average).

9

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

not make the list. These organizations perform better than their rivals on Employee retention, morale, worker safety, and other measures as well. Some examples from the inner workings of these companies can bring a clearer insight into how and why servant leadership is so powerful . TDIndustries (TD) is an excellent specimen – between 1992 and 2012 TD experienced a stock value gain of 641%, outpacing the S&P’s gain of 385%. The financial success of TD is important, but how these results were achieved contains the important lessons in servant leadership.

Over 50 years, TDIndustries has evolved into what the company calls a “leaderful” culture. In this organization, leadership is not about having others report to you as a supervisor. TD seeks to help each Employee/Partner to view him- or herself as a valued leader. From this position, each person must take responsibility for nurturing others, initiating ideas, asking for help, collaborating, calling others to action, challenging assumptions, offering suggestions for continuous

improvement, and so on. Within this broad definition of leadership, each person becomes infinitely valued and valuable.

How Servant-Leaders Grow More Servant-Leaders

Years ago TD won the contract for building the Dallas Convention Center. Bruce Arapis, a former vice president, was scheduled to serve as the senior project superintendent and the contract was awarded partly due to the Customer’s confidence in Bruce. Bruce was delayed two months completing a previous job. In his absence, David Hollowell served as project superintendent.

Once Bruce was free to join the Dallas job, he saw that David’s performance in leading the team was outstanding. Together, with the approval of the Client, they decided that it would be in the best interest of the project for David to continue in the lead position and for Bruce to go into the field and head up the installation of the ductwork. In giving up the leadership role on this contract, Bruce renounced not only the personal recognition that he would receive as senior project superintendent but also the nice bonus that accompanies this position. Not long after this event, David took a similar action, stepping aside to give Mike Wilson an opportunity to

10

TD Partners on-site during construction of AT&T Cowboy Stadium

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

During the servant leadership course, each participant

creates a personal action plan, choosing at least one new skill to practice from each

new skill area.

expand his experience and leadership.

When Bruce went to another job at Texas Stadium, David pitched in by arranging for extra staff to work overtime as needed. David also helped to assemble roof curbs on his personal time to meet the fast- track schedule for the football season. The project came in on time and beat the original budget.

These memorable stories are examples of the synergy that results when egos and personal self-interest are replaced by the desire to serve others. Greenleaf understood the importance of stepping aside and allowing others to lead. He advised, “It is terribly important that one know, both about oneself and about others, whether the net effect of one’s influence on others enriches, is neutral, or diminishes and depletes.”

Building a Shared Vision of Servant Leadership

Building a shared vision based on servant leadership is an essential piece of TD’s unique culture. Here’s how they approached this challenge.

1. Build a curriculum of servant leadership tools. TD and its training and development partner, Ann McGee Cooper and

Associates, Inc. have worked for over three decades to create and gather materials, DVDs, simulation games, and other resources to create a day- long learning experience to introduce servant leadership. Subsequent growth in servant leadership is encouraged through three additional sessions that teach advanced skills.

2. Build a foundation of credibility for the servant leadership process. Jack Lowe Jr., when he served as president and CEO, initially introduced every servant leadership class himself to ensure that each person understood TD leaders’ commitment to the program. As he began to plan for his retirement, he delegated this responsibility to other senior leaders. Each has been candid about his or her personal journey, including early skepticism and frequent backsliding. One senior executive known for using power and

intimidation confessed his initial doubts about servant leadership. He found it difficult to change his words and actions, even when he wanted to. Out of frustration, he often fell

back into old behaviors. But he asked for help and expressed deep appreciation for his coworkers’ patience and support. He explained to them, “When I sound the toughest, I’m usually afraid because I don’t know how to get us there. Please hold me accountable when I slip and start bullying. Just remind me of my commitment to work respectfully.”

To give the program further credibility, “sponsors” (servant- leaders) are selected from the field or office to co- teach servant leadership classes. Their presence reinforces the importance of the process and links the subject matter to real business challenges. Managers and supervisors also attend advanced refresher courses.

11

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

3. Add other levels of servant leadership. Through the years, TD added sessions on diversity and Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Covey’s Four Imperatives of Great Leaders, as well as his Inspiring Trust (a spin off one of the Four Imperatives) are now core classes in the servant leadership curriculum. As mentioned above, the organization also offers advanced servant leadership development to fill in skill gaps and deepen understanding of the concepts.

In 1990, TD embraced Total Quality Management as a way to increase operational performance. Every Partner participates

in a full-day workshop, entitled “TD Partners in Quality.” The success of this and other change initiatives at TD is built on the foundation of high trust that has resulted from servant leadership. The facilitators for all TD courses reinforce how all these concepts and skills work together seamlessly to build strong teams, effective servant-leaders, and continuous performance improvement. For example, some of the work-process improvement tools help improve the people development processes and vice versa.

4. Solicit feedback and fine- tune the process. Every participant provides feedback at the end of each day-long session. These

comments and suggestions are used to improve future classes. This process models servant leadership in that the class participants teach the facilitators how to make the program even more effective. Because “graduates” of the program reported how valuable it

was to return to

teach and coach new Employees in applying these concepts, a sponsor is carefully selected to help to facilitate each class. They review all materials in advance and choose which skills they feel ready to teach and which stories they want to tell, linked to the different servant leadership skill sets. The diversity represented through the sponsors adds credibility for servant leadership in all dimensions of the company.

5. Be accountable for skills learned in class. Each class is opened by a senior executive sponsor, modeling and giving voice to the importance of servant leadership growth and development. The senior sponsor then turns the class over to the class sponsor and AMCA, Inc. for the remainder of the instruction. During the servant leadership course, each participant creates a personal action plan. In the plan, the individual chooses at least one new skill to practice from each of the six to eight leadership areas covered in the curriculum. They also bring to class their APPLES (TD’s evaluation and career development

12

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

Sponsor handing out certificates after TD Leadership Class

 

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

plan), noting skill deficit areas and how they can improve their performance based on what they are learning in class. At the end of class, the senior sponsor returns and asks for a commitment from each participant for a skill improvement action item, challenges them to identify who they will teach one new learned skill within the next twenty-four hours, then awards each participant a certificate to recognize his or her development as a servant- leader.

The Payoff

Jack Lowe Jr., then-CEO and now Board Chair, understood the importance of traditional measurements of success. “In the past, I believed that being a great place to work would limit our ability to pay top wages, grow our business, and have outstanding financial performance,” says Jack. “My paradigm has shifted. I now believe that being a great place to work allows us to pay top wages, grow our business, and have outstanding career opportunities” (see “Servant Leadership Success at TD”).

TD now links productivity and profitability with investing in people. Jack explains, “The first 20 years, Partners trusted the leader and founder, Jack Lowe Sr. The next 16 years, we trusted the team. In 1989 the bottom dropped out of the construction market, as the oil and gas and banking industries collapsed. Our bank went under and our bonding company’s support became tenuous. Again, the high trust built on servant leadership was the glue that held us together and allowed us to survive this very threatening situation. At a

13

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

Servant Leadership Success at TDIndustr ies

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

But servant leadership is far more than simply being pleasant.

The first measure is, do you grow the people you

lead?

meeting of all Partners with five or more years of service, it was decided we should terminate our defined benefit retirement plan and ask Partners to invest a portion of the distribution back into the company. A ‘fair share’ formula was developed that would have yielded $1.5 million if everyone participated. Soon, over $1.25 million was invested, and the company was saved. Some Partners took a severance package and left to slim down the ranks. We were all astounded as we literally discovered the power of all pulling together from whatever we could contribute.

“In 1997, we undertook the most comprehensive strategic rethinking of the company in our history. Once again, trust was the foundation for its success. We decided to sell one regional part of our business, so we let the Employees there choose the new owner. We decided to think and act more like one company—The Power of One. On the surface, we dropped the separate names of several parts of our company and

began using TDIndustries as the umbrella for everything we did. Internally, this helped us realize and leverage all being on the same team. Instead of one part of the company protecting turf, Partners began to extend resources across previous boundaries, and we began to leverage a powerful new level of interdependence.

“With this newly discovered flexibility, the company moved rapidly ahead and1990–2010 showed high levels of profitability and productivity, as we built quality improvement and strategic planning on the foundation of servant leadership. Now we had grown trust in ourselves as owners, servant-leaders, and Partners. We became a

community of powerful, trusting Partners.”

At TD, leaders are accountable for both achieving business results and modeling servant leadership.

Using 360-degree feedback and other instruments, the organization has continued to work to improve commitment, accountability, and performance as a leaderful

organization. One senior leader stated, “If we, each of us, don’t hold ourselves to high standards of continuous performance improvement based on our vision, mission, values, we are not being accountable to ourselves and our Partners.”

Thus, it isn’t enough to build an engaging curriculum. If the majority of the Employees don’t live and reinforce the principles of servant leadership, then it won’t be real. “Early on, we worked hard to be respectful and nice to each other,” said the same leader. “But servant leadership is far more than simply being pleasant. The first measure is, do you grow the people you lead? Do you provide honest, thoughtful feedback and set expectations for meaningful continuous performance improvement? And are they inspired to become servant-leaders?”

TD’s dual-commitment to profitability and servant leadership has been tested. For example, one leader achieved excellent business results, but was leaving behind organizational wreckage. In a situation where many companies may have tolerated poor relational behavior for the sake of profits, TD coached, and then later removed, the leader.

14

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

A pivotal moment in TD’s history came in 2005 when Jack Lowe, Jr. retired from the CEO role. Not wanting senior leadership to become stagnant, Lowe set a target age for retirement, and then started the successor selection process four years before his retirement. Lowe and his father were the constant face of servant leadership within TD, and thus servant leadership was a key factor in choosing a successor. “We never wanted to bring someone in from the outside; we should have been developing leaders for succession all along the way” said Lowe.

The four-year selection process was calculated and deliberate, and while the candidates’ history of business results was important, indicators of servant leadership were equally considered. From servant leadership assessment tools, to moving candidates within the organization to identify those who can build trusting relationships and teams, Lowe examined every possible angle.

In January 2005, Harold MacDowell was promoted from within to become the company’s third CEO. MacDowell’s use of combined humor and humility

has been helpful in continuing the heritage of servant leadership, not to mention remain profitable. MacDowell has also continued the application of mutual accountability at all levels. For example, during his tenure he has successfully encouraged the TD Board to transition from mostly company insiders to outside members. Why? Because he wanted a Board that would provide him feedback and hold him accountable to all of the TD Partners he serves.

Linking Learning Organizations into SLLC®

A servant-led organization causes big ripples in the organizational pond. Several other companies and community groups that heard of TD’s experience expressed interest in developing a culture of servant leadership. So, AMCA along with TDIndustries and Southwest Airlines (SWA) as role models of servant leadership, formed a learning community around the work emerging at TDIndustries and SWA. In the fall of 1999, the Dallas Servant Leadership Learning Community® (SLLC) was born. To date the fourteen partner organizations include:

• TDIndustries; • Southwest Airlines;

• Tempo, a heating and air- conditioning business that spun off from TD;

• Celebration Restaurant;

• Coppell, Texas, Police Department;

• Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant;

• Parkland Health and Hospital Systems;

• Balfour Beatty Corporation

• Luminant Fossil Generation

• Dallas County Community College District;

• Collin County Community Supervision and Correction Department;

• Publishing Concepts; • Tex Energy Solutions; and

• Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates.

Participation in this group reminds TD of the special nature of its culture and the critical responsibility of all Partners for keeping this spirit alive in everything they do. Moreover, it exposes outside groups to an advanced culture of servant leadership and provides a wide variety of implementation models. And the learning community creates valuable synergies.

15

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

Parkland…Building the Largest Public Hospital in the World Using Servant Leadership

In August 2007, the Dallas County Commissioners Court approved a Blue Ribbon Panel’s report to build a replacement hospital for Parkland County Hospital. In 2008, Dallas County voters overwhelmingly approved the bond election. The new Parkland facility would be over 2 million square feet with a budget of $1.27 billion.

Balfour Beatty formed a coalition of companies including Balfour Beatty, Austin Commercial, Russell, and Azteca and called the team BARA. Balfour Beatty had worked with Ann McGee-Cooper and Associates on several large projects using servant leadership as a model. They knew that in order to be successful on a project of this size, with this many contractors, an interdependent teaming model would be needed. On April 22, 2009 Parkland officials awarded construction of the project to

BARA. Eight weeks later on June 3, 2009, AMCA met with the key leaders of Parkland, BARA, Corgan, and CH2M Hill. On July 16, 2009, the first meeting was held and a Vision and Covenant were created based on the principles of servant leadership. Two phrases stood out which would become the symbols of this project—“the most patient and family-centric facility in the country” and “iconic , timeless, and enduring.”

The team knew there would be differences, so AMCA led the team through a process to create a Covenant documenting how they would settle differences and treat one another as they worked using the principles and practices of servant leadership.

Then the work began. Design teams met. Patient advocate groups weight in. Technology

consultants offered expertise…and the vision began to take form. The new Parkland hospital would be a safe, welcoming, patient- centered healing environment, serving as a sustainable green resource for Dallas County. It would promote excellence in clinical care, teaching, and research and a technologically advanced and accessible environment.

Sam Moses was selected by BARA as general superintendent and

construction began. He tells the about the role attitude and teamwork play in creating an environment of Servant Leadership:

“I am a true believer in attitude. It’s

contagious. I can get excited about a concrete pour and then the next thing you know, those guys pouring the concrete get excited. In addition to the big goal at the end of finishing the project, you celebrate those many little goals in between and it gets everybody pumped up. I want that excitement and attitude not only for me, those that work around me, but also for those all the way

16

Parkland Hospital under construction

 

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

out to the subs, labor, and gate guards.”

Parkland and BARA knew that waves of talent would be coming on the project across the five years. It would be important to offer on-boarding classes of servant leadership to keep the teaming momentum high.

Kathy Harper, Vice President of Clinical Planning offers inspiration to new team members as they arrive on site and captures the essence of servant leadership on this amazing project:

“We have a greater vision…not just to build the best hospital in Dallas, but we are going to change public healthcare in this country, and nothing less. On the days that it gets a little hard, think about the legacy we are leaving.”

As of 2013, the new Parkland hospital is on schedule, within, budget and is scheduled to open in 2015.

Southwest Airlines: Keeping Servant Leadership Alive

Our second example of servant leadership in action centers on Southwest Airlines. In the late 1980s, Southwest Airlines began receiving acclaim for its ability to create a fun culture and keep energy

high and Customers loyal. Much of the media attention on the Company focused on Herb Kelleher, Southwest’s former CEO. Colleen Barrett, Kelleher’s 1970’s legal secretary who rose to President, also gained her own attention and fierce loyalty from both Customers and the ranks of Southwest People.

Kelleher is a natural servant- leader who recruited, rewarded, and surrounded himself with a diverse team of equally committed servant- leaders. “I have always believed that the best leader is the best server. And if you’re a servant, by definition, you’re not controlling. We try to value each person individually and to be cognizant of them as human beings—not just People who work for our Company.”

“Your Employees come first. There’s no question about that. If your Employees are satisfied and happy and dedicated and inspired by what they are doing, then they make your Customers happy and they come back. And that makes your shareholders happy. Think about Customer service. Profit is a by- product.”

One of the questions that people frequently asked about Southwest Airlines was, “What

will happen when Herb retires?” Because most people’s view of leadership includes a traditional “in- charge” hero who wields power and calls the shots, they fail to see that, like TD, Southwest is also an abundantly “leaderful” culture. Herb is and always will be loved. Yet servant leadership is so deeply woven into the culture—into the hearts, minds, beliefs, and behavior of every leader at every level—that it has become Southwest.

Kelleher’s successor, Gary Kelly, has not wavered from a focus on Employees, explaining the priority should be on Employees, so they can care for the Customer. For sure, Kelly operates in a world that is concerned with profitability, but what is different about Southwest is how they choose to treat their People in pursuing profitability. There is another Southwest hallmark that Kelly has not neglected: “Fun LUVing.” Although he has yet to apply Kelleher’s tactic of challenging an industry peer to an arm wrestling duel, around Halloween time it is not uncommon to see Kelly dressed as a “Kiss” band member or Edna Turnblad from “Hairspray!”

17

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

The Power of Internal Motivation

As we noted earlier, a true servant-leader is motivated by contributing to a collective result or vision rather than by personal recognition, power, or material gain. Very often, a servant-leader purposely refuses to accept the perks of a position. So it is with Kelleher and others at Southwest. Kelleher had a reputation as the most underpaid CEO in the airline industry and was the first to work without pay when Southwest faced serious financial threats. For instance, in asking pilots to agree to freeze their wages for five years, he froze his own wages.

In fact, all of the Company’s top leaders are paid well below the industry average. As a result, big salaries and attractive perks are not the motivators of this leadership team. Rather, executives stay at the Company because they are making history together. Their purpose is to connect People to what’s important in their lives through friendly, reliable, and low-cost air travel. To keep fares low, they must watch their operating costs, which include salaries. But, instead of cutting salaries on the front lines, the top leaders at Southwest choose to serve at salaries significantly

less than their industry average, yet another trait of servant leadership.

Southwest’s Employees are equally loyal to the Company, Much of this is derived from the loyalty they feel from top leadership, as evidenced in now-President Emeritus Colleen Barrett’s leadership philosophy:

Our entire philosophy of Leadership is quite simple: Treat your People right, and good things will happen. When we talk to our People, we proudly draw a pyramid on the chalkboard and tell them: You are at the top of the pyramid. You are the most important Customer in terms of priority. Therefore, I am going to spend 80 percent of my time treating you with Golden Rule behavior and trying to make sure that you have an enjoyable work

environment where you feel good about what you do, about yourself, and about your position within this Company. But, if I do that, what I want in exchange is for you to do the same thing by offering our Passengers – who are our second Customer in terms of priority – the same kind of warmth, caring, and fun spirit (Blanchard & Barrett, 2011).

Loyalty to the organization and its mission is rampant throughout Southwest, regardless of organizational position. People want to feel valued and connected to the mission of the Company they choose to join, and leaders throughout Southwest find ways to consistently do this. It seems that those outside of Southwest also crave loyalty and connectedness: In 2012 Southwest received nearly 115,000 job applications and only hired 2,499!

18

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

The Culture Committee

One way that Southwest integrates servant leadership throughout the organization is through the Companywide Culture Committee. Created initially in 1990 by then- Executive Vice President of Customers Colleen Barrett, the Culture Committee is a special gathering of a cross- section of Employees from all ranks and locations. Members of the committee are volunteers, picked because they exemplify the Southwest spirit. The Committee’s mission is to help create the Southwest spirit and culture where needed; to enrich it and make it better where it already exists; and to liven it up in places where it might be floundering. In addition to active Members, hundreds of Alumni support the many creative projects that bubble up.

As testament to internal motivation, Members of the Culture Committee volunteer their personal time, often amounting to over a dozen full days per year. Members from around the country travel to Dallas and other locations for several, multi-day meetings per year. At the meetings they build servant leadership skills, work on special projects, and receive important updates on

initiatives within the Company. They also complete an array of service visits throughout the network, showing care and support to their peers.

The SWA Culture Committee functions as an incubator for servant leadership, especially the building of trust across the now 46,000+ (with the acquisition of AirTran Airlines) Member company. Young leaders are mentored and learn to trust the senior members who have a deeper appreciation of the company’s history. Intentional trust- building is most evident during the Culture Committee Officer Panel, during which senior executives give Company updates and receive direct questions and feedback from Employees. A dedicated “Culture Services”

staff carefully builds a trusting environment in which Executives appreciate challenging questions that derive from caring about the future of the Company, and Employees are comfortable asking them without fear of retribution. The trust that is built emanates from Committee Members to their thousands of peers; an incredible feat in a highly unionized environment.

How to Begin Practicing Servant leadership

TDIndustries and Southwest Airlines each created a unique culture based on servant leadership owing to the natural persuasion and beliefs of a founding leader. But any kind of organization can successfully adopt and apply these principles. How can you begin to practice the skills and behaviors of servant leadership, especially when such skills have not always been rewarded in your organization? Here are some initial steps you might take:

1. Listen Without Judgment. When a team member comes to you with a concern, listen first to understand. Before giving advice or solutions, practice repeating back what you thought you heard and your

19

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

Southwest Airlines Culture Committee Meeting

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

understanding of her feelings. If you have accurately heard her, then ask how you could best help. Did the person just need a safe sounding board, or would she like you to help brainstorm solutions? Listen for feelings (empathizing) as well as for facts (solving).

2. Be Authentic. Admit mistakes openly. At the end of team meetings, do a “plus (what worked?), delta (what needs improving?)” process check. Be open and accountable to others for your role in projects that didn’t go so well.

3. Build Community. Find ways to show appreciation for those who work with you. A hand-written thank-you note for a job done well means a lot. A servant-leader finds ways to thank team members for every day, routine work that is often taken for granted. Create frequent celebrations and include families to build a network of friendship, fun, and caring. Enjoying recreational activities together helps people get to know each other in a broader and deeper sense and builds a foundation of trust and friendship critical in high-performance teams.

4. Share Power. Ask those you supervise or collaborate with, “What decisions or actions could I improve if I had more input from the team?” Delegate meaningful assignments that challenge people and develop their skills. Plan a way to get this feedback into your decision-making process. Ask thoughtful questions that encourage people to come up with ideas and solutions rather than offering an answer for everything. Appreciate even those times when others take issue with your position. These moments will break down mindless obedience and encourage the risk-taking that leads to free-flowing collaboration.

5. Develop People. What would happen if you suddenly fell ill and couldn’t work for a year? Have you mentored others

so that they can step into your job? Take time each week to develop others to grow into higher levels of responsibility. Give colleagues opportunities to attend meetings that they would not normally be invited to. Find projects that you can co-lead and coach your Partner through the process. Introduce team members to other leaders to show your respect for their abilities. Invite others’ concerns, ideas, and challenges. Provide honest, thoughtful feedback and make performance reviews two- way. Dare to challenge self and others with high expectations. Expect greatness and provide the conscientious coaching that gives others opportunities to grow into that expectation.

6. Co-Create Shared Vision.

20

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

Southwest Airline Volunteers help with tornado relief efforts in Oklahoma

 

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

We cannot encourage a flexible organization through inflexible means, nor

create a vibrant, productive

community through fear and

intimidation.

As Joseph Jaworski summed up, “Robert Greenleaf, the originator of ‘Servant Leadership’ – one of the most influential business concepts of our time – called foresight ‘the central ethic of leadership.’ ‘To see the unforeseeable’ and ‘know the unknowable,’ Greenleaf said, is the mark of the leader” (2012). Servant leaders strive to practice foresight, but more importantly they involve others in creating the vision of where the organization is going. To be sure, Herb Kelleher always held a vision of growth for Southwest Airlines, but he’ll be the first to tell you that growing from a regional airline to one of the largest in the world was realized because he listened to his People along the way. People are committed to something they have helped build, and this is nowhere more important than building the future.

Why Leadership Styles Matter!

Some management theorists believe that any leadership style is fine as long as it gets the intended results. Robert Greenleaf disagreed. He believed that “The means

determine the ends.” We cannot encourage a flexible organization through inflexible means, nor create a vibrant, productive community through fear and intimidation.

If Greenleaf is right—and it really does matter how we lead, whom we choose to follow, and how we come together to address our organizational challenges—then servant leadership can be a powerful avenue for significantly improving the performance of organizations that embrace it. As we noted above, if you look at the Fortune list of the 100 Best Companies to Work for in America, their cultures are more characteristic of servant leadership than of traditional power-based models. They distinguish themselves from their competitors by truly valuing people—and their stock market performance over the past 10 years has been double that of the S&P 500. So if your goal is to significantly enhance the performance of your company as a living system, to respect and engage

the full talents of all stakeholders, and to create a culture that nurtures spirit and true community, then growing

into the new paradigm of servant leadership provides a clear pathway.

If your company’s survival were at risk, would your Employees sacrifice their own financial

security to see the firm through a critical challenge? At various points, the people at both TDIndustries and Southwest Airlines did so. They believe that, when a community stands together, the collective possibilities are endless. This rare shared commitment grows out of servant leadership, which dares to lead by building shared trust and—even more—unconditional love. As more leaders break free from the patterns of the past and find the courage to explore this promising new paradigm, a new vitality will fill our lives and workplaces.

 

21

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice

 

 

Copyright © 2001, 2013 Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates, Inc.

Ann McGee-Cooper, Ed.D., is founder of Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates (AMCA), a small team of futurists who specialize in servant leadership, growing high performance teams, creative solutions, and the politics of change. Since 1976 including 10 years working directly with Robert K. Greenleaf—she and her Partners have worked to understand, become, and grow servant-leaders.

 

Duane Trammell is COO and co- founder of Ann McGee-Cooper and Associates, Inc. and has been partners with Ann for 30 years.

 

Matthew Kosec, Adjunct Partner at Ann McGee-Cooper and Associates, Inc., updated and revised this article in 2013.

.

 

 

Further Read ings:

Blanchard, Ken and Barrett, Colleen. Lead with LUV: A Different Way to Create Real Success. FT Press, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2011.

Cheshire, Ashley, A Partnership of the Spirit. TDIndustries, Dallas, TX, 1987.

Frick, Don M. Robert K. Greenleaf: A Life of Servant Leadership. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 2004.

Frick, Don M. and Sipe, James W. Seven Pillars of Servant Leadership. Paulist Press, New Jersey, 2009.

Frieberg, Kevin, and Freiberg, Jackie, Nuts. Bard Press, Austin, 1996.

Greenleaf, Robert K. The Servant as Leader. Newton Center, Mass. Robert K. Greenleaf Center, 1970.

Greenleaf, Robert K. On Becoming A Servant Leader, eds. Don M. Frick & Larry C. Spears: Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1996 .

Hesse, Hermann. The Journey to the East. The Noonday Press, New York, NY, 1956.

Jackson, Phil, Sacred Hoops. New York: Hyperion, 1995.

Jaworski, Joseph. Source: The Inner Path of Knowledge Creation. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 2012.

Kouzes, Jim, and Posner, Barry, The Leadership Challenge. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Fransisco, 1987.

Mackey, John and Raj Sisodia. Conscious Capitalism. Harvard Business Review Press, Watertown, MA, 2014.

McGee-Cooper, Ann and Trammell, Duane. Awaken Your Sleeping Genius: A Journaling Approach to Servant Leadership. Dallas, TX, 1997.

Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Smith, The Fifth Discipline Field Book. Currency, Doubleday, New York, 1994.

Spears, Larry C. (ed.). Insights on Leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1998.

Spears, Larry C. (ed.). Reflections on Leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1995.

 

22

The Essentials of Servant Leadership: Principles in Practice