Leadership elitism – Idealism vs. Realism

Studia Philosophiae Christianae UKSW 55(2019)3 Thomas A. Michaud Leadership Elitism – Idealism vs. Realism Abstract. Philosophies of leadership have tended to express and support idealistic or realistic approaches to leadership. Leadership elitism maintains essentially that successful leaders must know and do what is best for their followers, because their followers are not capable of knowing and doing what is best for themselves. This essay offers descriptions of the contrasting traits of leadership idealism and realism, both of which explain elitism as a common trait of idealism. These descriptions are exemplified with an overview of some past and current leadership philosophies, and then with an in-depth analysis of the early twentieth-century views of the African-Americans thinkers W.E.B. Du Bois (idealist) and Booker T. Washington (realist). Some remarks on where leadership philosophy is and could be in the twenty-first century conclude the essay. Keywords: leadership philosophies, leadership idealism vs. realism, leadership in twenty-first century, Plato, Aristotle, Lao Tzu, Tolstoy, Thomas Carlyle, Machiavelli, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois, Thomas Wren 1. Nine Contrasting Tendencies of Idealist vs. Realist Leadership Philosophies. 2. Overview of Some Major Leadership Philosophies. 3. The Washington and Du Bois Opposition. 4. Concluding Remarks: Quo Vadis Leadership? Appendix: Leadership Elitism – Idealism vs. Realism. If it is accepted that a measure of the merits of a civilization is the substance of its predominant philosophies, then a civilization’s philosophies of leadership are essential to assessing its merits. Philosophies of leadership can contribute to orienting, driving and even largely defining the status and movement of a civilization. Leadership philosophies can turn a civilization toward oppressive totalitarianism or humane freedom; they can engender a democratic republic that values the individual person or a depersonalizing socio-economic collectivism led by elitist tyrants. It is crucial, then, to explicate and critique leadership philosophies to expose their tendencies and 82 Thomas A. Michaud [2] possible consequences when put into action. A valuable conceptual framework for this task is the dichotomy between elitist leadership idealism and leadership realism. There are many types of elites, ranging from business to politics, media and even ethnic groups, religion, and education. What all of these types of elites have in common, as implied by the lexical definition of “elite,” is the “social superiority” of a particular individual or group.1 “Elitism,” however, has a more specific definition, namely, “leadership or rule by an elite.”2 By merging these meanings, “elitism” can be interpreted as a type of leadership in which leaders, within any sort of organization, are regarded, or conceive themselves, as superior. Superiority, whether accorded to leaders by members of an organization or merely assumed by the leaders themselves, is, then, a distinguishing trait of elitist leadership. The history of the philosophy of leadership is extensive. During different historical eras, diverse philosophies of leadership emerged. A constant philosophical theme, however, can be identified throughout the various historical expressions of leadership philosophies. That theme is fundamental to philosophy itself and it is the opposition between idealism and realism, with its epistemological, psychological and political implications. Leadership philosophies, in general, can be understood as leaning toward the idealist or realist perspective, and elitism can be exposed as a trait of leadership idealism. This essay describes leadership idealism as maintaining essentially that successful leaders in an organization of any scale must themselves know and do what is best for their followers, their subordinates. This is so because idealism typically considers leaders as superior, and the followers, the inferiors, as just not capable of knowing and doing what is best for themselves. 1 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, MA 1980, 366. 2 Ibidem. [3] Leadership Elitism – Idealism vs. Realism 83 The exposition of leadership elitism begins with charting (see Appendix) the contrasting traits which characterize leadership idealism versus realism. An historical overview of significant idealist and realist leadership philosophies follows using the examples of Plato, Aristotle, Lao Tzu, Machiavelli, Thomas Carlyle, and Leo Tolstoy. Next, an in-depth examination focuses on the contrast between the early twentieth-century views of the African-American thinkers W.E.B. Du Bois (idealist) and Booker T. Washington (realist). The Du Bois/Washington dispute is detailed since it is especially relevant to the current state of leadership in the U.S.A. Brief remarks on the future of leadership conclude this essay. 1. Nine Contrasting Tendencies of Idealist vs. Realist Leadership Philosophies Before explaining nine contrasting traits of leadership idealism and realism, it is important to emphasize that such traits are not necessarily characteristic of every idealist or realist leadership philosophy. In other words, some traits may be characteristic of some idealist or realist approaches, and others may not. Moreover, a particular trait may be characteristic of a particular leader or philosophy to a greater or lesser degree. Finally, it is helpful to analyze leadership traits keeping in mind that idealist or realist philosophies tend to have at least some but not necessarily all of these traits. Hence, the title of this section indicates contrasting tendencies to highlight the tendentious status of the leadership traits. Another important point to emphasize regarding the descriptions of these tendencies and the ensuing historical overview is that although they are intended as having a broad scope, they also have relevant application to particular leaders in organizations of almost any kind or size. The descriptions refer to leadership in general: any individual with leadership status in any organization can manifest the idealistic or realist tendencies in ways that are contextualized 84 Thomas A. Michaud [4] within that type of organization. The leadership philosophies selected principally focus on large-scale leadership. This would include leaders of nations, international organizations (such as the United Nations or the European Economic Union), military forces, religions, or revolutionary movements. On a smaller scale, however, the leadership philosophies could also apply to the likes of a university dean, a corporate department head, a trade union leader, or a parish priest. Any and all leaders who have subordinates, followers, can manifest idealistic or realistic tendencies depending upon their ways of conceiving their leadership status and enacting their leadership authority. The first contrasting tendency within the idealist ver (...truncated)