This paper examines John W. Gardner's 1990 book On Leadership, focusing on his central argument that leadership worldwide falls short because leaders are not held sufficiently accountable. The paper explores Gardner's contention that effective leadership must serve group purpose rather than individual self-interest, and traces how political, corporate, and community leaders alike are subject to this critique. It also draws comparisons between Gardner's work and James MacGregor Burns' 1978 book Leadership, noting how Burns' distinction between transformational and transactional leadership complements Gardner's call to action. Together, both works offer a framework for understanding why leadership fails and what can be done at every level to improve it.
In John W. Gardner's (1990) book On Leadership, he addresses the question of why the leadership available today is not better than it is. He asks something that many people wonder: why isn't contemporary leadership better, and what can be done to change that? Importantly, he does not focus on just one type of leadership. He is not interested in singling out one particular group of people whom he believes is not leading properly. He does not limit his analysis to one person, one country, or one occupation. Instead, he examines the broader reality that leadership overall is not handled correctly in the world today, and that this failure is causing many significant problems.
Until people recognize that leadership throughout the world needs improvement, it can be very difficult to make it better or bring it more in line with what people truly need — which is leadership that embraces a group purpose and focuses on more than just the leader. Without that group purpose, leadership becomes too difficult to sustain and it benefits no one but the leader. When the group does not benefit from the actions of the leader, very few good outcomes emerge from the situation. How to achieve this group benefit is what Gardner (1990) addresses throughout his book.
The prevailing argument that Gardner (1990) advances in this book is that leadership is not what it should be because leaders have not been held accountable for what they do — and fail to do — in their careers and lives. If leaders were held accountable, there would be better leadership overall, because they would know they could not get away with doing a poor job. Leaders appointed to work both for and with the people would be required to do so, or they would not retain their leadership positions.
Anyone, argues Gardner (1990), who is willing to stand up and lead correctly could change the dynamics of the group they lead, thereby changing that group's future — and potentially the future of a much larger number of individuals who would learn from those in the original group. The future of the entire world could be shaped by the way people lead, from the presidents of nations all the way down to the heads of small corporations and organizations. How people lead in their homes and communities matters as well, because it all connects to the greater good of those being led. Is a leader addressing only the people he or she directly leads, or are there larger implications for that leadership? This is precisely the kind of question that Gardner (1990) wants answered.
The self-centered ideals that many people hold once they reach and maintain positions of power often prevent them from continuing to do what they know they should in order to help those they lead. This may seem like a straightforward problem that people would naturally work to avoid, but it is more difficult than it appears to consistently act for the good of the people when every pressure around you pushes you toward self-preservation. There is often a tremendous amount of pressure placed on leaders, and it keeps them from doing what they believe is right in favor of what they must do to retain their position (Gardner, 1990).
Leaders frequently enter positions with the genuine intention of making changes that will be helpful to the people they serve, but the power and the position gradually transform them. They can resist that transformation, but the fear of losing their jobs leads them to change in order to keep those jobs, rather than relinquishing the jobs in order to remain true to their values. Gardner (1990) shows that there is far more to being a leader than making decisions and directing others. If leaders and followers worked together in the spirit of collaborative, purpose-driven leadership, much more would be accomplished and there would be fewer problems within corporations and governments alike.
"Gardner and Burns complement each other on leadership styles"
"Grass-roots leadership can produce widespread systemic change"
"Gardner's legacy and ongoing challenge to leaders"
You’re 47% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.