Leadership, Mike Brearley + Parking meters.

“Don’t follow leaders watch the parking meters, it doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” All leaders, politicians and organisations are corrupt and you can only trust yourself. Good old Bob. The Sixties sound like fun, don’t they? Mike Brearley, incidentally, is the England captain widely accredited with masterminding the successful ‘81 Ashes series despite having a test batting average of 22.[1] Brearley has gone down in cricketing legend as a great man manager who despite never quite being able to raise his batting to the next level in the Test arena, was excellent at bringing out the best in his team mates. But more on him later.

 The area of leadership in the Jewish community is one that is extremely close to my heart, having been involved in several youth leadership positions over the past seven years or so. Attitudes towards leadership and leaders are always going to be divisive but it has become the norm to view the concept of leadership with extreme cynicism.  I would argue that although there have always been internal problems within Jewish communities, in the recent years scandals slightly closer to home have further dampened and undermined the respect for those who are in positions of authority.

This post in some ways is the counterweight to my last one as it suggests that great leadership has very little to do with intellectual greatness or complexity. We often associate great Jewish leaders with great Jewish thinkers and teachers. Great scholars are often described as the leaders of the generation by virtue of the fact of their exceptional mental faculties, erudition and knowledge. But does this alone make them great leaders? There is no question that Torah study has always been of supreme importance within the life of the religious Jew beyond mere theoretical scholarship and proficiency in it is regarded as one of an individual’s crowning achievements.[2]

 Yet I have seen recently that what might be dubbed the ‘ivory tower’ approach which focuses on the leader's ability to process, calculate and think lacks a vital ingredient. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there is a right and wrong in the case of a communal dispute and that scholars are perhaps best disposed towards understanding this objectivity – which is one of the classic arguments posed in favour of this approach - does this actually matter? Surely, decisions concerning groups of people implies a responsibility to that group which is completely subjective? In essence it requires harmonisation rather than decisive argumentation. Because we are human beings. In my mind there is a yawning chasm between theory and practise when it comes to leading groups of people.

This point has struck me when I have attended seminars about Jewish leadership. There, the focus amongst other things has always been on the ability of the individual to seize the initiative, to recognise the issues that need addressing and be proactive in tackling them. What this misses - which I have seen all too clearly in recent years – is a very simple and very human element, the ability to bring out the best in those you are leading. 

The way I have seen it of late is that having the ideas, will, knowledge and drive means little to those under your stead if they are unable to see that you sincerely respect them. I recently read Steven Covey's best-seller ‘Seven Habits of highly effective people’ where he discusses the concept of synergy where a company or group functions above the sum total of its component parts due to the maximising of the creative energies of each of the people within the group itself. In short, in trying to achieve the harmonious collective identity, unity, 'Achdus', the leader must focus far more on making the people around them happy and feel important than trying to impose their own ideas, goals or individual brilliance. Which is where Brearley comes in. Yes, you cannot have a team of Mike Brearleys, they would get bowled out for around 200 every time, but one Brearley-equivalent can take the existing potential and magnify it beyond all recognisable proportions, which is what made him a great leader. Rarely are real-life situations involving people resolved by finding an empirical framework in which theoretical problems can be resolved.

In fact, there is a circular tension here which I think is worth noting: The more 'gifted' an individual, the more they will struggle in this area of leadership. Leaders and bosses are usually the most talented in their particular fields and it is therefore they who struggle with this concept the most. The ability of talented individuals to come up with brilliant paradigms, ideas and concepts can easily lead to the tendency to treat those working for them as pawns in a game – and this is felt. This does not necessarily result from arrogance but from a sense of absolute clarity which overpowers the views of those around them. But this is not leadership. It can certainly be impressive, but it can also lead to the alienation of employees, congregants and members of staff who feel no sense of investment in the proposed scheme. To be a leader is to be a leader of not merely a stand-alone figure. 
I recently saw in the Churchill war museum a great comment from one of his secretaries that even though she often thought that Churchill could be a complete pain-up-the-backside he inspired complete and utter loyalty amongst his staff. It is the feeling of investment in the leader amongst those who are led that creates the leader's greatness.  

A wonderful example of the need for personal experience and empathy in communal decision-making is something I heard about recently regarding the famous secession dispute between R’ Hirsch and R’ Bamburger regarding whether Orthodox communities in Germany should split from their Reform counterparts and form their own communities. This was arguably the most significant social issue within German Orthodoxy in the late 19^th Century. R’ Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky, the Posek of the generation living in Lithuania in the 1920s and 30s, was asked which side was correct, to which he replied that he could not give an answer unless he had lived in the situation himself and could easily justify the theoretical position of either side.[3] It was not a halachic question which could be answered based on available data, but rather an  issue which required an intimate knowledge of the individual communities in question before a decision could be made one way or the other. He had to be there before he could decide on their behalf. 

Why is this such an issue to me? 
My previous 'themed' post was an expression of the individuality that I pride so greatly but this one is an equally potent feeling in my mind of the importance for young and old to truly feel what it means to be part of the collective, of the whole, the klal, of the Jewish people. The purpose of leadership is really to ‘raise us up to more than we can be’ (yes I just did that). To see beyond the mediocrity of daily life and live for Godly ideals, dreams and optimism.  It reminds me of one the reasons (I think the Rambam says this in Hilchot Melachim) we decided to appoint a King of Israel in the end as he was meant to be the embodiment of Godliness and a role-model figure of inspiration. This ability to raise our lives to live in the macro and micro of Jewish existence is a theme that will arise regularly in my posts – the tension that has always existed between thinking big and thinking small and the difficulty in synthesising the two. 

And it is this sense of true leadership that I feel to be lacking amongst the Jewish people today. Perhaps this is because I live in England, away from the main centres of world Jewry. Perhaps it is because I am simply not well informed enough. Yet it is an emotion that has sort of crept up on me in recent years and I know is shared by others around me. In order to lead effectively the leader must have their finger on the collective pulse. An excellent example of this I remember was Tony Blair’s description of Diana as the ‘people’s princess’ at her funeral. Many identified this as the perfect example of being in tune with the mood of the people at the time. It is not a lack of knowledge (perhaps subtlety but that is for another time) that seems lacking, but this sense of isolation comes from a feeling that there are not many out there who really get us as an entire group, are able to think with breadth, depth and empathy to understand the disparate elements of Jewish society and can guide/advise accordingly.

I remember the feeling when Dayan Lopian ZTZL passed away last year that I felt something powerful had left us here in England. Now I had never had any association with him personally but simply from the way he had responded to one episode that my close friend had gone through a few months previously it was self-evident how much he cared about people and how this wonderful affection towards him had been planted in the hearts and minds of so many. The ability to tap in to both the theoretical aspects of knowledge and learning combined with a deep understanding of people and the lives they led as Jews truly made him unique. It is unfortunate that sometimes it feels that we might as well just watch the parking meters. Or give Mike Brearley a call.
 Next week I will start approaching more 'historical' topics by looking at the era of R. Saadia Gaon and the issues and struggles of the time.

---

[1] For those of you who are not cricketing fans, this is not very good. A good batsman should average around 40, under 35 should probably not be in any decent Test team as a specialist batsman, under 25 you are considered a bowler who can bat a bit.
[2] I will almost definitely discuss different approaches towards the intrinsic worth of Talmud Torah in subsequent posts – this is not my topic in this post. 

[3] For those doubting the authenticity of the story it is based on a lecture I heard online from Marc Shapiro on torahinmotion on the Secession controversy and I think is quoted in a responsum.