View from the Top (Book Review)

View from the Top: An Inside Look at How People in Power See and Shape the World by D. Michael Lindsay. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons 2014, pp. 218., $28.00, paper.

In what some are calling a seminal and compelling work, D. Michael Lindsay (current president of Gordon College in Wenham, MA) lays out the synthesis of a grand inductive enterprise, ten years in the making: View from the Top: An Inside Look at How People in Power See and Shape the World. During that time, Dr. Lindsay interviewed 550 individuals—about 250 CEOs, 100 non-profit leaders, and many other notables—and, using his background in sociology (employing the analysis technique of critical empathy, or elsewhere as “learning from stories as well as statistics”), he wisely finds a way to weave together what he describes as the largest leadership study of its kind.

Though he does not disclose each name, Lindsay distinguishes 128 individuals in his study group as platinum leaders, those possessing the following three attributes: (1) leading a large-scale enterprise, (2) an ability to maximize opportunity and catalyze change, and (3) a talent for garnishing trust and goodwill (xii-xiii). He, then, lays a helpful groundwork. “At root, leadership is the exercise of influence in the service of a shared cause. There is no potential state of leadership; it exists only when action is taken. Power, on the other hand, is often latent” (xiv). Lastly, in his introduction, Lindsay relates the deeply personal motivation behind his work: both (1) witnessing the successes of his father as the president of the Professional Golfers’ Association in America, and (2) responding the resistance from fellow Christians regarding the pursuit of power or influence.

While the “America dream” focuses its attention of the potential of the individual, each nation’s strength owes itself to her institutions: the Navy, the Universities, its major-scale corporations. Dr. Lindsay recognizes in Chapter 1 that each leader chooses to “act personally, but think institutionally” (16). As this chapter provides groundwork for this book, Lindsay also makes effort to address several fallacies.

Lindsay describes the experience of Richard Parsons, born in a working-class neighborhood in NY, now the chairman of Citigroup. Parsons owes much of his success to his connection with Governor Nelson Rockefeller, early in his career. Though elite networks, institutional tethering, and mentors may provide direction to emerging leaders, other connections and relationships in their inner circles (parents, pastors, close friends) continue to impact their lives. One must take advantage of “both upward and downward connections.”

Those who rise to positions of power do so through their connections. However, interlocking networks of strong and weak ties among those in places of leadership create unavoidable “collusions and tensions” within the matrix of power, what he describes as “a nationwide—and ultimately global—crisscross of personal connections concentrated in major cities and at major institutions.” A leader must learn to navigate these tensions, as this elite cohort is not always on the same page. Potential fractures in the system, such as blocked communication, public attention and media hype, or politics, can complicate even simple partnerships (16). To illustrate this point, he speaks of one particular miscommunication between Caterpillar CEO, Jim Owens, and the current President Barrack Obama.

In Chapter 2, Dr. Lindsay takes a look at the early lives of each leader by telling a few of their stories and observing more general patterns among them. He suggests that the advantages of “race, class, gender, supportive parents, academic success, and extracurricular involvement” can be influencing factors; they are not, however, the end of the story. He notes, “I found that virtually all formative experiences in the early lives of leaders are more ordinary than extraordinary” (19). The leaders he interviews come from a wide variety of racial, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds; he takes an in-depth look at the reality of disadvantage, which must be overcome if one is to rise to positions of great influence: challenges of overcoming prejudice, unspoken expectations, and establishing one’s own reputation. Lindsay focuses much of his attention on personal choices and connections made early in adulthood, since this is when unique passions, skills, or connections can be turned into a career. He goes on to the story of self-made leaders like Kevin Plank. During college—with a good idea, natural business savvy, and a judicious use of his networks—Plank began an entrepreneurial journey which cost his last $500: Under Armour.

More generally, however, Lindsay notes trends during high school and college, including: early employment, varsity athletics, scouting, and student government. Yes, on the one hand top-tier colleges can both (1) do a better job at socializing its students, giving them “a familiarity with the unspoken expectations of elite life,” and (2) generate more research opportunities for students (29). Still, about two-thirds of the leaders attended non-elite undergraduate institutions. Choosing a top ranked graduate school in one’s field, living a liberal arts lifestyle, and developing the skills necessary in one’s field can set one apart, as may the choice to live in an urban location—a cultural, political, or business center—as it comes with more opportunities (31).

Much leadership development focuses itself on the mastery of a particular discipline; and this may at first seem practical, as professional life socializes one into becoming specialized. Chapter 3 shows how platinum leaders cultivate a liberal arts approach to life, since much is about networking and being knowledgeable enough to curry the favor of those in power. He notes, “The ability to maintain a generalist orientation—one that sees beyond the narrow scope of the specialist—while increasing mastery in a specific field distinguished platinum leaders from mere scholars” (30).

To develop this orientation, Lindsay stresses the importance of a career catalyst, a targeted program focusing on propelling young people into leadership. The distinguishing factors include: a very competitive admissions process, superior networks, and public recognition on a national scale. In other words, through programs, exclusive conferences, and fellowships of this nature, protoleaders develop the broad-knowledge and connections to launch them into large-scale leadership. Of such programs, he expands upon four factors that lead to its incredible benefit: significant work (experiential challenge), broadening education (intimate knowledge into lives of all types of leaders, and of complex policy situations), a diverse cohort of peers (a wide exposure to people different than yourself), and public recognition (signaling to future employers that a Fellow is a standout) (42). From such experiences, leaders develop networks and a better framework to lead others.

Chapter 4 describes how leaders respond to the challenges of their jobs. He writes:

In my research I found three basic responsibilities that institutional leaders master if they are successful in their leadership: they are productive with their time and energy; they motivate and manage people well; they build an organizational culture with a vision for human flourishing (57).

 As a leader of an organization, one must find ways to be productive with her limited time by “develop[ing] time-saving habits, managing meetings wisely, set[ting] aside time for the intellectual labor of the job, stay[ing] accessible to [her] direct reports, and build[ing] a thriving organizational culture” (59). He gives a few examples. Some use the early morning hours to answer emails or to prepare for the day. Some schedule “processing time” between back-to-back meetings. He asks an important question, “How does leadership relate to power?” A leader must also develop emotional intelligence, a capacity to manage her emotions and motivations while recognizing them in others—some see this as being even-keeled, and approachable. Lindsay suggests that instead of relying on the power of one’s position he should instead use relational influence.

Lindsay suggests in Chapter 5 that, “A crisis can spiritually or existentially wound some leaders as they struggle with questions of identity and purpose. But the best leaders… emerge stronger from the crucible, leveraging crisis for greater strength, personally and organizationally” (90). This is what distinguishes a leader from the pack. It is expected that if anything goes wrong in an institution that its leader will own up to the responsibility. Much of the time the tough decisions a leader makes are off the public radar. He gives two examples: (1) working to maintain an institution’s reputation and keeping away potentially bad publicity, and (2) projects he or she pour his or her heart and soul into that come to no avail. They often sense a big gap of communication barriers between themselves and the public. Often times, because of confidentiality agreements, she must bear the public misunderstanding.He tells the story of Bud McFarlane, who was serving in Regan’s presidential cabinet when he got caught up in public scandal. After public allegations against McFarlane and an attempt to take his own life, President Reagan visited him in the hospital to urge him to get back into mainstream life: to ignore the intellect and privilege he was blessed with (by letting the scandal defeat him) is to sin against God and his neighbor. 
Next, Dr. Lindsay relates the events of 9/11 within the structure of “the life cycle of a crisis in three stages.” The preparation stage refers to the structures in place prior to the crisis, which might have anticipated it beforehand; the emergency phase refers to the short term solutions a leader employs during crisis; the adaptive phase is the long-term plan to bring the company back to stability.

“Leading with your life is not a normative platitude. It is a descriptive reality,” he writes (97). An organization’s leader must inspire its constituents by personifying its values. In Chapter 6, Lindsay discusses the symbolic meaning attached to the decisions made by a leader, since leading is done primarily though influence, rather than authority. During his book signing at Gordon College, Lindsay suggested a major blind spot he saw in some of the leaders he interviewed concerned the opinions his or her employees. How did, for example, a $15,000,000 salary look to workers making only $20,000? Lindsay praises the leaders who, in time of corporate pay cut, also cut his own check—because of the symbolic significance this would have.

And finally in Chapter 7 Dr. Lindsay examines how leaders can influence our country and the world for the common good. Instead of being ego driven, he suggests that one can be a credible steward of a greater cause; yes, “For good or ill, I am the job” (xxi) he argues. He asks, what motivates leaders to pursue the common good? and answers “…we hope…leaders are able to access both their personal convictions and their public responsibilities for the good of many” (119). While the two motivations systems discussed (conviction = deontological, and responsibility = teleological) may been seen as irreconcilably opposed, a good leader can act on behalf of the principle and objective in order to discern the reasonable way forward.

As he concludes his findings, Dr. Lindsay writes, “We learn leadership most powerfully not from a book but from seeing it modeled. At its root, leadership hinges on the relationship between followers and a leader” (139). He calls the ideal Incarnational Leadership and prescribes three key principles: (1) Act personally, but think institutionally, (2) Maximize opportunities, but leave something behind (for those with lesser resources), and (3) Great leaders sacrifice. By leading with one’s lifestyle committed to these maxims, one might “develop a leadership style grounded in love” (143).