Leadership in a Global Context
By Dr. J. Bonner Ritchie*
Scholars and organizational participants
have regarded leadership as the most important, most
studied. and least understood variable in the complex
world of organizational dynamics in business,
government, religion, military, education, family, or
voluntary organizations. Considering the pervasive
role of leadership, the increasing visibility and public
scrutiny of leaders, the short tenure of so many
leaders in the business sector, and the call in the
public media for real leaders to step forward,
reexamining this mystical topic seems appropriate.
While my primary focus is about leadership
in general, 1 will cite examples from different
contexts, especially the Middle East. Personal
experience as a visiting professor and consultant with
educational, governmental and business organizations
in Palestine, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt provides this
perspective. Leaders are changing frequently in that
part of the world, and the conditions under which
they must lead are always challenging.
As we explore the definition, meaning, and
application ofleadership concepts, it is important to
note that I am not proposing a universal set of
leadership principles. Different strategies and
techniques, which may be appropriate in one context
and not in another, exist. Different leaders
successfully use very different approaches in similar
situations. Yet other examples of people using the
same approach in different settings may result in
failures.
The reasons for this difference of outcomes
are simple, even if the solution is complex.
Situations, people, culture, tasks, skills, and goals are
all very diverse; and the right match-up of leadership
behavior with the situation involves a subtle
multivariate matrix. Perspectives that provide a
different way of thinking about the phenomenon and
may help in understanding leadership and in
accepting responsibility for becoming better leaders
include the following framework considerations:
Leadership Is about People
A classic cartoon portrays an executive
coming home after a hard and discouraging day.
Clearly frustrated with lack of performance by the
employees of the organization, he says, "I've fired
them all, all 2,437 of them. I'm gonna go it alone."
have found this to be the attitude of too may managers
26
and people in general- th,e idea that they would have
a wonderful life if it just were not for the people.
Some professors say, "Beiing a university professor
would be a great job if it were not for the students."
Both professors and managers are missing
something very simple amd very critical in that
analysis. Missing is wh~,t teaching and leadership
are all about-developing people. Such people also
say, ''1fyou want a job done right, do it yourself."
"Doing it alone" is a formula for failure for any
leader. The people are tlae only reason for the job.
That's what leaders do-they work with, support,
inspire and develop people. You don't lead money
or machines. You manage these things, but you lead
people.
King Hussein of Jordan illustrated this
point. His wife, Queen Noor, was asked to explain
the leadership secret of the King. She answered,
"His Majesty knows all the important people; but he
also knows all the unimportant people." By
"unimportant" she meant those who were not in
formal positions of power or influence. Knowing the
important people is an obvious characteristic of
successful leaders, but knowing and relating to the
people who are not so visible is a special art that
creates enormous power.
Leadership Is Action
ln a Peanuts cartoon Lucy asks Linus what
love is. After Linus giv,es a careful theoretical
definition, Lucy says, "On paper he's great." Many
people are great leaders on paper but are not very
good on the ground-not very good in dealing with
real humans; they're only good in talking and
writing about leadership. When I was an Army
officer in Germany marny years ago, we had a young
lieutenant who was "gu1ng-ho" and reaJly looked the
part. The commander writing bis efficiency report
said, "Lieutenant Black is an exceptjonal officer. He
has all the characteristics of a good leader; his only
problem is that he can't get the troops to do what he
wants them to do." What the commander was really
saying, of course, is that the lieutenant only looked
good (his uniform was dean and pressed, his shoes
shined, and his hair cut); but he did not know bow
to support or influence members of bis platoon. Be
suspicious of those who offer a facade, who look the
part or talk a good line without the substance. The
only value, the only tes1t of leadership is what
UVSC SCHOOL OF BUSINESS JOURNAL- SPRING 2002
happens on the ground-what happens to the
people-how their values are chang,ed, how their
behavior is in fluenced, and how results are obtained.
Leadership Is Looking at Things from Many
Perspectives-Developing New Paradigms
Most people look at life from their own
perspective. Leaders must make an effort to
understand the perspectives ofthos:e who are in need
of sensitive and effective leadership. Leaders seldom
understand completely how others see things- but
having multiple perspectives allows the leader to
approximate such a view. lf peopl1e feel the leader is
really trying to see things from their perspective, they
will be more willing to listen and follow.
To understand more, visu:alize a pyramid to
represent an organization. Normallly the pyramid has
the apex at the top, as in an organization chart with
the boss at the top. But, looking at the pyramid with
the apex at the bottom rather than the top suggests a
different paradigm that can be instructive. With the
apex at the top, the leader is seen a1s in a commandand-
control position with respect to the rest of the
organization. While control is not always bad, of
course, an alternate leadership-relationship dimension
illustrates how powerful top-down control can be.
With the apex at the bottom, the leader is seen
supporting the organization rather than controlling
from the top.
In this configuration, the leader's role is to
understand the needs, strengths, and weaknesses of
the people and then take whatever action is needed to
prepare the people to accomplish tli:le task. Such
understanding may include training, disciplining,
changing rewards, providing infonmation, giving
encouragement, and restructuring the organization.
The point is simply to align the vairious aspects of the
organization in order to be more effective. Often the
view from the bottom is much more helpful than the
view from the top in attaining this insight.
While J am not suggesting we do away with
management, I am suggesting we emphasize
leadership. We need both in the a1ppropriate
functions. Controlling (managing) money, inventory,
facilities, information, etc., is cruc.ial; but, at the
same time, there is a greater need 1to support and
develop people (leadership) to become managers.
UVSC SCHOOL OF BUSINESS JOURNAL-SPRING 2002
Leadership Is Not for the Purpose oflocreasing
Personal Power
While personal power may help people and
organizations become more effecti ve. such power
needs to be seen as a means, not as a personal end.
Personal power is often a tempting leadership
strategy to see just how much you can influence
others to agree with you or to obey you. Often this is
only a test of the leader's power at the expense of the
needs of the people or organization. Simply
imposing your will is usually evidence of leadership
fa ilure. And, if you have to resort to violence in
order to save the orgainization (such as police actiion
or war), you must ask where leadership fai led. \~o
created the situation where human dignity was not
respected or where people were exploited? Whern an
evil leader abuses people, force against that leade,r
must be used in order to restore justice and freedom.
But, somewhere leadership failed.
In the fragile peace process between the
Israelis and Palestinians, when negotiations go well,
we talk about the vision and courage of leaders. On
the other hand, when the process fails, we blame the
leaders-so often we impute that the leaders are n,ot
serving the best interest of their people.
Leadership is not a game on an
organizational playground. So often the personal
competition for position influences leaders to try to
win even at the expense of organizational
performance. Leaders rationalize that they are
serving the organization's best interest, but the
motive is more likely the arrogance of power.
Leadership Is Personal Growth and Change
Calvin states in a Calvin and Hobbs cartoon
that he "thrives on change." When Hobbs
challenges him with evidence of his own rigidity, he
replies, ''I thrive on making other people change .. "
Many people define their job or goal in life as
making other people change. While there may be a
noble objective in this position, if the criterion is
truly helping others to make their lives better, there
is also great danger. The question is whether the
change is in the general interest of the people and
organization, or just in the leader's self-interest.
When a leader defines and demonstrates a
commitment to personal growth and development,
people see a role model for improvement rather than
a manipulative effort. With the pace of expanding
knowledge and continually changing environments,
27
leaders must develop a ''learning organizational
culture' ' for themselves and also for organization
members. A learning organization however, must
not be forced. A culture needs to encourage and
reward honest and productive learning and
development. When leaders feel "somebody else
needs to change" in order to make the organization
better, the leader is trapped in the role rather that
making the role serve the people. Every day the
leader needs to be better than yesterday- to do
something more creatively or efficiently than
yesterday and permit others in the organization to do
the same.
Leadership Is Learning from Others
All of us need different vantage points in
order to see the situation (and ourselves) more clearly.
While our view will never be completely objective, we
can at least approximate a more objective perspective
as we learn from others. As we ask them how they
see us and how they see the situation, we acquire this
perspective. No leader can adequately observe the
world alone-the organization, the environment, the
people, and the task are aU so complex and dynamic
that multiple inputs are essential.
The "Great Man Theory" of leadership-a
concept based on the assumption that organizations
needs a charismatic "great man" who performs all the
essentiaJ leadership functions-is inadequate in a
modem organjzation. Great leaders illustrate this
role-religious, military, political, and business-with
the assumption that conditions today are similar; but
conditions today are different. While we certainly
have impressive leaders today, more likely the leaders
are strong supporters of, and dependent on, the inputs
and creativity of many others. At the very least, we
all need another person that says, "Did you ever think
of that?" "Are you sure you have the relevant facts?"
So we find another vantage point or see through
someone's eyes in order to understand the
organization from a fresh perspective.
Leadership and Maps
Leadership is a map. Use a map with south
at the top as an illustration of the role of leadership.
Consider the hypothesis that your ability to be a good
leader is correlated with your ability to draw the map
with south at the top and NOT call it upside-down.
Different messages come for this illustration. We
must look at the organization differently. Individuals
look at the map from their own perspective; and every
perspective includes the bias of the map maker, the
people whose area is included in the map, and those
who use the map.
28
Each paradigm is idiosyncratic. Individuals
have a view of an organization that is influenced or
limited by something in their experience, their
theories, their perspective, their knowledge, their
intellectual ability, their race, their gender, their
religion, and their political or social background. A
"revised" map shows a fascinating bias that I hadn't
fully considered until someone showed me a map of
the Americas with south at the top. At first, my
reaction was one of interest, curiosity, and fun; but
my perspective was expanded considerably when a
group of executives from South America applauded
the·map. Why does someone applaud a map? I
realized that alJ maps have a point of reference-a
certain projection that is never absolutely and
universally accurate. The map is not the territory- it
is never real because the map is aJways an
abstraction and is always contrived.
In the same way, leaders who only look at
the organization from their own point of view, using
their own maps will create a small, or perhaps a
very large, distortion. Leaders need to look from the
point of view of the people who really do the
work-the assembly line, the student in the class, the
citizen in the country, or the member of the
religious or political group. So, you need to be able
to draw the map with south at the top. Talk to
people who articulate a "Southern Perspective." The
views of those living south of the equator are
superior. Their assumptions about north and what
those in the North think about them is an important
part of a revised view of the world and
organizations. The same analogy can be used for an
organizational chart.
Another geographical perspective results
from my spending a lot of time in what we generaJly
call the Middle East. As we move from West to East
through that part of the world, we use the terms
"Near-, Middle-, and Far-East." Some people in
those regions do not like being referenced by how far
they are from somewhere or which direction they are
from. (i.e., where they live compared to Western
Europe). While most people do not feel that Middle
East is a pejorative term, a more precise and accurate
term in describing different racial, religious, or
national groups is really appreciated. The
appropriateness and power of"Palestinian,"
"Jordanian," "Arab," ''Israeli," "Jew," "Muslim,"
and "Christian Arab" when used in the right context
is an important part of building a constructive
relationship. A powerful leadership perspective
involves identifying people by who they really are
and not what they are called. Assuming, often by
UVSC SCHOOL OF BUSINESS JOURNAL- SPRING 2002
default, that one particular perspective is the one
everyone ought to have--and if they don't they are
either uninformed, evil, or just being difficult--is not
correct.
Leadership Is Often Painful, and Often Fun
An upper-level manager stated that, for him,
the biggest challenge of leadership is the "bad news"
responsibility. The process of giving honest, negative
feedback, including termination, creates a great deal
of pain. The decisions that must be made, the ethical
dilemmas that must be resolved, the people who must
be disciplined, and the many lives that are affected,
will inevitably cause a leader to struggle with values,
conscience, and strategy. Leadership is a very
difficult, demanding, and costly responsibility.
On the other hand, as many leaders have
learned (parents, for example) there is clearly a time
where leadership can, and should be, a great deal of
fun. Making organizations effective, helping people
grow, enjoying the success of others, and solving
difficult problems is very rewarding and fun. But,
the fun usually comes after much bard work-even
pain.
Leadership and Metaphors
[n many respects leaders are philosophers.
Leaders identify and teach culture, values, and vision;
and leaders use metaphors to accomplish this. Bad
leaders teach people to be selfish and racist; but good
leaders teach people how to be just, fair, and
competent- and how to build a better future. I learned
the power of metaphors in this process when I was
working with the Palestinian leadership in
preparation for the Oslo negotiations with Israel.
Suha Arafat, recently married to Yassir Arafat, said
that since the 1960s Yassir bad been married to the
PLO. ''Now," she said, "he is married to me. And,
we are going to have children. Our children must
grow up in peace in Palestine. Therefore, it is time to
get on with the peace process." The power of this
metaphor-children- is that it creates a transcendent
value system. She was referring to literal children
(her first child, Zahwa, was born six months later),
but the metaphor focuses us on the future. Leaders
need to build a better world for the children. When
Rabin and Arafat signed the Oslo Accords at the
White House, they both evoked the symbol or
metaphor of children needing and deserving peace.
Metaphors are ennobling. Family, nature,
religious, and artistic metaphors can all evoke
positive values; but, we need to avoid those that
UVSC SCHOOL OF BUSINESS JOURNAL - SPRING 2002
employ fighting and vengeance-those that create
unnecessary hosti lity, hate, or intolerance for others
who may be different. In this process, leaders create
organizational culture; and, conversely, they destroy
bad cultures. Leaders,;fail when they who play on
historical animosities or fan the flames of intolerance
by demeaning or belittling others in order to enhance
their own power. When little communication and
tolerance occur, it takes a leader with courage to
play a transcendent role. Sometimes a martyr's
reward comes to those who try. We look at people
like Sadat and Rabin who overcame decades of
conflict in order to pursue peace but died at the
hands of intolerant zealots. Children are so often the
victims of adult power, intransigence, and bias.
Using the symbol of children to encourage the peace
process was an original motive, and I am confident
it will be a major force in bringing the parties back
to the negotiating table.
Conclusions
As a personal challenge, each ofus might
ask how we can become better leaders ourselves or
how we can help others become more effective in
their leadership roles. In this process, while there
are no simple secrets or gimmicks, I have suggested
some perspectives that, if carefully considered, could
help us think through the complex process. A
desperate need exists in our modern world for
leaders who can provide a higher vision- leaders who
can help organizations and people achieve their
noble aspirations. By asking better questions,
listening to appropriate people, articulating dreams,
developing workable strategies, and educating our
efforts to support rather than contro.l others, we can
move closer to the kind of organization, country, or
family that will make the world a better place.
*Dr. J. Bonner Ritchie,
Acting Dean--
School of Business,
Utah Valley State College
29

8
a former student’s musings on the legacy of
j. bonner ritchie at uvu and beyond
VERBATIM
FA L L 2 0 1 2 | V E R B AT I M
LESSONS LEARNED
9
y first encounter with my
lifelong teacher was humiliating. In a graduate
class in 1985, Bonner Ritchie read one of “the
better student papers” in class. Without identifying
the author, he described the paper’s
logic and both publically praised and took issue
with the student author. The room of competitive
business students quickly filled with envy.
“Who was he talking about?”
Bonner turned to me, and I had to admit
before my mocking peers that I had written
the paper in a rush weeks ago and then forgotten
about it. My "almost" moment in the
sun collapsed into humiliation.
But that moment has lead to a friendship
and mentorship that has lasted more than
25 years. Bonner hired me to teach at BYU
and at UVU. Later, as department chair, I
hired him out of his second retirement to
teach at UVU. We have traveled, consulted,
written and taught together. My youngest
son’s middle name is Bonner.
As I teach and talk in different venues,
I sometimes hear Bonner’s words in my
voice. These “Bonnerisms” include:
“Be more than a student. Be
a scholar.”
Bonner quickly distinguishes between
a “grade-getting student” and a “learning
scholar” in his class. To Bonner, learning is a
sacred activity. Students, in one definition,
turn the part of the responsibility of learning
over to the teacher. They ask what to
read, what they should know and how they
should do their assignments. Scholars learn
by exploring. They define their own path
and set their own direction.
“make a proposal.”
With the freedom to learn comes the
responsibility to innovate. Many student
scholars have to learn quickly that Bonner
expects them to clearly define a learning
path, create criteria and justify their efforts.
He often floods the room with feedback, as
he did on my first encounter.
“things are managed.
people are led.”
I have heard Bonner, as an advisor to literally
hundreds of business and political leaders,
help them distinguish between leading
people and managing things. “Things need
to be managed,” he would say. “Budgets, inventory,
supply chains need to be managed.
But the work of leaders is with people.”
“every decision is an
ethical decision.”
For Bonner, there is no shade where you
can stand outside of the bright rays of ethical
values. Choices are not easy. They often include
choosing between the needs or rights of
an individual and the long-term health of the
organization. Bonner would often say, “Organizations
do not have ethics. People do.”
“organizations are
corrupting.”
It seems harsh, but organizations blind
us. In preserving organizations, leaders often
are corrupted by power and become
willing to hurt individuals for the sake of order.
This is a persistent force in most organizations,
even churches and universities.
“you see the future
in children.”
Bonner often tells the story of being asked
to consult with the Palestinian leadership
prior to the Oslo Summit in 1992. After long
nights of debate between the various factions
and leaders preparing to meet with
the Israelis, Yasser Arafat turned to Bonner.
Bonner took from his bag a pile of pictures,
taken by his wife, Lois Ritchie, of Palestinian
children. As the group looked at the
pictures of children, the mood shifted and
the future of peace became clear. The Oslo
effort not only won a Nobel Peace Prize for
the leaders involved, but was also the last
serious effort to bring peace to that region.
I have seen Bonner use those same pictures
with business leaders and students to
the same effect. The future is always in children,
and it is always in learning.
SCOTT HAMMOND IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AT UVU AND A NATIONALLY
RENOWNED CONSULTANT AND SPEAKER.
editor’s note:
the following was written by a former student of J. Bonner ritchie's as a tribute to the retiring academic titan. in
a career spanning four decades, ritchie built a reputation as one of the world’s great thinkers on matters of organizational
behavior and conflict resolution. ritchie spent a combined 33 years on the faculty at the university
of michigan and Byu. While at Byu, ritchie worked directly with israelis and palestinians to change long-held
paradigms and effect a lasting compromise between the sparring groups. in 2001, ritchie came out of retirement
to help build uvu’s Woodbury school of Business, which is now the largest business school in the utah system of
higher education. many of uvu’s administrators and faculty, including the author of this article, can trace their academic
history through ritchie’s teachings in leadership, conflict resolution and organizational philosophy. ritchie
gave his symbolic last lecture in the spring of 2012 before retiring again — this time, for good.
BY SCOTT HAMMOND
PHOTO BY JACOB SCOTT