Star Trek and (the Failure of) Leadership Today

We are a long way from the Star Trek Universe.

I often state this to the girls, particularly when they have witnessed a failure of leadership. If you are not a follower of the series and its mythology, do not bother to read on; if on the other hand you are then perhaps these thoughts will make some sense to you.

As leaders we never see the "Captains" fail in their decision making and leadershp at least not in the(their) present. Oh,that little mistake of Picard's right out of the academy with the Nausicaan's; but we see Picard for the most part as a mature leader. Making his decisions for the greater good (Humanity and Star Fleet) based on his accumlated knowledge and experience. All of the Captains are mature leaders and we only see their successes in the series, and infrequently catch a glimmer of the mistakes usually as a callow youth. The reasons, I would suggest, the Captains do not fail in their leadership is for two reasons: one they rose to their positions because their accumulated knowledge placed them above others; and two, they fully embrace the goals of the orgainization (the Federation). Further the organization completely trusts the Captain(s) so the organization may back up the decisions made by the leader, and the leader withholds nothing from the organization.

To make this all work two conditions must be met: the first, is the Captain (leader) acts only for the greater good of the organization. In this case the orgainization is the whole of humanity acting through its instruments the Federation of Planets and Star Fleet Command. A large organization, wouldn't you agree? Never the less the contentiousness that without doubt occurs, we accept as mitigated as everyone in the future buys into the goals of the organization. Further the Captains know that the decisions they make are backed up by the orgainzation assuming the organization has the full understanding of actions, decisions, and consequences. Picard orders Riker to "go put a face on the Ba'Ku" which, interestingly enough, the organization needed as information provided by another leader, Admiral Dougherty, was insufficient. Clearly even this organization gets tripped up on who metriculates into important positions of leadership. This selflessness in the leadership pre-supposes the Captain has no agenda of his/her own. The only agenda is the achievement of the goals of the organization.

The second: becoming a leader means you got there because all decisions made are based upon an accumulation of experiences which have been driven by the goals of the organization. Further the leaders swiftly solicited the collective experience of subordinates or others who came before, and leverage that experience. Commander Sisko even must convince the aliens who built the wormhole this is the entire essence of human existence. 'We are sum of our existence.' Again knowing he has the backing of the organization, he comes to terms with a species completely outside of human experience, doing so executing decisons influenced by the goals of the organization.

Obviously in the Star Trek Universe only the best and brightest achieve leadership. Also they have the advantage of having the script written for them. Another discussion.

Where I see leaders fail today is too much emphapsis on shaping the goals (agenda setting and axe grinding) without consideration the greater good. Oh, yeh, now I can hear the ballyhoos! Assuming the organization works towards the greater good, will the collective mind, that is other organizations in the community which comprises those organizations (or if you prefer--other communities) have similar goals? Clearly today that is not the case. On a galactic scale (or at least on a Federation scale) there is no consensus on just what is the greater good. In today's world we cannot all seem to accept these ideas; accumulation of knowledge, sharing said knowledge, teaching everyone to understand and use knowledge, protecting those who cannot protect themselves, economic stability, empowering everyone to be best they can be, and so on. Further the follwership today seems to accept leaders who look good, talk fast, pander to the constinuents of the organization, or could leverage some other asset to buy, cajole, or cudgel your way into a leadership position.

I digress, and we are a long way from the Star Trek universe. Yet there are glimmers, in the United States most everyone has equal access to information. The hard part is determining truth and accuracy in the information we obtain. Hence the value of education and knowledge, and there is no consensus among many leaders as to whether we should have that! Ideas can create tsunami's of change, the difficulty is seperating the good ideas from the . . . well, not such good ideas.

The followers of Trek, know it is not a utopia, and I certainly would never suggest it is or that outcome should be the result of the collective effort of humanity. A class in utopian literature (college in the acient past) taught me utopias are not a good thing, and again that is another discussion. But in conclusion, the script writters of the series and movies, were smart enough to interpret Gene Roddenberry's vision that humanity with some effort, can achieve. It can do so for the greater good.

Live long and prosper.