For more than a week, I have watched
the media coverage of the grand jury’s decision in the Ferguson, Missouri case,
wherein a police officer faced, and later exercised, the decision of the use of
deadly force in order to subdue a suspect in a robbery. Had the story been
portrayed with this generic approach, in all likelihood none of us would have
any interest in the story; much less know the location of Ferguson.
Unfortunately, manipulation has been used almost from the very beginning to fan
the flames of racism and social injustice; thereby forming a narrative through
which the current leader of the free world, President Obama, can tell a story.
According to the proponents of authentic
leadership, Wong and Cummings (2009), “honesty, integrity, and high ethical
standards” are the fundamental principles of a leadership style that came about
as a response to the many ethical scandals that captured headline after
headline for the past decade (as cited in Earnhardt, 2014; Rowe & Guerrero,
2013). The escapades of Enron and Martha Stewart had left a bad taste in the
mouths of many; leading to vocal cries for more trustworthy and genuine
leaders. As with any force for good, there is an equal force for bad, the dark
side. Critics of authentic leadership recognize this and see this style as
offering many the opportunities to inspire followers through manipulation and
deceit, rather than through ethics and truth (Earnhardt, 2013). As I began to
read and research, in order to respond to this week’s moment for reflection, the
story coming from Ferguson, and more importantly from the President, helped
with my understanding of the two statements regarding trust and manipulation.
Leadership, overall, is a process
that takes place between leaders and followers such that the leader influences
a group of people in order to reach a common goal (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013). The
trust camp is captured by DuBrin (2010), “authenticity is about being genuine
and honest about your personality, values and beliefs as well as having
integrity” (as cited in Rowe & Guerrero, 2013, p. 299). Note the
genuineness and the honesty are about the leader’s values and beliefs; not the
situation facing the followers. Proponents believe the authenticity demanded by
the masses in the wake of the unethical practices that came to light through a
voracious news media is represented by leaders that are trustworthy,
transparent, and trying to do what is right (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013). Their
honesty is so refreshing and uplifting, and such a one-eighty from the
practices of Enron’s executives, followers trust, are influenced, and work with
the leader to achieve the common goal. By using the Ferguson news as an
example; authentic leadership came from the members of the grand jury. Although
the story began in August of 2014, with the robbery committed by Michael Brown
and the subsequent shooting by Officer Wilson, which led to Brown’s death, the
two paths of authentic leadership came with the announcement on Monday,
November 24, 2014.
My husband and I had been watching FOX News, as we typically do. News media
outlets, radio, television, and Internet, had been anticipating a decision from
the grand jury for about a week and a half. I remember the breaking news when
the Governor of Missouri had activated the state’s National Guard, in
anticipation of the decision, presumably as a way to prevent a repeat of the
violence that took place in August. Prior to the grand jury’s decision, many
media organizations had reported that Officer Wilson had engaged in racial
profiling; and, while confronting Michael Brown, Brown had raised his hands up,
in a surrendering fashion, and, Wilson, in an act of aggression against a black
youth, shot Brown in an execution style manner. I also remember other
commentators, specifically Limbaugh and Hannity, cautioning with regards to a
rush to judgment and challenging reporters to report facts. If only the trust
side of authentic leadership had been followed, by both the media and the
President; perhaps Ferguson businesses would still be standing.
The grand jury returned a decision
of no bill; a decision not to indict Officer Wilson. Having been a member of
the Flagler County Grand Jury, I understood the task those twelve people
undertook. They were not chosen for this specific case. Like most grand juries,
they were selected in advance. I know here in Flagler, jurors serve for a term
of one year. I did not agree with the judge’s decision to release the
demographics of the jury, 9 white and 3 blacks, as I believe this would only
add to the manipulation of the storytellers. The prosecutor did not ask for a
specific rendering. He had his team present all of the evidence and witnesses
and gave the grand jury five separate options, should they find some level
calling for an indictment against Wilson. I know the threshold for a grand jury
to return an indictment is much lower than that of a trail jury to find beyond
a reasonable doubt; so, when the final decision was announced, my first
reaction was the evidence presented overwhelmingly refuted the narrative, and
the story, that had been developed and told since August.
I remembered the statement made by
Obama, while he was vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard in August. I went back and
watched
it again. Having read Auvinen, Lämsä, Sintonen, and Takala (2013) and their
definition of manipulation “a way of exerting influence in which the target
does not know that she or he has been influenced”, I could begin to see why
critics are concerned with the dark side of authentic leadership (p. 416). According
to Dick (1978):
The basic tool for the
manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you
can control the meaning
of words, you can control the people who must use the
words (as cited in
Auvinen et al., 2013, p. 416).
Although the
storytelling, a critical element for manipulation and subsequent deceit of
followers, began in Ferguson, with Brown’s accomplice and his reports of Brown’s
‘hands up, don’t shoot’ attempt to surrender, the tale continued from the
pulpit of the President. First, the President chose to comment on the shooting
at the same time he was updating Americans about the actions of ISIS against
Christians trapped on a mountain top. He further embellished by saying this
[the Ferguson unrest] all started with the loss of a young, eighteen year old,
with parents who will never be able to hold their child again. It was not until
the detailed reporting, post grand jury decision, that I learned just how big
this child was; more than 6 feet in height and almost weighing 300 pounds.
Obama further added there would be varying accounts as to what happened that
night, equality under the law is paramount, and his Department of Justice would
be working in concert with local authorities to insure justice. From August to
November, the manipulation of words, by Sharpton, Farrakhan, and other leaders
of the African-American community, led to a control of the people; such that,
Ferguson became the poster child for racial profiling, and, absent a decision
by the grand jury to indict Wilson, Brown would be viewed as yet another black
child gunned down by a white policeman.
When the shooting took place, how
many journalists took the wait and see approach? How many said we needed to
wait for all the evidence to be collected and for all of the investigations to
be completed? We heard from the Brown family attorney, multiple times. They
were represented by the same attorney that represented Trayvon Martin’s family.
Remember what the President had said about Trayvon? If Obama had a son, he’d
look like Trayvon. We scarcely heard from the Ferguson Police Department or the
prosecutor during the investigation. Likewise, we did not hear from Officer
Wilson. Isn’t this the normal process? Crime scene information is often
withheld from the public so that when witnesses do come forward, officers know
the information is not simply being regurgitated by witnesses from news
accounts. Remember the beer summit at the White House? The President, without demonstrating
balanced processing, defined by Rowe and Guerrero (2013) as listening to and
processing positive and negative information in an objective manner, accused
the police of “acting stupidly” and attributed their actions to racial
profiling. Does the story sound familiar?
During the Ferguson reporting
period, many black leaders compared that which happened to Brown to that which
happened to Emmett Till. I was stunned when I heard this. I know the story of
Emmett Till. He was fourteen, not from the South, accustomed to be able to
speak to white girls; and, was tortured and killed for simply being a young boy
inspired by a young girl. Whether or not Till saw the color difference and
acted just to see the reaction from Southerners is something we may never know; I choose to believe
his actions were nothing more than those of a young boy. Now contrast that to
the Ferguson story. The main story is that of Brown, a “gentle giant”, who was
purposely profiled by this white officer and summarily shot, execution style,
even after he raised his hands and said don’t shoot. As noted by Auvinen et al.
(2013), storytelling is a way to forget inconvenient facts and embellish
history. How many knew of Brown’s height and weight? How many knew that ten
minutes before the shooting, he and his accomplice had robbed a local store?
Was it his first brush with the law? How many were aware that Brown had reached
inside Wilson’s patrol car and attempted to take Wilson’s weapon from him? Did
you know Brown was shot by Wilson while Wilson was still in the car? Finally,
how many of us knew Brown turned, faced Wilson, lowered his upper body to
resemble that of a charging bull; and, after repeated warnings to stop, was
shot from the front, not in the back, by Wilson? As I am writing this, I
remember Obama’s reaction to the jury’s decision. Again, I
reviewed it again, too.
My husband and I watched the
President deliver his remarks. Quite honestly, each of us expected the grand
jury to deliver its decision after the President had signed the Executive Order
for Illegal Immigration, so that his story would be circumvented by another, in
this case, the Ferguson story. Obama’s body language was significantly
different than that from August. He was visibly angry with the decision. Although
I do not have any proof, and I have not read any of his books, I suspect Obama
truly believes in the automatic racial profiling narrative that ensues when
blacks are either arrested or shot by white policemen. Likewise, he believes
divisions of deep distrust exist between communities and the cops across the
country. I do not have any doubt this exists to some degree; however, not the
degree being told with this story. The portion of his remarks from that night,
that struck me, were those regarding the assumption the decision was the grand
jury’s to make, and, it was understandable why many were angered by the
decision. This was a perfect opportunity for a leader to use trust and tell the
story from that perspective. A chance to explain the grand jury process as a
whole; and, rather than the prosecutor listing all the details that led to the decision;
the President could have told the American people the real story of Ferguson.
Auvinen et al. (2013) indicate manipulation
is “an umbrella concept” for intentional behavior that includes: lying,
misleading, providing disinformation, and misinformation (p. 417). Trust, on
the other hand, is being honest and trustworthy, even if the information before
you goes against inner beliefs. While preparing for another of this week’s
assignment, I learned about Chapman and what he did when faced with an economic
downturn. He was honest with his employees and developed a furlough program
that spread the suffering of a few across the organization so that layoffs were
averted. Think of the hope, confidence, and optimism this gave to his
followers. Now, contrast this with the story from Ferguson. Obama, journalists,
and African-American leaders forgot history, repeated a false narrative, and
are still seeking their version of justice through the ongoing Department of
Justice investigation for a crime the officer did not commit. He did not
racially profile Brown, neither did the Cambridge police, the other party invited to the beer summit. He did not shoot Brown execution style, neither did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon in an execution style.
Because actions and words were manipulated to fit a preconceived narrative,
racial profiling still exists across America, the followers were deceived and
influenced in such a way that more than twenty businesses were burned,
resulting in a loss to the black community, as more than ninety percent of the
businesses that burned were owned by African-Americans. The story has even reached the NFL, with a few St. Louis Rams entering the stadium in the hands up, don't shoot model; while former NBA player, Charles Barkley, attempts to use trust to tell the story. Both paths of authentic
leadership influence people in a way that achieves a common goal. The questions, posed by Auvinen et al (2013), "what a leader does? ... How a leader does things? ... Why a leader does things?" are easily connected to the golden circle described by
Sinek. What is the purpose for telling the Ferguson story with manipulation? How is the leader confronting serious issues with manipulation? Why does the leader feel the need to manipulate and deceive? If this leadership style was born from the ashes of Enron; then, Auvinen
et
al
(2013) are correct with their calls to
openly discuss the dark side of authentic leadership as a way to recognize and
avoid its trappings.
