Review of Degrees of Inequality (2014)

Mettler, S. (2014). Degrees of inequality: How the politics of higher education sabotaged the American dream. Philadephia: Perseus Books. ISBN: 978-0-465-04496-2

Suzanne Mettler’s book Degrees of Inequality is sub-titled, “How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream.” What is most satisfying about this text is its focus on the often mysterious how; politicians and media talking heads are constantly speculating on the why behind political actions, but the intricate mechanisms of how are often unknown or simply ignored as unimportant. The picture that slowly develops as Mettler’s tome builds towards its crescendo – the housing market crash and the window of opportunity it permits for reform (roughly, 2007-2011) – is a dark one, dominated by a trinity of villains: untended policy, political polarization, and plutocracy. And while the author provides ample evidence of both how higher education is still an essential part of the American Dream and that the “sabotage” of that dream has been conducted primarily by our elected representatives, what she does not offer in ample supply are solutions. Thus, this reader is left with the feeling that his worst fears have been confirmed: yes, there are monsters in the basement; and no, there is no way to kill them.

Mettler elaborates on a thesis that few of us involved in higher education administration would disagree with; that is, that partisan politics, not a dearth of good ideas or reform initiatives, have undermined the progress and promise of post-WW II higher education reforms like the GI Bill and the Higher Education Act of 1965. According to Mettler, political polarization, especially since 1994, has led to an unwillingness in both parties to participate in basic policy maintenance, allowing effective policies to “drift” into ineffectiveness (e.g. student aid that has failed to keep up with rising tuition costs), and for unintended consequences (e.g. growth of for-profit colleges), policy design flaws (e.g. Pell Grants have no cost-of-living adjustments), and the effects of other, unrelated policies (e.g. the rising costs of K-12, prisons, and Medicare in the states) to re-shape what Mettler refers to as the “policyscape” and, sometimes, work against their intended purposes.

The author contends, rather effectively, that partisan rancor has resulted in a virtual plutocracy — a government by, and for, the wealthy — and in a higher education system that clearly privileges the already privileged. Equal access does not mean equal success, and Mettler demonstrates that this is even truer today than it was 40 years ago, as gains in retention and graduation rates among students from middle and low income families have not kept pace with those experienced by students in the top quartile of family income; among some groups of students, including African-American and Hispanic college students in the lower two quartiles, retention and graduation rates are actually lower than they were decades ago.

While Mettler’s book closes on a note of hope, speculating on how the “reform window” that existed in 2007-2011 might lead to eventual opportunities for greater reform, the overwhelming message of this book is that, while the U.S. needs more college graduates than ever before to remain a global economic and political power, the political gridlock of partisanship has made LBJ’s dream of Americans having access to “all the education they can take” a still-distant goal.

I selected this book because I felt that the author’s views were likely similar to my own regarding how the many inequalities inherent in our current higher education system have been created, and exacerbated, by the influence of moneyed interests, thoughtless political expediency, and bitter partisanship. While Mettler’s book isn’t revalatory in terms of content, the author does go into a satisfying degree of depth regarding the causal factors in this scenario; in addition, Mettler provides analysis of empirical data, such as state spending trends, matriculation and graduation rates, and income differentials, that strengthen her arguments in some illuminating ways.

For instance, I was unaware of spending mandates in K-12, prisons, and Medicare that help to “squeeze” higher education funding on the state level. I was also ignorant regarding the fact that tax deductions related to higher education are a drain on direct aid like Pell Grants, as well as an example of a policy that promotes inequality, as it strongly favors families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 per year who have sufficient income to take advantage of the deductions. While I knew that default rates on federally-backed loans for students at for-profit colleges were higher than those for students at public and non-profit privates, I was unaware of the complex web of support, complicity, and opportunism that included elements of both parties and existed to ensure continued federal support of for-profits in Congress.

All things considered, the elements of Mettler’s book and argument that are likely to stick with me are the many voices she used to connect the idea of the “American Dream” to higher education. At various times she quotes or references founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, and no portion of this book is more powerful than the introduction to Chapter Two, where the author invokes the words of President Lyndon Johnson on the occasion of signing the Higher Education Act of 1965 into law. Speaking to those gathered to watch the signing at Southwest Texas State College, his alma mater, Johnson stated:

And when you look into the faces of your students and your children and your grandchildren, tell them that you were there when it began. Tell them that a promise has been made to them. Tell them that the leadership of your country believes it is the obligation of your Nation to provide and permit and assist every child born in these borders to receive all the education that he can take. (as cited in Mettler, 2014, p. 51)

What I found the most frustrating regarding Mettler’s book was that, beyond opportunities available in response to economic crises and a call for strong individual leadership (as exemplified in the text by politicians like President Johnson and, more recently, Jim Webb), the author offers no clear solution to the “fine mess’ we’ve gotten ourselves into. While access to higher education has increased, the advantages gained by the completion of a college education are still not available for those in the greatest need of those advantages: minorities, the poor, and working class adults. The only changes that could provide a meaningful window for higher education reform are those that are tremendous in scale: campaign finance reforms, electoral reforms, procedural reforms in the Senate and House. As the author points out, the United States has never lacked for “innovative ways to promote higher education so that it would serve crucial and ambitious public purposes” (p. 200). Innovation, however, requires the oxygen of opportunity in order to thrive, and the “policyscape” Mettler describes is an airless one.

 

 

Tennessee Politrix in Review (via Newscoma)

[Were] any of the 2,000+ bills this year that were introduced by the GOP focused on the unemployment rate in this state?

Short answer (all that’s required): No.

Makes me almost mad enough to run for state house in 2012. Almost.

via Tennessee Politics In Review | Newscoma.

Lincoln on Leadership – Book Review

Review of Lincoln on Leadership: Executive Strategies for Tough Times by Donald T. Phillips

In the preface to Lincoln on Leadership: Executive Strategies for Tough Times (1992), author Donald Phillips relates the surprise he felt when, beginning his research into the leadership style of the man most would agree was our country’s greatest leader, he realized that he was plowing untilled ground. No one had yet written a book on Lincoln and leadership; as a matter of fact, the Lincoln Library, which keeps an exhaustive inventory of works about our 16^th president, could only find three articles dealing with Lincoln and leadership.

Phillips had been inspired by descriptions of the president visiting his generals on the battlefield; the president’s practices seemed to parallel what Phillips was learning about management and leadership, particularly the dictum that executives should leave their “Ivory Towers” and “get to know their people” (p. ix).  What he had seen in his reading about Lincoln was what he felt was missing in much of the abstract discussions of leadership: “tangible examples from a widely recognized great leader” (p. xii). This book brings those examples to the fore, and extracts from them specific principles – many of them in Lincoln’s own words – that leaders can apply in their own “tough times.”

Lincoln on Leadership is divided into four parts: People, Character, Endeavor, and Communication. Each part contains 3-5 chapters with titles that emphasize the leadership principles that, according to Phillips, guided Lincoln’s behavior. While this organization is helpful, it is also the case that the book is organized at least somewhat chronologically, a parallel structure that makes it both more enjoyable to read and, conversely, difficult to dip into. Anyone who is familiar with American history knows the basic story, of course, but the author shows how the effects of Lincoln’s decisions come together to form a pattern of exemplary leadership. However, if someone is inclined to mine the text for specific lessons, Phillips caters to them by offering a bulleted recap of “Lincoln Principles” at the end of each chapter.

In the introduction, Phillips proposes that we should look to our most effective and inspiring leaders if we “hope to understand how leadership really works” (p. 4).  Phillips offers a traits-based comparison of Lincoln with other great leaders. He also briefly covers the “leadership qualities” – Lincoln’s natural leadership traits – that are acknowledged by most: honesty and integrity; empathy; a devotion to individual rights; and extraordinary communication skills.  Phillips describes the situation Lincoln encounters at the beginning of his first term. Seven states had seceded and Jefferson Davis had already been sworn in as the president of the Confederate States of America. No actions had been taken by Congress or outgoing President James Buchanan; the South had already seized almost every fort, arsenal and federal agency in their territory, and the majority of the Mississippi River was in its control. The Union army was tiny (16,000 soldiers) and without effective leadership.

As Phillips notes, Lincoln had almost no relevant experience – he was by any definition an untested leader. He had never held an executive leadership position, had only served one term in the U.S. House, and had near-zero military experience. Truly, there was little indication that Lincoln had the qualities to be not only one of our most effective leaders, but a man who is almost universally acknowledged as an exemplar, the very definition of a leader.

Part 1, “People,” begins with a chapter entitled “Get Out of the Office and Circulate Among the Troops.” Lincoln practiced “management by walking around” (MBWA); Phillips refers to the classic management book In Search of Excellence (Peters & Waterman, 1982), where this aspect of management was first named.  Lincoln was an inveterate wanderer, and when he could not get away he allowed almost everyone complete access to him at the White House. According to Nicolas and Hay, Lincoln’s personal secretaries, Lincoln spent 75% of his time meeting with people. Often, he would meet with members of his cabinet on an individual basis instead of waiting for their regularly scheduled Tuesday and Friday staff meetings, and he left the White House daily to visit the War Department whose telegraph office was a regular stop, as was Congress: he was one of the few Presidents to ever attend a full working session of the Senate.

Lincoln wanted the most current information – unfiltered – in order to act swiftly and decisively, and he needed, as the title of the second chapter states, to “Build Strong Alliances.” Lincoln faced many obstacles when he arrived in Washington; several of those were within his own party and cabinet. He had asked two former primary rivals, Stanton and Seward, to act as his Secretaries of War and State, respectively. He needed their experience and expertise, but he also had to demonstrate his abilities and leadership, firmly establishing himself as the leader in word and deed. During the first year of Lincoln’s term, Seward often attempted to overstep his boundaries. When Seward threatened war against Great Britain for collaborating with the South, Lincoln cautioned, “One war at a time”: a great piece of wisdom for any leader to consider.

The third section in this part, “Persuade Rather than Coerce,” examines a cornerstone of Lincoln’s leadership style. Seldom did he ever deliver direct orders to his subordinates. Instead, he offered suggestions, encouragement, and advice. Lincoln’s strategies for getting the most out of his people were “openness, empowerment, and coaching” (p. 41). His goal was always to bring out the best in his generals and his cabinet members, and he found that a personal conversation, often accompanied by a long, detailed letter, was the best way to get the results he was asking for from his subordinates.

“Honesty and Integrity are the Best Policies” is the first chapter in Part 2: “Character.” The nickname “Honest Abe” may seem a bit corny to us now, but Lincoln came by this fairly. His frankness when communicating with the American people about the war, even when things were not going well, allowed him to sustain credibility and, more importantly, motivate the American people to devote their energies to the war effort. Phillips quotes Burns, who states, “Divorced from ethics, leadership is reduced to management and politics to mere technique” (p. 52).  By demonstrating his commitment to equality and liberty in word and deed, Lincoln was able to secure his followers’ commitment to these principles, as well; they became shared values, “owned” by the organization as a whole.

In Chapter Five, entitled “Never Act Out of Vengeance or Spite,” Phillips argues that kindness was an essential part of Lincoln’s personality, noting that the president created an atmosphere of safety that encouraged openness and risk: “Lincoln … understood that if people were going to come to him with ideas, suggestions, and better ways of making things work, he had to provide the climate to allow it” (p. 58). In addition, Lincoln granted more pardons than any President before or since. Sherman wrote that the “President found it very hard to hang spies” (p. 60). His implied suggestion to Sherman that CSA President Jefferson Davis be allowed to escape, rather than arrested, is consistent with his overall sense of kindness – and shrewdness. This was also the case in Lincoln’s treatment of deserters, whom he often pardoned; it was better to have a live, repentant and thankful soldier than a dead one.

A closely related principle, “Have the Courage to Handle Unjust Criticism” is the title of Chapter Six. No president was more slandered and attacked than Lincoln. Phillips notes that Lincoln never feared criticism, nor was he swayed when popular (or at least vocal) opinion was against him. Facing many crowds that were either openly hostile or indifferent to his anti-slavery platform during the historical Lincoln-Douglas debates (Lincoln was defeated by pro-slavery Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in an 1858 Senate race), Lincoln told his concerned friends, “I am not going to be terrified by an excited populace, and hindered from speaking my honest sentiments upon this infernal subject of human slavery” (p. 69). Lincoln tried to avoid reading anything critical about him in the press, and in the rare case that he did, developed the following practice: he wrote a long letter, defending himself or the criticized decision in detail, and tucked it away – never mailing it.

With his high-pitched voice, awkward posture, and generally unassuming carriage and appearance, Lincoln is not the model of a “charismatic” leader; however, his troops always met him with cheers when he visited them in the field, and scores of people who spoke with him or saw him in person were intensely moved.  Chapter Seven, entitled “Be a Master of Paradox,” examines these and other such opposing qualities as Lincoln’s consistency/flexibility; his being a victim of horrible slander while at the same time being wildly popular with his followers; his qualities of trust and compassion, which were contrasted by his often being demanding and tough; and his roles as both risk-taker/innovator and patient, calculating planner.

Part 3: “Endeavor,” begins with a chapter entitled “Exercise a Strong Hand – Be Decisive.” Lincoln faced absolute gridlock when he took office, and his ability to make decisions that cut right through a morass of inaction is particularly inspiring. For example, his decision to re-provision Fort Sumter, as opposed to abandoning it, led the South to fire the first shots of the Civil War, giving Lincoln, and the Union, the moral high ground. In addition, by provisioning it when he did, during a congressional recess, Lincoln gave himself three months to act – reorganizing the military, putting money and materials into the war effort – without having to ask Congress for approval: a very deft executive move.

The chapter “Lead by Being Led” shows how one of Lincoln’s greatest strengths was his ability to choose the right people to execute his plans, act as sounding boards, and to come up with innovative ideas of their own. Lincoln liked to have subordinates who would take the lead – like Grant and Sherman – but he also maintained control, making sure their decisions followed his general direction; if they deviated too far from his plan, he would gently put them back on course.

In Chapter 10, “Set Goals and Be Results-Oriented,” Phillips notes that Lincoln was a hard worker and ambitious – he was a small business owner, a postmaster, a surveyor, and later a lawyer and politician. As president, he united his followers with a shared vision of preserving the Union and achieving the end of slavery, and he focused on concrete, short-term goals that could be accomplished. He took the war one battle at a time. These goals weren’t always shared by his subordinates: one area where he disagreed with his generals, until Grant, was in his focus on Lee; Lincoln felt that defeating Lee’s army, not capturing the Confederate capital, was the key to victory.

“Keep Searching Until You Find Your Grant,” Chapter 11, is the longest chapter in the book, and one of the most interesting. One area where Lincoln is often criticized is his search for a commanding general. From 1861 to early 1864, Lincoln went through what is referred to as his “parade” of generals; he was searching for an aggressive tactician whose motivation to succeed match Lincoln’s own. Phillips compares these short tenures – three to five months each – to the “honeymoon periods” for new managers/leaders in corporations. Lincoln did not have time for extended honeymoons, and when it became clear that a particular general was not the leader he needed, he was replaced. It was not until Lincoln identified Grant – first giving him the Department of the West in mid-1863, then making him General-in-Chief in March, 1864 – that he found the leader capable of completing his goal of destroying Lee’s army.  Phillips notes that “aggressive leaders tend to choose employees in their own image” (p. 136), and along with Grant came two particularly effective generals: Sheridan and Sherman, whose Virginia and Georgia campaigns, respectively, broke both the South’s supply lines and its will to see the war continue. Still, Lincoln’s vision and leadership was a necessary element even in Grant’s victories: his encouragement and support were essential. Phillips quotes Lincoln as saying “I, who am not a specially brave man … have had to sustain the sinking courage of these professional fighters in critical times” (p. 135).

Chapter 12’s title, “Encourage Innovation,” demonstrates how innovation was extremely important to Lincoln, who disliked “yes men” and tended to appoint subordinates with strong wills and opinions, forcing him to applying critical thinking to his own opinions before making tough decisions. Lincoln’s open-door policy led to many businessmen and inventors visiting the White House, and he loved attending demonstrations of new weapons and other innovations. It was Lincoln who insisted, over the protestations of the Army’s chief of ordinance, that the Union army order new breech-loading rifles, a technological advancement that help the North win the war

“Communication,” the title of Part 4, is a theme that runs through the entire book. Chapter 13, “Master the Art of Public Speaking,” focuses on Lincoln’s ability to both write and deliver messages that are models of effective rhetoric, often reaching the level of literature. His ability to motivate and inspire through carefully chosen words and, according to contemporary accounts, dramatic delivery, was what brought Lincoln to national attention in the first place. Phillips notes, “Lincoln built credibility by being consistent and clear when speaking to others. But he did it with more than words; his actions mirrored what he said” (p. 153).

Chapter 14, “Influence People Through Conversation and Storytelling,” focuses on the central role that conversation played in Lincoln’s success as a leader. Throughout the book, particularly in the “People” section, Phillips emphasizes the role inter-personal communication in leadership; according to Phillips, “Conversation was Lincoln’s chief from of persuasion and the single most important and effective aspect of his leadership style. One on one, Lincoln could convince anybody of just about anything” (p. 155). Phillips cites Peters and Austin, who state, “human beings reason largely by means of stories, not mounds of data. Stories are memorable …. They teach” (p. 158). Lincoln knew this to be the case, and even once commented on the fact that he used stories to “a long and useless discussion … or laborious explanation … by a story that illustrates my point of view” (p. 159).

This section ends with the chapter entitled “Preach a Vision and Continually Reaffirm It.” Lincoln consistently re-asserted his vision – preserving the Union and achieving equality for all men – throughout his presidency.  Phillips focuses on how the president framed his vision for his audience, the soldiers and citizens who needed to be renewed and revitalized in order to finish the conflict. Phillips uses Lincoln’s best-known, and shortest, speech, to show how Lincoln effected renewal; he “called on the past, related it to the present, and then used them both to provide a link to the future” (p. 166).  Lincoln knew that renewal was necessary to complete his goals, and continue his followers’ belief in his vision: “Without question, Lincoln realized what every leader must – that the process of renewal releases the critical human talent and energy that is necessary to insure success” (p. 168).

The afterword, added in 2009, explores Lincoln’s actions in dealing with financial crisis. With war looming in 1860, foreign investors pulled out of American markets; southern banks defaulted on their loans from banks in the North. James Buchanan left Lincoln with a $75 million budget deficit, which would balloon to $3.8 billion by the end of the war. Lincoln countered this dire situation with innovation, creating, among other institutions, the IRS and a national banking system.

Conclusions

Phillips points out several times that Lincoln’s character was evident in his ability to make tough and often unpopular decisions because he knew they were the right thing to do. He writes, “Lincoln tempered his unusually intense drive to achieve with an equally strong capacity to care,” pointing out that, “many leaders are unable to combine these two principles effectively” (p. 177). This caring capacity extended to the South, as well, as evidenced in his Second Inaugural Address: “With malice toward none, with charity for all … let us strive on to finish this work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds … to do all which may achieve lasting peace among ourselves” (p. 178).

Phillips argues that Lincoln’s lack of experience and the state of crisis that existed at his first term’s outset are what make this study of Lincoln particularly relevant to those interested in acquiring effective leadership principles: Lincoln’s success was little short of miraculous. I agree, and as a lover of history, I was pleased to find that this book was well-researched and filled with fascinating detail. Phillips relied heavily on Lincoln’s papers and the best-known biographies, but also scoured contemporary accounts and the remembrances of those who served on his cabinet, the “team of rivals,” as historian Doris Kearns Goodwin dubbed them. I am a student of politics, as well, and Lincoln’s surprise win in 1860 (and narrow victory again in 1864) are events on which Phillips’ offers a fresh, original point of view.

Phillips’ rationale for writing this book is that Lincoln in many ways exemplified the skills and behaviors that we currently identify with our modern concept of leadership. Contemporary leaders can see the “best practices” of their time reflected in Lincoln’s leadership style – he exhibited, in Phillips’ opinion, all of the qualities contemporary executives should strive toward. Consequently, the most effective aspect of Lincoln on Leadership is how it connects Lincoln’s “principles” – both declared and observed through an analysis of his behaviors – with contemporary writing on leadership. I became aware of several authors who I would like to read more of, particularly Burns and Peters; I would think that some who might read this book purely for the leadership aspects might also be encouraged to do more research in the other direction, as Phillips does an excellent job of conveying Lincoln’s fascinating character.  I found Lincoln on Leadership to be a surprisingly insightful book, and I’d recommend it to anyone who wants to look beyond the “great man” myth of our 16^th president and into the thoughts, feelings, and, most importantly, principles that guided his actions.

Review of "Remember the Titans"

Just posting this because, hey, I had to do it for a leadership course, and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this film, movie snob that I am! Here goes …

———————

Review of Remember the Titans

In Remember the Titans (2000), Coaches Boone and Yoast represent contrasting styles of leadership, but styles both very much based in a sense of integrity. At the outset both appear determined to do what, to their minds, is the right thing. Boone does not want to take Yoast’s job, a situation he sees as paralleling what had recently happened to him in North Caronlina – where he was denied a job because of his race; Yoast decides to leave Arlington, feeling that the decision to replace him was unfair and, quite clearly, motivated by the racial tensions of the day. Both are quickly faced with the fact that their decisions are not just their own; they are complicated by the needs of their followers. Boone is greeted by a crowd of cheering African-Americans families, happy to see integration happening and a black coach named by the school board; Yoast is confronted by the fact that his all-white squad will refuse to play for Boone, and thus his students will lose a very important opportunity.

Faced by the needs of their followers, both coaches accept the roles that circumstance has given them. It is soon clear, however, that Boone – not only with legitimate power but also a willingness to establish dominance – fully “owns” the leadership role and is highly motivated to both lead and succeed.  He describes himself as a “dictator”: indeed, he’s direct, undiplomatic, and results-oriented. He wields coercive power, but with a moral goal: to create a team of young men, bound together by struggled, and blind to race. The situation requires that Boone practice a vision-focused, some might say domineering, form of leadership; he plays this role without faltering, at least in front of his followers (the audience sees more of his anxiety/uncertainty, such as when he’s vomiting behind the locker room prior to the first game). His vision is equality, the importance of team, and accountability. Eventually, his vision becomes that of the team, and leaders – like Gary, Julius, Rev, Blue, Louis, and others – emerge from the player’s ranks to reinforce this vision.

Gary and Julius are the players who exhibit the greatest leadership traits and, eventually, behaviors. Gary, as Defensive Captain, first sees his role only direct in relation to his unit, but, as Julius points out, he is seen as the de facto leader of the white players, and by ignoring Ray’s willful slacking on the offensive line, he is failing to establish his leadership on defense, which has a mix of black and white players, Julius included. “[My] attitude reflects [your] leadership, Captain,” says Julius. It is not until Gary confronts Ray, during the night practice, that all of the defensive players, black and white, accept him as Captain. After Gary’s accident, and the first-half drubbing in the championship, Julius emerges as a leader, almost on cue: it seems as if Boone, with his less-than-inspirational half-time speech, was expecting a leader to rise up within the team to give them the motivational boost they needed to pull out a win.

While Boone’s commanding style works with the majority of the players, Petey, who was a stand-out running back prior to the school desegretation, feels lost: Boone’s criticism only breaks him down. Yoast sees an opportunity to improve his defense – and re-engage Petey – by recruiting Petey; in Yoast’s opinion, he needs to be utilized, not criticized. However, Boone sees Yoast’s behavior as “crippling” – allowing the players, black and white, not to be as tough as they need to be to survive their environment (social and athletic). Eventually, Yoast comes around to this way of thinking in regards to Petey, to a certain extent. While he does finally acquire Petey’s talents on defense in the championship game, he gives the choice to start him to the player he replaced (Alan); he has adapted his behavior to more closely fit Boone’s vision, while at the same time giving the players (Petey and Alan) what they need, psycho-emotionally, to feel validated, without damaging his integrity.

Throughout the film, Yoast is portrayed as introspective; his primary leadership qualities are emotional intelligence and behavioral flexibility, a fact reinforced by his willingness to accept a lesser role because he feels that the young men he has coached for years would, without him, make the wrong decision and refuse to play for Boone. He accepts his role as Defense Coordinator/Assistant Head Coach with a stoic sense of responsibility. Early on, he offers Boone advice, and is refused; later, he tries to caution Boone when the boys are getting sick from lack of water – Boone listens, but without acknowledging Yoast directly. Yoast is people-focused (or at least as much as a football coach can be), and cares for his player’s health and feelings. Boone is results-focused – he is trying to change their minds, shape them to his vision. While Yoast eventually adapts to some of Boone’s tactics (re: his benching of Petey during the championship), he also utilizes his emotional intelligence to greatly benefit the team. He is smart enough to realize that Boone’s “tunnel vision” requires him to ask directly for help – his defense is getting blasted at the state championship, so this is not too much of a sacrifice – before he can expect his voice (the “trick play” that wins the game in the final seconds) to be integrated into Boone’s plans.

In a fitting conclusion to this story of leadership, Boone, the leader himself, grows as a result of the other leaders around him; in the end, he finally learns from and accepts the expertise of Yoast, and earns his respect (and the respect of his young daughter). Boone was, in the words of Yoast, “the right man for the job.” He had the vision and motivation to see his vision through to the end, to make the team into a team first, and focus that team on a goal – “perfection” – so much that it became everyone’s goal. His leadership brought a divided community together in a way that no one could have predicted, and left an inspiring legacy to all would-be leaders.