GOOD LEADERSHIP HAS BECOME MUCH HARDER TO FIND; MANY OF OUR 'LEADERS' SPIRITUALLY BANKRUPT.

Byline: Richard Nemec

RECENT experience has taught me that more people are making money talking about leadership at the end of the 20th century than are actually practicing it. It makes me wonder whether Teddy Roosevelt, Gen. George Patton, Harry Truman or Winston Churchill would have taken speaking honorariums to cite their approaches to leading.

Nevertheless, I found myself at a downtown Los Angeles hotel in mid-November, facing two huge teleconferencing screens on which the likes of Tom Peters, Ted Turner, Steve Case and the ``One-Minute Manager'' author Ken Blanchard, among a list of other articulate gurus, offered an assortment of thoughts on what constitutes good leadership (or any leadership, for that matter) and why it is a scarce commodity at most American institutions today.

While guys like Peters are looking for quirky, courageous iconoclasts to invade more institutions beyond our e-commerce industry, and Blanchard and others (correctly) point out how spiritually bankrupt most of our recognized ``leaders'' are, I can't help but try to compare the composite leadership characteristics the pundits talk about with what we have as role models among today's business and government leaders. There is a big gap between the ideal and the real, I am afraid.

Has the nation's and California's nearly unbroken streak of economic prosperity the past seven or eight years produced historically unprecedented leadership and leaders? They certainly have not been found in the White House or Congress or Sacramento. Few epic examples can be found in the corporate executive suites either even with an unending array of high-tech, Internet-based millionaires and billionaires that roll out nearly as frequently as the ubiquitous microchips in the Silcon Valley.

Maybe in these halcyon, cyberspace days of seemingly endless easy money, we really don't need or want true leaders. It may be like the television-inspired perfect fathers of the 1950s, a fiction to be admired from afar, knowing real Dads drink too much, argue with mothers and children, and generally have more bad hair days than good ones.

The multibillionaire from Omaha, Neb., Warren Buffet, divulges on a videotape appearance with his new-found golfing buddy, Bill Gates, that he didn't have role models on his way to fame and wealth, only ``heroes.'' He starts with his father as the most profound one.

Some of the pundits say we are entering an era in which, whether heroes or not, the younger generation my children and those who follow will be interpreting our environment for us. Children passing on the real practical, valuable knowledge to their parents. Now there's a culture shock.

As Peters says, it is the greatest of all times to be alive because there are absolutely no rules. The ``dark ages'' viewed from today's perspective ended in 1994 and the distant future is some time between 2003 and 2007. You could argue that everyone who succeeds in this environment is going to need to be a great leader.

For some people, leadership is simply the act of ``making a difference.'' Others want more ``servant leaders'' who respect and support their followers, instead of the self-serving leaders found in abundance in both the public and private sectors in the last quarter of the 20th century. Hubris needs to be replaced by humility, and you would think a democratizing force like the Internet would contribute to this shift, but, alas, when Santa Clara County in Silicon Valley reportedly creates an average of 64 millionaires every day, humility in leadership isn't really likely to happen.

When I listen to the array of motivational business speakers, many with Ph.D.s and tons of experience observing leaders throughout the world, I am strangely optimistic and energized. This belies my 50-something generation and my natural skepticism. There is something impressive about a guy like Peters, who sweats through the back of his expensive dress shirt in the midst of his kick-off presentation; and another guy, like Steve Case, who can poke good-natured fun at Ted Turner's uncomfortableness with today's electric gadgetry and still make some serious points about leaders in cyberspace.

The ``old-world'' pre-1995 that occupied my almost three decades in the corporate vineyards was consumed with rules and pecking orders, which, without our realizing it, disempowered and dehumanized our labor tremendously. Even many of us in middle management never had a clue to how compromised we were.

Peters, with three new books coming out simultaneously, a Web page full of optimism and a speaking schedule already fully booked for next year, says this is the time in American history to redefine ourselves and the organizations we serve. The possibilities are endless, but not in the hands of many of today's leaders.

Ken Blanchard says we need leadership at a higher level. I am not sure where that level is, or who will emerge a recognized leader in our society. But, after listening to the advocates, I am convinced where to look first: inside ourselves.

I am told I cannot let what I do for a living define me. Rather, I have to look at my broader sphere of influence and use that to make things happen. If, indeed, I find my sphere and discover there is real influence, I may start lecturing on the subject myself next year. That's about the time the United States voters will be selecting a new national leader. Let's hope he or she has read Peters, Blanchard & Co.