Sane ideas from Tufts psychiatry prof: Linking effective leadership and mental illness

Did depression make him a better President? (photo courtesy of Wikipedia)

When Nassir Ghaemi, a professor of psychiatry at Tufts Medical Center, studied prominent figures of the American Civil War, he discovered that many of the greatest leaders during the war (e.g., Abraham Lincoln and Union general Ulysses Grant) were mentally abnormal or mentally ill, while many less effective leaders (e.g., Union general George McClellan) were, well, quite sane.

This epiphany took him down a path that culminated in his new book: S. Nassir Ghaemi, A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness (2011). On Wednesday, Dr. Ghaemi gave a compelling, provocative talk before a packed room at the central branch of the Boston Public Library.

Basic thesis

Ghaemi’s analysis of prominent historical leaders led him to conclude that many of those with mental illness “have strengths that make them good crisis leaders,” while many of those without mental illness “have weaknesses that make them bad crisis leaders.”

During his talk, Ghaemi noted links between depression and empathy, mania and creativity, and trauma and resilience. He cited Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Franklin Roosevelt as being among the great 20th century leaders who had psychological abnormalities that contributed to their accomplishments.

Perhaps playing to the Boston crowd, he spent considerable time discussing John F. Kennedy (whose complete medical records he had access to), including correlating effective and ineffective episodes of JFK’s presidency to different psychotropic drug treatment programs.

A personal sidebar

This short blog post cannot do justice to the depth of Ghaemi’s talk. That said, allow me to confess my fascination with this topic. It resonated with me immediately, though it took me until after his talk to realize why.

During the decade I have worked on legal issues relevant to workplace bullying, I have come in close contact with many targets of this form of abuse. As regular readers of this blog are well aware, targets of bullying at work often are high-performing employees, and many suffer from depression and PTSD due to the mistreatment they experienced.

Many of these folks are among the most interesting and talented people I’ve ever met. A good number of them exhibit qualities of character, courage, and resilience that I find admirable.

In part because of this experience, I find myself drawn to good people who have managed to recover from or cope with emotional crises in their lives. There is something genuine and down to earth about them — indeed, it makes eminent sense to me that among them are some excellent leaders — and I am inclined to trust them more than those whose lives have been a walk in the park.

Thought provoking

Ghaemi is no dime store psychiatrist. He’s a leading expert on mood disorders, he’s done his historical research, and he brings sensitivity and common sense to bear upon his subject matter. No wonder he already is getting attention for this book. He recently appeared on the “Colbert Report,” and I’m sure more television appearances are in the offing.

Of course, there will be anger and ridicule directed towards the book. I did a quick Google search, and some of the review headlines are characterizing the book in the most simplistic terms, suggesting it claims that crazy people make the best leaders.

Hopefully, however, A First-Rate Madness will spark the intelligent, nuanced discussion it deserves. I just ordered it, and if it’s even close to the entertaining, informative talk Ghaemi gave at the library, it will be a terrific read.

Apocalypse tomorrow: The debt ceiling crisis and Social Security

The immediate crisis facing Washington D.C. is a looming August 2 deadline concerning the national debt ceiling. If Congress does not authorize an increase in the national debt, the federal government will be unable to pay out on its obligations and essentially will go into default and enter shutdown mode.

This will affect, among other things, the ability of the government to pay Social Security benefits to retirees and the disabled, and to meet its payroll obligations to federal workers.

The inability to reach a budget agreement is being labeled by many in the press as a bipartisan failure.

While many of Washington’s failures indeed are bipartisan, in this instance we have Democrats willing to cut public benefit programs way beyond what popular opinion actually supports, while Republicans are barely moving an inch on their insistence that these programs be slashed through the bone. Hardly anyone is talking about even modest tax increases on the most fortunate.

So, to the extent that the Democrats aren’t willing to capitulate completely and the Republicans aren’t willing to move much at all, you could call this a bipartisan failure to negotiate and engage in compromise.

But more accurately, the field of play right now — despite a Democratic Senate (if barely) and a Democratic President (ditto) — is clearly to the right of center. The Republicans, who often manage to outflank the Dems even when they are in the minority, are flexing muscles rippling from the 2010 midterm elections, while the Democrats act like they’re afraid of getting sand kicked in their faces.

Regardless, in the midst of all the political posturing and cowering, we’re ignoring the bigger picture here, and what’s being put on the table is scary.

It’s about (in part, at least) Social Security

Have you noticed there’s not a lot of detail in the news coverage of this situation about program and spending specifics? The (justifiable) concerns about a government shutdown and default and the aftershocks it would create on Main Street and Wall Street have obscured any national discussion about what’s at stake beyond keeping the lights on.

But make no mistake about it: One of the biggest items on the table is Social Security, even though the program has enough money to fully fund benefits for some 20 years, without raising the payroll tax or reducing scheduled benefits. President Obama, in one of his invertebrate moments, is open to “compromise” on Social Security, meaning he’s willing to negotiate over reductions in benefits.

D.C. and Social Security in 2011

Picture an America where millions of Baby Boomers are hurtling towards their retirement years. Stung by the market meltdown of the Great Recession, their own spending and buying habits, and persistent, high unemployment rates, very few are on a safe path towards building retirement savings sufficient to allow the kind of retirement they anticipated in some hazy mind’s eye. Some are now responding to this realization by devoting larger portions of their paychecks to their 401ks, IRAs, and savings accounts — assuming they are gainfully employed, that is.

For many Boomers, it means that Social Security will be a significant, perhaps primary, source of retirement age income. I say “retirement age” because it’s not clear they’ll be able to retire.

The folks in D.C. — GOP and Dems alike — know this, but we’re not hearing much about the long-term, because that’s not how the Beltway works. They also know that raising the income cap on Social Security payroll taxes would do wonders toward ensuring the long-term solvency of the program, without any reduction in anticipated benefits to individuals. Nevertheless, asking people earning more money — you know, those who are responsible for a disproportionate share of campaign contributions — to add a bit more to the public coffers is out of the question.

Meanwhile, in America’s heartland, some of the folks who are joining the clamor towards “belt-tightening” have no idea that they are endangering a major source of their eventual retirement age income.

D.C. and Social Security in 2021

Picture an America where millions of Baby Boomers now have hurtled into their retirement years. Even those who engaged in frenzied savings at middle age to build up 401ks, IRAs, and savings accounts fell short of what they really needed to save, because the game of saving for retirement strongly favors those who started young and managed to invest presciently in our casino economy.

Those assessing their retirement readiness find that Social Security benefits are a lot less than they anticipated. Many, justifiably fearful of running out of money in retirement, decide to stay at their jobs later. Accordingly, older workers are remaining in the labor force way beyond traditional retirement age. Younger folks trying to break into the job market find that there’s not a lot of room for them, in part because workers at the senior level aren’t leaving.

Meanwhile, a small percentage of older Americans — those who managed to save and invest well while benefiting from a tax structure rigged to their advantage — will retire in relative peace and comfort.

That’s America in 10 years. And 20 years, for that matter. Cuts to Social Security benefits today will only make the situation worse.

America, breathe easy

My guess is that the immediate crisis will be averted, that we’ll see some sort of budget “compromise,” and that everyone will breathe easier knowing the government won’t be closing its doors.

Having dodged that bullet, we’ll continue to ignore the bigger challenges facing us in the not-too-distant future.

***

Related posts

The humane way to fix Social Security

The press discovers the coming Boomer retirement crisis

When Boomers retire (or try to): America’s coming train wreck

“All leaders of the independent labor unions in protective custody”

“Alle Führer der frein Gewerkschaften in Schutzhaft”

This was the headline in the May 2, 1933 edition of the Berliner Börsen-Courier, a progressive newspaper in Berlin.

According to an exhibit in Berlin’s Topography of Terror museum and research center, the newspaper was reporting on “the nationwide occupation of labor union headquarters by the SA [Hitler’s brownshirts] and SS [Hitler’s elite guard and fighting force] and the arrest of all leading union activists.”

Hitler and his fellow sadistic thugs knew that to control the rank-and-file, you had to destroy any semblance of an independent labor movement.

Think about it.

***

After participating in the Congress of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health in Berlin, I was able to visit the Topography of Terror museum and research center, which helps to preserve the painful history of the Nazi era. Located on the grounds of the “central institutions of Nazi persecution and terror” and abutted by remaining portions of the Berlin Wall, it is well worth your time if you find yourself visiting the city.

We take care of failed CEOs, so why not everyone else?

How is it that so many failed CEOs somehow land on their feet, while average folks who lose their jobs are not so fortunate?

As Rick Newman, writing for U.S. News & World Report (via Yahoo! News, link here), observes:

Yet a number of disgraced CEOs and other grounded high-flyers have fared surprisingly well, either landing plum jobs with new employers or securing golden parachutes that guarantee a luxurious retirement–or both.

By contrast, regular folks who face a layoff or termination often must scramble to make ends meet and find comparable positions. We’ve seen the figures about the growing length of time it takes to find a new job in this recessionary economy, and we’re well aware of the special challenges that confront older, mid-career workers trying to rebound from a layoff.

Most people are one job loss away from a potential free fall with only a thin safety net below. The laid-off retail store worker, assembly line worker, or even mid-level manager is not going to be handed that golden parachute on the way out the door.

Perhaps if those in power faced the same dire fears and uncertainties in the midst of a cruel economy — or at least could summon some empathy for those who do — we’d see a different attitude coming from Wall Street and Washington D.C. when it comes to unemployment benefits, Social Security, medical care, student financial aid, and the like. But on this July 4th weekend, I’m afraid that plutocracy remains a term for our times.

The humane way to fix Social Security

Certain online programs should have a built-in laugh track. Chief among these are the countless “retirement savings calculators” designed to help us determine if we’re saving and investing properly for retirement.

Go ahead. Google the term and then plug in your numbers. If you’re like most of us, the results may make you cry — or laugh madly. This includes many who are gainfully employed and have contributed regularly to a 401K or an IRA.

Bottom line: Many of America’s Baby Boomers (and those of generations to follow) are woefully unprepared for retirement. I’ve been beating this drum for some time — see links to posts below — so I shall not belabor the details.

Cutting Social Security

Although these challenges are well-known, the current mantra on Capitol Hill is that we should cut Social Security benefits by reducing payouts and raising the ages for individuals to be eligible to collect.

These measures are urged because the Social Security Administration has projected that by 2019 it will be “paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes,” and by 2041 it will have sufficient funds “to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.”

However, as other policy analysts have noted, the projected funding gap can be addressed fairly and cleanly by raising the income cap on payroll taxes. Currently the top 6 percent of income earners pay FICA only on the first $106,800 of their income. By removing the cap, the Social Security fund will be able to pay full benefits for everyone and rebuild its surplus.

How about raising Social Security?

But even a fully funded Social Security system will not be sufficient to ease the coming pain, when countless aspiring retirees look at the cold reality of a modest monthly check and sparse retirement savings.

Amidst the clamor of calls for belt-tightening, labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan — one of our most thoughtful social and political commentators to boot — proposes raising Social Security benefits in a recent New York Times op-ed piece (link here):

…I cringe when Democrats talk of “saving” Social Security. We should not “save” it but raise it. Right now Social Security pays out 39 percent of the average worker’s preretirement earnings. While jaws may drop inside the Beltway, we could raise that to 50 percent. We’d still be near the bottom of the league of the world’s richest countries — but at least it would be a basement with some food and air.

Geoghegan is enough of a wonk to spell out how to raise the extra money, including removing the payroll tax cap, accessing estate tax revenues, and other measures.

What’s at stake

But the main message we should be sounding is what prompted Geoghegan to write in the first place, that is, the importance of providing a decent public pension to the elderly.

In 2004, conservative economist and retirement investment guru Ben Stein wrote these words in a personal finance column (link here) that have stuck with me:

It is fine to have no money when you’re young. It is not fine to have no money when you’re old. It is even fun to be poor when you’re in college or right out of it. But to be retired and in your 70’s and not know how you are going to pay your bills – that is terrifying. In fact, it’s a grotesque nightmare.

What is life like if you are old, weak, tired, not in great health, lonely and have no money? You are miserable, and you are in fear and you are gaunt on the inside.

I may not agree with Stein on many things when it comes to politics, but there is a deep ring of truth to these words. We need to harness our better natures and find a way to tackle this challenge in a humane way. A solvent and responsibly generous Social Security system can be a big part of the solution.

***

Related posts:

The press discovers the coming Boomer retirement crisis

When Boomers retire (or try to): America’s coming train wreck

Is America’s Social Security system going broke?

Recycling: On making a difference, engaged leadership, and a New American Dream

From the archives of this blog, cogitations for change agents:

1. Advice to Young (and Not So Young) Folks Who Want to Make a Difference (October 2009) — “If you want to make a difference, find something you care about and stick with it. Look around you: Most of the difference makers have staying power. They are driven by heartfelt commitment and a desire to do something meaningful.”

2. Wheatley’s call for fearlessness and engagement (July 2009) — Organizational change expert Margaret Wheatley: “If leaders took the time to engage people instead of clamping down on them, not only would employees perform better, they’d also be more innovative and focused.”

3. Greider’s New American Dream (May 2009) — Journalist William Greider: “Here is the grand vision I suggest Americans can pursue: the right of all citizens to larger lives. Not to get richer than the next guy or necessarily to accumulate more and more stuff but the right to live life more fully and engage more expansively the elemental possibilities of human existence.”

***

[Editor’s Note: In addition to maintaining a list of articles that have remained very popular on this blog — see the Popular and Notable Posts page — every month or so I’m recycling relevant posts from more than a year ago. Hopefully they will be of interest to newer readers.]

Corrupt and greedy leadership cuts across private, public, and non-profit sectors

As a liberal, I’m more likely to look for evidence of corruption, ethical lapses, self-dealing, and greed in the private sector. You know, the big bad corporations and their executives.

Some of my conservative friends may be more likely to focus on similar excesses in the public and non-profit sectors. Yup, big bad government and those pesky non-profits.

Truth is, we need a big tent. The real problem is a deep crisis of integrity and leadership that cuts across the private, public, and non-profit work sectors and transcends professed political convictions and ideologies.

I confess, I don’t have comparative statistics to back up what I’m saying here. But the more I look at what has transpired over the past decade or so, the more I understand that excessive compensation and perks, conflicts of interest, endless varieties of corruption, and breaches of ethical standards do not discriminate between sectors of our economy and society.

Exclusionary behavior at work cuts across political lines

Actress Patricia Heaton, whom I became a fan of when she played Debra Barone in the hit sitcom “Everybody Loves Raymond,” says that her conservative political views have cost her professionally at times.

Lee Warren reports for the Christian Post (link here) that Heaton “is a conservative Christian who has spoken out against embryonic stem-cell research and who is pro-life, which puts her at odds with many people in the acting industry.”

She said in the interview that she and her husband, a director, “know for a fact there are some people who have said they wouldn’t want to work with us because of our politics.”

Politics

The lede in Warren’s article states that “When you work in a culture that doesn’t share many of your views, you can probably expect a little backlash.” Yes, indeed.

During the decade-plus that I have steeped myself in the emerging workplace bullying movement, I have become convinced that political leanings are not destiny when it comes to who perpetrates bullying, exclusion, and similar behaviors at work. And while research indicates that greater diversity at work can be a source of conflict, a homogeneous work environment can be absolute hell on those who don’t fit into the dominant cultures.

In work settings defined in part by political leanings, those belonging to a distinct minority can be ostracized and iced out. And the more inflexible the worldview of the majority, the colder the atmosphere can be for those who don’t share it.

The Presidency, stress, and emotional intelligence

If you’ve ever wondered why the job of President has so visibly aged many of the men who have served in the position, consider the experience of President Obama during the past couple of days.

Saturday night…live

On Saturday night, the President and the First Lady were part of the annual White House correspondents dinner, an evening of hard hitting humor, with the President both giving and taking. Making the rounds on Facebook and the Internet generally was C-Span video of the event, especially these remarks by comedian Seth Meyers:

Watching this, you wouldn’t know what the President had on his mind besides the “usual” stuff facing the leader of the nation.

Earlier that day

But if I have the timeline correctly, earlier that day he had given the go ahead for the mission that would lead to the killing of Bin Laden. This had been in the works for some time, and Obama had been integrally involved in its planning.

So here’s the President, awaiting news of a mission that would have major consequences for national security, attending a dinner where he has to listen to and deliver barbs about Donald Trump, the birthers, and other comparative nonsense. Of course, being the President, he can’t just stand up and say, this is bull—t.

Sunday

After his Saturday night out, Obama didn’t have the luxury that many attendees had of spending Sunday reading the papers over brunch. Instead, the day apparently was spent confirming Bin Laden’s death and preparing for a public announcement, leading to this:

Stress…and emotional intelligence

Talk about stress. And talk about the need for emotional intelligence when it feels like the world rests on your shoulders. I’ll leave it to each of you to decide for yourself how the President did in this situation overall, but for me this was a stark reminder of why this is one of the toughest jobs around.

Harass and eliminate: Anti-labor forces go after professors and art

We’re in the midst of a severe assault on rank-and-file workers, led by anti-labor political and business leaders, and it has entered the realm of attempts to chill speech and artistic expression.

Harass and eliminate

Securing e-mails of “suspect” professors

Public university professors who are sympathetic to labor protesters may find their e-mails being searched by anti-labor entities who want to discredit, embarrass, or harass them, using public records laws to access their communications.

The first salvo came from the Republican Party of Wisconsin, which filed a records request to search the e-mails of a University of Wisconsin professor who had criticized GOP governor Scott Walker. In a piece for the Chronicle of Higher Education (link here), Peter Schmidt reports:

The Republican Party of Wisconsin is seeking, under the state’s open-records law, to obtain e-mail sent by a Madison professor who has publicly criticized that state’s Republican governor, a move the professor is denouncing as an assault on his academic freedom.

Officials at the University of Wisconsin at Madison received the records request on March 17, two days after the professor,William Cronon, published a blog post examining the role conservative advocacy groups have played in formulating legislation recently proposed by Gov. Scott Walker and Republican lawmakers.

Next came a records request from a conservative think tank that wants to inspect the e-mails of labor studies professors at state universities in Michigan. Again for the Chronicle (link here), Peter Schmidt reports:

A free market-oriented think tank in Michigan has sent the state’s three largest public universities open-records requests for any e-mails from their labor-studies faculty members dealing with the debate over collective bargaining in Wisconsin.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy . . . sent the requests . . . to labor-studies centers at Michigan State University, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and Wayne State University. The boilerplate wording . . . asks the universities to provide all e-mails from the employees and contractors of their labor-studies centers containing the words “Scott Walker,” “Wisconsin,” “Madison,” and “Maddow,” in reference to Rachel Maddow, the liberal commentator on MSNBC.

Removing art depicting rank-and-file workers

Maine Governor Paul LePage, a Republican, recently ordered the removal of an 11-panel mural depicting various chapters in the history of the state’s workers from the offices of the Department of Labor. As reported by Ros Krasny for Reuters (link here, including sample panels from the mural):

Waves of criticism have followed the removal of a mural depicting workers’ history in Maine, including the iconic “Rosie the Riveter,” from government offices in the state capital Augusta.

***

The deed was done, in secrecy, over the weekend.

The 36-foot-long (11-meter-long) work contains 11 panels with images including shoemakers, child labor, textile workers and strikers, as well as Frances Perkins, U.S. Labor Secretary and the first U.S. woman cabinet member.

LePage cited complaints from some business leaders as the reason for ordering the removal.

There is an Orwellian quality to this action, a desire to create a category of unpersons, those “whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments,” as Wikipedia puts it.

More signs of the American plutocracy

Recently I suggested that America has become a plutocracy, a society where power and influence are controlled and exercised thuggishly by the most wealthy. American plutocrats seek to deny the widely-held belief (outside the U.S., at least) that labor rights and collective bargaining are fundamental human rights, not a branch of some obscure special interest.

These developments are all part of that effort. The dots keep connecting…