Friedman, Edwin H. A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. New York: Seabury Books, 2007.

The more my perspective broadened, the more confirmed I became in my view that contemporary leadership dilemmas have less to do with the specificity of given problems, the nature of a particular technique, or the makeup of a given group than with the way everyone is framing the issues.

In any type of institution whatsoever, when a self-directed, imaginative, energetic, or creative member is being consistently frustrated and sabotaged rather than encouraged and supported, what will turn out to be true one hundred percent of the time, regardless of whether the disrupters are supervisors, subordinates, or peers, is that the person at the very top of that institution is a peace-monger. By that I mean a highly anxious risk-avoider, someone who is more concerned with good feelings than with progress, someone whose life revolves around the axis of consensus, a "middler," someone who is so incapable of taking well-defined stands that his "disability" seems to be genetic, someone who functions as if she had been filleted of her backbone, someone who treats conflict or anxiety like ## mustard gas--one whiff, on goes the emotional gas mask, and he flits. Such leaders are often "nice," if not charming.

What counts is the leader's presence and being, not technique and know-how. …

A leader must separate his or her own emotional being from that of his or her followers while still remaining connected. Vision is basically an emotional rather than a cerebral phenomenon, depending more on a leader's capacity to deal with anxiety than his or her professional training or degree.

For the endeavor to gain more regulation over one's own reactive mechanisms requires commitment to the lifetime project of being willing to be continually transformed by one's experience. Frankly, it is easier to focus on data and technique. Yet, at this point, I am convinced that to the extent leaders of any family or institution are willing to make a lifetime commitment to their own continual self-regulated growth, they can make any leadership theory or technique look brilliant.

To be a leader, one must both have and embody a vision of where one wants to go. It is not a matter of knowing or believing one is right; it is a matter of taking the first step.

One of the major limitations of imagination's fruits is the fear of standing out. It is more than a fear of criticism. It is anxiety at being alone, of being in a position where one can rely little on others, a position that puts one's own resources to the test, a position where one will have to take total responsibility for one's own response to the environment. Leaders must not only not be afraid of that position; they must come to love it.

The conventions through which we try to understand human relationships today may be as misoriented as was the medieval view of heaven and earth. Thus to suggest that gender, ethnicity, and psychological profiles are not the stuff of human relationships, or that the concentrated focus on data, method, feelings, and togetherness is misguided, can sound as counterintuitive today as it would have been in Columbus's time to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun. On the other hand, from the perspective of the emotional process view of reality that I shall develop here, the way most leadership programs understand the human phenomenon is tantamount to still assuming that the world is flat.

A leader's major effect on his or her followers has to do with the way his or her presence affects the emotional processes in the relationship system. A leader's major job is to understand his or her self. Communication depends on emotional variables such as direction, distance, and anxiety. Stress is due to becoming responsible for the relationship...