LEADERSHIP: THE BIGGEST ISSUE

Ralph Nader was there, and so was the executive vice president of American Motors. The founder of Rolling Stone and the managing editor of the Washington Post took part, as did two of the most conservative newspaper columnists in the U.S. Gloria Steinem and the Knicks' Bill Bradley were there, and so were a former Heisman Trophy winner, a Nobel Laureate, a Navajo tribal leader, nine college presidents, 15 mayors and Governors, 14 Congressmen and Senators, and scores of businessmen, teachers, lawyers and economists. The occasion: a two-day conference held in Washington by TIME on the subject of leadership.

That elusive yet essential, indefinable yet recognizable quality became the biggest issue of the 1976 presidential campaign. Jimmy Carter's TV ads describe him as "a leader, for a change." Gerald Ford's say of the President: "He has virtually a' lifetime of leadership." Closely connected with the issue of leadership was that of trust, the indispensable link between leader and led. Said Carter: "Trust me." Replied Ford: "It is not enough for anyone to say, Trust me.' Trust must be earned."

So it has gone. The debate has been imprecise, subjective --and inevitable. It reaches far beyond the campaign. The turmoil of the 1960s and early '70s left a corrosive residue of apathy and skepticism that has eaten away at all major institutions. A report issued in September by the Public Agenda Foundation noted that trust in Government declined from 76% in 1964 to 33% today; that 83% of American voters say they "do not trust those in positions of leadership as much as they used to"; that confidence in Congress, the Supreme Court, business, college presidents, the military, doctors and lawyers dropped sharply from the mid-'60s to the mid-'70s.

Two years ago, at a time when the Watergate scandal had reduced the Federal Government to near paralysis, TIME decided to explore the subject of leadership in depth. The result was a 38-page special section (July 15, 1974). Included was a portfolio of "200 Faces for the Future": young (45 or under) American leaders who, in the editors' view, had noteworthy civic or social impact on their communities, their institutions or the nation. When the special section appeared, Richard Nixon was still in the White House, Jimmy Carter was still in the statehouse in Atlanta and the corporate bribery scandals had not yet crested. The editors believed that, two years having passed, some updating might prove fascinating. With this in mind, TIME invited the men and women on its 1974 list to the nation's capital in late September for its leadership conference (for a list of participants, see the bottom of each page of this Special Report).

TIME described its original list as "a fallible selection," and in some ways it was. One of the 200 is now in jail for income tax evasion (New York City Councilman Matthew Troy). Some lost elections--but are doing well in other pursuits (Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander, who lost the 1974 gubernatorial race to Democrat Ray Blanton, is now a television commentator; Minneapolis Mayor Albert Hofstede, edged out by Charles Stenvig in 1975, is a bank vice president).

Most started out with impressive jobs and flourished in them --or traded up. One was awarded the 1975 Nobel Prize for Medicine (David Baltimore). Another received one of the fatter pay raises in history (TV Anchor Woman Barbara Walters). One rose from U.S. Ambassador to NATO to Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld). Two were in the running for the G.O.P. vice-presidential nomination until the final cut (Governors Christopher Bond of Missouri and Robert Ray of Iowa); another (Federal Trade Commissioner Elizabeth Hanford) last December married the man who finally got the nod, Robert Dole.

In 1974, one moved from House to Senate (Iowa Democrat John Culver) and another became Governor of California (Democrat Jerry Brown). This year three are aiming at governorships (Delaware Republican Pierre S. du Pont IV, Illinois Republican James Thompson, West Virginia Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV). All three are favored. Seven seek Senate seats: Indiana Republican Richard Lugar, former mayor of Indianapolis; Maryland's Democratic Congressman Paul Sarbanes; Michigan's Democratic Congressman Donald Riegle; Missouri's Republican Attorney General John Danforth; Pennsylvania's Republican Congressman H. John Heinz III; Texas' Republican Congressman Alan Steelman; Vermont's Democratic Governor Thomas Salmon. Three and possibly five are expected to win.

Between opening and closing plenary sessions, the conference divided up into five task forces that met for nine hours apiece to discuss various aspects of leadership: What makes a leader? Can he or she be trained? How does a leader persuade people to follow? The transcript that resulted does not contain precise answers, but it is studded with myriad insights and opinions. What follows is a condensation of its main features.

LEADER v. MANAGER

French Political Scientist Bertrand de Jouvenel has described two of the main categories of leaders as dux, literally leader, and rex, literally ruler. Dux is the activist and innovator, often an inspirational type. Rex is the stabilizer or broker or manager.

The two often are exclusive, but need not be; indeed, without some managerial skills, the innovative leader may well make a hash of things. Said Louisville Mayor Harvey Sloane, 40, who is also an M.D.: "The dichotomy between leaders and managers bothers me. If you are an executive, a Governor, you have to deliver services. You have to be a manager."

Some noted that the timing may occasionally be wrong for the activist leader, that there are times when consolidation should take precedence over change, when it is more important to perfect existing institutions than to create new ones. Some suggested that today is such a period. Arthur Okun, 47, chairman of Lyndon Johnson's Council of Economic Advisers (now a member of TIME'S Board of Economists), suggested that Americans are not looking for drastic changes but "the kind of changes Detroit makes from one year to another in its car models."

Others objected that a gift for grabbing headlines is often mistaken for leadership. Said Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce Joseph Blatchford, 42: "Historians don't pay tribute to those who are not activist but who are exerting great leadership nonetheless." Westchester County Executive Alfred Del Bello. 42. agreed. "The [quiet] person who knows how to use the complex forces at work today doesn't necessarily get on the TV screen, but certainly is responsible for major accomplishments."

Yale Economist Richard Cooper, 42, noted that "on the admittedly few occasions when the Administration has put forward very far-reaching, very far-sighted and innovative proposals, they have just fallen on. completely deaf ears. Yet when George Marshall made what was an extremely modest statement at Harvard in 1947, it had far-reaching consequences. Why? Because there was somebody ready to receive what he had to say. Part of that has to do with skills of management."

Harvard Government Professor James Q. Wilson, 45, distinguished dux from rex this way: "There is the goal-setter, or the critic, the person who says, 'Follow me,' who prods, challenges. Then there is the executive or the facilitator who is less concerned with setting goals. He is especially sensitive to the concerns of individuals. These two qualities are, for most people, incompatible. Yet some people can [be both]."

Columbia Law School Dean Michael Sovern, 44, noted the difference between "the advocate leader and the consensus builder," placing Martin Luther King Jr. in the first category. Radcliffe President Matina Horner, 37, spoke of leaders with "power motivation" as opposed to "achievement motivation" or "affiliate motivation," the last being a polite term for "cronyism." Leaders with power motivation, she suggested, are at once the most glamorous and dangerous of the lot, "able to mobilize resources--and also get us into wars."

The only career military man at the conference distinguished between leadership and command. "To oversimplify, a commander gets action by asserting his authority, his rank," said Army Colonel Peter Dawkins, 38, former Heisman Trophy winner as a West Point running back, Rhodes scholar and now commander of the infantry base at Fort Ord, Calif. "A leader is able to promote action by motivating people to do things."

THE LEADER AS GOAL SETTER

What is a leader's most important role? Said M.I.T. Economist Lester Thurow, 38: "Maybe it is the goal-setting that is the basic element, in the sense of going somewhere." In a time of crisis, Thurow continued, "you will have a leader. Maybe a Hitler, a Roosevelt or Huey Long. Somebody will lead when society is collapsing--not necessarily a good leader, but a leader."

There is a danger when a leader points out a direction and finds nobody willing to follow. As Henry Kissinger once put it: "A statesman who too far outruns the experience of his people will fail in achieving a domestic consensus, however wise his policies. [On the other hand], a statesman who limits his policies to the experience of his people is doomed to sterility."

Colorado's Democratic Governor Richard Lamm, 41, had a case in point. "Norman Thomas in the 1948 campaign went down to the slums of Pittsburgh and knocked on a door. One of the lowest-paid members of our society opened the door, and Norman Thomas introduced himself. And the guy said, 'Oh, you're the son of a bitch who's trying to change our system.' "

New Mexico's Democratic Governor Jerry Apodaca, 42, finds himself in a situation where he would like to lead in a different direction but has no hope of succeeding. "A bill [restoring capital punishment] will come before me in January or February," said Apodaca. "I will veto it. The legislature is likely to override that veto. In the event that a man is sentenced to die, I will not commute his death penalty simply because I disagree with it. At that point it is my responsibility to enforce the law."

Briarcliff College President Josiah Bunting, 36, a novelist and ex-Army major, suggested that his purpose is "to make the students tolerant and sensitive, to teach them that their education should not interfere with their learning and to help them see when people are talking rot." John Jay Iselin, 42, president of Manhattan's Educational Broadcasting Corp., saw as his role "to select pertinent information and to put it out in a way that can be understood" by expert and layman alike.

QUALITIES A LEADER NEEDS

What are the key qualities required of a leader? Oregon's Republican Senator Robert Packwood, 44, suggested half a dozen key traits: "Purpose. Integrity. Tolerance, which is just a willingness to keep enough of an open mind to admit that you may be wrong. Zealots are dangerous; they are so convinced that they are right and you are wrong. This is what we saw in the Nixon White House. And discipline. I never saw anybody make it who did not have sufficient personal discipline to say, 'No, I cannot play golf. I have things to do.' Imagination, which is nothing more than a respect for history without undue reverence for it. How you get the sixth quality, the ability to get people to say 'I believe in you,' to inspire others to believe they can do more than they believe they can do, I don't know."

Clarence Barksdale, 44, board chairman of the First National Bank of St. Louis, said one trait was not essential: superior intelligence. He noted: "My home-state guy, Harry Truman, said, 'The C students run the world.' " Kansas City Police Chief Joseph McNamara, 41, pinpointed "good judgment." Said he: "We can have someone with wonderful traits. If his judgment is poor, the net results are going to be bad." Some noted that a leader showed his judgment in selecting as lieutenants people who either complemented his own skills or were smarter than the boss.

Harvard Historian Frank Freidel, 60, who wrote one of the working papers prepared to stimulate discussion, suggested stamina and youth as helpful qualities. "Younger leaders are readier to venture in the dark. They haven't had their teeth knocked out as yet, and they are ready to take chances." Washington Lawyer Lewis Engman, 40, head of the Federal Trade Commission under Nixon, agreed: "One constant is the willingness to take risks, to row the boat out beyond the shore without the assurance that you will be able to get back."

Charisma? "Not essential," argued Conservative Columnist Patrick Buchanan, 37, a former Nixon speechwriter. "I think Mayor Daley of Chicago would show that." Nor is goodness essential. Buchanan added: "Nobody would deny Mao Tse-tung was a great leader, but I don't think you can say he was a good man in the sense we talk about goodness."

Another trait was suggested by Transportation Secretary William Coleman Jr., 56, who addressed the group on its final evening. He argued that, with leaders incessantly subjected to "caustic personal commentary," it is important that they possess "qualities of personal security and stability."

Harvard Social Psychologist Abraham Zaleznik, 52, who wrote a working paper on the development of leadership, noted that in many leaders there is a "cleavage between himself and the outer world." This creates in him "a demand that he or she accomplish something different or special." But Zaleznik conceded that the result could be destructiveness as well as great achievement.

THE DILEMMA OF DISTRUST

When Vice-Presidential Candidate Walter Mondale addressed the conference, he discussed what may be the greatest impediment to effective leadership: distrust. Said Mondale: "John Gardner [head of Common Cause] once said that 20th century institutions have been caught in a savage crossfire between uncritical lovers and unloving critics. Gardner said that love without criticism brings stagnation and criticism without love brings destruction." What was needed, Mondale went on, was "a loving criticism of our society and its institutions."

There still seems to be a surfeit of criticism, not much of it loving. Explained Eleanor Holmes Norton, 39, New York City Commissioner of Human Rights: "We are drunk on the notion that America progressively gets better. We fail to see that because the world is more complicated, this great Horatio Alger country is finding it difficult to do things that were fairly easy to do before." The result is disappointment and disillusionment.

M.I.T.'s Paul Macavoy, 42, member of Lyndon Johnson's Council of Economic Advisers and now of Ford's, cited the Government's ubiquitous presence as one reason why people feel powerless. "Every aspect of employment is controlled by a federal agency," said Macavoy, "from hiring to retiring, size, shape, color, composition, seniority, technical facility, how you advertise and buy and sell labor."

What to do? Peter Dennis Bathory, co-author with fellow Rutgers Political Scientist Wilson Carey Me Williams of one of the working papers, suggested that "if faith is to be restored in our institutions, it has to be restored in places where people can see positive action occurring." That is, in neighborhoods and cities rather than at the national level.

Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader, 42, agreed.

"Even if we have national leadership, you have to have very strong local fiber. We have seen some good ideas at the national level, but when they are floated down to the local level, there is not that civic bond, that community, that administrative process that can translate them into reality."

Nicholas Panuzio, 41, Commissioner of Public Buildings for the General Services Administration, saw the need for "an atmosphere in which people are willing to speak out. I don't mean that we ought to have New England town meetings, but informal ways in which all sides can get their views out."

In the view of Florida's Democratic Governor Reubin Askew, 48, politicians have brought the crisis of confidence on themselves. Said he: "People feel that they have been betrayed--and they have; they feel they have been lied to--and they have; they feel they have been cheated--and again, they have. It is not surprising that a lot of them are alienated from Government."

Said Rand Corp. President Donald Rice, 37: "We consistently underestimate the good sense of the American people. I think they can stand a good deal more. They can be told: 'I do not know, but here are the kinds of trade-offs that are involved.' "

Some wondered whether the road to restoring trust lay in emphasizing leadership--or in deemphasizing it. Economist C. Fred Bergsten, 35, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, suggested that people may want "a stalemate system, not leadership. Is this because they are so turned off by current leaders that they are afraid to have anybody have too much control over their lives?"

According to Government Professor Wilson, part of the turnoff is the result of repeated governmental failure to follow through on issues. By flitting from issue to issue, he said, "we are less likely to generate sustained action, more likely to produce ill-conceived new agencies operating under badly drafted laws."

Martin Olav Sabo, 38, speaker of Minnesota's house, had a similar bone to pick: "[Columnist] George Will made a very, very good point in saying that too often our problem with Government is that it is too responsive. It is a sort of Burger King responsiveness: put in your order and we will respond."

THE ART OF FOLLOWERSHIP

If too many citizens are determined to have it their way--preferably at government expense--that suggests a breakdown in followership. "There seems to be no disposition to follow leaders," said Bunting. "Clausewitz once said that the most dangerous situation in a military campaign was a thwarted offensive. We are living now in a time of thwarted offensive. I mean the offensive of mind, of intellect; it follows very largely from the arousals of expectations during the Kennedy Administration."

Stanford's President Richard Lyman, 53, a guest speaker at the conference, detected "a pervasive unwillingness to take the time to understand the institutions we have developed. This, as much as actual failure of these institutions, breeds cynicism, or its Siamese twin, utopianism, fills the air with outrage and overloads the courts with litigation."

To Nader, the issue is not lack of understanding but of power. In trying to redistribute power, said Nader, "I start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers." But most people "don't know the rudiments of civic inquiry, and if they don't have a process of learning where to get information, they will reflect the usual attributes of powerlessness: apathy, lethargy, disillusionment, negativism."

There is a tendency to think of leadership only in terms of powerful public positions. Yet, as Time Inc. Editor-in-Chief Hedley Donovan said: "All through our society, in civic groups, clubs, churches, neighborhood associations, unions," there are many who may not be leaders in their jobs but who during "the rest of their time [exercise] a certain kind of leadership respected by neighbors, friends or other members of the community. You get a more intelligent, responsible followership if the followers themselves have experience with leadership."

At the heart of the issue of followership is a circular dilemma: Are leaders responsible for creating followers, or is it the other way around? Some conferees suggested that the process must be mutual. Jersey City's Mayor Paul Jordan argued that leaders must learn "to throw the ball back to individuals." Said Jordan, 35: "I have started to ask citizens to do more, rather than have me come up with all the solutions. The electorate has withered by atrophy."

GANGING UP ON THE MEDIA

A large number of TIME'S conferees condemned the press for overexposing the private lives of public people. Television bore the brunt of the attack, but the print press also rated unfavorable reviews.

"The press," said Florida's Governor Askew, "will build a man up, and as soon as they build him up they have to show he has feet of clay, and they start systematically taking him apart." There is, he lamented, "an unnecessary loss of privacy. I really question to what extent that is necessary."

Agreed Missouri's Governor Bond: "All of us have to deal with what I might call the 'proctologist's view' of a leader. Your basic motives are always under question. If Ben Franklin performed his electricity experiment with a key these days, somebody would say he was getting payola from the key manufacturers."

Minnesota's Speaker Sabo put it bluntly--and perhaps simplistically: "The reporter's prime concern is going to be the conflict, not the consensus, not the new idea. It is going to be the headline that sells the newspaper, or the magazine, or gets people to watch the TV news at night." There seemed to be wide agreement with that view. The press, said Vermont's Governor Salmon, 44, "seems preoccupied with what government does wrong. That contributes to a national malaise of distrust."

At the same time, said Delaware's Du Pont, thanks to TV, "special interest groups such as Common Cause or Ralph Nader's group or the unions or the oil companies are able to block leadership moves more than at any other time in our history." All they need to do, said Du Pont, 41, is to "get on the 6 o'clock news and assert their self-interest."

Some of TIME'S conferees did not consider that a drawback. Said Karen DeCrow, 38, head of the National Organization for Women: "As a person involved in a social movement when it was extremely unpopular, I would like to say Thank God for TV.' "

Does intense press scrutiny help or hinder the leader? "Both," said Maine's Republican Congressman William Cohen, 36. "You cannot achieve leadership without some exposure, some communication with others." But, added Cohen: "The danger is always there that too much sun makes a desert."

CONSTRAINTS ON LEADERS

TIME'S 1974 survey noted that there was no shortage of potential leaders in the U.S.--and elsewhere--but that somehow formidable obstacles seemed to have been put in their path. Apart from the press--if it is indeed an obstacle--what other constraints are there on modern leaders?

To Father Paul Asciolla, 42, a Roman Catholic priest in Washington, D.C., "Things are just too big. The economy is too big. You do not know where to go to get an answer."

Biochemist Stanley Miller, 46, of the University of California at La Jolla, singled out bureaucrats --"towers of Jell-O," he called them. Others were equally scathing in their denunciations. Said Kidder Peabody Chairman Ralph DeNunzio, 44: "Bureaucracy stifles and frustrates initiatives." Developer Charles Fraser, 47, chairman of South Carolina's Sea Pines Co., said he knew his company was in deep trouble when committees of eight--then 16--Harvard Business School graduates began to form "for the simplest tasks."

Police Chief McNamara saw the erosion of authority as one highly significant constraint.

"When I started in police work 20 years ago, no one questioned a sergeant," said he. "Today a patrolman comes up and says, 'Chief, why are we doing this?' We no longer accept authority in the same way that we did. "

Colorado's Lamm was disturbed by the disruptive force of factions--"the civil rights faction, the women's faction, the consumer faction, union leaders. We are umpires, not leaders. We mediate between all those strong factions, but there's no common consensus."

Tennessee's Lamar Alexander discerned "an anti-excellence mood." As he put it, superiority in any area "is considered to be wrong. We are all considered to be equal, and that feeling has been an important depressant on developing leadership."

Noted Gary, Ind., Mayor Richard Hatcher, 43:

"Maybe there is an intolerance of real leadership in this country." Rolling Stone Editor Jann Wenner, 30, made the same point, citing the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Kennedys.

Among all these constraints on leadership, is there a single dominant element? Former FTC Chairman Engman suggested fear--"fear of making mistakes, fear of taking risks, fear of letting the press look over our shoulder, fear of not being successful."

INSTITUTIONS AND VALUES

During one task-force meeting, James Fred Hofheinz, 38, mayor of Houston, argued that "the real problem is not individual leadership but how our institutions are failing." John Sawhill, 40, president of New York University, disagreed. "Institutions are only going to change if leadership is created that can define the need for institutional change."

Which is the chicken, which the egg? Are institutions failing for lack of the right people? Or are the right people not coming along because institutions are failing to develop them? And without the right people, how are institutions to change? Perhaps the answer is that if the right people do appear, it will only be because of accidents of history. TIME'S conferees were not sure.

At the same time that institutions seem to be failing, values are changing, adding to the confusion. Microbiologist Baltimore spoke of a growing battle between a "new" and an "old" ethic in the U.S. "In the old one there is a meaning to the word progress, a sense that growth is important. That ethic is fighting with a new ethic that looks much more at personal relations, at the quality of life and the environment we live in, and mystical values of various sorts." Some argued that despite shifting values, there is still a remarkable consensus in the U.S. on principles and goals. Said Houston Flournoy, 47, dean of Southern California's Center for Public Affairs: "The basic framework of consensus and shared goals--I don't think you can find many societies that have a higher degree of that than we do."

Nevada's Democratic Governor Donal Neil O'Callaghan, 47, was not so sure. "The very lack of common moral consensus forces more and more issues to be taken to legislatures and to courts. Earlier, these things might have been handled more informally, precisely because there was more moral agreement."

Sea Pines Chairman Fraser shared the Governor's concern, particularly in the area of religion. "The decline of a strong ethical sense and the decline of religion as a main force in inculcating values is having dramatic effects, most of them pragmatically undesirable," said Fraser. As Bathory and McWilliams noted, local communities, families and churches once made up "a private order that gave the individual his language and basic values, shaped his affections, trained him in rituals and habits and his sense of the past." But that private order has broken down.

Nader agreed. "The family and other private-order institutions fulfilled a much greater function years ago than now," he said. "Our reliance for a good society has been thrown onto public and private corporations, unions, government [which] are expert at diffusing responsibility and accountability, and are not being touched by the same moral standards as individuals are."

What substitutes are available? New York State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Mattina, 43, suggested the courts, for one. He did not say this was necessarily a good thing, simply that, willy-nilly, it was happening. Howard Swearer, 44, soon to become head of Brown University, questioned whether the judges were comfortable in this role. "Many of them tell you, 'We are dealing with issues we are not prepared to deal with and are not trained for. But no place else are those issues being handled.' "

The schools, too, are under attack. Said Wisconsin's Democratic Congressman Les Aspin, 38: "They are doing a lousy job." Few of the conferees thought that schools ever could--or should--deliberately set out to "train" leaders. "There is something in human beings that is spontaneous, original, peculiar, different," said Attorney Rita Hauser. 42, former U.S. Representative to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. "If we were ever to try seriously to program that, I would be very dejected." Louisville's Mayor Sloane was hard on professional schools. "The leadership potential that an individual has when he goes to one of these schools is snuffed out," he said.

The schools did have some defenders. "I think they provide an environment to encourage people to try out for leadership," said Eleanor Holmes Norton. Wellesley College President Barbara Newell, 47, pointed out that women's schools and black schools provide opportunities for those whose potential might be submerged in institutions dominated by white males. "You find a disproportionate number of women from the single-sex schools going into the professional fields," said she. "I understand that there are certain black institutions that have produced a disproportionate number of black leaders."

What of mentors who catapult proteges into prominence--as Socrates did with Plato, Plato with Aristotle, Aristotle with Alexander the Great? Newell spoke of "the impact of having a faculty member say to a student, 'You are good,' and give him a sense of worth." But Economist Thurow cautioned: "It is a difficult thing to institutionalize. Sometimes you had a mentor, a tutor assigned to you, and it worked; sometimes it did not."

BRIDGES TO BUSINESS

What role is to be played by business? Michigan's Congressman Donald Riegle, 38, saw a need for "a big bridge between business and government, which I don't think exists today. How do you get key business decision makers to think of the public interest? In the end, that's as much the business they're in as this year's profit statement." Gaylord Freeman, 66, director of Chicago's First National Bank and author of one of the working papers, noted that businessmen do not exercise more national leadership because they are uncertain of their role, and often are too competitive to work together. Since management's goal "is to generate the maximum possible profit," Freeman suggested it is up to outside directors to remind corporations of their obligation to the public interest. He added: "I think many chief executives would welcome the board saying, 'Well now, Joe, our profits are pretty good this year; instead of raising the price 15%, why don't we limit that to 8%? Let's not go as far as we could go, even though the market would sustain it.' " Exxon Vice President Stephen Stamas, 45, rejected the notion that the sole business of business is to make a profit--although his own company has not done badly in that department. Said he: "A corporation should involve itself in public interest programs generally. I also believe, though, that the corporation should not get into the business that is essentially political--the setting of goals in our society."

But what about individual businessmen getting into politics? Why do so few of them--as opposed to, say, lawyers--take the plunge? Bunting thought they would be a valuable addition. Said he: "I would put corporate leadership at the top of the heap for sheer talent and brains and industry."

Thomas Wyman, 46, president of Minnesota's Green Giant food company, suggested that money had a great deal to do with businessmen's reluctance to enter public life. "Managers are grossly overpaid in terms of their counterparts in government and the universities and so on," said he. "One result is that a lot of brains have been attracted to that arena." Another reason, said Wyman, is "the general disfavor of business." He added: "Unless and until the business community is prepared to talk about its own imperfections instead of mindlessly defending the institution, business leaders are not going to be acceptable in the larger national arena to the extent that they could and should be."

There is, of course, another problem--a distinct antibusiness bias in some quarters. Pat Buchanan traced this attitude to the press. "Any time business makes the front page of the New York Times, or the TV evening news," said he, "it is a negative story. The cumulative impact turns the country very much against business." Many businessmen respond by sealing themselves off even further from the public--and thereby increasing public ignorance. But growing numbers are trying the opposite tack.

One problem for many business leaders is that their training may be extremely narrow-gauge--not always, but often enough. Said Michael Walsh, 34, chairman of California's Common Cause chapter: "A fellow that is going to become a business leader spends all of his life in the business community," and knows relatively little about other matters, including "some rather complicated social issues." American Motors' Meyers spoke in a similar vein of the need for the business leader to move out of "the black box or cavern in which each of us finds himself."

SUMMING UP

"You know what makes leadership?" Harry Truman once asked. "It is the ability to get men to do what they don't want to do, and like it." A number of TIME'S conferees suggested slight variations. Fellow Missourian Bond defined a leader as "someone who can inspire us to forgo a present good for a greater good some time in the future." M.I.T. Economist Thurow said a leader is not the one who passes out baskets of goodies--any manager can handle that. "A leader has baddies to pass out," said Thurow. "He persuades people to accept a cut in something for the good of the community."

There is, of course, a common feature in all the definitions: the leader often must risk rejection by doing what is necessary; he devalues his leadership if he does things merely because they are popular. Princeton Political Scientist Robert Tucker, author of one of the working papers, noted that Plato made that point in the dialogues. "Plato's politician was saying what the people wanted to hear," said Tucker. "The philosopher was saying the truth, which may not be what the people wanted to hear."

Apart from being something of a Platonic philosopher, what else must a leader be? Many agreed that he must be something of a visionary, capable of formulating long-range goals; at the very least, he should be capable of foreseeing, and acting upon, potential problems. "Unfortunately," said New Mexico's Apodaca, "we have too many politicians who look from one election to the next, rather than to where we might be in 20 years." The leader must also be able to create, or at least preserve, a sense of community, the civic bond that ties together disparate individuals or groups.

The leader must have a sense of timing and of limits, to know when he can press ahead, and how far. Stanford's Lyman quoted from a letter that Thomas Jefferson sent to the president of the University of Virginia: "To do our fellow men the most good in our power, we must lead where we can, follow where we cannot, and still go with them, watching always the favorable moment for helping them to another step."

Finally, the leader must level with those he would lead. That does not mean he must speak every private thought aloud or replay every conversation verbatim. What it does mean is that he must not deceive, mislead or overpromise. Rather, he must point out the difficult choices and trade-offs--for example, as pointed out by Robert Fitzpatrick, 36, president of the California Institute of the Arts, "between more jobs and environmental controls, between welfare programs and controlling inflation."

Are such standards hopelessly unrealistic? Rigorous though the requirements may be, few of TIME'S conferees thought so. One overriding message was that complaints about lack of leadership can mask the failure by ordinary citizens to take responsibility and initiative. If Americans are to have a right to demand more from their leaders, they must give more of themselves. In a democracy, to some extent, all must be leaders.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.