A Link in the Chain: Crisis of leadership or trust?

Is Israel suffering a crisis of leadership? For many, the long list of politicians and public servants under investigation gives a clear positive answer. I argue that our current crisis is not a crisis of leadership; it's a crisis of trust between the general public and the elected officials chosen to exercise authority. The distinction is essential for designing the remedy.

Ronald Heifetz of Harvard University defines authority as conferred power to perform a service. Authority rests on the contract between the authority figure and his or her constituents. It is given and can be taken away.

The commitment of a person in a position of authority - a politician, a public servant, a soldier or a policeman, a rabbi, a teacher, or a mayor - is to serve the constituency and to dedicate oneself to its needs and interests. An authority figure is expected to provide for security and wellbeing, to assign roles and to resolve conflicts. To meet these expectations, the authority figure is given power, status, recognition and financial rewards. This arrangement is based on trust.

Leadership, according to Heifetz, is very different. It is the activities taken to help a group to adapt to the challenges it faces. It is about changing priorities and values through influence and not by coercion. Leaders replace a prevailing set of values and priorities with a new one. They undermine the status quo and thereby en route, inevitably, enhance insecurity.

Based on these definitions, it is clear that Israel is suffering a crisis of trust between its society and elected officials and not a crisis of leadership.

The common denominator of all recent investigations, indictments and convictions is that an authority figures served their own interests before the public's. As a result, they are perceived to have violated the trust placed in them.

This is a matter of perception as much as it is about facts. The directors of the tax authority are perceived to have allowed external influences impact their decisions. The former Chief of the Staff is perceived to have dealt with his stock portfolio on the day the war in Lebanon began. On the same day, the then Justice Minister, Haim Ramon, is seen as having been excited by a short encounter with a young soldier. The Prime Minister and the former Minister of Finance are seen as having amassed personal wealth while in office. Facts notwithstanding, it is perceptions that count.

At the same time, it is clear why there is no 'leadership crisis'. The reason is that there is no leadership by the current government on any major issue. This government is not engaged in any action that will lead to a revisiting of national priorities and values.

Why is there such lack of leadership? There are many possible answers. But Israel's chronic political instability is a chief contributor.

What is the solution to our crisis in authority? The trust between the Israeli public and its elected leaders must be restored. This requires intellectuals, rabbis, reporters, and academics to redesign ethical guidelines for public servants. At the same time, the investigations, indictments and convictions provide clear red signals to any authority figure who lacks moral and ethical clarity that law and justice will prevail.

This is the hidden message and the promise of the latest events. They will not unleash leadership. However, trust between the Israeli public and its officials, based on clearer ethics, may emerge.