The Louis Finkelstein Problem

[This old post, about Steve Jobs, is clearly related to the content here.]

One problem seems to plague many organizations - a sense of current incompetency. For the time being, I'm not particularly interested in this phenomenon when it seems to be endemic to the organization from its origin (e.g., the United Nations), or those situations where the organization seems to struggle from what we might call "founder's hangover," whereby a charismatic leader began the institution in an exciting way and the institution was never able to replace that initial leader (e.g., perhaps, the Israeli government post-Ben-Gurion). The smooth transition, of course, was part of George Washington's great legacy, though we can all acknowledge how difficult such transitions must be.

Instead, I'm interested in a trend I have seen rather often this year, in a day school and a youth group region, whereby things were once quite rough, then they seemed to be going well for a while, and now they're plagued again. Often, whatever happened before the intermediate "Golden Age" is re-interpreted to have been much more positive than it was, which often adds to the problem. This is a different version of the "founder's hangover," one we might call the "redefiner's hangover," whereby a charismatic leader reshaped the way the organization worked and then departed.

It is my conjecture that, more often than not, what is interpreted as being a shift in the fundamental nature of the organization ("now we're on the right track;" "there's been a real culture shift here;" et c.) is, in actuality, merely due to the presence of this charismatic figure. Which is why, for the time being, I've come to call this problem "The Louis Finkelstein Problem."

Louis Finkelstein was, by all accounts I can possibly imagine, the greatest chancellor in the history of the Jewish Theological Seminary. He was a scholar, yes, but, more than that, he was a religious visionary ideally suited to his time. I imagine that, in the years before Finkelstein's ascension to the leadership of JTS, the institution was ... ok, likely even above average. But Finkelstein's leadership - from 1940 until his retirement in 1972 - saw the explosion of Conservative Judaism in America. When we speak about the "glory days" of JTS or the Conservative Movement, we are really speaking about a historical accident (the fluky combination of the growth of suburban Jewish life and a profound need by Jews of all stripes to acculturate as Americans) and the leadership of Finkelstein himself.

I am suggesting, then, that one way to understand the downward death spiral of the movement is to acknowledge Finkelstein's exceptionalism rather than the (perceived?) incompetencies of his successors.

This is, clearly, an elitist, top-down approach to imagining organizations, and it is clear to me, from experience, that such a transformation can be undertaken (and, thereafter, not be surpassed) by either professional or lay leaders. For this reason, among others, it is compelling to me and, perhaps, could free institutions from a constant sense of failure or inferiority. Instead of looking at today's empty glass as a failure, we ought to learn to acknowledge yesterday's full glass as an aberration, a little blip on a mediocre trajectory.

Now, here's the question: do "great institutions" exist? How are they defined? How do we know them when we see them?

Is Goldman Sachs great enough to survive a profoundly weak leader? Or is its greatness defined, in part, by the selection of great leaders time-after-time?

The overarching question here, of course, is this: when succeeding a successful leader, does one have anything to rely on except for his own skills and strengths? Does "a winning culture" exist? How far can it go?