Download Trofim Lysenko- Leadership Obstructing ProgressV3.2

RUNNING HEAD: INCOMPENTENT LEADERSHIP OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS
Trofim Lysenko:
Incompetent Leadership Obstructing Progress
Nicholas Barlett
Virginia Commonwealth University
INCOMPENTENT LEADERSHIP OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS
Trofim Lysenko: Incompetent Leadership Obstructing Progress
Trofim Lysenko’s leadership over the Soviet genetic science department offers a
powerful cautionary tale for modern leaders that lose focus on a shared challenge. With the
struggle for supremacy between United States and the Soviet Union as a back drop, Premier
Joseph Stalin tapped Trofim Lysenko to lead the VASKhNIL (Soviet genetic science program.)
Lysenko was tasked with the adaptive challenge of making the Soviet Union an agrarian
superpower. An adaptive challenge as defined by Wilfred Drath (2001) is a challenge for which
there are no plans or policies in place. These are challenges that require leadership that is very
focused on the common goal of surmounting the challenge. The Soviet leadership was so
enamored by the prospect of a scientific perspective that was going to prove Communism was
the dominant economic system that they did not accept that Lysenko was a discredited
pseudoscientist. Lysenko’s ability to view his challenge through the political framework as
described by Bolman and Deal (2008) enabled him to gain his position but it also allowed him to
maintain it long after his incompetence prevented him from reaching the common goal. At its
best the political framework allows leaders to be advocates and consensus builders but at its
worst it creates manipulators and con artists (Bolman & Deal, 2008) like Trofim Lysenko. His
compelling personality allowed him build a base of support that included Soviet leadership but
Lysenko’s political leadership drove Soviet agricultural science down decades of dead ends until
he was finally discredited in the 1960’s (Gordin, 2012) . Current leaders can learn from Trofim
Lysenko that changing focus to one’s individual goals over the adaptive challenges that one is
tasked with will ultimately result in failure.
2
INCOMPENTENT LEADERSHIP OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS
Historical Background
The Cold War created circumstances that allowed Lysenko to rise to a position of
authority even though he was incompetent at surmounting the adaptive challenge before him.
Following Joseph Stalin’s rise to power, the Soviet Union desired to stand out to the rest of the
world as a super power. The differences in ideologies between the United States and the Soviet
Union led to a contrarian perspective on many things including scientific perspectives. The
United States and the Soviet Union were flag bearers for capitalism and communism
respectively. At the heart of this conflict was the struggle over which economic system could
best provide for its citizenry. When Lysenko presented the leadership of the Soviet Union with
an agrarian scientific model that was uniquely Soviet, they recklessly supported him (Soyfer,
1994).
In 1935, Lysenko broke onto the scientific landscape in the Soviet Union after producing
larger than usual grain yields by grafting of vigorous roots to the stalks and stems of very
productive plants. Due to his lack of knowledge he misinterpreted the results to show that this
yield would be passed through successive generations of offspring. Some coincidentally good
growing seasons allowed for the successive generations to appear as though they had proven
Lysenko’s theories when in reality all crops saw improved yields due to improved growing
conditions (Soyfer, 1994). Lysenko used his flair for self-promotion to turn this into a public
relations windfall. Soviet leadership was desperate to show the rest of the world that the
communist system could work. Lysenko’s apparent agrarian breakthrough with a scientific
theory that no one else was using allowed him to stand out as a person that the Soviet leadership
felt could allow them to stand above the capitalist systems around the world (Gordin, 2012).
3
INCOMPENTENT LEADERSHIP OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS
Lysenko’s Limitations
The one goal that Lysenko was able to meet was maintaining the position that he was ill
suited to fill. The truly remarkable nature of Lysenko’s leadership was apparent when facing
dissenters. Bolstered by the external disapproval of the international scientific community, many
of his fellow Soviet scientists began to point out the flaws in his scientific understanding.
Lysenko was able to insulate himself with his Soviet sycophants by providing them with
positions of authority within the genetic scientific community. His sycophants made sure that
the political leadership remained convinced that Lysenko was leading them in the right direction
in the face of criticism from outside of the Soviet Union. With the blind support of his
underlings and political leaders, Lysenko was able to quiet dissenters in a variety of ways. Many
dissenters converted to followers because of the overwhelming support for Lysenko’s
pseudoscience (Gordin, 2012). Those who continued to decry the uninformed processes that
Lysenko was developing were moved to work camps and hundreds were jailed as enemies of the
state. It was only because Lysenko was such a great manipulator that he was able to garner the
support that he needed to protect himself from scientific scrutiny for more than two decades
(Soyfer, 1994).
When faced with the adaptive challenge of showing that the Soviet Union was able to use
advanced scientific ideas to make it an agrarian superpower, Lysenko focused on maintaining
political authority. Not only did he fail at providing the agrarian base that was needed to build
the communist ideal that the Soviet leadership wanted, he also depleted the nation’s brain trust.
Pseudoscientists rose to authority while intellectuals were stifled or defected to more progressive
nations. Lysenko’s failures also created conditions that were directly opposed to the challenge
that he had been given. Rather than increasing crop yields, they suffered. His techniques
4
INCOMPENTENT LEADERSHIP OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS
provided no improvements and increased food scarcity, created political discontentment among
citizens. His failure to meet the challenge of finding improved methods of genetic crop
manipulation made Soviet communism seem flawed as an economic system. Lysenko’s ultimate
failure in leadership was that his blind ambition prevented him from seeing that he was working
in opposition to the challenge of making the Soviet Union an agrarian superpower (Soyfer,
1994).
The Political Framework: A Double Edged Sword
Leadership scholars, Bolman and Deal (2008), define the political leadership framework
as a lens that reveals an organization to be a competitive environment with “scarce resources,
competing interests, and struggles for power and advantage.” The Cold War is a prime example
of this concept. The United States and Soviet Union jockeyed for dominance amidst there
special interests and debated the proper method to distribute the limited resources that they had.
It is in this politically charged setting that Lysenko was able to build his own coalition of
supporters and manipulate them to protect him from criticism. Lysenko’s prowess at using the
political frame allowed him to rise to a position of significant authority but because he used it for
his own ends it eventually failed him (Soyfer, 1994). This is the duality of the political frame. It
can allow a strong individual to over reach their natural abilities by gathering the support of
others but if they do not maintain that support then their coalition of support will evaporate,
leaving them with no authority. This is the double edge sword of the political framework
(Bolman & Deal, 2008).
When the Political Framework Works
5
INCOMPENTENT LEADERSHIP OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS
One of Lysenko’s masterful feats was his ability to reframe science as a political issue.
This clouded the facts of the scientific world with the emotional issues of politics. In viewing his
challenge through a political lens, Lysenko understood that he would have to garner support for
his ideas if he wanted to attain more authority. He did this by appealing to the ideals of the
Soviet Leadership (Gordin, 2012). Bolman and Deal (2008) state that organizations are places of
varied views, beliefs and agendas. The Soviet Union during the Cold War fit this concept quite
well. While the Communist regime had been in place quite a while, under Stalin there was a
constant concern over how closely his followers were adhering to Stalin’s ideals. By presenting
a vision of Soviet science that spoke to the ideals of the Soviet leadership, Lysenko was able to
build a coalition that would support him in spite of the shortcomings of his knowledge. With a
view of science that was palatable to the Soviet elite, Lysenko became popular across a variety
of groups. Lysenko’s government support gave him a powerful hold that made scientists who
should know better turn into followers and allowed those that did not know better, disregard all
of the dissent that was heaped on Lysenko from the international community (Gordin, 2012).
This sort of coalition building and manipulation of a base of support is a demonstration of the
power found in the political framework as described by Bolman and Deal . Those who use the
political framework are chiefly concerned with garnering support. Having a larger base of
support is essential because there are limited resources available and without this broad support
one would not be allowed access to these resources for which others are vying (Bolman & Deal,
2008).
When the Political Framework Fails
Lysenko’s use of the political frame allowed him to rise to great standing within the
Soviet scientific community but his continued reliance on it caused him to focus more on
6
INCOMPENTENT LEADERSHIP OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS
maintaining his support rather than the adaptive challenge with which he was tasked. “A fixation
on politics easily becomes a cynical self-fulfilling prophecy, reinforcing conflict and mistrust
while sacrificing opportunities for rational discourse, collaboration and hope” (Bolman & Deal,
2008). Not only was Lysenko able to use his acumen at the political framework to gain support
he was also able to use it to crush dissenters. Anyone who posed any sort of threat to his
authority was quickly dealt with. Within the scientific community this is cataclysmic. The field
of science is rooted in rational questioning and proof. Under Lysenko these pillars of science
were eroded because of his constant threat of retribution. This meant that long after he should
have been figured out as a fraud, Lysenko was able to maintain his base of support (Soyfer,
1994). Bolman and Deal note that one of the main assumptions of the political frame is that
organizations which use this framework are often times places of conflict and competition. This
is necessitated because of the accepted idea that resources are limited and as such people
constantly maneuver to gain access to them (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Lysenko focused more on
this new task of outmaneuvering his competitors rather than achieving the adaptive challenge
with which he had been entrusted. It was only after decades without results that his political
framework failed and his coalition of support evaporated (Soyfer, 1994)
Reasons For Failure
Blind Incompetence
Lysenko’s first reason for failure was the denial of his incompetence to meet the adaptive
challenge before him. British biologist Cyril Darlington described Lysenko as “obviously illeducated, quite shallow, very cunning and a little deranged” (Li, Liu & Wang, 2009). As a
leader, self-reflection does not come easily. It is all too simple to get wrapped up in the
7
INCOMPENTENT LEADERSHIP OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS
operations and technical challenges that leaders confront daily. Due to this tendency, leaders
sometimes find it easier to fake competency so that they do not have to confront the fact that they
are in over their heads (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002). Lysenko’s deluded notion of his scientific
abilities created the circumstances for the second reason that he failed to meet the adaptive
challenge before him.
Turning Focus Away From the Adaptive Challenge
Lysenko’s unwillingness to accept he did not have the faculties to successfully lead
Soviet science to the agrarian Promised Land resulted in him falling back on a skill at which he
was quite good. He turned his focus toward maintaining his authority. Lysenko was able to hold
onto his role for more than twenty years through personal dominance. Wilfred Drath (2001)
describes a leader that displays personal dominance as setting a clear direction based entirely on
the leaders’ view; followers that are committed to the leaders as opposed to the goal and having
the ability meet the adaptive challenges only to the extent that the leader can handle them
himself. Lysenko established a direction for Soviet science that was purely his vision. By
ridding himself of naysayers and surrounding himself with blind followers Lysenko had
supporters that were not devoted to the scientific challenge, rather they were devoted to him.
Stifling Follower’s Capacity to Contribute
What ultimately led to Lysenko’s downfall was the fact that the leadership style of
personal dominance limits one’s ability to meet an adaptive challenge by capacity of the leader
to meet the challenge alone. This limitation would eventually cause everything to crumble
around Lysenko. Without the ability to turn to a follower to help lead the pursuit further,
Lysenko was not able to look beyond his meager knowledge base to meet the adaptive challenge.
8
INCOMPENTENT LEADERSHIP OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS
This meant that his research stagnated and showed little promise of being successful. He was
only able to depend on the stubbornness of the Soviet leadership and his charisma so long before
his inability to meet the adaptive challenge was obvious and he was ousted from his role. Drath
(2001) points out that the personally dominant leader is severely limited when it comes to facing
adaptive challenges because his or her followers are simply that; they follow the direction set by
the leader. Therefore there is no additional perspective or knowledge bases to pull from when the
capacity of the leader is surpassed.
Lesson Learned
While he was able to demonstrate great control over others, Lysenko’s cumulative effect
was to set back the Soviet scientific community for decades. Through his political framework
Lysenko was able to gain the support needed by manipulating his base of support rather than
advocating for reaching the adaptive challenge before him. This was devastating because what
was at stake was which nation had an ideology that could best provide for their citizens. There is
no one that Lysenko could turn to tell him how to meet the adaptive challenge of turning the
Soviet Union into an agrarian super power. When the challenge outstripped his leadership
ability Lysenko did not adapt, rather he turned to focusing on a challenge that he could meet.
This was the individual challenge of using his political prowess to maintain his authority. This
placed his individual goal above the adaptive challenge that he was asked to meet. Those leaders
that have learned from Lysenko’s mistake know that working toward an adaptive challenge with
those that are being led means that the leader now has the support of those moving toward a
single objective. Facing an adaptive challenge with the momentum that is created by having the
support of those that are led is much more powerful than trying to manipulate followers to reach
an individual goal.
9
INCOMPENTENT LEADERSHIP OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS
References
Drath, W. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the sources of leadership. (1st ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gordin, M. D. (2012). How Lysenkoism became pseudoscience: Dobzhansky to
Velikovsky. Journal of the History of Biology, (45), 443-468.
Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of
leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Li, B., Liu, Y., & Wang, Q. (2009). Science and politics. European Molecular Biology
Organization Reports, 10(9), 938-939.
Selya, R. (2012). Defending scientific freedom and democracy: The genetics society of
America's response to Lysenko. Journal of the History of Biology, (45), 415-442.
Soyfer, V. (1994). Lysenko and the tragedy of Soviet science. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
10