Transformation of Leadership Annihilation of Leadership: Nietzsche’s Prospective

International Leadership Conference
International Leadership Association
14 November 2009

Introduction: Nihilism Explained

Nihilism’s dimensions are much broader than the anarchy and destruction of Russia during Pisarev’s and Nechayev’s time. In the modern time nihilism has come to suggest a mood of despair, a sense of emptiness and meaninglessness, a feeling that life finally ends in the nothingness of death. It has also come to mean that moral norms cannot be validated, that relativism and subjectivism render all statements about truth suspect and untenable. In this sense nihilism is an attitude holding that traditional beliefs and values are not founded on any absolute or objective truth, that indeed there is no final basis for making distinctions between good and evil. It gives rise to a feeling that everything is permitted, giving justification to all forms of violence. Such violence is usually accompanied by a sense that life is running down to the nothingness of death, and one has to get whatever one has to get now. The rational behind such acts is that if death is a great nothingness that finally negates and engulfs us all, and if there is no ultimate center for continuance of human existence, then why bother to be civil? Instead pleasure born of despair becomes the primary factor in life. Indifference then becomes a major expression in such forms as boredom, emptiness, purposelessness, despair, resignation, and futility.

Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones but by extreme positions of the opposite kind. Thus the belief in the absolute immorality of nature, in aim and meaninglessness, is the psychologically necessary effect once the belief in God and an essentially moral order becomes untenable. Nihilism appears at this point . . . because one has come to mistrust any ‘meaning’ in suffering, indeed in existence. One interpretation has collapsed; but because it was considered the interpretation it now seems as if there were no meaning at all in existence, as if everything were in vain (The Will to Power, 55).

Nietzsche and the Death of God

The question of nihilism for Nietzsche was a result of his lifelong philosophical quest for the meaning and value of the human existence. He was one of the first philosophers of the modern age to point out that the “psychological state of despair” and the “feeling of valuelessness” (The Will to Power, 12) is at the heart of human existence.

The Gay Science, Nietzsche captures the essence of nihilism through his statement “God is Dead” (125). What does Nietzsche mean by that statement? One could suppose Nietzsche is only expressing a personal opinion of his atheism, a disbelief in the existence of God. But is that what it means? In the fifth volume of the The Gay Science he adds “The greatest recent event – that ‘God is dead,’ that the belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable – is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe” (343). From this statement it becomes clear that Nietzsche’s pronouncement of the death of God is not just a matter of personal opinion of atheism but of an event, “which is beginning to cast its first shadow over Europe.” It appears that Nietzsche means the death of the Christian God. But is this just a theological statement of the demise of the Christian God? “God is Dead” for Nietzsche does not mean the demise of the Christian God but “God” in the broadest sense of the term. In Nietzsche’s thinking “God” and “Christian God” are used to designate the supersensory world in general. “God is Dead” means that the metaphysical world of ideas, ideals, and values is no longer alive and that metaphysics is thereby at its end. It should be added here that the God whose demise proclaimed stands not only for the Judeo- Christian God but for all other Gods as well. He does not dispute the decline of the Christian God, but the world “God” embraces above all recognition of the decline of the authority of a supersensible world. In the highest instance, God is synonymous with the transcendent realm of metaphysical ideas and ideals from which ever since Plato; the sensory world of human experience was thought to derive its significance. As Heidegger writes:

Nihilism does not rule primarily where the Christian God is disavowed or where Christianity is combated; nor does it rule exclusively where common atheism is preached in a secular setting…. “God is Dead’ has nothing in common with the opinions of those who are merely standing about and talking confusedly, who “do not believe in God… (It denotes) the supersensory world, the ideas, God, the moral law, the authority or reason, progress suffer the loss of their constructive force and become void (65).

Nietzsche’s Moral Skepticism

Morality can be separated into three main strands: the good, the right, and a general understanding of value according to Nietzsche. He shows what we call ‘morality’ emerged from genealogy precisely because it traces the moral version of each strand back to pre-moral sources. If our moral conceptions are seen to have evolved from more primitive conceptions which we do not consider to be moral, then this would call into question the independent validity of those moral beliefs. This idea is raised not only in the Genealogy of Morals but many places in Nietzsche’s writings. Genealogically speaking not only have our concepts evolved from ones that had a very different meaning, but this makes us realize as well that we are conditioned to our thinking by historical forces of which we often know nothing. The conventions and conceptual structures that we inherit from past generations dictate to us our possibilities of comprehending the world. Through historical analysis Nietzsche removes all distinction between morality and custom. For Nietzsche, to behave morally is to obey a certain code that is to follow a custom. What is good for the community is considered good and what is not is considered evil. To be moral, virtuous, or ethical is nothing more than obeying a long-established law or tradition. Whether one obeys gladly or reluctantly is of little importance, what is important for the community is that one obeys:

He is called ‘good’ who acts according to custom as if by nature, as the result of a long inheritance, and therefore easily and gladly… To be evil is to be ‘not bound by custom’, to have bad habits to fight against tradition, however reasonable or stupid this tradition may be. (Human, All Too Human, 96)

Nietzsche Final Philosophy of Overcoming Nihilism

The positive aim behind all Nietzsche’s inquiries was to establish a new meaning for human beings in a world that was becoming meaningless. Although Nietzsche proposed answer to the problem of nihilism – the creation of new values – was a task he did not complete, he did leave us with his monistic alternative and replacement for God. In his proposed creation of new values – his vision of existence characterized asWille zur Macht or ‘will to power’. It is this principle that underpins his thinking on subjects like culture, art, morality, philosophy, and religion. Will to power provides continuity between his earlier and later writings, despite the fact that this concept did not appear until Zarathustra. Will to power provides a new and interesting perspective on human history and culture, as well as provides the new Weltanschauung upon which the post-nihilistic future would be built. As pointed out the idea that ‘God is Dead’ is not simply theological – or anti- theological – statement, but is primarily a cultural one, and idea with far- reaching cultural and social implications. The bifurcation of existence into ‘mundane’ and ‘transcendental’, ‘worldly’ and ‘divine’, ‘appearance’ and ‘reality’, ‘becoming’ and ‘Being’ conjoined with the understanding that all that is good, meaningful, worthy, and real has its source and origin in that which somehow transcends this ordinary world and life, had, according to Nietzsche, been undermined through the pursuit of one of the West’s highest values; truth. Truth has won but the consequence is that “the highest values devaluate themselves” (The Will to Power, 2). The source of truth, the ‘real world’, has been negated by truth. What, then, is the status of that world previously judged to be an ‘appearance’?

Nietzsche replies:
We have abolished the real world; what world is left? The apparent world perhaps? … But no! with the real world we have also abolished the apparent world! (Twilight of the Idols, iv).

The ‘apparent’ world is the only one; the ‘real’ world has only been lyingly added. (Twilight of the Idols, ii).

The Cosmic Order Conclusion

Nietzsche saw the world as chaos:

The total nature of the world is … to all eternity chaos (Gay Science, 109)

With the absence of an Absolute God he feared that the world simply fall apart. With the ‘death of God’, the leader and the resulting disappearance of the ‘regulating finger of God’, the regulating leader, humankind needs to fix its own goals. Unless human beings willfully bring order into this world, the world would go into a complete chaos. His fear shows that Nietzsche was still working under the hypothesis of two-world doctrine? If there were no Absolute God or Leader to bring order to ‘this’ world, this would be chaos.

But the world of phenomena is chaotic only in comparison to the supersensible, is this world still without order? Why do we need something to bring order? Isn’t order the very nature of the cosmos? Is it human beings that are disorderly or is it that very nature of the universe is in disorder?


Heideggar, Martin (1982). “God is Dead”, The Question Concerning Technology and other Essays. Translated Lovitt, W. New York: Harper Perennial

Nietzsche, Friedrich (1996). Human, all too human. Translated Hollingdale. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nietzsche, Friedrich (1974). The Gay Science. Translated Kaufmann, W. New York: Random House.

Nietzsche, Friedrich (1967). The Will to Power. Translated Kaufmann, W and Hollingdale, R. J. New York: Random House.

Nietzsche, Friedrich (1969). Twilight of the Idols. Translated Hollingdale, R. J. New York: Penguin Books.

Integral Entrepreneurial Leadership Builds a Better Idea

As companies seek more and better ideas, Integral Entrepreneurs have an opportunity to reinvent the innovation process and, by enabling people to collaborate, a integral part of the engine for growth.

Innovation in traditional large organizations has always been treated like gold, hidden deep inside secret vault like labs and protected from everyone except the researchers and organizational executives. When products or services emerge from the labs after years of development and historically just one in a hundred emerge and moreover most of these products and services fail.

Faced with this lack of productivity, along with increased competition and shrinking product life cycles, CEOs are no longer willing to rely exclusively on their internal labs. Asked in a recent IBM survey to rank their most important sources of innovation, CEOs placed internal R&D labs eighth out of nine, far behind the general employee population, business partners and customers. But only half felt that their organizations were collaborating beyond a moderate level. Worse, in another survey by The Boston Consulting Group, nearly half of executives said they are dissatisfied with their companies’ investments in innovation.

Out of all this dissatisfaction emerges a tremendous opportunity for New Integral Leaders to use technology as the glue for a new, more distributed innovation process. The CEO wants to invite customers, suppliers, independent innovation mercenaries, even competitors into the innovation process. But if these groups can’t effectively communicate, collaborate and share information, this new process will be less productive than the old one. Integration of data, of people, of internal and external organizations is critical, according to nearly 80 percent of the CEOs surveyed by IBM. Yet fewer than half say their organizations have adequate technology integration to support innovation.

There’s a job here for the New Integral Leader beyond providing the glue gun of integration. With a process that is becoming technological-intensive, why shouldn’t Integral Leaders design and own the process? So far, however, there is little evidence that New Integral Leaders are driving the innovation train. “Information Officers and Technology Leaders are the caboose,” says Jeff DeGraff, associate professor of management education at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. The Chief Operating Officers and chief R&D officer have a vision, they appeal to the CEO and they all craft the innovation strategy in an offsite. Then they appeal to the New Integral Leaders within the Organization to support this vision and innovation strategy.

Yet with their reliance on the New Integral Leader to enable a broader, more global innovation process, New Integral Leaders may not be able to develop and maintain a long-term competitive advantage in innovation unless the Integral Leader plays a bigger part in developing the strategy as well as executing it. “Innovation more often expresses itself on the revenue side of the income statement, and Leaders have a historical bias toward the cost side,” says Robert Austin, associate professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. “That has to change.”

The increased emphasis on collaboration, process standardization and integration will test New Integral Leaders’ ability to lead process change in an area of R&D where they have had little, if any, involvement: the research part of early idea exploration and more free-form experimentation. First, they need to figure out how Leadership can enable many groups to communicate and collaborate without creating a management nightmare. In doing this, Integral Leaders need to create and support standard processes for innovation so that this newly expanded and connected network doesn’t crush productivity. In a recent survey by research company Aberdeen Group, more than 80 percent of business executives identified process definition and standardization as an important strategy for improving their product development performance.

In organizations where innovation is a critical part of success, the need for greater involvement will give the New Integral Leaders more knowledge of the innovation process than any other leadership level executive. Whether that translates into a strategic voice in the market direction of the organization will depend on the Leaders’ skills, their personal relationships with their CEOs and these CEOs’ own views of the strategic value of innovation, collaboration and technology.

How the Innovation Process Is Changing

It’s clear why organizations are opening up their innovation processes to just about everyone: financial risk. “Today, it’s not uncommon for a competitor to put your product in a lab, reverse engineer it and have a competing product on the shelves in six to nine months,” says Dan Staresinic, global marketing director for consumer products at UGS and a former product supply manager at Procter & Gamble. Opening up the innovation process to outside collaborators hedges the risk of shorter product life cycles by putting more ideas for products into the pipeline. “You want to lower your competitive exposure by having many little investments rather than a few big ones,” says DeGraff. “By doing that, you also maximize your opportunities for new breakthroughs because you’re speculating in many different areas.”

But by expanding the innovation process, organizations expose themselves to a different kind of risk: management complexity. For example, inviting customers into the product innovation process means a potential avalanche of data that needs proper distribution and analysis. According to research company Forrester, 95 percent of grocery shoppers said they’d be willing to test new products and provide feedback to consumer packaged goods companies. When hundreds of millions of consumers push the “contact us” button on your website, you need mechanisms for sifting through the data and routing it to people who can interpret it and respond. And response time is critical: Almost all respondents said they would be more likely to buy from companies that reply to their queries quickly.

The stakes are even higher for new leaders when you invite contractors into the process. They don’t just need to connect and pass data; they need to collaborate with internal employees and each other to avoid duplicating work and to contribute to projects that they are jointly assigned. “The level of complexity is increasing immensely because you now have to vet all these different ideas and share information with people around the world,” says Robert Cooper, professor of marketing at the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University.

If not managed well, all these ideas can bog down the R&D process. DeGraff observes that companies can easily become paralyzed by all this creativity and remain mired in early-stage experimentation that leads nowhere.

Addressing this issue requires Integral Leaders to take enterprise integration to a new level. In a study of 1,000 companies, the consultancy Booz Allen Hamilton found that only 94 were consistently more profitable than their competitors while spending less on R&D as a percentage of sales than the industry average. Those 94 have one thing in common, according to Kevin Dehoff, a vice president at the consultancy: high levels of cross-functional integration and collaboration especially among groups that deal with customers such as sales, marketing and customer service. “R&D could come up with the greatest mousetrap, but if they don’t understand customer requirements then the best mousetrap won’t translate into better business performance,” says Dehoff.

The advantage for highly integrated organizations is evident in the returns from standardizing and automating the development part of R&D, product development, on which vendors and Integral Leader have been working for years. Aberdeen has found that automating product development reduced product costs by 17.5 percent, cut design cycle time by 25 percent to 30 percent and reduced product defects 12 percent.

Of course, product development is focused on speeding a known quantity, a product design to market. Experimentation is harder to standardize and automate. And Leadership tools that support research are less well-developed, observes Mike Burkett, a vice president at AMR Research. Yet with better records of past experiments, researchers can avoid dead ends that have already been explored, as well as find information they can leverage and reuse. New Integral Leaders can also reduce experimentation costs by replacing tests such as chemical explosions or car crashes with virtual versions. “IT can drive down the cost of trying things, which speeds up the process and lets you iterate more than before,” says Harvard Business School’s Austin.

A New Role for Integral Entrepreneurs

A bigger issue for Integral Entrepreneurs than the deployment of technology that supports innovation is the role they will play in improving and managing the innovation process. Innovation has been the province of R&D, with Leadership in “an optimization role,” says DeGraff. “[Integral Leaders] have been trained to eliminate waste, and that’s become their natural focus.”

But incremental efficiencies aren’t enough in the age of outsourcing and offshoring. When CEOs can pack up a process and its organizational Leadership and ship them to lower-cost destinations, they are less likely to view process improvement as a route to success. The gulf in thinking between Integral Leaders and CEOs shows up in a recent survey by consultancy McKinsey, in which 43 percent of technology executives said that automating processes is the best route to improving operational efficiency, while the leading response among business executives was improving economies of scale.

Integral Leaders need to shift their emphasis toward breakthrough innovation, especially in processes that increase revenue, like those directly linked to customers. “If you can improve the customer experience, that’s good,” says Austin. “If you can contribute to that improvement in ways that customers are willing to pay for, then that gets you and the company farther.”

The advantage Integral Leaders have of being able to see across all the major processes of the business should enable them to become innovation leaders, if they can learn to think big. “[Integral Leaders] have to come to the boardroom with a sense of destiny and sell their knowledge and their vision,” says DeGraff. He recalls a recent strategy meeting with a client, during which one of the organization’s integral Leader’s demonstrated an expert knowledge of the business and had unique insights on the direction of the organization. The problem, says DeGraff, was his focus on making operational improvements and cutting costs instead of how his department could be used to capture these growth opportunities for the business. “The data to identify new markets existed and the [Integral Leader] was fluent in it. He just had never seen his job as helping people [interpret] trends about where the markets were going to be. He didn’t have a story with a sense of destiny and a point of view about those new markets.”

It’s time for all integral entrepreneurs to get a sense of destiny.