The straight chiropractic community has always had a dearth of leaders. When B.J. was alive and doing the work of 20 people, it was not so noticeable. After his death it has become painfully clear that there is little vision among the so-called chiropractic leaders. There are definitely exceptions, some very visionary people. But, for the most part, we do not choose leaders with vision or more important, those who will stretch our own vision. Reggie Gold is perhaps the greatest example of a leader who has demonstrated vision over the past 30 years, and a desire to stretch ours. There have been others. Why the present lack of leaders with vision? I think part of the reason is not necessarily the people but the nature of chiropractic today. Chiropractors are being told what chiropractic is by the accrediting agencies, by the schools, by the national organizations, by the state and federal government and by the public. With all that pressure and brainwashing it is difficult for chiropractors to “think outside the box.” Without outside the box thinking, it is difficult to develop a vision and virtually impossible to stretch our vision. As far as straight chiropractic is concerned, if we think the same way as other groups within the chiropractic profession we will have no more vision than they do. Is there any argument that the ACA with its medical model and the ICA with its traditional model of chiropractic have shown very little vision, at least in advancing the profession? I am not talking about advancing the well-being of the chiropractor. I am talking about advancing what we commonly call TIC. If they had vision there would have been no need for an FSCO in 1976. That is why some leaders in our profession have avoided association with other groups within the profession. Everything they do reflects a different vision of what chiropractic should be and is not in agreement with our vision. We must even question joint participation in apparent innocuous activities if we recognize that they represent actions pursuing a different vision.
There are two approaches, I guess you would say there are two ideas of leadership. One is to embrace a vision far ahead of what we can presently see. By this I don’t mean an hallucination like “the whole world under chiropractic care, no more medical doctors and B.J.’s utopia.” That is not vision, but a pipe dream. I mean a realistic vision, what we have termed objective straight chiropractic: people getting regular, lifetime family care so they can express more of their inborn potential in all areas. This attracts visionary people, true, they are not the majority but they are the potential movers and shakers, those people who can truly change people’s thinking or give them a greater vision. This person is out front, ahead of us, challenging us, irritating us, dragging us along (like the cooked spaghetti analogy). This person is not standing among us in his or her thinking. He or she is thinking ahead of us. That person makes us better chiropractors. He is not always popular, especially among the masses.
The other approach is to have “leaders” who represent the thinking of the masses. They want acceptance, to be popular, to have the majority like them. They want to get along and “work” with everybody. Unfortunately, these are the type of “leaders” we have in state and federal government and we may be following that thinking in the straight chiropractic profession. They are more politicians than leaders. That is not the type of individual that stretches an organization’s, group’s, movement’s or country’s vision. It is a safe and easy position to take. It may even be the best way to attract more people to a movement. Take a stance that is comfortable for the majority rather than one that will make the majority uncomfortable or heaven forbid, make them think about who they are, what they are about and where they are going as individuals or as a group.
Another problem is that vision is easily lost. The older you get the more you want acceptance, the status quo, harmony, no one rocking the boat. That is the worst part about the traditional chiropractor. He is stuck in 1923 chiropractic, the cure for the cause of all disease, in a 2003 world. Experience and years of wisdom are valuable to any movement. But, at the expense of vision, the price is too high. With few exceptions, people in practice for years are thinking about their future, their comfort, their ease, their well-being. They are not the leadership types. Leaders get shot at first. People who are looking to retire or thinking about retirement are not the material of visionaries. People starting out with a vision of what chiropractic can be 20 years from now are the visionary leaders. There are no easy ways to determine who is a leader, who has vision. It’s mostly trial and error. But when we identify those people with vision, we need to nurture them but not dim their vision. We need to encourage them and overlook their youthful impetuosity. We need to be extra gentle in checking their slipping. (We in the straight movement tend to do just the opposite…”stragglers will be shot.”) I believe we have seriously hurt and probably turned off some people with great leadership and vision because we did not allow them to make mistakes. We older chiropractors have driven them from positions of leadership because we were unwilling to allow them to learn by their error and to give them latitude on non-principle issues. We need to teach them principles of leadership that will enhance their vision, not principles of management which shuts down vision. Unless we put these people in positions of leadership, there will be no vision and the profession will perish. V18n3