As so many people do, I owe a lot to Lee. To start with, Lee hired both me and my wife at a time when it looked like a cross-country commute was the most likely outcome of our combined job search. Any academic couple can appreciate what that means. But I have also learned a lot from simply watching Lee work.
By any measure, Lee was an incredibly productive man. He published countless articles, many in the top journals. He was the sole editor of the top political science journal, The American Political Science Review, for six years. He was also a gifted administrator as a dean, as a chairman who built the political science department at GW, and in numerous other capacities.
How he could do all this was a bit of a mystery. Walking into Lee’s office, one would invariably be greeted by electronic music that reminded one of the reasons the term “eurotrash” was invented. Usually, some web-site would be open that displayed the latest on cycling (gear), GW basketball, dogs, cats, cakes, or whatever random turn the lunch conversation happened to have taken. Anyone who has ever had the pleasure of having lunch with Lee will remember what a fountain of random knowledge he was.
How can a man who seems so devoted to random stuff be so incredibly productive?
I wish I knew the full answer to this but I do know a couple of things. First, Lee was a better writer than 99% of political scientists. Some may deem this faint praise. Either way, it helped him tremendously as an editor and a researcher and is one of the reasons he has so many happy co-authors (myself included). Lee knew not just how to write well but also recognized bad writing instantaneously. There was simply no way to mask muddled thinking with elaborate prose.
Second, Lee was incredibly efficient in what he didn’t do. To start with, he hated meetings and found them hugely unproductive. So, he simply cut them. This trend continued after his reign had ended. An average year at GW would have about 2-3 full department meetings, which would last for about an hour each. And, yes, a large academic department (about 40 full-time faculty) can function perfectly well without meetings. He also didn’t pick fights or start the type of silly rivalries that are so common but so unproductive in academia.
Third, Lee had an amazing ability to go to the heart of any matter instantaneously. I remember the few meetings where some controversial issue arose. Inevitably, Lee would remain quiet until at some point all eyes eagerly looked in his direction expecting a judgment. The judgment was always short, definitive, and considerate of opinions in the room. He did the same as editor and researcher.
Most importantly, Lee set an example that one can be a great researcher and administrator while also being modest, a terrific colleague, and an altogether nice guy who has interests outside of his profession. The diversity of his interests kept him going in his profession until his very last days. Like John and Eric, I was lucky enough to see Lee last week. We discussed cakes, unlikely birthing and wedding stories, and other random issues until summoned to leave so he could discuss some revisions with a co-author. Typical Lee.