The leaders chosen from below are almost always better than the leaders chosen from above, and there’s got to be a good reason…
From above…
Sycophancy, the powerful will notice who laughs the most, and the loudest, at their usually unfunny jokes and quips. They notice who stays behind after the bell goes to go home, they notice who nods, who never argues, who allows them to preach their view in a workplace as if it were the truth of the subject being argued. How often is the view of the CEO being expressed as if universally and unchallengingly the view of the company and all it’s employees, and how often do we see those employees being shed if they disagree? Power speaks even when it has nothing relevant to say, because it is power, and cannot be silenced, it has a platform and an agenda, it assumes a mandate. Those that speak power to power, rather than truth to power, as Cicero may have done and hastened his downfall, foster the associated narcissism (when you get the idea that you are always correct simply because nobody dares, or is capable to, argue with you) that grows in the mind of the powerful.
Enablement is the process whereby associated people often get promoted because their view aligns with those that have power, this creates echo chambers rather than debate. An idea faces no scrutiny in an echo chamber, so how is this in any way useful? Industries, businesses, and societies, require innovation, yet there is no possibility of innovation in spaces where all are seemingly in agreement, so nothing progresses. All innovation comes from the idea that things can be improved, and in recognising that things are not currently optimal; to solve any problem there must first be the admission that there is one. How could people in power-enabled positions, because of their alignment with the current set of ideas and focusses of power, be expected to change their own thinking, or the thinking of those that empower them, if they are given positions of power themselves? More likely is that they will act as if they believe that the correct path is already being followed. As this phenomenon plays out we see the epitome of dogmatism, the repetition of tactics that have been oft proven to lead toward failure, combined with the belief that the failure which has previously been experienced being only a result of a lack of effort on the part of the previous person in the role. These persons must be evidence-averse since ploughing the fallow field year after year with nothing growing year after year would tell a person open to learning from experience, or data, that any continuation of the ploughing must be a bad idea.
We must recognise that those who seek power are ambitious, never benevolent, and for this reason they should never be allowed to hold power. Power for self promotion, or belief in a right to power, even the over-confidence to think that they may be the answer to a problem that others have failed to solve with no real reason for that confidence, is tyrannical. They would not use power to make any situation better for a company, a workforce, an industry, a sector, or a nation. Clearly they would seek their own prominence and only align with the best direction of the aforementioned if it also served them. This phenomenon is one of the major problems with political power, maybe the worst conundrum that it has to solve. Politicians are persons who seek to be in charge of the lives of others for the simple reason that they wish to direct the finances of the macrosocial world for the sake of the macroeconomic world. A world that will, in time, reward them personally for doing so. I personally am wary of the ambitious, I find them to be the most dangerous people in any structure or group. Take for example the overheard throw-away comment made in the break room at lunch that makes it’s way to the supervisor or manager, we all do it (comment), often out of a temporary anger or frustration. I worked with a loader at and airport in the early 00s that every day cursed the company, yet did the best of all of us at the job. In what way did it matter that he griped a bit? The ambitious persons amongst us would use this, they’d blow his candle out in an attempt to make theirs look brighter.
Another example is that the short stint an MP has in parliament is in many cases merely a precursor to the long relationship they will foster, while in parliament, with a business that has good financial reason to have an advocate in the chamber. Owen Patterson is an example of an MP that has been sanctioned for having this relationship be far too apparent. He will not be alone in having such an arrangement, if we look at where most of our MPs land after their political careers we see that they very often end up in one of two sectors, finance or media. It is no coincidence that they wind up there, those industries make up the politically influential triumvirate of the UK; finance to back the play with capital, media to sell the mistruth as social necessity, and politics to make that which could never be a rational moral object into that which becomes a legal one.
The general voting public genuinely believe in the ideals of the party, the fundamentals that underpin it; Tory voters believe in the liberal ideal that you are a product of your own successes and efforts (and failures), Labour voters believe that you should not be damned for being a product of your circumstances and lack of means, and in Northern Ireland they thought maybe their politicians might actually attend parliament and do what they are paid for. Yet, one only has to live through a few governments to know that, in general, they do what politicians wish to do in the first place, namely feather their own nests, and for motivations I have already highlighted.
From below…
The force of the better argument, the powerless can exert only this according to Habermas (communication theory). It is what a trade union relies on to choose a representative, the candidate stands and is elected by the members to represent them collectively in negotiations where they would otherwise have to individually face a power much greater than them (employer). This elected official must speak consistently the wishes of the membership, not their own personal views, not the corporate-lead mantra, since at every point in negotiation acceptance of the offers from above will be put to a vote and not decided upon by them alone. This is what real democracy looks like in a pure form, whereas what politicians do is to throw forth vague references to what they might do, argue that the other lot are useless whilst highlighting why (and they may be correct in that of course), and once in power are seemingly under no obligation to carry through any single promise that they made while trying to get there. Add to that that there is virtually no mechanism to make them do as they said they would, or anything at all, nor is there any way to remove them for a set number of years regardless of how they vote or act, and politics starts to look very much like the result of a big con job.
Structure any group and recruit for that group and you face making decisions that will have power implications, but drop a bunch of people into a rainforest and a leader will emerge organically that the group will trust the most in the situ. The same will happen in a desert, but the leader may be a different member of the group with different skills. In a tense situation such as a medical emergency another leader may come to prominence, the same could be said if a bomb went of on a street. What I am saying is that leaders are not leaders and that’s it, situations often suit person types, and dictate, if allowed, an emerging structure that is not a result of power from above, not created by power that already exists; cometh the hour, cometh the man (or woman, let’s not be sexist!). IMHO people cannot be taught to be leaders, they can be taught to be functional followers however, and the idea of a leadership course is simply nonsense. Captains of football teams are not usually the best player on the pitch, but the shrewd manager will know that they are the best person to do the job on the pitch that the boss cannot do from the side-lines.
It’s just anecdote, but I have worked in many places and for many bosses, and I’ve been the boss on a few occasions. Many times I’ve realised that the persons in charge at many levels have no clue and no identifiable qualifying criteria to be where they are, other than what we would like to call the faith of those that enable such position that they may achieve something. More likely is that they have happened into that situation for other reasons, dead mans shoes, they nodded or laughed at the right time, they are so feeble that they dare not argue even with a blatant wrong, or they kissed some serious ass. In the Army I had sergeants that I’d follow into a forlorn hope, and some that I wouldn’t follow to the break room. I’ve had co-workers who are the real boss of the department and the boss was just the figurehead that does the monthly presentation. I’ve had subordinates that have had a better idea than me so I’ve acquiesced and seeded power temporarily to them. In fact I think I’ve had so many jobs, and in so many diverse industries, that I may have seen it all by now when it comes to power (though that may be hubris on my part).
My conclusion… power is rarely in the right place, even when it is there will be a power that it is subordinate to that will inhibit it, or there will be others of equal power that dilute it enough so as to make it ineffective. I remain in favour of the force of the better argument..
pinkfloydpsw's Blog 