Meanwhile, back in the real world (outside Blogville city limits) I've been having an ongoing argument with a friend about the necessity or otherwise of leaders.
Feel free to join in.
It all stemmed from my admittedly facetious assertion (based on long experience of such creatures) that sacking every person in the country who has "manager" in their job title or has attended (or taught) a management training course would be hugely beneficial both to the economy and to the sanity of the nation.
Of course, my friend just happens to be in a management position and - much to my delight - took the bait and we have been arguing about it ever since.
I do love a good rhubarb!
She posits (and despite possessing one of the most formidable intellects I know of, she appears to have learned this from The Niccolò Machiavelli Management Handbook) that human beings are essentially sheep and need herding (yes, she would include herself as a shepherd); whereas I contend that humans are individuals and are created - or at least squirted out of the womb - equal and that no one person has the right to power over another.
Sure, there are submissive and dominant personalities and as long as both parties agree the limits of domination they are quite within their rights to enjoy their own little consensual hierarchy inside a relationship/family; but leadership should never be imposed upon one person/people by another.
My friend contends that people need leadership "for their own good".
Juvenal's phrase "Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?" springs to mind, becoming in this case - in Old Dive's admittedly appalling schoolboy Latin - "Quid ducavi ipsos ducendi?" (Sorry, my textbooks are at home so that's off the top of my head) …
"Who leads the leaders themselves?"
Who guides/constrains them?
Who determines what is for "the common good"?
The leader's conscience?
His or her life experience?
We all have a conscience; we all have life experience.
If somebody aspires to lead others or declares themselves a leader, what - other than their own ego and opinion - makes their conscience superior to the next person's?
Surely the ultimate authority must be God, but …
(a) A leader who states that God has personally guided them has no proof but their own word and if history is to judge is invariably delusional; just look at George W. Bush; and besides,
(b) God is only an authority for those that profess belief in Him. The religious have no right whatsoever to judge or lead those who know there is no God (and vice versa).
So that leaves us with the self-proclaimed leader's own conscience …
This way lies dictatorship.
History (a wonderful teacher from whom we never seem to learn) shows that, however benevolent the motives of a dictator (or even a democracy) might be to start with, those in power - once they achieve "leadership" - will be reluctant to relinquish their position (they are, after all, only human, with all the venality, corruption, paranoia and lust for power that the term "human" infers) and will cling to power using increasingly oppressive measures against the very people they purport to lead.
Power corrupts … Absolute power corrupts absolutely …
However, no leader can lead for long without the consent of the led.
Even discounting legitimate revolution by the people, the human apparatus a leader has to put in place to maintain a position of power will inevitably attempt to topple them and to take that power for itself.
Supporting any leader, from Stalin down to the manager of the local McD is a seething pool of corrupt wannabes and greedy back-stabbers (humanity in all its glory), just waiting for the opportunity to kick off a feeding frenzy and assume power themselves.
Human beings are essentially selfish and power-hungry.
Put any two people in a room together and sooner or later one will attempt in some way - either physically or intellectually - to dominate the other.
Ergo: one person becomes better off and one worse off; the led technically "oppressed" by the leader, who - when let out of the room - will of course attempt to dominate yet more people rather than be led him/herself.
As for democracy, that attempts to prevent one person/faction from assuming dictatorship by applying the division of executive power between divers entities, each of whom strives to prevent ultimate power falling into the hands of the others whilst retaining its own share.
Better than a dictatorship, admittedly, but still - as we see today - ultimately self-serving rather than at the service of the people it rules; each part of it rife with paranoia and the lust to retain power, democracy falls prey to commercial interests and becomes stained by corporate lobbyists and self-interested groups exerting undue and corrupt influence on what are supposedly impartial elected bodies; all to the detriment of the led.
My friend states that Jesus, Gandhi and the Buddha (excellent choices) are her rôle models as leaders to which I can only counter that none of them were leaders in the dominant/submissive sense; none of them sought to dominate and "herd" us; they were all three servants and teachers who only "led" by example.
If people follow their teachings it is because those people freely CHOOSE to do so as individuals.
If somebody chooses NOT to do so they are perfectly within their rights and should not be coerced into accepting the views of others over their own (evangelists take note).
We are not simply arguing semantics as to whether the word "leader" means to lead by example/teaching (which I wholeheartedly approve of) or to lead by domination/subjugation (which I do not - however much it is claimed to be "for our own good").
My friend asserts that people (that's you and me) need to be actively led, to be "herded" in her words; to be directed from above by others who consider themselves our betters.
In the office environment, this means people so ignorant that they would consciously use the words "impact" and "leverage" as verbs (she would not use those herself, but admits to the criminal misuse of "strategic").
She is wrong (OW! … DAMN, you hit hard).
None of us needs to lead or be led by any other person.
It is a self evident truth that any person aspiring to lead others is by definition not suited to do so.
The only morally acceptable form of leadership is that of not seeking to lead but of teaching by example - like Jesus, Gandhi and the Buddha, serving the people; allowing us free choice … not herding us.
Boy, am I going to get slapped down when Ms. Machiavelli reads this! Hee hee.
Sorry for being so boring. My mind wanders like this when I spend too much time sitting on trains.
20 comments:
I am going to print this off and read it today at work - behind my manager's back of course - will get back to you this afternoon!!!
Have a good one!!!!
I want to meet this friend of yours! She seems like a smart girl and I share her views.
Boring? I thought this was very interesting. And I share your views, of course. And it amazes me that you can recall latin off the top of your head.
I went to a Catholic Latin mass every Sunday of my childhood and do not remember a single word of it. (Of course, I was the one sitting in the pew making up stories in my head while the priest was stalking around "leading" us sheep....
Dive,
You are going very deep here. I have a lot of thoughts. I dislike authority period. It is my nature to do the exact opposite of what I am told to do. I remember being told by a religious leader that if "sheep" began to think for themselves they would become lost sheep and wander "off the path". Some of us prefer that path and are considered dangerous. Perhaps the sheep metaphor does not apply to all people. What would a shepherd do with a tiger or a squirrel?
there's a little book called what would machiavelli do i think your friend would be well served to read it. bottomline, unless you are literally a shark, don't play in the shark pool. imposition of will for the acquisition and/or retention of power over others never, never brings lasting success.
Oh gosh - former Rhodesia springs instantly to mind. I agree with you too; so much! Miss Machiavelli is indeed wrong. I somehow knew she would resort to Ghandi; she forgot to mention Mother Teresa.
I so admire innate rebellion while of course acknowledging that much public good is derived from levying, collecting and spending taxes - your work, to wit!
It's interesting how history records some despots and murderers though - from Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin etc. Perhaps some people aspire to be recorded in such a way.
I have witnessed first hand the absolute corruption that power can engender and the havoc and cold, calculating lack of empathy that it creates.
As for a certain bush growing in the wilderness - delusional, yes but victim also to many would-be power mongers, from the expatriates of the two countries he recently invaded but also those terrorised in NYC. Lots of worms will come out of the woodwork in November, claiming responsibility for contributing to his delusions, I think.
This is a brilliant piece my friend. So, I say: hear, hear!!
Hmm, all very interesting. I can't believe you're making me think after a hard day at the office! While I agree with your statement that "no one person has the right to power over another" I've found that in an office setting at least, there really are some people who need to be led. Not necessarily that they are sheep, more that they're lazy SOBs who will do anything to keep from having to work hard, and would rather leave work for others to do while they shop online, send instant messages to friends, etc. (Gee, does it sound like I've had a problem with these sorts of people?) However, I've also dealt with my share of ineffectual managers (or worse; I recently heard the term "pigeon style of management" whereby the manager swoops in every once in a while and shits all over everything), so I really don't have a good solution.
And from whence does your phrase about liking a good rhubarb hail? I like a good rhubarb too, but mainly in a pie with strawberries.
Enjoy your working day in Paradise, Jules!
Joy: I'll have to introduce you, though I'm not sure if I want to be in the same room as two girls that smart!
Yay, Maria. You naughty Catholic schoolgirl! While you were half-listening to someone drone Latin I was having it beaten into my brain day after day. I am of an age where school meant compulsory Latin. Ick!
I must admit it does come in handy for crosswords.
Neetzy: I'm as shallow as they come; I just spend too much time on trains.
Glad to hear you are as rebellious as me, Tiger!
Savannah: "What Would Machiavelli Do"? Hee hee. That reminds me of a poster I saw when Bush invaded Iraq … "Which Country Would Jesus Bomb?"
I always find anyone wishing to impose their will over others does it to mask their own deficiencies. They are usually incompetent and invariably cowards and bullies.
Fuck 'em.
Mme: Ms.Machiavelli and I are both right in different ways. I kinda loaded my argument to fit my side of things.
Rebellion can be good but it can definitely be counterproductive. You are right; we need a society that pays taxes and obeys laws. Luckily the most basic of those laws derive from the common law of people learning to live in groups rather than being imposed by despots.
History is written by the winners. Napoleon was a hero to millions as well as villain. Had he won he would be up in the Pantheon.
History is also biased … When Japan smashed the Russian navy in Port Arthur in 1904, the western world hailed it a brilliant "David v. Goliath" victory. When they did exactly the same to the Americans at Pearl Harbour it became an act of treacherous infamy, yet it was still a brilliant military victory; it is just the winners writing history again.
Thanks for your kind words. I promise to be much less boring when we hit London together later in the month. I can't wait!
Katie: Sorry about the thinking thing. I'll try to post a no-brainer next. Hee hee.
We have the occasional lazy SOB get through the interview process and start work in our office. The only way we lead them is straight out the door.
I have never met a manager I would consider competent - or even necessary.
My own spends most of his time playing golf in China, then comes round once or twice a month and tries to be "funny", asks what we are all doing and reports it to the CEO. His position is totally superfluous to the company.
He also practices "Drive By Management", where - once we have sorted out everybody's workload and responsibilities for the next month he walks past your workstation and fucks it all up, usually with personal projects.
I found a good way of coping with senior management imposing their own conflicting personal crap on the workforce is whenever they ask somebody to do something not agreed with me, that request is emailed to the entire department and to every member of the senior management team. This shames the particular manager into either putting his work in the proper place in the queue or doing it themselves.
Morons.
Rhubarb! Yay!
Theatrical term.
The stage direction "Omnes: Murmur" traditionally requires the cast to look around at one another conspiratorially and to mutter "rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb" in low voices.
It has somehow come to mean a good argumentative debate.
"I disagree what you say but
I defend to the death the right
of say it" Voltaire
Cheers, Anonymous!
It's good to see Ms.Machiavelli has her supporters, too. A one-sided debate is as much fun as a burst balloon.
That kind of leadership would never happen in America...to be led like sheep? oh no no no no. ;)
Oh ho, ho, ho, ho, Rich!
Excellent!
The only morally acceptable form of leadership is that of not seeking to lead but of teaching by example - like Jesus, Gandhi and the Buddha...
amen!
And when I'm in charge, people who use "impact" and "leverage" as verbs will be shot on sight.
Lead me, T … Lead me!
By the way, next time we meet up, let's share a rhubarb. I've never had one :D
Well, I know I'm late but I think some people DO need to be led and I agree with Katie that there are those not responsible enough to do their job if there is no one keeping track.
Sometimes I think I'd be a better housekeeper if someone were to swing by daily and give me a scolding eyebrow. We aren't all the self starters we really should be.
The problem is that power hungry thing. Management is really just a certain skill set that can be used well if used properly (i.e. Good with problem solving, scheduling, or with people). It shouldn't mean they are superior just differently gifted or more experienced.
At my husby's work. The people above him are the non-creatives that couldn't even do the designing that J is so good at. Yet, THEY are the one's calling the shots and giving themselves promotions because they are in management roles. I think it's a faulty system when you have to toot your own horn to be noticed in this society. Plllllllll (Rasberries to that!)
I like your "thinking" posts Dive. My thinker isn't working very well this week, I'm afraid. My brain feels a little dense lately. Maybe it's the heat. ;)
Jesus was the kind of "leader" who washed the feet of his followers and fed them and comforted them. Find a leader like that in today's world, and he/she will be the most unique leader alive.
I go back and forth on this issue—I would like us all to be equal and not need to be forcefully led on one hand. On the other hand, I think the masses are idiots in a lot of cases and need a swift kick in the ass now and then to head in the right direction.
Joy: we can continue today's rhubarb about leadership as you agree with Ms.Machiavelli. hee hee.
Hey, Shan! Yay! Another one for the Ms.Machiavelli team! She'll be pleased with you.
My beef with "management" is that all they are doing is stuff that I would be doing anyway as part of my job and indeed used to before architectural firms started hiring them (in fact I do most of their work for them, they simply re-type it and add their name at the bottom), yet they take most of the company's profits for their wages and perks. They are a totally unnecessary stratum of the workforce (at least in my office) and we would be better off without them.
Plus, they are invariably dorks.
Robyn: Jesus taught by example and by talking to those who chose to listen and allowing them to make up their own minds. If only Christians today would follow his lead.
I used to think the masses - the lumpenproletariat - were a lazy, brainless sub-class, much like the proles in Orwell's 1984. Yet every one of us is born equal. And even a classical education simply makes us different; NOT superior.
I may know more Latin than Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel but come supper-time, it's him who can catch a catfish.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Marx ; natch).
Jesus Christ or Adolf Hitler?
Same Shit different day, surely just varied management tactics / skills?
......I just noticed they also have the same number of letters in their respective names!! maybe they could be Jesus Hitler or Adolf Christ?
Yo, Mike!
I've just got the very disturbing image of Hitler with long, straggly hair and a beard doing the sermon on the mount in typically rabid, shouty style.
UNT BLESSÉD ARE DER GLORIOUS SOLDATEN OF DER THIRD REICH!
Shit, that's going to bug me all day now.
Post a Comment