Rol--
Doc's diatribe follows:
In much of western tradition, the leader was "chosen" by God (god) to rule
over others (to have authority over others). This is not quite the same
as "divine right," but divine right descended from this belief.
The hierarchy almost always started with a supreme being (or pantheon of
beings) who selected the leader. In many cases, this leader exhibited
those characteristics that Niccolo so aptly described in "the Prince" for
his divinely selected Medici lord and master. (Often power, wealth,
authority, sociopathy and family connections were fundamental to being in
God's graces and to becoming a leader).
Syncophants (people who genuflect more readily than others), natural born
lieutenants and others who found (as our friends in Chicago call it)
"clout" or power by standing in the shadows (or reflections, if you're
inclined to mania) of the GREAT MAN, find themselves institutionalizing
the process that creates the aura of authority around this person in order
to maintain their own "shadow clout." Chicago is a place where you either
have clout; you work or are related (nearly the same thing) for someone
with clout; you vote or support someone with clout; you know someone with
clout (or who works or is related to someone with clout); or--you simply
are "cloutless." Without clout, you'll never be a leader in Chicago.
(Unless you can start your own streetgang and create clout out of the fear
and despair of the local citizens -- this was also a highly respectable
process in medieval times (how many royal families started out this way?)
and the industrial era.
In the western tradition (and the cultures of a few other "highly
developed" cultures), hierarchy grew from this "pack" instinct to follow
the Alpha (even when the alpha was really a beta -- sort of the "lamb in
wolves clothing" turnabout). We all have seen the "leader" who couldn't
lead his way out of a brown paper bag (as we reminded young "leaders" in
my youth).
It just so happens (quite coincidentally, I'm convinced) that a person
with good management skills who also emerges as a leader ends up in the
role that begs for such a person. But, in order to balance nature, the
leadership emerges only occassionally, and the rest of the time this
"hierarchical leader" is simply fumbling around like everyone else (though
he/she has learned to dissemble successfully, and acquired enough
management techniques, to keep most everyone else guessing).
I've had a great opportunity to work for some excellent managers, in
positions of role authority, who were often able to supply purpose,
vision, energy (leadership) and communicate these effectively. They were
also paternal, to some extent, in that they "nurtured and cared for" their
subordinates. Many of these subordinates (myself included) felt a great
deal of loyalty, respect and affection for these people (and it's so easy,
under the influence of these emotions, to muddle all of these
characteristics into one concept--leadership).
I agree with John Dentico, in most of the posts of his that I've had the
opportunity to read. I think that Rost has differentiated quite well
among the various characteristics that are in place. These (in my case,
all) men exhibited a number of laudable (I won't mention their less
desirable ones) characteristics most of the time . . . characteristics
like intelligence, deep knowledge, mastery of their discipline, systems
thinking, understanding of personal capacity (their's and their
subordinates'), wisdom, affection, people-skills. But the edge of
leadership came from the sharing of purpose between us and them. Without
the shared purpose, it would not be as easy to follow them (which is why
people can only lead those who want to be lead--those who share the
purpose).
What I think is that it has become fashionable to style one's self as a
leader--and for academics (and their left-handed cousins, the business
consultants and psychologists) to write reams and reams about leadership
attributes, characteristics, methods, processes, et al. As always, we're
stuck with our language--with semantics--with the challenge of creating
shared meaning.
The importance of all of this resides, I guess, in what we think will
happen to people as they develop their own capacity for power. Living, as
I do, in the small town atmosphere of a State Capitol, I see the political
leveraging that goes by the name leadership. In businesses, religion,
schools and government I've seen the coercive or intimidating power-play
that goes by the same name. I've watched paternalism at it's best (the
kind that makes you feel dependent and slimed at the same time)--under the
guise of leadership.
In the council circles of Native American peoples (and the town meetings
that happened -- and still do, in some cases I'm told -- in New England),
leadership emerged as a process of influencing others without authority,
without recourse to the powerful position or hierarchical role. Indeed,
these trappings (of political power; intimidating physical strength;
control over $$ and prestige; force of arms; etc) will always skew the
outcome to one pole or another as people respond to the relationships that
occur within this environment. In the council circles, women and men
could speak their heart--in the Quaker meeting, men and women could
influence the community life without any more or less authority than their
own authenticity, their personal vision and the purpose that they
articulated to the community or people with whom they spoke.
So, Rol, as you can see, I'm simply stating that "hierarchical" and
"leader" are mutually exclusive within the meaning that I've constructed.
thank you for your response, and for this opportunity to share my thoughts
with you. I apologize, in advance, for being so obtuse.
regards,
Doc
-- "What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think things are." -EpictetusThresholds--developing critical skills for living organizations Richard C. "Doc" Holloway Olympia, WA ICQ# 10849650 Please visit our new website, still at <http://www.thresholds.com/> <mailto:learnshops@thresholds.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>