Rick
Out of your two options, a slightly different take. Howard Schwartz
has written an article equally applicable to the rise of a Hitler as
to the rise of malevolent "leaders" in organisations - with a focus on
the ways in which groups collude in their rise and tenure. It offers
one perspective on why we put up with and even reward anti-social
leaders, do anti-social things in the name of the organisations to
which we belong, or keep quiet when anti-social things are done around
us in the name of our organisations.
The Schwartz reference is: Howard Schwartz (1993), 'On the
psychodynamics of organizational totalitarianism', in Larry Hirschhorn
& Carole Bennett, eds., The psychodynamics of organizations
(pp.237-250), Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
regards
Peter Fullerton
Snip:
>This is a dilemma in language...
>
>Either: 1) We have to say that it's not leadership when people follow
>someone immoral. In this option, Hitler was something else, not a
>leader.
>
>Or, 2) we have to distinguish "good leadership" from bad. Thus,
>Hitler may have been a leader, but not a good one.
--Peter Fullerton <peterxyz@ozemail.com.au>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>