Discussion: View Thread

Defining Leader(wo)man or Power(wo)man

  • 1.  Defining Leader(wo)man or Power(wo)man

    Posted 03-23-1997 08:54
    Defining Leadership, from the next angle.
    The current thread indicated great leaders to be situation dependent
    leaders. Relatively unknown people suddenly became "supernovae",
    shining bright, sustaining for a while, and later wondering why
    they couldn't repeat the process in a different environment.

    * * * *

    Thesis 1 (for discussion only - not a "proven" statement)
    Given the right circumstances, (almost) anyone can become a leader.
    - The one eyed pig is king among the blind pigs - proverb.

    Thesis 2 (for discussion only - not a "proven" statement)
    Leadership is a _state_ of personality, not a part.

    Thesis 3 (for discussion only - not a "proven" statement)
    Power(wo)man is a self assumed role driven by fear. An inner
    obsession of Power(wo)man to keep "everything" under control.

    Persons with a self assumption (a believe) that they must lead,
    wanting to control everyone else, is what I 'd like to call
    "Powerman" in this context.
    This inner drive has nothing to do with actual ability to lead.
    Sometimes such a person is called the "macho" type. I don't
    like to use Machiavelli in this way. M. just researched and
    reported what he found to work for other people in power play.
    M. wasn't in power.

    ===========

    Powerman (Thesis 3)
    What happens if powerman is put in charge of a well running
    organization? (An analytical person might not touch it very
    much, just tend it.)
    Powerman must demonstrate power, therefore will tell people what
    they should do and how. He knows he knows - being in power
    proves it (for him). Some people in the org. will creep up
    powerman's hindsight, <g> feeding his ego.

    Powerman's conviction that he must lead is stronger than his
    desire to think things over. "Thinkers" in the org. who have the
    vision to see where they will end up with powerman at the helm,
    thinkers will try to influence powerman. But powerman perceives
    this as a threat to his power. Therefore thinkers tend to end up
    where they "cannot cause trouble". <ggg :-(>

    Is there a "right circumstance" for powerman?
    A more or less chaotic company (chaos in traditional view) is a
    superb playground for powerman. He will use the mosaic stones to
    create a new picture. He will put everything/one in its place,
    lubricate the machinery and ascertain there will be no process-
    disruptive thinking. Installing an "idea letter box" helps to
    point to potential trouble makers and also _controls_ the flow
    of ideas to run onto the management's desk. Ideas that do not
    challenge powerman's own ideas may even get implemented.

    I should include the "fear reason here" how Powerman's own fear
    is driving him. To keep this message shorter, I 'll explain this
    if being asked.

    The organization stabilizes, becomes predictable. Shares
    rise with the reduction of personell (removed troubled thinkers
    and other people who prefer quality over quantity). Powerman has
    earned his view as a strong leader, garnishes the salaries of
    those fired + more, sells his stock at a peak and jumps to the
    next occasion.
    "Prove" that he was right tends to follow when - after he left -
    customers leave and shares drop. Note, the action / reaction seems
    reversed. It isn't. It's the reaction delay which makes it look
    reversed. An organization serving the shareholders instead of
    the customers will soon need no shareholders.
    (Thinkers kept their mouth shut in an economy where it takes them
    a year to get another job. Loss of customers is no surprise to them.)



    Circumstances make leaders (Thesis 1)
    Even the best educated person excells only in his fields. In
    other ways, average habitual thinking and behaviour takes place
    elswhere. He will submit leadership role to someone else if
    circumstances demand it. Prof. Math will probably follow the
    experienced mountaineer if caught high up in a snowstorm. (We are
    assuming Prof. Math not to be a "self assumed leader", commanding
    the moutaneer to "remove the storm".)



    Leader as state of personality - thesis 2
    Zwicky and other authors consider struggle in life to be worthwhile
    if struggling to becoming "a whole person". - Not by grinding of
    edges, rather by filling in what is missing - .

    Personality is dynamic, changes as a reflection of environment.
    (Feedback system). Keeping up a positive attitude without fogging
    reality perception can be really tough at times.

    Ability in leading the own person through difficult times might
    be the allround need to be perceived as someone who could lead
    people. May be that kind of "safety radiation" is what makes
    people comfortable to follow such a person to whereever he leads
    them. They trust his personality. They trust his knowhow how to
    find required knowledge when needed. People follow a leader
    without fear. They follow a leader into a dangerous environment,
    which induces fear. They may be afraid of the environment, but are
    not afraid of their leader. They stick to him, and together.

    ***
    Here the circle closes. Powerman thrieves on radiating fear.

    Leader induces trust and respect, without manipulating using "trust
    building measures".

    -----------
    I do not consider the above to be conclusive. Rather a kick for
    more thoughts. If it was lengthy, I am sorry. I'd like to get comments. Thanks.

    Emil Zahner
    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm
    Note: Compuserve webserver is currently giving us a hard time.
    Try again, if you get a "stupid" error message.