There is much talk these days of leadership and the importance of cultivating it. Unfortunately, leadership like individualism seems to have changed in usage over time to a point where their original meanings have become lost or obscured within the new social context in which they are applied. For whereas individualism has become increasingly equated with selfishness, leadership has been increasingly inseparable from egotism. Both terms have succumbed to the ‘me’ generation as the dissolution of the family as the basic unit of society has given way to that of the individual. Implicit in this transformation of values is that the quest for individual happiness and gratification are held above all other responsibilities. The Renaissance humanist position of man being the measure of all things, now becomes that I am the measure of all things. In short, I am the subject to everyone else’s predicate. Individualism devoid of responsibility to others has become a kind of black hole in the social universe.
When examined, traditional concepts of leadership appear to be at odds with current trends towards mediocracy. Tendencies within schools and social media to downplay superior levels of achievement for fear of hurting the feelings of others are constantly apparent. This has manifested itself in the no failure movement and the denunciation of competition as an inherently denigrating process that separates out losers and winners. It seems that part of the emphasis upon self-esteem is to eliminate comparisons of any kind and replace them with a kind of Marxian uniformity as a social ideal.
However, if leaders are not followed for their superior abilities why would anyone follow them unless perhaps leadership is ultimately reduced to having power over others, a power that apparently nobody wants to have exerted over themselves. If we are all leaders what indeed does leadership mean? As so often is the case, words and meanings often give way to rabbit holes of definition as we try to actually define what we are talking about only to find that the lack of ability to establish meaning renders the very concepts themselves to be meaningless.
The philosopher Bertrand Russell has been quoted as having said that fools and lunatics are always certain of themselves whereas wiser people are often full of doubt. From this he reasoned that the inevitable result of this was that those projecting self-confidence and optimism end up in leadership roles despite lacking the core skills and intellectual capacity to fulfil their responsibilities. In keeping with modern psychological profiles, perhaps narcissism can be added to the list of fools and lunatics as containing elements from both categories. Indeed, current studies have indicated that narcissism is on the rise and has indeed been encouraged by the self-esteem movement. Self-love is actively preached and sensitivity as to our shortcomings has been replaced by a virulent attack on those seen to be remarking upon them even when done inadvertently. Indeed, a recent online posting declared the value of going on dates with oneself. If this continues, perhaps reproduction will eventually be reduced to cloning!
Leadership is not only employed in such an entirely ambiguous manner but is in itself not an unquestionably positive quality. Rather, it is one that needs to be carefully scrutinized before serving it up for mass consumption. Traditionally, it was tied to responsibility which was inexorably related to outcomes. Alexander the Great was not great because of what he said he was but as a result of continuous victories resulting in other people calling him great. Had he lost his first battle perhaps he would have been remembered by history and Monty Python as Alexander The Not So Great. Maintaining or acquiring leadership hinges upon building confidence in followers for a leader must have followers or who else is he leading? This confidence is sustained not only by actually securing results but also by securing responsibility for good results and displacing it entirely when results and outcomes are not as desired. Added to this consideration is the ability of the leader to control the truth. In such cases, followers have little to no ability to assess leadership since systemic propaganda undermines the ability access the truth.
Traits of narcissism involve certain protective measures whereby the individual cannot be held responsible because the failure to achieve outcomes are always the result of the shortcoming of others. The leader has been let down but his vision remains intact. Whereas to discerning people with access to the truth this behaviour becomes obvious, to the supplicants this messaging preserves faith in the leader while also enabling the leader to preserve confidence in himself. It is interesting that in the final days of WW II when Hitler was in his bunker, he blamed the German people for letting him down. Their incapacity to deliver victory had nothing to do with his leadership or decisions but was proof of their own unworthiness of his vision for them. So much for self-criticism!
Among the many current examples of this kind of leadership that could be brought forward, perhaps a textbook example can be seen in the case of Donald Trump for whom personal responsibility is unknown and personal superiority a given. When facts are not in accord with his narrative, facts are changed to the point where truth itself becomes questionable. Modern technology in the form of the internet, video games and artificial intelligence have provided opportunities for alternative realities and in so doing we have perhaps passed beyond the world of moral relativism into a world of relative truth. Truth, it seems, is not only ultimately subjective, but is becoming a question of what we wish to make it. In this manner, reality becomes narrative.
Part of the problem with leadership also involves a problem with followship. There is an inherent desire to be led as a means of displacing responsibility to the shoulders of others when situations threaten to be beyond our control or we refuse to take up responsibility. This is indeed a core threat within democracies for as Bertrand Russell also remarked “When the qualities that now confer leadership have become universal, there will no longer be leaders and followers, and democracy will have been realized at last.” Children are quick to take control of situations with a let me do it attitude while impatiently ignoring supervision or instruction to be then followed by a quick abandonment of that control when their efforts fail. This false confidence to take control may have been encouraged at a genetic level for its contribution to survival but it has always been equally controlled and culled by its excesses.
We have seen political leaders repeatedly make promises to their electorate that they do not keep as well as to distort or hide facts that are politically uncomfortable. The same is true of business leaders and is inherent in modern marketing. Indeed we have entered a world where deception, greed and duplicity are not only condoned but actively encouraged and accountability repeatedly denied. Leadership has become increasingly a manifestation of either a love of power for its own sake or a desire for results in terms of personal or corporate financial gains. Evidence of any desire to exercise power to achieve objectives beyond this are hard to find.
One of the history professors that I encountered at university was convinced that Machiavelli’s Prince was a book written not as a political manual but as political satire. Few other historians subscribed to this view and none who had entered either into business or politics. However, within the comfortable confines of his office and the university, it was possible for him to deny Machiavelli’s instructions as being literally true. The Prince espouses a political philosophy whereby morality is turned upside down in the interest of the Prince securing and maintaining control. In this case, what is good for the Prince is good for the citizens insofar as it provides stability but also protection from the ruthlessness of others vying for power. However, the Prince involves a truth as to politics at the international level as well in that the morality required of citizens in one’s own country does not apply to the behaviour between nations or in many instances the behaviour of government respective of its own citizens.
Love of power and the desire to acquire and control it parted company from morality ages ago despite the fact that a pretence of it has continued to be considered to be largely necessary. Rome in its imperialist expansion and constant warfare always presented its actions as being defensive —- a kind of first strike approach in antiquity. Thus defensive warfare is morally acceptable though largely indistinguishable from offensive warfare. In the case of the Prince, power is inherited and as such the manual is targeted not so as to how to acquire power as it is to maintain it. There is therefore a fundamental difference in situations were leadership is a quest for power as opposed to leadership being required to maintain it. There is also a fundamental difference between the quest for power in order to execute a strategy or course of action and the desire for power for its own sake. In politics the former is so often made hostage to the latter.
It is interesting that Winston Churchill came to office as a result of circumstances that he had repeatedly warned of but had been ignored —- specifically that Adolf Hitler played by his own rules and could not be trusted. Chamberlain’s optimistic presentation of his letter from Herr Hitler guaranteeing peace after their Munich meeting has been ridiculed ever since but only as a result of subsequent events. Churchill’s ‘pessimism’ proved accurate while Chamberlain’s ‘optimism’ proved delusional. When Churchill took office he did not promise an easy victory and a sure path to the defeat of Nazi Germany but rather blood, sweat and tears. What Churchill messaged was the necessity of resolve and endurance and not a guaranteed outcome but rather fear of the inevitable and unthinkable consequences of failure. While fear can motivate, blithe optimism invariably incapacitates the perceived need to respond appropriately. Fear also can be exploited through a misrepresentation of the facts either deliberately or unintentionally and while fear can be a motivator it can also have the reverse effect by encouraging people to give up.
What is sadly lacking today in the advocacy of leadership is responsibility and truthfulness. When these aspects are included, it is not something to be taken lightly as it carries great weight with it. When these factors are ignored, it could be argued that it ceases to be leadership and degenerates into pure egotism and delusion. The world’s problems as they now present are enormous with threats of climate disaster as well as nuclear war posing existential risks to human survival. The need to make tough decisions and be held responsible has never been so apparent but at the same time systemically ignored, denied or misrepresented.
In addition to an acknowledgement of responsibility in leadership models and respect for truth, must be added the quality of humility required to be able to admit that we have been wrong and acknowledge the merits of others. Acknowledgement of having made mistakes is essential to the acceptance of responsibility as well as to the adoption of corrective measures to address the situation. On a personal level, the admission of mistakes is utterly essential to that personal growth. This involves a constant filtering of better and worse, more or less, truth and falsehood and those other comparative dialectical measures that relate to standards outside of ourselves.
Perhaps rather than focusing on a world of leaders, the real focus should be on the qualities and attributes that elicit respect, admiration and ofttimes outright envy and resentment. Perhaps an emphasis upon ideals of co-operation and the importance of those behaviours conducive to working with others to solve problems is more important than establishing personal control. We need to look to ourselves to participate in solutions rather than depending on others to solve them for us. Moreover, we need to be acutely aware of our own shortcomings and not attack others for showing them up either through intent of example. Arguably this is not so much leadership as it is genuine citizenship.
Human beings are known for creating their own truths which is one of the attractions of fictional writings both in terms of authorship and readership. It was a shock for me to learn in university that history books were not akin to phone books and also betrayed organizational and inherent narratives. This was not a lesson that I learned at high school where stress was placed on different interpretations or opinions about historical events but not on the presentation of facts in the sources used to debate them. The world as it is seems to be distancing itself ever more from the world we insist on holding on to. Reality continues to give way to narrative both on an individual as well as collective basis. We may believe that we can jump out of a window and by strength of will fly but gravity still exists. Apparently Indians at Wounded Knee had been led to believe by their medicine men that they were impervious to bullets but were quickly proven wrong. The word as we wish it to be may be achieved in part or in whole through effort and determination but not through shared delusion. Reality like Nature has a way of reaffirming itself. Insofar as reality is related to truth, what is true independently of our wishes must be the focus forward.
During the last century there were not only leaders such as Churchill and Roosevelt but also leaders such as Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler. As such, some leaders led their followers to desired outcomes while others laid the foundations for disaster on unprecedented scales. Following leaders involves a giving up of individual power as it does freeing oneself from the burden of making responsible decisions. In so doing, the fundamental issue of autonomy required of classic liberal democracy is undermined and the road to totalitarianism is paved. Given that leadership is a social phenomenon as old perhaps as humanity itself, it should at least be scrutinized as being of value only in accordance with its quality for it is clear that leaders can not only avoid disaster but also pave the way to it.
The current focus on leadership as an unquestionable positive should be carefully scrutinized for if we are all leaders who will follow us and perhaps most importantly who can we learn from. The humility required to understand and accept that some people are more competent or wiser is the first step towards raising ourselves to a new level. The acknowledgement that some people are taller, stronger or better looking or smarter than us is the beginning of discerning what things about us are truly important and within our control and what things we must simply accept. We may not be able to make ourselves taller but we can certainly deal with the relative importance of that respective of other values.
In conclusion I would argue that the value and path to leadership lies in a focus upon the improvement of self. Through the identification of role models who embody those attributes, we are able to strive towards self-improvement. By so doing, we lay the foundations for the respect and sometimes the admiration that are the true sources of leadership. By focusing on qualities to be emulated rather than being the one in control, the process of education is furthered and enhanced. Its current messaging however, is ultimately meaningless. By appealing to everyone’s sense of self-importance while at the same time denying comparative standards of excellence, its emotional attractiveness is apparent. However, in so doing, it renders itself ultimately meaningless and devoid of any rational appeal.