And: Why Not Everybody Should Be a Leader
We seem to have created an unhealthy relationship with authority — often vocally rejecting it in our public discussions (whilst all-to-readily submitting to it in our daily lives). Our undisputed starting point seems to be “anarchic”, i.e. fueled by a belief that any exercise of authority is illegitimate. Authority is often simplistically equaled with unilateral control, rather than — and this is where “authority” stems from — superior knowledge or craftsmanship.
So, why do people reject authority? And why is the discussion very often so angry and ideological? We might want to unpack the problem from a number of perspectives.
I reckon the first point is, evidently, that many feel exposed to an immature use of (positional) authority by “bosses” in hierarchical organisations. Some superiors impose their formal authority, single-mindedly ignoring the needs and desires of people “under their command”. That certainly is wrong: authority does not imply authoritarianism (i.e. the enforcement of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom) — but such abuse does not mean we should reject hierarchical structures tout courte.
Hierarchies are not the same as “bureaucracies” — they are structuring devices and do not automatically imply abuses of power of inefficiency. Methinks, people all too willingly throw out the baby with the bathwater — which is not always sensible, as anyone who has lived through the “flattening of levels” will readily confirm.
Secondly, it seems to me there’s an unhealthy dynamic whereby people today simply do not want to “be told”. Here, the rejection of authority quickly becomes the celebration of (wrongly termed) authenticity — an egotistical unwillingness to succumb to “anyone and anything”, legitimate or not, as an exercise of negative freedom. That is problematic, for both individuals and society. Going back to the origin of “authority”, there are always people who are superior to us in terms of knowledge or wisdom — if we are unwilling to “listen” to them, we won’t learn. Sometimes “obedience” to a person or an idea is simply the more effective or responsible choice. Which brings me to Eric Miller’s reminder that power can never be given, only taken. Sometimes it appears we’re unduly mixing questions of institutional design with challenges of personal dependence. Independence requires both external and internal development — hence, Empowerment is an ambiguous term that doesn’t sit comfortably in a discussion about authority. As Eric points out in his revision of his work at the Tavistock, we need to both enable people to gain consciousness of the “system” and then help them to crystallize their values. Otherwise, independence is such only in name, not substance.
Thirdly, then, and more generally still, learning always requires both freedom and order - both maternal and paternal containing. Looking backwards, I believe many of the ideas of anti-authoritarian education have been dismantled. Whilst there is much room for more creativity, diverse and personalised learning approaches and integrative goals in our educational systems, the idea that students should self-determine their learning pathways, or self-grade their work, or choose their own teachers is simply flawed. We cannot abandon people to their learning — not even if it comes ideologically framed in terms of increased freedom. It is not the point to avoid dependency at all costs, but to hold and manage it responsibly — we must build liberating structures and processes that over time enable others to step competently into their agency and make ever more complex choices. The same is true in organisations — development is not the same as de-centralisation of decision-making, and in order to be effective, both must go hand in hand.
Herein, I think, also lies the problem with many of the purported solutions to the “crisis of authority”, i.e., the highly ideological pursuit of democratic and participative co-leadership. “Everybody’s a leader” simply does not work. Not everybody wants to be a leader, and not everybody SHOULD be a leader.
Why? Because a leader is a professional role endowed with positional power in an institution. That implies that leaders have asymmetrical responsibility for their subordinates - like doctors, lawyers or teachers — and potentially exponential impact on the company’s environment. In times when some companies have more influence over public affairs than small states, and equally large work forces, we must make sure their leaders are competent and wise — and appropriately safeguard they operate in the interest of all. “In order to regain society’s trust, good leaders must embrace a way of looking at their role that includes a civic and personal commitment to their duty as institutional and societal custodians.”
Here, the mainstream discourse often selfishly misses the point. It simply is not about tiresome debates of more or less authority, or who is — or should be — a leader or not. As in traditional monasteries where the abbot is not the leader, but the “first follower”, we should focus on WHY we are here and WHAT we serve. Sometimes that will require our docile and supportive obedience to authorities, sometimes it needs principled and courageous rebellion. The point is: if correctly expressed, the notion of authority is not just about us, but about our connection to the greater whole — be that learning, character, or purpose. As JFK once said: in a democracy a single irresponsible citizen jeopardises the safety of all. If we single-mindedly reject all authority and insist on our own freedom, if we are unwilling to be collectively responsible for the whole, we might quickly endanger the freedom of all.
From: “Sunday Morning Thoughts on LinkedIn” — I will report some of the interesting LinkedIn dialogues here, paraphrased and applying the Chatham House Rule — trying to protect some of the sentiments, thoughts, and above all our stimulating discussions from oblivion ;-)
