As we have seen, in War and Peace Leo Tolstoy tried to explain the various theories of history with the metaphor of a train, asking what different sorts of people might imagine animates it. Yesterday we looked briefly at one answer, provided by the peasants, that the devil does it. That is, some incomprehensibly wonderful and powerful – also frightening and awe-inspiring – individual. The Great Leader.
But then he supposed that more widely experienced, enlightened, and practical men of the world might insist that it is the wheels that move the train. This is meant to suggest that there are numerous interacting forces that conspire to drive the train forward independent of our individual efforts to influence or direct them. Never mind that it also seems to mean that most of us, still in thrall to the Great Leader Theory, would likely be regarded by Tolstoy as simple-minded peasants.
The truth is, that’s not so bad – not due to our persistent belief in Great Leaders, but rather because in spite of that, it is really we who make the train go, make the wheels and the world go ‘round. We are the source of those forces, it is among us that they arise, inteact, and ultimately clarify into motion. The leaders don’t lead us, really. They are simply the agents of our will. Ideally, that is.
Think of it in terms of the Presidential election this year in the United States. Certainly, there really are nominally intelligent and reasonable people who believe we will be electing someone to be our “leader” over the next four years. And just as certainly, whoever is elected will have the opportunity to make specific decisions that have more or less independently immediate and profound effects on us.
But in the larger sense, the election campaign isn’t about allowing the candidates to debate the issues and highlight their positions so we can decide who to passively (whether enthusiastically or grudgingly) follow. It is about us identifying the issues, how we feel about them, and what direction we, as a nation, want to go in. We consider the matter, then make up our collective mind. We announce that by selecting the candidate who most closely reflects our thinking.
Then we supervise. It is our will, not theirs, that determines our course. Their decisions reflect that will, or they’re tossed under the wheels.
That, by the way, is why they are typically referred to as politicians, and not leaders. They identify the many sources from which power emanates, the forms it assumes, and the courses it takes. They act now as stewards, then as brokers, sometimes as sheriffs struggling to keep the peace between contesting dynamics. And they do all of that at our pleasure.
The best, most enduringly effective politicians know that they are not, themselves, sources of power, innovation, ideas, creativity – they are enablers. They can recognize what might be made to work, and then mobilize support to make it happen. That is what makes them so vital.
Some people do see them, in one fashion or another, as devils. But they have a keen eye on the wheels, and on us, and everything they do is as mindful as possible of us as we are (hopefully) of them.
Is your boss like that? Is he or she continuously mindful of external events, internal dynamics, of your ambitions and perceptions? Does your boss view him- or herself as the source of your aims, the font of your abilities – or the steward and enabler of them? Indeed, is your boss the source, or the cultivator – the manager – of leadership in your organization?
Wheels. If you, the Great Leader, in the depths of your self-absorption take your eyes off the wheels, you might find yourself under them. To the devil with that.
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of trying to figure out whether they’re leaders or devils or something else, have you ever considered the possibility that they might just be crazy? Please visit HowStuffWorks for this revealing article by Jane McGrath about mad geniuses.
—
Want to read articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica for free? Take a moment to scroll down the sidebar on the main site a bit: right below my current readings you will see a dynamically renewing box pointing to articles on capitalism from the Britannica. These are typically available only by paid subscription, but if you click through to an article from here, you will be able to read it for free. Try it!
And speaking of subscriptions, ours here are always free! Why not subscribe by email or RSS reader now?
Technorati Tags: Leo Tolstoy, Great Leader, United States, leader, election, supervise, politician, power, steward, broker, sheriff, innovation, creativity, boss, manager, leadership, organization, HowStuffWorks, Jane McGrath
Sphere: Related Content
Note:
Jim, do you really want to define leaders as those who carry out “our” will? Suppose “we” don’t “will” anything but the status quo. Was England in WWII what it was as a result of citizens’ “will.” Or was it Churchill’s will? Was it Patton’s will or the “will” of his armies. Did Lincoln follow or lead?
It also seems to me you bypass the power of rhetoric here. People are moved by rhetoric. Is it therefore one of the “wheels”?
Third, where do fashions come from, and where do they go? Are there some social movements that have no identifiable source – will OR leader?
Hello Lee,
These are excellent questions and examples. It is certainly true that Britain was covered with pacifism before the war, but that changed when the Nazis began their invasions and Churchill was swept into power. The people changed their minds, and changed their “leader” to reflect that, to carry out their will. This doesn’t diminish his role in defining, giving expression to, and sustaining that will. It just points to a relationship that is more symbiotic than, perhaps, we are used to viewing it as being.
The same would apply to Patton or most generals – even those who combined the authority of the state in their generalship. Even Alexander the Great was initially enabled, then later overruled, by his men, not his foes.
I agree completely with you about the power of rhetoric. But we can take the view that it enables leaders to recruit followers, or that it enables “followers” to recognize who among those competing for their “leadership” best comprehend and represent their thinking. That is not to belittle the power of communication in provoking the shape – even the genesis – of that thinking. It just think it serves to remind us of who is ultimately in charge of the relationship.
Your third point I think is especially thought-provoking – an excellent way to explore the issue. It – especially the last bit – gets right to what Tolstoy was driving at, doesn’t it?
Thanks, Lee, for this. You’ve certainly given me more to do and think about here!