We noted yesterday that international law has traditionally held that if a government is tolerated by its people – that is, if they do not rise up and remove it, however bad it may be – then it must be viewed as fundamentally legitimate. Our interest with this idea on these pages is with how it relates to leadership.
There are a couple of ways that looking at the issue from this perspective helps us better see the difficulties with the general concept of individual leadership in the modern world of organizations. One is that the centuries-old principle of tolerance legitimizing whatever form of governance we’re confronted with is, unfortunately, sound.
As long as those of us within organizations put up with the hair-brained stunts – even the ill-intentioned scheming – of those in charge, then they will largely be successful in representing their antics as legitimate leadership. It doesn’t matter whether we are employees, and thus presumed to occupy the role of followers, or even directors, expected to fill the same function in the form of the leader’s Praetorian Guard.
If we lack the will, wit, or wherewithal to resist the misguided or self-aggrandizing imprecations of our “leadership,” then the dynamics will dictate that it is best for all of us to acknowledge it as such, slip submissively into our respected harnesses, and accommodate ourselves to our fate. We will show up in force for all public demonstrations of devotion and pride, cry out our Great Benefactor’s name with joy and hope beaming from our faces, and we will mean it.
The regime will proclaim its inestimable efforts and accomplishments on our behalf, its foresight, wisdom, and enlightenment, and we will believe it. So will many outside observers, who will help spread the Word.
There will be order, predictability, unity. We followers will have our basic needs met, our higher needs assuaged. We will understand and willingly interact with our leaders. They will use us as a living canvas on which to reveal their ever unfolding vision. We all have a net advantage from the cost-benefit equation.
Stability. Tolerance. Legitimacy. What could go wrong?
We’ll look at that tomorrow. Please do stop by!
—
Today’s tips: Speaking of tolerating self-deluding decline, please see these NYT pieces, here and here, commemorating the 40-year anniversary of the moon landing – by comparing the vigor and greatness of that day with the sclerotic degeneracy of our own.
Please also be sure to stop over to Nick McCormick‘s “Joe and Wanda on Management Blog” to help celebrate his 200th post – great fun, important information, and even a prize – don’t miss it!
—
If you have enjoyed this post, please do join us by using the subscription links just below or at the top right of this page. And thanks – we look forward to your being aboard!
Technorati Tags: international, law, government, legitimate, leadership, perspective, individual leadership, organization, tolerance, governance, employee, follower, director, function, leader, Praetorian Guard, foresight, wisdom, enlightenment, observer, order, predictability, unity, vision, NYT, Nick McCormick
Sphere: Related Content
Are you delving into dangerous territory? Could you be uncovering how important followers actually are to a leaders success/failure. Might that balancing act of deciding to put up with leadership that seems insane to meet the common (food on the table) good mean that leadership has a huge amount of leeway and with a bit of luck some succeed? I’m following with interest!
Ah, well, that’s a good point, isn’t it! It also has to do with, of course, how leadership can deceive itself about the quality of its “leadership” and thus leave “followers” little choice but to find some way to adapt to it on not only a practical level, but a psychological one, as well.
Thanks for this!