The cult of leaders
I was reading a typical business news article about how a CEO was successfully turning around a corporation.
The President of the United States gave a State of the Union speech to Congress.
The King of Saudi Arabia died.
My boss is retiring tomorrow, so a grand party was thrown in his honor, with plenty of speeches about his tenure and accomplishments.
-----
What are these leaders for? Are they truly in charge of their organizations? Are they truly responsible for what happens within their organizations? Why do we and our media focus so closely on these leaders instead of on the people further down the org chart who are the ones who have to make everything work? The ones who have to sell, manufacture, and service the products. The ones who have to enforce the laws and decide guilt or innocence. The ones who have to shoot our enemies or die on the battlefield. The ones who answer the phones, or open the mail, or deal with angry customers in person.
The way corporations compensate CEOs tends to assume they are responsible for all the profits and losses of the corporation, as well as the share price.
The way we judge our Presidents tends to assume they are responsible for the production of the entire economy, the crime rate, whether foreign countries start wars, whether random crazies blow up buildings.
We do the same thing with religious leaders like the Pope, acting as though they personify their entire religious orders or speak for the Creator. Forget all those low-level priests who must do all the weddings, baptisms, and funerals. Who must tend to the sick and take vows of poverty. Who may risk their lives to carry the Word to inhospitable lands.
-----
This is mainly a set of fictions. People scramble over each other and play games of intrigue -- sometimes to the death -- for the right to be viewed as The Ones In Charge. But to attain that view requires playing the game, to remain in that view requires playing the game. The Ones In Charge don't get to do whatever they want. They must please certain constituents or they are kicked out or murdered.
And they don't really control the fates of their organizations or nations. They are responding to events, like all of us do, in real time, under real constraints. The higher up you go, the bigger are the forces arrayed both with and against you, and you don't control these forces.
-----
I think leaders can make a difference. But so can lots of people. And leaders simply can't take credit or blame for everything that happens. I mean, not really. These assignments of credit and blame are part of the game, that's all. They are fictions used by the players as they fight over the right to be viewed as The Ones in Charge.
Nobody is really any more in charge than anybody else. We're all just acting (or not) in real time, as events unfold around us.
The President of the United States gave a State of the Union speech to Congress.
The King of Saudi Arabia died.
My boss is retiring tomorrow, so a grand party was thrown in his honor, with plenty of speeches about his tenure and accomplishments.
-----
What are these leaders for? Are they truly in charge of their organizations? Are they truly responsible for what happens within their organizations? Why do we and our media focus so closely on these leaders instead of on the people further down the org chart who are the ones who have to make everything work? The ones who have to sell, manufacture, and service the products. The ones who have to enforce the laws and decide guilt or innocence. The ones who have to shoot our enemies or die on the battlefield. The ones who answer the phones, or open the mail, or deal with angry customers in person.
The way corporations compensate CEOs tends to assume they are responsible for all the profits and losses of the corporation, as well as the share price.
The way we judge our Presidents tends to assume they are responsible for the production of the entire economy, the crime rate, whether foreign countries start wars, whether random crazies blow up buildings.
We do the same thing with religious leaders like the Pope, acting as though they personify their entire religious orders or speak for the Creator. Forget all those low-level priests who must do all the weddings, baptisms, and funerals. Who must tend to the sick and take vows of poverty. Who may risk their lives to carry the Word to inhospitable lands.
-----
This is mainly a set of fictions. People scramble over each other and play games of intrigue -- sometimes to the death -- for the right to be viewed as The Ones In Charge. But to attain that view requires playing the game, to remain in that view requires playing the game. The Ones In Charge don't get to do whatever they want. They must please certain constituents or they are kicked out or murdered.
And they don't really control the fates of their organizations or nations. They are responding to events, like all of us do, in real time, under real constraints. The higher up you go, the bigger are the forces arrayed both with and against you, and you don't control these forces.
-----
I think leaders can make a difference. But so can lots of people. And leaders simply can't take credit or blame for everything that happens. I mean, not really. These assignments of credit and blame are part of the game, that's all. They are fictions used by the players as they fight over the right to be viewed as The Ones in Charge.
Nobody is really any more in charge than anybody else. We're all just acting (or not) in real time, as events unfold around us.