Is there such a thing as a leader? If there is, what makes one a success?
Some say the difference between a leader and a manager is mythical, i.e., the existence of the difference is imaginary or unverifiable. Others say it's just an exercise in semantics. Are we trying to slog through a semantic morass here?
Leaders are like graphic vectors. Vectors have two dimensions: magnitude AND direction. Magnitude, in this context, is a synonym for success. For the most part, people tend to engage with magnitude/success. But, what about direction? Let's examine a bit of history.
Iosif (Joseph) Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili took on the nickname, "Stalin," (Man of Steel) believing it reflected his stature as leader and protector of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Stalin didn't have much charisma, but he was a pretty good organizer.
Adolph (Shicklgruber/Heidler) Hitler took on the nickname "Fuehrer," or "leader." He modelled the title on Benito Mussolini's self-appellation, "il Duce," meaning "leader," which, in turn, comes from the Latin word, "dux," meaning "leader."
Hitler and Mussolini were enormously charismatic. Hitler, in many of his speeches, kept thousands of people spellbound for hours at a time. He was a master of rhetoric and excelled in the promotion of "groupthink." The German people absolutely loved him. Mussolini trailed him in that ability, but he was, nevertheless, a very articulate person. Having been a journalist, he was also a skilled rhetorician.
All three, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, were Socialists bent on creating Socialist States to match their versions of a Marxist Utopia. Where Hitler's and Mussolini's Socialist versions differed from Stalin's was primarily in how they would achieve their Socialist ends.
To achieve his vision, Stalin believed that government (in the name of the people) should own the factors of production directly. The other two believed they could achieve the same Socialist ends indirectly, i.e., by owning (controlling) the owners/controllers of the factors of production (forms of a Corporativist system in which economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level.) Regardless of version, their efforts resulted in the establishment of totalitarian States. Millions of people were killed in the process.
It's ironic that these men, as individuals and leaders, tried to set up political and economic systems based on a bankrupt philosophy that minimized the individual to maximize the collective. Although these leaders were able to capture hearts and minds, their direction was toward evil.
Is there any doubt that all of these people were "leaders" of great "magnitude?" No.
Direction, however, is another thing altogether.
Some say the difference between a leader and a manager is mythical, i.e., the existence of the difference is imaginary or unverifiable. Others say it's just an exercise in semantics. Are we trying to slog through a semantic morass here?
Leaders are like graphic vectors. Vectors have two dimensions: magnitude AND direction. Magnitude, in this context, is a synonym for success. For the most part, people tend to engage with magnitude/success. But, what about direction? Let's examine a bit of history.
Iosif (Joseph) Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili took on the nickname, "Stalin," (Man of Steel) believing it reflected his stature as leader and protector of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Stalin didn't have much charisma, but he was a pretty good organizer.
Adolph (Shicklgruber/Heidler) Hitler took on the nickname "Fuehrer," or "leader." He modelled the title on Benito Mussolini's self-appellation, "il Duce," meaning "leader," which, in turn, comes from the Latin word, "dux," meaning "leader."
Hitler and Mussolini were enormously charismatic. Hitler, in many of his speeches, kept thousands of people spellbound for hours at a time. He was a master of rhetoric and excelled in the promotion of "groupthink." The German people absolutely loved him. Mussolini trailed him in that ability, but he was, nevertheless, a very articulate person. Having been a journalist, he was also a skilled rhetorician.
All three, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, were Socialists bent on creating Socialist States to match their versions of a Marxist Utopia. Where Hitler's and Mussolini's Socialist versions differed from Stalin's was primarily in how they would achieve their Socialist ends.
To achieve his vision, Stalin believed that government (in the name of the people) should own the factors of production directly. The other two believed they could achieve the same Socialist ends indirectly, i.e., by owning (controlling) the owners/controllers of the factors of production (forms of a Corporativist system in which economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level.) Regardless of version, their efforts resulted in the establishment of totalitarian States. Millions of people were killed in the process.
It's ironic that these men, as individuals and leaders, tried to set up political and economic systems based on a bankrupt philosophy that minimized the individual to maximize the collective. Although these leaders were able to capture hearts and minds, their direction was toward evil.
Is there any doubt that all of these people were "leaders" of great "magnitude?" No.
Direction, however, is another thing altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment