Think
about Power. The mind of the ambitious harbors dreams about wielding control, while
the rest think of the famous quote by Lord Acton, the British historian (1834-1902),
who said, “…absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Although it is easy to dismiss power as a necessary evil in the worldly scheme
of things, it masks our ambiguous relationship, wanting to wallow in the luxury
of freedom it allows, without succumbing to the guilt of having abdicated responsibility.
What
does power mean to me as an individual? I perceive it as a life-force which controls
and influences my environment as per my intentions. However, what is manifested
on the outside need not necessarily arise from this inner force. In my worldly
affairs, as I look deep within, it arises from a lacuna I sense within. In moments
of crisis, when this lack gnaws at my insides, it arises from the depth of my
being to console my incomplete self, pregnant with an immediate sense of hope
to drive me towards action. What I really need to find out is this: Is it
possible to fill this void from outside?
Where does it arise from?
With
the whole world turned upside down by the devastating global financial crisis, I
can ask these questions which could give clues about our collective human
psyche, trying to make sense of the ignominious earthquake that has tumbled all
our cherished structures of belief, be it capitalism or consumerism - widely
touted as the panacea for all the ills faced by the emerging countries. When I observe
the vast scale and magnitude of the multi-dimensional, multi-causal forces
driving the complex, interconnected, globalized world we are living in, it
seems as if I have no control over them. Imagine caught in an avalanche sliding
down rapidly towards the valley of death. In such grave circumstances, it is
appropriate to have a closer look at power and explore its crucial role in
bringing a change for the collective benefit of mankind.
What
is power? Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher (1588–1679) defined power as a
man's "present means, to obtain some future apparent good". William R.Torbert
described it as unilateral, in which ‘might is right’. This was considered
unethical as it was based on initial desires and fears. Various definitions of
power were given by philosophers depending on the rationality of human will, and
the consent of those subjected to power. Power gained moral sanctity when its
use was justified as a means to obtain supreme virtues such as love, freedom et
al. As the mind separates means from
the ends, it manifested in the
impulse of power to dissociate freedom,
arising from the exercising of power, from responsibility,
arisen from the conscious choice made in exercising the freedom.
I
believe that the unjust nature of
power arises from this dissociation, where the powerful enjoy the freedom
leaving the powerless to bear the brunt of its consequences. Today, as we stand
amidst the debris of all structures we have built for the progress of humanity,
we stand poised with a glint of hope to wonder at the possibility of power
which is ‘just’. Technology has been my source
of inspiration for this glint of hope, as it began to shift the locus of power,
wily-nily, with inventions, ranging from printing press to television to Internet,
which, every now and then, lowered the barriers to information (incrementally
in the same order of the inventions). It seems as if, the elixir of power is out
of the bottle, never to be contained again, reaching millions, despite the efforts
of the powerful elites to plug the leaks
with bullying gatekeepers and choke points
Some
wise soul once pointed out to me that the word justice could be looked as ‘just as it is’. As we stand at the cusp
of a new era, it will be quite fascinating to look at the possibility of ‘just power’
as it would mean that the powerful are willing to bear the responsibility while
enjoying the luxuries of the freedom. But why should freedom be restricted only
to the powerful? This would narrow the gap that exists between powerful and
powerless. What would that augur for the distribution of power? If you come to
think about it, the word ‘distribution’ seems inappropriate as it is redolent of
an authority distributing based on vested interests.
The
recent turn of events in the Wiki leaks saga makes a strong case for just power,
throwing light into the emerging world view where authority per se is a thing of the past. Several
orthodox critics who chastised Wiki leaks' moral high handedness in appointing
itself as the arbiter of government’s secrecy are unable to accept this
radical view, despite mounting evidence.
Is
it really possible for ‘just power’ to manifest itself in a world, not fully
recovered yet from the painful global reset, in its true spirit, where responsibility
could be bore without wanting freedom exclusively? What would be the leadership
energy which would help in taking forward this radical vision?
The
‘death’ of ideals of leadership:
Imagine watching a conductor waving
the baton at professional musicians of an orchestra. All of a sudden, an oboe
solo plays a bad high note and other musicians fall in line and in no time the musical
ensemble goes awry. The poor conductor, disgusted by the critics who lambasted him
for the poor orchestral performance, walks away. The orchestra performs with renewed vigor under the guidance of a new conductor, only to find the ensemble performance
turned awry again. Is it hard for the mind to imagine an orchestra without the
conductor?
The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra performs
without the conductor, feeding off the
energy of the
fellow musicians. Imagine how beautiful a musical performance would turn out if every
note played by each musician emerges from the bosom of the musical moment,
rather from the composition, howsoever beautifully written, still limited by
the composer’s imagination.
Every time when the orchestra of our
economic system goes awry, we begin scouting for a new conductor with a glimmer
of hope that the heroic, superman leader would revive the atrophied system and get
the economic engine back on wheels. However,
as every crisis unfolds and pillories our belief systems, including the leaders
who espoused them, we desperately start craving for the latest belief system without
realizing how much they have crippled our ability to start afresh. There is
nothing wrong in a belief system, except that it divorces context from the picture and thrusts its ideals aimlessly.
Although it is disheartening to talk
about the death of ideals of leadership, especially at a time when the price of
hope has been inflated to skyrocketing levels, it is necessary to purge off the
old ideals if we are truly concerned about the future. How could we aspire to
create something new if the source of action is burdened by the decaying ideas of
the past?
Hope could
also stand as a stumbling block in our journey to build new institutions as we
stunt its growth by forcing it to fit within the cubbyholes of our expectations.
The recent depressing mood in the United States where Audacity of Hope turned into Mendacity of Hope is a strong
case in point. What about trust? One may wonder. How could we build trust without
hope? It is essential to understand that trust is an epiphenomenon arising from
the faith we repose in the institutions we’ve built. It would be dangerous if
we begin to build institutions to inspire faith, as it would eventually turn
into farce and collapse like a row of upended dominoes fallen by just one domino
of fear displacing trust.
Since time immemorial, leaders have
been near-mythical cult figures, exuding charisma, casting their abracadabra to
revive stagnating corporations and bureaucracies, teeming with life. Their operational levers were driven by centralized power
structures arising from single authority. The entire organization was cast
under the spell of their pet ideologies. Their ability to lead depended on their
capability to distance themselves from the web of circumstances their followers
were led into. Their strong personality and exalted stature became a threat to
the organization’s survival as it debilitated the organization when they left.
Germination
of leadership:
Is it possible to lead without being
led? This might sound confusing as the word carries the baggage of its illustrious
past. It’s also tricky because the very act of leading puts the leader on a pedestal
convenient to exercise unjust power
under the guise of leadership, disconnected from the reality where ‘leading’ could
happen. This isn’t yet another idea of leadership, although when it turns out
to be effective, stands at the risk of turning into one. As it exists, it extends
far beyond Brent Filson’s principle of leadership where the best results come
not from what you make happen but from what you let happen. If it
were let to happen, why should a leader exist? It’s highly probable that he
might stand in the way of letting it happen. Henry Mintzberg, the radical
management guru, was bang on target when he said, “Great organizations once created don’t need leaders"
Once
we abnegate the old archetypes of leadership, the soil becomes fertile to allow
the germination of leadership which remains totally unbiased towards any
ideology or preconceived utopia. A crystal clear vision which can see with
clarity, the limitedness of such biases and the effects they cause. A strong
will to remain independent of all the conditioning of the past that has bred so
much insecurity and fear.
Leaderless
organizations might induce vivid fears of anarchy. They are however quelled by
the collective responsibility arising from ‘just power’, which would also
ensure that freedom is enjoyed by everyone. The driving gears of this
leadership would be the grandeur of vision, a larger-than-life purpose, far
beyond myopic delusions of shareholder maximisation, which would inspire all
those who are willing to lead. It would require not just dismantling of hierarchies
but also shedding of ego baggage which often get accumulated in the act of
leading. Effective leadership practice would require not more information (which
is out in the open, thanks to Internet) but rather deep introspection,
especially when the strong urge ‘to lead’ arises. If it arises from the lacuna, the psychological fear of
being ‘nobody’, it cannot be effective. Only when it arises from the abundance of
spirit, the infinite patience ready to be in touch with the reality as it is,
it would be truly authentic and would serve the purpose.
Conclusion:
Crisis offers us tremendous
opportunity, given its colossal impact, in an unprecedented scale, to build new
institutions which govern our lives, unburdened by old ideologies. Although the
moral urgency in setting the house in order cannot be understated, we need to
ensure that we don’t repeat the same mistake which burnt the house to flames. The phoenix of our collective destiny has no other
choice but to rise from its ashes.
.