OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Control Freaks and Sycophants

Entry 2224, on 2022-06-25 at 14:52:16 (Rating 2, Comments)

There are many issues we need to be concerned with in the world today. Many of these are just part of the natural order of things: floods, fire, hurricanes, and other phenomena which can lead to great hardship, but many others are human caused, especially wars.

The most prominent example of this last category at this point of time is the war in Ukraine, and that is clearly primarily caused by a single person, that most esteemed leader Vladimir Putin (sarcasm alert). But how can one person have so much influence? One person can't wage war by himself, can he? At least not very effectively!

So maybe the problem is not the megalomaniacal leaders themselves, but their followers. There's a well known maxim which says something like this: historically, the most terrible things; war, genocide, and slavery, have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience.

Maybe the real problem with the world is not that we have badly behaved and motivated leaders, like Putin, but that we have leaders at all. Why did the Russian military follow orders to invade a country where many of their traditional friends live? What is the real point, especially for those Russian soldiers who have given their lives for a war they very likely don't believe in? There are reports of the Russian invaders just abandoning their tanks and other equipment and walking away from the conflict. Would we have a better outcome if they all did that?

The obvious counter to this argument is what happens in a just war. There is a branch of ethics, called "Just War Theory" which claims that war is a terrible option but under some circumstances not always the worst option. Without war, genocide and other atrocities might occur, and be even worse than the war itself.

It is debatable whether the Ukrainian resistance to the Russian aggression is fully justified. Sure, the Ukrainians want independence, but at what cost? Is it worth being independent while their cities are flattened, civilians are displaced and killed either as collateral casualties or deliberate murder, and the defenders are slowly destroyed by the Russian war machine?

Previously independent countries which are taken over by stronger powers generally don't stay that way. Most colonised countries are now independent. Former Soviet states are now separate countries. People assimilated by force into a larger group don't usually stay that way. Maybe it would be more rational for Ukraine to acquiesce to Russian demands, then wait for the time when they can become independent again, while avoiding the death and destruction.

But my main point here is that the problem is not the leader who demands death and destruction; it is the followers who make those demands real. And this isn't just a problem with the massive, global issues like war, it happens at every level of society.

For example, it happens when politicians vote along party lines instead of for what they really believe. We have "conscience votes" on some issues. Does that mean that other votes don't involve conscience? It sure seems that way.

And in local body politics, various cliques develop where one person who makes a decision can be fairly sure that whatever the circumstances might be, his or her minions will always follow the leader, even when they might not if they applied even a rudimentary element of independent thought.

And further down the chain of power, corporations and other large organisations are notoriously driven by groupthink. There is nothing more despicable, in my opinion, than a person following the "party line" instead of doing what they genuinely think is right.

Some might say that the party line is the right thing, but how likely is that in every case? Surely, even the greatest managers (is the idea of a "great manager" an oxymoron?) make mistakes occasionally. If the only people they ever interact with are sycophantic underlings, then what chance is there for improvement? Absolutely none.

I know that we can't have a totally uncontrolled "free for all" where people just do whatever they want, even if they claim to be doing the right thing, but I think these individuals can be controlled more effectively through the censure of their peers rather than a more senior president, prime minister, mayor, CEO, or manager.

The more I watch the way the world works, the more I am convinced that the people who want to be in control are exactly the ones who should be stopped from having any power. I've said this before, but here is my (somewhat facetious) solution: get all the people in an organisation together in a room, and ask who wants to take control of the group. As soon as someone volunteers, eliminate them from contention for that role; in fact, throw them out of the organisation completely.

Of course, that is only an interim solution, because even having a relatively innocuous leader wouldn't be my final aim. People should be able to self-manage, and if they can't there should be some power their colleagues have to pull them back into line.

Research has shown that the number one factor influencing people's satisfaction and effectiveness in their work roles (and, by extension, probably other roles as well) is having a fair degree of self determination. Overbearing control is likely the worst thing possible if your aim is to create an efficient, happy environment for humans. How many managers and other leaders understand this? Apparently, not many.

Comment 1 (7248) by Ken Spall on 2022-08-03 at 13:19:36:

I found the idea in your third to last paragraph rather interesting, but having been involved in group situations over the years, it’s my observation that most people want someone else to step up and lead them.

Comment 2 (7250) by OJB on 2022-08-03 at 14:01:48:

Yes, that is the weakness in my argument. I think there has been proper research showing that many people prefer to be told what to do instead of having to think for themselves. I'm just sayin' that I'm not one of them!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.