Perils Of Power
Along
with the crown, come the thorns
In
the Bible, King David faces a great struggle: he falls in love with the wife of
one of his soldiers. This is unethical and immoral, yet he cannot help himself.
He orchestrates the death of the soldier and marries his widow. Legally he has
done no wrong but there is a price to pay. No matter how hard he tries he is
unable to build the great Temple to God; he is declared unworthy. As a young
boy, the same David had killed the giant Goliath and won the admiration of all
and had soon risen through the ranks and been made king but with this one act
he lost his goodwill both with God and his subjects.
The problem with power is that more often than not it chooses us; we don’t choose it. Then it is rather frustrating when we cannot use it to our own whim. What use is power if we cannot use as we deem it fit? Why must we be constantly answerable to someone else? Few notice the nature of power as one is rising up the ranks. One is too focused on the great prize, the crown. But once the crown is gained, we realize the price of the prize. It does not come free. And it changes everyone around you, who expect you to behave in a certain way, much to your exasperation.
The men of Macedonia rallied around Alexander and followed him as he tore into the heart of the great Persian Empire and did the impossible – overthrow Darius, the god-king, distant and all-powerful. The soldiers loved Alexander as long as he was one of them, first amongst equals. But when everyone bowed to Alexander, and none by Alexander, when in all the lands he conquered, he was seen as the new emperor, when gold and women were offered only to him, things changed. Alexander saw himself as god too – one who would change the world. He established cities of Alexandria across his empire and hoped to unite different nations under him – create one big happy family. As he adopted the ways of the East as he painted his face, wore silks and performed rituals that the Greeks frowned upon, he lost the affection of his former friends. Alexander became increasingly isolated. He took to drinking. Brawls led to him killing his closest allies. Power, everyone said, had changed Alexander. Alexander just felt misunderstood and betrayed.
Everyone says power corrupts. But few enquire about it. Is David corrupt or just a man who is not allowed to act on his love simply because he sits on the throne? Is Alexander corrupt or just misunderstood?
We live in a world where management and leadership principles come from the US. And the US follows the instruction model of development where people are taught to be good. If they have not gone through training workshops on ethics one cannot expect them to be ethical. People are expected to behave as obedient sheep that follow the shepherd. And if people behave like independent goats (symbol of the Devil), they must be compelled to become sheep with the shepherd’s crook, or risk exile. So Davids-in-waiting and Alexanders-in-waiting would be forced to go through stipulated hours of development programs to ensure power does not corrupt them.
Further as there is a general distrust of the capability of leadership and fear of the corrupting power of leadership, we create checks and balances. There are auditors, regulators, unions and boards of directors, which work in various ways to restrict the otherwise restrained power of the leader. Many corporate houses approach issues of ethics in this way.
The roots of this approach can be found in ancient Egyptian civilization where the institutional model emerged over 4000 years ago. For nearly 1000 years, centrally administered rituals and rules tightly controlled Egyptian society; even the art showed little sign of changing. The pharaoh was visualized holding two things in his hand: a shepherd’s crook (to ensure everyone fell in line) and the farmer’s flail (to whip the naysayers and to separate grain from chaff). The crook and the flail also applied to the pharaoh; he was not exempt. The Persian Empire followed this model too, until Alexander overthrew it and later adopted it himself. The Roman Empire, with its obsession with predictability, also adopted it. Caesar, who challenged it, and wished to be a goat, was promptly assassinated.
As a result of all this, the leader feels restrained and powerless despite wearing the crown. He has to constantly argue his case, fight to get things done, struggle to win support. This we are told ensures authority does not overstep its boundaries and best practices emerge. Unfortunately, in reality, the very opposite happens. The attempt to turn the goat into a sheep ends up turning the leader-shepherd into a wolf.
Rules and regulations often make the leader feel he is being asked to perform with his arms tied. He feels powerless, frustrated and angry. And then he finds ways to break the rules or simply defy them. He frightens those around him into submission or simply kicks out the naysayers. Those who stay behind are mere sycophants who comply without question and offer no intelligent arguments. This only fuels the leader’s anger and frustration: he wants to be admired by the intelligent. He wants to win over the opposition who he has silenced. Loneliness and anger creeps in and he gets more dominating and isolated. Thus emerges a vicious cycle. That which is supposed to check the power of the leader ends up throttling him so much that he starts feeling like a victim and ends up the villain. No corrupt man thinks he is corrupt; he is convinced others misunderstand him. If only people allowed him to do what he could do for them. But by the time he has that kind of absolute power, it is too late. The battle to become all-powerful has taken its toll; rather than being magnanimous and benevolent as he thought he would be, he becomes paranoid and self-indulgent.
Devdutt Pattanaik The author Chief Belief Officer of Future Group and author of Business Sutra: A very Indian Approach to Management CDET130712
The problem with power is that more often than not it chooses us; we don’t choose it. Then it is rather frustrating when we cannot use it to our own whim. What use is power if we cannot use as we deem it fit? Why must we be constantly answerable to someone else? Few notice the nature of power as one is rising up the ranks. One is too focused on the great prize, the crown. But once the crown is gained, we realize the price of the prize. It does not come free. And it changes everyone around you, who expect you to behave in a certain way, much to your exasperation.
The men of Macedonia rallied around Alexander and followed him as he tore into the heart of the great Persian Empire and did the impossible – overthrow Darius, the god-king, distant and all-powerful. The soldiers loved Alexander as long as he was one of them, first amongst equals. But when everyone bowed to Alexander, and none by Alexander, when in all the lands he conquered, he was seen as the new emperor, when gold and women were offered only to him, things changed. Alexander saw himself as god too – one who would change the world. He established cities of Alexandria across his empire and hoped to unite different nations under him – create one big happy family. As he adopted the ways of the East as he painted his face, wore silks and performed rituals that the Greeks frowned upon, he lost the affection of his former friends. Alexander became increasingly isolated. He took to drinking. Brawls led to him killing his closest allies. Power, everyone said, had changed Alexander. Alexander just felt misunderstood and betrayed.
Everyone says power corrupts. But few enquire about it. Is David corrupt or just a man who is not allowed to act on his love simply because he sits on the throne? Is Alexander corrupt or just misunderstood?
We live in a world where management and leadership principles come from the US. And the US follows the instruction model of development where people are taught to be good. If they have not gone through training workshops on ethics one cannot expect them to be ethical. People are expected to behave as obedient sheep that follow the shepherd. And if people behave like independent goats (symbol of the Devil), they must be compelled to become sheep with the shepherd’s crook, or risk exile. So Davids-in-waiting and Alexanders-in-waiting would be forced to go through stipulated hours of development programs to ensure power does not corrupt them.
Further as there is a general distrust of the capability of leadership and fear of the corrupting power of leadership, we create checks and balances. There are auditors, regulators, unions and boards of directors, which work in various ways to restrict the otherwise restrained power of the leader. Many corporate houses approach issues of ethics in this way.
The roots of this approach can be found in ancient Egyptian civilization where the institutional model emerged over 4000 years ago. For nearly 1000 years, centrally administered rituals and rules tightly controlled Egyptian society; even the art showed little sign of changing. The pharaoh was visualized holding two things in his hand: a shepherd’s crook (to ensure everyone fell in line) and the farmer’s flail (to whip the naysayers and to separate grain from chaff). The crook and the flail also applied to the pharaoh; he was not exempt. The Persian Empire followed this model too, until Alexander overthrew it and later adopted it himself. The Roman Empire, with its obsession with predictability, also adopted it. Caesar, who challenged it, and wished to be a goat, was promptly assassinated.
As a result of all this, the leader feels restrained and powerless despite wearing the crown. He has to constantly argue his case, fight to get things done, struggle to win support. This we are told ensures authority does not overstep its boundaries and best practices emerge. Unfortunately, in reality, the very opposite happens. The attempt to turn the goat into a sheep ends up turning the leader-shepherd into a wolf.
Rules and regulations often make the leader feel he is being asked to perform with his arms tied. He feels powerless, frustrated and angry. And then he finds ways to break the rules or simply defy them. He frightens those around him into submission or simply kicks out the naysayers. Those who stay behind are mere sycophants who comply without question and offer no intelligent arguments. This only fuels the leader’s anger and frustration: he wants to be admired by the intelligent. He wants to win over the opposition who he has silenced. Loneliness and anger creeps in and he gets more dominating and isolated. Thus emerges a vicious cycle. That which is supposed to check the power of the leader ends up throttling him so much that he starts feeling like a victim and ends up the villain. No corrupt man thinks he is corrupt; he is convinced others misunderstand him. If only people allowed him to do what he could do for them. But by the time he has that kind of absolute power, it is too late. The battle to become all-powerful has taken its toll; rather than being magnanimous and benevolent as he thought he would be, he becomes paranoid and self-indulgent.
Devdutt Pattanaik The author Chief Belief Officer of Future Group and author of Business Sutra: A very Indian Approach to Management CDET130712
No comments:
Post a Comment