I was lucky enough to be sent to leadership training by my employer. They paid a person to come and instruct us over a course of several days. The person was very upbeat and dynamic. He spoke clearly and used a lot of eye contact and interaction with his students. He told us a story about mice and cheese and talked about concepts such as Communication, Persuasion, and Vision and how a person adept at such things could lead people be it as a team leader, a supervisor, a CEO or a head of state. He had a lot of research about the behavior of human beings and how one can best direct them. How to remain above those who are under you without seeming like a task master. How to be friendly without being a friend, how to seem like you care without getting too close as, at any given time, you may need to admonish them or even fire them. After all, this is a business, not a social club and what's best for business will always win out over personal feelings.
He assured us these techniques he taught where sound and used by many rich and powerful people. I could not help but think I was being taught tactics. How to manipulate and persuade, how to appear other than what I am. I was being taught by parable, by rhetoric and by practical exercises how to be superior to others, a leader. I was being taught how to get get what I need out of those under me but, more importantly, I was being taught how to be a boss without seeming bossy. A good leader in business must be able to appear to be sympathetic to the concerns of his or her employee's but equally able to fire them at any given moment and have them escorted out of the building.
These tactics certainly seemed sound for any business. To run an efficient business you need people who can get an honest days work from their employees while keeping them from feeling like wage slaves and seeing you as a task master. In companies there is a steady stream of directives coming from the top down. There is a hierarchy set in stone, each person knows his duties and his place and they are not to question but do as they are directed. Business, the work world, is not a democracy, it is an authoritarian state, an oligarchy. These tactics are good for a company but are they qualities we want to see in our elected representatives?
Certainly these qualities are present in most political leaders. Using these tactics they present themselves as humble peers of their constituents all the while making it known they possess superior judgments and grand vision the likes of which transcend the common man. In this way they and their party convince us to give them time, money and votes. Certainly these leadership tactics enable them to gain their positions of power and influence but once in power, do these qualities make them good representatives of the people? Or do these qualities make them good at serving those whose interests they have been paid to represent as well as themselves? The people writing the real paychecks, their bosses. From where should elected representative receive their marching orders?
I have often heard that running a country is much like running a company and requires similar methods. I disagree. A corporate structure is controlled by those who pay the employees. Marching orders come from the top. To run a successful company one must always be concerned with the bottom line. Profit margins are all that matter. A corporation does not particularly care about the well being of its employees. It sees its employees not as people but as 8+ hours of labor. It will give as little and take as much as it can. If allowed, a corporation would use its employees like slave labor. Morality is relative in business and plays no real role save that it is good business that they be perceived as having morals. A corporation is free to have a top man, a leader with a vision who will steer the ship.
Profit should never be a driving factor for an elected official. A government must care about the welfare of its people. An elected official should receive his marching orders from his constituents. There must be a level of altruism and a sense of duty which drives a good representative of the people. A representative should be a capable administrator with good judgment and an eye for the overall welfare of the people they represent. We should not be led by them, we should dictate their course. We dont need leaders with grand visions. I have developed quite a distaste for 'leaders' with 'vision'. If they are motivated by money, power, influence and greed then there is little chance they will overly concern themselves with the welfare of the people they have been chosen to represent. It is the most common lament I hear concerning our elected officials, they are crooks. They don't care about us, they are enriching themselves, what are we paying them for, they live high on the hog with my tax money....they don't represent ME.
I don't think we need leaders. I think leaders place themselves above us. I think leaders know what is best for us. I think leaders represent only those who have supported them, they are are often panderers, partisan and partial. I think leaders will say and do whatever they must to reach a goal, that is, to gain and hold on to power. I don't think many leaders can see two sides of a coin or a middle ground. I think leaders tend to be far more concerned with power and control, my way or the highway. They seem more concerned with getting the job and keeping the job than doing anything worthwhile while they have it. I think leaders do not think of the welfare of the people rather they see people as a means to an end. I see little honesty, integrity, loyalty or consistency in our so called leaders.
I would think only the cynical could say they were never disappointed by our government. Only those who managed to avoid completely an idealistic view towards the role of government could say they never felt betrayed by someone who said one thing to get the job and did another once they got it. Someone who appeared to have lofty grand ideals, morals, and vision found to be just another salesman. I image it might feel much like a parishioner who devoutly followed and supported a preacher who said all the right things only to find he regularly made visits to prostitutes.
So if you are not satisfied with the leaders that are put forth for you to vote for, if you do not like what the system has produced, why do you continue to support or even defend that system? There is a pretty large portion of the population in America that are discontented with their political party and government in general. They are generally disillusioned with their representatives. They do not see them as authentic civil servants but dishonest partisans and panderers to special interests and money. They are not representatives of the people but of their own self serving interests. They are not honest good men who have answered a call to serve their country and advance it. They do not united but purposefully divide the people. Their aim is not good governance.
So why don't we stop looking for leader who is more than willing to tell us how great he is? His or her own biggest fan and cheerleader. Why don't we instead look for honest representatives who are competent public administrators with good judgment? Why don't we stop voting for people who send us flyers telling us what is important to them and start voting for the people who send us questionnaires because they want to know what we want? Why don't we stop being led and instead lead?
Lets stop turning over the reins to leaders with visions who simply have the most cash and the best tactics to win the game of posturing and pandering that is politics.
