Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Leadership Ought to Be
What is the ideal leader? A person “who shall go out before them and come in before them, and who shall take them out and bring them in,” (Num 27:17). In other words, a good leader is someone we want to follow, who inspires us to do so. A leader should set an example that we want to emulate.
A bad leader, on the other hand, does not lead. Like a prison guard with a whip or a rifle, he leads from behind, using “or else” as his weapon. It is the difference between a leader we love, and a leader we fear.
Published in General
Not exactly on topic, but maybe close enough: C. S. Lewis has Aslan say some fine words about a good king–the first in every desperate attack, the last in every desperate retreat.
Or maybe the good King Loon king says that to his son, Prince Cor.
Dang. My memory ain’t up to par.
Well, it’s either in The Magician’s Nephew or in The Horse and His Boy. I think. Ricochet reads Lewis. I bet someone else can fill in the gaps.
“Do everything you ask of those you command” – General George S. Patton Jr.
(Of course, Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, Lori Lightfoot, et. al. missed this particular class in leadership.)
-Prince Caspian in Voyage of the Dawn Treader (I think) :-)
Another insight also in Confucius.
We do a disservice to human nature when we utter such platitudes.
There are many who believe the platitudes, but I’ve rarely witnessed it being rewarded in reality.
What makes a strong leader? Never forget that Hitler was a strong leader. He was thoroughly evil, but he got a lot of people to follow him, and he was rarely nice about it. It’s important to understand how normal people are convinced to willingly commit or support such evil. They weren’t all forced. Most were willing.
The Marines say you have to be tactically and technically proficient, among other platitudes, to be a good leader. I rarely found that to be true. I’ve rarely found it to be even desirable for successful leaders.
The only thing that seems to work is for the leader to know what he wants and to impart his vision to others clearly, usually with consequences to those who don’t line up to obey, but at least with benefits to those that do. The guys touting benefits only get so far, those who have consequences are the ones who go furthest. When you examine history, or your own business and social relationships, you will probably find that to be the case. Nice guys finish last.
The platitudes tend to serve only those who are good at taking advantage of people who try to be “good” leaders. In my experience, the leader who will bite off your head gets further, especially if he bites your head off with a smile.
Your mileage may vary.
We talking about strong leaders, effective leaders, morally good leaders, ideal leaders, or something else?
It occurs to me that, using the standards set forth in the OP for an “ideal leader,” God fails to qualify — at least as God is described in the Old and New Testaments.
All the above. Even morally good leaders have to be forceful.
Absolutely. “God” wants you to obey without question and without thought, and will punish you for not worshipping it. But then, “god” doesn’t need to “lead.” Omnipotence doesn’t follow human rules.
Have either of you two theology scholars actually read the Bible? Go read God and Abraham discussing the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah and get back to me. (Gen. 18:20 till the end)
Not the G-d of the Torah.
First I’ve heard of it.
Not the G-d of the New Testament either. Not even the G-d Augustine talks about in his sermons.
So go ahead and disagree with it and see what it threatens you with.
The ideal does not exist in any sense other than as a target.
While @skyler may have had a poor cruise in the Corps (reading between the lines of his statement) I wonder what can be expected of an organization which is known for its “get the job done no matter what” ethos.
I’ve had the experience of two great leaders (perhaps neither was ideal): One was over fifty years ago and he was a hard driving junior officer whose grasp of tactics and available technology were beyond criticism. His enforcement of discipline was recognized as fair (not a common commodity in USMC discipline). He got most of us out alive and he never shirked what a Marine leader was. When he said “follow me” he had a platoon following his orders.
My job relationship with the other ended four years ago when I retired. She came to a government archives in the deep south from the Eureka State of New York (she’s a Mets fan). She came as a Yankee, a Jew and married to a woman none of which endeared her to many already on board. Eventually, these attributes meant nothing to us (except the Yankee thing some times) over the next twenty years. She also was tactically proficient in dealing with pols and technically savvy in dealing with the rapid advance of computing in our field. She was direct, supportive, and made the unit the star of the operation (not a common commodity in bureaucracies).
She was also pretty funny. I stand (stood) 6’2″ and weighed 245. She was barely 5’0″ and 90#s. What a pair we made when we went out to teach the rest of the government how to handle its records for use by its citizens.
All that to say that while the ideal may not exist I think there are leaders (men and women) who are close to hitting a bulls eye every time.
So should we assume you’re only sticking with the second part of your initial sentence?
I had many, many tours in the 20 years I was in the Marines.
The key is what you yourself point out: “Enforcement of discipline.”
At the root, his power was based on his ability to enforce discipline. That was my point. Without that, his leadership ability is quite fleeting, no matter his personal traits. In his case, the power to discipline came from a higher authority. As one gets higher in the leadership categories, such as leadership of a nation, that authority must come from some source which is not always completely clear.
The two are conjoined.
In that case, even one Torah narrative–Abraham questioning G-d on Sodom and Gomorrah–should suffice. We also have various instances in the Psalms and so on.
But then there’s Abraham and Isaac. Kill your son by order of god, or else. What a sick idea, and he was going to do it too. This is, in my opinion, the root story that showed the final severance from Ba’al worshippers and how child sacrifice was not condoned by this new, upstart semitic religion. Absolute obedience was still required, even though god relented after Abraham showed he was willing to kill his son.
So, quote the “Palms,” as Biden would call them, but the truth is you can justify just about anything by quoting scripture. There is no question that god will be obeyed or you’ll be condemned, at least in christianity, the Jews are a bit iffy on that question in comparison.
Where’s the “or else” in the story?
You do realize that child sacrifice was later banned explicitly in Torah law, and that Old Testament histories treat it as anathema? This very story is one where G-d stops Abraham from sacrificing his son. This really is “the root story that showed the final severance from Ba’al worshippers and how child sacrifice was not condoned by this new, upstart semitic religion.”
Is your point that this passage illustrates that G-d commands obedience so dramatic that it ought to be called “absolute”? I’m not sure that logically follows. Even if it does, why should absolute obedience entail no questioning? And why should it entail no thought?
There was no “or else.” And indeed, we can reasonably ask why Avraham did not argue, as he had with Sodom. Perhaps G-d wanted him to argue – just as the forefathers and Moses did when they thought G-d was wrong.
So why should your interpretation be given the time of day?
The point wasn’t “kill your son.” It was “Trust me.”
It shouldn’t. My point is that leadership requires power at some level, and lofty platitudes are vacuous.
Wasn’t much of a man to “trust” on such a matter. It’s sick, but that’s for another day.
So I should just ignore your remarks on what the Bible says about absolute obedience?
It’s your bible, believe what you will. Would there be any chance that I might change your mind? :) I’m not trying to.
Sure. Give me evidence. I would hope you think the same.
In looking at any hierarchically organized group the “or else” is implicit IMO. I had a much shorter USMC experience so probably less time to think about it very much but I did not expect to be persuaded through logic or sweetness from anyone set over me.
It seems to me that the ultimate source of the power exercised at all government levels is The People.
Our system is founded in the idea that the people endow the government, and all their various voluntary associations, with its power and that is the source of a military officer’s power as it is the source of the NCA to exercise ultimate power in the name of the nation.
That’s as far as I see when I look for the source of legitimate power in our society.