By this I mean, organize around some single person for leadership, or in other contexts focus on a popular figure. Even societies that tend to be described as more collectively-organized/oriented tend to do this.
People are people and are as flawed as one another, so this pervasive tendency to elevate others is odd to me. It can be fun and goofy as a game, but as a more serious organizing or focal principle, it just seems extremely fragile and prone to failure (e.g. numerous groups falling into disarray at the loss of a leader/leader & their family, corruption via nepotism and the like, etc.).
Leadership is hard. Really hard. It is very easy to be a bad leader, hence the common perception of bad managers. Everyone can identify bad leadership, but ask someone what makes a good leader. It is hard to define and hard to do.
Leadership also requires taking responsibility for others. Many people do everything they can to avoid responsibility.
Put these two factors together and it becomes pretty obvious why most people shy away from leadership. It is hard and when something goes wrong it is your fault.
Everyone can identify bad leadership
Even this I think is a little questionable. People frequently mistake their failures as failure of leadership.
You’re absolutely right. That’s a third point that I could have mentioned. Very good point.
Word. I think you’re correct and I think a big part of things is that leadership truly requires taking responsibility. So they often mistake their own failures as bad leadership because people have a much easier time blaming the problem on anyone but themselves. Talk to just about anyone about why they didn’t get a good review or got fired or got passed by for a promotion, and very rarely do they take ownership of the problem and instead blame just about anything else.
This is also I think tying into your idea that it’s easy to be a bad leader and the common conception of bad managers (especially middle managers.) Bad leaders blame the team or the market or the next level up in management, and rarely take ownership for the failures of the team because again, people just aren’t wired to do that very well.
These sound sort of contradictory, but I think that the ideas can coexist. A person might fail that has a good leader, but if they really are a good leader, they’re going to be asking themselves if they could have done something differently to help that person under them succeed. And if they are a good leader, that person’s failure won’t be allowed to become the team’s failure.
they’re going to be asking themselves if they’re going to be asking themselves if they could have done something differently
Parents used to read a quick story out of Guideposts every morning at breakfast. Think of it as a nondenominational, “I believe in god” sort of publication. Extraordinarily useful stories, didn’t require much, if any, religion.
One story about a pilot stuck with me then, and has for 40-years. Pilot’s telling his buddy how he’s responsible for everything on his aircraft.
“Yeah, but what if the ground crew gives you bad fuel.”
“I should have checked that.”
“Fine. But what if an engine fails?”
“That’s on me. I should have checked maintenance records.”
“FINE. What if terrorists hijack the plane?” (This was the 80’s when such events were hilariously common.)
“All me. The safety of my plane, my crew and my passengers is my responsibility alone.”
I’m doing an awful job retelling the story, but you get the gist. No matter what his friend threw at him, the answer was, “I could have done $X.”
Imagine the world we could live in if everyone thought, “I could have done something differently”, instead of whining. I’d be hard pressed to describe a bad spot in my life where I could not have made a different decision.
Related:
President at my last job came to my office and said, “Look. You’re going to fuck up at some point. All I ask is that you don’t lie, deflect responsibility or try to hide it. Just come to me, tell me about it and we’ll figure out how to fix it and make it not happen again.” Good as his word.
One time our biggest client’s managers figured a way to see each other’s salary in the new system. My fault? Meh, I could have blamed the software, it really was their oversight. OTOH, I could have found the bug myself with a little more diligence.
Pulled him out of a meeting, shaking in my boots, explained the issue. He just chuckled and said, “Don’t worry about it. Let’s go look.”
That’s the kind of attitude that makes you a trusted leader, on both our parts.
(Someone who had abusive parents is going to object to all this. I can’t help that. Taking responsibility, no matter what, has worked quite well for me in life.)
This is pretty much what I was getting at. There are always circumstances and things that hold you back, but foregoing your own agency is the one that will hold you back the most.
Got my first taste as a kid leading the pack, alpha nerd.
Summer mornings I’d pick up the phone and school phone book and start dialing, or I’d get called first. It was on me to decide what we would do that day and get it together. Herding nerds is a hella chore. If we had fun, great! If the day didn’t work out? All on me. And guess who was the default dungeon master?
It quickly got to the point where I was responsible for our fun. Now translate that into leading a company’s success.
Lemmy: “CEOs are useless and should die in a fire!”
Hey, I’m pretty darn leftist (democratic socialist, not tankie) and pretty opposed to the current state of affairs regarding CEOs, so I feel this is targeted at me… and yet totally misrepresents the position.
CEOs are not useless. CEOs absolutely set the “tone at the top” and create the entire culture for a company. At the same time, CEOs do not work 400 times harder than the average worker, yet that is what they are paid. CEOs are also capable of doing great abuse to those beneath them, and have next to zero accountability for it. CEOs are kings in their little fiefdoms, and I say down with all monarchy. Note that “down with kings” does not mean “down with leaders”, nor does it say or even imply that kings aren’t leaders, or that leadership is useless to have.
Yep people complain about CEO salary when they don’t realize that is how much it cost to pay them to leave their current (successful) situation in order to take on that role elsewhere. Not always the case, some come from within and get paid well to stay, too.
Salaries are definitely too high in a lot of cases, but you’re paid based on what you can command on the market and not a penny less. But yeah it fucking sucks haha.
For sure, and I failed to really get at this more in the OP, but it’s because of those difficulties that in part made me wonder, “Well, what’s an alternative look like?”
Individual leadership in particular seems primed for either abuse from above or below (i.e. a scapegoat for people’s avoidance of responsibility).
Yep, well said. For OP’s question… It’s pretty common to see a leader bring his whole group with him/her wherever they go and people follow because having a good leader is pretty tough to come by. I know a lot more people loyal to a particular person than a particular company.
Because it’s easy. You don’t have to think for yourself if you let someone else do it.
Equally important is that, depending on context, leading or forging your own path is hard.
Are you just confused on why leaders exist or something
Nearly every organization a person is in from ages 5-25 is hierarchical. There is always a authority figure you have to at least pretend to listen too. And if you tick off that authority figure by doing something they don’t like, they punish you in some form.
So people learn to ignore authority figures as much as they can and rarely challenge them directly as there are usually consequences for challenging someone in certain contexts. This leads to everyone pretending to agree and pretending to care about what leaders care about to avoid conflict. It is simply easier to cater to those who can and will make your life miserable than to challenge them successfully without creating grudges that might come back to bite you.
It is also worth noting that we are never taught to lead others, We are just expected to figure it out by trial and error or not figure it out at all.
TLDR; It’s learned behavior from the institutions we are exposed to. It’s easier and more encouraged to follow than to challenge authority figures.
Just to add to this: there is, although seeing it thuroughly implemented is comparatively uncommon, there are the practices of ‘democratic education’ and ‘self directed education’. The sudbury valley school in massechusets is one, relatively well known, example of thiese.
In those context, the trends are, in many ways, turned on their head. They, sudbury valles school as an example, havee a website, and a a youtube channel(, accesible vía That froendly alternative frontend that I can’t rember just now) , with intervies with some alumni of the school, and some published books listed with accounts from other svs graduates.
Just wanted to add, that the phenomenon described with in the comment replied to, although all too common, are not universal., nor always are they the only option.
edit: this page gives n OK overview of the self directed edu things : https://www.self-directed.org/sde . Pretty sure it can be seen as related to the question and the above reply.
edit:spelling and grammar.
Just wanted to add, that the phenomenon described with in the comment replied to, although all too common, are not universal., nor always are they the only option.
Great point. The link provided looks interesting, I’ll take a look at it.
Side Note: The spelling mistakes in the first and second paragraph kinda detract from your message about different ways of organizing education. It is pretty ironic to have a post with multiple misspellings recommend a different way of education.
In my defence, I’m new to this keyboard and have big fingers. Also, although I know aof it’s existence, I haven’t attended any sde I schools myself.
My formal language education Is all quite conventional, with conventional leadership structures and decision making processes, and all. So please don’t let that detract from the subjects mentioned.(i really should remember to check spelling, before posting, though 😅)
Anyway, I’m glad that sde style alternatives, and how they relate to the question, may be of intrest.
Yeah, I usually try to avoid correcting people, but I didn’t want any misspellings giving any future viewers a bad first impression of the linked educational resource.
Mine too. As far as spellchecking, I use a front-end(Alexandrite) for Lemmy that spellchecks.However, I get that a lot of people use a mobile interface that makes it easier to miss such things.
I have found myself, recently, rediscovering how to make goals and plans after having them suppressed by the conventional school system for most of my life. That fits with the deschooling term that is used on the linked resource. According to [self-directed.org] (https://www.self-directed.org/sde/conditions/) “In Self-Directed Education communities, young people are sharing an environment with adults who are deschooling alongside them”
We are social animals.
I may be an animal, but I am NOT social.
but I am NOT social.
Said to another human while using a service that is designed for social interaction.
You might be awkward in public but you’re still human.
This is such a deliberately charged question with so much inherent bias. Please don’t let this place become r/nostupidquestions
How might you put the question otherwise?
Human civilization has tended to always have a hierarchy with a leader at the top. Is this a natural phenomenon or a learned one?
Thanks, that does read as more balanced, I agree. I opted for what I felt more fitting for a casual community (which is how I see this community), but you’re right that in turn it’s more charged.
I think I would have been more inclined to write it your way if I were posing the question to a more academically inclined community like askscience or more specifically asksociologists. At the same time, though, I think the nature/nurture framing would lend itself to its own problems as one can readily find across various papers that brush against that sharp splitting vs. a more interwoven assessment (i.e. mixture of the two).
A lot of people don’t really understand how things work. Rather than try to understand, they latch on to someone who does understand. In return for their loyalty, they get a path up where they won’t threaten the boss in charge.
A lot of people don’t really understand how things work. Rather than try to understand, they latch on to someone who does understand.
Wouldn’t it be more apt to say that a lot of people latch on to someone who appears or acts as if they understand how things work, given the thinking that a lot of people simply don’t understand to begin with?
Definitely. If you don’t understand how the world works, you can’t tell if someone else does either. Only experts can easily spot fake experts. And that’s exactly the trouble with things like pseudoscience and misinformation; it’s easy to fall for without the domain knowledge necessary to avoid falling for it.
A perfect example is this guy from my last job. Thought himself a leader. Thought himself knowledgeable. Always had an answer, regardless of actual facts. Alternated between barking out orders and lamenting on how he had to do everything himself. Constantly getting schooled by people who actually knew the subject matter. Those who had been around just kinda put up with his BS because he filled a position that nobody else wanted.
Enter new management, who was very impressed with his authoritative tone, apparent breadth of knowledge, and willingness to lick boot. Suddenly management is bypassing dude’s bosses to go straight to the horse’s mouth and get the straight dope (which often involved taking credit for other people’s work and bus-chucking whoever was handy). All because someone who barely knew what he was talking about spoke confidently to people that had no idea what was going on.
Yeah, it would be.
This is the best answer so far in my opinion
A great example is when you’re in elementary school and you get that one really athletic kid on your team for some team sport in gym class. You know you’re not on that level and never will be, so you tie yourself to them, knowing that them succeeding is good for you.
Likewise, we like to attach our fortunes to a designated person, and they become greater than just a person in our mind. Like, that athletic kid is not longer simply a kid who’s good at sports; they’re the athletic kid. Our favored 19th-century political thought leader is no longer just some person who had opinions on society and wrote them down; they’re a political messiah.
Asking why like this has the implicit flawed premise that human behaviors like this are products of conscious thought. They are not. (I don’t mean this as a criticism of you particularly, it is inherent in our culture to look at everything humans do as if it were rational and conscious, despite the reality that so much is it is not.)
I’d answer this by saying it is human nature. Most people don’t think about it and are not aware they are doing it. Many might even deny it. This is not to say individuals can’t stop and reflect and be conscious and rational about. Some do but most don’t.
I’d answer this by saying it is human nature.
I follow where you’re coming from, however I’m quoting this little part as I always find arguments to “nature” suspect, especially regarding conscious entities which complicate this observation/thinking. You can probably guess where I’m going with this, that being, “Well, what is human nature?” which as you say isn’t a criticism/dig at you, it’s more of a personal quibble with the “nature” line of thinking.
Nevertheless, I lean towards agreeing with you in the sense that it may be more related to an unreflective/unconscious social predisposition of humans specifically (possibly other social species as well in their own forms).
Well “it’s human nature” can indeed be a cop out. It shouldn’t be a discussion ender. And it shouldn’t be a justification. Murder is a part of human nature too. However it is a reality to be worked with. And one can ask, in what conditions is this behavior brought out, and in what conditions discouraged?
Asking why like this has the implicit flawed premise that human behaviors like this are products of conscious thought.
This is not generally a flaw. We can ask “why?” questions about lots of natural processes that don’t involve conscious thought. For example, a lot of plant growth follows mathematical patterns; the “why?” is that this optimizes the use of space or of sunlight, so it’s favored by evolution.
Oh I agree with you. I didn’t mean asking why was flawed, but specifically asking why with the implicit assumptions we tend to carry about human actions being rational and conscious. I agree that asking “why is this a part of human nature?” is a good question.
I’d answer this by saying it is human nature.
I would actually disagree with that statement to some degree. I think it is largely learned behavior to follow in the context of modern society. We spend 15+ years of our life having to follow authority in some way via the school system and that conditions us to follow more than lead on a society wide scale.
There is certainly an element of nature too via mirroring. Mirroring is when people subconsciously imitates the gestures and body language of another person to help build trust. However, I believe that our cultures way of nurturing obedience via its institutions is a bigger factor in how we treat leaders.
Because it’s easier than going on your own
For sure. Humans are super social and our big brains enable so much verbal, nonverbal, and written communication that we became more efficient as a group. All the greatest things out there, bridges and sky scrapers and roads were built by teams, not an individual, because of our strong communication skills.
It’s called sheep behavior for a reason. Most people are hard wired to be followers. It’s why your best leader will always apply servent leadership. A servant leader shares power, puts the needs of the followers first and helps people develop and perform as highly as possible. Instead of the people working to serve the leader, the leader exists to serve the people.
You don’t have to “elevate” a person in order for them to be a leader. You just have to recognize that they have a certain organizational skill set that not everyone has. That skill set helps things get done. It’s just a job and they’re just people.
I agree with another commenter that this not something that people consciously think about when they do it. I think the main thing you’re touching on is groupthink. This is the reason that groups of people behave differently than you’d expect individual people to.
Positions of leadership (and therefore power) as an institution are traits passed down to us from Feudalists who organized society in hierarchies. I would say groupthink allows these kinds of social structure to continue long past the point that people realize there a better ways because they assume other members of the group are okay with them.
That’s all not to mention the fact that some people are genuinely skilled leaders or that people in positions of leadership are going to have a bigger influence in what is accepted in the group.
This thread has a lot of frankly bad takes in it. Lots of people going “the majority of people are just hard wired to love authority” and that’s just wrong. Psychological research into authoritarian personalities (the kind of people who are like that) tells us authoritarian follower personalities not rare but by no means are they the majority.
I think you know where all this stuff comes from because the fact that you’re asking the question at all makes me think you’re on the other side of the authoritarian follower spectrum (anti-authoritarian). What would happen to the person who rejected authority figures? They would be hurt. That does not come about by accident and it’s not some innate feature of human psychology. It is intentional. Authority (control) is maintained with violence. Either soft violence (neglect) or actually capital-V Violence.
Ignorance is bliss, why do the thinking yourself?
Thinking for yourself is difficult. Turning off your brain and doing what you’re told is much easier than forging your own path.
