Leadership, of sorts

One strain of thought sparked by a recent Molly Ivins column has been about the nature of people in positions of power, and the differences between leadership based on the support of followers, and that based on the control of resources. When I speak of leadership, here, I don't quite mean leadership as such, but its functional equivalent, I suppose. A king, premier, or CEO may or may not be a leader, but he will be making decisions that affect many other people, inhabiting the top of the pyramid, and generally being followed by people who want access to the resources he controls. Or she, of course.

And, oddly enough, Your Humble Blogger found himself thinking fondly of hereditary aristocracy, in this way: resource-based leaders were chosen randomly (by birth) and trained to their positions (from birth). A duke's firstborn son might be a moron, a sadist, or a fainéant, but by the time he comes to power, he will (usually) understand what it entails. He may be bad, or evil, or incompetent; nobody is selecting for leadership traits. However, if the heir presumptive is totally ignorant about the use and abuse of power, it is because of the deliberate abdication of responsibility by his parents or regents. It happened a lot, but it was an aberration. In general, the rule was random selection, with lifelong training.

OK, in a corporate capitalist system, the people who control resources are not chosen randomly, although of course birth does enter into it. For the most part, however, a CEO (and I am comparing a large company to a duchy, which isn't a perfect analogy, and also gives the impression that I think all resource centers in the universe I perceive are corporations, but it'll do for now) takes office based on traits and actions of his own. It's a combination of self-selection and the recommendation of others. Training doesn't necessarily enter into it, and a person may come to power through traits and actions that have little to do with the ability to wield power well.

In particular, consider morality and ethics. There may well be a moral framework and an ethical framework that is particular to those who have control of lots of resources. In fact, it seems obvious to me that there is, although I'm not sure I could define it, or if pressed, defend its existence. At the least, I am prepared to defend the statement that people who control large resources are likely to be confronted by moral and ethical situations that those of us with more limited resources escape. In a hereditary system, a specific attempt can be made to prepare people for those situations. In a meritocracy, it can't, as nobody knows who will have the power until they have it.

Of course, we could select those who control their resources for their moral and ethical sense. No, we could. But we don't. And we could provide remedial moral and ethical training and advice for those who find themselves in positions where they require it. However, I suspect that not only does the selection process tends to weed out those with moral and ethical sense, but it also tends to select for those who would reject training if it were to be offered. I suspect that even if we somehow forced every CEO in the nation to take ethics courses, etc., it would have little effect on those whose arrogance and greed are the most serious problems to society. Not that I want to paint everybody with the same brush; there are those who have and who do seek out assistance and advice, and those who seem to do just fine on the things they have. There isn't a system, though; that part is pretty much random. So, selection for other factors, and random training.

Which is better for society? Random selection and a flawed system for training or selection for other factors and random training? Empirically, the hereditary system is worse, and not only because the training system for ducal heirs was empirically crazy. And there may well not be a better way. Your Humble Blogger is not the Guy with the Answers. I just, you know, blog.

Redintegro Iraq,
-Vardibidian.