|
|
Musings Report 2023-26 6-24-23 Leadership, Loyalty, Systems and Power
You are receiving this email because you are one of the subscribers/major contributors to www.oftwominds.com.
For those who are new to the Musings reports: they're a glimpse into my notebook, the unfiltered swamp where I organize future themes, sort through the dozens of stories and links submitted by readers, refine my own research and start connecting dots which appear later in the blog or in my books. As always, I hope the Musings spark new appraisals and insights. Thank you for supporting the site and for inviting me into your circle of correspondents.
Thank You, Patrons and Contributors!
Thank you longtime stalwart subscribers and welcome new patrons / subscribers Sophia Media, Joel M., David W., SamChapJoe, David S., Pedro G., John K.A., Sebastian S., Craig W. and Mike M. -- thank you very much!
Leadership, Loyalty, Systems and Power
Wars and geopolitics generate intense emotions.
Setting those aside, what I find of interest are the mechanisms and dynamics of power.
Humans are social beings hard-wired to self-organize into hierarchical structures similar to our hominin cousins (chimpanzees, et al.).
In human societies, these structures can take various forms. Some are strongly hierarchical and centralized (monarchies, dictatorships, etc.) and others are flatter and more decentralized, meaning there are more opportunities for political competition.
In strongly hierarchical (i.e. centralized) systems, the leader is paramount: "L'etat, c'est moi." The state, it's me (attributed to King Louis XIV of France.)
In more decentralized systems, various groups and elites compete for influence. We call this politics, but we must differentiate between the politics swirling around the paramount leader's inner circle, which is personal in nature, and the larger-scale politics of competing elites and groups, which is both personal and broad-based (for example, unions competing with corporate industries).
These systemic differences are not limited to governments. Corporations exhibit the same variations, from strongly centralized to more decentralized.
All leaders demand loyalty of their top aides, as they must be able to trust the aides will serve the interests of the leader.
But there are different kinds of loyalty and these differences become consequential in crises.
Insecure leaders tend to demand personal loyalty above all other competing loyalties to an ideology, organization or nation.
Some leaders see 100% approval of their decisions as "proof" of loyalty, others see the highest loyalty in respectful but honest (and totally confidential) disagreement with the leader's views.
Loyalty has many levels, and can be valued accordingly by leaders. For example, an aide could be loyal to the leader in terms of serving their best interests while remaining intensely loyal to their own organization (the army, NASA, etc.) and loyal to what they view as the nation's best interests. Such an aide might resign if forced to choose personal loyalty over loyalty to the nation or their organization.
These loyalties are dynamic and change as conditions and crises change.
We can see these dynamics in American presidents and other leaders whose inner workings have been revealed by insiders' tell-all autobiographies.
How all these loyalties and political competitions play out can be examined in history. As always, history is a reliable guide to human systems, crises and responses.
For example, Alexander the Great was young and hot-headed and apparently demanded the unquestioning form of loyalty. When one of his generals questioned his judgment, he angrily ran the general through with a spear. (Did I mention that alcohol was typically served round the campfire?)
Everyone in the leader's circle got the message. Loyalty wasn't judged by what might be in the best interests of the nation or even the leader, but by unquestioning obedience to the leader's decisions.
This generates a circle of yes-men, those willing to suppress their own judgment to remain close to power.
It also leaves a destabilizing power vacuum when the paramount leader dies. Once Alexander was gone, his grand empire very quickly splintered into unmanageable shards.
The downside of a centralized power structure with a supreme leader who rejects feedback / variations of opinion, is covered in a book I've recommended before, Global Crisis: War, Climate Change, & Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century.
The author describes what we now call polycrisis, the confluence of multiple major crises in the 1600s which reached criticality in the 1640s.
One of the author's conclusions is that monarchs of the era had gained too much power and therefore did not have to pay attention to competing views and interests. Those demanding personal loyalty above all other loyalties inevitably made catastrophically poor choices, leading to unwinnable wars that drained the treasuries and vitality of their economies and exhausted their options.
Structures define the organization of power, and the nature of the loyalty demanded by supreme leaders define the quality of the decisions made. Systems dynamics predict that limiting the range of inputs and views will generate more errors than systems with a wider range of inputs and views.
This is as true today as it was in 1643, and it's scale-invariant, meaning it applies to our own decisions as well as to decisions made within enterprises, groups, agencies and governments.
Highlights of the Blog
2023-2030: Artifice Vs. Doom-Loops 6/22/23
Doom-Loop I: "Bringing Demand Forward" Will No Longer Save Us 6/21/23
How Did Someone Like Me Get Shadow-Banned? 6/19/23
Best Thing That Happened To Me This Week
I made poi (using an instant pot and blender) from taro harvested from our yard for the second time. Poi is an acquired taste, but you can also eat taro like potatoes, in chunks or mashed. The difference is this dryland taro must be pressure-cooked for an hour to melt the oxalate crystals (which are also in taro leaves). The upside is taro is very nutritious and grows on its own without being bothered much by pests, fungi, etc. To the best of my knowledge, these are ele'ele and Moana ulu taro. There are dozens of types grown locally and hundreds of varieties globally.
Note the two different kinds of taro. We grow four kinds.
Believe it or not, this is $50 worth of poi--$12 per pint. This is from 2.5 pounds of raw taro.
From Left Field
NOTE TO NEW READERS: This list is not comprised of articles I agree with or that I judge to be correct or of the highest quality. It is representative of the content I find interesting as reflections of the current zeitgeist. The list is intended to be perused with an open, critical, occasionally amused mind.
Many links are behind paywalls. Most paywalled sites allow a few free articles per month if you register. It's the New Normal.
New Grads Chasing 'TikTok Lifestyles' Struggle In NYC As Rents Surge
Fueled by Long Credit Binge, China’s Economy Faces Drag From Debt Purge
World’s Largest Fusion Project Is in Big Trouble, New Documents Reveal
Electric Vehicles: Arthur Berman, Pedro Prieto, & Simon Michaux | Reality Roundtable #1 (1:40 hrs)(via Jeremy B.)
China is Throwing Away Fields of Electric Cars (9:51 min) (via Jeremy B.)
Chronic Exercise Preserves lean muscle mass
Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling (via Greg J.)
California's War Against Prosperity: "In 91 of 157 primary industries, the five largest U.S. companies by revenue combine for at least 80% of total revenue."
10 Ways to Thoroughly 'Solarpunk' Society
Fast Fashion and Its Environmental Impact
Grasping at the Suds of Yesterday’s Bubble
"You always have the option of having no opinion. There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you can't control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone." Marcus Aurelius
Thanks for reading--
charles |
|
|
|
|
|
