Who leads an anarchy? LO29189

From: Alan Cotterell (acotrel@cnl.com.au)
Date: 09/17/02

Replying to LO29179 --

Dear Jan,

I think you have summarised the business of leadership in management very

I don't know whether I am really an anarchist, I believe in the ultimate
authority of the CEO, however I have a problem with self-serving,
manipulative middle managers, who sometimes put their own interests before
the good of the organisation.

Your refence to Winston Chrchill was interesting. I believe he was manic
depressive (bipolar disease), and would stand with a post between himself
and triains passing through a station, in case he jumped in front of them.
He was undoubtedly a genius, and was needed to respond to the two other
EVIL geniuses (Joe and Adolph), perhaps onlt FDR was sane amongst them.
He emerged at a time when the whole world was mad.

Winston Churchilll's career was full of meddling with military matters, in
which he had little expertise. He tried the command and control approach,
however ultimately it was a schizophrenic (Montgomery, another genius) who
saved the day for him. Churchill had to delegate, albeit reluctantly.
His opposite number in Germany didn't, and I think we saw the classic
triumph of democracy over an autocracy.

I think it was Will Shakespear who said 'all are mad 'cept thee and me,
and I think thee is a little queer'.

I suggest that authoritarian regimes stifle creativity. Allowing
personnel in organisations to self-manage where appropriate, helps them to
think. It reduces workplace stress, increases self-esteem.

Anyone going down the authoritarian road, puts everyone else at risk.

Best Regards,
Alan Cotterell


"Alan Cotterell" <acotrel@cnl.com.au>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.