Doc Holloway comments in part :
> Many people seem to mistake thuggery for leadership (for those of you who
> don't know, Hitler was never voted into office by a majority of
> people...he bullied and intimidated his way into a political role...and
> his henchmen effectively silenced everyone who would speak against him.
> The most terrible thing is that he attracted the evil spirit in so many
> people who saw an advantage or benefit in espousing hatred for people
> because of their ethnic or historical antecedents.
I agree in spirit with Doc in where he implies a moral standard to
leadership. I would also ask the following questions: In the United
States which claims to be the greatest democracy (not the largest, that
title goes to India) who was the last elected president that was "voted
into office by a majority of people" not those who voted, but the majority
of people? As a matter of fact most elected offices are not occupied by
people who were "voted into office by a majority of people". So when we
consider the voice of the people, mandates from the people understand we
are talking about a minority (sometimes an extreme minority).
Thuggery doesn't necessarily have to come at the end of a night stick, or
gun barrel. Evil isn't solely measured in dead bodies. There are those
who would contend that this great democracy is constructed and maintained
for the benefit of the privileged, the elite. Where leadership creates
policy, law and practice that enhances a wider disparity between the haves
and the have nots. Where the "evil spirit in so many people who saw an
advantage or benefit in espousing hatred for people because of their
ethnic or historical antecedents" is practiced in the form of glass
ceilings, racial and sexual discriminations as witnessed in Texaco,
Mitsubishi, Nike and others .... Remember evil doesn't have to be
espoused, just practiced.
I guess there would be those who contend since the taking of life is not
involved, that these are lesser evils. I can not calm myself with the
thought that the great leaders of industry, government and in religion
whose practices (directly or indirectly supportive) are designed to
maximize profit (note I didn't say the creation of, but the maximization
of) and to protect the privileged at the cost sexism, racism and classism,
is a lesser evil. But it isn't just the sexism, racism and classism, it's
the misery inflicted on other human beings, the misery that supports the
creation and maintenance of privilege that is unsettling, that is evil.
To benefit off of others misery, to support elitism, to contribute to the
development of unjust systems and processes, these are the areas in which
leadership has a moral obligation. I contend that their rejection of that
obligation is thuggery and malevolent, the bruises just are not as
obvious.
This discussion list, with all good intentions, uses practice, philosophy,
theory to advance the organization we are affiliated with. There is no
overt intention of killing people, of imprisoning them, denying them
rights or withdrawing privilege, we have no intention of evil. I might
ask us to reflect on the nature of our past discussions. For the most
part I come away with the sense of our notion of Learning Organizations is
not for the benefit of people (read all people) but for our benefactors,
many who see the maintenance of the status quo as a right and just
endeavor. So I do agree with Doc that there ought to be moral standards
for leadership - and a grander question, leading us to what? for the
benefit of who?
This forum is for discussion of opinions (which like, anal sphincters, we
all got one) this one is mine.
John.
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>