Economics of Leadership

I’m not saying that leaders
have to be liked or disliked;
they need to be respected.

Sometimes that’s entirely
in their control; actually,
if the system in place
doesn’t make that possible,
then either the system
is wrong or they shouldn’t
be a leader.

A leader is someone worth
looking up to, not someone
it was decided for some
meaningless reason should
be placed in that role. If
they can do the job and can
be respected for doing it,
then the results are secondary,
are not even the point. The
point of a leader is to make
a situation make more sense,
to set some kind of standard
by which the rules can be
applied. Rules first,
leadership second. But if the
leader can’t think outside
of the rules, then they can’t
lead, because to lead, they have
to be respected, and hey,
respect is all about trusting
that they’ll do the right thing,
and the right thing is not
always in the rules.

The leader is someone who
can be trusted to have the best
interests of those below them
in mind, even when those people
don’t understand them. The leader
combines the rules and the needs
of the people together, and that
is what earns them respect.

If a leader only leads by following
rules and wanting to be liked,
then they’re not worthy of respect,
because neither the rules
nor wanting to be liked are
any basis for leadership. A leader
is able to lead, was picked to lead,
because they are capable of
earning respect, and respect is
what leadership is all about.

If there is no respect, there is
no leadership, and the leader
cannot lead. There may be a
problem when respect is
confused with whether this
leader is liked, and maybe that’s
something we really have
to work on, but that is not
something that’s worth
arguing here. It’s not even
something that should be
a problem, maybe something
they have to teach in school,
maybe (the economics of
education are probably
more complicated than those
of leadership), but here, respect
is all, respect is key, respect
is leadership.

I think the present concern
for society is all about that,
about getting past the past,
past the need to hold leaders
in any regard but the need
to respect them, a basic struggle
to get past the old rules
and old prejudices, that
would shatter old pretenses
and the model of ‘rich’ and
‘poor,’ so that ‘rich’ really
meant people were successful
only in figuring themselves out,
knowing what they set out to do
and doing it (which is what our
common understanding of the
‘American Dream’ already says,
though it’s not how we actually
understand it), and ‘poor’ meant
that a person shouldn’t can’t
understand where their life
was headed.

In a perfect world, economics
would allow leadership to be
defined merely by respect,
and success merely in achieving
goals, and not in collecting
meaningless things to get
meaningful things. Leadership
would mean directing matters
to mutual benefit, and not
to maintain rules that ultimately
serve only limited good, that
fluctuates and tell people
they’re not worth what leaders
are, even though most leaders
aren’t worth what their title means.

Success today means actually
getting the chance to do what
you love, which necessarily says
most people can’t, or are pressed
into corners that corrupt passion,
and power means corruption. Leadership
is power, and it is understood best
as a joke, something without
respect. I think that’s the struggle
we face, the unsteady scales on which
we balance. A leader is the person
who can place weights on both sides,
and that is what we best need to be told now.

What is that worth? I think the value
is great, greater than any quality
can measured, and better understood,
if only we’d allow ourselves to see it,
but we are in a struggle, and sometimes
it’s so very hard to see. Sometimes
we prefer to judge, and tip the balance
wherever it’s easiest.

And in that way,
we are truly blind.

So, just listen for the voice,
and hope for a leader.