Managers, Brokers and Leaders

 

Alexander Liss

 

04/05/2009

 

 

      

     Any city needs a mayor, who is a good manager, one who could coordinate, balance different tendencies, possibilities and goals. A mayor-manager binds together the decision-making mechanism. He helps right decisions to be realized.

     He plays also a role of a broker. There are a few centers of power in the city and a broker is needed to bring a compromise.

     In a corporation there are also a few centers of power – groups of investors and groups of managers. A CEO of the corporation is a broker, the way a mayor is a broker. This is in addition to being a manager.   

     In time of a crisis, there is considerable uncertainty and this often causes either indecisiveness or vacillations. This lack of decision is worse than a mediocre decision. In such situation, a leader is needed. A leader makes a decision based on available limited information. Most likely it is a mediocre decision, because there is no information to make a good decision, but a leader presents it as a well justified decision. This breaks the decision making deadlock or vacillation. Both abilities are important for a leader - the ability to rely on gut feeling and take risk, and the ability to influence others to carry on with this decision.

In time of a crisis, a mayor or a CEO have to be able to lead.

     A rare person can balance skills of a manager, a broker and a leader. In addition, top managers and power brokers have to be able to handle large amounts of money, which is not easy, and they have to be able to resists temptations of money, which is even more difficult. Hence, they have to be rich and they have to be well compensated.

The role of a leader warrants special study.

A military commander has to be a leader, because of environment of high uncertainty, where military operates. In addition, a military commander has to keep some information secret from his subordinates. This only reinforces the need for being a leader.

Withholding of vital information, as a tool to protect the position of leadership, is widely used and abused. It is intoxicating to be a leader, to feel the submission of strong and smart people. It is tempting to continue to hold to power of a leader, when there is no need for it any more. When this could be done through instigation of high level of uncertainty, this is often used.

When this does not work, the dictate could be imposed, then a leader becomes an autocrat.

Note that cooperation of two sides is needed for the rise of a leader-autocrat. A person has to learn to hold to the position on the top and the group has to slide into the state, where it wants the leader-autocrat and gladly abandons self-governance.

This is a stable form of the society or a social group, where there is a leader making decisions for the society or a group and a society or a group wanting this arrangement. Sliding into such arrangement from a situation of self-governance could happen quickly, especially in time of a crisis. Restoration of self-governance from this stable form of society could be very difficult.

Examples of sliding into such autocratic forms of society one could find in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany.

As a result of Great Depression, for awhile, American society slid to semi-autocratic form of society also. This should be a lesson of how easily it happens even in free societies.

In healthy societies, there are mechanisms in place, which allow dislodging of a person imposing own leadership at detriment of the society as a whole.

In democratic societies, such person could be voted out of office, but usually, this mechanism is not sufficient, because in some situations the voters want an autocrat.

The next safe-guard is setting up a system, where there is a group of people competing for the top position of power. This group resists strongly the rise of an autocrat and dislodges the autocrat at a moment of his weakness. This way political systems and systems of governance in corporations are designed.

This explains the layered structure of power in societies and groups, where people feel free. Top layers fight to protect their privileges from being usurped by an autocrat and thus protect freedom of the rest of the society or a group.

     Many people are looking for leaders, when they vote for politicians, select religious community, or try to fit in a corporation. In a free society, they should be looking for people able to play well a role of a manager, not a leader. For example, a city mayor, who acts as a leader instead of focusing on fixing streets and reducing crime, is a bad mayor.

     This is the most important safe-guard of freedom – people have to keep in mind all the time that freedom has to be guarded.