Limits on Power

Many people, it seems, have a poor understanding of the dynamics of power and leadership. My guess is that the misunderstanding is a consequence of most people not being in leadership positions. That is, in most of our roles in life we are answerable to another person -- whether as children, students or employees -- and only rarely if ever are actually in a position of temporal power. There is some inevitability in this since power pretty much requires that there be more order-takers than order-givers; after all, that's close to being a definition of power: to coerce or pursue others to do what you want rather than what they might want.

Yet power is not some simple in its reality. We are assaulted daily by the media with stories of the powerful being brought low, whether they be politicians, CEOs, tycoons, generals or coaches. We may even feel a bit guilty by a sudden feeling of schadenfreude that washes over us, perhaps due to a latent resentment of our own lack of power. Power is mostly a temporary matter, unstable by our own natures and by the ambition of others who aspire to already-filled positions of power. Those who would keep their power quickly learn to rein it in since even for kings power is never absolute: it requires the acceptance of others. The delicate matter of gaining and maintaining power was starkly outlined many centuries ago by no lesser a figure than Niccolo Machiavelli in his classic, "The Prince".

Therein lies a challenge for the powerful: to use that power to achieve desired outcomes while maintaining power at least long enough to see the job through. We see this domestically as we wonder just how far Harper will push the so-called conservative agenda, since going too far or too fast could result in his loss of power. Wisely, he keeps his intentions vague enough that we are not even certain if that is what he actually intends. Then look south to the United States where many left-leaning activists are disappointed with Obama's apparent failure to reverse much of what they hated so much about the Bush era: Iraq, civil liberties, investment in science, and so forth. There is always that question about whether they have corrupted by power -- therefore acting in a way that is primarily intended to keep them in power -- or are being realistic about how much they can command changes to the status quo without threatening their hold on power -- and therefore their ability to, eventually, effect those changes.

Command and control has its limits. Even in the military, commanders who go too far in what they demand of their subordinates will lose that power, and often their lives. History is peppered with stories of mutinies and "fragging". In the political and business spheres, power is even more limited: the electorate can turn on governments in a moment (Mulroney), parties can turn on their leaders (e.g. Dion), and CEOs can be ousted by their companies' owner (e.g. Trump, Asper).

The body (corporation, party, etc.) which , organizes, channels and focuses is usually more powerful than those at the top and can reject them if the body itself is threatened by commands from the top. This is different from the threat from outside elements, in that it can be even more insidious. Remember the British comedy series "Yes, Minister"? Political power was treated humourously, but the program often cut right to the heart of the reality of power. In my own business life I have seen CEOs parachuted in from the outside to "shake things up" or to "set a new direction" or "reinvigourate" the company, only to have them spectacularly fail. When the organization is resistant to change -- and almost all are -- coming in with guns blazing will not work. These CEOs never learn what is really going on or how things work, and those they must rely on to effect change are part of the problem. Recall this famous quote by Harry S Truman, in speaking of incoming President, General Eisenhower:

"He'll sit here, and he'll say: 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike. It won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating."

For example, even as Nortel brought in one unsuccessful CEO after another, the middle layers of management stayed mostly the same, and those managers protected themselves at the expense of the company and of the various senior managers that passed through from time to time. It was through those managers that change needed to be effected, but they had more real power than those above them. Typically they sacrificed those even lower down the hierarchy, and the products and business for which they were responsible, when they were forced to get along with fewer resources.

This brings us to leadership: the ability to influence others to follow and change even where they are not compelled by power to do so. Those with power who are also good leaders tend to be the most successful. Nortel lacked good leaders. The United States has someone in Obama who shows signs of being a good leader, but is as yet unproven. If we look at the matter of health care, he can only go so far in ordering action since too many are unpersuaded. So he leads, but he also negotiates. Something I wonder is if his continuance of many Bush policies -- domestic security, bailing out Wall Street and support of private interests -- are elements of his negotiations to get health care passed; is he reducing general opposition to his administration (his power) while he focuses with laser precision on one specific and overarching objective. Despite the disappointment of many who worked hard to see him elected, this may simply be a matter of Obama understanding the true nature and limitations of his power, and he is therefore proceeding pragmatically. If true, and if he succeeds at this one task, others success initiatives will follow.

Absolute power is an ideal that does not exist, neither in the hands in whom we trust nor in the hands of those we are against. Power can only be partially successful, and only with a judicious combination of leadership and coercion. For those who doubt that command and control is the right and proper way to exercise power, try it by getting into a position of power and see how far you can go. This is a sure way to quickly learn a lesson in the limits of power.