842 words (500-800 max)
Symposium: Provoking Perspectives of Creativity and Innovation in Leadership
Due date: September 1, 2015
The Leader as Destroyer: "Now I am become Shiva"
Author:
Nathan W. Harter, J.D.
Christopher Newport University
Luter Hall 201D
1 Avenue of the Arts
Newport News, VA 23606
812-614-8639;
[email protected]
The Leader as Destroyer: "Now I am become Shiva"
A. Introduction
Leadership often responds to the threat of destruction. The threat of destruction serves as a prompt for taking action. But, what of that leadership by which destruction comes?
The literature does a good job of talking about bringing forth something new -- introducing a vision or building momentum for positive change, working to improve the world in some fashion. What it does not do so well, however, is talk about bringing things to a close, e.g. shuttering the factory, letting go of an employee, dismantling a system piece-by-piece, or just saying good-bye. The plain truth is that leaders often destroy. This too is a leadership function.
If we in leadership studies are interested in provoking perspectives of creativity, then we might also investigate perspectives of destruction in leadership. Destruction is a fact of life, a part of existence. It can be beneficial, if not necessary. We can dissect it in a variety of ways.
B. Destruction is inherent
Prominent historical figures often destroyed something. Sometimes, that was their purpose:
Lincoln dismantled slavery
MLK resisted segregation
Mandela transcended apartheid
Sometimes, destruction is perceived to be a necessary (if regrettable) means to some worthy end, as in war. Military leadership is usually premised on the necessity of killing people and breaking things. "We had to destroy the village to save it." But then teachers flunk pupils, municipal authorities bulldoze slums, manufacturers recall defective products, boxers throw in the towel.
In the literature, we can go back to Gilgamesh and Achilles for the drama of overcoming a foe. But destruction can be directed inward. It has become a trope, based on the examples of Socrates and Jesus, for the hero to sacrifice himself for the sake of the cause. Lenin dedicated his leisure and powers to nothing but the revolution; his discipline meant subduing comforts. In popular culture -- spoiler alert! -- both Neo in the Matrix trilogy and Harry Potter had to perish in order to conquer.
The oldest fragment of Western philosophy, by Anaximander, held that all beings emerge and pass away by grim necessity (Ananke), paying a penalty for their coming-to-presence, as though the existence of anything is somehow illegitimate, deserving of the furies. Every object comes to destruction in its time. This was thought to be cosmic "justice" (Dikê).
If you build a wooden house, wood burns. If you build an iron gate, iron rusts. In the same manner, if you organize people – for whatever purpose – they are altogether people; one is constrained by "the crooked timber of humanity." Perhaps we in leadership studies should take seriously that it is in the nature of things and of people to destroy and be destroyed.
As the preacher in Ecclesiastes put it, "To everything there is a season, [including] a time for tearing down."
C. Destruction is not necessarily bad
People assume that destruction is bad. They rise up in protest at harvesting the forest, for instance, culling an elephant herd, and mountaintop removal (MTR) coal mining. Destruction implies loss and therefore woe, an occasion to fear and lament. Few activities are more god-like than destroying, even when a boy absently topples an ant hill, for to destroy exhibits power and wreaks both fascination and terror. But is it necessarily bad?
Economists remind us that in business, competition frequently entails Creative Destruction (Schumpeter). The automobile famously closed the buggy whip industry. Progress depends on overcoming the present. Winning in the marketplace depends on making losers. Thus, one reads about business owners downsizing, closing product lines, liquidating subsidiaries, and otherwise cutting their losses to gain an advantage. Leaders are frequently expected to effect a separation at work from underperforming subordinates. Nevertheless, criticisms of managerial capitalism as cruel and heartless abound.
The goodness or badness of destruction falls within a range from altogether good (at one extreme) to altogether bad (at the other), or somewhere in between. Sometimes, it is both good and bad.
D. Analyzing destruction
1. In the study of destruction, we can differentiate destruction of the whole from the destruction of the part.
2. We can analyze destruction at multiple levels. The destruction at one level might mean health at another level, like pruning a rosebush.
self or other (micro level)
relationships (meso level)
organizations (macro level)
environment (meta level)
3. We can recognize destruction meant to replace A for B or to reconfigure A1 for A2.
4. We can distinguish between causing destruction, such as taking a sledgehammer to a statue, and allowing destruction to occur, such as neglecting a garden till it becomes overgrown. In addition, we might examine instances when the leader is not even the agent of destruction, yet must rise in response.
E. Conclusion
Leadership as a process entails destruction, whether intentional or not. Frequently, we can even criticize a leader for failing to destroy, or for doing it poorly. We certainly ought to look at leader development as a process of self-discipline by "destroying" something within. But to do any of that, we must first acknowledge the place of destruction in the leadership process.
1
