Leadership

CSGnet Archive CSG1992
1

[From Dag Forssell (920622-1)]

Bill Powers (920622.0800)

But leadership, it seems to me, is a role in a social hierarchy. It
requires followers.

The idea that a leader is defined as someone who has followers is indeed
the predominant interpretation in our society. I believe it an
unfortunate one. It is not the only one available.

Webster's says:

LEADERSHIP n. 1. the position or guidance of a leader.
              2. the ability to lead.

I'm first of all an explorer of a new idea, second a teacher, and third
a student. These are things that anyone can be. On this net, everyone
plays these roles at one time or another. For one person to be any of
these things does not rule out another person being the same things,
at the same time, in the same group.

Yes, indeed. I think it fits nicely in the second definition above.

The worst result, from my point of view and in my circumstances, is
that followers learn from a leader how to follow, not how to explore,
teach, and learn.

This does not follow from an emphasis on explore, teach and learn (a good
model of reality), (applicable to any field of endeavor) which I think
is a better definition of leadership.

This new idea is far more important than I am; it will be remembered
long after I am forgotten.

Yes.

I don't want to think that when I disappear from the scene, my followers
will cast around for someone else to follow, someone with another
admirable idea, and will never think of carrying on for themselves what
we are doing together now.

Again, this concern falls if you let go of the emphasis on following. I
can't conceive of a control system wanting to follow. What a control
system wants is good systems concepts to inspire good principles, so you
can select effective programs ... so you can maintain your body
chemistry. A control system is DESIGNED TO LEAD ITSELF; to satisfy its
own purposes as it perceives them. Purposeful Leadership as I define it
is the development and communication of good information that allows
every individual to lead him/her self in full autonomy. It is a non-
manipulative, non-coercive, non-violent approach. Your example from the
newspaper was a pretty good example of this.

With good information shared and internalized voluntarily, people will
be aligned and will automatically cooperate on the mutual concerns.

I need friends, people I love and who feel love for me, colleagues,
equals.

How about fellow leaders?

Not your blind "follower," but an autonomous student.

Dag

2

[From Dag Forssell (920622-2)]

Bruce Nevin (920622.1318), Bill Powers (920622.1600)

Ok, Bruce. A difficulty on this net is that anything can be and is taken
so damn literally. You have a point of course. I did learn to lead in
dance once upon a time. It is important in ballroom dancing to give clear
signals to your partner (follower) with a steady hand. The follower
chooses to follow and concentrates on that.

Leadership is often understood to mean that you tell someone WHAT TO DO,
then they follow by doing what you tell them to do. This emphasis on
doing and instructions fits nicely in a cause-effect world.

I am trying to redefine and sell Leadership as the idea that if you want
to lead, the MOST EFFECTIVE way is to offer good (a description of that
Boss Reality that is as good as you can make it or negotiate it in open
discussion) information for your "followers" to evaluate and make part
of their own systems concepts if they want to (understand, no conflicts
with pre-existing concepts, relevant etc). --- Then you step out of the
way and let the "followers" control to their hearts content. You will not
need to supervise or "control" their actions, because that is built in.

This is what I read into that quote from Max De Pree.

This form of leadership is inherently non-violent. Teaching it will not
work if the top management in a company is coercive, as I perceive most
to be. Therefore the idea MUST be sold at the very top. To the very
people who are used to insisting on results or else. I am counting on
finding a few who will see it my way, but don't expect many. A few is all
I need. Once the process is understood, the leadership/information can
come from anyone in the organization.

This net offers leadership from all corners, causing re-organization and
growth and progressively better understanding.

I appreciate Bill's kind comments on the letter. I shall review it one
more time for adjectives. Christine has already been after me for months
on that, and I thought it was fairly free from unsupportable judgements.

Dag

3

[From Dag Forssell(920625)]

Hank Folson (920623)

An interesting perspective. Reminds me of "How to be a Christian in a
Non-Christian world." A popular bible study group topic, I understand.

To promote PCT, our challenge is to show that knowledge of PCT can lead
to greater satisfaction.

One aspect of this that I have noted is that (it seems to me) many people
set impossible references for themselves: wanting to change history,
their own upbringing (their subjective impression of it at that), or some
aspect of their city or country that seems far removed from their
capability to influence.

Continuing to consider the issue of following:

Bruce Nevin (Mon 920422 15:02:32)

I can't conceive of a control system wanting to follow.

Oh, come on, Dag! You can't mean that, can you?

Is there really such a thing as following? Or is this yet another
instance of: "The human pie has already been sliced."

All we can do to each other as interacting control systems is to disturb
one another (at the lowest levels.) The information we experience from
a disturbance is interpreted and incorporated at the principle and system
concept levels (if it is to have any leadership effect.) Each person
controls him or her self given what s/he understands.

Alluding to my letter, let me suggest:

An understanding of cybernetic control (by which I meant PCT, of course)
contains an explanation of the illusion of people following a leader.

Specifically, when Bruce Nevin leads in a dance, (you handsome hunk) an
analysis of his follower's PURPOSES might suggest romantic systems
concepts/principles causing the follower to control for exquisite,
seductive "following."

When Saddam Hussein's followers' PURPOSES are analyzed, you might find
some principle like survival of self and family. Just guessing.

It is ALL control!

Just like the meaning of "wife" is based on individual experience, so
every word we use is subject to individual interpretation. LEADERSHIP is
no exception. $175.- and the U.S. patent office says I get to define what
I mean by Purposeful Leadership tm, and may try to explain it.

(This thread has been very helpful.)

A while back, I discovered that I had to re-evaluate my views on
character issues in the light of PCT. I have accepted Rick Markens
emphatic suggestion that: It is ALL control.

This places me in Hank's category 2.

Clearly, this process of having to re-evaluate our category 1
understanding afflicts all of us on this net. Bill included:

Bill Powers (920624.1200)

I drift back and forth between paradigms, although as the years have
gone by (more for me than most others), I've spent less time in the
system concepts I was raised with and more in a new one. I think that
when it comes to the crunch, I now opt for the new one almost all of the
time.

It is amazing how many of the existing human pie slices need re-
evaluation. (Bill suggested in the video Ed produced a few years ago that
most people have a complete world view by age twelve, so anyone who did
not learn PCT in kindergarten at the latest, will have a lot of re-
evaluation to do.)

We are now looking at leadership. Sales is a very closely related
subject, and then there is the framework of economics (where the sales
take place,) which Bill has suggested for a thread.

The useful perspective seems to me to be to look at the follower's
control, the buyer's control and of course the control processes involved
in many individuals in the production, exchange and consumption of goods
and services.

It occurs to me that "following" has both

1 a very technical meaning: direct employment by the follower of a signal
  as an adopted reference, which is what the dance partner does, which
  Bruce called me on, and

2 a "human pie slice" meaning: the attractive force the leader exerts on
  the follower to cause the follower to follow as a mindless victim,
  which I could not conceive of. "Charisma" comes to mind. Does it
  exist? No!

Reading and participating on the net sure provides an education. The
recent discussion of statistics and the general lack of value of research
based on a concept which is not at all descriptive of the phenomenon it
is supposed to research seems in large measure a repeat of a year ago.

It is still fascinating to me, and a welcome refresher course. It seems
obvious how difficult it is for a person to abandon cherished systems
concepts, no matter how clear the arguments seem to others, who do not
have the same personal investment in them.

Thomas Kuhn's "Scientific Revolution" is being played out here daily.

The show goes on. Remember: It is all control of perception.

Best, Dag.

4

[From: Bruce Nevin (Fri 920626 11:23:45)]

(Dag Forssell(920625) ) --

Bruce Nevin (Mon 920422 15:02:32)

I can't conceive of control system wanting to follow.

Oh, come on, Dag! You can't mean that, can you?

Is there really such a thing as following? Or is this yet another
instance of: "The human pie has already been sliced."

The original question was

  Can a control system want to follow another control system?

You are shifting now to ask another question:

  Can a control system follow another control system?

The "gather" program shows how one control system can follow another in
terms of location. A control system follows another in this sense by
setting as its goal a perception of proximity to the other.

Following surely cannot mean producing the identical behavioral outputs.
We know this because of the variability of behavioral outputs with
respect to the reference signal. (Or with respect to the outcome, more
or less equivalent depending on success of control.)

Nor can it mean assuming the identical reference signals for identical
(or equivalent) controlled perceptions. We know this because all the
follower has to go by is the behavioral outputs of the leader, among
other environmental variables. Plus memory and imagination, of course,
which are the means for projecting, anthropomorphizing, and so on,
which we necessarily do all the time.

There are two corresponding questions for the other member of the dyad:

  Can a control system want to lead another control system?
  Can a control system lead another control system?

From the existence of a large literature and a long history of

"leadership" it seems clear that a control system can want to lead
another.

It seems to me clear that A can lead B only to the extent and in the
manner that B wants to follow A. This is why virtually all of
traditional thinking about leadership boils down to "motivation"--
getting others to want to follow you. (Ditto for pedagogy.)

Assume that B wants to follow A. The extent and manner depends on B's
other goals. B can follow just in terms of proximity, as in the
"gather" demo (puppy dog). This kind of following ranges from detailed
minickry (mirroring) to very slight correlations such as B following A
with his eyes.

Much of what we mean by "follow" is metaphorical, with this literal
sense as a basis. We can easily identify the metaphor when we say B is
"following A's argument" or "following A's line of thought."

The metaphor is not so obvious, perhaps, when we talk of B following A
in the sense of coming to A for directions, going off and executing
them, and coming back to A for more.

"Following directions" seems to mean to control one's perceptions so
that they mimic ("follow") the perceptions that one imagines on hearing
or reading the directions.

"Following A's argument" seems to involve imagining the argument for
oneself, and finding that the imagined line of argument corresponds with
what A has said and is saying.

It occurs to me that "following" has both

1 a very technical meaning: direct employment by the follower of a signal
as an adopted reference, which is what the dance partner does, which
Bruce called me on, and

2 a "human pie slice" meaning: the attractive force the leader exerts on
the follower to cause the follower to follow as a mindless victim,
which I could not conceive of. "Charisma" comes to mind. Does it
exist? No!

The first meaning concerns the question of how one control system can
follow another. I have suggested some ideas about this above.

The second meaning concerns the question of why one control system would
choose to follow another, the traditional question of how to "motivate"
someone. I don't think this is a closed question at all. To paraphrase
P.T. Barnum, some of the people want to follow all of the time, all of
the people want to follow some of the time, but not all of the people
want to follow all of the time.

If B is not confident and purposeful in a given situation, B may seek
someone to follow until in a situation where B is more confident and
purposeful. (Purposeful: has clear goals, is controlling for them
without major conflict.) We can discuss why this is so.

If I am B in such a situation, I will follow one who appears confident
and purposeful rather than one who appears unconfident and irresolute.
We can discuss why this is so.

Some people are unconfident and irresolute and conflicted in much of
their waking experience. I suspect that many such people came to be so
because of childhood experience with adults who emphasized conformity
with external authority and arbitrary standards, enforced in punitive
ways.

It can happen that such a person feels confident and purposeful in an
institutionalized social context with clearly assigned roles and
relationships of relative authority, in accord with standards
established for those institutions. Such people can become "leaders"
within that framework. They know "the system." They become very anxious
outside it, and resist contradiction to it. I think that outside the
system they fear unexpected punishment; my experience is that outside
the system (that is, in circumstances in which they can no longer
interprete their perceptions as within the familiar institutional
context) they become unconfident and irresolute. They often despise
indecision and lack of confidence. (Such people, by the way, are
unlikely to be drawn to HPCT at this stage in its history. And this
parallels the familiar left/right ideological dichotomy.)

I suggest that charisma depends in part upon the appearance of
confidence and purposefulness. As you have suggested, Dag, this
connects with sales and marketing, where the pumped-up appearance often
outstrips the basis of confidence and the real purposes are ulterior.
But charisma can be genuine. When you're looking for the exit in a
crowded waiting room, a person walking quickly in one direction with a
suitcase has some charisma.

The ad hoc situational leadership and functional (not authoritarian)
hierarchies of anarchism, as discussed in connection with Bill's story
about V. the Boss, depend upon this, especially in cases where the
participants lack detailed knowledge of another's capacities. "You seem
to know what you're doing. How do you think we can make this go?"

Now:

  Can a control system manipulate another control system?
  Can a control system exploit another control system?

I believe these are some of the negative senses of "leadership" and
"charisma" that you are resisting. Am I right? I think HPCT does not
show that these do not exist. It only shows that they cannot work as
intended. Social institutions can help people persist in being slow
learners about this.

  Bruce
  bn@bbn.com

5

[From Dag Forssell (920627-1)]

Bruce Nevin (Fri 920626 11:23:45)

The original question was
Can a control system want to follow another control system?
You are shifting now to ask another question:
Can a control system follow another control system?

When I said that

I can't conceive of control system wanting to follow.

I did not mean to be so literal. I meant that it is not the nature of a
control system to "follow", whatever that is.

When I said that

Is there really such a thing as following? Or is this yet another
instance of: "The human pie has already been sliced."

again, I did not mean to be quite so literal as your paraphrasing.

I appreciate your post. Your restating my points, paraphrasing rather,
is a very good thing. It shows me how my careless wording can be (mis-)
interpreted. You are doing a good job of sorting out technical
alternatives and aspects of "following."

Now:

Can a control system manipulate another control system?
Can a control system exploit another control system?

I believe these are some of the negative senses of "leadership" and
"charisma" that you are resisting. Am I right? I think HPCT does not
show that these do not exist. It only shows that they cannot work as
intended. Social institutions can help people persist in being slow
learners about this.

You are hitting the nail on the head here. The answer to these questions
is an obvious yes. I agree that these exist. A question that then arises
is: What do we mean by "manipulate" and "exploit". You have just
participated in a discussion on issues of stereotyping; projecting
prejudices on others based only on your own subjective experience.

I am resisting what I perceive to be extremely common stereotype
interpretations of leadership and sales, where I sense an interpretation
that leadership and sales are indeed "manipulation" and "exploitation".

This I read into Bills original refusal to lead and some comments about
sales at past conferences.

In turn, this leads to an aversion to consider these major applications
of HPCT. Still my perceptions, of course.

If you substitute "manipulate" with "inform", "guide" "enlighten" "teach"
and "exploit" with "mutual benefit," the substance of the interaction
does not change from a HPCT point of view, but the emotional, stereotype
flavor changes dramatically.

We are still talking about leadership and sales and mutual economic
advantage.

Certainly the members of this net want to sell HPCT to the world. Is this
"manipulation" and "exploitation?" I would not label it that. But
mention leadership and sales. What comes to mind? Some brutal, selfish
"leader" on the one hand and pusher of overpriced junk nobody wants or
needs on the other.

These terms are among the unexamined "human pie slices" - systems
concepts from pre-HPCT days - that can benefit from some HPCT light. By
looking closely at this, perhaps a way to sell HPCT can be found, vastly
superior to the frustrating sales efforts into the psychological journals
that are discussed here, but not labeled as such. (These journals are a
minuscule market compared to the rest of the world and the one market
where we know that PCT is not welcome).

The way there is to forget about "manipulation" and "exploitation" and
instead examine the best interest of and control processes in the other
autonomous control system, whether we call it follower or buyer. This
done with full visibility to said follower and buyer, of course. There
is no need to hide the interest and control processes of the leader or
salesperson either. The exchange of goods or services should benefit both
parties. Otherwise we have reverse manipulation and exploitation.

Leadership and sales both can be honorable. HPCT can show how.

Again, I find it useful to be challenged to think this through again
myself.

Best to all. Dag.