George Steinbrenner isn’t the first Yankee to get such a nickname. Way back in the fifth century in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain, a yankee named Hank adopted the nickname “The Boss”. He too was great in certain respects, but his leadership came with shortcomings and controversy as did “The Boss’s” that succeeded him. He interfered with activities possibly to the extent of overstepping his boundaries. Failing miserably at the end of the novel at his attempt to rid society of the church’s control, which was what he thought was detrimental to the generation, “The Boss’s” tactics were proven to not be ideal to obtain his goals. Here is the top four ways Hank could have become a true leader, exemplified through the words of some of the leaders in our generation:
1. Leading is not about the power one can exercise over another people, nation, or governing body, rather it is about the influence one can have on them.
There are two forms or dimensions of leadership. One is power, the other, influence. Imagine you have total power, and then you decide to share it with nine others. You now have one-tenth of the power with which you began. Imagine, by contrast, that you have a certain measure of influence, and now you share it with nine others. How much do you have left? Not less. In fact, more. Initially there was only one of you; now there are ten. Your influence has spread. Power operates by division, influence by multiplication. With power, the more we share, the less we have. With influence, the more we share, the more we have. —Rabbi Lord Jonathan Saks in Covenant and ConversationHank’s ultimate goal was to influence the people. His intentions were pure in that he believed ridding the generation of the church’s restrictions was best for them in order to promulgate freedom of thought and a better way to live. However, he attempted to spread his influence through manipulation of the power he possessed due to his advanced knowledge of technology.
2. Being a true leader requires humility and seeing the greatness in others. This does not mean not recognizing your own capabilities, however being a leader requires you to recognize other people’s greatness as well.
“If you want to save the world you have to trust it.” —Dark KnightHank clearly didn’t trust the era he was in. He didn't confide in anyone about his plans of building telephone wires and military schools for example, and he most definitely did not trust in the aristocracy or the church, both of which were the crux of Camelot’s existence, and spent most of his time trying to overthrow them.
3. A leader must be relatable. Leaders are aware of their responsibility to those in their sphere of influence. It is about who they lead, not about themselves. They must seek to understand their following so that they can best lead them.
A leader must be sensitive to the call of the hour – this hour, this generation, this chapter in the long story of a people. And because he or she is of a specific generation, even the greatest leader cannot meet the challenges of a different generation. That is not a failing. It is the existential condition of humanity. —Rabbi Lord Jonathan Saks in Covenant and ConversationAs a result of Hank’s manipulation of the population and his lack of trust in them, he remained distant and removed from them. Instead of trying to adapt to their culture and customs, he derided the way they spoke, the way they dressed, and the way they went about most things. He tried to change everything about the fifth century that he didn’t like, leaving people confounded and frustrated, such as Sandy when he can’t understand her banter or the knight selling soap who is distraught at his failure to sell the foreign item, rather than finding a way to relate to them and their times.
4. Taking action is fundamental in one’s success as a leader. Without action, a leader can not make a significant difference or change.
We often go through life with the best of intentions. One day, we say to ourselves, we’re going to start going to the gym and become a great athlete. One day, we’re going to finish that book. But for whatever reason, we get distracted by the present and lose our focus on the future. We never do go the gym. We never do write that book. But nobody remembers what you meant to do. They only remember what you do. —Forbes Magazine
One could argue Hank did a pretty good job taking action. However, without implementing the first three tips of how to be a leader, his actions turned out to be futile. “The Boss” has an intimidating connotation, while “The Leader” has a much more inspirational ring. Perhaps Hank and George’s biggest flaw was that they thought in order to make a change they needed to meddle with the status quo and conform it to their visions. They were bosses in terms of the control that they exercised over populations, but their betterment of the societies that they each belonged to did not evolve from the personal interests of the population itself, rather it came from what they thought was best for the population. As a result their ideas were void of public input and as a result more controlling.
Great post Rachel, theres a lot of really good points, both in terms of the literature and in terms of life.
ReplyDeleteI think thank Hank's lack in a lot of these realms, besides not allowing him to succeed, are what ultimately led to his failure. Because he was so busy proving himself over the rest, and not working with them, trying to lead, as soon as he left, they were happy to take the power back.
This was related to all of the points in some way:
1- Instead of trying to influence the people to seeing things his way for good, Hank just displayed his power, frightening the people into following him, a hold that was easily broken when he was no longer nearby at the end of the story. Because Hank wanted to hold the power, he only spread his influence in small, insignificant, ways, such as soap, and not in the bigger ideas, which he was not able to spread sufficiently in his quest to hold power.
2- he didn't trust anyone to help him except Clarence, so as soon as he left to take care of his family, it all fell apart, because one person can only hold up so much.
3- He did not govern for what the people needed, he treated them like they were his contemporaries, people who needed very different things, and were ready for different things. This backfired on Hank when they rebelled because they did not want these changes.
4- Yes, Hank did take action, but it was not always the action that the people needed, it was the actions that he needed, and that's what made him an unsuccessful leader. A leader does what the people need, not what he wants.
While exploring this idea of leadership and being a good leader, I thought I would address the leadership that appears in the book we are currently reading, "Song of Solomon." Macon Jr (Milkman's father) is also the epitome of a leader that fails. Being the head of a successful household, as Macon Jr tries to be, is a job that entails him to lead his family adequately. However, he seems to fail quite drastically as we see through the results that he produces--his children and wife all clearly have major issues. I am going to try and address each of Rachel's leadership qualities and prove how Macon Jr, just like Hank, fails to be a successful leader.
ReplyDelete1) Macon Jr attempts to rule his family through the power he exerts over them. Instead of trying to influence them to follow in his footsteps, he creates an atmosphere where his family fear him and his power over them. He physically abuses his wife-the ultimate proof of how he tries to rule over her and his family instead of trying to influence them.
2) There is not even a question that Macon Jr fails in seeing the greatness in others. He is continually putting down those around him and behaving in arrogant ways that show other he believes he is better than all of those around him.
3) Macon Jr. is completely non relatable. The white people around him cannot relate to him because he is black. The black people cannot relate to him because he "behaves like a white man" and tries to use the black people who live around him to advance his own money and status. His own family cannot relate to him because he distances himself from them and does not even try to communicate with them in favorable terms.
4) Macon Jr. does absolutely nothing to help his family or try and find out about his background, or to help his family fit in better among their black brethren. Rather, he is satisfied with just trying to continually gain more and more money (even from those who truly do not have any to give him). He does nothing to benefit the people around him or his family members themselves. Rather, all he does, is try and gain as much money for himself as he possibly can. He doesn't even care for his own sister (Pilate) and her family! He takes no actions for the common good at all!
I'm going to argue the other side now. History does have a place for unrelatable, autocratic despots who rule through power. I'm going to guess that everyone here has at some point had to read excerpts from Machiavelli's The Prince. Machiavelli writes that during a times of political chaos, a nation needs a strong leader, who will enforce his rule by whatever means necessary, even if those methods are unethical. This was true in the case of the backstabbing lawlessness that was Machiavelli’s 15th C. Italy, where being humble and relatable wouldn’t stabilize the country.
ReplyDeleteIt could be said that Hank failed precisely because he wasn’t totalitarian enough, which made it possible for the church to oust him. Also, King Arthur’s Court wasn’t exactly an exemplary case of good leadership, and while Hank wasn’t perfect, he did bring great improvements.
Hrothgar, the Danish king in Grendel, is probably a better example. He was a tyrant, a warrior-king who bribed and intimidated the surrounding villages into swearing fealty to him. But in doing so he carved out a measure of stability and civilization. He wasn’t a democratic leader, and there were villages and village leaders who joined him unwillingly, but he did make a necessary change.
Interesting point by Rachel and nice devil's advocacy, Lizzie.
DeleteBut I don't know if the two are so mutually exclusive. Rachel said that Hank should have been more respecting of others, and have been more relate-able. While her first point, treating power like influence, may not be so applicable for an autocratic-type government, even Hank as a dictator could have reached out to more people than Clarence and Sandy and tried to find something worth respecting in King Arthur's court. I certainly think his lack of respect for others was one of his personal failings. But I think the problem was that he was stuck in between somewhere. All the peasants would never have voted for Hank, if given the chance. But Hank could not act proactively to seize power either, as it would make him the epitome of everything he dislikes about Medieval politics already.
If he'd put himself to it, he could have destroyed the church in advance, but the people didn't want it. I'd say Hank fell into one of the traps of Democracy- what's more important? What's best for the people? Or what they want for themselves? Hank tried to teach the people of King Arthur's Court to accept his ideals of democracy, but he didn't do it fast enough. However, if he had seized the throne and preemptively destroyed the church, he might have made a worse ruler than King Arthur, given his shallow streak.
I love this post about Steinbrenner vs. Hank! I think it was very clever to bring in this comparison using the common denominator of 'boss' to illustrate how these two leaders fell prey to the common mistakes leaders often make when given a lot of power. I definitely agree that Hank overstepped his boundaries in meddling with things that were none of his business, such as when he allowed Morgan le Fay to execute her band simply on a whim; or rather in the "name" of progress, for allowing her this concession meant that his own credibility would be validated, thus paving the road for future enactments that would better the society around him. However, I think that such an act is indelibly wicked and shortsighted, for Hank loses respect for basic human life, a telltale sign that his power has infected his mind to an almost irreversible degree.
ReplyDelete