Researchers have used Google Earth to verify that the way cows in fields around the world position themselves is not affected meaningfully, as one might expect, by natural events such as the direction and force of the wind or the height of the sun. Rather, they tend to align themselves, under all circumstances, on a north-south axis.
How about you?
One of the college professors who had the greatest influence on me used to argue that there was a tide in the course of history to which we all were subject. She didn’t believe in the “Great Man” theory, but argued that what appear to us to be key individuals were actually merely the tools – rather than the craftsmen – of history. That is, the flow of events would inevitably have produced what they did through one means – or one person – or another.
I am currently working my way through War and Peace, which I recently realized I had never read before. Tolstoy, in recounting the dramatic events leading up to Napoleon‘s invasion of Russia, also argues that the key players were far from instrumental in directing the course of events. Responsible neither for the disasters nor the triumphs of this momentous campaign, they – emperors, generals, pawns, and all – were really just equally self-deluding flotsam on the river of history.
Closer to home, Nassim Taleb, in “The Black Swan” (see review here), also disputed the assumption that all-seeing individuals at the head of our companies really have much affect at all on the fortunes of their organizations.
For my part, I am far from convinced that we generally are captives of forces greater than ourselves – whether the irresistible course of events or the magnetic individual leader. Neither do I believe that we are indisputably their captains.
Rather, I see evidence all around that we – wherever we may be in our lives, our communities, or our workplaces – have greater influence than we sometimes fear over both our own fates and those of the groups of which we are members – and yet also less than we sometimes boast of. It is perhaps more a matter of negotiation between us and the forces at play around us as to which determines the course of which, and when.
What do you think?
—
Today’s tips: Speaking of setting your own course, Steve Roesler, of All Things Workplace, has begun a series on career management. Please be sure to see it, starting here.
And speaking of self-delusion, please also see this effective discussion of bias traps in decision-making, and how to avoid them, by John Agno of Coaching Tip.
Finally, speaking of feeling helpless in the face of the flow of events, please see this excellent and entertaining advice – derived from observations of accountants and volleyball players – from John Phillips, of The Word on Employment Law.
—
Please do take a moment to subscribe, either by email or RSS reader, to be sure you receive future articles as they’re published.
—
Technorati Tags: history, Great Man, Tolstoy, Napoleon, Russia, Nassim Taleb, organization, negotiation, Steve Roesler, All Things Workplace, career management, decision-making, John Agno, Coaching Tip, John Phillips, The Word on Employment Law, Google Earth, career, management
Sphere: Related Content
9 Comments
Jim, this is a really worthwhile topic and one that reminds of “You can be in charge but you’re seldom in control!” (It also reminded me that I, too, have never read through War and Peace).
Maybe one of the best examples of Captains and Captives of Fate (a wonderful header) is the field of Marketing and Influence. Reams of data exist regarding demographics, buyer behavior, and how people are influenced. Yet when those data are put into play, the “target audience” still doesn’t opt in anywhere close to 100%.
What happened? “It is perhaps more a matter of negotiation between us and the forces at play around us as to which determines the course of which, and when.”
Does this mean that our efforts are unrewarded and wasted energy? Hardly. This is the excitement of “living life”; of seeing how our interaction with it can spur us on to try new ways of living, thinking, and influencing.
If we were in control, life wouldn’t be an adventure, but a predictable and ultimately boring series of days with no surprises around the corner.
I kind of like it that way.
Jim,
The last line means “I kind of like it the way it is!”
if i remember my philosophy and literature from college, a depressingly long time ago, hegel formulated the concept of the man in history. his idea was that great historical currents move along and, as you say, people we revere as great individuals are manifestations of those events more than they are shapers of events. and if you look at the history of science, you see that, sure enough, the great discoverers could have just about all disappeared without having a meaningful effect on progress, because someone else was right behind them in the discovery process. newtown and leibniz invented calculus independently at almost precisely the same time. even einstein’s theory of special relativity was only slightly ahead of the pack. (general relativity was a different matter. no one knows quite how he came up with that one.)
nietzsche took the man in history idea and turned him into the superman, someone history had selected for its purposes and who was, thus, protected in many ways. dostoevsky explored the idea in ‘crime and punishment,’ where the main character thought he was a chosen one and didn’t have to live by the rules of ordinary men–only to learn otherwise. i believe hitler saw himself as a superman–only to learn otherwise.
in our research into the lessons to be learned from corporate failures, we saw lots of instances where ceos seemed to see themselves as supermen. they had always succeeded, so they assumed they always would. they knew that certain strategies were risky but figured they could pull them off–only to learn otherwise.
It’s a very generic conundrum, isn’t it? There can be little doubt that things unfold historically in the direction they’re headed (all from historical hindsight, of course). There are always inertial forces at work historically and personally.
Histories are stories. Stories have a plot, themes, roles, and twists and turns. We generally credit Shakespeare with his stories. But who authors “history”? Every moment is a “moment of truth” as Jan Carlzon put it. They all add up at the end of the day to…what? We like simple cause-and-effect, not congeries of causes with uncertain effects.
“Random” happenings also play a heavy hand, as they do in Tolstoy’s novel.
Fun!
Hello Steve,
You say that is “living life,” and that strikes me as a great way to put the point. Sometimes you are being taken for a ride, and sometimes you have a chance to drive. Moreover, sometimes our collective interactions control – rather than are simply shaped by – events.
I agree also that the mystifying complexity of the interaction between us and “fate,” if you will, makes our struggle to fulfill our lives and roles both more rewarding and exciting – and even worthwhile.
Thanks for stopping by with this!
Hello Paul,
Your outstanding summary of the context for this issue touches on the difference between history and historiography. The relevance here, perhaps, is that what we imagine to be the case regarding our past is just as powerful an influence on our actions and futures as the actual facts of the matter.
And, it may well be that the experience and research you cite suggests that we have the historiography wrong.
In fact, there may be problems both at the micro (ego-centric) and macro (homo-centric) scales, here; the more we make it about us, the less effective and influential we become.
I always appreciate your thoughtful comments. I look forward, as well, to seeing more of your powerful insight and expression in your book.
Thanks for your visit!
Hello Lee,
Tolstoy makes the point you do, that we can only see the inevitability of events – their independence of our individual efforts to influence them – in sometimes considerable hindsight. And even then, we still often manage to mis-ascribe them.
With that in mind, I love the special way you compare the course of history with the writing, unfolding of a story – one that we have the potential to author, or co-author, if we will but try. And how can we not – how can we throw our hands up and let our lives be carried away on the tide?
It is fun!
Thank you for your always welcome visit, with an always unexpected twist on the discussion!
Hi Jim,
Your post reminds me of Winston Churchill who captures the essence perfectly. We know that if it weren’t for World War II, he and history, would have turned out quite differently. But because he had the right stage to “perform” his talents, we’ve all become better by it.
However, he made the point that once we find ourselves on that “stage” (i.e. environment) we need to demonstrate something.
“Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all the others.”
- Winston Churchill
How many of us when on stage, exhibited “stage fright”?
Cheers,
-Lui
Hello Lui,
I’m glad you bring up Churchill. I think he’s a good antidote to Tolstoy’s fatalistic pessimism. I agree with Tolstoy that so-called superlative leaders of genius – such as Napoleon was claimed to be – do not personally exert the influence over the course of history (or our organizations – at least, not for the good) that many believe. But I do believe that individuals of import are not merely thrown up by history to be its tools, but, perhaps sensing the tide of events, can struggle their way up, and then can set the stage, somewhat, exerting some degree of influence.
Your use of Churchill’s quote to pose the question of “stage fright” is interesting – a thinker – thanks!
Thanks as well for stopping by with these thought-provoking comments!
Post a Comment