There is often a false distinction made between diplomacy and force. Far too often, this is promoted by the diplomats. They wish to make the case that they can solve the world’s problems through the refined and sophisticated diplomatic art of which they are the masters, and which they believe to be inexpressibly superior to what they depict as the crude threat or application of force.
But that is plain nonsense. There are plenty of masters of that art in countries with no power of any sort – political, economic, cultural, military, or otherwise. Lacking the latter, they have no influence, only a sadly empty eloquence.
It can surely be useful to have one’s power articulated in a manner calculated to solicit willing, positive, and lasting compliance. But the power itself doesn’t come from the manner in which it is expressed. It comes from will, and the means to compel that compliance.
Diplomacy is often very creative in finding mutually satisfactory ways for parties on all sides of this compulsion to accommodate themselves to it. But those parties are encouraged to engage in it because of, and its course is given motive force by, the compulsion arising from the presence of the power – this fact also acts on the side(s) with that power.
The same applies in organizations where power is unevenly distributed – which is all of them. Leadership as commonly conceived by its modern gurus describes that power as originating in the diplomatic artistry of extraordinarily visionary statesmen/ leaders, and expressing itself through their superior intellectual ability and nuanced communication skills.
But it really arises from the motive force that results in the foundation and growth of the organization – which typically or inevitably is decidedly not a hired CEO. That leadership (and for this purpose we’ll leave out the question of where, precisely, it actually resides) is intended in an organization to give productive expression to that will. Power fuels the process. And managers are the ones who give it all coherent shape, direction – and force.
The velvet glove is not what makes people pay attention. It’s the iron fist inside. Spend less time preening yourself and more time getting and keeping your organization in shape. You’ll be closer to putting together the complete package, learning what the components are and how they work together, and understanding how to help them do that.
—
Today’s tip: Please be sure to take a well-invested moment to view this Sippican Cottage piece about a man who you and I don’t know, who is dead, but who lived his life knowing that “the world must be physically different at the end of the day.”
—
Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.
Technorati Tags: diplomacy, force, superior, power, influence, compliance, organization, guru, visionary, statesmen, leader, communication, foundation, growth, CEO, leadership, manager, Sippican Cottage
Sphere: Related Content
6 Comments
Hard truth. Parents and Bosses can’t be liked every minute of the day. They have hard things to say and we’re usually better because of it.
Hi Fred,
Hard things to say, and hard truths to confront, themselves – even when these genuinely have to be extended with a velvet glove.
Thanks, as always, for the visit!
This has been a challenge for me to put into action over the years. Whatever noble purpose was involved in the genesis of my efforts to be well liked, it is now often overshadowed by a selfish desire to maintain being well liked, even if it ultimately causes harm. Too often, there is nothing underneath my velvet glove but another velvet glove. Thanks for bringing this back to the forefront of my attention.
Well put, Jim. Most CEOs I’ve known over the past 45 years don’t know how to COMPOSE organizations so the “teeth” (your iron fist) in built into the organization rather than requiring the CEO to provide it in every situation.
Hello Zac,
It is a very difficult obstacle to recognize, confront, and overcome, isn’t it? The dynamics you describe can take over the whole process so that it takes on an independent – and irrelevant or even harmful – life of its own, like so many things with respect to the modern leadership movement that drive the focus onto the individual instead of the organization or the work. The irony is, of course, that when you focus on your reputation, it usually suffers; when you focus on the work all of you are engaged in, your reputation typically shines.
Thanks for stopping in with this!
Hi Lee!
Thanks – that’s an excellent way to put it: building the teeth into the organization. That’s further than I was going with the post, but you are right on the money. Outstanding – thanks!
Post a Comment