I'll just dive right into it and really cut back on the self-help language here. I profess that I'm not a great reader of self-help books, and given how I've devoted 4 years of my graduate life in the post-war social theorists, I've become a great skeptic of them.
I'm not skeptical of leadership, and neither am I denouncing self-help books as unhelpful. Their sales numbers certain speak for themselves, and modern thought leaders like Simon Sinek have certain created a new projection of leadership that're both brutally frank and inviting at the same time.
Across my encounters with leadership ideas across my own professional training at work, or simply just talking to my mentors, I've always mused at how similar political science relates to what business leaders espouse in leadership. Many discussions, or indeed even disputes have been had about how should people be lead. Semantically, what's the difference between being to rule, as opposed to reign?
I think the distinction is important because the starting point of "why should this matter, I just want to be a good leader and get promoted" needs to be addressed.
Why look at the distinction of Rule vs Reign?
I think most people's actions can be boiled down to their inherent assumptions about people. When a terrible boss micromanagers, the assumption is that no one can do the job better than them. Or that they have a deep-seated anxiety about the way the team is heading towards to. People micro-manage when they perceive they are losing control. Similarly, if we start our discussion about leadership styles with a simple question, "do you think humans are smart enough to take care of themselves", very quickly we'd know where you stand on these matters. Many leadership books now lead with the assumption that employees are self-aware and therefore, as effective managers/leaders, we need to empower them.
However, is it really so simple? Have we thrown the baby out with the bathwater by swinging out too far the other way?
So let's look at the arguments of both sides, that humans should be ruled because they're incapable of taking care of themselves vs humans can be reigned as we're all competent sources of ideas.
To Rule or not to Rule: that's the question
Plato's argument for Rule consists of a simple philosophical question. If we want to sail out to sea and reach our destination reasonably safely, do we want a capable captain or have the ship vote based on who we think is best and potentially end up with a populist vote that have no specialised knowledge about seafaring. The problem and to simplify the discussion here, is that it assumes that a leader is a specialist, who governs others with similar areas of work and decides based on his/her expert opinion, what the best course of action would be. That "job" can be running a country, or leading a sales team.
However, lessons in business have taught us that specialists who are good at their jobs, may not be good leadership role models and some, if promoted to be people managers, can run the ship to ground. Yet, this idea of a singular authority is still appealing to us, because it allows us to move quickly and in times of crisis, become the clarion call to rally people around a north-star and for better or worse, been able to send people to die in the course of their vision. I am of course referring to the dictators in history, from Alexander the Great, to Hitler and even Stalin.
Loki's statement from the Avengers' movie have always struck a chord because in modern leadership discourse, it's almost we have this notion that people never want to be ruled and be told what to do. I find myself on some occasion, almost prefer to be told what to do because it means someone else is taking the responsibility for the repercussions of my actions.
Well, that and also I get to snigger when things don't turn out right, but I digress.
I think given the circumstances of today's multi-faceted complex economies, the speed of information have surpassed our ability to retain, absorb and consolidate. The traditional notion of "rulers" where the person has monopoly over the information is over. However it's not that rulers are no longer important. The idea here is that rulers make firm authoritative decisions based on a person's singular perspective. S/he can gather information from the team and still have that collaborative brainstorm process, but to chart out that vision singularly is sometimes a welcomed respite from the white noise that happens today.
If not, what does it mean to reign?
The second flip-side of the coin, therefore is that people should be reigned, not ruled. Reign is traditionally associated with the time period of which a king/queen occupies the throne, and while it usually assumes that the monarch's authority to also rule comes along with his/her occupation of the throne, it's not always the case in the 21st century. There're many monarchs in the world that no longer rule due to many historical reasons but continue to reign over a country.
This idea, if I must confess, is especially crucial because it implies that while you occupy a position of authority, your choice in the exercise of powers is balanced and in some cases, even counteracted by others. For example, the current monarchy in the UK have veto powers over every law passed but rarely does so as it will upset the populum and lead to UK becoming a republic. It's what wiped the French and Russian monarchy out of existence. The idea that a position based on laws of succession does not always have the best leaders.
Reigning is like a captain who still needs to bring people to the destination, but instead of steering the ship himself, gets everyone to learn about navigation and then crowd-source ideas to get the best chart for the journey. Arguably, we'd all be 60 by then.
I've had first-hand experience where the leader reigns and becomes a facilitator of the discussion, becoming the referee and ensuring everyone's opinions are noted and heard. It was a circuitous route and eventually the solution to the problem was a weak compromise between the strongest voice in the group and the second strongest voice in the group. While that's an exception and highly anecdotal, I am quite sure that we all have this experience when the leadership simply cannot or will not make a decision unless all the powers are balanced. Great effective leaders who reign through the art of rhetoric and pointed questions, can sometimes invisibly steer the discussion in a certain direction and the group suddenly finds themselves reaching a conclusion they didn't start out with. I've also seen such leaders at work and continue to be flummoxed at how elegantly it was all done to great results.
Yet, the assumptions behind reigning is simple: people want to have a say in everything that they do, and to remain the umpire, we have to balance each moving puzzle piece very carefully without dropping anything. It's important to also add, that it is also assumed that everyone has value to add to the discussion/project. I don't know about you, but if you've ever been in a groupwork in school, you know full well that some people are free riders and burdens to the rest. Watch any parliamentary debates and some MPs will say shit just to make things more spicy without having real contributions to the policy-making process. So while it's certainly a great idea that leaders should reign, we have to also be ready to accept that the group that s/he is reigning over, understand the power they wield and therefore wield it responsibly. It also assumes that people will come together and work only towards that one common goal. However, attend enough quarterly business review meetings or "off-sites" and you'll quickly understand that there's a shadow agenda beneath the official one.
So now what?
This casual examination of the 2 types of leadership is not about weighing the pros and cons of each but to peel back on the onion a bit more on our assumptions about people when we ask someone to lead in a certain manner. Many business books have very useful guidance on how to be a great leader by giving clear direction, being a friendly mentor and all that goodness, all good leaders can either be rulers or reigners. What should the assumption matter? As an employee, I often find team clashes happen when they work for a boss who is a "ruler" when the person might actually be more of a "reigner". The contrary applies for frustrated team mates who just want their bosses to make a snap decision, but end up having to sit through endless meetings to get consensus.
Reality is, we often have to work with the two, and I'd go so far to argue, the shades in between as well. It's probably a reminder to myself as I'm writing this, to also reconsider that while I'm more rule-leaning, there is value in learning from people who reign. I find myself diluting my position a bit more to allow more participation and inviting people and potentially not missing out on valuable insights.
This is more than a conclusion of adopting the middle ground. I find myself buttressing in the "ruler" camp a bit more, as that's just how I've seen the world and while it can change, my fundamental belief is that a clear direction and firm hand is needed in this increasingly chaotic world. Of course that will invite debate from people who don't necessarily share my views. However, I can see the value of reigning and some might even argue what can you do both depending on the circumstances?
I think the key is just simply to be flexible. To be firm when you have to, and to be lassez-faire when the situation benefits from a brainstorm in a safe environment. It must be disappointing to reach to this part of the article and have the takeaway be: do both!
However, I hope at least you have come away with a much more acute sensibility of the types of assumptions people hold about what their leaders are, who they want their leaders to be, and then be that character for them even though you may not naturally wear that skin. Like a great director once told me, the only person who is still acting even after the rehearsal has ended, is the director because he has to go above and beyond the story, and manage the creative process of the actors. Nothing can be further of the truth when we're in the position of leadership, that the faces of Janus, if we embrace duality not as opposable thumbs but a beautiful abstract concept, we can become much better followers/leaders ourselves.
