Leadership and Relationships Have This Single-Point Failure

Source: pict rider / Adobe

Organizational psychologist Robert Sutton wrote a bestselling business book, 2007’s No Asshole Rule. Wouldn’t it be nice if such a rule was actually in place? Better yet, a "no despot rule" for society!

The book sets out to examine how to deal with a-holes in the workplace, but also to assess and contain one’s “inner jerk.” Let's face it, we all might have the potential to give license to the inner jerk, and turn to attacking others when we're faced with disagreement, disobedience, dissatisfaction, or any of the other "disses" I outlined in a post a few weeks ago (The 13 "Disses" of Abusive Power, and the Wisdom to Cope.)

But despots and a-holes who make a habit of it are in the mix, and possibly now more than ever. In my experience and psychiatric practice, nearly everyone has had to deal with challenging and even abusive people, often in significant positions of authority.

Many of the most popular articles here at Psychology Today are about identifying and coping with difficult people, from narcissists and gaslighters to sociopaths and psychopaths. (For a recent example, see Dr. Vinita Mehta’s article When You Love a Psychopath: 4 Phases and 4 Repercussions.)

There are counterpoints. Some defend or even exalt the a-hole's and despots. At least until recently, many Silicon Valley founders purportedly wanted to be “the next Steve Jobs.” While Jobs was revered by many for his accomplishments, he was notoriously demanding to work with, even abusive according to some accounts. A-holes and even despots can be talented, even visionary—but also terribly toxic. Despots with benefits, you might say. Some can be incredibly charming and ingratiating, then turn on a dime to cruelly persecute, perhaps a particularly vicious kind of covert narcissism or strategy to dominate and force submission.

Nearly every despot sets out to convince everyone that they are talented and visionary. They often insist on being seen as such. They even say (and I’ve heard this) that the truly talented have to be a-holes to get things done. Well, now they call themselves “disrupters,” even though some seemingly seek to impose a medieval- or feudal-era organization on the rest of us. Disrupting us backwards instead of forwards, perhaps because the present is more complicated than they're comfortable with - for example, a present with increasing national diversity and global interdependence, with many more voices clamoring to be heard and understood.

But we are indeed living in disrupted and disruptive times, and there are indeed those who ride the waves of our cultural, technological, and economic disruptions, for good and ill. They are the disruptonauts or disruptonauts-wanna-be, compared to the muggles and normies they despise, but who actually keep humanity afloat. I mean the teachers, caregivers, health care professionals, journalists, and others. The people who aren’t looking to make a killing, but a living. The people who aren't craving attention for attention’s sake.

We have to live with disruption and disruptors, and it may not be possible to enact or enforce a "no a-hole" rule. Indeed, the rise of disruptive politicians may well be empowering unnecessary aggression and conflict throughout society, as well as a burgeoning response to disruptive rhetoric.

How do we start putting up guardrails to contain and limit the worst kinds of disruption and abuse? How might we turn the trauma of disruptive times towards the possibility of greater belonging?

I think we can start by noting this single-point failure of leadership and relationship.

The biggest single point failure of leadership, relationships, and human society is … (drumroll) … not listening. Especially not listening to people you don’t like or disagree with, and worse yet, attacking them instead.

There are indeed people who don't listen and yet fail forward—by reason of talent, popularity, or abuse of power. They are able to gain influence and power. They then invariably gather and motivate yes-men and yes-women to fall in line and do their bidding, because many don't want to get on such a leader's bad side, triggering not only the leader's attack, but also the attack of their supporters.

This kind of leader will take the organization down with him, but not before they create a “successful” autocracy which they rule by fiat and sheer force of will, personality, and engendered fear. There are mini-autocracies that occur in families, non-profits, corporations, and government – in short, every kind of organization.

Leadership Essential Reads

Political Leaders and Cults: Why Do They Drink the Kool Aid?

Self-Oriented Versus Other-Oriented Leadership

The egalitarian, humanitarian disposition is always challenged by those who possess what researchers call a "social dominance orientation" (SDO). Those who prefer more level, horizontal relations are in conflict with those who prefer top-down, vertical relations. Both are present in American society, but the combination works best when those in positions of authority truly value others in the organization and society more broadly, and truly listen to and respond to those with different perspectives. They seek to foster growth in human values, not their destruction. In other words, we benefit from leaders who have haven't lost their moral compass in their ascent to power.

Superficially, vertical organization seems simpler, but as we see throughout history, it produces massive conflict and even horrific abuse. The American Revolution was against monarchy and towards a more egalitarian society, though this is still a work-in-progress.

It is worthwhile expanding egalitarian relationships, to protect individuals and groups, particularly vulnerable minorities, and to protect the sense of kindness, shared humanity and compassion in society, which fuels largely unwritten norms that keep us all much safer. A-holes are distinctly unkind, especially when challenged, while the prevalence of kindness really gives us the feeling of society and the possibility of belonging.

In the Showtime series Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber, the fictionalized Silicon Valley venture capitalist Bill Gurley gives his observations about founders. He says (see attached YouTube clip)

Gurley: I used to split founders into two groups. Well that’s not strictly true. First, when I was younger than you, I used to think they were all Jesus Christ…because their followers never questioned them. They did actual, provable miracles. And then I began to see that half of them were indeed on the side of the angels. And half of them were some version of David Koresh.

Associate: Well, how do you see the split now?

Gurley: Oh, they’re all Koresh. The trick is to flee the cult and get out of the compound the second before they burn it to the ground.”

Our main survival strategies in a time of disruption – the era of a-holes and despots – are in knowing (1) when to speak truth to power, (2) doing our utmost to contain abuse as much as possible (3) knowing when to withdraw support from the leader who doesn’t listen, and (4) knowing when to get out.

The best leadership, just like the best friendship – begins with listening.

Excerpt from Super Pumped: The Battle For Uber - about the danger of disrupters

© 2024 Ravi Chandra, M.D., D.F.A.P.A.