Egotomy of a Leader

I have this conjuncture that leaders are misunderstood. We can like them or hate them, but can we find the right reasons. This article intends at being an insider's take on criticism of leaders. Criticism is a healthy instrument to hold authority accountable. Criticism helps check blind faith and over-optimism. However, constructive criticism would better serve this purpose. While we study criticism and accountability, it is also important to study Trust. Trust has a huge role to play in the context of economics. This article aims at nurturing the right amount of Trust to improve all our lives. I hope you trust me enough to read this with an open mind, we can agree to disagree, but dialogue helps!

We will start the discussion with the word Ego. Ego is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as "your idea or opinion of yourself, especially your feeling of your own importance and ability". If we reflect on this carefully, it is not a bad quality if regulated well. Can we have a more open-minded investigation around the concept of Ego? There is an interesting psychoanalytic perspective that shows up on google- "the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity". Although I couldn't find a valid source, the perspective sounds interesting. If one defines ego this way, would it be important? Is ego connected to self-esteem? Is self-esteem important? Do you need people to understand your worth? Do you need people to see your credibility? Let's park it here for a while.

Now let's discuss the word "Leader" - "a person who manages or controls other people especially because of his or her ability or position" (Cambridge again). This is something that is changing in the 21st century. Position or ability alone doesn't help a leader "control" or "command". Acceptance is something which 21st-century leaders desire. Even a dictator would want acceptance since "control" comes with friction. Who would want to coerce some into doing something when it can be done peacefully, with a lot less energy? Do we have people with ability who lack both power and acceptance? Isn't that a difference between a leader and an innovator? An innovator can be a leader too, but a leader gets either the power of acceptance or both, to get more people to rally behind the idea.

We are all very different, we know that, so can we judge someone with the same thinking? Can we compare a leader's ego with a normal person's ego? I am just asserting that a leader's ego is justified, but I am questioning if they can be compared? I mean, can a mango seed's taste and an apple seed's taste be compared? Isn't the context important? A mango seed can be thrown, but apple seeds can accidentally go in. So can we understand a leader's situation a little more? Can we analyze the actions of leaders so we don't misunderstand them? Leaders keep getting labeled, receive a lot of criticism, but aren't they human beings? Don't they have mental health too? I remember the climax scene of Bollywood film Parmanu where a composed protagonist finally bursts into tears once the mission is accomplished. In my experience, I have seen leaders or lonely warriors carrying volcanoes within. You can spot an internal tornado amidst the external calm sea- an entrance test for leadership.

One of my friends Tejasvi tells me about Indian mythology and gambling. He says that kings were asked to gamble. A king could never refuse a person's invitation to gambling and that's apparently why Yudhistir had to play the dice. This led to the Kurukshetra war and thus one of the best stories around - Mahabharata. One can have different stories and different perspectives, but this one is interesting. Kings have to take risks while running the kingdom and gambling is a microcosm of that. Gambling helps you practice the core and fundamental principles of risk-taking. The biggest risk is not taking risks at all. As the Bhagawad Gita states - you cannot be fence-sitting, you've got to take a side in a Dharma Yuddh - when the fight is for ideals. A normal person can afford to not gamble or take risks since he or she is covered/hedged by a king's portfolio! We see greedy leaders, we see benevolent leaders. We can judge them to be good or bad. But do we see this risk-taking? I am not asking for exonerations of leaders' bad deeds, I am asking for some empathy.

The second story, Devdutt Pattnaik talks of why leaders feel lonely. He says that people go to leaders not because they like them, but because they want some favors. The leader often knows that it is throne that gives him or her the value. A leader wants an independent identity, but that's impossible. Well, think about it, a strong leader makes the throne even stronger. The value of the establishment goes up when the leader does good work. This makes the throne grow a lot faster than the leader. It is the leader and not the throne which is remembered, the world sees a leader's fame but the leader sees the throne's growth. It needs character and enormous emotional intelligence for the leader to see beyond this. This makes a leader feel insecure and lonely, that people only care about the throne and not about him/her. One needs to rise as a great person, to see beyond this. A little empathy, please!

A Leader swears by a certain cult or ideology. While maturity calls for value-based or situation based decision making but it is hard to ascend a throne without ideology. It is even harder to defend or carry out the daily affairs of a kingdom, without ideology. It is a lot harder to accept someone of the opposite ideology. The king is the custodian of the ideology and it is the ideology that bestows power to the king. The "Apple" ideology bestows power to Steve Jobs and he is the custodian of the "Apple" ideology. On a heyday, the king can have a big heart to take care of the opposite ideology's people too. However, the king has the struggle for survival. The burden of not one family but an entire cult. The survival of a cult which believes in the ideology. The king protects the cult, the cult protects the ideology and the ideology bestows powers to the king. So if a king doesn't accept opposing views, one needs to question that moment and the emotion of the king at that moment- could be a fight for survival. Easier to take the moral high ground, but the burden- a little empathy, please!

Fourth story: an extension to the third story. A leader could appear extremely possessive. This is understandable given that the leader is the custodian of the ideology. The leader may choose to distance away from people who don't buy the ideology. The leader could be observing your actions more closely than you think. The leader could be checking if you are putting your money where your mouth is. Are you really interested in the ideology or are you just "leeching" on the king? There can be severe cynicism if a king sees that you only clap for the kingdom and you wouldn't put your energy there. If you side by the opposite kingdom, it is just too hard to be a friend. A great leader should be able to make friends with enemies too, that's a requirement, but emotions are a little tough. This is the Vibhishan moment of Ramayana. A leader better not be Ravanasura, but little empathy, please!

Fifth Story: Leaders shouldn't ideally be addicted to the throne. The throne can make you do the wrong things. The desperation to keep the throne can suspend ethics and moral code. Having said that every leader has a vision. Every leader has the resolve to see that vision come true. This differentiates an average person from a leader- good or bad. It is the throne that accelerates the execution of that vision. So a leader tries protecting that power. So do you blast a leader who tries to protect his/her throne? One can bring in a moral compass to judge it to be right or wrong, but do we understand the leader's emotions? Can you afford a night's sleep, leaving work behind? Every night, a leader goes to sleep with uncertainties to deal with. A secure throne affords a good night's sleep! An ideal leader should be strong, an ideal leader should be able to put all this behind and not be addicted to the throne. But aren't leaders human, can we take the moral high ground, a little empathy, please!

Sixth story: Leaders seek publicity and enjoy the limelight. The ideology spreads with the limelight. A Leader aspires to be Vishnu (pull factor- people come to you) and not an Indra (push factor- you approach people) and publicity helps secure pull. People like powerful leaders and this pushes leaders furthermore into that vicious cycle- power-seeking mentality. In a friction-free ideal world, a good leader's work should travel far. Well, even sliced bread took more than 20 years to spread- ideas are not fake news, they don't travel that easy. Ideas need to be marketed. When an idea gets marketed, it becomes a cult and the cult bestows power to the leader. Leaders thus see an enormous need for publicity. They may not have theories to offer or articulation to provide, but they intuitively see the need for publicity. So can you afford to do good work and not take credit, yes, but a little empathy, please!

Seventh Story: A Leader's fight is largely alone. Different people chip in and help, a leader grows with the support of the people. But then there are times when no one can save you. They are times when the loyal ones just desert you. There are times when you carry the ideology all alone. There are times when the loyal ones tell you that the ideology's time is over. It is the king who can help the ideology rise from the ashes all over again? How do you know if it is a lost cause? A King knows it and wants to try! The king hates people who want him/her to abandon the ideology. This is just like a mother who is asked to leave her child and flee for survival. A king has an emotional bonding with the ideology, this distances people from the king, the king has no time for people, but time for people who are a part of the ideology. The king is deeply invested in the ideology.

Eighth Story: You may see a person's greed, you may see a person's lust for power. But we have got to understand one simple truth. If the leader doesn't have the emotional bonding with the ideology, the journey is not just viable. One cannot lose night's sleep over something just because one wants the throne. One cannot go through so many highs and lows just because it fetches a fortune enough to feed the next four generations. The game sucks the king in! Isn't that what gambling is about. Leaders are usually very very passionate about what they do, they may not like being called passionate since the word dilutes the intensity of the efforts. It is a lot more easier to label someone to be good/bad/greedy, just like the fox calling the grapes sour. But, can we have a little more empathy, please!

I analyze the stories of so many leaders like Indira Gandhi, P.V.Narasimha Rao, Steve Jobs, Jawaharlal Nehru, Narendra Modi, J.R.D.Tata, Andy Grove and I see that it takes a lot of effort to read, meditate and see the battles they fought. One may agree with them, one may disagree with them, but they built the world. They advanced things by taking risks and bring the new to us. If we are indebted to the farmer who took risks and fed us, we are also indebted to leaders who took risks. The leader was probably more fortunate than a farmer, in the eyes of many, that can be debated. But a new perspective can foster trust between leaders and the people, this can push the world ahead, we can leapfrog into an inclusive future if we can bring that Trust in.

There must be some misunderstood leader in your network- your wife, husband, brother, sister, friend or anyone. Tag them here, let them know that we understand the Egotonomy of a leader and we are thankful for being a calm sea while carrying a volcano within!

---

The author Tarun runs a cult called Sciensation. He evangelizes research/philosophy based learning and believes in a world where everyone is a deep-thinker. He hopes that this cult will hopefully bestow him a throne, someday, for a lot more good work!