“The People Most Drawn To Power Are Usually The Least Fit To Wield It.”

It does feel like there’s been a reckoning in the last 10 years around the bad things that happen when the wrong people get into power. It might have come from Trump, Putin, Orban, or any number of corporate scandals, but it does seem like we’re at least more cognizant of it now. Change it? No. But we at least have the words to discuss it, including some hardcore therapy-speak.

Well, along today comes superstar academic Adam Grant writing in The New York Times, and he proposes that we just end elections altogether. The idea is laughable and would make most people recoil, especially those whose only relevance in the world is contemplating the next campaign cycle and fighting about different candidates (which is more people than we admit). Here is Grant’s article.

Grant quotes William F. Buckley Jr. in saying “I’d rather be governed by the first 535 people in the phone book,” with the idea being that:

• Those who seek out power are usually in it simply for the power, which doesn’t end well.
• If we randomized everything and just picked random people to be Congressmen/women from each district, well, could we really do any worse?

Some of this whole discussion gets to whether a lot of leaders are sociopaths on paper, which I bet 40% or more are.

But it’s also more than that. Some of the problem we have in politics — and also in organizations — is the “journey vs. destination” issue. (We also have this with motherhood on Instagram.) A lot of people think getting a plum job in a big company is the destination, whereas in reality it’s part of the journey. It’s the same with winning office, or having your first kid. Really it just means the journey is more complicated now. A lot of people see it as the end goal. That’s warped. It’s especially true in high-middle managers inside priority-vacuum organizations.

It’s interesting because Grant mostly writes about work, and there are not elections at work — rather, usually politics + tenure + revenue generation are the combination that gets people advanced. I actually think elections of bosses at work might be a good idea.

The idea of not electing a President, but appointing one, is a non-starter. It would never happen. The idea behind the idea is interesting, though. People who seek power usually aren’t the people who should have power, and I think most of us know that. The most ambitious, hard-driving sales guy in the world, let’s say he has four kids at some point. He’s doing well on quota but eventually he needs to be home more, so he takes a managerial role. Everyone knows this managerial role will be horrible for him, because he likes power and influence and being feted for certain things — and he has no time for people except prospects. (Look at his relationship with marketing for the last seven years.) But now he’s a manager. He sought power (and an easier schedule) and he will probably tank an entire team in the process. This happens daily.

Would I just pick one random woman from Wyoming to be a House Rep for that state? No. But should we have a better approach to selecting leaders? Yes. Do I know exactly what that is? No. I think it begins with expecting more of them, honestly.

In politics, this is framed up as “voters can vote you out!” but for Senate, that’s every six years, and people can do a lot of damage in six years. In workplaces, we expect so little from bosses, and most of them simply manage up instead of managing down or thinking about the bigger picture.

Still, I think the first step in any of this would be expecting more from leaders, and holding them to task and accountability more, even if they have the capital allocation to squash you.

Inside orgs, I think the №1 thing we could do is promote people with self-respect across their team, as opposed to the biggest target-hitters or golf buddies.

Inside politics, the only way is to remove the money and perks from politics — and that’s not about to happen. Gerontocracy (old people running everything) is an interesting sidebar here too. Part of why that happens is because people want access to perks, power, and corridors of influence way longer than they should need it.

As such, gerontocracy basically proves the problem — the wrong people chase power, and then hang onto it like a life raft in the Pacific.

“Eliminate all elections” won’t work, but this is something we should be thinking about more. How do we get the best people in the right roles, both legislatively and work-wise?