Resolving the paradox of power. AI (ChatGPT/Grok/Claude/Deepseek) views together with notebooklm discussion. Based on ‘What Have I Learnt?’

How do we resolve the paradox of power where individuals put an enormous amount of effort into getting it, only to spend even more effort into trying to ensure that it isn’t taken away? AI (ChatGPT/Grok/Claude/Deepseek) views together with notebooklm discussion. Based on ‘What have I Learnt?’ below:

?

“What have I Learnt?” ??? …? ?? (by Dr Bruce Lloyd) …

?

‘The whole purpose of life has been to pass on what was learned. There is no higher purpose’?~?Morgan Freeman’s character explaining what to do to Lucy in the movie of that name.

?

How to Revolutionise Management - and the world - through revisiting 20 key words:? Power /?Responsibility / Leadership/?Values?/ Freedom / Control / Strategy / Data / Information / Knowledge /Wisdom //Change / Progress /?Trust?/ Expectations / Success/ Purpose/ Meaning /Learning & finally Curiosity.?

?

I will briefly explore the meaning of these words; why they are critical? Then, perhaps more importantly, their interrelationship.? Many comments are obvious, and will not be new to you. But I hope they will provide food for thought, and further discussion. (10 points: not In any order of importance!)?

?

1. The key issue in Leadership is Values. Essentially, Leadership is about ‘the well informed, Responsible use of Power’.?There is a critical?relationship between Power - what makes things happen - and Responsibility, in whose ?interests is the Power being used. It is important to recognise that many (even most?) of the society’s problems?essentially arise from the Abuse of Power – ie: Corruption, Racism, Sexism, Bullying, Slavery, etc. Discussions about Power should also include Responsibilities. And it was a pity in my view that the Charter of Human Rights wasn’t actually a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities.

?

2. As Confucius said ‘if you? love what you do, then won't have to work again in your life’. There are plenty of issues with this approach. But books on the 'Future of Work rarely start with a discussion of what we mean by ‘Work’ - and what we mean by ‘Retirement’. Also there needs to be more emphasis on the importance of creativity.

?

3. We need to be very careful of our Expectations, and how we define Success. It is very easy to become a prisoner of our Expectations.? We need to try to find a sustainable view of Success –? beyond just financial agenda. (Useful book (1977) 'The Social Limits to Growth' by Fred Hirsh.)

?

4. It is important to remember not all Change is Progress.? Change is a technical characteristic, while Progress is a Values driven word.?Again it is important to recognise the vital role of Learning. And the more Change that is taking place, the more important Learning is, if we want to equate that Change with Progress.? “If we don’t pass on what we have learned how can we expect to make progress.” Actually we don't really have a problem with Change - if we are in Control of it, or if we Trust those trying to get us to Change. We certainly have a problem with Trust, especially in a world obsessed with Competition and Power.?And in most cases Trust comes from ‘a perception of ‘Fairness’’. We also need to understand the need to try to get the 'best of both worlds' between Competition and ?Cooperation; as well as between Focus and Flexibility – at the same time as avoiding getting the worst of both worlds, which is far too often the case, especially if we don’t understand the underlying issues. Certainly it is rare to find splits of 100% in one direction or the other, but the direction of a 80/20 split makes an enormous difference to behaviours.?

?

5. We need to explore the role and importance of Wisdom, and revisit its relationship with Data, Information and Knowledge. Wisdom definition: ‘Reliable, useful, insights, that have stood the test of time – about what makes relationships with ourselves, others, and the universe, work well’. It is not just about reliable, useful, insights that have stood the test of time (ie technical information). The difference is that Wisdom includes the integration of a values dimension.

?

6. We need to understand the trade-off between Relationships and? Materialism, where, again, it is?important to try to get the 'best of both worlds' rather than the worst. If we take an organisational or institutional job it is quite likely we will have little Control over our career - and this can be very stressful. Also we need to be particularly careful of getting too caught up with the financial sector, where the main - even sole - performance measure is money. We also need to be careful about the use of Performance Indicators; they are never perfect, and meaningful feedback loops are essential. The obsession with GDP, rather than Social Progress Indictors, as a measure of societal success, can easily create problematic distortions. Part of the problem today is that the materialistic age encourages an ego driven competitive possessiveness, where as the most sustainable societies are based on co-operation and sharing.

?

7. We have to try to understand what really motivates us? Entrepreneurs primarily motivated by money will have problems, sooner or later, because they will cut too many corners. The key to Entrepreneurial success is to be committed to a product/idea and how that relates to the needs of potential customers. It is important to remember that ‘profits’ are essentially ‘surplus rent’ extracted from customers; a point particularly relevant when assessing the finance sector. But entrepreneurs do also need to be able to manage money, at the same time as avoiding the obsessive?desire to accumulate it.? In addition, we shouldn’t think being a successful entrepreneur means you will have Control over your life, to be successful in this area requires incredible focus and commitment. It is also important to recognise that if we live in a community of any kind, we aren’t? – or shouldn’t be – Free from our Responsibilities. We all want freedom to choose, but are many people experiencing the increasing nightmare of too much choice?? The concept of Freedom isn’t absolute and where and how we draw the line benefits enormously from the ability to have constructive conversations about the issues – mentioned again later.

?

8.? Strategy is not just a technical exercise. Strategy textbooks should all start with a chapter that discusses the vitally important role played by people.? People that make it all work and it is a dynamic process – where, often effective feedback and associated learning processes are the critical elements. ?In the end, it is another attempt to get the ‘best of both worlds’ – Focus and Flexibility.?(Another book: Kenichi Ohmae - 'The Mind of the Strategist.' (1983))? Also Strategy text-books, and strategy operators in the field, should be aware of the subject of ‘Future Studies’.

?

9. In the end, in my view, the quality of decisions depends more on the quality of our conversations, than on anything else. Also Board evaluations should focus on whether members feel that quality conversations, particularly about the future, are taking place, and what they feel would help have better quality conversations. And the more change?that is going on the more important that issue is.?

?

10. It is important to remember?it is much easier to make a committed person competent, than it is to make a competent person committed. If our heart - our Values - are in the right place life isn’t too much of a problem, but if our heart is in the wrong place, our head is going to have a hard time living with it! We all live in a?strange, challenging, but amazing and often, incredibly beautiful, world, where we explore in our search for Purpose and Meaning. (see the ‘The Search of Meaning' by Charles Handy.’ And ‘Man’s Search for Meaning’ by Viktor Frankl). One word that I believe is critical to the search for Meaning – as well as being critical for successful relationships - is the need to feel ‘appreciated’.

?

In addition, we need to recognise, and remember, the core childhood insights come from 5/6 words: NO (About Power and the start of developing negotiating skills); Why? (Curiosity and Power) and?‘It's not Fair?’ (Justice); these are basically the same? issues?at the core of management.

?

A final reflection. Science has enabled us to make incredible? progress in so many areas – thanks basically to effective learning.? But that doesn’t appear to be the case in the Social Sciences concerned with attempting to try to improve human behaviours, and that in my view is partly (if not largely?) due to confusion over the key words and concepts that we use. It is essential that we focus on the need to improve our effective learning in this area. If only the relatively simple (?) points mentioned earlier were more widely recognised and acted on, I believe, not only would we have a good chance of? Revolutionising Management, but it should also radically improve prospects for a rewarding, and sustainable, future of our organisations, as well as more widely the human race. I haven’t found any magic answers, but I hope these rather random thoughts might help on the fascinating journey called life. And I would encourage others to try to put down in a couple of pages “What Have I Learnt?”

?

“The measure of a societies commitment to the future is the priority it gives to ensuring that effective learning is passed onto the next.”

But we shouldn’t forget that: “History’s most important lesson is that it’s up to us to make good use of it.”?

After all: “What is history for if it isn’t to help us take better decisions about the future?

?

ChatGPT

The paradox of power—where individuals expend immense effort to gain it, only to struggle even more to maintain it—can be examined through the lens of Dr. Bruce Lloyd’s reflections on leadership, values, trust, and learning. Resolving this paradox requires shifting the focus from power as control to power as responsibility.

1. Reframing Power as Responsibility

• Leadership, as Lloyd suggests, is about the responsible use of power. If power is seen as a means to serve rather than a resource to hoard, the fear of losing it diminishes. The obsession with maintaining power often stems from insecurity rather than true leadership.

2. Trust Over Control

• The paradox exists because power is often maintained through control rather than trust. When leaders build trust by acting with fairness and integrity, they reduce the need for defensive maneuvers to retain power.

3. Values and Sustainable Success

• If success is narrowly defined as dominance, then holding onto power becomes an endless struggle. Instead, if power is aligned with values and long-term societal progress, it becomes self-sustaining—leaders remain influential because they act in ways that continue to inspire.

4. Shifting from Fear to Learning

• Lloyd emphasizes learning as the foundation of progress. Those who fear losing power often resist learning and adaptation. However, leaders who embrace learning understand that true power lies in influence, adaptability, and shared knowledge.

5. Wisdom: The Highest Form of Power

• The highest form of power is not control but wisdom—the ability to make decisions that stand the test of time. Those who possess wisdom are not trapped in the cycle of gaining and defending power; instead, they create systems that outlast them.

Ultimately, the paradox of power can be resolved by leading with responsibility, building trust, valuing learning over control, and embracing wisdom over dominance. When power is wielded as a force for progress rather than possession, the fear of losing it fades, and true leadership emerges.

Claude

I notice you've shared an interesting text about what the author, Dr. Bruce Lloyd, has learned about management and life philosophy. You're asking about the paradox of power—why people work so hard to obtain it, then expend even more effort protecting it.

Based on Dr. Lloyd's text, I can identify several insights that address this paradox:

1. Power without Responsibility: Lloyd defines leadership as "the well-informed, Responsible use of Power." The paradox emerges when people seek power without adequately considering the responsibilities that should accompany it. When power is pursued for its own sake rather than as a means to serve others, it becomes something to defend rather than to utilize productively.
2. Values and Purpose: Lloyd emphasizes that many societal problems arise from the abuse of power. People who obtain power without clear values or purpose often focus on retaining it rather than using it constructively.
3. Trust and Control: As Lloyd notes, "We don't really have a problem with Change - if we are in Control of it, or if we Trust those trying to get us to Change." The same applies to power—those who don't trust others or feel insecure in their positions will expend significant energy maintaining control.
4. Misaligned Expectations: Lloyd warns about becoming "a prisoner of our Expectations" and how we define success. Those who view power as the ultimate goal rather than as a tool for positive change will naturally fear losing it.
5. Competition vs. Cooperation: The text discusses finding balance between competition and cooperation. The paradox intensifies in highly competitive environments where power is seen as zero-sum—something that must be taken from others and protected against them.

In essence, the paradox resolves when power is viewed through the lens of responsibility and service rather than as an end in itself. When power is connected to purpose, values, and the common good, the fear of losing it diminishes because the focus shifts to what can be accomplished with it rather than mere possession.

Would you like to explore any particular aspect of this paradox further?

Grok

The paradox of power—where individuals expend immense effort to gain it, only to expend even more to retain it—can be unpacked and potentially resolved by drawing on the insights from Dr. Bruce Lloyd’s “What Have I Learnt?” His exploration of 20 key words and their interrelationships offers a framework to understand this dynamic and suggests pathways to mitigate its inherent tensions. Let’s address the paradox directly, weaving in Lloyd’s reflections where they illuminate the issue.

At its core, the paradox arises because power is both a means and an end, yet its pursuit and maintenance are fraught with instability. People seek power to influence, control, or achieve goals (point 1: “Power - what makes things happen”), but once attained, the fear of losing it drives a cycle of defensive effort. This is compounded by the fact that power often exists in a competitive, zero-sum context—someone’s gain is another’s loss—leading to perpetual vigilance and mistrust (point 4: “We certainly have a problem with Trust, especially in a world obsessed with Competition and Power”). The paradox, then, is a self-reinforcing trap: the more power one has, the more one must work to protect it, often at the expense of the original purpose for seeking it.

Lloyd’s framework suggests that resolving this paradox requires reframing power through its interrelationship with other concepts, particularly responsibility, values, and learning. First, he ties power inseparably to responsibility (point 1: “Leadership is about ‘the well informed, Responsible use of Power’”). If power is exercised with a clear sense of accountability—to a community, to values, or to a higher purpose—its maintenance becomes less about self-preservation and more about stewardship. This shift reduces the paranoia of loss because the focus moves from retaining power for its own sake to using it for a broader good. The effort spent defending it could then align with constructive ends rather than mere survival.

Values play a pivotal role here (point 1: “The key issue in Leadership is Values”). When power is pursued without a grounding in values, it becomes an ego-driven chase, prone to abuse—corruption, bullying, etc.—which intensifies the need to guard it against challengers who see its illegitimacy. Conversely, power rooted in values like fairness or cooperation (point 4: “Trust comes from ‘a perception of Fairness’”) fosters trust, reducing the adversarial dynamics that fuel the paradox. If others trust the wielder of power, they are less likely to seek its overthrow, easing the burden of retention.

Learning, a central theme in Lloyd’s reflection, offers another resolution (point 4: “The more Change that is taking place, the more important Learning is”). The paradox thrives in static systems where power is hoarded as a finite resource. But if those in power embrace continuous learning—adapting to change, sharing knowledge, and passing on insights—they transform power from a personal possession into a collective process. This echoes Morgan Freeman’s line, “The whole purpose of life has been to pass on what was learned.” By distributing the benefits of power through learning, its holders reduce the incentive for others to seize it, as the system becomes less about domination and more about progress (point 4: “If we don’t pass on what we have learned how can we expect to make progress”).

Curiosity and wisdom also temper the paradox (points 5 and 10). Curiosity—asking “Why?”—challenges the blind pursuit of power, encouraging reflection on its purpose (point 10: “core childhood insights” like “Why?”). Wisdom, defined as “reliable, useful, insights… about what makes relationships… work well” (point 5), guides power toward sustainable ends rather than short-term gains. A wise leader, for instance, might prioritize cooperation over competition (point 6: “the most sustainable societies are based on co-operation and sharing”), diluting the need to cling to power through force or manipulation.

Practically, resolving the paradox could involve structural and personal shifts. Structurally, power systems could emphasize cooperation and shared responsibility—think of democratic models with checks and balances or organizations with distributed leadership (point 6: “best of both worlds between Competition and Cooperation”). Personally, individuals could redefine success beyond power accumulation (point 3: “We need to try to find a sustainable view of Success – beyond just financial agenda”) and focus on meaning or relationships (point 10: “the search for Meaning”). Entrepreneurs, for example, thrive not by hoarding power but by committing to an idea that serves others (point 7), suggesting that purpose-driven power requires less defensive effort.

The paradox persists because humans often chase power without questioning its ends or sharing its fruits. Lloyd’s insights imply that by tying power to responsibility, grounding it in values, and using it to foster learning and trust, we can break the cycle. The effort to retain power diminishes when it’s no longer a personal trophy but a tool for collective progress. In his words, “The measure of a society’s commitment to the future is the priority it gives to ensuring that effective learning is passed onto the next.” Power, then, becomes less a burden to defend and more a legacy to share—resolving the paradox by redefining its purpose.

Deepseek

Okay, so I need to resolve the paradox of power where people work hard to gain power but then work even harder to keep it. Based on Dr. Lloyd's points, let's see.

First, he talks about leadership being about the responsible use of power with values. So maybe the paradox arises when power is separated from responsibility. If someone gains power without a sense of responsibility, they might fear losing it because their use of power is self-serving, leading to corruption, etc. Then, they have to spend more effort to maintain it because they're not using it responsibly, creating resistance or instability.

Point 4 mentions that change is easier when people trust those in power. If leaders abuse power, trust erodes, making people resist their control. Thus, leaders then have to exert more effort to maintain power through control rather than trust. This ties into the idea that without trust, maintaining power requires more effort, hence the paradox.

Also, point 3 discusses expectations and success. If success is defined by retaining power (materialistic or ego-driven), it's unsustainable. The person becomes a prisoner of their own expectations, leading to a cycle where more effort is needed to maintain that success. But if success is aligned with values and responsibility, maybe the need to hoard power diminishes.

Point 7 talks about motivation. Entrepreneurs focused on money (power) cut corners and face issues. Similarly, leaders motivated by power for its own sake might not build sustainable structures, leading to more effort to maintain control. Whereas if power is used responsibly (aligned with values and service), it might not require as much effort to maintain because it's supported by trust and cooperation.

Point 10 mentions committed vs competent people. A committed person with values might use power responsibly, fostering trust and reducing the need to defend it. In contrast, someone competent but not committed might misuse power, leading to instability and more effort to keep it.

The key interrelationships here are power-responsibility, trust, values, and sustainable success. The paradox arises when power is sought without responsibility, leading to a lack of trust and the need for excessive control. Resolving it would involve aligning power with responsibility, values-based leadership, fostering trust through fairness, cooperation, and redefining success beyond mere retention of power.

So, the resolution lies in integrating power with responsibility and values, ensuring that the pursuit and use of power are for the collective good rather than self-interest. This builds trust, reduces the need for control, and makes the maintenance of power more sustainable through cooperation and shared success.

The paradox of power, where individuals exert immense effort to attain power only to expend even more to retain it, can be resolved through insights drawn from Dr. Bruce Lloyd’s framework. Here’s a structured analysis and resolution:

Key Insights from Dr. Lloyd’s Work:

1. Power and Responsibility: Leadership is the "responsible use of power," emphasizing values and collective interests. The paradox arises when power is divorced from responsibility, leading to self-serving behaviors (corruption, control) that destabilize trust and necessitate greater defensive efforts.
2. Trust and Control: When power is abused, trust erodes. Leaders then rely on coercive control to maintain authority, which demands more effort than trust-based systems. Trust, rooted in fairness, reduces resistance and the need for excessive control.
3. Redefining Success: Materialistic or ego-driven definitions of success (e.g., retaining power for its own sake) create unsustainable cycles. Values-aligned success—focused on purpose, cooperation, and societal progress—diminishes the obsession with power retention.
4. Motivation and Commitment: Power sought for self-interest (like money-driven entrepreneurs) leads to instability. Commitment to shared goals and ethical values fosters sustainable power structures, reducing the need for defensive measures.
5. Wisdom and Learning: Integrating values (wisdom) with knowledge ensures power is used holistically. Continuous learning and adaptive feedback loops help leaders align power with progress, avoiding stagnation or fear-driven control.

Resolving the Paradox:

1. Integrate Power with Responsibility: Leaders must anchor power in ethical responsibility, ensuring decisions serve collective well-being. This alignment reduces fear of losing power, as legitimacy is earned through trust, not coercion. Example: A leader who empowers teams and shares decision-making builds loyalty, reducing the need for micromanagement.
2. Foster Trust Through Fairness: Prioritize transparency and justice to cultivate trust. Trustworthy systems minimize resistance, easing the burden of maintaining power. Example: Organizations with inclusive policies and open dialogue experience less internal conflict and turnover.
3. Redefine Success Beyond Power: Shift metrics of success from control (e.g., financial dominance) to societal progress (e.g., social equity, innovation). This reduces the zero-sum mindset driving power hoarding. Example: Companies measuring success via environmental impact and employee well-being, not just profit, often enjoy sustained support.
4. Promote Cooperative Structures: Balance competition with cooperation. Systems valuing collaboration (e.g., shared ownership models) distribute power equitably, reducing individual insecurity. Example: Cooperatives or employee-owned firms often exhibit lower turnover and greater resilience.
5. Cultivate Values-Driven Leadership: Select leaders based on commitment to shared values, not mere competence. Values-driven leaders inspire commitment, reducing the need for coercive retention strategies. Example: Social enterprises led by mission-driven founders often sustain momentum through team passion, not financial incentives.

Conclusion:

The paradox dissolves when power is reimagined as a tool for collective progress rather than personal gain. By embedding responsibility, trust, and values into the fabric of leadership, the effort to retain power diminishes. Sustainable power emerges not from control but from fostering systems where shared success and ethical stewardship render power’s defense unnecessary. As Dr. Lloyd notes, the future hinges on learning from history to prioritize wisdom, fairness, and meaningful progress—transforming power from a burden into a shared responsibility.

?---------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/8d30baa7-1eb7-4aa9-b71e-3b990cf4bc0e?authuser=1 (Too much repetition, bl)

Power, Responsibility, and Sustainable Leadership - NotebookLM

?

?