CHAPTER 2

The Confusing Synonyms of Leadership

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Resolve several terms that get confused in the term ‘leadership’.
2. Understand that it is intellectually, progressive to define terms carefully, and that this leads to better informed discussion and debate.

Is the Vocabulary Related to Leadership Wide Enough?

One of the interesting creations in the book ‘1984’ a novel by George Orwell—is the language called ‘Newspeak’ as developed from ‘Oldspeak’ (English that is). In it are also the interesting concepts of ‘doublethink’ and ‘Thought Police’. ‘Thought Police’ was one of the arms of the hypothetical absolute communist state; the thought police would enforce new concepts in the realm of thought and language. ‘Doublethink’ was a process where people were expected to use a single word in the place of two words with contradictory meaning; this would result in dispensing with one of the two ideas and it would assist the state in making the people dumber so that they can be controlled. Here is what ‘Newspeak’ was up to … ^[1]

… To give a single example—The word ‘free’ still existed in Newspeak, but could only be used in such statements as ‘The dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’, since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum. Newspeak was founded on the English language as we now know it, though many Newspeak sentences, even when not containing newly created words, would be barely intelligible to an English-speaker of our own day …

… . from the novel ‘1984’

George Orwell used this concept to point out how an absolute communist state would seek to have dominion over its citizens by making them less intellectual.

For example: As we grow we learn to resolve the terms love and lust as a meaning of two different things—different phenomenon, different ideas but linked in some way. Let’s presume that under the ‘doublespeak’ principle the ‘state’ made the ‘thought police’ implement the idea that love and lust meant one and the same thing and only one word ‘love’ may be used … Ultimately, if the thought police successfully implemented the dictate, then the subsequent generations would have one less idea in their system of thought and communication—and would become intellectually regressed by that amount … .

While Newspeak happens to be a work of fiction by George Orwell the surprising part is that some versions of the idea are being implemented in today’s world in a way that one could have never imagined. Consider the present situation, where the term ‘actor’ is used to swallow up the world ‘actress’ from our vocabulary; a little thought will show us that ‘politically correct’, ‘thought police’ make us feel as if we are too sexist or discriminating to use the word ‘actress’. Effectively, they make us regress one step in linguistics …

And why are the ‘thought police’ hell-bent on making everyone ‘actors’? The reason is a (And George Orwell will be rubbing his eyes in disbelief) capitalist issue. It is to protest the fact that female leads are paid less by the producers … . And the idea is aesthetically compounded by an accusatory interpretation of ‘human rights’ and ‘feminism’ which sees injustice in every instance where the boy gets a bigger chocolate than the girl.

The purpose of raising this issue is that such ‘thought police’ seem to be acting in respect of the term ‘leadership’ as well. Anybody who has become the Prime Minister or the President of a nation, anyone who is born into a royal family, anyone that is born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and anyone who gets appointed as the CEO of a company or becomes the head of an organization would want us to believe that he is a ‘leader’.

Someone is a ‘leader’ meaning that the ‘thought police’ want us to count him amongst people like Mahatma Gandhi, The Buddha, Hitler, Jesus Christ, Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Murdock, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Alexander, Marie Curie, Florence Nightingale, Me the CEO, Me the Owner, Nelson Mandela, the Minister, Joan of Arc, Rani Lakshmi Bai … . ?! Clearly, there is such a wide spectrum in the sample we have taken into account above and yet the terminology that we can use to distinguish them is almost just the single term ‘leader’. Very often we come across the saying ‘I am leader, you must listen to what I say’ … What would that mean? ‘I am the same as Mahatma Gandhi so listen to me?!’ No, apparently not; so how is this to be resolved?

It is not just this, in fact the word ‘leader’ has come to be (over) used for much more; it seems to be used for everything that seems not reachable, big or mighty or higher and this is extended into describing some inanimate things as well … . Anyone that comes first, anything that is ahead of the rest, anybody or anything that is earlier than the other are all put together under the term ‘leader’ and this seems to mess up with the essential idea, which is at the core of leadership.

Is it not intellectual regression to be satisfied with the term leadership to describe everything … . ? Indeed, debates like manager versus leader, Good leader—bad leader, whether leader is born or made etc., helps in resolving some dimensions of the issue but these are apparently not adequate—they do not bell the cat.

There is a Critical Need to Resolve

If it is indeed possible to have better resolution in ideas, why not pursue it to its logical conclusion? If it is possible to narrow down to that emotion/idea/phenomenon that distinguishes one person from the other as being an effective or true leader, it is bound to help in bettering our own performance at leadership … hopefully …

Therefore, the primary challenge, which this book seeks to address, is whether the terminology of ‘Leadership’ can be stripped-off of the unimportant stuff. Can it be narrowed down to a simple core and studied in such a manner that there is little scope for ambiguity in its most significant aspects?

It must be studied in such a manner that having addressed and resolved its innermost connotations

1. It must help a student/reader to become a better leader both through awareness of the nuances of leadership and through becoming a better ‘performer’ at practical leadership challenges.
2. It must also help a team, a group or an organization to easily spot and promote the right talent into leadership positions.

One of these aims caters to the level of individuals and the other to the level of groups … . this is what all studies of leadership truly pursue, to help individuals and organizations know what is best as regards leadership …

Trying to Resolve It

The best place to start finding a proper meaning to the word ‘leader’ or ‘leadership’ is naturally the dictionary. An exploration of the dictionary for the meaning of the words ‘leader’ or ‘leadership’ leads to the revelation that it has varied usages in different contexts and this does not help.

Let us, instead, list out the various ideas/phenomena that are thus mixed up in the term ‘leadership’ and attempt to give proper nomenclature to them … .

Check the following table that elaborates on all kinds of influences exerted on followers … .

The Pursuit of Leadership

In today’s society, there is a fad for the pursuit of ‘leadership’ which often turns out to be a pursuit of ‘suzerainty’—as there are apparent perks one hopes to enjoy after attaining suzerainty. Suzerainty and leadership are not synonyms; there is a subtle difference as indicated above. The difference needs to be studied.

Also, besides finding out how leadership actually differs from suzerainty, some other questions need to be addressed.

1. Whether dogged pursuit of suzerainty pays good dividends in the end, or rather is there a need to offload that pursuit and prioritize on nurturing fellowmen and solving problems instead.
2. Are people who pursue suzerainty for its perks healthy for organizations and groups?
3. How do leaders therefore take up suzerainty and make a difference?

In the ‘materialistic’ world that sees ‘competition’ amidst ‘scarcity’ of resources, progress in life seems to be a mad race to gain suzerainty—in all spheres of life.

But this is not encouraged by the wise … . instead, they profess a ‘culture of plenty’. They say there is ‘enough’ and encourage people to act responsibly … .

Interestingly, the (inspirational) leaders show an ability to change the perspective of ‘followers’ from being ‘suzerainty seekers’ to being ‘content and active’ in a ‘culture of abundance’ … .

Possibly this is one of the defining factors of true leaders … . Is there some way we can say for sure … . ? Can a certain trait to be identified in an individual, which defines for sure as to whether he is a leader or not … ? We shall take up the various important dimensions of this in the next section.

References

1. ‘1984’ a novel by George Orwell, 1948, in the appendix section.

Suggested Classroom Activities

1. Discuss through a suitable case study the nature and role of ‘thought police’ in the issue of doing away with the term ‘actress’ from the human rights point of view.
2. Discuss through a suitable case why gay unions that are officially recognized by certain governments must not be called ‘Garriages’ and lesbian legalized unions must not be called ‘Larriages’. Why insist on calling them marriages?
3. Discuss: Is the lack of greater resolution of ideas contained under the umbrella term ‘leader’ a deliberate attempt at intellectual regression or the result of insufficient R & D … ?
4. Discuss other possible uses of the term ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’ and what those phenomena must be actually called.