In the movie Gladiator Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius tells Gen Maximus that he wants him to become the protector of Rome, and that he will empower him to give power back to the people to “end corruption”.
“Do you accept this honour?” asks Aurelius. Yearning to go home where the mornings are endowed with the aroma of herbs from his garden and the late afternoons with the scent of jasmine, Maximus declines the honour. “Maximus, that is why it must be you,” responds Aurelius, who wants to stop his son, Commodus, who he deems “not a moral man”, from taking over after his death.
The movie captures one of the biggest problems that faces humanity, one that is to be found in all types of organisations — profitmaking, nonprofit, government and social institutions, including religious, cultural and sporting bodies.
The problem has always been, and will forever be, that some of the most ambitious people — those who step forward and are prepared to contest leadership positions — may not be the best candidates. This is because their need for power and willingness to fight for it, or do anything to get it, makes them susceptible to all manner of unethical behaviours.
The source of a person’s need for power may be the problem. As the late American historian and political scientist James MacGregor Burns explained, the two essentials of power are motive and resource. The two are interrelated. “Lacking motive, resource diminishes; lacking resource, motive lies idle. Lacking either one, power collapses.”
But a person’s source of the ambition to gain power — the motive — can come from a dark place. Zulu King Shaka’s was revenge and he unleashed it on those who ill-treated him and his mother after they had been kicked out of his father’s homestead.
Society’s problem is that a person may disguise the real motive for his ambition for power, often rationalising it in terms of public interest. This is most prevalent in politics. A recent study by Stanford University academics has identified another problem with ambitious people, and society’s assumptions about leadership.
“Our society assumes that there is a link between leadership ambition and leadership aptitude,” co-author Francis Fynn explained, adding that pools of potential leaders are populated based on self-selection. Society expects you raise your hand or do all the other things that signal an interest in leadership.
The problem with self-selection is that leaves the door wide open for psychopaths. And they are great at it. Manfred Kets de Vries, who has been studying leadership for decades, writes that seductive operational bullies or psychopath “lites” don’t “usually end up in jail or psychiatric hospital but ... thrive in an organisational setting”. They are everywhere where there is power, status or money involved.
“Outwardly normal, apparently successful and charming, their inner lack of empathy, shame, guilt or remorse has serious interpersonal repercussions and can destroy organisations. Their great adaptive qualities mean they often reach top executive positions, especially in organisations that appreciate impression management, corporate gamesmanship, risk taking, coolness under pressure, domination, competitiveness and assertiveness.”
Kets de Vries questions whether the design of some organisations makes them “a natural home” for psychopaths. The organisational design point brings us back to the Stanford study. Shilaan Alzahawi, another co-author, says self-selection encourages self-promotion, seeking of risk and the development of a competitive streak. To add to Alzahawi’s point, organisations often mistake self-promotion for confidence and the display of confidence for competence.
The academics asked more than 450 executives enrolled at the Stanford Graduate School of Business’s leadership programme about their ambitions. They also had to rank themselves in 10 areas of competence. They then checked these self-ratings against what the managers, peers and direct reports of these executives had to say.
“We found that highly ambitious individuals are four to 10 times more likely to believe they have above-average leadership ability compared to individuals with lower ambition,” said Alzahawi.
The study’s authors conclude that organisations may need an alternative approach to leadership development. Such alternatives should be about ways to “instil ambition in people who possess more leadership aptitude” instead of rewarding ambitious people who may fall short of what leadership requires.
The Stanford study, as well as human experience over the ages, suggests that a person who is more interested in the morning aroma of herbs from his garden and the late afternoon scent of the jasmine may be a better leader that the psychopath who thrives on the smell of power.
• Sikhakhane, a former spokesperson for the finance minister, National Treasury and SA Reserve Bank, is editor of The Conversation Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.