I think that’s overly simplistic. Power does attract people who want to abuse it, but it also attracts people who want to change their world for the better.
The latter group view power more as a weighty responsibility than a privilege, but the power still exists.
Although that latter group is also more likely to spread their power around, thus reducing the opportunities for abuse by the former group, and… I kind of see your point. But I view it a bit more systemically.
Many politicians have stated that they got into the game to make a difference but all the back room deals, concessions and quid pro quo needed to get into a position of power meant they had their hands tied once they were in power.
I think a lot of the people who want to make a difference look at the quagmire that is modern politics and decide they can do more from elsewhere in the community. People who are willing to wade into that tar pit and aren’t interested in the power or the extra money that can be made on the side are few and far between.
I’ve heard much the same thing from the world of biz. People think the CEO is the ultimate dictator in the corpo world, but you don’t get to that position without being useful to the upper classes and financial automations. The moment you start going out of sync with those forces is the moment you will feel you “power” rapidly decreasing.
It’s only the power to enunciate the will of capital. Never to act against it.
Well it’s very clear in the business world. the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) is there to execute the will of the board of directors and to a lesser extent, the shareholders.
To be a Chief Executive Officer you must have an executive staff (Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, etc)
Many people in small business like to call themselves a ceo when in reality they are the director of the company. A director can do wherever they want.
It’s not. Power attracts people who want to abuse it. The people most suited for being an actual good leader, aren’t seeking it out.
I think that’s overly simplistic. Power does attract people who want to abuse it, but it also attracts people who want to change their world for the better.
The latter group view power more as a weighty responsibility than a privilege, but the power still exists.
Although that latter group is also more likely to spread their power around, thus reducing the opportunities for abuse by the former group, and… I kind of see your point. But I view it a bit more systemically.
Many politicians have stated that they got into the game to make a difference but all the back room deals, concessions and quid pro quo needed to get into a position of power meant they had their hands tied once they were in power.
I think a lot of the people who want to make a difference look at the quagmire that is modern politics and decide they can do more from elsewhere in the community. People who are willing to wade into that tar pit and aren’t interested in the power or the extra money that can be made on the side are few and far between.
I’ve heard much the same thing from the world of biz. People think the CEO is the ultimate dictator in the corpo world, but you don’t get to that position without being useful to the upper classes and financial automations. The moment you start going out of sync with those forces is the moment you will feel you “power” rapidly decreasing.
It’s only the power to enunciate the will of capital. Never to act against it.
Well it’s very clear in the business world. the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) is there to execute the will of the board of directors and to a lesser extent, the shareholders.
To be a Chief Executive Officer you must have an executive staff (Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, etc)
Many people in small business like to call themselves a ceo when in reality they are the director of the company. A director can do wherever they want.