The Temptation to Remove Freedom

One thing that is a common temptation for leaders is to lose patience with higher-level forms of influence and instead resort to an authoritarian style. After all, isn't it easier to bark out orders and make demands, flexing one's "authority" muscles and showing subordinates your "stripes?" I ran across a great paragraph by author Dan B. Allender in his excellent book Leading with a Limp:

"The temptation for all leaders is to encroach on human freedom and take away the suffering of humanity through some form of authoritarian order. Indulging this temptation underlies the fascism of all utopias. Removing human freedom is done with sincerity and the desire to serve the forsaken and bent brood of humanity. But all of this is a lie. If limiting human freedom tempted Jesus before he began his calling as the Christ, then it will conceivable be an ongoing temptation for all who fall into leadership."

First, one can clearly see where compassionate politicians take a wrong turn. With misplaced compassion, they propose programs and government agendas to relieve the sufferings and hardships of certain peoples, only to end up limiting human freedoms in the process. And it is a short argument to state that government is better at messing things up than they are at executing programs. It is almost a rule that government programs grow and take on an unmanageable growth-life of their own. What may begin sincerely enough as a measure to help others (giving the benefit of the doubt and ignoring the very likely possibility that there is self-serving "vote selling" involved, as well), apparently well-meaning politicians end up actually limiting human freedoms and accomplishing the opposite of what they claim they intended. As Ronald Reagan said, "The scariest words you could ever hear are; I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."

So much for politicians. What about companies? It seems there is always controversy swirling regarding some form of competition among companies: those that cry unfair competition with others, those that want government protection against foreign competition, those that try to monopolize their position in the marketplace instead of having to face the pressures of competition. But all of business life is about competition. Competition is the gymnasium of discomfort from which stronger companies emerge. The history of business in free enterprise societies shows that the society, through its customers, is nearly always better served when competition is allowed to reign freely. Any time it is constrained artifically, or when certain entities are given a "pass" from the rigors of competiton, the customers and society suffer.

Examples are plenty. One such example is the de-regulation of the phone companies. Another is the de-regulation of the airline industry. Another is the market driven "de-regulation" of the software industry through the concept of "open source programs." Each of these de-regulations spawned new days of freedom in those industries, and while change was painful and even fatal for some of the more entrenched and inflexible entities, the result was one of lower prices and better service for customers, and an improved competitive environment for companies that not only made the surviving ones better, but became a breeding ground for a host of new, agile, creative players on the scene.

One of my favorite examples of this is Southwest airlines, which had a competitive new idea and such excellent execution of its idea that the old, stodgy, poor-service, entrenched airlines didn't want to have to compete with the new upstart. Instead, the "big boys" resorted to lawsuits. They determined to utilize the full strength of their corporate financial resources to protect "their territory." Their strategy was that it would be easier to litigate a competitor to death rather than to beat them on the open field of play. Kill them while they were young, so to speak. After over a decade, however, Southwest airlines prevailed (even though a quick reading of the link above will show that companies continue to use courts to gain unfair advantages over competitors). Southwest Airlines not only survived the legal decimation strategy of scared-to-compete competitors, but have become a "big boy" themselves, consistently remaining the most profitable airline on the continent.

So much for companies. What of individuals? This is where I really want to focus. In my experience with leaders, the authoritarian style always appears to me to be the "amatuer approach." This is because, as Dan Allender so aptly points out, it is the easiest and most automatic. Without thinking, someone in a position of authority (and this can even be observed among little children!) most easily sinks to a level of relying upon their position for influence. John Maxwell calls this Positional Leadership. It is the lowest level of influence. "Do this because I have authority over you." And sometimes, the reason given by the leader for such behavior is the level of chaos encountered and the need for "drastic action." Certainly, there is a time for this, but it is rare.

More often, influence of a higher order is called for. I find it interesting that Allender calls this tendency for leaders to slip into authoritarian influence a "temptation." If he is correct, we as leaders should always be on guard against our tendencies for control, and work ever harder to adhere to our purposes of influence and cause.

The Fivel Levels of Influence co-author Orrin Woodward and I discuss in the Launching a Leadership Revolution book, are to serve as a roadmap away from this temptation toward authoritarian leadership. Corporations, small businesses, governments, homes, churches, and community organizations will all be better served by leaders that understand the nature of true influence.

Real leaders have influence because people want to follow them.

Real leaders have influence because others buy into them and their cause.

Real leaders have influence because people get caught up in their vision.

Real leaders have influence because they have character, get results, share the credit, and accept the blame.

I wonder how much better our society would be if our politicians, corporate leaders, and individual leaders at every level of society understood these basic truths?

By Chris Brady