Illogical Support for Confrontational Leadership
Most people, on both a personal and professional level, prefer to avoid confrontation. Yet, there are organizational leaders who choose an aggressive confrontational approach.
These combative commanders proclaim their power through hostile management and belligerent communications. Their ability to gain power and attract followers bewilders opponents and independent observers.
The Perception of Power
Why do fervent supporters cheer ideas that appear contrary to their best interest? Outsiders see this as the most confusing part of the confrontational leaders power.
These beguiling and selfish leaders pursue their own agenda. Grabbing what they want, they are indifferent to the short-term consequences for individuals. Or, to the longterm impact on the organization they lead.
Their egotistical self-assurance and zealous emotional bias drives them. It provokes their aggressive transactional approach to life and business. They view all encounters as deals that have a winner and a loser. For all the chaos they create, they consider themselves a ‘winner.’
The Appeal of Power
This zero sum game is harsh. But it can be successful. These provocateurs often amass personal success and undisputed power. They accumulate supporters fascinated with the aggressive leaders projection of superiority.
This illusion of dominance offers believers strength. Their attachment allows them to feel as if they have regained a measure of respect that is due them. Their allegiance offers them real, or at least perceived, power.
Aggressive leaders offer their disciples hope. They propose exhange to their believers. If the believers are loyal they will regain control of their economic and cultural lives. The charismatic “hero” promises empowerment. Tendering the return of personal power, something that they feel has been, or is being taken, from them.
The loyalist feeling of impotence makes them willing participants. They accept these audacious promises and consider them victories without consequence. Their desire for validation leads them to support actions that are harmful to them. Policies, hidden as immediate solutions, that cause them longterm suffering.
Do these followers see it that way? Are they so eager to have someone speak to them that they confuse it with someone speaking for them? Are they willing to sacrifice their well-being for personal and prideful desires? Why are they afraid of losing their perceptional status? Why do they will cling to resentment rather than join with others with similar concerns?
Aggression To Arrogance
Seldom do outside observers understand this groups impassioned personal support. How can people cheer aggressive leaders who advocate policies that work against them?
Could it be that these outsiders have an agenda of their own? A list of policies that they hope the “unwise” will come around to. So, what is this “enlightened” viewpoint? And, is it truly better for the supporters of their opponent? Or, is this a form of intellectual and cultural arrogance?
What To Do
What is the mindful observer of this “best interest” dispute to do? They might suggest that the “enlightened” group refrain from telling others what to do or how to think.
Even “good intentions” have perceptional problems. Unrequested “Help” is often regarded as overbearing . The intended ”benefactors” view the advice as coming from know-it-all strangers. Thus, they will not only ignore the guidance but be insulted by it.
It is often better to not act than to act in a way that stifles the envisioned benefit. Many times the best action is patience.
It is always wise to trust people. To believe they will discover what is best for them and act on it. True wisdom is accepting that another person’s or group’s timeline may not be as fast as some would like.
When one side tells the other side how to behave and what to believe, the more distance it places between them. Imposing morality does not work.
In Whose Best Interest?
It is in everyone’s best interest to act as they would like others to act. Show that strength does not have to be cruel. Prove that communication can be civil. Solve problems through compromise. Be inclusive. Be honest. Listen. Empathize. Be a leader, not a tyrant.
Be an example. That in everyone’s best interest.