leadership v. pure alpha male dominance
This is the prevailing thought for the moment after hearing a disturbing tale today that emanated from a place I once enjoyed being. It prompted me to think about myself, the people around me and how we all inter-relate. Just what IS the difference between a leader and an alpha male?
In order to truly define a difference, one would have to define each role. In providing my own such definition, there would naturally be a backlash of subjective debate from those who may disagree with my assessment. However, I would feel less than effective if I allowed myself to concede the argument. Of course, those who know me and understand me know very well the source of this speculation and introspection on my part. Some might even disagree. It would be quite arrogant of me to state that such disagreement is wrong. What I CAN say is that my thoughts on the matter are well formulated and well-thought out and, at the very least, are deserving of consideration.
Alpha male, being a concept more than a specific entity, is difficult to clearly define. In its broad definition (as summarized in the Wikipedia article for “Alpha (biology)”) is “…the individual in the community to whom others follow and defer.” The typical implication is that the alpha male leads by dominance. In nature, this dominance is purely dictated by physical superiority. In our modern climate and culture, there is still a certain remnant of this pure physical dominance, however, there is the added intellectual factor: dominance dictated by position of authority or power.
In its purest definition, a leader is one who leads….more specifically, one who leads a group or activity. As it applies to discussion in our current culture, this word has taken on a more detailed inference: a leader is one who leads WELL. This opens doors to even further speculation on what it means to lead WELL. In my estimation, an effective leader is one who is naturally respected by his/her peers and leads the group or activity to its best possible outcome. There are any number of leadership styles at play in the world we live in. Some more effective than others and some that leave you wondering how and why an individual might have come to their level of power. This latter curiosity is what really fuels this discussion.
Human beings are creatures of volition. We each have our own motives and agendas that drive us and map out the routes that we take. A leader not only acknowledges this volitional tendency, but actually respects and attempts to work within the constraints of each individual’s own volitional fiber. The alpha male, in being driven purely by dominance would not do this.
A leader does not command respect. A leader EARNS respect. The alpha male EXPECTS it. Even the select few who tend to follow the alpha male do not respect the alpha male on the sole basis of being the alpha male. Respect must still be earned.
A leader does not automatically assume that he/she is right. A leader will continually make efforts to improve, acknowledging his/her own weak points. The alpha male has theoretically already proven to be superior and typically does not see the need to seek such improvement.
A leader will NEVER ask of another what the leader would not be willing to do him/herself. The results of going into battle on behalf of someone who is unwilling to fight will never match the level of going to battle with one who fights beside you. The alpha male may or may not be this person. More often than not, the alpha male would not deem it necessary to go into battle with subordinates, opting to watch from afar.
A leader MOTIVATES his/her subordinates into action, rather than demanding. The alpha male demands it.
More than anything, a leader holds a strong conviction. A leader does not look to his/her subordinate in ANY situation to say: I can’t help you. There are a wide variety of scenarios that this may apply to, but for purposes of simplification there are only two:
1) The subordinate is inaccurate or has missed some crucial point. In this scenario, a leader guides the subordinate’s thought process to the appropriate conclusion with logical evidence and reason.
2) The subordinate is accurate and has a valid request. In this scenario, a leader who says “I can’t help you” has turned their back on someone who is dependent on them for guidance and supervision. The leader has failed the individual and the group by placing him/herself in a position of powerlessness. The fallout from such a failure is manifested in a variety of ways. First and foremost, the leader will lose the respect, at the very least, of that one individual. More often than not, people being the great communicators that they are, the leader will lose the respect of the group. Further, this understanding that the trusted leader is now a powerless figure is almost guaranteed to de-motivate the subordinate and/or group of subordinates.
What comes into play in the second scenario are nested leadership structures. Each leader has their own leader all the way up the chain of command. Though the leader at the first level may not be the point of failure, somewhere up the chain is a leader that has failed miserably. Additionally, in everything that we do there are tasks that we are expected to perform by our leaders and leadership groups. While being held accountable for these tasks, others must be held equally accountable, else the balance of respect within the group is shaken and fragile. When an individual within the group proves to be the most productive, this individual should be rewarded or, at the very least, should be afforded the respect that goes along with being the most productive. If a massive disparity in production is demonstrated within the group, the subordinates who are grossly underperforming MUST be held accountable. If this lack of performance is treated as the status quo it WILL become the status quo. If performance is not rewarded, it will NOT become the status quo.
The alpha male will fail to acknowledge performance within the group. The group will perform simply as a side-effect of the alpha male’s dominance. Thus, an individual who is placed in a leadership role who exhibits the tendencies of the alpha male, demanding performance without motivating subordinates to perform, will ultimately fail to produce the best result. It should be noted that dependent on the strength of the individuals within a group or team, they may, by default, produce the EXPECTED result. But, they will never produce the best result. Over time, the alpha male mentality will ultimately thrust a group into a state of perpetual decline and performance will eventually fade to nothing.
While I won’t complain about having to overcome the adversity of being somewhat awkward and unusual, I will never understand the prevailing mentality that I was somehow at fault for others promoting mediocrity and shooting performance square in the face. I am guilty of one thing and, even for that I! AM! NOT! WRONG! (never was) I am guilty of being thoroughly repulsed and disgusted by the perpetuation of a culture of mediocrity, particularly by those I respected and expected the most of. The fact that they still fail to comprehend the accuracy of my own perspective is not only perplexing, it is actually relatively disturbing.
What is most intriguing is how someone who was a respected and trusted leader within a group could so quickly become a corrupt alpha male politician. I’d chalk it up to youth and a singular perspective, but that’s really no excuse. Even more intriguing is how others could be so blind to such a disturbing turn. Either way, it spreads like a plague and only perpetuates the eventual decline of a group that used to be functional and effective. They might do what you say out of fear for their own livelihood , but they won’t respect you and they won’t produce for you until you start rewarding productivity and show even the slightest appreciation and respect for your colleagues and subordinates.