Go to content Go to navigation Go to search

Abuse of Power by Organizations & Countries · 22 January 2010

Is it possible to apply the framework used in my book, “Dictatorial CEOs and their Lieutenants” – which is about personal relationships within organizations – to inter-organization and inter-country (ie international) relationships? After all, organizations and countries are composed of individual people and, it may be asked, why should organizations or a countries act any differently to individual people? And, most individual organizations and countries could be considered to be part of larger groupings.

Mao, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Ataturk each managed to hold power for many years because of their ability to “lead”. When a foreign journalist asked Stalin why people feared him, he knew where the question was leading and replied: “Do you really believe a man could maintain his position of power for fourteen years merely by intimidation? Only by making people afraid?”

At times some organizations also seem to show “leadership” – and here I am using the term in a narrow sense with the emphasis on the positive that does not include “intimidation” – but also fall into the temptation of abusing that power. For example, a political group may, with basically good intentions, seize power from a corrupt government but then proceed to become abusive of other political organizations; or an idealistic religious movement may attempt to entrench its position using force (eg historical aspects of the Catholic Church) against other religions; or a very successful sporting club in a sporting association may dominate that association and push through changes to rules that entrench its position; or a business may dishonestly and ruthlessly use its dominant market position to exclude possible competition.

The dictators in my book were essentially self-made men. They did not inherit their position of power, which makes their achievements (if that is the right word) different to that of kings. As Napoleon said to Count Metternich, the Austrian Foreign Minister, in 1813: “My reign will not outlast the day when I have ceased to be strong and therefore to be feared. … Your sovereign, who were born to the throne, can allow themselves to be beaten twenty time and will always return to their capital. But I cannot do that – I am a self-made soldier.”

Thus, using my book framework to look at organizations would exclude organizations which – like a king – have had power bestowed on them and then abused it. Such organizations include corrupt police forces. (In my view the Australian Family Court, which essentially operates in semi-secret, has become abusive of its power despite its idealistic intentions.)

Here I want to briefly explore inter-country relationships. Over the last few years there has been much discussion comparing the present position of the USA (at least until the recent financial crisis) with the Roman Empire – a sort of world “boss”!

Many people believe that the US sees itself as a some sort of “God” (as someone put it to me when I was recently in Baku, Azerbaijan) that acts in its own interests, and since the 9/11 terrorist attacks has sort to rely only on “intimidation”.

Non-intimidation “leadership” in international affairs is sometimes called “soft power”. (I am not sure what Stalin, who had changed his name to reflect the Russian word for “steel” would have made of the word “soft”, but he certainly sometimes used this type of power.)

The framework of my book is reproduced below, with an initial attempt at putting (in brackets) some USA-specific examples. Of course, there is some subjectivity and a different person may prefer to see things from another point of view (just as there are many points of view on Stalin).

Any feedback on the general idea or suggestions for specific inclusion (or exclusion) will be greatly appreciated – and I will from time to time add to this blog.

Chapter 1. A Man
‘A Man’ — This refers to the need of people to believe in something good, be it a shining white knight, God, Tsar, or as I refer to it – ‘the Man’ (USA viewed by many as the bastion of democracy and humanity)
Personal PR and the good press release — While ‘the Man’ is a product of people’s need to believe, he/she/it will – if possible – attempt to burnish this image (Obama’s Nobel Prize speech)
If only the Tsar knew! — Many people often do not want to accept that ‘the Man’ has a negative side (The USA is not really seen as responsible for what its follower states – such as Egypt – do, even when the USA is directly involved)

Chapter 2. The Power Personality
Self-belief — A basis of power is the belief in ones essential talent and goodness (Exemplified by the presidency of George Bush with Rumsfeld, Cheney etc)
Hugh White has written: “I have no doubt China seeks an end to US primacy in Asia. Of course, for the past forty years, the two conceptions of status quo I’ve mentioned here have been synonymous: stability in Asia has depended on US primacy, and no one has been able to imagine any other way to keep Asia peaceful. That view is still widely held, especially in America. On this view, any challenge to US primacy is a challenge to peace and order – revisionist, in other words. But in Beijing they see things quite differently. They see the linkage between Asian order and US primacy as contingent, and transitory. They find it easy to imagine a future stable Asian order underwritten not by US primacy but by their own …”
Passion and focus — These two characteristics take self-belief a step closer to power (Aspects of the “war on terror” where collateral damage – to image, stability in Pakistan – in receives little attention )
The crucial importance of will-power — A type of time and strength process that allows self-belief, passion and focus to bring power results (Iraq invasion and the recent increase of forces in Afghanistan)

Chapter 3. A Human Being
The human side of the dictatorial CEO — Even dictators sometimes display humanity and understanding (The many good deeds of the USA in the world)
Lonely at the top — The holder of power never completely trusts others, and often feels uniquely responsible (Obama’s Nobel Prize speech)
Response to pressure and stress — Uncertainty, self-doubt, even panic, an temporarily appear (Often panicky US response to terror threat)

Chapter 4. Dictatorial CEO’s Choice of Lieutenants
Talent, gets things done (Israel, Egypt, prisoner endition countries)
Trust, loyalty and obedience ((Australia, UK)
Flattery, servility, telling the dictatorial CEO what he wants to hear (Australia, UK)
Dictatorial CEO has some fear of lieutenant — In this situation, the “leader” is not entirely satisfied with the (actions of) lieutenant, but has little choice but to keep him close in case he decides to do his own thing (US worries about Israel action against Iran causing other problems for it in the region, which in turn is having some influence on the US attitude toward Iran)
‘New faces’ and the ‘flaw in the weave’ — “Leaders” feel most comfortable with long-standing supporters (US mainly shares high-level intelligence information with English speaking UK, Australia, Canada)

Chapter 5. Why the Lieutenants Serve the Dictator
Lieutenant’s respect, admiration and attribution — The lieutenant’s respect can be a reflection of what they think the dictator believes in as well as what he actually does (Australia)
Dictatorial CEO makes lieutenant feel personally needed (US presidential visits to a country; foreign leaders visiting the White House etc)
Dictatorial CEO shows loyalty to lieutenant (South Korea)
Lieutenant is nothing without the dictatorial CEO (Australia feels it gets more world influence by being loyal, and Taiwan maintains its “independence”)
Love of the country, the company, or the organisation — In this case, it will be love of the “free world” or something similar!! (Australia)
Excitement, ambition, money, prestige, power to boss others (UK feels it has a ‘special’ relationship with the US which satisfies some British ambitions for world influence which it can no longer achieve alone; Egypt gets large amounts of financial assistance from the US; little Georgia thought it could tell Russia what to do……)

Chapter 6. Special Case of the Secretary / Gate-keeper
Becoming indispensable
Dealing with other lieutenants
Hostility of other lieutenants
Try to rein-in, or suck-up?
But ultimately – only a ‘secretary’!

Chapter 7. Evaluating and Monitoring Lieutenants
Management books ( )
Watching and testing ( )

Chapter 8. Putting Basic Tools into Practice
Timing, and the importance of ‘ripening’ — All the dictators in my book knew the importance of timing in actions, and tried to avoid acting before the time was ripe for action. ( )
Playing cards close to chest ( )
Pretence, acting and lying ( )
Persuasion and inspiration — This includes the concept of “soft power” (Speeches of Obama)
Reminding the lieutenants who is top dog ( )
Using fear ( )
Divide and rule ( )
Blame a lieutenant when things go wrong ( )
Lieutenants are not people, but things! — Lieutenants may thing that they are special to the dictator, but at the end of the day when push comes to shove they find out that they are disposable. ( )

Chapter 9. An Independent Life?
Surrendered lives (Australia supports USA in Iraq because of ANZUS)
At the whim of the dictatorial CEO ( )

Chapter 10. Reacting to the Dictatorial CEO
Trying to influence the dictatorial CEO ( )
Passivity and giving up (UK relationship with US under Tony Blair )
Serving up servility and words that please ( )
Disobedience and lies ( )
‘New faces’ ( )
Fighting back — Lieutenants sometimes eventually start to resist some activities of the dictator ( )

Chapter 11. Competition between Lieutenants
Taking aim at the competition and proving you are the best ( )
Taking the que from the dictatorial CEO ( )
Acting in the name of dictatorial CEO ( )

Chapter 12. Time and the Mind of the Dictatorial CEO
Over time the mind of the dictator becomes increasingly affected by power ( )

Chapter 13. Dictatorial CEO Acts Against a Lieutenant
Sickleave ( )
Big reshuffle as smokescreen ( )
Abolish the position ( )
Pretending it’s a ‘management committee’ decision ( )
It’s a game of cat and mouse! ( )
Marched out of the office ( )

Chapter 14. The Dangerous Life of the Heir ( )

Back to Articles page