Well of course. The inherent “corruption” is not that those who actively seek power and authority are particularly evil or greedy. It is that they have a particularly strong vision on how they believe things should work. They will logically align with and support those people who appear to share their beliefs and visions and turn against those who don’t.
No, benefits and favoritism (including nepotism) IS a form of corruption.
That doesn’t make sense. What is the difference between not allowing someone a job and jobs not being available because they are all taken by cousins and idiot nephews?
The reason to be (or have) a boss is that people often need to be organized and managed when working on large, complicated projects. As a boss, your “perk” is that you have more direction and control and you usually get better compensation, however you also have more responsibility.
There is a difference between being “treated the same” and “having the same responsibilities”. I treat all my coworkers with the same amount of respect, regardless if they are interns or the vice president of the office. However, they do not all have the same responsibility nor is all their opinions valued the same.
Your attitude is that of junior employee with average ability/ambition who has internalized lessons that with power comes entitlement. IMHO, people with that sort of attitude make the worst leaders. Like battered housewives, they have learned that corruption, nepotism, favoritism and other abuses are “just how things are done” and as soon as they gain a bit of power, they do things the same way.
Or a diminished appreciation of the negative outcomes (affecting others) of their choices.
Relatively speaking, I suppose it amounts to much the same thing - “I want what I want very much more than I care how it affects you”, but at the extremes of the scale, you could have megalomaniac corruption vs apathetic corruption.
Megalomaniac corruption: “I’ll do what I want regardless how many corpses I have to climb over”
Apathetic corruption: “I need to do this - screw the consequences, whatever they are” (perhaps more likely to backfire)
I read a saying that went something like “A man is a he is when he can do as he wants”, it’s not the power that corrupts, is that you can now be the asshole you really were.
IMHO it’s important to distinguish real corruption (Stalin, et. al.) from the reaction of one-who-has-less-power to the actions that one finds disagreeable of one-who-has-more-power.
History has many examples - too numerous to mention - of leaders with essentially absolute power who did not descend into real corruption.
This is absolutely consistent with my experience, even when laughably trivial amounts of power are involved. The difference between those who see power as a responsibility and those who see it as an entitlement is vast and is also the easiest-to-spot difference between a potentially good leader (it’s necessary, but not sufficient) and a poor one.
Typically as the all powerful leader becomes insulated from dissenting views, those with those views tend to become viewed as "“outsiders”, “rabble rousers”, “criminals” and “traitors”. Once you create that “us vs them” mentality, it becomes very easy to wield the power of the state against those who disagree with your views.
From all the evidence, Mugabe started out as a relatively decent man and then turned into a monster. Stalin started out a monster and never changed. And fought like hell to become the head.
I know that if I became dictator over all mankind, there are many things I would do that would anger a lot of people. Might I destroy them? I don’t think so but since I have never had any power over anyone, I cannot be certain.
This approach reminds me a lot of J.R.R.Tolkein’s approach to power with regard to The Ring. At it’s basic level, it enables you to control the will of others, thereby depriving them of their own. So even if your ultimate goal was to make a better world, it would be so at the cost of everyone else’s free will–and how can that ever be a good thing?
So you view the best leaders as those who take their responsibilities seriously, know what they “stand for” and make decisions accordingly? I happen to agree, and agree with your statement above - but it feels like it conflicts with your normal “don’t hate the playa; hate the game” view of the inter-changeable, bureaucratic, suck-up world of Big Business…
Robert Caro, LBJ’s biographer, had an interesting answer to this question. His belief was that absolute power doesn’t corrupt, but reveals. The rise to power is what always corrupts people.
That makes sense if you look at LBJ’s life. He did many corrupt things to gain power in the senate, including stuffing the ballot box to win his senate seat. However, once he becomes President he goes ahead and passes the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act.
I tend to agree with this. Once you’re in power you don’t have to be corrupt. It’s the rise to power that’s problematic. Many honest people have to face the choice of either remaining honest and going nowhere, and resorting to some corruption so that they can get power and change things.
I don’t think my own views on what makes good leadership are inconsistent with the pragmatic realities of the corporate world. The typical corporate hierarchy often is not designed to produce or reward “good leaders”.