What
do innovative leaders have in common with ancient myths? A view of the
archetypal hero within the modern manager
Filippina Risopoulos
University of Graz, Institute of Innovation and Environmental
Management, Universitaetsstrasse 15, A-8010 Graz, Austria, filippina.risopoulos@uni-graz.at
Abstract
This contribution explores what modern managers have in common with
heroes in ancient myths. Myths and religions have always tried to explain
truths by means of symbols to some degree. It is the purpose of this
contribution to uncover some of the truths behind the figures in ancient myths
by investigating some examples and letting the old meaning become apparent by
itself.
Innovative leaders need to gain certain competences for several
management fields and they have to be flexible in their thinking and acting.
One function of a leader is to help the organization define and achieve its
purposes. This means formulating strategies, visions, and challenges. Another
function of a strong leader is to embody the spirit of the community and help
hold it together.
Once it is apparent that the differences between ancient myths and
today’s myths are much smaller than is popularly supposed, this paper may
contribute to those currently working for unification in the sense of human
mutual understanding.
Keywords: myths, managers, heroes
Today’s managers have to face all kinds of problems which deal on throne
hand with hard quantitative, measurable facts (operative management) and on the
other hand with problems which appear as strategic problems. It is a
challenging field for every manager of a company and to keep the business
running none of these can be neglected. To cope with both fields, similarly a
systemic view helps to understand certain patters which are often responsible
for non-linear functioning procedures of different constellations within a company.
Within the complexity which appears with “non-trivial-machines”1(von Foerster, 1971; von Foerster, 1993,138)
such as human beings, one can discover certain patterns which follow certain
legalities. The following will give an idea of
a management which is seen from a systemic view of management. The field of
systems theory appears thereby as a science with a special approach to problem-solving
which can per se be a heroic task. Innovative management and leadership can be
considered a modern myth in which modern “heroes“ fight for economic survival
by facing a reality which very often appears in different shapes, since people
act based on what they consider to be reality and not so much what reality is
or might be.
In the following the terms “traditional“ leader or management are used
as well as “modern, innovative“ leader or management. This is in order to make
distinction between what is meant by used behavior and behavior which has
arisen in current times. This does not mean that “innovative, modern“ does not
follow a tradition in management or leadership which has been developed since Adam
Smith but it makes clear that different
behavior need different terms.
A Systemic View of Organizational Behavior or the Modern Myth of Economic Power
The purpose of a modern management concept, such as The St. Gallen Management
Concept which was already introduced some decades ago and has since become widespread
in economic practice, is to make a multi-dimensional classification of
management's decision problems. Based on systems theory, it provides a
problem-oriented framework and methodology for an integral conceptualization of
problem-solving approaches, considering contextual and situational factors of
corporate development. Therefore, the main task of a management which is
established in a permanently changing environment is to lead a company to a
development of new ways of thinking and acting which provide long-lasting
survival for the company.
The sentence “innovate or die“ (Peters,1997)
today puts enough pressure on the organization’s leaders so that they sometimes
have to undertake strange measures to survive on the market. There are all
kinds of machines to ease physical work but there is not yet a machine invented
which can ease a manager’s work. To be economically effective in problem-solving,
a manager’s work can be divided into three key questions:
• What is the task of a manager?
• What is the biggest problem? And
• Which principle is behind this problem?
First of all it is the aim of a manager’s work to drive the resources
and efforts of an organization into one direction to take all the chances which
help to get an economically important output. That means that most of the time
is invested for problems instead of chances (Drucker 2000, 105-107). Traditional leaders are oriented to
operative decisions and measures directly connected to profit and growth. So one
can say the better the operative dimensions of a company are, the more it
becomes dangerous when the strategic situation gets worse.
Second, the main problem is the confusion about the distinction between
effectiveness and efficiency which leads people to do things right instead of
doing the right things. The main tools of an organization concentrate on
bookkeeping and data collection (operative aims) which are both connected to
efficiency. What a company needs is a way to identify fields of effectiveness
and a method to concentrate on this (Drucker2000,
105-107). Rites of the traditional management culture often force the
management to give priority to operative aspects, especially to periodical
business transactions, and the accompanied reporting in business press. Thus,
the strategic thinking will not be paid attention to in the way that would be
necessary (Malik 2000, 236-238).
Third, what principle is behind the problem? An economic organization is
not a natural phenomenon but a social one. However, events in social situations
do not appear as natural events which are connected to a natural, normal
distribution of the universe. In social situations a very small number of
events – maximum 10 to 20 percent - is responsible for about 90 percent of all
events while the major part of events is responsible for the 10 to 20 percent.
An example of that is the market: very few customers demand the majority of
orders. Another example concerns personnel problems: the majority of complaints
come from a very small group of collaborating people (Drucker 2000, 105-107).
Business schools teach that good managers have to take into account all
aspects of organizational tasks, operational as well as strategic. However, the
complexity of living systems such as organizations has to be accepted. By
dealing with “non-trivial machines“, such as collaborators, customers and soon,
it will hardy be possible for a manager to make all decisions by outside
steering. And it is barely possible for a manager to know everything that has
to be known to have solutions for all emerging problems. Top-down directives
have very limited effects and disregard the momentum of a system. And “systems“
are called systems because of their inherent dynamic dimension. This cybernetic
view of a complex, real living system such as a company explains the steps which
have to be taken to keep a company alive.
Outgoing from that systemic idea that everything that exists has once
become one has to realize that today’s state of the world is the tentative
result of evolution (socio cultural and economic-political development
integrated). It has always been a process of development which has become and
ongoing, becoming development which effects the technical achievement of human
beings but is not measurable by human standards. The development of each
organization independent of its size and economic power is widely determined by
the structure of this evolutionary process. At the same time this development
is one of the uncountable machines which keeps the evolution going (Malik 2000, 240).
Innovative Leaders or Modern Heroes?
Today’s managers increasingly accept the fact that to lead a company
means to deal with complex systems. The continuous necessity to adapt to changed
conditions and the permanent pressure to develop into unknown areas are problems
which are beyond the operative leadership of a company and put special demands
on the management.
A modern, innovative manager who is aware of his or her company as a
complex system which does not function by “cause and effect thinking“ always
solves problems in a broader sense.
• He or she creates knowledge in ecological issues as
well as in social matters.
• He or she realizes that strategic aims very often have
priority over operative goals.
• The modern, innovative manager has different risk
behavior than managers of the “old school”.
• He or she improves emotional intelligence as a basis
for social competence.
• He or she takes into account having an uncomfortable
state.
• To be a good leader means to serve a community
permanently.
• A leader’s role is accepted within a community as long
as he or she provides security. Instead of top-down directions, social
competence is the key elements within a modern, innovative management.
• A good leadership has to motivate all members of a
team and has to strengthen people’s personal resources. It is a question of autopoietic
action, which means to regenerate oneself and to cope with a permanent changing
environment.
So one further question is which qualities must a modern, innovative
manager have to do well in a company? Questions about persons who should able
to lead other persons deal with abilities, knowledge, personal characteristics,
attributes, experiences, qualities and competences. An analysis of more than600
of the largest companies in Germany has shown that a manager has to be:
entrepreneurially thinking, team-oriented, communicative, visionary,
internationally oriented, ecologically oriented, socially oriented, have
integrity, charismatic, multicultural, intuitive and last but not least
customer-oriented. A bulletin of a globally operating bank wrote that the
managers of tomorrow have to be interrogative-integral, integrating-intermediate
as well as intercommunicative-instructive (Malik
2001, 16)
One conclusion to this might be: The modern manager has to be a
universal genius, or in other words a hero. Or do these expressions tell us
something about a modern myth which makes us believe that all these attitudes
generate a competent manager?
The Functions of Myths in the Society
Myths have always existed to explain scary and inexplicable phenomenon
such as acts of nature. However, myths were also there to express elemental
feelings like love, hate, jealousy and so on. Fate ordained heroes and gods
fought for their survival, fame and honor. Myths were always and still are
fascinating stories which are told in a lively and pictorial style to explain
indefinable phenomenon. On the one hand they have entered our every day
language (e.g. Oedipus complex or narcissism) and reflect the structures and
values of the society. The following refers to Joseph Campell’s2 (Campbell 1968) point of view about the
myth and the society, which is a kind of confrontation of individuals and the
society of ancient mythological times and today’s demystified time. It is
necessary to have this view of a myth-based society of former times and
anon-mythological society of today to get an idea of what the specific
orientation of the modern hero-task must be, and to discover the cause for the
disintegration of all of our inherited religious formulae.
There is no final system for the interpretation of myths, and there will
never be any such thing. Mythology has often been interpreted by the modern
intellect as a “primitive […] effort to explain the world of nature“, as a “product
of poetical fantasy“, as “a group dream, symptomatic of archetypal urges within
the depths of the human psyche“, and as “God’s Revelation to His children“. And
there will be answers to all the questions concerning these ideas as long as
one does not ask what a myth “is but of how it functions“ and “how it has
served mankind in the past, of how it may serve today“.
The tribal ceremonies like birth, initiation, marriage, burial and so
forth translate the individual’s life-crisis and life-deeds into classic,
impersonal forms. They disclose a person to him or herself, not as this
personality or that, but as the warrior, the bride, the widow, the priest; and
at the same time rehearsing for the rest of the community the old lesson of the
archetypal stages. All participate in the ceremony according to rank and
function. The whole society becomes visible to itself as an imperishable living
unit. By an enlargement of vision to embrace this super-individual, each
discovers him or herself enhanced, enriched, supported and magnified.
All of which is far indeed from today’s life. The invention of the power-driven
machine or the computer, and the development of the scientific method of
research have so transformed human life that the long-inherited, timeless
universe of symbols has collapsed. The dream-web of myth fell away; the mind
opened to full waking consciousness; and modern man emerged from ancient
ignorance, like a butterfly from its cocoon. The social unit of today is not a
carrier of religions content, but an economic-potential organization. It is a
hard and unremitting competition for material supremacy and resources.
Therefore, the problem of today’s society is, that all is in the individual
–but there the meaning is totally unconscious. One does not know toward that
which one moves.
Conclusion
Today many of the mysteries of ancient times have lost their power;
their symbols no longer interest modern people. The descent of the Occidental
sciences from the heavens to the earth - from astronomy in the seventeenth
century to anthropology and psychologies in the twenty-first century mark the
permanent prodigious transfer of the focal point of human wonder. “Not the
animal world, not the plant world, not the miracle of the spheres, but man himself
is now the crucial mystery. Man is that alien presence with whom the forces of
egoism must come to terms, through whom the ego is to be crucified and
resurrected, and in whose image society is to be reformed“ (Campbell 1969, 391).
Joseph Campbell’s point of view at the end of the 1960s on society and
the interests of humans is still popular. Transferring this to traditional
management practice one can conclude that in order to be successful,
organizations often follow the causal principle “if – then“ and forget that one
still deals with living systems, with people who – to say that with respect –do
not function like “trivial machines“.
The modern, innovative manager or leader is a hero of today who follows
old mystic paths. He or she often takes into account fighting a battle which
may seem impossible to win. He or she shows – for management behavior – a very
strange kind of risk behavior and the most important thing about today’s heroes
is that they listen und talk to their collaborators in a “systemic“ way, which
implies that they care for themselves affectionately in the same way they would
care for a newborn baby.
Notes
1 Von Foerster’s famous distinction between trivial and non-trivial
machines is a starting point to recognize the complexity of cognitive behavior.
A trivial machine is a machine whose operations are not influenced by previous
operations. It is analytically determinable, independent from previous
operations, and thus predictable. For non-trivial machines, however, this is no
longer true as the problem of identification, i.e., deducing the structure of
the machine from its behavior, becomes unsolvable. One interesting comparison,
for example, can be made to ancient myths in which the role of the hero follows
a consistent legality.
2 Campbell relied on the texts of Jung as an explanation of
psychological phenomena, as experienced through archetypes.
But Campbell didn’t agree with Carl Jung on every issue, and certainly had a very
original voice of his own. Campbell didn't believe in astrology
or synchronicity
as Jung had. Campbell's true study and interpretation is in the melding of
accepted ideas and symbolism. His iconoclastic approach was as original as it
was radical.
References
Campbell, J (1968).The hero
with a thousand faces, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
Drucker, P. F.(1998). On the
Profession of Management, Harvard Business School Press,
Malik, F. (2003).Systemisches
Management, Evolution, Selbstorganisation. Grundprobleme, Funktionsmechanismen
und Lösungsansätze für komplexe Systeme, Verlag Paul Haupt,Bern, Stuttgart, Wien
Malik, F. (2001).Führen,
Leisten, Leben, Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, München
Simon, F. B (1998).Radikale
Marktwirtschaft. Grundlagen des Systemischen Managements,Carl-Auer-Systeme,
Von Foerster, H.(1997). Kreuzverhör- Fragen
an Heinz von Förster, Niklas Luhmann und Fancisco Varela, in LebendeSysteme,
Wirklichkeitskonstruktionen in der systemischen Therapie (Ed. Simon, F. B.),Suhrkamp,
Frankfurt a. M.:131-147
Von Foerster, H.(1993): Kybern
Ethik, Merve, Berlin