Corruption

Corruption. Corruption as defined by many dictionaries and references is to "Destroy, Abuse, or Taint". Corruption as seen by many people present within the modern world has now become a common social norm that was once only used by the privileged and the mighty. but seeing  as how even the "common folk" have started to reap the benefits of corruption be it social, ethical, political, financial, and moral. back in the day, when corruption used to be carried out in a manner as how our elders would describe it as "doing something so secretive that the right hand wouldn't know the actions carried out by the left". as i was once reading somewhere that corruption is the most virulent when the very existence of society and faith is threatened. As the older the systems that once were there to protect us from corruption get the more society and our ethical values get in the way of our process of solving the social barriers that plague us everyday. but corruption is something as mentioned above can and is applied within various departments of mankind's everyday endeavors. but the one i would like to focus on and share my thoughts about is the corruption of money and government system.

"a government, for protecting business only, is but a carcass, and soon falls by its own corruption and decay" - Amos Bronson Alcott, American Reformer, Teacher and Philosopher (1799-1888)

if thought about and given proper attention, we all claim that governments are corrupt and that they corrupt, but having seen and properly and carefully thought out, I say "money" corrupts. not money (banknotes or medium of exchange) but the idea of money. the fact that everything has a price on its head or can be bought. with the financial pillars of society and this world slowly crumbling away at the costs and consequences of unstable interest rates, poor financial planning, flawed economic projections and assumptions, poorly designed and outdated money mechanisms, inadequately trained and overconfident individuals who insult the general public by using large and obscure words that make no sense to either themselves or the masses just so they can escape the brutal truth that "sooner or later you WILL be eliminated from the financial food chain and with guarantee ask yourself what happened and where did you go wrong despite the fact that you planned and took action accordingly to avoid the very situation you will inevitably face". Governments are responsible to ensure that these problems as such do not occur  and that the general individual who through hard work and taxpaying has made sure he is secure does not end up as the individual who gave everything with nothing to show.But due to the fact that the entire judicial system if thought of properly is just a layer by layer is nothing but a gigantic heap of over-composed bureaucracies that make just as much sense to us as Steven Hawkings research paper on the cosmos. The more "Money" or "financial control" that an individual has, the easier these "bureaucracies" become to overcome. A very smart man once said:

 “In any country where talent and virtue produce no advancement, money will be the national god. Its inhabitants will either have to possess money or make others believe that they do. Wealth will be the highest virtue, poverty the greatest vice. Those who have money will display it in every imaginable way. If their ostentation does not exceed their fortune, all will be well. But if their ostentation does exceed their fortune they will ruin themselves. In such a country, the greatest fortunes will vanish in the twinkling of an eye. Those who don't have money will ruin themselves with vain efforts to conceal their poverty. That is one kind of affluence: the outward sign of wealth for a small number, the mask of poverty for the majority, and a source of corruption for all.” – Denis Diderot, French man of letters and philosopher (1713-1784)

if taken into account and actually put into thought, its not the individuals or the government that is involved that is deemed corrupt, but the very existence of "Money". in the 21st century, seeing as how we are all well educated individuals we have learned to respect the notion or the social equation: "Money = Power". Any individual with an assumptive mind or comprehensive power of deduction can understand that any single or collective body with the most "Money" is surely the most "Powerful". Governments control the money supply and are therefore the foremost authority within society as the "Most Powerful" and with that notion they tend to "Corrupt" the system. this phenomenon i call "The Venom" phenomenon. this is because if anyone who has read the "Spiderman" comic books knows that Spidermans Arch-Nemesis was "Venom". Venom was an individual who was overtaken by a symbiotic being that gave Venom (Eddie Brock) supreme power to conquer all its allies. being in a symbiotic relationship, Eddie without realizing that slowly he got used to the power and started to abuse it. The Symbiote slowly without Eddie realizing started to Corrupt him and turn him into the Villain known as "Venom". i believe all governments are suffering from this phenomenon and just like how they believe that "Money" holds a symbiotic relationship with them where Money offers power and they help produce more money. but the governments don't realize is that sooner or later the more "Money" they produce, they will be overpowered by it and then will succumb to its dastardly will and in the end become the ones dependent on it instead of "Money" being the one that needs them.

If thought about carefully and with much detail, i believe that:

Money = Power
(Variable Power) = Variable Control
*mankind has its limitation and that no man can ever control power completely
Variable Control + Limited individual = Inevitable Abuse or Mismanagment of Power
Mismanagement or Abuse of Power = Corruption
therefore:
Power (Money) = Corruption
Money = Corruption

"Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" - John Emirich Edward Dalberg Acton, Historian and Moralist (1834-1902)

Mankind wielding Money without supervision is like an infant trying to fly a plane. We do not understand the implications and consequences or the concepts of money, but instead we assume we do. In nature it is best said that when you dont understand anything it is best not to try and tame it until its power or strength is understood. sadly mankind is flawed and we have overlooked this warning and therefore we have once again suffered its consequences (Lehman Brothers Financial Crisis AKA the second great depression). our flaws are our corruption because we are always on a never ending quest to find "Unlimited Power" and unlimited power corrupts the minds of those who possess it. with money being so easily produced, there is no doubt that money is unlimited. and since money being power, and unlimited money = unlimited power, and unlimited power corrupts, it is inevitable that Corruption will entail with every frequency and from every nook and cranny and will be relentless and merciless towards us, its creators, mankind, for we are the direct flesh and bone tangible embodiment of walking corruption.

Evolution of Leadership? Does it Exist?

“Motivation is what gets you started. Habit is what keeps you going on.” – Jim Ryun

As time has progressed forward regarding how man has adapted his way of conforming to the ever so changing world, he has to adapt to how things are taking place. As theorists have in the past created ways for mankind to be lead, also new theorists that come into play have to change their methods in order to better adapt to the new environment. Even great theorists have changed their views over time where perceptiveness, justice, morality, inspiration, motivation and wisdom are concerned. As new technology and practices are formed, appropriate leaderships are put into place. For example. During the medieval ages, leadership was ruled by the hand of the sword and fear and honor were the motivating factors to follow that leader. And if we look at recent times, leadership is the exact total opposite, where motivation comes from achievement and tangible rewards. We see evolution of leadership as a way for mankind to adapt, not only physically but within a mental state of being also. As we might say that leadership has evolved we can say that much of leadership still hasn’t evolved and that were still clinging to some of our old methods. For example. We still use the great-man approach to leadership to date. But the problem is that with the new modern era no centralized new definition of theory has emerged yet. There is argument that many old theories have relevance and that the new ones still haven’t been fully substantiated or discredited where new practice is concerned.  As a result, the modern industry of leadership shows dominance over the study of leadership, and leadership enforcers pop new theories and training approaches that have gotten well ahead of what the existing body of knowledge support can offer or handle. If we look how it has changed over time, here are the observed leadership transformations:

-          Scholarly thinking and thought evolved from headship to the conceptual form of leaders and leadership. This change began as early as the 14th century but took proper hold and sunk in during the 18th century.

-          Mass communication became an established form. Back in the day, philosophers influenced only a few people and only in certain few areas. The disadvantage to mass communication is that, in the present, anybody can advance their radical or ludicrous leadership theory or worship a CEO with a book, Web site, or mass-market training session held anywhere in the world.

-          Leadership thinking shifted from a historical study of different leaders to the idea of leadership as a concept and design. This is justified by the emergence of trait theories around 1900.

-          The main idea of leadership thinking evolved from the philosophy of leadership to the practice of leadership. This change started taking place around 1950, when many important and relevant studies questioned the basic ideas of the trait theories, giving power and emergence to the behavioral period of research. However, we can assume that all this shifting and change could have begun much earlier than we think.

if  we look at the past leadership practices and theories, we can assume that they were of exemplary value and as people nonetheless great minds and thinkers of our time.

“What we do in this life echoes throughout eternity” – (Maximus, Gladiator (the movie), 2000)

As how leaders in the past have influenced us the above statement is true. As we look at all the leaders in the past and how their traits have influenced us, yes, I agree. What we do in the past echoes throughout eternity.  If we look at the leaders of the past, we can see that they followed mostly and autocratic leadership. Autocratic leadership is the least desired form of leadership when building trust and relationships amongst followers. This is duly because in autocratic leadership, the leader or one person has complete control over the group and no one is allowed to make any suggestions of any sort. No matter how beneficial it might be overall to the group. The benefits of autocratic leadership are that it requires a strong leader to guide the group, and without the strong leadership, no one gets the full understanding of what the leader might communicate or the outcomes of the goals are unclear. Autocratic leaders take charge, distribute the work accordingly and make sure that deadlines are met no matter what the cost. Due to lack of technology and some means, leaders in the past had to make due with what they had from paperwork and tangible data gathering and resources, thus making the workload even harder and more difficult to cope with along the way. This is also because of the fact that some group members might procrastinate and end up affecting the entire project and affecting the overall outcome because they decide to wait and let the other member do the work.  Also leaders of the past used a bureaucratic style of leadership. This leadership style is a way of ensuring safety or accuracy of the task at hand or the situation. The situations best applied when in the past were situations were hazardous or dangerous; a bureaucratic style of leadership was used. A natural bureaucratic leader would create detailed instructions for the other members of the group and make sure that they follow the procedures entailing the best results. Leaders like this are best suited for government positions. Examples of leaders like this would be, Julius Caesar, Machiavelli, and such leaders who follow a strict and ironclad but accurate style and form of leadership application that required results on time and properly done. So I believe that the leaders of the past were dominantly or at least most of them were either autocratic or bureaucratic leaders given the situations they were put in and wouldn’t be surprised if they were a hybrid mixture of both. 

The skills that a leader of today should have and something that the past leaders should possess are dependent on the times that are currently present.  First of all, the leaders of today should learn to see others as themselves. In the sense meaning that this should help them view and assess their strengths and weaknesses more accurately also because they are no different from the rest of the group that they are leading where rank is considered and that they should see that the tasks they give out to others should be appropriate enough and that they understand the difficulties of it so they can get a better grasp of the situation. Leaders nowadays should also learn to cultivate their social intelligence and skills. By this they should be able to learn how to assess and respond appropriately at the situation that is present before them. The inability to do so is a reason for many leaders to fail at what they are currently engaged and is an important factor that many overlook which results in the risk of failure.  Leaders nowadays for them is imperative that they become network and people savvy, by becoming as such it is important that they are socially well connected and build a relationship base that is not only strong and consistent with all of their peers and followers.

By building a good connection and viewing the environment as an organizational ecosystem instead of segregating by departments and separate groups, you are enabling a broader view or a “big picture” view for yourself which makes it easier to become more in tune with your followers. By being so well connected you are opening a better path for yourself and your followers to gain more valuable opportunities. Leaders nowadays should learn how to show leadership both vertically and horizontally where most necessary. Because of this they understand that managing or working with people isn’t a downward facing chain of command but a mix of both because not only do they become more successful that way, but at the same time they understand how to involve others in the goal process which in turns help them become their 

own leaders in the future. 

Using these attributes or skills, leaders of the past could have been more efficient and the leaders of today much more effective. As for how overall leadership has evolved, it is one of those attributes of management evolution that no one can properly objectify but instead personify. Every spectacular leader is a combination of either attribute if not more. It’s the difference of use amongst the leader is what makes him/her successful in the future.