624: A Leader’s Tension: Controlling vs. Under Control

An influential teacher was slowly traveling towards his intended destination and along the way would make time to connect in a variety of towns.   As is the case for most teachers, politicians, musicians, and artists of influence, this teacher had supporters… followers. There was one controversial stop along the campaign route where the local population was more hostile to the teachers message.  Argumentative conflict ensued. The supporters immediately asked the teacher's permission to antagonize and put the locals in their place.  The teacher said “no”.  In effect, he censured his supporters. His supporters desperately wanted to control the narrative…to make the locals either like the teacher and the message that they themselves liked, or else they wanted to burn the place down. Instead, the teacher provided a model of having self-control and realizing that it is impossible to mandate conversion to any sort of message.   Labor to control others and you will either get blind subjects or chaotic revolt. Live under control guided by a defined vision, mission, and values of your leadership, and you will create well-equipped and well-intentioned supporters who have self-elected into your sphere of influence, or you will get people who self-elect out of your sphere. Leading by controlling mandates that the leader be in a constant, exhaustive grind of devising new tactics of adherence.   Manipulative strategy.  The mission of a controlling leader morphs into a focus to find and retain a growing list of followers.   The mission of an under-control leader is to equip the right willing supporter to go out and perpetuate the message.   The leader who is controlling mandates and micro-manages the mandate and the method asking the right questions at the wrong times, or asking the wrong questions at the right times. The leader who is under control sets a clear and repetitive vision (what the future destination looks like), constantly reminds the supporters of the ultimate mission (why they are doing what they are doing), and guides each supporter to think independently within the agreed upon values (the guardrails) to ensure alignment on mission…even though the method may vary.   In full disclosure, I tend to lean towards controlling.   Controlling the narrative, the method, and the outcome. I am having to learn to set an overly clear picture of the destination (the vision), provide examples of how to get there, the guidelines for what the field of play looks like, and then extend trust to provide the freedom and latitude to allow each team member to run the plays they best think will get us to the endzone within the sidelines of the field we are playing on. There is not one play that has been run that I (the controlling leader) don’t think can be run differently.   A leader who is under control realizes the mechanics of the play are not important, but that the play is in bounds and moves us closer to the endzone.  The controlling leader will never experience the freedom and joy of watching a team perform based on autonomy and proper equipment, but will be in a constant state of frustration because it will never be completed in the replicated method of the leader. Just because it worked “back then” doesn’t mean it still works the same today.   The leader who controls will be stuck in the small town trying to handle the uprising they have created through force and manipulation, and be deprived of the joy of their final destination. The leader who is under control will share their offering, identify the supporters, and keep moving towards their ultimate destination.