The Deciders
Author: Todd Hoskins Issue: 2024-07-03
The Deciders
by Todd Hoskins
I grew up in a family where my dad was in charge. In addition to being a basketball coach who learned from “The General” Bobby Knight, he was a Deacon in our church. He dispensed discipline to college kids who didn’t get back on a fast break, to members of the church who were living in sin, and to me and my brother when we were “out of line.”
My dad was more than a disciplinarian. He was the decider. I can now see that he didn’t always like that role but felt he was obligated to fulfill it. "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church,” writes the Apostle Paul in the book of Ephesians.
Buried in the commentary around the US Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity is the legal philosophy that has gained prominence in the Federalist Society, and likely guided the majority on their decision.
Unitary executive theory proposes that executive power be centralized in the President, rather than shared with other executive agencies or Congress. This theory argues that the President, as head of the executive branch, has broad and largely unchecked authority over the executive functions of the federal government. Many believe–even outside of Christianity–that we need a decider.
Lawyers in the Reagan administration were the first to argue this was necessary for a well-functioning government. Dick Cheney became a vocal advocate, especially after 9/11. Since then the idea has quietly gained momentum in conservative legal and political circles.
I don’t believe (at least most) of the Supreme Court justices were simply trying to set the stage for a specific favorable future as they see it. They have a distinct view on what effective leadership is, and fear that without the clarity, efficiency, and simplicity of someone on top of the pyramid, there is no “forward” movement.
The current CEO-to-worker pay ratio for S&P 500 companies is 272-to-1. The CEO to CFO pay ratio is more than 2-to-1. You can hear the shareholders saying in one form or another, “We don’t need just a strong leadership team. We need THE guy (and it’s usually a guy) leading that team.” The organizational world (including nonprofits) believe we need a decider.
A leader retired at one of my client’s organizations. With no heir apparent and no budget to add to the head count, I introduced a shared leadership model that I thought could work for them. After two months of easing into it, I realized I was moving too fast. They did not trust it could work because they hadn’t seen anything like it before.
This is more than the legacy of monarchies and monotheism. It’s more than just our iconic individualism. When we become so singularly focused on how we humans organize and mobilize, without regard to the rest of Nature, we lose our imagination.
We get rigid hierarchies and unitary executive theory not just because certain people are trying to grab power, but because people don’t believe shared leadership is effective or possible.
This is on all of us. In order for people to see new futures, we need new experiences. We need to feel shared leadership working, not as a theory, but as something that impacts us on a day-to-day basis.
I’m a big fan of co-operatives, Sociocracy, consent-based decision-making, and other tools, models, and practices that can support the sharing of power. The architectures of participation exist. They are not enough. We need more imagination if we’re going to collectively become the deciders.
Related:
- Todd Hoskins (author)
- 2024 (year)
- Topics: Work and Organizations