As a boss
I am neither narcissistic nor a control freak, or so I think. I am not sure what others think of me. I care less about it than I did at younger ages, except probably about those from above, whose views carry certain weighting to my career prospect. Aren't we all similar as a salary man?
For the sake of career progression, along with wisdom, I guess one's character at work evolves with maturity. The higher one rises, no doubt the bigger a deal is leadership, which inevitably carries with it a sense of pretension or egoism at times, depending on how pompous is the actor and how cynical is the audience.
If one aspires to be a CEO, one must be accepted as a leader, either with admiration or cynicism. One must also be prepared to lead. As such, narcissistic or not, leadership inevitably feeds to one's ego, unless perhaps one possesses a pure Buddha mind, in which case, one wouldn't want to be a CEO.
It's probably a matter of relativity - the degree of narcissism, pretension or egoism and, of course, altruism - with politicians on one end of the spectrum and the likes of Warren Buffet on another. But even Warren Buffet, out of legal necessity or free will, cannot escape headlines for his altruistic deeds.
When one frequently acts under the spotlight, one inevitably becomes a magnet for judgment from all sources. Paradoxically, the kinds of judgment a leader elicits also depend on those he or she regularly passes around. In fact, with or without us consciously aware of it, as a leader or otherwise, we are swamped in a sea of opinions and judgment, making heros and breaking people, day in and day out.
For this cruel reality, if not any other considerations, being an owner beats being a salary man anytime. Of course an owner could still be broken by the business, as a result of either misfortune or mismanagement or both, if not as readily by the spell of spiteful tongues. An owner also has to rely on the people to make the business, therefore, still needs to assume a position of leadership.
So how much free will there really is in the work environment and within a society at large, no matter how liberal the state is supposed to be? Logically, the higher up the corporate ladder someone is, the more free will the person can exercise in executing, and even devising, the corporate agenda, for arguably as long as the owners' interests are protected. A CEO, though a salary man, can mobilize resources at comparative ease, though not entirely out of free will.
But the point of interest about leadership is not so much about egoism or free will as how one should really lead others. One line of distinction between admiration and disgust is perhaps a matter of how fair the process of engagement the leader accommodates before a judgment on others is passed. In reality, however, one may readily fall into the vice of self-righteousness or be overwhelmed with the precarious sea of opinions and judgment. How cruel!
It is very cruel indeed. To avoid getting drowned, therefore, one needs to be led as well as know how to lead. Free will is a luxury for most and a priviledge for a very few in reality. But one should always keep a cool head and protect it in the mind at least.
For the sake of career progression, along with wisdom, I guess one's character at work evolves with maturity. The higher one rises, no doubt the bigger a deal is leadership, which inevitably carries with it a sense of pretension or egoism at times, depending on how pompous is the actor and how cynical is the audience.
If one aspires to be a CEO, one must be accepted as a leader, either with admiration or cynicism. One must also be prepared to lead. As such, narcissistic or not, leadership inevitably feeds to one's ego, unless perhaps one possesses a pure Buddha mind, in which case, one wouldn't want to be a CEO.
It's probably a matter of relativity - the degree of narcissism, pretension or egoism and, of course, altruism - with politicians on one end of the spectrum and the likes of Warren Buffet on another. But even Warren Buffet, out of legal necessity or free will, cannot escape headlines for his altruistic deeds.
When one frequently acts under the spotlight, one inevitably becomes a magnet for judgment from all sources. Paradoxically, the kinds of judgment a leader elicits also depend on those he or she regularly passes around. In fact, with or without us consciously aware of it, as a leader or otherwise, we are swamped in a sea of opinions and judgment, making heros and breaking people, day in and day out.
For this cruel reality, if not any other considerations, being an owner beats being a salary man anytime. Of course an owner could still be broken by the business, as a result of either misfortune or mismanagement or both, if not as readily by the spell of spiteful tongues. An owner also has to rely on the people to make the business, therefore, still needs to assume a position of leadership.
So how much free will there really is in the work environment and within a society at large, no matter how liberal the state is supposed to be? Logically, the higher up the corporate ladder someone is, the more free will the person can exercise in executing, and even devising, the corporate agenda, for arguably as long as the owners' interests are protected. A CEO, though a salary man, can mobilize resources at comparative ease, though not entirely out of free will.
But the point of interest about leadership is not so much about egoism or free will as how one should really lead others. One line of distinction between admiration and disgust is perhaps a matter of how fair the process of engagement the leader accommodates before a judgment on others is passed. In reality, however, one may readily fall into the vice of self-righteousness or be overwhelmed with the precarious sea of opinions and judgment. How cruel!
It is very cruel indeed. To avoid getting drowned, therefore, one needs to be led as well as know how to lead. Free will is a luxury for most and a priviledge for a very few in reality. But one should always keep a cool head and protect it in the mind at least.
Comments