Leadership is one of the most misunderstood subjects in Man’s dictionary. But it is based almost solely on the ability to give and enforce orders.

An order or directive is necessary to bring about coordination of function and activity, without which there could be disagreement and confusion.

In an organization there is more than one person functioning. Being of comparable rank and having different purposes (hats), they can come into conflict and disagreement in the absence of a plan or order or directive. So, without orders, plans, programs, one does not have an organization. One has a group of individuals. We see in earlier policy letters that a group composed only of individuals cannot expand and will remain small.

Oddly enough, such a group will also remain unhappy. It will have a low affinity with the public and each other and if you know the Affinity-Reality-Communication triangle, you will realize that all three points drop if one does. Agreement being the basis of reality, you will find a group of individuals will disagree with each other and have a low reality on what they are doing or what to propose and even what to do.

Most people confuse a “taut ship” with a harshly led ship. Actually harshness has nothing to do with it. The right word is positiveness.

If a group is led by someone whose programs and orders are very positive, then the group has a chance of going into agreement with one another; and so their affinity improves and so does their communication and reality.

So if one issues no orders, a group will remain a group of individuals out of agreement with each other, will do little, and will remain small or at least nonexpanding.

Bill, of equal rank to Joe, cannot give an order to Joe nor vice versa. Thus no orders exist between them. Occasional agreements do occur; but as their jobs are different, they rather tend to disagree on what is important.

A person with a senior standing to both Bill and Joe can give the two an order and this becomes the basis of an agreement.

The order doesn’t even have to be liked by Bill and Joe. If they follow it, they thus “agree” to it; and being in agreement on this, they get reality and communication on it as well.

Even poorly thought out orders angrily given, if issued and enforced, are better for a group than no orders at all. But such orders are the low end of the scale.

Positive, enforced orders, given with no misemotion and toward visible accomplishment, are the need of a group if it is to prosper and expand.

The group is full of “good fellows.’’ This does not give it success.

The group is full of plans. These do not give it success.

What it needs are positive orders leading to a known accomplishment. Many obstacles can exist to that accomplishment, but the group will function.

We call it “leadership” and other nebulous things, this ability to handle a group, make it prosper and expand.

All leadership is, in the final analysis, is giving the orders to implement the program and seeing that they are followed.

One can build this up higher by obtaining general agreement on the how, why and what of programs. But to maintain it, there have to be orders and directives and acceptance or enforcement thereof — else the group will fall apart, sooner or later.

Positive orders and directions on positive programs inevitably cause expansion.

Being wise or a good fellow or being liked does not accomplish the expansion. People in the group may be cheerful — but are they going anywhere as a group?

So the whole thing boils down to:

Positive directions and their acceptance or enforcement on known programs bring about prosperity and expansion.

No or weak orders bring about stagnation and collapse.

The ideal is to have programs with which the whole group or a majority agrees fully. Then to forward these with positive orders and obtain compliance by acceptance or enforcement.

But regardless of the enthusiasm for a program, it will eventually fail if there is no person or governing body there to issue and enforce orders to carry on the program.

Thus we have the indicators of a very bad executive whose group will disintegrate and fail no matter how cheerful they are with the executive.

Bad leaders

1. Issue no or weak orders

2. Do not obtain or enforce compliance.

Bad leadership isn’t “grouchy” or “sadistic” or the many other things Man advertises it to be. It is simply a leadership that gives no or weak orders and does not enforce compliance.

Good leadership

1. Works on not unpopular programs

2. Issues positive orders

and

3. Obtains or enforces compliance.

These facts are as true of a governing body as they are of an individual.

A typical example of a bad governing body, at the present stage of its formation at least, is the United Nations. It has great ideas about how better Man should be perhaps, but

1. It issues a confused babble of orders when it issues any

and

2. It issues orders for which it can obtain little or no compliance.

Note that it is also insolvent, at war within itself, and that it has not made a dent in its prime program — the prevention of war.

However these things come about, they are nevertheless true. It is a very poor governing body and far more likely to vanish than expand.

You can count completely on the fact that an executive or a governing body that does not adhere to not unpopular programs, that does not issue positive orders and does not obtain or enforce compliance, will have down statistics.

And you can be sure that an executive or governing body that formulates or adheres to not unpopular programs, that issues positive orders and that obtains or vigorously enforces compliance, will have up statistics.

Wisdom? Popularity? These unfortunately have little or nothing to do with it.

The way to have up statistics, a prosperous and happy group, is far more simple than complex Man has ever realized.