“The primary work of God is finding people to whom he can entrust his power. And the story of most men is being entrusted with power and it bringing harm to themselves and those under their care.”
~ Dallas Willard
In Stephen Ambrose’s brilliant book on the “easy” company of the 101st Airborne division of the US army and their role in the invasion of Normandy, we meet two contrasting pictures of leadership.
The first, Captain Sobel, is a ruthless, dictatorial, and some would say, masochistic leader. He is in authority, under his own authority. He is hated universally by all those under his leadership. They secretly contemplate ways to kill him in combat and a group of them ultimately mutiny at the potential cost of a court marshaling and even execution. Ironically, his commanding officer is simultaneously promoting and acknowledging that he is responsible for possibly the best-trained and prepared men in the history of the military.
You see, dictatorships can look incredibly efficient and even successful if not viewed too closely. But dictatorships are also typically short-lived, preserved only in manipulation or violence, and often ended through revolt, uprising, and assassination.
Ultimately Sobel is demoted into the paratrooper version of Siberia, teaching doctors and pastors how to parachute in case battle ever requires them to do so. He is moved from the heroic front line of the battle to the very back.
The other example is Major Dick Winters. He is intentional, kind, intelligent, and leads for the sake of and on behalf of those under his care. He is a leader in authority, under authority. He does the right things for the right reasons and when his commander, Captain Sobel, is jealous of his rising authority, he threatens him with either choosing a demotion or facing court-martial proceedings. Winters chooses the latter, knowing he will be vindicated, but also knowing that Sobel will be exposed.
Winters is forced to live in the awkward tension of being under the leadership of Sobel while being the buffer between Sobel and the men entrusted to his care.
The ultimate question in all of this is what people choose to do with their power. Or maybe better said, what people allow power to do to them. And why do so many seem to choose the autocratic, selfish, and oppressive expression of their power? Because it is way easier. It is also shorter-lived, less fulfilling, lonelier, lazier, unsustainable, and ultimately, less successful.
Sobel looks for every opportunity to remind his men of his power over them. Winters is constantly, in his authority, under authority, seeking to encourage, strengthen and empower them. He even questions a new leader seen gambling with his men. The new leader indicates that it is just good-natured fun and the opportunity to get to know them better.
Winters asks him, “What if you had won?” And follows that with, “Never put yourself in a position to take from these men.” This good leader, this good king, is in the service of those he leads. Sobel, a poor leader or bad king, is in the service of himself.
Consider
What have you chosen to do with your power and authority?
Can you honestly say that you’re in authority, but submitted to others and possibly a higher authority?
What small step can you take in the direction of becoming a more Winters and less Sobel leader?