Walking with Monsters

Got a bit of a theme going on lately don't I?

Emerging from a dark and cold winter (literally - it has been bloody cold down here). Thinking I need a rest from things. Space from things, from people really. Get back into nature for a week or so. A Dream of Spring...(they would actually be wicked if WoW and DoS came out, I  would take time off to binge read them).

The thought on my mind tonight -> How to walk with monsters without becoming one. 

But first - the Pareto distribution. Note - not the Pareto law which talks about 80/20 principle.

The Pareto distribution. Think how 1% of the world's population has 99% of the money. Think how the top 1% of the top 1% has 99% of the money (in the total 1%). Think how the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% has 99% of that money.

Stuff gets concentrated. It is a natural law.

The top four composers - Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Bach - account for most of the classical music you have probably heard in your life.

What are the top basketball players that you can name? Jordan, Lebron James, Kobe Bryan, Shaq. They have most of the championships (other teams/players slip in when there is a gap between generations), and end up with most of the wealth from the player's perspective (endorsement deals included).

Heck, think about all the tech companies in the world, then think about the market share of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook.

So what is causing me to prattle on about this possibly interesting but potentially not practical idea?

Well I believe the same phenomena happens in a work place. There are a few people who, through one means or another (usually by extreme levels of some or all of the following: intelligence, conscientiousness, charisma, disagreeableness and aggressiveness) end up accounting for a massive degree of power within a organisation.

Well yeah - it is called the organisation hierarchy and the power is concentrated at the top. Actually, although that is probably a more than likely scenario, I think it is often enough not the case to be of interest.

There is an individual I know of who does not sit that high in the hierarchy, but certainly wields a lot of power. They've leveraged their gate keeperness for one aspect of things, to act as gate keeper over total direction. They are reasonably intelligent, but also massively disagreeable and aggressive. The organisation they reside in is unique in several aspects due to geography challenges, so they seem to get away with it.

Now that I think about it - the same has happened at previous places. We kid ourselves thinking there are chief this's, and managers that, regional here, ceo there. Lots and lots of positions of authority, with the required specialists in there required fields making the decision. In practice it all boils down to four or five.

I recall that Stalin's career in the Communist Party really took off when he became secretary in charge of memberships. That somewhat low position allowed him to, through his personality traits and responsibility for inducting new members, build a base and then wield massive power in the party (the facts here may be a little dicey as it has been approx two decades since I read that book).

I don't think the Pareto distribution is inevitable though. I don't actually think it is very health. I think it leads to fragility. 

I'm in a battle with an aggressive and disagreeable person for my territory. A reasonable assumption would be that he potentially thinks I am after his territory (I know I can't read other people's mind). The thing is, it is not about the issue anymore. It is about not letting the power get sucked up. Sucked up into fragility. Things get fragile and things fall apart. The Pareto Toppers (ooo I should come up with a name) stay safe amongst the chaos as they've got the resources and power. Then the wheel turns and crushes crushes crushes.

The thing is, say I win this battle. Am I then just taking his place? Will I then wield my gatekeeperness of the aspect I am most in charge of to drive direction for everything? Can I trust myself against what seems like a natural law? Does this not just lead to attachment and aggression and unconsciousness and misery - a never ending rank battle? Or does this lead to the cream rising to the top? Nah, more the first one. It is a balance. At least I'm aware I guess. I can take a step back and hopefully make decisions with a clear head.

More tomorrow on this.