Blog: The Responsibilities of Leaders, Part II: Power, Mary Sue, and Where's Shelly? - 2018-03-18
In last week's post, I provided an overview of The Responsibilities of Leaders, one of Hubbard's more iconic writings, along with some observations from former Scientologists Brian Lambert and Jefferson Hawkins on the importance of this policy in understanding Scientology's zeitgeist. Both gentlemen frame their observations of this policy as being perhaps a sort of "command legacy" from Hubbard to David Miscavige given that it's Miscavige's favorite LRH essay, which he uses to illustrate what he literally expects from his subordinates in terms of loyalty, ruthlessness, and Keeping Scientology Working. This week I begin by contrasting Hubbard's power-as-leadership model against more traditional concepts of leadership, and then examine the connection between Mary Sue Hubbard and The Four Seasons of Manuela, and lastly, how The Responsibilities of Leaders may account for David Miscavige's behavior and its subsequent impact on his relationship with wife Shelly Miscavige.
Leadership versus Hubbard's Concepts of Power and the Power Formulas
Leaders wield varying degrees of power depending on their circumstances — think think of Machiavelli's observations on the traits of a prince (or leader) and the application of power in The Prince. Ideally, the positive connotations of leadership are comprised not only of the proper use of power, but also those tangible and intangible traits, behaviors, and norms that inspire, motivate, and ultimately allow a group to accomplish a desired goal or outcome. Whether on the battlefield, boardroom, or basketball court, certain fundamental traits are constant among leaders: vision, sacrifice, empathy, courage, and knowledge are but a few, along with ruthlessness within reason, painful objectivity, and uncompromising resolution in achieving a desired outcome. Conversely, Hubbard's ideal "leader" as described throughout The Responsibilities of Leaders, wields power rather capriciously, instead of leading by example and consensus; unquestioned obedience, indeed obsequiousness is the preferred norm among subordinates, while action is spurred-on in a manner that is harassing, intimidating, or malevolent, motivated by an amoral, antithetical, and utilitarian understanding as to what constitutes a desirable outcome.