Geeks & Geezers

<< Previous

Regulating the Regulator Contd...

The theory of leadership attempts to describe the process of leadership making. Era is an important aspect of their theory of leadership. Thus, it is relevant to ask how is "Era" different in case of geeks and geezers? At the age of 25-30, geeks are more ambitious and have larger goals compared to geezers at the same age. They dream of "Changing the world" and "making history." The Geezers on the other hand, were concerned more about making a living. The Geeks seek to balance their lives by giving enough importance to both work and family. The Geezers hardly bothered about balance at this age. The Geezers worshiped heros. They chiseled their image of successful leader based on these heroes. The Geeks had none of that sort. Their parents or teachers or even their friends were their heroes. The authors point to "Era" as the creator of these differences. The Geezers got their self-identify from their affiliation to their organization. They have been intensely loyal to their organizations till they started their own companies. A job that was secure counted above everything else. The Geeks on the other hand saw the work as an experience that is open to experimentation and testing. They saw the world as a constantly changing tableau and took a tourist attitude.

This doesn't mean they had no commitment to their jobs. They were dedicated as long as they were with the company. And they were ready to leave whenever they found greener pastures. The loyalty described by Whyte in Organization Man lost favor in 1980s. The geeks valued "Balanced life" more than the geezers did. They were persistent in maintaining the balance. The following quote of a geek makes it clear: If I can't do it with balance, then I don't want to do it. Or I'm not buying into your model of success. They were not shy in acquiring wealth, unlike the geezers. They did not see money as evil. Rather the love of it as evil.

The geeks and the geezers are not as dissimilar as they appear on the surface. They are made of the same stuff and in the same process. They are similar in their learning. Both groups of leaders are highly enthusiastic about learning. And they yearn and struggle to go beyond limits: individual limits such as strength or learning ability or institutional limits such as racial and/or sexual discrimination. More important similarity, the authors say they uncovered, is a sort of common experience that transformed both groups of leaders. This common experience is the basis on which the authors have built their story on "how people become leaders."

Next >>