Resolving Conflict

Reflection on the Tao Te Ching…

The Tao Te Ching, as interpreted by Lao-Tsu, suggests some pretty wild (and tough) ideas for dealing with human interactions: like, do the work but don’t take the credit, lead without being a control freak, create without staking your claim, and guide people without micro-managing their every move. Pretty zen, right? — Taoist Approach to Resolving Conflict, Marguerite Theophil, in *The Best of Speaking Tree*, Vol I, [The Times of India] (2004) 2007, p. 16.

So when I first read this, I was blown away. Later that night, as I was lying in bed, I kept turning these ideas over in my head. Is it really possible to lead without dominating? Do we always need to claim ownership when we create something?

Let’s take the leadership thing. At first, I thought, yeah, leaders *do* dominate in some way. Not in a nasty, power-trip kind of way, but by winning hearts and minds. They inspire not just with words, but with their whole vibe. But dominating in a healthy way doesn’t mean you stifle your followers’ creativity or independence—it’s more like gently guiding them. Think: Gandhi. He didn’t throw his weight around, but man, he knew how to lead. Without force.

Now, ownership and creation… it’s pretty natural to claim what’s yours, right? Like this article. The author’s name is right there. If you create something and don’t put your name on it, how would anyone know it’s yours? Sure, anonymity has its place, but most people wouldn’t publish without getting credit. Even Gandhi (yep, him again) refused to publish letters where people critiqued him if they didn’t sign their name. Claiming ownership isn’t about ego, it’s about being accountable for your work.

And taking credit? Sure, Lao-Tsu is all about not needing credit, but let’s be real, people *will* give it to you anyway. Lao-Tsu’s teachings got attributed to him, didn’t they? And hey, when a TV show rolls credits, no one’s mad at that. We all appreciate knowing who made what.

As for guidance, yes, sometimes you’ve gotta step in when things go south. Being a guide doesn’t mean you just stand back and let everyone mess up without saying anything. A good guide steps in at the right moment, like a guru, correcting mistakes when needed but still giving freedom for growth. Parents are basically life-long guides. They interfere all the time (bless their hearts) because they *care*.

The tricky part for me? Translating these ideas into Tamil. Some of these English words—like “working,” “credit,” “leading,” and “dominating”—just don’t map neatly onto Tamil. In Tamil, leadership is “ஆளுமை” (Aalumai), which has its own nuanced meaning—leading with a kind of authority that’s not oppressive. So I get why things might sound off when translated from Tao Te Ching’s original language (Mandarin, probably).

On Leadership:

A leader is born, not made. They rise up from the crowd, not imposed from the top. You can’t really be a leader unless you’re ready to pay the price—stand firm in your convictions, regardless of what others say.

Here’s the tea: I disagree with the idea that a leader never dominates. Sure, if you’re only inspiring and guiding from a distance, that’s nice and all, but you’re not really leading. To lead, you need to capture people’s hearts and minds.1 That doesn’t mean you push them around, but you leave an impression so deep they follow your lead. It’s not about forcing them with power or fear—it’s about earning their respect and trust, so they can’t help but want to follow you. Think about Gandhi again—he dominated without ever raising a hand. Congress couldn’t *leave* him, even after he left *them*.

Humor’s also essential in a leader. No one likes a stone-faced boss. And when a leader’s time is up, they leave behind a legacy that’s hard to beat.

Family people tend to make better leaders, in my humble opinion. They learn about compromise, sharing, and adjustment. Single people don’t usually get those lessons the same way (though there are exceptions, of course). But let’s face it—family life teaches you stuff that’s super useful in leadership.

So yeah, these are just my reflections, not a diss on Marguerite Theophil’s article. I’m grateful for the thoughts she shared. Thanks, Marguerite!

P.S. No one can lead without dominating *just a little*2—and by that, I mean winning people over through self-sacrifice, example, and moral authority. You don’t need to shout it from the rooftops, but if you don’t own your influence, you can’t lead. Gandhi nailed it. Even after stepping down from Congress, he was *still* the one everyone looked to.

In the end, people might not agree with how a leader does things, but they won’t forget the impact they had on their lives. Leaders force us to rethink our choices—even when we don’t want to. They plant ideas in our heads that grow over time, sometimes taking root when we least expect it. That’s true leadership.

27-9-2021

Gurukulam

Notes

1 ….Charisma, then, plays an unusually significant role among Indians and is a vital constituent of effective leadership in institutions.  In contrast to most people in the West, Indians are generally more prone to revere than admire.(p. 17)….The absence of a democratic mode of functioning in Indian institutions is not resented as long as those in leadership positions develop a close personal relationship with the led….— Sudhir Kakar & Katharina Kakar, Indians Portrait of a People, New Delhi, Penguin Books, [2007], 2009, p. 19

2 …there is a strong preference for an authoritative, even autocratic (but not authoritarian) leader who is strict, demanding but also caring and nurturing—very much like the karta, the paternalistic head of the extended family….(p. 18…Combining humane orientation with a high power distance produces the kind of Indian leader we have discussed earlier: authoritative but not autocratic, sometimes despotic perhaps, but generally benevolent—Ibid. pp. 18 & 21