Wolverine and Cyclops

I had a friend tell me once that leaders fall into two categories--Wolverine and Cyclops. Wolverine is the outsider and possesses a more libertarian streak. Cyclops is more of a fascist telling people how to do shit. Wolverine allows people to be free to do as they please while Cyclops wants conformity. My friend didn't argue that one was necessarily better than the other. He just described them as two different styles. Naturally, I fit the Wolverine mode.

Which way is better? That is debatable. You can see that Steve Jobs was definitely a Cyclops type. Jobs may have been a renegade, but he demanded conformity from his subordinates. Steve's management of Apple was definitely an exercise in corporate fascism. But it worked.

I try to think about a CEO or other leader who fits the Wolverine mode, and I am drawing a blank. Most CEOs tend to be in the Cyclops mode except for the guys at Google. Neither Schmidt nor Page are in the Cyclops mode, but they aren't Wolverine types either.

These same archetypes exist in the movie Platoon where Barnes played by Tom Berenger would be the Cyclops character while Elias played by Willem Dafoe would be the Wolverine character. Barnes commanded respect and lead with fear. Elias commanded love and lead with charisma.



It is in the nature of Cyclops types to want to lead. They want to be in charge. Wolverine types are reluctant to lead. They don't like giving orders and telling people what to do. Naturally, leadership positions go predominantly to those with a Cyclops personality. Cyclops is hated, but he is the one in charge. The Wolverine types tend to lead revolts against the fascist style of leadership.

If you ever wondered why dickheads rule the world, there is your answer. They want to rule. But do you have to be a dickhead to rule? Of course not. Wolverine types are reluctant to lead, but they do an outstanding job when they do lead. This is because people are more motivated and are happier under those types of leaders. But they avoid leadership as much as they can. They are almost always drafted into that role by the urging of others. Dickheads get in charge almost solely as a consequence of abdication on the parts of others.

Being a dickhead is merely a correlation and not a causation of good leadership. The best boss I have ever had in my life was not a dickhead. But he was reluctant to move up and run things. Similarly, libertarianism would be a better way to go with government, but libertarians are also similarly reluctant to attain public office. This leaves things to busybody dickheads like Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

I think this is the reason why dickheads end up in charge. They have greater motivation. They want to rule. Wolverine types are motivated by the desire to not be ruled. Most of the time, they find it easier to escape and move on to some other place. I am definitely like this.

I don't see this order of things changing. Either the Cyclops people need to stop being dickheads, or the Wolverine people need to lead. When the Wolverine types run out of places to escape, they turn and fight. And they win. People like them too much to let them lose. Wolverine types inspire fanatical loyalty. They would be extremely powerful if they turned this loyalty and popularity to the ends of leadership. They just don't care to lead. Ask any libertarian what he would do if given an absolute dictatorship, and the standard reply is "resign."

The historical example of the Wolverine type would be Cincinnatus who was dictator of the Roman Empire long enough to defeat the enemy and then resign. Upon resignation, he returned to his life as a farmer. As great an example as this man served, this did not keep Rome from later being ruled by a succession of dickheads. Dickheads always fill the vacuum.

I don't have the answer to this problem.

Posted in: