It is not just the result that counts, even though this is indeed very important. Actually, insofar as I am interested in obtaining the best result, I consider the initial upsets as simply partial, as further occasions to in a real way lead me to the finish line. In addition, reaching the end in a sudden manner can very likely condition future development. Think of, for example, an unexpected election–I won, but seeing as I am not well prepared to govern, public opinion criticises my mode of operating.
Now, let’s take another step forward. I would argue that it would help us understand how the result is not the only parameter within which to keep leadership if we make the distinction between acting and doing, or the prassi and the poiesi.
1. Acting–means “to exercise an act”, and is focused on the subject who acts. It is not generic, but adds some personal act. It is “to conduct oneself, to produce an effect”. It corresponds to the Greek term prassi, which is an action that bears immanent effects in the subject. Here, the emphasis is not so much on the action as it is on the one who acts, the subject. The subject is in a certain sense transformed by the action that he or she carries out. After “acting”, one becomes more capable, more efficient, more competent, more prepared, more entrepreneurial, or (unfortunately it does not always go in a positive direction) more egotistical and less trustworthy. This happens because actions follow each other, one after the other, creating a habit, a tendency to operate or act in a certain way. This is so much the reality that I habitually say of a person that he or she is capable, efficient, competent, prepared etc., for this person habitually realises actions that qualify him or her in this sense.
2. To Do–means in its most universal definition “to construct, produce”. In this case, the emphasis is more on “what a person does” rather than on the person “who does” it. That is, the emphasis is on the result of his or her action. Here I am not interested in whether or not you have become more capable or better after having executed an excellent marketing strategy that has facilitated a sales increase, but that sales have indeed increased by a quarter. This is equivalent to the Greek word poiesi–an action that has a repercussion that is exclusively external to the subject, or the result. In this case I am not interested in the habit. I value only the action, or the obtained result.
I am of the opinion that in leadership both are important and complementary. In reality, this division as seen in the diagram is purely theoretical. All we have done is divide one single action into two parts, and for pedagogical reasons. It is comparable to a doctor who speaks of a headache and increase in temperature then loss of appetite in order to explain the symptoms of the flu. It is true that normally there is great discomfort, but this is never the only symptom. Together with that pain there is also a general indisposition. To properly identify the illness, one has to isolate the various symptoms that in reality almost always occur together. If the object of study is, rather, inflation, to really grasp this concept it helps to isolate its possible causes: increase in demand, decrease in supply, or a large increase in production materials like petrol and other raw materials. It is probable that these factors might occur, and therefore influence, simultaneously or individually, the increase in inflation. After coming to know the process well, one is then interested in studying each individual cause, with the difference
between acting and doing, prassi and poiesi, or habit and action in mind. These are not two different things. On the one hand there is the person, and on the other the result. Achieving the result is also transformative to one’s person, as we saw before.
Recent Comments