It is widely believed that leaders are something special. Societal norms reinforce awe towards the title mostly due to tradition. What is tradition though other than a passive promotion of the past? People who have been in leadership positions know the real reason for their crowning. Most do not want to admit it. Others masterfully camouflage the scheme. I was a leader. Here is why I quit being one:
1. Most People Are Willingly Idiots
Having experienced leadership in two different environments I witnessed this trend firsthand. In one instance as a community leader, and in another, well, I can’t really disclose. Let’s just say that camouflage and uniforms were involved.Although both instances were completely different in context, people acted much the same way. After establishing myself with simple initiatives, I could say the most absurd thing and people would blindly buy it. My team members were willing to follow because they didn’t see me as a person; they merely saw their own aspirations expressed through me. Smart people, people which I knew on a personal level since before becoming a leader, were turning into complete idiots. I could never take them seriously again. Friends that cannot offer a challenge become puppets.
2. People lie to themselves
This is true whether we speak about religious leaders, army leaders, anarchic leaders, statist leaders, science leaders or anything else you can bring to mind. I was even quoted online about things I never said. People were lying about me, elevating me into something special, inventing stories, reinforcing a hero idea. It was all a sham but nobody knew it except myself. I then started realising that heroes of historical and religious context were promoted much the same. People lie to themselves first and then to others in order to elevate an idea greater than themselves. A person that has the courage to represent that idea is always ideal.Doubt it? I actually made a facebook experiment testing this very idea. I photoshopped a red flare above my hometown landscape and posted it on facebook. Within two hours I was trending in all major media outlets of my country as a UFO story. People on facebook, hundreds of people, actually claimed to have seen the object while driving. Others were almost blinded on their terrace. Some even heard noises coming out of it. I even had people PM me telling me “Aha! I bet you feel like a fool now for not believing in UFO’s!”. I didn’t know whether I should laugh or cry. It was a mass paranoia. It was as if I had taken the most massive red pill in regards to human deception. You often hear about it but it is a whole different story to witness it in person.
People lie to confirm their own beliefs, whether those are about religious miracles, UFO’s, or the leaders they follow. Humans lie, and they do it much more when they are under the spell of a crowd. This experiment was my first slap back to reality about how mass delusion can be manipulated by a leader and how ideas can go viral in an instant. (PM me and I can show you the screenshots of the story if you want. They are in my native language).
3. Followers are your mental slaves
Group meetings often felt like being in a psych ward, conversing with mentally-challenged individuals. It was demeaning watching people literally playing stupid in order for you to take their hand and walk them through life. When I see leaders around me enjoying this treatment “humbly”, I can’t see but evil in their face. You see, I wasn’t that kind of leader. My previous “uniform leadership" had stripped me off of that delusion; missions would not succeed if initiatives were not taken by everyone.When I founded a freethinking platform, the second organisation I was a leader in, I got involved on a personal level with my members advising them about the importance of taking initiatives and thinking for themselves. The nature of the organisation as I had dreamt it to be was to create freethinking individuals away from herd mentality; away from leaders. I founded a freethinking group in a country where just mentioning any involvement with freethinking ideas could brand one for life both professionally and socially. Nonetheless, I went forward and started the organisation even when I was branded as an immoral heretic. The most disappointing thing of all was that followers did not advance. They just remained followers, unable to take any initiative.
Taking a stance on a subject is often all it takes to be a leader. It might require some courage but this a quality every human has locked inside. People who follow leaders do not want to think for themselves. They want others to do the thinking for them, defending them even at the cost of their very own identity. As a leader one doesn’t even have to lift a finger. Individuals will sacrifice themselves for you, believing instead that they do it for the cause. How naive. “If only they knew”, one could say. But really, they did know. They just chose to embrace an ideology, a mission, rather than their own self. This is one of the most important lessons I learned as a leader: Followers are just low self-esteem individuals you can easily manipulate — while at the same time making them feel good about themselves.
4. You will never be short of enemies
There is a saying stating that there is no such thing as bad fame. It is true and it fits perfectly when it comes to leaders. Whatever controversy goes around the image of a leader reflects well for the leader and bad for the followers. Why is that? Every single leader that ever existed on the face of this earth, every single ideology that had masses flocking together, was promoted with good intent. No leader wanted millions to die or things to turn sour. Things go sour because a handful of followers are insane —and surprisingly enough— the most powerful drivers of your cause. The Pareto Principle (80/20 rule) applies perfectly here. 20% of my followers were clinically insane and that reflected bad to the rest. It just made me look important because the crazies were adding the passion while the enemies of the cause were getting even more infuriated.The worst enemies of a leader generate the most attention. My most loyal members, the tinfoil loonies, were merely perceived as dedicated to the cause. They would often suggest ubsurd things that involved vandalism, shootings, or donating their life savings, all because they believed in the cause so much. I had them at the tip of my fingers. I felt like a leader of a cult. It was extremely tough to calm them down and convince them to go by voluntary means rather than violent revolutions.
This didn’t actually work. Eventually the enemies of the cause (opposing ideologies — mostly statists, government groups and religious affiliations) started accusing me personally for the actions of my followers. The more attention I was generating in the media, the more I was accused. Most of the stories were lies, much like the stories my followers had invented to praise me. I ended up in a situation where I was the only one comprehending my true intentions. Everybody else were fighting about a vague utopian idea. I can guarantee you that every single leader that has ever lived was manufactured much the same way. After a point, you can’t even correct the crowd. Trying to correct them is meaningless; they will just smile and tell you that you are being humble. What a mad world we are all living in. Being a follower is such an awful state of mind.
5. Most people are hopeless
Only after creating the group I came to realise how society was making people sick. Most of them had nowhere to turn to. Anxiety disorders, childhood trauma, suicidal thoughts. The majority of the members in the group had major issues. Some were under some sort of psychiatric medication to cope with anxiety, depression or both. Xanax were thrown around like M&M’s. Who could blame them after all? Society is in many ways sick. This is why I don’t buy modern “disorders” for a split second. Disorder is just another way to frame the individual as a non-conformist. “Oh, you don’t enjoy how things are? Here are some pills to make you cope with it”. Psychology should have a new brand name to clear any confusion. It should be called "Social Engineering".Traumatised individuals are everywhere. They mostly lurk around different groups trying to belong somewhere. They need human connection and any group will do really. They seek masters and enemies because they are pissed, not with “the government”, “the church”, “science”, “capitalism”, or any other abstract enemy, but mostly with themselves. I made a group in order to help people become individuals, but most became groupies because they simply couldn’t help it. It felt like I was impersonating Jesus in Life Of Brian.
Hopelessness also creates mini-me's. They will dress like you, talk like you, act like you. I had people who changed their entire persona. I didn’t find it pretty. Sometimes you start wondering. Do I really act and talk like this? It helps for personal reflection, but it doesn’t help when one tries to promote individuality. It looks rather ridiculous.
I wasn’t that surprised though. In groups, our primitive instincts can easily overtake us. We try to imitate what seems to be successful behaviour. Individuals become memes without even realising it.
6. You will be hated as easily as you were loved
You know the saying “easy come, easy go”? It pretty much applies here as well. New members stormed in at the beginning, flooding the group and meetings. Everybody was so excited because something was to be done about the medieval state my country was in. Everybody cheered for me the first few years. It was exhilarating.As time went on and I started pointing out that people were the problem (and not their leaders) and criticizing each and every member on a personal level for lack of personal initiative, things started turning sour. What was I thinking? Every leader makes sure to appoint tasks to delegates. I was to remain sort of untouchable.
I didn’t want to take that path. I wanted to engage with people on a personal level and as a friend, not a leader. I soon realised that it would be easier to have the universe divide by zero. Nobody wants to take responsibility. Engaging in “tough love” practices, like I always used to do with friends, was like stripping followers naked from their own hypocrisy.
The false glorious stories turned into false horror stories. I wasn’t surprised at all.
7. The only way to go on is to continue lying
There comes a point where one has to make a choice. Either continue over-idealising, over-generalising and over-selling an ideology, or choose to be an objective communicator. Over-generalising is lying and no matter how one sugar-coats it, this is not how you are supposed to do it. You see, it is rather impossible to convince thousands of people to agree on an idea. Breaking it down into simple-to-understand mantras becomes a necessity. And voila; you have just created a cult.
8. You reinforce an echo chamber
An echo chamber is is much like a jerk-circle. It is a metaphorical description of a situation in which ideas are amplified or reinforced by transmission and repetition inside an "enclosed" system, while other ideas outside the system are misrepresented or ignored.This happend to me. No matter how one tries to promote ideas, once the group gets big enough they will reinforce their own mutual misconceptions, silencing any outside critique. I felt like a mad scientist that had created drones who then became impossible to control.
Followers create narratives because they want to personalise their mission. The tinfoil effect is inevitable since members will reinforce absurd ideas just to make an impact.
9. Same tricks that apply to dating apply to the masses
You know all that “being cool, assertive and confident will get you the partner you want”? Same applies to groupies — most of them are groupies because they don’t have these qualities. Usually the partner that exhibits alpha qualities can dominate the other quite easily (whether male or female).My grandpa used to say in his crude way “If you lay the floor tiles right, you can step on them for a lifetime”. According to him, this applied both for marriage and leadership. If you demonstrate superiority from the start you can keep imposing yourself later on. I never used this method although my leadership qualities suggested I had. I guess this is why I quit being a leader.
After a while, you feel like you are stealing candy from kids. When I see leaders today engage in the same domination ritual while people enjoy being fucked, a massive disappointment overtakes me. I would rather not engage with any living soul in that way.
10. It’s lonely at the top
I was never actually a people’s person. Maybe that’s why I always found myself in leadership positions. I merely wanted to have control over my life without depending on anyone. This is why I created a freethinking platform for the people of my country. I couldn't stand crowds controlling my life through the political sphere. I wanted to see *individuals* around me, people who could think and act by themselves. The purpose of my organisation is to guide people through the concept of freethought, eventually turning them independent, away from the safe space of the group.I eventually stepped away, slowly leaving the platform run its own path. I do write some articles here and then but it is mainly to express my own ideas rather than express those of others. I don’t consider myself lonely because I enjoy spending time alone. For those that choose to lead though, loneliness at the top is a one-way road.
...
image sources: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10
Great post @kyriacos!
I have been reading the comments and... I don't understand, people. You get an honest account from a person who has apparently been twice in important leadership positions. One of the very rare instances where a person in a leadership position would rather lose the fame, the admiration, the followers, all for the sake of teaching people the value of individuality, and your only answer is "it depends how you view it - you might not be a good leader"? So who exactly is a good leader? One who is "diplomatic" enough to agree with everybody, always? I know "good" leaders like that. They are double-faced. Their mission in life is to get everyone to like them and make them feel important. How about one who "inspires"? If people need leaders to get inspired, we have just pinpointed humanity's problem. They can't think for themselves, they can't inspire themselves, they can't act for themselves. They are always waiting for someone else. And because it's part of human nature, that someone else will naturally act upon their own personal needs first. It seems that people deserve to be manipulated, because that is the kind of leader they choose, even here: the soft-speaking "inspirational" diplomat over the honest freethinker who would rather see people question him than admire him.
These ugly truths will never be admitted by any leader, because people would react just like in the comments below. They are hard truths nobody likes and instead of taking the advice seriously, you undermine the author's skills or tell him he is just being negative. This has nothing to do with skills, or positive thinking. Strong-minded people naturally draw followers- and enemies. The point is how they decide to deal with this: try to teach their followers how to be true to themselves at the expense of their own fame, or teach them how to be good sheep, which comes naturally easy. It now seems to me that even followers prefer the latter, or they wouldn't have become followers in the first place.
https://steemit.com/truth/@alexgr/finding-the-truth
...
The Masters and the followers
There is a reason why all the great masters, philosophers and teachers were not “followers”. There is a reason why those who “followed” after the “great ones” very rarely attained anything near the glow or achievements of their master or teacher. The reason is because the very act of following another is a self-limiting declaration which says “I'm lesser than - I'm useless on my own, otherwise I wouldn't need to follow anyone else”.
All the great masters and teachers achieved what they did because they had the intention to think for themselves and a belief in their own ability to find the truth, rather than basing their hopes on someone else to do it for them. This is the only consistent thing about them that must be emulated or “followed”. Not their personalities, methods, truths etc.
...
that was a great article @alexgr
shame it got so few votes.
It's the ironic twist of people not valuing "the truth". I get a perverse kind of joy when it tanks in rewards :D
Same here man. I get commnets all the time about the "negativity" in my comments. I obviously try to shed some light here and people still want to be sheeple. just read some of the comments.
i guess people want to be sheep
I think some times they want to attack you personally, but they'll find another way to phrase it (find something wrong about the opinions shared). The reason is that they perceive you are a bit hot-tempered and create friction. Most people will camouflage their disagreement with some level of politeness (=political correctness) while you are more direct (perceived as having a shorter fuse and blowing up / escalating pretty quickly)... It's not the content per se (where the disagreement is).
Regarding content anyone might agree, disagree or not even care about something - it's the preference of frictionless interaction that most have and that they don't want it to be "disrupted".
For most (not me), friction in interaction = red alert / danger.
When I see "heated" disagreements etc, I try to see past the discussion and find the deeper substrate of disagreement, and in this case, this is it.
I really felt the negativity consume me reading this article. But you're totally right. These are exactly 10 completely shit facts about being a leader. Because of some of these I'd get back home after work and bang my head repeatedly against the wall.
But, I can think of plenty of more positives that could effectively neutralise the potency of these. I think I'll write a few tonight :)
Tell us what happened after you banged your head..
I might. Maybe once you make an argument above highschool level.
@lifeisawesome
Please teach me more! I want to be positive like you so that after my first post to make thousands each and every time!!! I mean, I will be so positive whales will be chasing me right?
After this let's message those millions of kids in Africa to teach them how to be positive. Those refugees need to stay positive too! Your experience in the comfy western world and your luck in life is obviously because of positivity, not luck.
Please teach me your ways grand master @lifeisawesome. Show me the secret ways of the shill account recycling the money back to the investors. You are so wise oh great one.
Such negativity.
Yet I now question your credibility as a leader with a response like that. A leader inspires. A leader listens to the wants and needs of their followers. A leader knows when there is no possible way out of a situation, (s)he lends comfort.
A leader certainly doesn't shoot down and berate those that question his logic. A leader sits there and asks, "Tell me your logic and let's come to a reasonable outcome"
Tell me - is that how you treated your staff you when they questioned you?
"My logic is infallible - I am right"
Or did you teach them to question you constantly? Because you, and I are far from perfect - and I know I certainly fuck up lots of times.
I agree with you in this! There are negative aspects to everything, but I prefer to focus on the positive aspects instead. Everything has a good and a bad side of it, so why not just focus on the good one? @kyriacoa did a good explanation on the ugly truths about being a leader, but also looking forward to reading yours on the positive aspects!
There are no positive things in being a leader @travelista since all leaders demand followers. Ideally everyone wants to be a leader. As long as you accept leadership as a concept you will have all the negative things you see around you in the world. Every single problem around you begins with a leader and a group. Every. single . one
Really, logic 101
Leaders do not demand followership.. leaders inspire people to action
That's plain sensationalist bullshit.
You imply that people are not able to "act" by themselves. They are. They do it everyday. So the second question is "What action are they inspiring?"
The answer is "An action that serves first the leaders themselves"
Self-help Book/ a-la-carte answers don't really cut it buddy
Nice post even if everybody is often a mix of leader and follower.
You don't need to be leader in all aspects of your life. It would be exhausting.
And sometimes, you can be more efficient being a follower and supporting the leader.
Remember there are 3 kind of leadership : one leader, all leaders and no leader.
You said exactly what I'm trying to say, only much more concisely! Yeah, what he said ^^^
Basically, there are certain things we take for granted in our complex society that simply wouldn't happen if there were no leaders. And sometimes, it's better to follow than to lead--it allows you to participate in something you may enjoy but know nothing about how to really pull it off, so you take directions from the people who do know. And maybe those same people might be following you in another matter where you are the relative expert.
Why not be an indepedent thinker? An individualist?
Haven't you ever considered that the current society is still propegating old ideas of authority such as that of the state, religion or even leadership? Have you ever wondered why there are not more enterpreneurs but instead wage slaves?
Why does it have to be leader/follower and not just people cooperating as free individuals?
Great post. The voluntary idiocy thing personally annoys me the most. It is a form of learned mental laziness. In order to avoid doing any "work" people play stupid quite often.
@thecryptofiend
I was actually amazed how many groupies were willingly supporting leadership on this thread. Sad
Not surprising though. I suspect they have been force fed the corporate BS that management types expound all the time.
Indeed, it has become a canned mantra. Look at the top comment for example. A shilled witness account, essentially stealing money from the platform, still spouting sensational comments and getting support from minnows.
Steemit in this beta stage is still much like the outside world. I guess some people can't help it but be sheeple.
Everyone is forgetting the psychological fact that most people just want to feel like they "belong" to something. Hence following as part of a group.
Not my cup of tea personally, but I would say it is for the majority.
@scaredycatguide
Indeed it is the majority of people and the source of all problems humanity faces.
Very nice images and olso very good post @kyriacos!
Nobody is perfect a leader is often wrong too and all that we need to do is learn from our mistakes and comunicate properlly with the followers from the team. (if it is and industry,job etc )
PS :♠ And of course it is a lonely life somethimes...
why would anyone want to be a leader? why would anyone would like to follow
If we answer these questions we will find out many ..sour truths
Sure, people will like you if you're cool, assertive and confident. So long as you continue being cool, assertive and confident every day till you're dead.
@vegascomic
or fake it..this is why you have to eventually become a liar.
And there are some people that just need to be leaders...in the wrong way. They feel the need to "lead" their flock to "salvation". You find them everywhere: at work, at church in positions of political power...you name it. Oh and they're always right...don't you dare question their decisions. Morons leading idiots.
@onthewayout
There is no "right way" to be a leader. Those whom you "lead" will always be in a disadvantage . People are easily fooled. Leaders are there to take advantage of people for their own good. Whatever other benefits are generated from the act of leadership are then distributed to the rest.
it't petty being a follower. Suprisingly enough only followers make leaders. Leaders know this very well...
You might enjoy reading this book Return to Order by John Horvat. There is a place where leadership is discussed. Basically in a well ordered society everyone would get to be leader of one or two things and followers in a bunch of other things. For example, in my life I direct a program in my church. I make most of the decisions. The people I lead give me their input but in the end abide by my decisions. I also have children in The Nutcracker production. Other people run the show there. I bring my kids to rehearsals, put in my required volunteer hours and otherwise do what I'm told. I'm happy to have other people in charge there because then I'm free to lead where I'm supposed to be in charge.
In a well ordered society nobody is a leader or a follower. Everyone can stand by themselves.
I'm guessing you mean something different by "leadership" than I do, then. Based on the way I described it, I don't see how there could be no leaders, ever. When it comes to organizing productions like The Nutcracker ballet, or overseeing the education of a large number of children, well, somebody has to be in charge. Sure, theoretically, decisions by consensus could work, but honestly, that is a huge burden for people who just want to participate. I'm happy to have my children in the production. I'm glad someone else made the decision about what costumes to use, when to schedule rehearsals, and the thousands of other little details that go into it. If I had to give my input on every single one of those decisions I'd probably just not be able to be involved, and that would be sad.
@wiser
In 1800 you wouldn't imagine slavery would cease to exist and that women would have rights.
Arguments from nature are always wrong because nature changes all the time.
Maybe, but how would you envision a production like The Nutcracker or an educational program or anything else that involves lots of people working together happening without leadership? I'm not seeing it, but maybe you have an idea?
Actually it is up to the leader to give people enough room so they can express their opinions/ ideas. If you act too close minded, people won't contradict let you take the fall. So may-be you weren't a good leader and people were just expecting you to give up or be demoted at some point.
Also the role of leader is to take decision, chose a certain strategy not to micromanage everyone. So again, if people don't feel like they can do their job by excessive management, nothing good will happen and you will face what you call idiots.
Also followers are a different issue actually as actually you might be the one falling into self confidence induced by people who just say what they expect you to hear... (just look at a post of Dan the man for a local example). lol
If what you say was true the planet wouldn't have any idiots since we had great tyrants, leaders and micro-management.
dude. logic. used it
Seems like a broad brush. I can see some of what you're saying, but to put all "leaders" into this basket seems disingenuous.
Some people really don't want to be leaders. They just end up with followers. And sometimes this is happening without the "leader" ever really knowing it. It can be by example, attitude, integrity or other aspects of one's demeanor or personality that people tend to emulate or follow.
It seems like this article is aimed toward those who would be leaders for the sake of leading, fulfilling their own egotistical ends. But it isn't necessary, especially when one finds he is being followed.
Or are you just talking about government? ;o)
Leadership is a disease of civilisation @anotherjoe
Civilised individuals don't follow leaders. They act on themselves. Great thinkers, inventors and enterpreneurs didn't follow anyone lor they were leading anyone. They stood independently.
Your argument of "not everybody is born a leaders" is similar to the 1910's argument that some people should be slaves. Argument from nature which is a logical fallacy. We consider leadership so de-facto that it has become the norm.
like the goverment. ironic huh? Half of people praising leadership here are anarchists and their arguments are much like what the statists say about goverments
what a joke :)
My argument of "not everyone is born a leader..." is what? Where did I make that argument?
It's not a disease, it's just a fact. I'll invite you to look up the meaning of disease.
Everyone follows someone, including you. As autonomous as you'd like to claim you are, there are people in your life who influence you, who you admire, who you emulate in some fashion or another. It may be that your work includes following someone, whether you like it or not.
Anarchy is no rulers, not no leaders. I wouldn't be so fast to poopoo anarchistic arguments. There might be some cognitive dissonance there, but maybe not. There can be a massive difference between leading and ruling. In any group of people, someone (or a few) rises to some form of prominence. It can be very casual or it can be quite clear. But it always exists. That's not bad, it just is a fact.
Another provocative argument. You seem to have developed a structure that is novel and stands alone. Or did you borrow it from elsewhere? Maybe others embrace it, but it seems to defy what is natural about humans as a race, and certainly defies common social construct. That doesn't mean it's wrong. But attempting to give it a moral compass at all is more than a challenge. As with leadership existing, your philosophy on this is amoral - it merely exists.
@anotherjoe
Well, I said it figuratively. Many things are currently a fact but in 50 years can be a fact no more. Again, slavery just last century was a fact. A natural fact. not an argument
It is different to be influenced by someone's work and different to follow them under a groupie fashion. Huge difference actually.
It can change, as much as the world can change "without goverment" or "slavery". You just abide to something and excuse it as natural fact. Why not accept that goverment is a natural fact of leadership? Why not accept anything around you as natural fact and stop trying? ;)
Nothing is wrong or right on this planet. Things are subjective. Again. I am bringing the goverment part in because I know you are an anarchist and that you will gringe when a statist brings you that social construct excuse :)
"Natural" is a logical fallacy. Argument from nature. Guess why. ---> nature changes all the time.
Ah, hypocrisy. what a glorious thing...
Exactly, Ive noticed this with leader too. You said it well when you described it as manufactured leaders. Except I would say its more like there are two pathways of a leader based on the personality of the person.
For you the two pathways are:
1. Create goal. Continue with honest self reflection and inspection of others. lose energy from being on a pedestal and not seeing followers growing for themselves; Never being on equal terms. Then leaving the community because of the lack of equality. Or
2 Continue the lie and propaganda create by your followers. Act like the god that the make you out to be. But always knowing that this is not who you are based on self introspection abilities.
For others (that I've observed) the pathway is:
1 create goal. continue that goal and gain attention for having such strong resolve. Gain more strength and energy with ego from all the blind support of follower that help you but still stay as an individual and keeping to you original ideal. Or
2 Start believing the propaganda created by your followers and become the god that you were always entitled to be. Now becoming the manufactured leader made up of the two parts of the original creation of the leader and the ideas that your followers have created.
I could have described that better but basic trying to describe two different personality types in a leader position. For some being a leader is positive, for others it is negative. Even though it sounds like you are a good leader, that is not your natural place were you thrive. Because of your drive to create equality and individuality in others (and other reasons), you do not gain energy from being put on a pedestal above everyone else. You would do well being in second command of a mature leader who does gain energy from that position. (of course the leader having similar ideas of equality and individuality to you)
Really great post. love your blogs.
@ballinconscious
It's not about personality. Would you like me to make an argument that some people are born to be slaves and some others free? No. That would be ubsurd.
I was thriving. I did this for most of my life. I stopped because I realised what was happening. I am revealing things to you that nobody will ever do in their right mind because it would be like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Your arguments are arguments from ignorance.
No, but I'm saying it seems necessary to have some sort of leader/alpha to move a groups energy. So its best to have someone lead that is enjoying it/gaining energy from it.
I do agree with you that I was polarizing people/personality types too much though. A better way to say it is that a person can lead, at a certain period of there life, until they are not passionate about what they are leading anymore. Then they can lead something else. I do think there is a way to lead and still not kill the golden goose, it seems necessary; Maybe like you were doing when you led with constant introspection of ones self. Maybe some sort of decentralized leadership.
I wasn't arguing just making an observation. What I was trying to express is that it does seem like one personality type craves the leadership more than the other. The Irony about that is that often the one that does not want to lead is better suited for it. I would say more lack of experience that ignorance, even though they are similar.
Leading is a concept from the primitive past. Being lead by someone should be something to be examined pathologically. Even if there is a way to lead and not kill the golden goose, you are still doing something wrong. For example. you can't possibly represent a group of people and be honest with all of them. If you have ever been a leader you will know what I mean by this.
There are no personality types. That's just psych-crap. All humans are dynamic characters. The problems is to be born in a society with leaders and consider leadership as something "natural". Well it was much like believing in Gods and fairies but it is not anymore.
It is a relic of the past that is still propegated in a positive way.
Yeah It's definitely impossible to fully represent everyone in a group that becomes to big. Also because of the propaganda that the group creates about there leader, it usually changes the leader to be more self centered ironically.
Well Since these ideas of leaders and gods have existed as far back in time as we know of, it is very hard to prove or disprove that it is ineffective anymore. The powers at be do not really even give a chance for that type of experiment on a global scale. I do see you point though. You said that it's a concept from the primitive past, when do you think it changed as ineffective?
The cynicism is over 9000. I'm supercharged.
Great post!
Negativity does for some people what positivity does for everyone else. bwahaha
well , I am tried to give it a different angle
a good read of one for sure. The effect status has on people...it's amazing. It's like people think little bits of it shoot off the higher status person and can be caught in the mouth like a communion wafer from the Pope.
Neither a follower nor a leader be.
That's been my motto for my whole life.
Think for our self. As Budha might have said
Believe nothing,
no matter where you read it,
or who said it,
UNLESS it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
In other words. If someone can't explain something to me in such a way that I can understand it I have a strong suspicion that they are pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.
@everittdmickey
Yes again, people see only between the one and the other. Sad. Is it so hard to be indepedent?
Damn right it is.
I was an Owner Operator for two decades...(independent trucker). I was hard.
This is the best post I have read in months. 10 Postive ones now! Go, You got this.
thank you @projecthor
Well articulated, i wish a lot of people in leadership positions can become conscious of the points here.
Thank you @ossy123 . It was aimed especially for those "special" ears. Mostly though it is for followers so they can wake up and be independent
This is fascinating to me because it is like seeing things from the other direction. In work, I am the follower, although in my current job I have done more leading. And it's true that you can't be truthful it seems to all people. There's an angle to everything, and it's always to get people (to inspire them) to do what you want them to do. You might do a survey or environmental scan to create ideas of what you want the end game to be, but you know the endgame at the beginning. There are areas where you get a taste of this kind of leadership. One is owning your own business. I remember at first as a store owner how customers would be very friendly, and it would seem like friends. Then they would begin asking for things. Of course, I became more reserved and polite but not too interested. This article might seem negative, but I don't see it that way. I see it as being realistic and showing a psychological perspective in human behavior that many are too ignorant to even know.
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about linkback bot v0.3
Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise. Built by @ontofractal