Everyone sees Leadership differently, and everyone is a person with an attitude from passive to an Autonomous Soul.
Originally published by Illumination Curated on Medium
A leader in a societal context is a person who accepts the responsibility of being a guiding stick or coordinating the function of the others within a group. However, everyone knows Leadership differently. Only a few people can truly comprehend the meaning of Leadership and the role of a leader. Fundamentally, what functions, responsibilities, tasks, and even privileges a leader is given or taken by them depend on society's social structure and norms. For instance, one hundred percent of a community with one hundred percent sovereign individuals view leadership quality differently than the society where every constituent follows the lead of a single person (or entity) unconditionally.
It truly means that creating a cohesive definition within your organization is crucial for developing future leaders and maintaining unity and a strong leadership focus.
So, Does the World need a Leader?
The answer is concomitantly easy and hard. Some believe We need leaders to progress collectively because our collective planet Earth requires social coordination and alignment, some form of governance, law, and order.
Today the global attitude changes, the rise of absolutism along a devastating sweep of pandemics are overwhelming. The disregard we face today is that the world is unique and daunting, just as it was in the past. Yet, the world seems to be shifting faster than ever. Today, the global population is spiraling. Technology propagation has made communities more connected than ever before in history, yet the rifts between us have only expanded.
Ironically, the human being tended to default as being a follower. One can find the dynamic between leaders and followers across species Primates have ripened to shape into complex social orders. Humans, too, have established social structures to ensure their basic needs are met and ensure their community's interest.
Naturally, just like other species, Leadership is within human biology. Some animals reach leadership stature in the animal kingdom through circumstances; some actively assert their leadership abilities to others to follow them. Thus, every soul is wired to have an order in life irrespective of whose terms and why we need one.
Leadership definition from the point of view of the Tyrant
As the Greek philosopher Plato defined them in The Republic, tyrants are the kind of leaders who look to their benefit rather than the interest of their constituents and, in the process, are apt to employ radical and brutal ploys. Throughout history, the act of tyranny always has been self-perpetuated as the impulse of seduction. It has done so by "all the pleasure of a dissolute life.
Tyrannical Leadership thrives on distinct circumstances. For instance, the creator of a new state, even the ruler in an established state who comes to power outside the usual nomination procedures, must, to some extent, act like a tyrant. That is just like the German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and Soviet front-runner Joseph Stalin where that the newcomers were with the novel concepts. With a particular emphasis on Stalin, he is the epitome of what a socialist/communist system had historically offered a perfect niche for his well-known tyrannies during world war II., the era when Ideologies provided most leaders of the time the audacity to behave like a tyrant. Then the most determined tyrant is the one to use the unstable climate of the mainstream to push themselves to power. That is where the populace harbors deep-seated hostilities or grievances based on historical or social events.
Without a doubt, tyrants forge a sense of security in their constituents that are nothing but an illusion. They do so by building walls around individual sovereignty only to make them feel secure.
The supporters of the tyrant leader are not vast yet have existed throughout history. Although that may seem odd, the study suggests that more significant family conflict during person adolescence may prompt individuals to endorse tyranny's implicit leadership theory dimension. Interestingly enough, results inform the early-life family conflict seems to be the precursor of paradoxical leadership preferences among the subjects. In other words, fathers' egalitarian attitudes, or the mothers' masculine sex types, may amplify the inclination of selecting a tyrant as a leader by someone later in life.
Historically, many tyrants have taken the world into the stage of globalization. While striving to globalize their power, some succeeded, yet some failed. Today such a form of access to global Leadership is the subject of historical experience. Nonetheless, the concept of globalizing power is more than ever flourishing.
Outline of Leadership from the viewpoint of the Tyranny of the Masses
The tyranny of the "masses" is when the mainstream of electorates pursues its objectives exclusively at the expense of the minority factions. It is an inherent weakness to majority rule. The tyranny of the masses is the upshot of oppression against minority groups compared to that of a tyrant person.
Despite being a collective phenomenon, the tyranny of the masses still demands Leadership, and the headship is always corruption-prone. The majority's concept of what is accepted governs the mainstream rule (or the modern-day democracy). Leaders of the democratic world are often selected based on the majority votes; thus, the responsibility of the tyranny of the masses falls on the leader. That is particularly true if a given society elects so-called "Servant Leadership."
Servant Leadership is a conviction that emerged in the 1970s by Robert K. Greenleaf. He described his version of headship in contrast to Peter G. Northouse, who defines traditional Leadership as a leader influencing the followers. Regarding the followers who are the Servant of the leader, the concept of Servant Leadership considers that the leader is simultaneously a leader and a servant. Thus, the leader has a power of influence and a role of service.
Greenleaf perceives politicians' role as servant leaders who supposedly have to consider the interests and concerns of followers; they have to show empathy toward followers and support them. But I presume Greenleaf's theory would only be valid under the ideal circumstance and while maintaining the balance of Leadership and servanthood. It seems evident that the modern leaders of the democratic "masses" can mold them into following their tyranny.
The modern sense of tyranny of the masses is an entangled phenomenon switching between "Populist Sectarianism" and "Universalist Globalism." The tyranny of the masses, like its traditional counterpart, often has to rely on the feudal instruments, which I would like to refer to it as Neo-Feudalism.
Leadership from the Neo-Feudal perspective
The traditional feudal Leadership was founded within small communities formed around the local lord or leaders and their manors. The lords of the time owned the land and everything in it. He would keep the peasants safe in return for their service. The lord, in return, would provide the king with soldiers or taxes.
For decades, "neo-feudalism" has emerged, emphasizing the perpetuity of extreme inequality in the global, automated economy. The United States' future and world stage alike is becoming mass serfdom. For example, a property-less underclass will survive by servicing the needs of high earners as personal assistants, trainers, child-minders, and cleaners. The tyranny of the masses through democratic elections will rely on leaders who are poor servants of the modern elites, corporate cartels.
Diverse arrangements of feudalisms expanded across the continents in response to various coercions. Viewing modern capitalism in terms of its feudalism tendencies illustrates a new socioeconomic structure with four interlocking features: accelerated domination, new lords and peasants, blocking the opportunity for property ownership, and catastrophism.
Neo-feudalism is the new crusade that authorizes the reincarnation of leadership policies and governance, economy, and public life simulating the traditional feudal societies. Neo-Feudal headship perpetuates unequal rights and legal protections for ordinary people and serves their nobility.
The contemporary global leader is scientifically "savvy" and "swayed" with power more than just swords and guns. It holds the most powerful asset of its serf, the "Big Data." and most of all is the best servant leader an elite can desire.
Leadership from a Socialist Perception
A leader on a Socialist system follows the political, social, and economic philosophy, which encompasses a spectrum of financial and social institutions typified by social ownership of the course of production. Proponents of socialism are for the state's control in people's lives and pocketbooks, and the leader in such a system must ensure that happens. But the question comes on whose terms.
Naturally, leaders in a socialist system can't have the Servant's role as described earlier. Otherwise, it would be against their core concept. Then someone or a group of people must take the active leadership role. That is why monopoly and exclusive takeover of the trade and commodity control is the bread and butter of almost every socialist system. Although the term socialism initially described the 19th-century brought the cornerstone of the desire to revamp the working class's impoverished lives, it had, nevertheless, a paradoxical outcome. That too had its version of serfdom, but in this case, it is the imaginary entity of the state with leader factions backing them instead of a visible tyrant. The catalyst for this was the public desperation under poor living conditions by the industrial revolution and old feudal systems.
The early socialist leaders, such as Robert Owen (1870–1924), provided laborers with healthier factory environments. Own also advocated for model socialism and cooperative communities. Or Karl Marx (1818–1883), as the leading socialist who formed the basis of Marxism, took Owen's plan one step forward by creating a communist manifesto, which underwrote the concept of a "radical agenda for Communist revolution." Furthermore, as one would expect, the legacy of socialist Leadership did not stop there, thus continued in the hands of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, followed by the great dictator Stalin.
Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924), leader of the Soviet Russian revolution of 1917, was the mastermind behind the Bolshevik insurgency. Lenin was the first soviet communist leader, leveraging socialism to an even more powerful stage through policies that suppressed any opposition to Communist party statute. Joseph Stalin (1878–1953) further strengthened his grip on power by eliminating internal resistance and establishing his autocracy.
Leadership from a Populist view
Populism has many faces, appears in different times and places differently. one of the few commonalities between all the various populism manifestations rests on the survival of a charismatic and dominant leader who can mobilize the masses and influence the political institution. Populism upholds a doctrine assuming that society is depicted by a single division between 'the pure common people' and 'the corrupt elite.' However, they contrast in the way they handle such divisions. For instance, a left-wing populist sees the solution in socializing the leadership model and a nationalist right-wing by placing it in the hands of fascist leaders. Populism exists with various types of Leadership and can even be leaderless. The tie between political Leadership and populism is sophisticated. It can vary from extreme left-wing belief to right-wing conservatism and anything between embracing fascism, racism, and lack of Leadership.
Populism is contrary to universalism as many factions have a different view of what their common constituents are!
Populists are unique political beasts with particular character virtues. They are unpleasant, bent for provocation, charisma, aggressiveness, and are known for their political style apparently at odds with social norms.
Then again, what affirms a World Leader Quality?
Quality has often been dramatically interpreted as the anti-inferior or superiority of something or an action. It also defines suitability for something, some effort at its intended purpose. At the same time, the satisfying expectation of its community quality leadership is a perceptually conditional and somewhat subjective attribute. It is, thus, perceived differently by different people. Therefore, one should expect a world leader to address the world's expectations and genuinely take the well-being of every world to be labeled as a high-quality world leader. It would be ironic to assume that such a leader exists regardless of which form of leadership style one chooses.
Quality is not a one-size-fits-all Phenomenon.
Quality is relative, and determining criteria for assessing quality requires an awareness of different understandings of quality that instruct the tendencies of stakeholders.
A passive person sees Leadership differently than a sovereign individual. Being inherently passive can be both a blessing and a curse, depending on one's life. The passive expects a robust authoritative leader but then still may find self-amidst authoritarian leaders' serfdom. How passive or a follower one maybe be defined by the individual's personality. The quality of mainstream Leadership thrives on the extent of assertion they can deliver vs. individual autonomy or passiveness.
The quality of Mainstream Leadership is associated with growing controversies. In Societies like the United States, where constituents are innately pro-individual sovereignty, they prefer leaders with whom they can connect personally. They want the "average Joes," who come from the "Heartland." But for decades, it has been changing. The collaborative Leadership that the founding fathers envisioned has turned into mainstream tyranny and neo-feudalism. So those leaders who call themselves the leader of the free world need to be revisited and have them review the concept of a free world and quality leadership.
Quality leadership varies with the leader's attitude and by no means is a one size fits all exhibition.
True; The best qualities of good leaders include Vision, Courage, Integrity, Humility, Strategic planning, Focus, Cooperation. However, all of these end up in the wastebaskets of philosophy, unless we can tailor them into every individual, or at the very least smaller denominations.
Constituent's expectation defines leadership quality, not the other way around. Some believe leaders should build better societies even though it is healthy, and communities with sovereign individuals build leaders. But communities are and will always be too diverse to reckon unanimous Leadership. Individual's free choice collaborative contributions make better societies, and better Leadership is the one that can ensure such a collaborative and unbiased environment. Leadership without respecting individual sovereignty is a failure.
Golden Rule must be the guiding light of every Leader
The Golden Rule thrives on the principle of treating others as one wants to be treated. That is hardly found in today's influential, not even among Servant leaders.
Through unmatched Leadership, individual inspires others and mobilize resources to accomplish a goal. A leader must possess a set of demeanors that can be learned and many traits that one can facilitate. Leadership is about an alliance between followers and those who inspire and provide direction for them. It involves emotional ties and obligations. And that relationship necessitates the leader to realize what their constituents would feel given the circumstances.
“World leadership is a globalist doctrine.”
The study finds that globalization has impacted global Leadership. Organizational structures and financial systems have evolved to keep up with the voracious desire created by globalized industry. The heightened interaction between different cultures has often elicited frictions. While technology has allowed organizations to participate in international business and wealth, the prosperity is not evenly disseminated. That has raised ethical questions. To address problems created by globalization, some politicians have thought of the concept of global Leadership, also known as transformational Leadership, or those who can reach across cultures. But how diverse or transformational can a leader be?
The World needs a Leader that outlooks Individual Sovereignty, not the introverted one.
Personal autonomy implies that it is evil for any other person to impede honest and peaceful elections. This remedy originates from the accepted law of morale and is spoken by the universal ethic. The law stems from human individuality and equality and the premise of equality. The law indorses; if one is not self-determining, someone else will clasp authority over them instead. Individual sovereignty is the moral equality taken to its logical conclusion. It embraces the concept that "self-ownership" is the same as individual sovereignty. And the idea of the great leader is neither global nor one-size-fits-all.