Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Brien's avatar

Agree with your thesis on leaders. A big problem was that the words Leader and Leadership were hijacked and given a corrupt definition. Culturally the words became associated with strength of personality and personality cult. The definitions became way too subjective and they were co-opted by the powerful. To define a set of qualities and call it Leadership and then say that history is full of good leaders and bad leaders just makes the term functionally worthless. For years I lobbied for a concerted effort to free the hijacked terms and redefine them within a moral framework(No such thing as a bad “leader”, you are simply a bad person) So my new definition of leadership is akin to Competence + Truth + Trust. But stop right there. If you are a janitor and you do a good job every day cleaning bathrooms you are a Leader. And there absolutely must be a moral component which is the basis for trust.

So I really like your thrust for the idea that leadership should be more of a grassroots concept than some top down construct which has become corrupt and lost all relevant meaning.

We don’t need more “powerful” leaders as historically defined. We need leaders who may lack power but are real leaders

Expand full comment
Doreen's avatar

Working together [2 or more] creates a BOT = being of togetherness with an intelligence far greater than any one real man living soul on its own. A BOT unfolds potential otherwise unattainable. The 'whole' dynamic of life https://holodynamics.com

Expand full comment
16 more comments...

No posts