Genuine Leadership and True Power
An act of true leadership is an act of giving. The more you take without giving, the less you’ll be able to bring out the best in people.
Following is inherently a taker’s position. They are on the receiving end of the leaders’ directives. They are free to respond to the leader in anyway, provided that it’s within the realm of possibilities in the natural laws of the universe and of their own personal biology. The art of being a true and legitimate leader of people is, in general, to somehow give people what they need, psychologically first and physically second. The reason that our psychological needs comes before our physical needs, is because we can only obey and follow the biological conditions within our brains and within our mind’s eye. This is how we prioritize and execute unhealthy behavior, socially, physically and environmentally, rather than healthy behavior. We go after what makes us feel good, rather than what makes us actually healthy, whole and, for want of a better word, simply happy. This could be because of some neurological or psychological disorder that has hitherto been undiagnosed and un-labeled by mental health practitioners. But it seems to be a solid fact about our species that we don’t always or usually go for what makes us happy, healthy and whole and, instead, we prioritize the shorter term psychological gratification over the longer term physical and mental gratification of following a different path. A good leader is able to sense and tap into those psychological needs and help guide people to a happier, healthier and better off state of mind/plane of existence, depending upon their individual state of being at any given time (even if this comes with what some would consider abusive behavior, in some cases of humanity, see masochists). This is easier said than done, but it is the general lay of the land, as far as I can personally tell from my observations and experiences with regards to leadership.
It is a strange paradox in American society (and, indeed, in Anglo and general Western societies) that we confuse the act of taking to mean leadership. We can look at the Melian Dialogue from ancient Greece to see this in action. However, this kind of behavior neither inspires, encourages or convinces people to follow you in their heads and hearts., which are, ideally, the only targets of concern for a leader. You may be able to compell people into certain actions through fear or force. But you’ll never really be able to conquor them unless they themselves want to be conquored by that person or group, secretly or overtly, and it will only last if there is something given from the conqueror to the conquored. Otherwise, the relationship is just a ticking time bomb that will explode either on its own or when an opportune moment presents itself (for example, the collapse of the Inca and Aztec Empires when the Spanish arrived to unite the conquored tribes against the common oppressor).
This is the history, this is the sociology, this is the psychology, these are my experiences from the world beyond my brain and my brain’s infinite power to make theories and observations that aren’t actually real.
You can test these principles out in your own lives, on the micro individual as well as on the macro collective scale.
Think about it.
It Comes Undone Scoop.it Page
- Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong – YouTube September 3, 2015
- Priorities, Strategies, Consumption Patterns, and Definitions of Success August 30, 2015
- We Are Buddha July 5, 2015
- Of Ants and Humans July 5, 2015
- Evidence-Based Policy-Making July 4, 2015