...whether by force, assassination, trickery, election, consensus, appointment, or birthright, leaders have ascended to truly serve, to control, or to take advantage.
~ from The Power of Four: Leadership Lessons of Crazy Horse by Joseph M. Marshall III, p. 5 ~
In the US, we are undergoing a crisis of confidence in leadership. As we look at the federal government's response to the oil disaster in the Gulf, President Obama is being criticized from both sides. The same thing happened to George Bush in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In fact, if you look at the presidential administrations of the past 2 or 3 decades, it's quite easy to find many issues upon which the same could be said.
But this is not merely a problem with presidents. State and local governments leaders face the same types of criticism. Religious, business and social leaders are not immune to it either. Everywhere we look, rank and file citizens decry the manner in which leadership manifests itself.
What is going on here?
From my perspective, one of the key problems is that we have allowed the leaders themselves to define their roles. Since, in our society, the most important goal of leadership has become how to maintain it, leaders lead or govern from this position. The means no longer hold any importance; only the ends matter and, as stated above, the chief end is how to remain in power.
If we desire more effective leaders, it becomes incumbent on the followers -- not the leaders -- to define those traits and characteristics we wish to follow. We need to be more proactive, in this regard, rather than being reactive. That's one of the core reasons for the recent Tea Party movement. A lot of people don't like the direction of the current leadership and so they are reacting without much of any sense for how they would define an effective leader.
Until we as individuals can decide what we want from those who lead, we will continued to be mired in the same dilemma. In essence, we are blaming those at the top for our own shortcomings of vision.
But this is not merely a problem with presidents. State and local governments leaders face the same types of criticism. Religious, business and social leaders are not immune to it either. Everywhere we look, rank and file citizens decry the manner in which leadership manifests itself.
What is going on here?
From my perspective, one of the key problems is that we have allowed the leaders themselves to define their roles. Since, in our society, the most important goal of leadership has become how to maintain it, leaders lead or govern from this position. The means no longer hold any importance; only the ends matter and, as stated above, the chief end is how to remain in power.
If we desire more effective leaders, it becomes incumbent on the followers -- not the leaders -- to define those traits and characteristics we wish to follow. We need to be more proactive, in this regard, rather than being reactive. That's one of the core reasons for the recent Tea Party movement. A lot of people don't like the direction of the current leadership and so they are reacting without much of any sense for how they would define an effective leader.
Until we as individuals can decide what we want from those who lead, we will continued to be mired in the same dilemma. In essence, we are blaming those at the top for our own shortcomings of vision.
This is true. I don't vote in this system as none of the parties offer what I want. I don't want to be lead and I don't want to be lead by those who would wage war, benefit rich not poor and so on - which they all do, so I can't vote for any of them.
ReplyDeleteMy alternative is to have no leader. This would work for me but I think there are many, the majority, who need to be lead and so you're right in asking: What qualities should leaders have?
A leader should not wish to lead. Anyone who wishes to lead is dangerous so a leader should be selected from a bunch of wise unwilling folk. The one who would finally be encouraged to take the role (they would see that taking the role was better than letting one of the old style back in) would act like a pair of true scales (I stole that from the Wen Tzu), They'd lean right with no inertia, they'd distribute fairly with no outward manipulation.
...and we always get accused of "idealism" when we get asked how to replace the current, failed (unless you're uber-rich) system....