In difficult situations do we tend to be dictatorial or participative? Sometimes it is inevitable to impose a decision when the occasion requires it. However, when it becomes a habit the ability to comprehend and make informed decisions is greatly diminished. Do we like to have full and direct control over others or do we influence and motivate them? Leaders sometimes pursue the illusion of having control over other people in the belief that success depends only on them. For me, leadership has no purpose unless it gets the full support of its followers.
Do we promote leadership based on the cult or in the vision of true unity and tolerance? When leadership is centered on personality it loses credibility and support. In response, the strategies applied sometimes include restricting freedom and abusing laws in the name of an ideology. On the other hand, if leadership is based on respect and tolerance it can leverage the diversity of people and ideas that can make great things happen.
What do we do with those who do not share our vision? Do we exclude them because they follow different ideas, principles, values, laws, religions or beliefs? Sometimes leaders loose their way by focussing on demonizing those who do not follow blindly. A lot of effort is lost in the battles that ensue and in the divisions that are created. What is the purpose of this? To force everyone to submit to the same vision? For example, to eradicate poverty we will need everyone's participation and ideas, including from those we consider different and indifferent. In reality we have no control over the hearts and minds of other people and it is precisely in those places where we will find the driving force behind progress. By contrast, we would do well to exert control over ourselves, and yet this is where we least exercise it. In this sense, our leadership style should take into account the needs of the collective and be adapted to the situations we are confronted with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment