What makes a Leader?

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

The sad truth is that some of the best people suited for leadership, people who can make a difference, are the type of people who don't want to willingly end up in such a position of responsibility. That's perhaps the greatest defect in politicians: the lack of sense of duty and responsibility.

Exactly! You could only see these type of *good* Intellectuals amidst the battlefields and rebellion and not within building society. They don't understand that managing society is a form of "war" itself. And to the matter at hand, those *rare* individuals' *good* self-interest contradicts too much with "dirty" politics---that is why they tend to avoid it. Its not their type of *selfish nature*.

Perhaps, but how many people are there who truly want to help others before themselves? The type of self interest you're describing is the rarest of its kind.

That is true, its rare. But that's not exactly "0", and I'm hoping that You and me and everyone else could be a part of that rarity. What we need now are actions.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Exactly! You could only see these type of *good* Intellectuals amidst the battlefields and rebellion and not within building society. They don't understand that managing society is a form of "war" itself. And to the matter at hand, those *rare* individuals' *good* self-interest contradicts too much with "dirty" politics---that is why they tend to avoid it. Its not their type of *selfish nature*.

It's not exactly a matter of them not understand that managing society is also warefare on its own. In fact, I'm quite certain they understand that more than anyone, and that the people who don't are the ones who actually are in a position of responsibility. I believe the matter lies more so in the fact that these good intellectuals believe they can do more good out on the front lines where they can directly bring changes and help or protect the people themselves.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

It's not exactly a matter of them not understand that managing society is also warefare on its own. In fact, I'm quite certain they understand that more than anyone, and that the people who don't are the ones who actually are in a position of responsibility. I believe the matter lies more so in the fact that these good intellectuals believe they can do more good out on the front lines where they can directly bring changes and help or protect the people themselves.

Perhaps that is so, but what they're doing is like, on the simplest structure of government,"building a family, wherein they're the father, then leaving it."

[incube]

The most important things for a leader..... it would be charisma and a objective. By charisma i mean having top notch acting skills and the ability to control the masses. And while everyone is following him/her, there must be something he/she should follow.

I dont think being good or bad, selfish or selfless, benevolent or ruthless has anything to do with leadership.... those are behaviours that can be found in anyone. A leader is someone above those prexisting morals and rules... he/she should be the one that gives meaning to those words.

Being able to command or give orders to a group of ppl (no matter how many) doesnt make a leader.... he/she becomes the leader only when those orders arent needed to move those ppl.

These things might sound a bit exagerated but it is something that happens everywhere in our daily lifes. A family, at work, between friends, etc.

Originally Posted by Cipher

How can you lead---order people around--and yet still belong with the group? If your young, and your the leader, would you count ordering your elders wrong? Does leadership contradict with respect?

Perhaps it's a matter of weighing the positives and negatives--or simply depending on the *situation*. But what is generally or usually the right thing to do in your opinion? Don't you think that, in the end, your lack of respect towards your subordinates would become *that* grave negative and therefore, pose a threat in reaching your combined goals?

Everyone has his/her own beliefs, no matter how weak they are, but being able to change those into your own beliefs makes the difference between leader and the rest. "Respecting the old", "understanding your subordinates" and just impressions of other ppl. What someone sees and feels are the actions, not the leader itself. And how do you control what other ppl think about your own actions? That is when the skill called "acting" is put to use.

[Kaze]

Didn't read the other posts, but to be a leader, means to be able to move people, to make them follow you, how you do that, is up to you.

You can either lead with charisma and personality, or with force and dread.
a good leader looks after the people who follow him, as without people, a leader is meaningless.

It's also vital to be able to hold up order, as in resolve disputes between other people.
Understanding is another trait which would be required, but not necessary.

He is a person who can be relied upon, people can place their hopes and trust in him.

[incube]

Originally Posted by Kaze

Didn't read the other posts, but to be a leader, means to be able to move people, to make them follow you, how you do that, is up to you.

You can either lead with charisma and personality, or with force and dread.
a good leader looks after the people who follow him, as without people, a leader is meaningless.

It's also vital to be able to hold up order, as in resolve disputes between other people.
Understanding is another trait which would be required, but not necessary.

He is a person who can be relied upon, people can place their hopes and trust in him.

So a leader is someone that wants to be relied upon, being loved and takes cares of everyones needs before his/hers? That is more what the ppl being lead would want.... But what are those hopes, responsabilities and needs that the ppl are putting on the leader? Just go ask 10 random ppl what they want/need and you will get an idea of how impossible it is to go around being "relied upon". But what if you make those ppl want what you want them to have? What if you are able to make them believe that the best they would get is what you have to offer them? How different would that be? I think it is the same for the ones following but it would be a huge difference from the leaders point of view.

A leader chained but his followers is nothing else but a puppet.

Now im not saying that there cant be nice/selfless leader but those are just impressions he/she wants you to have.... they are not standards set for a leader but made by the leader himself/herself.

To a slave (in another era...) a benevolent master could have been the one that picked him up from the street and gives him a meal and a bed to sleep but if someone kidnaps you and gives you the same meal and bed you would hate him. The things done everyday by both the kidnaper and the nice master are the same.... then why one is being loved and the other hated? That is because a meal and a bed is all the slave could expect to get. But who was the one that decided and set those "expectations"? The same master that took the slave in....

An example could be Grifith in Berserk.... he portraits the ultimate "good leader" with all the characteristics mentioned before but ironically beneath that benevolent leader everything is the opposite. You can clearly see that saving all those ppl had nothing to do with his own objective but just an "act" in order to achive it. He created a new set of rules, morals and redifined good and evil while still being worshiped his followers. Then is he a good leader even though he himself is a demon that sacrificed every single man of his army? If you ask that question to any of his current followers they would say yes.

Another exaple, since this is an anime forum, would be the world the ppl live in Claymore. Claymore is the organization that can save the ppl from the youma but at the same time they are the ones that created the monsters. To the ppl in that little aisolated world, the good guy is Claymore.

[Cipher]

I've been trying to create a guideline for Leadership priorities, kindly help me on this:

1. Order
2. Progress
3. Respect
4. Understanding
5. Model
6. Consistency

[Tsuyoshi]

Order is quite important, yes, but I believe how you achieve that order is what's even more important. There's a difference between being a leader and being a good leader. A tyrant can be a leader, but he is a leader nonetheless. The same can be said for an idiot or someone irresponsible. But a good leader is one who knows his people, their needs and interests and one who can establish a bond of trust between himself and his people. The best way to do that is by showing a keen interest in them, an interest in what they can offer and what he can offer them in exchange.

A good leader must liase between different parts of his nation's population. By showing interest in his people and being an intermediary who can establish contact with other memebers of the nation, he will be better able to allocate the resources and specialties his people can offer to him and to everyone else in the nation. So by first establishing trust, understanding and respect, he can establish order. Order comes through respect. Through order, the population can progress and grow. Imho, the list should be more like this.

1. Respect
2. Understanding
3. Order
4. Progress
5. Model
6. Consistency

So it is true that order is important, but without understanding one another, that order can be broken. If there are people who disagree with another's ideals or beliefs, he can interfere with the order created between him and other people, and it will break. That is why the first priority must be understanding one another and respecting their beliefs and ideals.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Order is quite important, yes, but I believe how you achieve that order is what's even more important. There's a difference between being a leader and being a good leader. A tyrant can be a leader, but he is a leader nonetheless. The same can be said for an idiot or someone irresponsible. But a good leader is one who knows his people, their needs and interests and one who can establish a bond of trust between himself and his people. The best way to do that is by showing a keen interest in them, an interest in what they can offer and what he can offer them in exchange.

A good leader must liase between different parts of his nation's population. By showing interest in his people and being an intermediary who can establish contact with other memebers of the nation, he will be better able to allocate the resources and specialties his people can offer to him and to everyone else in the nation. So by first establishing trust, understanding and respect, he can establish order. Order comes through respect. Through order, the population can progress and grow. Imho, the list should be more like this.

1. Respect
2. Understanding
3. Order
4. Progress
5. Model
6. Consistency

So it is true that order is important, but without understanding one another, that order can be broken. If there are people who disagree with another's ideals or beliefs, he can interfere with the order created between him and other people, and it will break. That is why the first priority must be understanding one another and respecting their beliefs and ideals.

On *average* situations, would you sacrifice Respect and Understanding for Order and Progress?

For example, as a politician, would you sacrifice being called "Corrupt" or "Dirty", for the sake of the *greater* reason which is Order and Progress? I believe that, in reality, there would be situations such as those.

For a Leader, what reason is there Respect and Understanding? Is it not for Order and Progress?

I understand that Respect and Understanding promotes, on the long run, Order and Progress, but which is really more important, as a leader? Aren't Progress and Order the main reasons why there *are* leaders?

Being Leader requires *that* mentality of inevitable *sacrifice*.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Cipher

On *average* situations, would you sacrifice Respect and Understanding for Order and Progress?

For example, as a politician, would you sacrifice being called "Corrupt" or "Dirty", for the sake of the *greater* reason which is Order and Progress? I believe that, in reality, there would be situations such as those.

For a Leader, what reason is there Respect and Understanding? Is it not for Order and Progress?

I understand that Respect and Understanding promotes, on the long run, Order and Progress, but which is really more important, as a leader? Aren't Progress and Order the main reasons why there *are* leaders?

Being Leader requires *that* mentality of inevitable *sacrifice*.

That is true. What I said is true during times of peace. The ability of a leader depends on how well he can maintain that peace within the nation as well as with other nation's leaders. Peace through understanding and respect ensures that this peace will last in the long run. Peace through order, foregoing respect and understanding, is the kind of peace that stands on short legs. To force order on a population would induce resistence.

Newton's law of every action leading to an equal and opposite reaction does not only apply to physics, but to life in general. If people are forced into a state of order, are forced to carry out certain duties against their will, will inevitably give rise to those people who, posessing a greater than usual sense of individuality and independence, will resist the enforcing nature of the order inposed on them by the leader.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

That is true. What I said is true during times of peace. The ability of a leader depends on how well he can maintain that peace within the nation as well as with other nation's leaders. Peace through understanding and respect ensures that this peace will last in the long run. Peace through order, foregoing respect and understanding, is the kind of peace that stands on short legs. To force order on a population would induce resistence.

Newton's law of every action leading to an equal and opposite reaction does not only apply to physics, but to life in general. If people are forced into a state of order, are forced to carry out certain duties against their will, will inevitably give rise to those people who, posessing a greater than usual sense of individuality and independence, will resist the enforcing nature of the order inposed on them by the leader.

I see. So you've interpreted *my* Order as "forced". To me, *true* Order is never forced, it is one that a leader can *lead* towards and not force on.

With this type of *Order*, would you accept sacrificing Respect and Understanding? --on inevitable situations of course.

[Tsuyoshi]

Well, like I said before, such a situation would occur during war. Wartime leaders don't normally last after the war is over. The best thing to do in such a situation is to show the people that you care for them and that you want to minimize the number of casualties and to do everything in your power to protect them. This can maintain stability to some degree, but death is inevitable during war and as a leader, you must be decisive and shoulder the reponsibilities toward the families that lost their loved one to the war effort. Some of these families will harbor a feeling of resentment, and a leader must be strong enough to move on and accept this so that he may continue to protect those that still live and minimize losses. Often times though, re-establishing trust with those people who suffered the most from the war is difficult and could undermine order. That's why it's more important to maintain the trust and respect of the people, because order comes from that.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Well, like I said before, such a situation would occur during war. Wartime leaders don't normally last after the war is over. The best thing to do in such a situation is to show the people that you care for them and that you want to minimize the number of casualties and to do everything in your power to protect them. This can maintain stability to some degree, but death is inevitable during war and as a leader, you must be decisive and shoulder the reponsibilities toward the families that lost their loved one to the war effort. Some of these families will harbor a feeling of resentment, and a leader must be strong enough to move on and accept this so that he may continue to protect those that still live and minimize losses. Often times though, re-establishing trust with those people who suffered the most from the war is difficult and could undermine order.

I beg your pardon, I'm not too good at interpreting that situation.

That's why it's more important to maintain the trust and respect of the people, because order comes from that.

Order does not necessarily come from trust and respect.

For example, as a politician, you've *strategically* used ways to gain trust and respect. And once your in the position, a decision comes wherein the *people* don't understand(and therefore, misinterpret your nature) your *logical* actions and yet you believe that *that* course of actions, would in the end, lead to Order and Progress, and if rationalized a bit further, would lead into gaining Respect and Understanding which rebuilds Trust.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Order does not necessarily come from trust and respect.

For example, as a politician, you've *strategically* used ways to gain trust and respect. And once your in the position, a decision comes wherein the *people* don't understand(and therefore, misinterpret your nature) your *logical* actions and yet you believe that *that* course of actions, would in the end, lead to Order and Progress, and if rationalized a bit further, would lead into gaining Respect and Understanding which rebuilds Trust.

Maybe, but there are those people who will understand the leader's intentions, just as there will be those people who do not understand. However, a lack of understanding, rather than building trust, can and will actually undermine it. The people who don't comprehend and misunderstand the leader's nature will be left wondering what the leader is up to, eventually leading them to question their leader and hesitate to follow him. That in itself is a danger to order and progression, for there doesn't appear to be a purpose or objecting in the leader's actions. A leader cannot act as an individual because he should represent and be responsible for his people.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Maybe, but there are those people who will understand the leader's intentions, just as there will be those people who do not understand.

A very good point but still, in general, your sacrificing *most* of the people's Respect and Understanding towards you. Although, you yourself, still hold that Respect and Understanding towards your people. Its just that the complexity of the problem creates *that* rift of understanding of People to Leader.

However, a lack of understanding, rather than building trust, can and will actually undermine it. The people who don't comprehend and misunderstand the leader's nature will be left wondering what the leader is up to, eventually leading them to question their leader and hesitate to follow him. That in itself is a danger to order and progression, for there doesn't appear to be a purpose or objecting in the leader's actions. A leader cannot act as an individual because he should represent and be responsible for his people.

But if they do, in the end, realize that the leader's idea and *true* goals of the "bigger picture", won't they too, understand that leaders' ability to plan goals ahead and thus, promote his excellence even?

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Cipher

A very good point but still, in general, your sacrificing *most* of the people's Respect and Understanding towards you. Although, you yourself, still hold that Respect and Understanding towards your people. Its just that the complexity of the problem creates *that* rift of understanding of People to Leader.

The leader isn't sacrificing understanding between him and his people if he still holds it. A complex problem will ultimately affect his people, so it is the leader's duty to make it understandable for them. As I said before, the leader's role is to liase with his people and communicate with them. Otherwise, he cannot even be expected to maintain order amongst his people.

Originally Posted by Cipher

But if they do, in the end, realize that the leader's idea and *true* goals of the "bigger picture", won't they too, understand that leaders' ability to plan goals ahead and thus, promote his excellence even?

Then understanding between the people and the leader is further strengthened from the people's side as well as they understand what the leader's objectives are. However, depending on what the leader depends on doing, it may or may not promote his excellence. The people may not neccessarily agree with his actions. While there is understanding, trust is deminished and that could break the established order.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

The leader isn't sacrificing understanding between him and his people if he still holds it. A complex problem will ultimately affect his people, so it is the leader's duty to make it understandable for them. As I said before, the leader's role is to liase with his people and communicate with them. Otherwise, he cannot even be expected to maintain order amongst his people.

The "Order" I was talking about was pertaining to the Safety and Security of the people. Not amongst each other, but criminal issues.

But I guess your right overall. Respect and Understanding---to people, and from people---plays the more important role within Leadership. Because only from that, originates "true" Order and Progress.

Then understanding between the people and the leader is further strengthened from the people's side as well as they understand what the leader's objectives are. However, depending on what the leader depends on doing, it may or may not promote his excellence. The people may not neccessarily agree with his actions. While there is understanding, trust is deminished and that could break the established order.

That trust could be regained from their basic core of realization. From the realization, they would actually create further trust, wouldn't you agree? Since it shows the leaders' greater competence.

[Akeii]

Regarding the main question, Cipher, what kinds of leaders do you mean? An ideal leader or an effective leader? Are we talking long-term or short-term effects? And in judging these effects, do you view them based on morality or based on direct results? Even the criteria I listed, I believe, is a general statement with much more room left for further qualification.

There's a lot of possibilities available, and thus I don't think the question has a simple answer.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Cipher

The "Order" I was talking about was pertaining to the Safety and Security of the people. Not amongst each other, but criminal issues.

Those criminals are the people who already lack that trust in leadership or simply do not care to offer anything in exchange for what he receives. People like them should be caught and tried for their actions if they are not extreme. However, this discussion over punishing criminals is a debate for another time. The point is that apprehending these criminals should be done to safeguard the people and the social order. If the justice system is able to protect the people from such criminals, it will actually strengthen the trust between the people and their leader.

Originally Posted by Cipher

That trust could be regained from their basic core of realization. From the realization, they would actually create further trust, wouldn't you agree? Since it shows the leaders' greater competence.

Perhaps, but can this realization be achieved if not everyone is willing to co-operate due to the misunderstanding and the rift created between the leader and its people?

[chimamirekenjutsushi]

The true leaders always stand out during times of turmoil. Join a military (Imperial Japanese Army), police force, firefighting, and etc...