What takes one to be in leadership is arguably elusive and situtional. This be as it may, what is known for sure, though, is that in any grouping, whether social or political, members of the group feel a real need to choose a leader. Whether this need is just natural to humanity or that humanity has just insatiable desire to have a leader is beyond the present discussion. Surprisingly enough, this need to have a leader seems to be universally cherished with alacrity.
To begin with, in any choosing of a leader, the single most important, universally-appealing quality that leaderchoosers look for in who they want to be their leader is the person’s ability—or say—flexibility to glide out of awkward situations where angels gets buffled. That is, the person’s natural or cultivated ability to timely come up with effective solutions where the led are in dire need of one. This the leader may do alone or with assistance from the led, whichever, in which case the leader plays a very unparallelled central role, overall.
It is may be categorically argued here that problem-solving is not a simple matter, and requires a lot more than witticism, ingenuity and pragmatism. For to try to come up with an intelligible studied solution to a thing mind-boggling is being miles away from coming up with one. Nonetheless, to come up with a solution is to vouchsafe ones leadership capability—whether disaproved, agreed upon or contested—and is, in and of itself, evidence enough that the person is deservedly warranted to lead for his/ her leadership is indeed is.
Pontification, self-praise, cronyism and bias are self-destructive and are not solution-getters, that is, instead of attracting supporters have the boomeranging effect of atrracting enemies. And, for this reason, it is precarious for a leader to base ones solutions on them, no matter what opportunists and sycophants say or do. For, if the leader does not take cognizance of this, he/she runs the risk of being derangingly insultive to the led, for how would the led trust the judgment mired by these leadership eyesores. If this be the majority’s case, the leader and associates would better rethink, otherwise it’s a sign that a fatal nose-dive fall is on the horizon. Its easy to know when it reaches this stage as almost every Jane and Janet every James and John talk ills of the leader, for talking about the leader’s wells becomes self-incriminating and greatly undermines the force in the led’s disenchantment. This is not of leadership should be every inch avoided by the leader.
Stopping someone from opiniatedly expressing ones ‘iconoclastic’ opinion does not make ones solutions to socio-political, eco-cultural ills any better either. This does not imply giving free-freedom to the led to vomit whatever they dreamt the previous night(s) is helpful, no!, but, it would be absurd to fail to distil the senses in the led’s ‘nonsenses’. A leader who does this reaches the pinnacle of leadership perfectness, and such a stage does not just come by as it craves for a kind of mental sifting, which, in this case, it refers to getting riddance of , possibly all, derailing forces such as paranoia and self-serving advice from associates. That said, what we call solution here is not that algorithmic way of bringing a problem to its end, but rather, by ‘solution’ it is meant ‘first of its kind way, at least in that situation, of remedying a malady’.
I assert that the one we choose to lead us is nothing but a mere expression and reflection of what we want. And if this assertion be held to be true, then true too is the obviously logical fact that he/she has to toll the line that we, the led, have ordered him, not let choose, to use. For, if I want this, then whom I choose to bring that this to me has to as ordered, otherwise I would be disenchanted with his or her action. And by this statement it is meant that leaders lead us to places, thoughts, actions, plans etcetera of our choice and that shall be conceived as an order, and therefore no reason for negotiation whatever.
It may also be logically argued that once the led choose a leader, then, loosely, it follows that they have transferred their choices to him/her in that they give the leader the leeway –or say discretion—to make some choices and decisions on our behalf and come up with solutions to problems on our behalf. By this it is meant that we choose leaders who we see as outstanding in most of the important senses of the word ‘outstanding’, and, to boot, who we see as capable of exercising judgment that we may all, majoritorily, trust and express no reservations about.
As grand sounding and practical this ideal leadership may be, conversely ,the fact of life is that such a thing is far from being achieved and closer to being a first rate pipe dream. Whatever this latter statement means, the truth of the matter still remains that leaders who toll the majority line are, naively or something else, identified with such phrases as real leaders, good leaders or perfect leaders if you like it. After all who does not like anything close to the ideal? Therefore, the leader should strive to reach the ideal, for all practical purposes.