Tags

, , , , ,

Good leaders are always good followers but good followers are not usually good leaders. There is no paradox here, because only a portion of the followers have the wherewithal to be leaders but all good leaders must be able to read and judge what other people need and want and many people can not do that. What has occurred in human society is to form layers of leadership positions which have the socially given right to lead those below them on the social scale. This is most clearly seen in the military where social rank is granted by the institution and is marked directly upon the shoulders with a symbol. Young men have been graded by a somewhat arbitrary means into social groups and are pre-destined to be guided and groomed to be in the various ranked social levels. When they achieve their level they are expected to fulfill the obligations of that level – they are expected to behave as sheep-like followers to the norms of their level. Often as these people age and advance to a higher level their promotion is accompanied with new titles, symbols of the new rank and a verbal acknowledgement is often included as part of addressing the new person. Near the top of the social ranking system the granting of a new personal honorific name is often granted.

Only the person in position of independent authority in some specific situation is momentarily outside of this layered structure of obedient sheep and is required to think independently. At this time he is expected to come up with workable answers to the problems which face the entire group and act upon them. However, when alone with their decision making responsibilities these responsible individuals must relate to someone for their guidance and it is their social peers who are their sheep-like flock to whom they must turn for support. When you can discern the peer group the decision maker is identifying with you can predict his behavior. This is especially true if the decision is anxiety provoking, because then he will retreat most strongly toward his flocks ideal.

Thus it is that people at the very pinnacle of power, the kings, emperors, dictators and presidents must intellectually and emotionally choose to identify with an known peer group, not with the people over whom they rule, but with their flock which in their special circumstance is – kings, emperors, dictators and presidents. When they are in this role they are still human-sheep but their flock is made up of people, probably long dead people, of their own social sheep like type facing problems of a similar nature.

We sometimes here of top level human leaders going crazy with power and behaving as if they thought they were gods. But, who else are they to identify with as their peers, except gods, if they have been granted absolute power?

Humans are sheep-like and in  stressful situations will retreat to their flock.

Advertisements