If you are Self-focused you can not be a good leader

[Consept]

To be a "good" leader you would have to lead in a way that is beneficial to the group as a whole, fulfilling the goals and objectives of that group. This means your perspective would have to be one of sacrifice for the group ie a certain action you take may not benefit you personally but it has to be taken as it works for the group. 

The problem with that is that it takes a lot to not use your position to further your own personal goals. This has been and still is the central problem with organisations of people, someone has to be entrusted to helm the ship, however if they helm the ship they can take advantage of the vulnerabilities to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Ambitious people will pursue leadership specifically because of this fact, even as we consider the social media dynamic of influencer and follower, the title influencer is sought as a career path in which the influencer can monetise the followers. 

If you are self-focused by definition you will be a poor leader as you will look to how your followers can serve you instead of vice-versa. If you look at people who are especially self-focused like Tate and Trump, they are incapable of caring for everyone in their group but they are also able to understand the needs of those in their group. Once these are understood they can say whatever is needed to get these people to follow, whilst milking them for their resources and devotion. 

Nowadays we seem to have trouble distinguishing a good leader from a bad leader. What i notice from 'bad' leaders, is that they always push that you will get to the promise land but that day just never comes. End of the world cults always have that judgement day just around the corner but it never comes but it keeps the followers hanging on. They know how to weaponise hope and sell you the fantasy. 

What I also notice is that many want to become leaders because of an emptiness within themselves. If they can get adoration from others this will, at least temporarily, fill that void. If you are already complete within yourself, its hard to make a sacrifice and serve the people because you dont need to, which is part of the reason we get such damaged people rise as leaders. 

[NoSelfSelf]

I think different one cant lead others if one cant lead itself.

If you have vision its your vision,your aims,your goals.How well you can lead yourself towards it thats how well is your potential to lead others.

If you lead others but cant lead yourself you will always lead them to a level you can lead yourself.

So leader has to be self focused because then group will always sway you in so many directions that is not actually the aim.

How can you lead a group when they themselves dont know whats best decision for them and if they do everyone will have different wants?

How would you propose the no self centered leader i dont know if any leader in history wasnt self centered? Probably Jesus is the most non self centered leader so that leaves us with saints as best leaders?

 

Btw your post reminds me of netflix show How to be a cult leader thats a good watch to distinguish bad leaders.

Edited July 15 by NoSelfSelf

[creativepursuit]

I agree with @NoSelfSelf. For example, I consider Leo to be a good leader, even though he is self-centered and focuses on his actualization.

[Consept]

1 hour ago, NoSelfSelf said:

I think different one cant lead others if one cant lead itself.

If you have vision its your vision,your aims,your goals.How well you can lead yourself towards it thats how well is your potential to lead others.

If you lead others but cant lead yourself you will always lead them to a level you can lead yourself.

So leader has to be self focused because then group will always sway you in so many directions that is not actually the aim.

How can you lead a group when they themselves dont know whats best decision for them and if they do everyone will have different wants?

How would you propose the no self centered leader i dont know if any leader in history wasnt self centered? Probably Jesus is the most non self centered leader so that leaves us with saints as best leaders?

 

Btw your post reminds me of netflix show How to be a cult leader thats a good watch to distinguish bad leaders.

Thanks for your input, I would however disagree but it might be my fault because i havent explained it clearly enough. 

Its not really your vision, your aims, your goals, its all those things but for the group that youre leading. So for example lets say im a union leader for construction workers, if my individual goal overall is to do whats best for me and make as much money as possible for myself, then if a company offers me money to stop a strike my workers have taken to get a pay rise, its very likely that ill take the better deal for myself and not hold out for a pay rise for the union members. 

So when I say a leader cant be self-centered what i mean is that the overall goals need to be whats best for the group and this has to be unwavering, the moment the overall goal is whats best for me, i am a crappy leader. Now to get to that goal for the group, i may have to be single minded, which means having as you say a vision and a plan for that, even if others think its wrong which some inevitably will, but my job as a leader is to present as good a plan as possible and get people to buy into that plan and be willing to execute on it. 

If i am self focused, its very possible that i could be good at getting people to buy into a plan and get people to fulfil it even if it benefits me at the expense of them. This happens all the time and never ends well. As you mention leaders in history, this is usually the case when things go terribly wrong, Hitler and the Nazis is a great example of this, he was amazing at selling people the dream but ultimately it was all about his ego and him wanting power. Similarly this happens all the time now in African countries, where leaders get into power and milk the country dry for them and their families to live in luxury. There are countless examples, I think the definition of a good leader is someone who can create a positive outcome for those that follow him, a bad leader can be good at leading but creates a negative outcome for those that follow them. 

1 hour ago, creativepursuit said:

I agree with @NoSelfSelf. For example, I consider Leo to be a good leader, even though he is self-centered and focuses on his actualization.

Im not sure i would call Leo a leader, he is more of a teacher which i think is expressly different, in that he provides information and advice but hes not directly responsible for the circumstances of your life. If you think about your boss at work, they are your leader at work because you are all working together on where that organisation is going but they are providing leadership in terms of the direction. They can sack you or promote you depending on how important they find you toward that goal. Leo has no such power or responsibility for you, he has a responsibility to himself and his platform. The dynamic is more that we are consumers and he is a creator, were essentially his customers. He would be the leader of anyone on his team, ie mods or anyone who works for him. 

[creativepursuit]

@Consept Well, good leadership depends on which stage of the spiral society or organization is at. The notion that a leader knows what is best for the group is very blue. A green organization will never appreciate such leadership. At Green, good leaders are those who co-create the goal with the group.

The angle Power = Leadership only applies to the red/blue stage. 

Anyone who has followers is a leader; that's common across all levels of the spiral, including Leo.

[Consept]

34 minutes ago, creativepursuit said:

Well, good leadership depends on which stage of the spiral society or organization is at. The notion that a leader knows what is best for the group is very blue. A green organization will never appreciate such leadership. At Green, good leaders are those who co-create the goal with the group.

A leader knowing whats best for the group is not necessarily blue, it depends on how that leader gets into power. Representative democracy would be about putting someone in power that the group decides. A green leader would be more empathetic and listen to people more but ultimately they would make the choice that would best suit the group from their perspective, even if some members of the group werent happy theyd put the collective above that. Higher consciousness leadership is not self focused, lower level is self focused. 

39 minutes ago, creativepursuit said:

Anyone who has followers is a leader; that's common across all levels of the spiral, including Leo.

Im talking more of a leader who you have direct contact with. I guess you could say someone who produces content is a leader to some extent but they are not really doing anything to be a leader, theyre just producing content. Like if someone makes comedy videos on instagram and gets a million followers are they actually leading anyone? But either way you could still make the argument that Leo is a good leader in the sense that his focus is on creating the best content he can and creating a community, he isnt self-focused in that terms of what he produces because his goal is to communicate his ideas as best as he can. He may also have individual goals but they are separate to the goals of his business. As in his followers are not really fulfilling his own goals for his actualization 

[NoSelfSelf]

@Consept But my argument is that there is no such person on earth which is not a saint that is like that.Point is even if you look whats best for the group you are doing it for yourself ,since you want the group to thrive if you didnt want it then you wouldnt do it.Its all a deception so a leader should think of a group as part of himself,even if they give you money its not just about the money one has to see does it benefit my morals,my beliefs,my values to take that money at that moment.Its not like one being self centered does evil doing that's tyrannic leadership.Hitler was amazing leader but his charachter is fucked up.My argument is that self centered leaders are really effective and get the job done,empathic ones which is called concious leaders as i rember who work alongside you to get to the goal does things concious but at some point if he doesnt get self centered people will just sucumm to their human laziness.There is a split that happens where empathy is needed for it to not all crush down but we cant deny self centered leaders get you to places empathic cant.

[creativepursuit]

2 hours ago, Consept said:

Higher consciousness leadership is not self focused, lower level is self focused

I agree with you on this. But how do you think a highly conscious leader behaves when put in a lower-stage organization (for example, red or blue)?

Empathy can get them kicked out, actually. They will have to bring consciousness to the level of organizations in order to act as leaders in that particular context. In a way, it is about adapting your leadership style.
 

[QVx]

Leadership is a product of selflessness. Selflessness by its very nature is self focused.

What looks in, must also look out.

[Schizophonia]

There is no difference between "you" and "me", it's an illusion.

I see charisma as the ability to bring one closer, and this happens through the mirror of the other.

 

[QVx]

6 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

There is no difference between "you" and "me", it's an illusion.

I see charisma as the ability to bring one closer, and this happens through the mirror of the other.

 

If there is difference between you and me, then what is this mirror of the other? 

[Schizophonia]

1 minute ago, QVx said:

If there is difference between you and me, then what is this mirror of the other? 

You're trapped in yourself, so every representations you perceive is actually you, the other is thus a mirror of yourself.

So to my opinion, charisma and being a good leader is essentially about acceptation of this mirror, It is therefore by accepting to be tiny that we can become gigantic.

Let's say you talk to someone, if you see in him/her a strategy to vehicle boredom, it's actually a projection ; What is called for is to accept that you are in fact bored and to finally express it, even if you have to assume the consequences for your ego in the short/medium term.
I took a state at random but it could be another, whatever.

[Schizophonia]

Ofc it's more easy to say that to act ahah

[Consept]

On 15/07/2024 at 5:15 PM, NoSelfSelf said:

But my argument is that there is no such person on earth which is not a saint that is like that.

Im not talking about being a saint, of course when you lead you are part of the group as well and you want to see the outcome that the group is striving for. But the key to my argument is that im using the term 'self-focused' which is to say by definition your goals for the group are focused on you completely and convincing people to do what you want is just a necessary step in achieving what you personally want. 

For example if you think of a cult leader like Charles Manson, he wanted to achieve his own personal goal regardless of what happened to those that followed him. His leadership was nothing to do with the betterment of those that followed, they were completely disposable in service of what he wanted, he just had to convince them to fulfil his desires even if it was at the expense of their lives. This is what i mean by a bad leader, you can make the argument that he was an effective leader in terms of getting the job done but not a good leader because the outcomes for his group were terrible. 

So im not speaking in terms of a binary where its your completely focused on everyone else at your expense, there obviously has to be a balance. But i believe that if you are unbalanced in terms of being self-focused you will most likely be a bad leader. However the same could be said if you are too empathetic and trying to please everyone. The only difference is that youll find more self-focused people as leaders because they want to fulfill their eo and having followers is a good way to do that, whereas someone overly empathetic probably wouldnt gravitate to a leadership position. 

 

On 15/07/2024 at 5:51 PM, creativepursuit said:

I agree with you on this. But how do you think a highly conscious leader behaves when put in a lower-stage organization (for example, red or blue)?

Empathy can get them kicked out, actually. They will have to bring consciousness to the level of organizations in order to act as leaders in that particular context. In a way, it is about adapting your leadership style.

Theres a saying thats something like 'You get the leader you deserve', which is basically, whatever leader you look up to is probably the stage of consciousness youre at. So if you were bringing lets say a green leader into an orange organisation it most likely wouldnt work because the orange members would look at them as someone who just doesnt get them or get 'it'. Also the green would look at them the same way. I think if you got someone who was yellow and above they would be able to handle the situation a lot better, in fact yellows probably would make great leaders as they would be able to identify where the others are and how to appeal to them. So yeah i agree they would have to adapt their leadership style, but even that would be a self-less way of being. 

[NoSelfSelf]

@Consept Yeah that's what i got from this, you saying someone being completely self centered which reminded me of a cult leader,yeah thats a terrible leader.My idea of self centered is completely focus on your vision and actualizing it where one is looking to fullfill the vision but where those who follow get whats promised,one is concirned about himself but keep in mind that in the end delivers whats promised to the group.My personal opinion is 80% self centetered 20% emphatic mix then, for it to work in terms of being effective and not a being a scumbag.

 

Edited July 17 by NoSelfSelf