The 3 Requisites of Effective and Authoritative Leadership

There's no such thing as good or bad leadership.
“Good” and “bad” are subjective terms and they don't define the quality of leadership in any way, but only its emotional impact on the individual.
We can and must do better.

No "romanticism" with leadership

When it comes to leadership, you need to keep your feet firmly on the ground: no fanaticism, no absolutism, no flights of fancy... just a healthy awareness and a solid connection with reality.
 
Let us remember that the most ferocious dictatorships have often enjoyed broad consensus before revealing themselves for what they truly were.

Whether one is a leader or a follower (and we are more or less all of one thing and the other in different contexts), one has the responsibility to remain firmly anchored to the ground, both in the proposal (leader, active role) and in adhering to it (follower, passive role).

When things don't go as expected or perhaps as promised, it's too easy to blame the leader and place the consequences of the mistakes made solely on them.

The follower must play a role that is anything but passive, as is usually believed to be, since it must be remembered that in the end it is they who legitimize the leader.



I want to make it clear that the purpose of this article is not to explain how to manage the relationship between leader and follower, but how both these actors can and must contribute to building a healthy, lasting, and, above all, mutually beneficial relationship thanks to a more informed assessment of their respective roles.

Whether it is in the private/family, work, social/political sphere or otherwise, it is necessary to always keep in mind that one is operating in a systemic and natural context.

This means that, however overwhelming the leader's ambition and cunning, it can do nothing against the immense forces and dynamics underlying such contexts.

We are not talking about strategies that may be more or less effective, but about how and on what basis the leader interprets this role, since there is no doubt that the more his actions are aligned with the laws, forces, and dynamics of systems, the more they will work to their benefit (and not only that!).

Does it work or not?... That is the question.

There's too much moralising, too much ideology in judging the actions of a leader. For example, if we talk about Hitler, we will say that he was a terrible leader because "bad"; Gandhi, on the other hand, was a great leader because "good".

Both have in common that they left a profound mark on the history of humanity. 
What changes is obviously the "quality" of this mark, but defining a leadership as "good" or "bad" is a judgment, not an evaluation, since a true evaluation considers the effectiveness, not the goodness - or lack thereof - of a leader.

The real question then is: how effective was the leadership of Hitler and Gandhi, respectively?

To answer this question, we need to make an assessment that cannot be based on what is more or less pleasant or desirable, but rather on its effectiveness, and therefore on the impact that such leadership has had on the evolution and even on the elevation of humanity in general.

Evidently, the comparison between these two important historical figures is merciless.

The 3 criteria for evaluating effective leadership

In the end, what made the real difference?

There are 3 criteria on which to evaluate the effectiveness of the work of a leader who is not inspired by some exotic theory, but by the only truly credible and reliable model: Nature.

1. Sustainability

This is, by far, the most important element. It may seem simplistic, but this is essentially the difference between Hitler and Gandhi.

In Nature, sustainability is a state in which the various forces act in compliance with certain laws (not only physical ones) and where this fails due to a strong ego, both at an individual and collective level, the balance is altered and the system finds itself in a state of insustainability, the consequences of which are often dramatic.

Life is one of those laws and we know what Hitler did with the lives of many, as well as the high price that many paid. Gandhi, on the other hand, would have given - and did give - "his" life for the good of many.

2. Accountability

We're the only beings capable of creating.
To create, you need to know how to imagine (some say dream).
To imagine, you need to know that you have the means to give concreteness to those Images.

Creating means introducing something into a system that wasn't there before, and this entails a responsibility... one that consists in ensuring that what is created does not clash with the nature of systems, making it sustainable.

Both Hitler and Gandhi shaped (a form of creation) their two respective countries, i.e. Germany and India respectively: However, the former brought destruction, while the latter gave birth to a new, great geopolitical reality.

Hitler rejected all responsibility when events began to go crash, blaming betrayals and incompetence on the part of his generals and advisors; Gandhi owned it from the first moment he embarked on his mission, even when he stood at the forefront of the most tragic moments, paying the price himself.

3. Pragmatism

When I talk about "systems" and their dynamics, I see a certain perplexity on people's faces, as if I were talking about science fiction.

In reality, what I'm doing is confronting them with the only reality that exists: everything else is ideology, that is, a simple invention capable only of dividing, and where everything is divided into "right" and "wrong".

The reality is that 2+2=4 and any other result is false... How do I know it's false? Because any other result that isn't "4" leads to consequences.

Things are not right or wrong, but they either work or they DON'T: "4" is the only possibility, the only sustainable result for which we can take conscious responsibility.

This is being pragmatic (I recommend you watch my short video "Separating Truth from Ideology" to delve deeper into this important aspect: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3YWh0v0lzI).

Conclusion

Effective leadership must reflect and foster the natural dynamics that guide us, condition us, and which we cannot break free from in any way.

We only have two options: follow our instincts, which are totally controlled by our ego and idealized by false guides, especially in recent times, without paying the slightest attention to understanding the true state of things; or understand and follow the laws, forces, and dynamics of nature that have been revealed to us in the past by great philosophers and enlightened spiritual leaders.

These "teachings" have often been contested, even harshly, but no one has ever been able to prove them wrong.

In the latter case, the road is certainly more difficult, but it is the only one that can be taken, being the one where "what works" prevails over what "what's right".

We used to call it the "right path".