This is a question I’ve been asking a lot lately. Both in
politics, and about myself as a leader. The reality of life is that no one is
perfect, and therefore it is unreasonable to expect that from our leaders. But
that does not mean that we should not strive for and try to reach it. We still
need to be critical of anyone in a leadership position, but we should be
somewhat forgiving of their mistakes, especially when they try to make up for
them. All of us as individuals are flawed as well, meaning that we probably
could not pick, or for that matter create, a perfect leader even if we had one.
Therefore, we will have to, at some point, pursue good with
a bad leader. There really is not a way around that. It’s all well and good to
have noble aims, but we do need to implement them somehow. This usually
requires someone heading the effort in some sense. And there’s no way to find a
not-flawed person for the job, as we are all flawed in some sense.
But the classification of good/bad is not a binary, it’s a
gradient. So how good should our leaders be? And where is the line drawn for
their mistakes?
For me, I think that line certainly changes person to
person, but also with their goals and promises. If they commit an error that
goes against their aims, then they are an unsuitable leader. You have to be
able to practice what you preach. And if they promise to act or provide
something and go against that, then they are also out of line there.
So it’s really something that changes based on the situation
and the person. But leaders have to be capable of keeping their core values
close to their heart. They have to prove that they have some integrity.
Personally I also value the ability to admit that you are wrong and apologize
for it. There’s no room for pride or an ego when you are trying to serve other
people, which is what all leaders do in the end. So yes, we are all flawed, but
are you capable of admitting that?
No comments:
Post a Comment