“Leadership dictates morale.”
In the concept of leadership, we strive to find many things. To lead by example, to be a driving force of compassion, to hold up to expectations of guiding rules and laws, and to defend those which are lead. Simple really, right? How often do we desire to find these things in ourselves and in others that aspire to 'lead'. How often do we examine the ethics and principals of our 'leaders'?
We question a lot of what our 'leaders' say and do, and for good reason. We do so in hope to find them, and ourselves, in line or in tune to the various things that govern our daily lives. We compare ideals, goals, aspirations,...we evaluate their ability to 'lead' us by our evaluation of their interpretations of our concepts. That alone likely weeds out many. Judging others by our standards. It is exactly how we select those who would be our leaders. Then we hold them to their duty by our regulation of their applications of our desire. Beginning to sound like a position that is highly unlikely to be sought after now doesn’t it?
“The actions and deeds of our leaders mandate the acceptance of their ability to lead, and their words encourage others to follow.”
Actions will always speak louder than words, and although action and words both can be set to lie or deny the truth, we sometimes fall unto our desire to see, or hear, truth despite actuality. We deceive ourselves for our desire to be in agreeance with our leaders, sometimes. Other times, we see the disagreement between our desire and that of our leaders to be in direct conflict and ability to generate action-ability. We too hold our leaders in check by what we ask of them to do, and by what they are able to do, and in so can easily find fault and lay blame that is truly undue. On the other hand, many known 'leaders' have found fault in their followers based on the same premise. Both are unjust toward the other.
“The expectations of our leaders must be as real and justified as in their ability to preform such duties.”
Many times have we allowed others to rise up to the function if not the position of leadership, by their eloquent words, single deeds, or series of 'victories' of some such ideal to be championed. These 'champions of ideals' are hero’s, but not necessarily leaders. Sometimes there are those who achieved goals, but lack the ability to hold influence and maintain an action-ability of leadership. Or, worse yet, we change our minds and redirect influence and new goals outside the endorsement of the current leader. The fault in leadership isn't always in faulty leadership, and much can be shared, if not owned, by those under the individual(s) who lead.
“It is a higher value, to know how much one cares, than by how much one knows. For Knowledge is the measure of what one has retained in memory and is the first step toward understanding. Wisdom is the application of knowledge when there is experience in circumstance, or is judgment based on circumstance when there is no previous experience nor knowledge of proper action. However, without compassion, neither knowledge nor experience, will serve leadership well, nor those who would follow.”
Leadership is a position that must be able to foster and maintain mutual respect. Our leaders should be able to give and harbor respect toward all who would come to them, regardless of station or position. And if we do not hold respect toward our leaders, then we fail them and our fellows in being able to foster strong leadership. Not all leaders can earn nor keep the respect of those they would lead, and ofttimes that is a good measure of their true ability to be able to lead. Here too, we must remember to gauge that ability by facts and not opinion. Opinion is necessary in debate of leadership ability, but all who would desire to become or maintain leadership, must be judged on factual ability, experience, knowledge and measure of compassion beyond their desire, willingness and drive.