An Era of Leaderless Pretension and Lack of Leadership –

The pursuit of leadership is a hot topic in a slew of corporate, governmental, and academic forums, seminars, and workshops across the United States. Who is an ideal or realistic role model for this? It’s not clear what this term means. Where is it used in the real world? Is this a symptom of a more fundamental problem? I’m curious how someone gets to be described in this way. Finally, what justifies this level of personification? It is easy to lose track of what constitutes “leadership” when trying to define it through the prism of arbitrary definitional criteria. Believability can be defined and accepted in a variety of ways depending on the purpose of the forum. A training initiative may dictate the parameters by which these leader-oriented specifications are to be applied.

Psychodynamic considerations and their subsequent explanations cast a shadow over reality at the same time. There’s a squabble over the emergence of communal collectivism as a means of defining a boundary. Assumptions about whether or not a consensus-based leadership model is tainted by the very concept of leadership are based on this fact. “Leadership” is defined in the dictionary as the position or office held by a leader. An inquisitive inquisitor will see right through this and realise that it says nothing of substance. It’s a bit of a red herring. Now the enquirer must dig deeper, hopefully with an open mind and some solid educational and practical experience. There are a large number of what appear to be sentient beings in various offices or positions of “leadership” on a primal amative human level. But such a superficiality is haunted by reality.
A number of investigative questions from the past had the potential to lead to further investigation, which would mean delving deeper into profound meaning. Final conclusions in such a quest are left entirely up to the discretion of the investigator. When attempting to motivate and inspire young people at a local collegiate forum, defining the scope of “leadership” involves making a lot of assumptions. The mysterious notion that leadership implies the ability to lead is the focus of these basic, conclusive claims, which approach the realm of the supernatural and the unexplained. Consequently, the mythological notion of presupposed potentiality is cloaked. As an additional claim of dictionary notoriety, one claiming to be a case of leading, is thrown in. Thus, it appears that the ability to guide, direct, or motivate others in various directions is derived from this. Constant misunderstandings are the norm.

That’s where the mystical realms of preposterous speculations and egregious misconceptions begin to delve into the matter. All of which may or may not foster a diversity of viewpoints, depending on the location, culture, environment, and context. Adherents of different ideologies may have vastly different interpretations of the same event depending on their level of experiential capacity. Interactivity, for example, expresses competing interests in the reality of ongoing societal interaction, probability of conflict and contention. Understanding what it means to be a leader becomes more difficult because each person participating in the conversation has a unique combination of background, education, training, maturity, and immaturity. Non-professional academics, such as first responders, are an example of a typical interaction between these two groups.

In this article, the term “leaderless pretensions” refers to leading in an environment of intense interpersonal contact. To be a successful leader today, one must have the maturity and wisdom that only comes from years of serious interaction with other people. Those environments that are concerned with the safety and security of the public and the property of others are included in this category. These are the arenas where first responders, military personnel, and private security contractors work tirelessly to keep others safe. The authenticity of well-differentiated individuals emerges from these ranks, and they are strikingly different from managers and supervisors in this regard. Leadership in public service is distinct from that of profit continuity, consumptive oriented marketing or professional sports, Hollywood celebrities, or political ascendance.

Possibly, there are at least five types of alleged leadership in this regard. Academic, corporate, political, celebrity, and public safety services are among the possibilities. All of this is, at best, debatable and speculative. As a result, the focus here is on those who risk their lives for the sake of others. Among these, a few rise to the lofty heights of what might be called leadership. What we call “skin in the game” leadership comes from those who have put their lives on the line to serve their communities and country, and thus, it is a courageous endeavour to influence others in positive ways. The leader conveys the organisational structure’s mission, goals, and motivational means through the use of that special positivity for transforming creativity. There is no confrontation or patronising condescension involved in this process. It’s not enough for a person to be a leader if they are able to demonstrate competence and professionalism. In this case, she or he leads the way, rather than simply pointing the way. Leaders are a rare breed of “warrior” in the post-modern era.

Since the postmodern era has brought about a deliberate softening of society, as well as retreats into childhood fears and anxieties, the idea of being a warrior is shunned. The essence of a warrior is at the heart of psychodynamic leadership personification. Frighteningly, it is fear that encourages retrenchment in a primal refusal to ascend to higher levels of maturity. Leaders, on the other hand, are drawn to the ferocity of their mission. Rituals of passage play a critical role in laying the groundwork for an individual’s sense of adventure. It takes a lot of guts to reject childish selfishness in favour of self-evolution through differentiation in the service of ascension. In order to progress as a leader, it is essential to focus on the importance of trials and difficulties in the maturation process, pain and pleasure, losing and winning. Isn’t leadership something that comes with being elected, appointed, or drafted to an office in life? There are profound decisions to be made in the transition from childish narcissism to mature wisdom.

As the “mind” is fortified against the concocted consensus of the many, the willful assertion of independence challenges the foolishness of conventionality. One yearns for the next challenge in leadership in order to learn another essential differentiation component. Accountability demands personal restitution while responsibility haunts every willful thought into action. Analyzing one’s own thoughts and feelings in great depth exposes the naiveté of complaining about one’s predicament, situation, or surroundings as an immature form of self-expression. Leaders learn to put aside their silly egoistic preoccupations and focus on the bigger picture instead of their own petty ambitions. Understanding the importance of delving into the shadows of one’s own shadow is one of the more enlightening outcomes of growing one’s leadership capacity. A warrior’s path is paved with blood and fire.

Stasis is preferred by lesser personalities because of their cowardice and laziness, as well as their desire for a safe and secure mediocrity. Leaders, on the other hand, are not content with the motionless and redundant inertia of uncreative repetition. For the majority, the mundane comfort of collective enslavement is satisfied by the tired dogmas of ideological oppression. Concocted moral standards that are intellectually impoverished are relied upon by many who crave their adherence to rules that have no legal validity. Dishonest moralities are asserted through a concocted consensus that lacks rational consistency, social utility, or psychological efficacy. Several decades ago, a wise man in the woods near a pond pondered the importance of obeying little and defying much. There is no deviance or rule-breaking outside of established legal boundaries, except for those to which one subscribes through force of will. Leaders are aware of the importance of freedom for each individual..

To be sure, mainstream complicity makes it difficult to express the urgent need for true responsibility through authentic accountability. In order to get a taste of this momentary showmanship, the audience is forced to submit to a cast of condescending normalcy. The social script conspires for communal sameness by promoting a fabricated consensus of primal carnality, to the detriment of amative creativity. The echo of authentic mindful innovation is rarely heard in the sanctuary of wiser realms of maturation and personal liberation. As the crowd grows louder and louder, the divine spark of self-evolution beyond commonality is drowned out by the din. Adversity is a possibility when one strives for blameless persistence through determined differentiation. The spouting of hollow rhetoric in an era of leaderless pretensions reflects the times’ cowardice.
In spite of the lofty arrogance of political masquerades, authentic leaders relentlessly pursue righteous endeavours in the face of social decay. As a result, attempts to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos have failed miserably due to the woeful ignorance of human nature and nature’s universal unknowns. Sleight of hand misdirection of pseudo-intellectual complacencies is often used by fools to express their ignorance. The vast puzzle of intricate planetary possibilities, on the other hand, teaches leaders that many questions remain unanswered and difficult to understand or solve. Contrarily, many people will believe anything, regardless of the evidence, and the majority will resist any attempt at personal growth or development Individual “divinely inspired creative evolution” requires a deep level of self-awareness before it can be fully grasped. Because of its nature and upbringing, “super-heroic necessity,” or the “superman,” as one writer called it, must rise above basic humanistic tendencies, reflecting on earlier writings about overcoming humanness.