Benevolent vs Malevolent Leadership
Hello guys,
once again, it's a simple idea. Some people will say "oh but we already heard about it! It's the "good" vs "evil" shtick". It is and isn't. It's based on it. However, it's more of a mindset.
We accept malevolent leaders as top leaders (Trump, again) and we cannot help it. But we beat around the bush (pun non intended). For each leader, I think it would be useful to think:
"Is this guy/girl a benevolent leader or a malevolent leader?".
We all do it subconsciously. However, I'm talking about doing it consciously. Where is the cutoff? I would say we can use the facts. Number of people killed, money stolen, behavior in public and private, etc.
I would say: "mostly" benevolent or "mostly" malevolent to be more exact. Also the following idea:
What are the chances this leader will turn (more) malevolent with increased power?
The question that was not answered yet in this post is: what is benevolent and malevolent?
I'm taking the "definition" (don't know if it's really one) from Evolutionary biology: It's how much you benefit or hurt the group.
A "good" (helpless/intelligent) person helps the group". A "bad" (bandit/stupid) person harms the group.
From Cipolla. (great thinker)
What do you think?
Cheers!
It is an insightful perspective to view the subject of leadership.
Helpless people are naive collaborators.
They help others regardless of whether those they help are value-takers or collaborative individuals.
Bandits are proud value-takers like entitled leaders, manipulative Machievallis, etc.
These people sometimes climb to become malevolent leaders as John states.
Intelligent people are enlightened collaborators.
Always finding win-win solutions and crafting win-win situations for everyone.
They build collaborative relationships.
We all do it subconsciously. However, I'm talking about doing it consciously. Where is the cutoff? I would say we can use the facts. Number of people killed, money stolen, behavior in public and private, etc.
I am on the same page that facts are the key.
If we don't use facts, populist leaders would always appeal to emotions to win elections.
But they do not necessarily have the best interests of the people in mind.
Even though quite often they gain a sizeable number of supporters through appealing to emotions.
Intelligent people are enlightened collaborators.
Helpless people are naive collaborators.
Bandits are proud value-takers like entitled leaders, manipulative Machievallis, etc.
Exactly! Nice parallels.
Even though quite often they gain a sizeable number of supporters through appealing to emotions.
In a way, this would be about applying the value-giving and value-taking to leadership.
And to measure it, one should find a way to quantify how much value was given, or taken.
I think that, once free of major personal biases and once one is power-aware enough to see beyond manipulation, we all have a relatively good idea of what's value-taking and what's value-adding.
But measuring would bring more clarity, and probably add lots of value to the whole world, if decisions on who should advance were based on value-balances.
I think that, once free of major personal biases and once one is power-aware enough to see beyond manipulation, we all have a relatively good idea of what's value-taking and what's value-adding.
Yes, on an individual level. But at the country level, we are blind as bats. Don't you think?
But measuring would bring more clarity, and probably add lots of value to the whole world, if decisions on who should advance were based on value-balances.