Hello friends of the Project hope community.
For this occasion I want to share with all of you a personal philosophy about leadership.
Being a leader or having implicit leadership characteristics is something that I consider very privileged, not all of us have leadership qualities, so it is a constant search for leadership traits that can be obtained today. Historically it has always been a constant search for people with leadership traits, so I think that certain context has a very valid reason, and is that it is necessary that there is a commitment and responsibility on the reins and course of a company, country, government entity or any entity that needs a leader to manage the development processes of that institution.
One way to understand this need is to see how there were institutions in the past that were governed by a single man, and in turn his name in some way or another had to do with the institution they lead, for example the existing reviews of some manuscripts that point to philosophical writings such as: "The Republic of Plato".
When we see that the traits of a person can elevate him as a leader and at the same time personify a behavior that leads him to command a certain entity, it is then when many of us ask ourselves:
Before talking about these qualities, I want to emphasize that the fact that a person is considered a leader does not mean that he is a good person, an example of this is Adolf Hitler, I think no one has doubts about whether he was a leader, really this character dragged masses of people following him under the same ideal, however we already know that Hitler was one of the greatest genocides in history.
The fact that a person is good does not mean that he/she is automatically a leader, however we can analyze some characters in history who were good and were leaders, as is the case of Jesus Christ (Jesus of Nazareth).
Both leaders of good influence and leaders of bad influence have something in common, and it is the fact that both drag multitudes, the only thing that differentiates them are their skills and behaviors, logically for one to be bad and the other good they have to differ in this, however each of these attitudes must carry implicit qualities or traits, these traits or qualities are not of interest to me in this post, so it is not necessary to explain them because perhaps many of you know them, the important thing is that the differences of these traits is what gives a classification in leadership.
There are autocratic leaders, while in its counterpart there are leaders who are good managers and consult everything so they lack authoritarianism, thus we can continue evaluating traits that provide us with differences in leadership, the important thing is that my philosophy of leadership personally boils down to say that being a leader only depends largely on the ability to drag and convince large crowds of people.
