After being faced with many instances of poor leadership in my own life of late. I thought I’d bitch about it as Antisophie. I find myself, after conversing with Michael and Prime about this, in a bit of a dialectic. Is a leader better when distant from his troop, or one with them? Is it better for the leader to be seen on the same terms and on the same level, or transcendent of the people he commands? If any question-begging is to be made, it is to this issue unresolvable in my mind. Let me state some antinomies
A leader should be present/distant
A leader should be above her subordinates/of her subordinates
A leader should care/a leader should bring fear
A leader should unite her group/A leader should stress the independence and individuality of each member
A leader should communicate and be communicated to often/A leader should be feared and distant, inaccessible
People are to be called good leaders in many different ways; whether they are benevolent, whether they are commanding, whether they are themselves strong members. But, despite the antinomy. A leader should mark themselves along these poles of antinomies purposefully and tactfully; not enter in without consideration of what kind of administration she will run.