Some thoughts on leadership, not directed at anyone in particular, but
rather at several individuals I've known. While I don't expect anyone to
be inspired or enlightened by it, I feel it's a nice change from the
typical threats and childish name calling seen here.

There are as many types of leaders as there are people who need leading,
but generalization makes discussion easier. 'Good' leaders are those who
lead by force of personality, work for the good of the group, and listen
to those with disagreements. The so-called 'Bad' leaders then, are the
ones more interested in personal power, and rule through fear,
intimidation, and force. Typically, from the perspective of the lesser
peons, it is far more desirable to serve a good leader than a bad. They
are the ones who tend to be concerned with justice, and treating all
sides fairly, since they listen to those with differing opinions. Good
leaders can motivate their followers to act in ways that is most
beneficial to the group, even if it is against the best interest of the
individual. Thus, the organization runs smoothly, some degree of
equality is achieved, the people are happy. Idealists might say that all
people would opt to follow such a person, and that all bad leaders would
be thrown out, given enough time. -As a side note, idealists tend to
make terrible leaders, for completely different reasons.

However, the definition of bad leadership I used here does not imply
inefficiency or ineffective leadership. An organization that follows
only one voice, with one objective, is often quite strong. Only the most
dedicated to the leader's cause will be allowed to stay in the group,
and they will fight all the stronger against those outside with no one
within to disagree. If a group is too dissimilar, very little will be
accomplished by listening to endless dissenters, save with the efforts
of exceptionally gifted leaders. Not many are up to that task, though,
and even the ones that are may grow tired of listening to every opinion.
From the perspective of group unity and certainly from the leader's
point of view, bad leaders have a distinct advantage over good.

Why then, would I refer to them as bad? Even those who are not strong
supporters could be persuaded by fear, and bad leaders have only need to
make their most devoted followers happy. Put simply, it is easier to be
a bad leader. It is also far easier to fail as a bad leader. Make the
peons too discontent, and they will rise up. Put your trust in too many
power-hungry, selfish individuals(and unfortunately, if they didn't have
these characteristics, they probably wouldn't follow a bad leader), and
they will attempt to grab power away from their superior. Leading by
fear is a continual struggle to be more feared than anyone around you,
and yet not hated so much that any alternative would seem better. With
no one to disagree with a leader's policies, it is difficult to gauge
how they will be received, or to generate interest in new projects.
People who live in fear cannot trust, and without trust, the slightest
problem within the organization quickly becomes magnified. In the end,
the people will turn on bad leaders, or they will run.

On the other hand, too often are good leaders mistaken as weak(or they
are, in fact), and there will always be people too greedy or selfish or
ignorant to choose the wiser path. They grab for what power they can,
without regard to the inevitable price. Even loyal followers make
mistakes, too. Looking back, there were people I should have had more
faith in their ability to lead, and others less. Such is life, and the
nature of the fallibility of mortals, living or undead. I believe in one
truth, though: When bad leaders fail, or are replaced, they find few to
no allies in the end. When good leaders fail, there will still be those
who support them, and remember them afterwards. Truly, immortality is
earned.

Penned by my hand on the 16th of Lanosian, in the year 209 MA.