some reflection of today's discussion
Today, someone argued that 'followers' is not a proper word in defining leadership because it might generate some confusion. However, as far as I see, once we used the word 'leader', the word 'follower' naturally followed. If we don't have followers or no one wants to be a follower, how can leaders come out?
And yes, I agree change is the enemy of leaders, but what I'm thinking about is change may be a friend of someone who is presenting to be a leader. For example, when Obama was presenting for the vote, change was the most frequent word he used in his speech. Obviously, people were encouraged and motivated by the change.
Paul said it was quite easy to rule or to dominate a country if the ruler had total authority, however, I'm afraid I'm going to doubt this statement. Take Egypt for an example again, were the pharaohs rulers instead of leaders? Did they control their people totally by their sovereign authority? I heard some arguments about the construction of pyramids. They claimed that it was difficult and painful work which was impossible forced by the command of pharaohs because where there is oppression, there is resistance. They believed there should be something else that led the slaves felt willing to do it. Some of them deemed it was the faith of god and others still seeking for it. Also, in ancient China, all the emperors had the supreme power and everyone must obey them. Was it easy to be an emperor and was ancient China easy to be control? It seemed the answer going to be no as most of the dynasty only existed for about 200 years and destructed by revolts. The longest one, Chou dynasty, lasted for no more than 800 years.