Not a Savior, a leader. Leaders required for change. As Ted points out, Taylor has already demonstrated many of the qualities of an extraordinary leader. She needs great people around her (like Ted) to make it happen. Do-able.
Not a Savior, a leader. Leaders required for change. As Ted points out, Taylor has already demonstrated many of the qualities of an extraordinary leader. She needs great people around her (like Ted) to make it happen. Do-able.
You're wrong about that. The best leaders take on the role reluctantly, accept the mantle of responsibility with much trepidation. They are the ones who have other things they'd rather be doing, but understand and recognise the need for what they will do; they are the ones with integrity who understand power and dread its effect, yet will use it because they must. A leader will lead by guiding people in what must be done, and establishing systems that empower them to achieve it without him; a "saviour" revels in the role, taking on as much of the responsibility as he can in order to maximise the glory and adulation he believes is his due, as the "saviour".
I agree completely, that being said, itтАЩs fair to point out the difference between someone who wants to be a savior (as we describe) and someone who people project saviorhood onto, as such the OP comment is kind of in reference to the latter but I think itтАЩs worded in such a way that makes it incomplete
Agreed, and I think the distinction there is just a labeling issue - for example [hw] probably either doesn't like the idea that leadership is required, or has something against the leader in question, so he disparagingly labels them "saviour" irrespective of their motivations, virtues or qualifications.
Actually those who choose to lead generally fail. The best leaders have emerged when a confluence of events have forced no other choice and they rise to the occasion.
Usually people who want to be saviors will seek out leadership (which is why so many shitty ppl r in leadership, among other reasons)
Someone whoтАЩs INVITED into leadership is typically far better/apt than someone who seeks to be a leader. We invite leaders to lead when we see their capacity to do so effectively
Not a Savior, a leader. Leaders required for change. As Ted points out, Taylor has already demonstrated many of the qualities of an extraordinary leader. She needs great people around her (like Ted) to make it happen. Do-able.
No, a leader chooses the role...a savior has leadership forced on him/her.
You're wrong about that. The best leaders take on the role reluctantly, accept the mantle of responsibility with much trepidation. They are the ones who have other things they'd rather be doing, but understand and recognise the need for what they will do; they are the ones with integrity who understand power and dread its effect, yet will use it because they must. A leader will lead by guiding people in what must be done, and establishing systems that empower them to achieve it without him; a "saviour" revels in the role, taking on as much of the responsibility as he can in order to maximise the glory and adulation he believes is his due, as the "saviour".
Thanks for that, you saved a lot of typing for me.
I agree completely, that being said, itтАЩs fair to point out the difference between someone who wants to be a savior (as we describe) and someone who people project saviorhood onto, as such the OP comment is kind of in reference to the latter but I think itтАЩs worded in such a way that makes it incomplete
Agreed, and I think the distinction there is just a labeling issue - for example [hw] probably either doesn't like the idea that leadership is required, or has something against the leader in question, so he disparagingly labels them "saviour" irrespective of their motivations, virtues or qualifications.
Actually those who choose to lead generally fail. The best leaders have emerged when a confluence of events have forced no other choice and they rise to the occasion.
Usually people who want to be saviors will seek out leadership (which is why so many shitty ppl r in leadership, among other reasons)
Someone whoтАЩs INVITED into leadership is typically far better/apt than someone who seeks to be a leader. We invite leaders to lead when we see their capacity to do so effectively
If there's anyone who will not suffer anything being forced on them it's Taylor Swift.
Please reread your comment...
She hasn't a clue.
Seriously? You're going thereтАж?
man did you even read the letter
Yes. My comment was more of a solution comment.
hey, good for you!