Webster’s dictionary 11th ed. Defines a leader as “1: something that leads 2: a person who leads: as a: guide b(1) a person who directs a military force or unit (2) a person who has commanding authority of influence…” This definition sets a firm ground from which we can ask the question what makes a good or even great leader? From a biological and anthropological stand point the answer is simple: All social creatures seek the strongest possible leader. That may be a no brain-er statement however it brings up the secondary question of what is a strong leader? It is hard wired into our genetic makeup to seek out a leader that is dominant, commands respect, and can provide adequate food, shelter, and safety to those lower in the hierarchal structure. While humans have evolved beyond being ruled exclusively by the flight or fight response it is still necessary to qualify the instinctual inclination for picking a leader before moving into the more complex and humanitarian side of leadership. To be a great leader you must first fulfill the primal leadership requirements, the two I chose to discuss are dominance and security.
The first requirement for primal leadership is that the person must have a dominant personality and command the respect of the people to be lead. This is a fairly easy concept; submissive personalities just cannot lead with out they themselves being led. History is filled with dozens upon dozens of figurehead leaders and puppet monarchs, but rather than dwelling on their failures I’d rather prove my point by an example of a truly great leader with a hell of a back bone.
Queen Elizabeth I reigned for 45 years and “… is considered one of England’s best monarchs.” She controlled every aspect of the goings on of her country while being kind and just. “She was the ultimate decider and was able to determine issues of her nation’s religion, when Parliament would sit and what it would discuss, when and if her...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document