Who makes the best leaders, those with an ego or those without? Well, if you have noticed the school system in the US is turning out or attempting to turn out “Ego-Free" graduates, yet one has to question this in the real world. Can they function, can they lead?
Not long ago a recent graduate told me that I am a business man and thus my approach is appropriate to that venue, but in building teams ego is bad? Interestingly enough, I have been involved in many things in my life, not only business and it appears to me that an earned ego is always valuable. Weakness is problematic and leads to leaderless qualities.
Should business really stop having leaders with ego? Well some books such as “Good to Great" by Collins (Stanford Bus Professor) seem to believe that the ego-less approach is best and if we look at the CEO for Wal-Mart for instance we see that a non-public ego works well. Of course, this notion of a non-ego strategy for leadership is somewhat of a socialist concept.
I sure like opportunity for the individual, your son or daughter for instance and their future ability towards liberty and freedom you see. If you lose a sense of self, then the individual does not matter only the whole, but the whole always does better when all the individuals are strongest, free to innovate and do what they do best, which is most likely what they choose.
If you look at civilizations and Golden Ages they seem to flourish, such as Florence did in its day when the individual counts for more. I know this is philosophy, but I think it is relevant and thus unless someone can provide a better argument for ego-less followers to run human civilization, I think I will stick with what I know works. How about you?
L. Winslow is an Economic Advisor to the Online Think Tank, a Futurist and retired entrepreneur http://www.worldthinktank.net . Currently he is planning a bicycle ride across the US to raise money for charity and is sponsored by http://www.Calling-Plans.com and all the proceeds will go to various charities who sign up.