Modern day leadership terminology was coined due the carnage wrought from two world wars. The results were a leadership style that’s now taught in military training. The business world later adopted and refined the term to reflect practices deemed appropriate for gaining competitive advantage in free market economies, where the goal is wealth acquisition for material consumption.
Over time, leadership terminology has defined different approaches that reflects various national, cultural and social interests, meaning that there are differing philosophical approaches to leadership depending on the venue it supports.
moral persuasive leadership
We describe the core leadership function as “collaborative experiences for collective endeavors”. The principle that guides it is that humankind, in all its diversity, is a single unique species.
“A great leader is an ordinary person with extraordinary wisdom.”
It entwines wisdom and intent to give credence to leadership in ways that remain consistent with high moral standards and ethical norms and practices. It’s a process that’s viewed through the prism of ‘self’ that reflects personal idealism and action.
This leadership shows integrity, is visionary, exercises forbearance, has a high capacity for personal sacrifice, and remains committed to a challenge.
It’s leadership free of prejudice in its dealings with those of diverse ethnic, cultural, social, and religious persuasions, maintains an abiding affinity for civic duties, comes endowed with enormous energy, abstains from nefarious activities, is undeviating in its commitment to justice, and is vociferous in spearheading positive directional change in human affairs.
This is our view of moral persuasive leadership. We must place it into service to manage human affairs.