安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
so does that mean leaders are always stillborn or aborted? because if they are made and are never born, then there is no other way to say it. So if that true then there are no leaders out on this earth.
utterly stupid saying.
I enjoyed your post!
I'd like to add to it. :)
In European "prehistoric" periods, there is growing evidence that women were more often leaders in their tribes than men. (I forget the cites, and there's too much fluff to rummage through atm. Will look if demanded, tho! :))
But, a "change" took place.
As small groups grew and settled into more territorially dependent enclaves (agriculture/husbandry), men seemed to rise in leadership roles. There's an intriguing assumption, here.
While it hasn't really ever been shown that women were not warriors, it is obvious that more surviving clans had more male warriors than others. Men are just better, physically, at killing and fighting skills and their results. /shrug
Ritual combat is normal for primitive peoples as it reduces death and injury... Skirmishing and raids follow and, with escalation, combat prowess becomes much more important. As territorial disputes and conflict rise, the benefits for organized warfare become more pronounced. And, as that grows, the advantages and benefits in terms relative to the group/clan for effective leaders in organized warfare start to take precedence. Those men produce more for the group than others.
It's sort of a "Organized Warfare Leads to Male Dominated Societies in Ancient Times" theory. As male warriors with exceptional leadership and skill rose, they displaced the traditional female clan heads because their individual contributions were seen as more valuable. They were simply seen as "more worthy" or more desirable as leaders due to social evolution. As warfare involved in scale and scope with the size of the cultures and territory they claimed, men became the more traditional "leader" than the women of smaller clan, less warlike, societies.
When other systems are more valued, this is certainly not always the case. Many ancient cultures have had significant female leadership. And, in heritable leadership, that was true too, up to a point where specific cultural demands began to dictate male rule.
When property ownership started to change to patrilineal hierarchies, that may have signaled the true end to equality in leadership for a very long time. (Decline of Roman empire? Dunno)
I agree.
Leadership is a set of developmental cognitive and sentient skillsets.
Think of it like a toolbox. You've got your cognitive tools, and your emotional tools.
If you use your emotional tools for a cognitive problem, it's inefficient.
And if you use your cognitive tools for an emotional problem, it's inefficient.
Leadership comes from learning how to use both of these things properly and keeping your ego out of it. Because as soon as you get cocky, that'll be when you screw up. 100% guaranteed. Genuine confidence doesn't gloat and chase clout, it just exists and substantiates in its silent efficiency of being.
It also does kind of depend on what the objective goal is, or even if the goal is objective at all, the goal might in fact be subjective rather than objective which is, an entirely different thing.
My point is that genetics has nothing to do with it at all, it's all skill-based, and knowing how and what to use and when to use said skills.
Unfortunately, yes. Which is also why they tend to lose them as well.
Management does not hire its own competition, but also those same said managers who won't hire their competition are equally up the creek without a paddle due to their narcissism. Which is how and why they end up getting rotated so easily and so frequently.
See, what it is, and what people think it is, are two totally different things.
But only someone who is actively trying to be good at what they do for a living is going to be applying themselves enough to the development of their job requirements in order to be able to deduce that.
The other mf, is just gonna be like "yeah whatever I'm awesome" and then make a complete fool out of themselves. And the saddest part about this type, is that really can scale all the way up to the ladder of the founder of the company and sometimes so does, which ultimately costs them their business in the long run as a result.
But, what if the King was so inbred it made them a bad leader instead of a good one?
1% of leaders are outside of the aforementioned architecture and regularly targeted, hunted down, framed, assassinated, etc.