Do we Need Leaders?

In this short video, Graham Hancock is speaking on the idea of why we need leaders in the first place. This is a new perspective for our class, as we are talking about the importance of inspirational leaders but Hancock takes the opposite approach. How do you feel about his statement? Do you think he is denouncing leadership as a whole? Do you agree or disagree with his point?

Graham Hancock's argument is one that I partially agree with. I do believe that relying solely on figures in leadership positions can have a detrimental affect on a group - when individuals only rely on them.

A leader should not be someone who everyone else puts responsibilities on; they are meant to guide others. Hancock misunderstands what a leader is when he claims that humanity (and, more specifically, those that follow leaders) are like infants. Leadership roles don't need to be reduced - those that follow them need to take more responsibility.

I understand the point that Hancock is trying to make (at least the point that I think he is trying to make) that individuals should take on leadership roles in their everyday lives and take responsibility for their own lives, rather than rely on leaders to treat them like "infants." I do think there is some truth in this view in terms of the idea that "we need to become our own leaders" because I think having this ability to lead in our everyday lives can increase our quality of life in general. However, I think that Hancock fundamentally misunderstands what a leader is. A true, beneficial leader is supposed to inspire others and ultimately help other people achieve whatever task or goal they need to accomplish, not to be some authoritarian figure who makes decisions for others. I think the very nature of our Honors 100 class proves Hancock's argument invalid because obviously we are all leaders and have leadership qualities, yet there are still leadership roles within our class like the Wiki Manager or Social Media Manager. It is possible for people to be their own individual leaders, while more official leadership figures exist as well.

I can understand where Hancook gets this idea of society being immature because most individuals rely on others to do things for them, which promotes an unable body. However, leadership itself isn't the issue. It is the leaders that society has chosen to follow. Society has lost its ability to judge character and qualities, making it very difficult to have qualified and justified leaders. If society continues on the path it is on, Hancook may be right.

Hancock takes a very interesting approach on the idea of leadership. Although I agree that we all need to be our own leaders, I also believe that it is important to share your ideas with others and inspire them to join you in your mission. I agree that there should not be a "celebrity" or "high profile" leader in every situation but I think all members of a group should take some type of leadership position in order to drive a mission forward. I also agree with Hancock that we need administrators to organize groups.

I understand what Hancock is explaining and it does make sense. He is explain how we all need to be leaders in life and there is no need for one leader to be famous or so celebrated. I do agree that we need to be our own leaders, but how can any organization, government or group run successfully without one person who will make the final decision. People are always going to disagree and you cannot please everyone so a leader needs to make sure that a majority are happy with certain outcomes. No one wants to be the "bad guy" that passed a bad bill in government or decreased pay to certain employees, but someone has to do the job. We need the higher up leaders so that things can get down in work. However, this leaders followers need to make sure that he or she is doing their job correctly and for the common good otherwise leaders are unnecessary.

I can't say I completely disagree with what Hancock is saying here. I think it is an incredibly interesting comparison he makes between humanity and infants, how acknowledging the fact that we need leadership is the same as an infant needing guardians to care for them. to essentially make every decision for them. Do I think we are all equivalent to babies because we appreciate leadership and being guided? No. But I think it is really important to look at this whole idea of leadership and the praise we put upon it, how we as a society allow certain people to influence us based on external forces like fame, money, or charisma. In the end, I think that we are all people, and knowing how we feel on certain issues and decisions is extremely important for ourselves. However, if we want to focus on improvement in areas outside of ourselves, for the good of the whole, it is vital that we acknowledge that delegating one person/body to organize, to mediate, and even to influence, will yield results more efficiently and effectively.