What Makes a True Leader? Hierarchy vs. Reflexivity

Life coaches, guides, whatever they call themselves.. ultimately: People who claim that they can guide you in your wellbeing journey. I’ve seen a number of therapists and life coaches, attended numerous workshops, study philosophy and psychology, because I’m passionate about self development, because I like to explore alternative modalities, guidance and perspectives and because I’ve needed the help. but none of us as a whole are perfectly content enlightened human beings, so who can qualify to give you the guidance? And what determines that? What makes someone a good guide or leader? Is it knowledge? Experience? Someone who’s suffered the most/least? Intellect? confidence? Humility? It’s interesting… and I suppose it’s tied to your values. I think that’s ultimately how you choose the help you receive. Relfexivity is something I look for, along with humility, dialectical thinking, embodiment. The kind of things I strive for, but miss sometimes. Similarly it kind of mirrors who you might look for romantically because it’s a person you want to feel comfortable being vulnerable with. An equal, a superior and an opposite to you type of person. 'guidance' might simply be the most intimate form of collaborative growth. My biggest life coach and guide right now is James. Not because he sits there in the lotus position giving me words of wisdom or because he sends me a script of wise words. It’s because of his interactions with me. Some of those interactions piss me off. And I have to really think about why I’m pissed off. I have to think about whether the interaction with him is surfacing something for me to reflect on, I have to think about my needs and my limitations, and I have to overcome fears to do that. But he’s also my biggest cheerleader and he supports my thoughts and dreams and does everything he can for me to achieve what I want. From career aspirations to the ideas I have for food that day. I think the best leader isn’t someone who knows what to do when things are going well but rather when everything is going wrong. What happens when there is rupture, disagreement, misunderstanding, or hurt? The actions following, are, to me, what determines someone to be a good leader or not. That’s where embodiment becomes visible. Because embodiment is not: “Can someone write poetically about consciousness?” It’s more: “Can they remain relationally accountable when emotionally challenged?” That creates a gap between: the values being preached and the relational behaviour being enacted. depth is complicated. People can have real insight and still have blind spots, defensiveness, ego attachment, or poor relational repair skills. Humans are rarely all one thing. I recently had disagreement with someone in a leadership role whos idea of what made a good leader held the following beliefs: Experience matters. Hierarchy matters Initiatory experiences matter Not all perspectives are equally informed. Some people genuinely have wisdom others don’t yet have. That’s true in many areas of life but It’s also important not to lean too heavy into anything being all good or all bad but more ☯️ that there is good in the bad and bad in the good for all things. Because these things if unbalanced come with rigidity, spiritual elitism, status inflation, confusing authority with truth, interpreting disagreement as immaturity, losing openness to unexpected insight my model of beliefs for positive leadership: Wisdom emerges in relationship. No one sees the whole picture. Those in Power should always be accountable. Curiosity matters more than hierarchy. Every human can reveal blind spots in another. That also contains a lot of truth. But the danger of that model is flattening real expertise, considering all perspectives as equally developed, difficulty maintaining leadership where it’s required, every perspective becomes valid even when it’s not, undervaluing discipline and long-term practice. I think the deeper question becomes: “What imbalance does each worldview risk when taken too far?” I think the best leadership recognises that they can’t lean too much into any extreme and instead, considers all angles. enough hierarchy to recognize experience, responsibility, and earned wisdom AND enough reflexivity to remain teachable and accountable Without hierarchy: no transmission, no mentorship, no lineage, no craft refinement Without reflexivity: authority calcifies and becomes self-protective

The user reflects on the nature of 'guides' and leaders, questioning who qualifies to offer guidance and what determines a good one. They contrast different leadership models, emphasizing the importance of relational accountability, embodiment, and balancing hierarchy with reflexivity to avoid rigidity and spiritual elitism, ultimately proposing that the best leadership acknowledges and integrates all angles.

a great question, who gets to be a guide

I find your intuition remarkably accurate, the move away from rigid structure, the trust in relational wisdom grown between people as moments continue to reveal new angles, even through what's initially upsetting. I dont believe that requires hierarchy though, me it feels more natural that transmission can move through that same process, experience and expertise can still be recognized without some being seen as below or behind, only different, made difficult by the way the brain has evolved to categorize social status designed for a time when everything was much scarcer, less available than what we now find. Honestly I dont think we need leaders, something more like trust in our own ability to grow together