There is quite a bit of debate out there on which type of human leader is best. Is it the Arnold Governator Type, John Wayne Ronald Reagan type or the mellow fellow who builds consensus and is a silent motivator guiding the company?
Is passion, strength, attachment and a dominating personality best suited for the modern CEO, or is it better to have a laid back high Emotional IQ leader in the oval office of the Corporation. Well some books such as “Good to Great” by Collins (Stanford Bus Professor) seem to believe that the latter approach is best and if we look at the CEO for Wal-Mart for instance we see the it does work for even the largest companies.
Of course, this notion of a non-ego strategy for leadership is somewhat of a socialist concept and I sure like opportunity for the individual, your son or daughter for instance and there 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. Still some believe that if the goals of the company are too tied to self-image then their task at leadership is much harder. One problem is the academia Business Schools seem to have been infiltrated and are changing what a CEO is, the question is what say you.