Intergalactic planetary, planetary, intergalactic

I looked briefly and there does not seem to be an area of leadership study concerned with interplanetary leadership. You are probably rereading that and thinking that I lost my mind. I beg of you not to call the white coats quite yet and to just play along as I work my way through this concept.

Are aliens real? I have no clue. The logical side of me says that there must be other forms of life somewhere in the universe. I don’t know this for sure and therefore can’t surmise that meeting an alien is realistic. But what if we did meet an alien? What leadership qualities would be needed if we were to interact with an alien race and try to make peace or simply communicate? Who would we want as our spokesperson for planet Earth? It would, most likely, be difficult to communicate with an alien as they probably don’t speak English or any other language on Earth. They may not even make sounds to speak hell I don’t know. Regardless, we would need a leader to adequately convey our culture and proceed cautiously through these interactions. An autocratic leader may come across as confrontational and we could be at war with another planet before we knew what was going on. We could have a laissez faire type leader that could portray weakness and indicate that we are not strong or developed. I imagine that there is some sort of protocol tucked away for if and when this actually happens.

This is all to say that the leadership qualities we would exude would have no consideration for the societal norms of an alien race merely because we would have no clue what they were. Shouldn’t we be leading with that mentality anyway? Are the leadership concepts we have been learning in this class, at their root, a means of social manipulation? Everything we learn about leadership indicates that the leadership style be reflective of the followers we work with. I see the importance of assessing one’s audience and catering programming to their needs but what we are talking about with leadership is different. We identify leaders as the people who make decisions for others. I would not match that up to leadership but that is what I think reality shows us in professional environments. There are a number of “leaders” who are terrible at their jobs but they keep their position because they are older, have a degree, worked at the company for a long time. These are bad reasons to put someone in a leadership position. I understand that I am taking some liberties with my assessment here but I see this stuff all around me and I can’t help but think that “leadership” is a blanket term used to describe a multitude of characteristics.

I was recently diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease. During the initial phases I sought out a number of medical opinion and one doctor described the concept of disease in a very memorable way. His name was Dr. Matt and he explained to me that the label of “Crohn’s Disease” is actually an encompassing term that accounts for a multitude of symptoms. Someone may suffer one symptom and still be diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease. Western medicine administers medications and treatments as a cure all approach when sometimes we just need to tweak one simple area of our body. Leadership is kind of similar. We ask people what they admire about someone who holds a leadership position and they might say that, “that person is a great leader”. What they really mean though is that that person has qualities that make them a great leader. They aren’t being forced to breakdown their reasoning and identify the specific characteristics that make someone effective. Someone may be considered a great leader because they are smart. They may not have anything else in their repertoire but they are still considered a leader. Well why don’t we just say that this person is smart. Why do they have to be a leader? I’m kind of getting off topic but all of this is to say that we need to analyze the concept of leadership specific to its nature and without consideration of the societal pressures that manipulate it.