Do leaders inherently make up the minority of the overall population?

If you could see the world black and white or in this case, the ';leader'; versus the ';follower'; respectively, aren't leaders left in the minority?





I guess this depends on your definition of a leader but in this context, I'm talking about leaders of large organizations of people.Do leaders inherently make up the minority of the overall population?
Absolutely. The world needs all kinds of people, and a leader has to have followers, otherwise they're not a leader. You can't have all Chiefs and no Indians. To be a leader is to be truly alone, and most of us just aren't interested in solitude.Do leaders inherently make up the minority of the overall population?
Not necessarily.





Leaders don't often lead in all areas. Often they lead in one and follow in others.





For example, let's say that there are four men in our sample.


One of them is the boss at work. He founded the company they all work for, he knows the industry, and he has grown the company 20% year-over-year for a decade.


The next man serves as a deacon in their church. He organizes many church special events, leads collections drives, and encourages others to give to charity through solicitation campaigns he designs and runs on nights and weekends.


The third man is the team captain of their intramural softball team. He schedules and runs practices, develops team strategies, and encourages all of them to perform on the field.


The last man is the president of the condominium HOA board where they all live (and on which they all serve). He works with vendors to keep prices low for the residents, puts together social gatherings, and plans and prioritizes the spending of HOA funds on repairs and upgrades.





Four men, all leaders of one another, all followers of one another, depending on the specific context in which you view them.
short answer: yes.





long (social psychology) answer:


human behavior can be plotted on a graph which demonstrates that individual behaviors represent a spectrum between any two extremes.





Given the extremes of self-serving, ';r behavior'; (sociopath) and other-serving, ';K behavior'; (altruist) this graph represents a bell curve.





the distribution of the curve is effected by the economic type of the society.


in truly Communist societies (such as the vatican, communes and kibbutzes,) the high point of this curve is equidistant from both extremes.


Socialist societies move the curve slightly towards the sociopath end of the spectrum,


and free market economies moves the curve dramatically in the same direction.





(free market economies reward sociopaths and penalize altruists-look out for number 1, step on everyone to get to the top, last man standing wins)





in free market economies, sociopaths make the most successful salesmen and politicians.





but regardless of the economic type, only people on the extremes of this curve fall to leadership positions. so yes, there are more followers than leaders.





Ideally, a leader should demonstrate behaviors which show that he/she places others before themselves in importance. unfortunately the probability of this happening becomes increasingly unlikely in any society which rewards selfish, anti-social behavior.
Yes. The leader is either with the people, in which case the people will love him and support him, or is against the people, in which case the people will remove him from power, however powerful he may once have been. This is because minorities inherently possess less power than the majority they rule over.
Logically(from a literal standpoint) it would be reasonable to say that leaders of large orginizations would be in the minority.
You seem to have answered your own question. I believe the social network of people determines how many leaders a society can maintain. imagine a president for each neighborhood.
Yes.
n0Pe !!!!