[foerbert]

To be fair, I don't think your soldier example is a counterexample. You would have created a better army if you could sufficiently motivate them without using yourself. If you do use yourself, you suddenly become an even bigger vulnerability for the army. If you end up getting killed, the entire motivation leaves the army right in the middle of the battle.

It doesn't mean you are a bad leader if you do it, merely that a better leader might have seen a different path and gotten a better result.

[adventured]

> You would have created a better army if you could sufficiently motivate them without using yourself.

You're going to have to do that yourself at times. You can't build an army without your troops knowing who you are, you have to instruct them at some point, and they have to believe you for some reason. You have to inspire them at some juncture just to get the organization rolling. You can't sufficiently motivate them if they don't know you exist at some point in the chain of events. What are they motivated by, inspired by, if they don't know you exist? You have to actively win them over, they have to believe in you for a good reason. You can't do that by always being the quiet person they don't know exists, they will not believe in you if that's all you have ever been to them. Which goes to the point that there's a time and place - likely many times and places - where even an introvert CEO will be called to inspire actively, to be outgoing for necessary effect. There is no scenario where that won't be the case if you're leading over the long-term. And that's the point and why it is a counterexample. There are times you'll have to be the charismatic outgoing leader that inspires the troops to charge over the hill. Times when the business is against the wall and you have to inspire everyone to fight for survival, believe that it's possible to succeed in a dire context. Or times when you need a massive sea change in the business, and you have to actively get everyone on-board the new direction (otherwise it'll be a disaster). It's the exceptionally rare business scenario where that never needs to happen across years, much less decades. Businesses are made by such moments, just as they also are made by the day to day monotonous work.

[foerbert]

Obviously at some point the example gets far too specific to actually be useful, but...

In general there are lots of alternatives. Pay, objective, even lower level subordinates that are personally motivating, etc. There are many ways to motivate people that does not involve being the single shining star for everybody.

Is it realistic to never personally take a visible and active role in running an army? Probably not. I'm not trying to argue that. But - in theory - if you could do it, you'd build a stronger army. Otherwise it will all fall apart the moment you forget to drink enough water and faint on a hot day in the middle of a battle. The more support structures are in place that don't require your visible and active participation, the stronger the organization is.

Remember, we're talking about a one-liner here. It's not going to capture all sorts of realities and exceptions and little details. Just because you can point out that reality is not the ideal does not invalidate a small saying about the ideal.