[pc86]

> What I mean is that people are selected for leadership based not off of their leadership ability, but rather their political ability and ambition.

Leadership is political - you have to get people to want to follow you. So it makes sense the people successful at getting into and advancing through leadership positions are able to do that.

As far as ambition, does that mean anything other than "wants the job?"

It sounds like you're arguing better leaders would be people who can't lead and don't want the job in the first place?

[array_key_first]

Ambition is good, but too much ambition becomes clawing, desperation. It's pathetic mostly, but it works. Because, again, people like hearing good things. So their leaders like hearing that they want the job really really badly and would do anything for it.

I think you're misinterpreting me. I spelled it out pretty clearly, I think. By politics I don't mean being liked, I mean being manipulative. Which is a related, but different, thing.

The delusional confidence is also a form of manipulation. Basically you influence others perception of you by lying and distorting reality. And you use emotions as a weapon. People like good feeling emotions, so you do actions to make those emotions appear in people. Flattery, deception, undeserved confidence, that type of thing.

The best leaders are people who are honest, rational, level-headed, and have a community based outlook. Meaning, they put the needs of the company and their team first.

The leaders we actually get are almost the exact opposite. They're individualistic, selfish, deceitful, and emotionally manipulative.

The reason that happens is because of how we decide promotions and the culture of the company.