People seem to endlessly discuss #leadership, yet their discourse rarely escapes the gravitational pull of the self. Beneath calls for “empowerment,” “servant leadership,” or “authenticity,” the deeper question—what leadership is for—remains perpetually unanswered. The modern catechism insists: “Make ME a leader, secure MY freedom, place MY satisfaction at the centre.” Leadership seems to become the ultimate vehicle for identity-formation, not vocation; influence is sought as an end in itself, not as a burden of responsibility.
Popular leadership literature—no matter how much it preaches empowerment, caring, or “servant leadership”—remains mostly captive to the logic of me-ism. Underneath the rhetoric, it rarely questions the liberal, individualistic ontology: leadership remains a platform for personal expression, achievement, or curated altruism. The performance of service simply becomes another badge on our CV.
This proliferation of leadership “frameworks”—each new model a mirror for its creator—seems symptomatic of a deeper existential anxiety. In a culture stripped of shared telos and robust tradition, proposing a novel theory becomes a defensive act: a bid for recognition and ontological security in the void. It is, as Lacan might argue, the Imaginary at work—individuals compulsively seeking affirmation through “ontological selfies”, masking the unendurable lack at the heart of the liberal subject. “Servant leadership” becomes efficient self-curation, polishing one’s brand under the guise of altruism. hence, perhaps it is no coincidence that recent references to leadership and God show some striking similarity.
Yet, as classical virtue ethics warn, true leadership cannot emerge from the logic of ego psychology or mere self-enhancement. The real challenge is not “serving” to gain status or moral comfort, but voluntarily accepting restraint, shouldering responsibility, and standing answerable to to a higher good. True leadership begins only when the anxiety to be seen is surrendered, and one dares to inhabit the uncomfortable, open space of normativity: What is right? What is owed? What must I give up?
Until we return to these deeper questions, the cult of leadership will remain a mirror—reflecting, not illuminating, the crisis of the age.