The Leader I'm Becoming

There’s a dilemma I keep coming back to. Not the kind you google and get a neat framework for, or the kind your workplace/university course might’ve already introduced you to with.

Two types of leaders, with different moral stances.

The first one knows everything. Every cog in the machine, every step, every edge case. They’re in the weeds with you, accommodating, never rushing you for results. Sounds ideal right? Except this person is quietly burning out. Because when you need to understand every moving part before you trust anyone with it, you’re not really leading. You’re just doing everything yourself but with more people watching.

It may look collaborative, but it’s control without being firm. The pressure doesn’t get distributed, it goes back to you. Every decision, every standard, every “this isn’t quite right yet.” That’s a slow burn on yourself.

The second one? Results-oriented. Delegates tasks, trusts the outcome over the process, doesn’t micromanage how the bread is made. Sounds cold from the outside. And yeah, the trade-off is real because when things go south, the people below take the blame first and the leader keeps their hands clean. You’ve probably been on that end at some point.

And yet, I’d still rather be led that way. Given the autonomy to handle it, even if my approach isn’t the “right” one, the silliness and carelessness still in me and all lol. The ends justify the means sounds ruthless until you’ve been micromanaged into mediocrity. Then it just sounds like breathing room.

You’ve probably heard the line from Machiavelli, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” Maybe this was about how you leverage your power? Perhaps bending people to your will? But the real tension here isn’t feared versus loved.

It’s protected versus trusted.

The first option leader protects people from failure by controlling everything and willingly takes accountability. No one falls too hard because the safety net is always there. But no one really grows either. The second option trusts people enough to let them fail forward. That’s where respect quietly builds. Less visible, but more real.

I’ve (been) led both ways. Flexible, situational, whatever the moment needed. But if I’m honest where I’m drifting towards five years from now with more responsibilities, it has to be second one. Not because I don’t care how things get done but because I want the people around me to grow with the power of their own decisions.

Perfectionism doesn’t grow people around you, and neither does control. But trust does.

Maybe that’s not very Machiavelli-like of me. But something quieter works here, no whiplash, no fear needed. Just being trusted enough to be tough enough to let people find their own way.

That’s the leader I’m becoming. I think.