Strangely enough, I would point you out to an anime called
Death Note. There is a character, more specifically a detective, called L. Basically, he is the single man capable of moving all the police forces of the world whenever he pleases to do so. What makes him interesting, it's been long established that L is an INTP. Therefore, as he is the leader of the investigation going on in the anime, I think he makes a good example of an INTP leader.
What do they look like? Damn fine.
Is it just me or do I see a hint of Will Smith in this?
The way I see it, leading is controlling, if you're smart enough.
This is true to some extent. However, to what extent depends on how you see control. For example, if I hint that you should do something and you end up doing it because I hinted about it, would I have controlled you into doing it?
But more than anything, a leader without control over his subjects is a bad leader. After all, leaders are chosen because they are seen as capable of keeping the unity of the group and therefore decrease the amount of extremely stupid decisions. I think there was some saying about groups and stupidity, right? Or something.
Anyhow, I've been in the position of being the head admin of a gaming forum with almost 10,000 members. It was hell. I don't know where to begin describing the fact that I simply couldn't deal with it. The expectations were ludicrous. It seemed as though the populace of that forum sought a cult leader, which they despised if he tried to lead them. As far as I see it, my role was meant to be that of a leader of the large moderation team, which is more reasonable, yet still impossible for me to manage effectively without some sort of breakdown. I quit before I had one.
I guess I would then be a sort of an exception to the rule. Currently, I'm a moderator on a forum with close to 5,000 members, out of which only a handful are actively posting. However, I personally applied for the position of a moderator. And I did it twice. The way I see it, the forum needs capable and active leaders who actually care about the image of the forum. When I applied, one of the reasons I gave as to why I should be chosen was change and how the forum needs some.
However, due to my rather extreme strictness, in one of the two sections that I have under my wing, I'm seen as almost an over-protective moral police. That is, since the aforementioned sub-forum is mainly filled with random discussion and forum games, I usualy delete all posts that break the rules and tend to question the necessity of certain games or topics.
However, unlike most of the other moderators, I've actually picked up a few notices from the guidelines given to the new moderators. One of those things is the aforementioned strictness about rules. Another good example would be extremely trigger-happiness. That is, I like to punish the members. If I see an opportunity at infracting or warning a user, I will use it. If I get really lucky, the user will reply to the auto-PM with an angry, irrational response and I get to infract them once or twice more. However, you cannot really say that I'm merciless. I usually point the new folk towards reading the rules before posting and thinking about the necessity of their topic before posting.
In conclusion, I like being a moderator. That is, I'm of the lowest rank in all of the staff. Above me are the Smods, who are universal moderators, then there are the admins and the head admins, which are pretty much the big folk in the forum. However, I would like it if I was an Smod, as it would give me power over the Moderators, but it would keep my decisions in the shadow so that I don't get the spotlight.
Cabbo, leading is directing, and further, good leadership is directing so as to attain the maximum benefit for the group being led. (That is how I see it, at least.)
I think you're wrong. That is, about the maximum profit part. Groups have goals, usually. However, there are also things such as religious groups and the like, who don't get any real benefit from their activity and are at a constant risk of being disbanded by the authorities. However, I would say that good leadership means prioritizing the right things, but without ignoring the consequences.
In my own experience, I'm not likely to be chosen as the leader. However, most of the time I'm more angry about the whole group aspect than anything else. That is, if I am picked as a leader, I usually make it clear that I am the leader and they are the ones who are being led. Therefore, I demand near-absolute loyalty from those I lead. If I end up being picked as a leader, it's mainly because I'm a good speaker. And I'm not afraid of facing the criticism of the people I talk to.
In a larger scale, if I were to be picked as a leader, most likely I would pick myself a spokesperson of sorts. That is, a person who does all the talking and the public stuff, while I do all the actual work. Of course, it would have to be in such a way that it cannot be connected to myself, or it would be a worthless waste of time. This way of working results in a detached feeling, even though I am leading something. If I had to appear in the public, I would obviously choose the position of the advisor of the leader. This is still assuming that I am the actual leader, of course. However yes, I would still rather have the position of an advisor rather than that of a common follower. Mainly because it would allow me to criticize the leader's actions and to influence them with my way of thinking.
