A friend named Vera, vibrant in youth, once stirred embarrassment at restaurants with clashes that felt like public theater. Some days she chose to vent loudly about a waiter she disagreed with. The author believed it was wiser to resolve issues calmly, to leave when necessary, since pressure and aggression rarely improved anything. Yet reality varied. Sometimes the scene exploded; management was summoned; voices rose in loud, painful screeches. Sometimes apologies followed, but the author found little satisfaction in any outcome. Going out to meals became a more cautious affair, not because the world demanded it, but because nerves mattered more than a temporary victory. Whether this was self-respect or manipulation, the question lingered: does one aim to mold the world to fit one will, or seek balance that preserves both dignity and harmony? The author did not want to eat cold pasta after an hour wait, yet preferred not to fuel conflict that could derail the evening for everyone involved. A quiet compromise seemed best for both sides.
Over time Vera rose to a position of leadership. Her demeanor softened, her tone softened, and a calmer rhythm replaced the earlier volatility. She stopped shouting. Still, a subordinate once heard her speak with a sharp, metallic edge—clear directives were issued, and arguments were discouraged. The taxi driver in the same circle overheard and muttered, “I respect it.”
Many describe Vera as a true leader by her subordinates. Whether every individual shared that view remains uncertain, but the perception persisted that leadership requires a steady hand and a vision that others can rally around. The possibility of alternative methods to reach goals remained appealing, candidates who believed in collaboration rather than coercion. The author, without being a manager themselves, wondered about the necessity of assertiveness and rigidity in leader–team dynamics. Willpower is surely part of leadership, yet it is often claimed that women can be flexible, diplomatic, and perhaps more effective when direct pressure is avoided. Vera’s example suggested that a strong, confident stance could grant opportunities to those who might otherwise resist, if aggression were framed as a tool rather than a rule.
There is a personal conviction that a boss who relies on pressure is not necessarily the ideal fit for every employee. In the author’s experience, many bosses were kind and loyal, listening to opinions and acknowledging efforts. Still, not all workers share that temperament. Some individuals seem to respond only to clear, emotionally charged boundaries and fear of consequences, and in such cases, pressure can feel like a necessary catalyst to action.
Another friend took charge of a sizable provincial team within a traditional government agency. A capable, energetic, educated person, he found disharmony with his staff. He asked why colleagues felt the fit wasn’t right. The feedback surprised him: he was not imposing enough, perhaps not appearing authoritative enough to command respect. He sought to be called by his own name, to avoid a stiff executive persona, to build trust through approachable, friendly relationships. The aim was to avoid demands for self-respect. Staff members felt uneasy about a leader who did not present the formal image of authority, wondering how such a figure could represent the organization regionally. The friend lamented that his former team members were not proactive, too comfortable with passivity, and not driven to improve.
In the field of management studies, there is talk of two leadership styles—authoritarian and democratic. The former is seen as more fitting during crises, the latter for development. Personal observation, though, shows that authoritarian methods may work best when workers are unclear about their tasks or unwilling to take ownership. In such environments, people tend to follow orders, avoid risks, and shield themselves from any blame. Yet this can create teams that stay strong only under pressure and collapse when pressure eases.
A democratic leader collaborates with peers, emphasizes horizontal connections, and acts more as a coordinator than a single commander. Motivation in this model comes from opportunities to demonstrate skill and achieve the best outcomes, rather than fear or praise. The challenge lies in assembling a team with high competence and personal accountability; with lazy or careless staff, efficiency becomes elusive.
There is also debate about whether leadership should be freer in creative groups than in more rigid settings like the military. The reality is that tyrants and despots can surface in any large organization, including theaters or major film companies. Generals who once managed armies may be replaced by executives who demand obedience in ways that stifle imagination. When the heat of creativity rises, the line between strong guidance and capricious control can blur, sometimes producing a climate where rules feel arbitrary rather than constructive.
Not every leader earns universal praise. Life often places gifted people in positions where textbook theories fail to capture real dynamics. Interests between employees and managers can clash, and each side may maneuver to protect its own views. Some leaders rely on relentless persistence and stubborn resolve, pushing toward results while risking emotional rigidity. Others who are sensitive to the moods of others may fare better at a distance, guiding with soft influence rather than hard pressure.
Today, rapid technological shifts shape management practice as well. Pressuring and coercion feel increasingly outdated, replaced by training, organizational exercises, and reality-building exercises that promise sharper skills. The coaching industry promises solutions through structured techniques, and the same trend appears across many fields. Yet the unique flavor of any team remains crucial. No two groups are alike, and leadership must account for individual quirks and needs instead of applying a one-size-fits-all plan.
Ultimately, the central lesson is that the best teams emerge when people can choose how to engage. The social world mirrors nature with countless forms of collaboration and submission, and the key is to preserve diversity rather than curb it. Respectful dialogue, adaptive strategies, and a willingness to listen are the threads that tie together successful leadership. The viewpoint presented here reflects personal observation and experience, and may differ from others’ opinions, but it points to a simple truth: leadership succeeds when it honors human complexity and seeks common ground rather than enforce uniformity.