The knowledge inferred from this article on leadership, agency, “structure”, individualism is abundant and with quality. This knowledge is very relevant to the functionality, fairness and vitality of social/societal patterns in humans. Yet, relevant discourse among those who make decisions “behaves” as if this knowledge, and it implications, didn’t exist.
Indeed, it would be useful to know the distribution and depth of knowledge possessed by “leaders”.
This phenomenon exists in all knowledge domains.
Why is this fact ignored? This is related to the current attack on scientific knowledge and focus on “belief”.
Why do we assume that most of humankind’s collective knowledge is applied? The success of sci/tech? But that only demonstrates the narrow domain of sci/tech.
What is it about those in positions of authority and deciding that limits the scope of their relevant contexts?
The essay brought up an old concern of mine: the dangerous myth of individual heroes. Are there any cultures that lack this myth? What are the sources and implications of the blossoming of Super-Heroes among contemporary youth?
As the article points out, attention given to heroes and individual leaders diverts attention from searching for a more realistic concept of “leadership”. Many wait for the arrival of The Leader before they are moved to action.
Going meta, we need to explore an expanded conceptual scheme relating to (1) categories of relationships to information (data, facts, ideas, knowledge, wisdom, beliefs, assumptions, etc.) and (2) the distribution of these in diverse populations and (3) in relation to culture, information sources, and “education”, etc., and (4) behavior associated with the above (dialog, reading & writing, conferencing, etc. ). The whole Humankind/Semiotic Interface.