I don't know, LW, as much as ramico is a fruit loop, I do think you're giving too much man-cred to entrepreneurs, which, by the way, isn't capitalized.
Entrepreneurs aren't some special class of self-reliant men; they depend upon other folks as much as anyone else. (The case can even be made that the owner of a business has to cow-tow to every customer, while the employee only has to cow-tow to one guy. So who's the bigger cow-tower?) The employee of an entrepreneur can cultivate any resource he chooses. In fact -- survey says -- that lowly employee actually spends more time with his family than that "E"ntrepreneur.
On the self-defining front, hate to break it to you, but character determines how one measures success, not whether you are an employee or a boss. Come on, you know this. Zombie apocalypse. You've got time to go to two friends to prepare a battle front. Do you pick your apo-friends based on who's an entrepreneur or who's shown backbone, courage, smarts? (Not that those are mutually exclusive, but come on. We all know the seamy-side-up guy who'd we'd never hire, but we'd run to when the zombies come.) Character underlies business; not the other way around.
Also, the true-leaders-create-leaders bit is a fallacy. It denigrates the duty and value of followers. Followers have a crucial task -- it's not to be shoved into leadership. It's to be discerning, agile followers. That means followers judge leaders. Any leader who's saying, "Don't follow, lead," well that kind of cuts him off from being a leader. I know that whole true-leaders-create-leaders is all the rage, but it's also stupid. And no good follower buys it. It's really just a way for folks who want to be all leader-ish to forge ahead while still feeling all egalitarian. Idiocy. Leaders lead. If they are leading well, they attract discerning followers who judge, always and continuously, both the leader and the cause.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: