In Indian contexts, leadership is fundamentally defined by position in hierarchy. The leader occupies a position above followers—this vertical relationship is what makes someone a leader. Being boss, being elder, being teacher, being designated head—these positional relationships establish who leads and who follows.

The leader’s authority comes from position; the right to lead derives from occupying the leadership role. This creates clarity: people know who leads by understanding positions.

If you are the leader, recognize that your authority comes with your position—you have the right to lead by virtue of holding the role. If you are a follower, recognize that the leader’s position gives them legitimate authority. Ambiguous hierarchy creates ambiguous leadership; clear positions enable effective coordination.

The core leadership dynamic involves leaders giving direction and followers carrying it out. Leaders decide, communicate what should be done, and oversee implementation. Followers receive direction, comply with it, and implement what leaders have determined.

This direction-execution relationship is fundamental—leaders are supposed to direct; followers are supposed to execute. Direction flows from above to below; implementation happens at follower level.

If you are the leader, know that directing is your responsibility—followers expect you to tell them what to do. Direction does not require extensive justification; your position gives you the right to direct.

If you are a follower, know that executing direction is your responsibility—good followership means effective implementation of what the leader decides. Questioning direction constantly rather than executing is problematic regardless of question validity.

Leadership authority in Indian contexts comes with responsibility for those led. The leader who has authority over followers also has obligation to care for them—to protect their interests, help with their problems, and ensure their wellbeing. This paternalistic dimension is expected: the boss who shows concern for subordinates’ situations, the teacher who cares about student difficulties, the officer who ensures troop welfare. Care extends beyond the immediate task—leaders are responsible for followers as people, not just for their work output.

Leaders who fail to care lose legitimacy even if otherwise competent. The uncaring leader who exploits followers or disregards their welfare has violated leadership responsibility.

If you lead, know that caring for your people is part of your job. If you are led, recognize that good leaders will show concern for you and that this care deserves your loyalty in return.

While position provides formal authority, effective leadership requires personal authority built through demonstrated competence, trusted character, and invested relationships. Position alone produces compliance; personal authority produces commitment. Followers follow positional leaders because they must; they follow leaders with personal authority because they choose to. Build personal authority through showing competence—making good decisions, achieving results, demonstrating you know what you are doing.

Build it through character—being fair, consistent, trustworthy. Build it through relationship—knowing your followers, investing in them, building history together. The combination of positional and personal authority produces effective leadership. Position provides structure; personal authority provides substance.

If you have position without personal authority, you can compel but not inspire. Develop the personal dimensions that make positional authority effective.

Good followership in Indian contexts includes showing respect to leaders through specific behaviors—forms of address, physical gestures, and behavioral restraints that acknowledge the leader’s position. Use respectful address: “ji,” “sir,” “ma’am,” or appropriate titles. Show physical deference: standing when leaders enter, not sitting until invited, maintaining appropriate positioning. Practice behavioral restraint: not contradicting leaders directly (especially publicly), not interrupting, moderating your opinions in leader’s presence, seeking permission rather than acting autonomously.

These behaviors demonstrate your recognition of the hierarchical relationship. They are expected regardless of personal feelings about the specific leader—the deference marks the position even when you have reservations about the person. Failure to show appropriate deference marks you as problematic follower. Even if your substantive point is valid, how you express it matters.

Wise leaders do not decide alone—they seek counsel from advisors, elders, and trusted others who bring knowledge, experience, or perspective the leader lacks. Seeking counsel is strength, not weakness. It shows humility (recognizing you do not know everything), wisdom (understanding that better decisions come from multiple inputs), and good judgment (identifying whose advice is worth seeking). Cultivate advisors whose counsel you value; build relationships that enable honest advice.

Receiving counsel requires actual openness—listening genuinely, considering seriously, being willing to change your view. But counsel informs decision; it does not replace your responsibility. You seek advice, weigh it, decide, and then own the decision.

The counselor advises; the leader decides and bears responsibility. Do not use consultation to avoid decision; do not decide important matters without consultation.

Indian leadership operates under ethical evaluation—leaders are judged not only by what they achieve but by whether they lead righteously. The dharmic framework asks: Does the leader rule justly? Does the leader protect followers? Does the leader maintain ethical standards?

Does the leader fulfill leadership duty? Good leadership is righteous leadership. Results achieved through unethical means do not make leadership good; success does not justify wrongdoing. Treating followers fairly, protecting them from harm, maintaining equity, and leading in accordance with what is right—these matter alongside outcomes.

If you lead, know that you will be evaluated against ideals of what leadership should be, not just practical results. Acting ethically is not optional extra but core requirement.

If you follow, evaluate your leaders not just by what they achieve but by how they lead. Ethical failure is leadership failure even when accompanied by success.

What leadership looks like varies across contexts—different situations require different approaches. Do not apply single leadership style regardless of context. Read what the situation calls for and adapt accordingly. Some contexts (emergency, military, crisis) call for highly directive leadership; quick decisions and clear orders are appropriate.

Others (creative work, collaborative projects, peer relationships) allow more participative approaches; consultation and shared decision-making may work better. Formality varies: military leadership is highly formal; family leadership may be informal; workplace formality varies by organization. Relationship emphasis varies: some contexts emphasize personal connection; others are more transactional. Effective leaders adjust.

The leader who applies one approach everywhere will succeed in some contexts and fail in others. Contextual judgment—reading situations, understanding what different contexts require, adapting accordingly—is leadership competence. When context changes, your leadership approach should change too.