The world is constantly changing, especially the world we call home in the United States. Our economy, political views, social views, business ideas, and individual beliefs are influenced by change, and more importantly those who initiate it.

The rest of the world surrounding us is influenced by its own change. Therefore, change is not the same for everyone or every country. Some accept change, and others may not, however it is evident that it has a firm grasp on how we perceive.

In our economy, people are accepting that capitalism should be replaced by controlled socialism; people like Bernie Sanders and those who follow him. Bernie Sanders is an initiator of change. He holds views that he believes will benefit the economy; views that are very different from the traditional sense of capitalism. Donald Trump, the leading Republican candidate, is obviously a change from the traditional sense of Republican/ conservative belief. Although he may hold some conservative ideas, it is clear that, as he leads the Republican polls, he is also one that initiates change in our economy and view of politics. He accepts that certain things must be subject to change, which connects the ideas of contradiction and change.

Contradiction and change can go hand in hand. Both ideas are viewed in different lights, but technically they can mean the same thing.

For example, Bernie Sanders would like to bring socialist ideas to a purely capitalist country- is this change or contradiction? Donald Trump is changing the way that people understand politics through control of the media. He is contradicting the idea of professionalism, and how our presidential candidates represent themselves and their parties. He, quite literally, has every Republican candidate battling against him because his views are contradictory to traditional conservatism. But people follow him, and they believe in him. Now how do contradiction and change tie into each other, and our topic of a Level 5 leader? And what defines a level 5 leader?

A level 5 leader is the perfect contradiction. They are one who accepts change, but also holds views that must remain to benefit everyone. They are one who lives their life both professionally and personally. They are one who produces ideas that primarily benefit their own predicament, but does so in order to benefit those around them. This sounds like a positive contradiction, but contradiction has always been viewed in a negative light.

Chuck Blakeman discusses a change in how businesses can be run in a Tedx MileHigh lecture. The change he talks about is from an industrial point of view to what he calls “participation.” Many people may find this change contradictory to the idea of capitalism that we, as an economy, so desperately follow. For example, leaders are defined by how well their ideas benefit everyone within and outside the company; not by position or title that has been given. “Participation,” Chuck says, is not having standard work hours, but working when it is needed to benefit the business. Work becomes a group process, not an individual job. The “Participation” business not only uses a Level 5 leader to its full potential, but does well in training others to become leaders themselves.

Standard leaders of corporations today resort to traditional hierarchies of leadership with strictly defined jobs for individuals. Blakeman initiates change in his lecture by innovating the way that people can work to not only benefit the company by reaching optimal output through groups, but also by redefining how an individual can become a leader inside and outside of the workplace.

As individuals learn how to benefit each other, and not just themselves, all will learn how to accept change by understanding others’ perspectives of the world of business and how it can be run.

In conclusion, change and contradiction have never been simple. Implementing laws in politics is an annual, if not a decadal process. Our economy is structured by traditional business, businesses that have been failing us as an economy. Other, thriving businesses, like Apple and Google, have begun changing the idea of a workplace, however the traditional sense of work remains. Many of these businesses go into bankruptcy due to bad leadership. The idea of a Level 5 leader explains that it does not take one individual to lead a group, but it takes one individual to teach how others can lead groups of their own.

As we become more capable of leadership as individuals, our economy and population will more strongly represent the leader-esque nation we have chosen to become, and continue to be.

In my twenty years of existence, I have never experienced what Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, refers to as level five leadership. Many people like to say they have great leadership qualities, but Collins exposes the truth that most people do not know what it means to be effective in leading a group.

I have been a part of many organizations that attempt to teach younger people how to lead others such as the Boy Scouts of America, my fraternity, student counsel and various athletic teams, but all of these groups only teach one how to be a competent manager.

This idea of leadership has always been a vague character trait that society says is important to have, yet has been taught to me as a quality that resembles authority and discipline rather than togetherness and humility.

Going into my junior year of high school, I experienced a flawed system of leadership when I joined the football team. Regimented and brutal practices were supposed to be the binding factors of our team which would bring us together to defeat our rival, and former state champion school, which we would play for our first game of the season that year.

However, there was a clear separation within our team of those who were varsity level and those who were not. In a sense this created two different teams on the practice field, but we were all supposed to be one unified group.

Our leadership, the coaches, gave special attention to the more qualified athletes leaving most of us wondering why we were on the team in the first place. Collins refers to this type of leadership as level three as my coaches only managed us, told us what to do, but never had any real influence over our desire to improve to varsity standards. Similarly, those who were on the varsity team followed this mindset and only focused on their ability in order to win against our rival.

This type of culture lead to what Marc Andreessen calls “The Law of Crappy People”, where the abilities of an organization converge to the quality of work of its least capable person. Due to the fact that myself and many others felt we did not have anything to contribute to the team and did not feel unified, we slacked off. Many of us did not have the motivation or desire to get to the varsity level because we were always pushed to the side, told to lift more weights, run more by our managers, coaches.

This did not go unnoticed and for those on the verge of starting on Friday nights, mediocrity was a simple solution after a long day at school and they too were standing with us on the sideline. Our coaches could have gone to the next level of leader ship, level four, and been influential in creating a desire to be better every day and wanting to be at practice by incorporating us, but in their eyes we were not all star players. Nonetheless, at the end of each long practice we were told we are going to beat our rivals come the first game and that we would win every game that season.

After reading the ideas put forth by Collins, this is the worst thing they could have told us.

Having our leadership tell us after every training session that we were going undefeated that season goes directly against what Collins refers to as “Confronting the Brutal Facts”. This concept, also known as the “Stockdale Paradox”, revolves around the idea that one cannot be too optimistic when facing large tasks and that one must be realistic in analyzing the abilities of oneself or a group.

Our team was not better than our former state champion rivals, yet every day we were told we would beat them. So much confidence was cultivated even though we knew we were a smaller team, our defense had poor secondary coverage, and our star running back was always in the trainer’s office for a bad knee. When it came time to play our rivals we were up by a touchdown at the half and our team was ecstatic. However, with a limited varsity lineup and our running back getting injured in the third quarter, we lost by three touchdowns. That season we only won four of our twelve games with no chance of making it to the playoffs.

I joined the football team because I heard of the hard work and discipline I would be taught, as well as the leadership qualities that I could refine. I found myself in an awkward grey area because I had not played since I was younger and therefore was not the best of the best.

The leadership I encountered was there to manage my actions, not to teach and grow a strong culture of like-minded young men.

A level five leader has the ability to combine their own goals with humility to strengthen a group of people, take blame for mistakes and further the overall quality of a structured culture. In my current leadership positions, I try to avoid the idea that I am great and focus more on the belief that we, the people in my organization, are great.

Too often leadership is placed on a resume without a second thought as many people do not want to believe that they are poor leaders, though this mistake is a destructive one because they are not facing the brutal fact that leadership is not a trait one attains and has forever, it is worked on and refined every day.