I don't remember that I was a "good subordinate".

Even so, I thought to decide, 'I will follow this boss and leader.

They had a common character.

"No leadership"

This is the one word.

-----

'Leaders without leadership' were unreliable and I always had to worry.

They were less knowledgeable than I was and did not seem to have any great obsession or pride in the matter.

So I had to be concerned not only about myself but also about the team as a whole.

However, such a leader was not overbearing, but would listen to me and change policy as needed.

They did not blame me for my mistake, but quietly went with me to apologize to the customer and then acted as if they would forget all about it.

Under such a vague management, the team members, including myself, moved autonomously, and communication among them was smooth.

The most important factor was that I had a "personal liking" for the person.

-----

However, such leaders seem to be less valued socially, or company-wise.

And in reflection, even though I aspired to be such a leader, when I became one, I became a person strict about time and results.

People are easily disfigured by their standing and self-preservation.

And the reality is that leaders who initiate power harassment improve the results of their teams.

However, retaliation for "power harassment" in the form of "resignation" can be used to disqualify a leader's authority, especially by the younger generation.

In this way, it may be said that the high turnover rate of young people (in any era) is, in a sense, a function of maintaining company morale.

-----

In general, to be a 'leader without leadership' is a lot more difficult.

Because the moment you aim to be a 'leader without leadership,' you will not be such a leader.