In any situation a good follower is more important than a good leader The allegation that a good follower is always better than a good leader is very controversial from my point of view. Can you imagine what a group of obedient followers without a leader will do in a critical situation? Think of real followers who are not used to take a responsibility, who avoid to make a decision, who lack charisma to convince others to follow. In best case scenario, a group without a leader will reach a basic decision. Nevertheless, the speed of taking the decision will be deteriorated. But time is of the essence. On the other hand, I believe that society inhabited only with leaders cannot live in stability. Remember the experiment described in "Brave new world" by Aldous Huxley: an island inhabited with alphas, an in-born leaders who are able to take responsibility, to make right decisions and to do intellectual job, turned to state of constant riots and revolutions. In-born leaders refused to obey and to do dirty jobs. Thus, a group of leaders without those who ready to follow and execute is the same useless as a group of followers without a leader. As a result, there is no black and white in real life and any situation demands both good followers and good leaders do their respective jobs properly.