Reply To: Distinctive Leadership 206- Discussion Board 1

[Omininikeipiriye Igani]

You stated that Adolf Hitler’s rise to power is a clear example of the dangers of blind loyalty, and I completely agree with that perspective. Your point about how his influence was rooted in emotional connection really struck me. It’s true—Hitler didn’t just present a vision; he knew how to stir people’s emotions by appealing to their fears, frustrations, and national pride. That kind of connection, as you pointed out, is an example of the Law of Buy-In—but it also shows how dangerous that influence can become when followers stop thinking critically.
You also highlighted how people began to follow him without questioning his increasingly radical actions. I think you’re absolutely right—this is where loyalty crossed the line into blind allegiance. That emotional attachment made it hard for people to step back and assess what was really going on. As you mentioned, tools like propaganda and symbolism played a huge role in reinforcing that sense of loyalty, which made it even more difficult for followers to challenge the vision once it turned dark.
I also found your emphasis on critical thinking really important. You stated that abandoning moral reasoning can make people complicit in terrible actions, and I agree wholeheartedly. This is why leaders need to foster an environment where questions and accountability are encouraged. If a leader surrounds themselves only with people who agree with them (as seen in the Law of the Inner Circle), there’s very little chance for correction when things go wrong.
In all, you brought out some powerful insights. I agree with your conclusion that the leadership laws themselves aren’t dangerous, but how they’re used makes all the difference. Loyalty should never come at the cost of truth or conscience. Both leaders and followers carry responsibility—to influence wisely and to follow with awareness.