According to Y. Lincoln and E. Guba's Naturalistic Inquiry (1985), the post-positivist view of policy making construes the leader of an organization primarily as a facilitator, in contrast to the positivist view of a leader as a problem solver and director who uses his or her hierarchical authority. In the post-positivist view, even simply researching data requires the credibility of supposedly objectively verified facts to be established by analyzing "multiple realities, rather than assuming a single truth exists (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p.296). Post-positivism thus focuses on a particular situation, rather than setting general principles of ethics for all persons to follow.
             Thus, at the outset, it would seem that the post-positive perspective would be ideal leadership approach for the currently divided United Nations. The United Nations is an inclusive body, and counts amongst its membership nation-states historically in conflict with one another. The new multi-polar, multicultural worldview now embraced even in the West underlines the fact that there is not a singular truth or standard of validity, rather all persons and thus all nations deserve a voice. The post-positivist view also strives to validate cultural schemas from the Middle East and Asia that do not always fit within the Western methodology of fact-finding. Truth can be anecdotal, rather than purely based in numbers.
             However, there are many reminders that the United Nations, despite its pluralistic membership, has not always been so broad in either its leadership or its accommodation of differing views, and it is still structurally antiquated. For example, the UN Security Council (UNSC) has five permanent seats. This gives France, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States disproportionate power because of their past historical dominance of geopolitical affairs. These nations have veto power of all substantive resolutions of the UNSC. While...