By: Jim Oher

Jim Oher — Thu, 07 May 2009 11:39:26 +0000

John I disagree with your premise that leadership is not what you accomplish. It very much is. Yes a good leadership must have consideration of those he leads – be aware or inquire as to why they are thinking and doing what they are – but I strongly believe that a leader MUST be self aware THROUGH self reflection and being resilient. I disagree that group dynamics will ruin a good leader – he/she has to constructively know how to confront and manage them – and manipulating group think usually proves to be destructive and unproductive. Do you comments make sense to you?

By: John P

John P — Mon, 04 May 2009 23:34:43 +0000

I enjoy your entries even when I don’t comment. But I find my self wondering if we are missing the point. Was Lincoln a good leader? I mean, that is at least one of the premises you are presuming, correct? I don’t know if he was. Current wisdom gives him a ‘C’ for prosecuting a war, yet an ‘A’ as a president. I give him a D and a B respectively. In the corporate world, ‘good leadership’ is defined by those you lead. Right? Tragically, leadership is not in what you accomplish. Only the military and perhaps some sports circles embrace such a crass measure of successful leadership. Yet managers who act as leaders or leaders who act as managers are typically defined by those they manage. Those they manage have multi-variate personalities and perspectives all which are equally valid — we are constantly reminded. So the corporate leader then, must not worry about self-reflection, maturing, resilience, and etc. If this condition is valid then a “good leader” should discard every skill that advances an initiative and worry only about manipulating group think. It’s group dynamics that will ruin a good leader, not failure. Forget for a moment whether this posting is cynical or dark. Consider if it is true?

Comments on: Warts and All

By: Jim Oher

By: John P