The more I read/hear about leadership the less I understand.

Every day there are stories talking about someone’s good leadership or bad leadership—the adjective determined by whether the author agrees or disagrees with the vision/words/actions.

The stories cross the spectrum—politics, sports, business, religion, civic, non-profit, parenting [whatever].

I think the stories about “bad” leadership annoy me most.

Is a leader bad just because the author disagrees with the vision/words/actions?

If person A aspires to a specific positional leadership role is it enough to disagree with the vision/words/actions of the person currently in that role or does it behoove person A to present a cogent alternative?

Armchair leadership has the same value as Monday morning quarterbacking.

It is far to easier lash out, bash and tear something down, than it is to offer well thought out alternatives.

Emotions are more easily manipulated than minds—especially since ideology has replaced so much of independent thought.

Ideology isn’t just conservative vs. liberal; greed is an ideology, as is me-centric.

I think good leadership requires a more balanced approach, including the ability to say, “I was wrong,” rather than a dogmatic clinging to the vision/words/actions that are steering the ship straight onto the rocks.

What do you think?

Flickr photo credit to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/treehouse1977/3003180321/

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 at 1:15 am and is filed under Ducks In A Row, Leadership. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Tags: Bad Leadership, ideology, leader
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.