I'm glad you brought up the notion of leadership as a neutral quality. I
was getting ready to suggest the same thing. If one defines leadership as
motivating others to follow, then at that level, it is indeed neutral in
terms of effect. Whether it becomes leadership in a "good" sense or a
"bad" sense seems to me to be the next question. Leaving Hitler aside for
the moment, I find it interesting that as a learner, I have learned as
much as -- sometimes more -- from "bad" leaders than "good" ones. "Bad"
leaders force me to think about things much more than I do under more
positive circumstances. I am more aware -- partly for survival reasons.
We had a maniacal chancellor for about 5 years. She finally left and
suddenly I realize just how much she was responsible for building teams,
in the sense that we middle managers, faculty, and staff formed a united
front to contain the damage and stay focused on our mission. Not that I
want her to come back, you understand, but that kind of "driver" can be a
powerful means of building "teams" -- or maybe those communities of
practice I've seen mentioned lately. External "threats" can sometimes be
ironically beneficial for the health of a system, I think. Harriett.
Rick Karash wrote:
>Or, 2) we have to distinguish "good leadership" from bad. Thus, Hitler may
>have been a leader, but not a good one.
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>