Dear Alex,
A bit of a trap set for yourself. But you have a solid foundation.
Don't equate too closely a quality leader with emotional association (look
up to, etc). Politics aside, there are many people that look up to Mr
Clinton, however in the final analysis he also falls to the equation: the
whole is greater than the sum of the parts. None of us would want our
sister to be Monica or our son's to be Clinton. Sure some good things have
been accomplished in the past 7 years (I'm sure, but I can't name one).
But in the final analysis, a quality leader provides the direction for the
organization, effectively, without creating obstacles. The leader does it
without any (or much) impunity and the organization as a whole has
something to build upon. A quality leader does not say things like "my
leadership with be such that even the hint of impropriety will be dealt
with severely" then turns about and does things like Mr. Clinton's
administration.
This is kind of a leadership art and science thing. The two have to be
weighed.
Analogy: If using a spectrum analysis machine to examine each leader
(appointed, elected, self-imposed) the science and art of it all would
should for each. Some more science than art and vise versa. To say each
have characteristics of leadership is valid. Even in a learning
organization, we must chose to discriminate at some point and not define
someone like Hitler as a "leader." This of course based on the whole is
greater than the sum of the parts.
[Host's Note: Let's just be careful not to take this into current
politics... That would be for another place on the net. ...Rick]
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com>
Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>