Thanks for your visits and your kind comments.

The modern leadership movements gurus come principally from academia and the consultancies, and the reference you provide is a good example of what they offer.

I think you are exactly right: it is far too narrow an approach which manifestly fails to fit the uses to which it is actually put, and the avenues of expression it generally finds, by and among real people at real work.

Thanks so much for your insight and (I’ve been reading your blog, too!) your work – keep it up!

I’ve been re-reading Warren Bennis’ “Managing the Dream” and couldn’t help be think the posts I’ve been reading over the last few days/weeks. In this book, Bennis outlines very defined characteristics of ‘Leaders’ and makes it seem that only leaders with those characteristics will be able to lead.

Leadership isn’t something that can be defined so narrowly as many researchers and writers try to do. You can’t check to see if someone has a ‘leadership trait’, and if they do, expect them to be successful in any position because they ‘fit the leadership model’.

Thanks for your visit!

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” – Abraham Lincoln

Thanks for your visit and your comments.

Companies should infer potential from performance – not personality. And I agree, hopefully they can view that performance in an environment short of armed conflict – or any confict!

In pointing out my use of Goodwin’s book to use that metaphor, you touch on another topic of some importance here. Although I used a discussion of military leaders to illustrate my discussion, I used it to make a negative point about the leadership personality. Many efforts to discover and illustrate that putative personality are based on “studies” of great military commanders.

The point I wanted to toss into the mix here is that I consider that effort to be gravely misguided. The notion that civilian managers have anything of value to learn from individual commanders at war is beset with serious problems, and should be approached with the greatest caution – although they have a great deal to learn from the organizational dymanics of military units engaged in warfare.

I think you’re right to identify the capabilities promoted in the article as those of a manager. In particular, I think they represent the “sales” side of management – anyone who has worked in sales or read books about that field will recognize almost every recommendation made in that article. And it is a useful set of capabilities for managers to have to promote productivity and performance.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments – I may have to do a post or two about some of the ideas you have provoked!