The authorin this article is conveying that we must understand that leadership can beboth good and bad. Leaders are greater by description, is what the Americansassume for historical and political reasons. They do not consider people suchas Nixon and Hitler as leaders because they feel both these people arediscarded and do not deserve to be labeled as leaders.
Thus, it explains thereasons and how exercise of power, authority and influence can cause harm. Kellerman not only focuses on describing leadership as an art butadditionally also emphasizes on the fact that the industry only focuses ondefining leadership and leaders as good leaders and completely overlook theassessment of bad leadership and leaders. The article finds a case foradditionally stressing on bad leadership in the definition of leadership. The casetalks about how Americans have been fortunate in their political leadership.
The author stress upon differentiating between leadership and the leader,further explaining that leadership can be best understood by accentuating uponthree variables; the leader, the follower and the context of the time. Thearticle highlights that bad leadership can be termed as either futile orimmoral or both. In addition to that the article also explains seven differenttypes of bad leadership: incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callus, corrupt,insular, and evil. Thearticle also talks about the problems due to limiting leadership to good; · It isconfusing · It ismisleading · It doesa disserviceTheauthor believes that bad leadership is also leadership and bad leaders areleaders. The article correspond bad leadership to the readers by discoveringthe latest scholarly and industry focus on defining bad leaders with a term as”power wielders” and bad leadership to be unnoticed and ambiguous by the recenttrends. The article argues that people want to learn and explore more aboutgood leaders like John Adams and Jack Welch from the industry but disregard theleaders like David Koresh and Warren Harding’s. This is a usual tendency whichis similar to “avoiding the elephant in the room” and people refuse to comparegood leaders’ like Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Adolph Hitler.
The crux and themost critical aspect of the article points that the definition andunderstanding of leadership should not only be limited to good leadership butbad too, as it is done in today’s’ leadership industry. The article argues overand over again for the definition of leadership, and wants people to admit thatleadership and leaders are bad too and in order to understand the definitionand the term leadership, we must open ourselves to this complete definition ofleadership and leaders and in the end learn that leadership can be good andbad. The author also argues that the behavior of the leaders is definedby their own virtues and there are followers of bad leaders because thefollowers need someone to lead. Q2. What are the similarities and differences between good andbad leadership.Leadership style of India’s 11thpresident, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam if imbibed can turn an ordinary organizationinto an extra ordinary and a magnificent organization. He did not believe inthe word impossible and went about proving his belief.
Leaders explode the mindof others; just like that Dr. Kalam went on his mission like a unique satellitethat revolves around the Universe, erupting hundreds and thousands of minds andnumerous nations. He never took pride in anything and shared all his knowledgeand experience with transparency and sincerity to the entire nation. Dr. Manmohan Singh is brilliant Economist;but a bad leader in Indian context. Dr. Singh wasbestowed with position and power of a leader but was unable to perform hisassigned task successfully and was termed as an underachiever.
The nation was expectingbetter policies which would drive the economy on the accurate path and bettereconomic growth but he was unable to meet the expectations of his followers.His reputation was at stake initially and finally diminished worldwide due tohis inability to take his own decisions. He lacked the ability to takedecisions from his end as a leader of the nation and as someone people werelooking forward to for the development of the country. His attitude of not speakingup and disregarding several matters were of major concern of the people of thecountry. He took decisions based on his party’s pressure and could not lead thenation as expected from a prime minister.
Hence, he is termed as a bad leaderin the political history of India. However, there arefew similarities between a good and a bad leader. The calm and serene behaviorthe two leaders Dr. Kalam and Dr. Singh possess is what they are both respectedfor. Leaders are expected to accept the criticism and are inclined to sharetheir knowledge, wisdom, power and responsibility and both the leadersmentioned, possessed these virtues. Leaders are humble and do not flaunt theirqualities, such was their leadership style. Their personal leadership style’simpresses global celebrities and the people of their country admire both theseleaders to be modest and humble.
In addition, both these leaders have acceptedcriticism honestly. When NASA launch failed Dr. Kalam took the accountabilityof the failure even though he was not responsible for the launch and its failure,this is what leaders do. Dr. Kalam encouraged thousands of people todream; and believe in their dreams, rather than forcing them to believe in his own dreams. He had a vision for the nation and the people hebelonged to, the people of his nation. He was always finding innovative solutions to the problems.
He isthe only missile scientist in this country who encouraged and motivated thepeople and which even now makes people around the world walk with confidence.He was a confident and a courageous leader who dared to dream the impossible.On the other hand, Dr. Manmohan Singh is thought of a very less impactfulleader, who lacked confidence and courage to take decisions on his own; Henever had a vision and a goal to achieve, for the nation and did not takeinterest either. Apart from this, he was not able to entice the audience or hisfollowers and was never ahead to take initiatives and bring innovation for thedevelopment of the country.
He lacked a positive attitude and even though wasbestowed with powers was unable to perform his duty. He was influenced by thedecisions of others and was unable to put forth his point.