April 10, 2010
I'm referring to The Humble Hound article in New York Times.
Watson-like SummaryFirst of all, good leaders are humble. Therefore, they seek and find devices to compensate their weaknesses, and they budget for their failure "Every move is a partial failure, to be corrected with a next move ... "
Secondly, good leaders have "intense professional will” i.e. discipline. Therefore, they use the above-mentioned devices.
My Conclusion1. David Brooks and Jim Collins haven't been in real leadership roles.
2. They haven't read or understood biographies of Mao Zedong, Gandhi, General Grant, Montgomery, President Lincoln and Reagan, etc.
My Reasons1. Humility is necessary for leaders. But not enough. Groupthink-driven, consensus-seeking leaders will get no where. e.g Kennedy and Bay of Pigs ops?
2. Leaders have vision and will to impose on any situation and circumstances. I'm not preaching "mind over matter" stuffs, or Hitler-like "superman" "will" stuffs.
Given the same set of situations and factors, Jimmy Carter saw something and did something whereas Ronald Reagan saw something different and did something different.
Will discipline and humility compensate for such stuffs?
3. I believe in leadership processes. But they are more than humility and discipline.