Goleman's book speaks to competencies of Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness and Relationship Management. Each category identifies success through optimism with empathy and virtue. Goleman infers that the only means to beneficial/successful leadership is predicated on generating positive energy, neurologically and socially.
When I look at historic figures of successful leadership (beneficial being the more subjective), such as Hitler, Napoleon, Madoff, Alexander the Great, Enron executives, I think of fear-mongering, lies, and deceit. Their followers did so out of these motivators. Additionally, think of many of the religions/churches around the world that thrive on fear-mongering to gain supporters/followers.
I think Goleman avoids the charisma/personality portion of this book to steer away from potential psychopathology for successful leadership. You could say that Ted Bundy was a great leader of killing people. This may seem silly, but the context for each person differs, as well as the motivation. Just because a leader identifies and relates to his followers/workers, does not necessarily speak to those who do so strictly out of fear/need.
I think it highly presumptuous to assume that successful leadership requires optimism/positivity. Success is contextual and motivation is individualistic.
I am about to start Chapter 5, The Dissonant Styles. Let's see what Goleman identifies.
No comments:
Post a Comment