"While #2 isn't a very effective leader, their heart is usually at least in the right place" You know what they say the road to hell is paved with. Lots of peo

"While #2 isn't a very effective leader, their heart is usually at least in the right place" You know what they say the road to hell is paved with. Lots of people have great motives, but end up achieving nothing but destruction. Yeah, I definitely agree that for the hardass and the in-between leaders there's a lot of ego involved, and they're trying to "ride" the team to achieve personal ends. The thing is, that frequently tends to work well. It's not necessarily a pleasant environment to work in, but it's kind of like climbing a mountain. It's no fun while you're doing it, but once you've achieved it you can be proud of it for the rest of your life. I don't think Steve Jobs was trying to make a fun work environment for people - he was trying to push the creation of great products. Conversely, the Michael Scott type boss who tries to be everyone's friend has no personal motives (beyond being liked) and thus no incentive to push for great results. I guess ultimately building something great is really really hard work, and it can often be really unpleasant.