I have read many HBR articles & purchase-able HBR content on leadership over the last 10 years. Every once and awhile you’ll come across an author who has espec

I have read many HBR articles & purchase-able HBR content on leadership over the last 10 years. Every once and awhile you’ll come across an author who has especially gone down the path of exaggerating leadership tendencies. This article reads like a conversation that was largely made up. The examples of leaders not being “good students” is far fetched and very exaggerated given 27 years in prison can change any man or walking many miles to loan a book to study by candle light might just be a better teacher of leadership than any formal means. It then talks about energy and action with some random definitions and framework. These can be summed up as character traits than some fancy words like disarm or fuse opposites. Like imagine a leader out on the battlefield or in congress using this framework: > Every action starts as an inner action — directing your intentions, feelings and thoughts to activate the right energy within. You can then engage in the outer action of using the right facial expression, tone, and words in your dealings with others. It feels like a robot leader who has to go through a series of if statements to produce the right action. It’s just dumb to even think about. Finally it summarizes saying > This “small steps, big leaps” approach may in fact be how Gandhi, Lincoln, Mother Teresa, Mandela and others went from being ordinary people to extraordinary leaders. After using these characters as counter examples having no training, it tries to tell the reader they used this framework all along? Bullshit. I just see these same articles over and over again on here and they have little to no actual substance to them. I’ve since moved on.