> "there are no winning formulas" Except the one they list: "Julie used five actions... Disarm; Appreciate; Fuse opposites; Appeal to values; Develop a growth

> "there are no winning formulas" Except the one they list: "Julie used five actions... Disarm; Appreciate; Fuse opposites; Appeal to values; Develop a growth partnership." The article is not making the same point I did. It prompted discussion, which probably means there's nothing wrong with the article other than I disagree with its theories. "Good leadership" is endlessly debatable. On one hand, a good leader might say "I love the smell of napalm in the morning". A different leader might expresses remorse and healing/strength for the troops who are witnessing the same event. Like many around here, I've seen and participated in enough interactions in the workplace to have a good gut for what works, what is a waste of time, what is counterproductive. A leader who always smiles and even delivers bad news with a smile, for example, I would say is not a good leader. But someone else might argue the opposite, and insist that remaining positive is some kind of magic key. I actually like the "rubbish" comment by the co-author. Cutting through the bullshit is a skill. We've been told the remark was because the man was "temperamental". That's hearsay. Perhaps the "it's rubbish" comment was ultimately more responsible for the good outcome than the 5-point action reply. We have no insight into the specific working relationship between these individuals to make conclusions.