You've got good points, but I think you're sometimes over-equalizing "performing tasks" with "following a leader." You're right about managers not doing the sa

You've got good points, but I think you're sometimes over-equalizing "performing tasks" with "following a leader." You're right about managers not doing the same work, i.e. tasks and activities. However, at a higher, more abstract level of accomplishing the organization's goal, e.g. reliably performing a service, leadership connects everyone from the customer relations up to the CEO, down to the layers of task-doers. This leadership is less about everyone, e.g., debugging at the same time, and more about everyone _paying_attention_ to the same activity, customer, project, mega-task at the same time. Bad managers do foment underlings. They don't care when or how a task is done as long as it is checked off. Good managers, however, keep everyone focused. They know how to direct people so that their work is more than an isolated task... it leverages the momentum of everyone else's activity, creating a continuous end-to-end flow of information and materials in, through people, and back out to customers. The care and dedication for the customer are communicated in parallel all the way from the customer to the last person to touch the code or material. I like to think about a combustion engine as a useful metaphor. It will work a little bit if timing is within a certain tolerance. It works best when the timing is correct. And it can be optimized for excellent performance. The imcompetence and ego-boosting you're describing are EXACTLY the hallmarks of poor leadership described in the FA. We definitely all need to learn to recognize and refuse to yield to, false confidence.