Military Leaders And Thought Bleeders

Andrew Leci just about manages to keep the paint dry on what it really takes to lead, but only after taking a silly pill.

- Kenny Nguyen

When Writing An article, I often paint myself into a corner. I set out with the best of intentions, and when thinking about the content, format and structure of a piece, if it makes sense in the early stages of the formulation process, I tend to go with it.

Not ‘more often than not’, but definitely with ‘inconvenient and annoying frequency’, I find that I have bitten off more than I can chew in terms of creating a coherent base/landscape that will bring ideas to fruition in any kind of communicable and relatable way.

This is just such a piece.

I thought I would write about what ‘leadership’ really entailed. What characteristics were important; what were the common denominators in terms of those who we feel have led well and deserve to take their place in the pantheon of game-changers and global influencers.

The metrics are difficult; nigh on impossible, because everything is subjective, and that which isn’t is open to interpretation, which introduces a double layer of subjectivity which, when all is said and done, is just confusing.

Do great leaders have to be ‘good’? And what does ‘good’ even mean? Good for themselves? Good for their people? Good for the world they have left behind in terms of legacy? Or just, simply, effective at getting a whole bunch of people to do their bidding?

I hope by now, reader, that you are beginning to see the problem. In the end, I decided to present six of the best in terms of efficiency, forethought and ultimate impact.

Adolf Hitler