There are many good leaders who have the potential to greatness (and I mean greatness from a third party perspective rather than their own, as self-proclaimed greatness suggests that the leader is not selfless, a very rare and important quality).  These good leaders can have many different approaches and traits, some of which are toxic.  The difference between good and great is related to opportunity/situation – would Churchill have been considered great without WWII or Mandela without Apartheid?  A good leader become great when he/she successfully achieves the objectives within an unusually challenging situation, leaving a positive legacy that improves the situation the ‘group’ exists within; the history of the group considers the leader as exemplar.

Hi Susie:

I completely understand what you’re expressing. I think the distinction we can agree upon is the difference between reckless persistence and reasoned persistence. Right thinking and not hubris should underpin a leader’s zeal. Thanks again for sharing Susie.

Hi Mike.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Perhaps it’s a visceral piece for me as when I hear that a leader is focused on winning and won’t quit because of that, my stomach flips. My life experience reveals that some persistent “leaders” will persist through anything, and I mean anything, leaving their integrity and human wholeness under the bed in the morning.

I’ll be stopping in again . . . thanks so much.

Hi Susie:

Welcome to the thought stream here and thanks for your contribution. For the most part, I agree with your experiences and observations. Where we depart may be viewing “winning” and “losing” as foreign terms. They may be a bit crass, but sometimes the benefits of direct terminology can be useful in painting a picture. We can label winning and losing differently, but as principles they are very real. My guess is that we’re not as far apart as the choice of nomenclature my lead you to believe, but if we are, then perhaps we each have something to learn from the other. Thanks for stopping by Susie…

I just found your site through Tanveer’s and am always intrigued about the discussion of leadership — a favorite topic. Your comment “It comes down to possessing a state of mind that refuses to lose.” struck me. The terms “lose” and “win” (that you used a couple times in the post) are foreign to me as a leader.

I see leadership as a role that moves others and oneself to create great things, do great things, and make great results. And the passion, motivation, self-effacement, vision, and beliefs are the elements propelling and energizing the leader forward. (“Purpose” in Tanveer’s comment.) When one strongly sets her mindset and heart on this vision, then halting it really isn’t much of an option. (I guess that could be the winning and losing parts — within each of us.)

Thank you for your insights.

Hi Tanveer:

Thanks for sharing your insights. I really liked the distinction you drew between being purpose driven and goal driven. As additional food for thought, I’m not typically a big either/or thinker. In most cases I believe it is quite possible to have your cake and eat it too. In this particular instance the key is having your goals aligned with you purpose. Thank again for sharing. I always value your thoughts Tanveer.

Hi Mike:

Couldn’t agree more…In fact, a previous post address the people side of the equation in much greater detail: https://www.n2growth.com/leadership-is-not-about-leaders

Thanks for stopping by Mike.

I was struck by your question of what distinguishes those leaders who quit and those who don’t. I think the distinction that arises is whether a leader chooses to measure their efforts in terms of goals as opposed to purpose. Goals, whether they’re short-term or long-term, are finite – they have a distinct beginning and ending. You can chart when you started and assess how long or far you’ve gone in reaching the end. Purpose, on the other hand, is less about ticking off items on a To-do list as it is directing your focus to understanding why these efforts matter and how those goals contribute to fulfilling that objective. To use an analogy here, goals serve as the chapters of your leadership while the book itself stands for the purpose behind why you are serving others.

In that light, I think those leaders who quit are driven more by accomplishing a goal than fulfilling a purpose. Seen from that context, it’s easy to understand why time is needed to assess whether one was a great leader because you can’t look only at the individual chapters; instead you need to take into account all of them as a whole which ultimately define the body of work that is your leadership.

Your points are well taken as always. Real leaders are driven by motivations that extend far beyond themselves. Thanks again for sharing Mike.