Passion and DIS-Passion

I just read the following statements about the negative results of PASSION on the Leadership Freak's blog and here is how I strongly disagree with his matter of fact like statements.


The dark side of passion:

#1. Independence: Successful leaders never succeed alone, they inspire others. Passion may motivate you to focus on your actions while neglecting the power and importance of others.

DIS-Passion or Excessive or Mis-Used or Mis-Applied Passion may cause this not simply being Passionate.

You’re all jazzed about YOUR impact. Effective leaders, on the other hand, get jazzed about the impact of others. Leadership-passion doesn’t exclude it includes.

generally agree with this, but I still see it as overally generalized

#2. Decisions: Passion drives decisions. Passion off the hook drives foolish decisions. Passionate people don’t think things through. Excitement drives short-term decisions and neglects long-term consequences.

Passionate people do not always NOT THINK THINGS THROUGH

#3. Risks: Passionate risk-takers scare people. Passion minimizes danger. Learn to focus on points of stability while stepping into the unknown.

This one seems to be contradictory of itsself.  


Can strongly Passionate risk-takers scare people....yes in some cases, especially with people who strongly resiste change and what they see as risky.  Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, Tom Edison, George Patton, Napoleon, Walt Disney to name a few along with Jesus, Mohammed and other religious leaders are examples that disprove this claim.


#4. Closed: Passion closes ears and turns people into pushers.

overly generalized

#5. Snap: Passion motivates snap decisions.

totally disagree with this applying to all Passion driven people. Rick Warren is a fairly good example.


Adolf Hitler, Mussilini, Stalin, Castro and other dictators = DIS-Passionate people this might fit.

#6. Stubborn: Passionate people have more emotion than brains. They won’t back down from foolish snap decisions.

this one is so far from reality it is rediculous. ONLY in the case of DIS-passionate, excessively passionate people might this be true.

The dangerous danger of passion is it short circuits short-term processes at the expense of long-term goals. Passion focused on noble outcomes changes the world. On the dark side, passion may destroy itself.

both poorly written and contradicts the list at least in 5 of the 6 cases.

Totally Autonomous Leadership is Still a Fantasy

Totally Autonomous Leadership is Still a Fantasy


My experiences teaching/training leadership styles, skills and teamwork styles and skills has taught me that it is possible to have great teams without a specific ongoing leader yet for a team to succeed it will need to have one of its members to step forward when they are not in harmony or truly functioning as a team.

When a leader is needed there needs to be one. Otherwise people work independently or intradependently. Unfortunately there are many people who must be lead, some guided, some are self-leading, some a mix of these.

Funny thing I have learned living my life for nearly 68 yrs working 52 of those is that the greatest number of people do not JUMP OUT OF BED EVERY MORNING rushing off to give 8 to 12 hrs of their day to THEIR PASSION with degrees or not.

Also, no one tends to wake up enthusiastic about BEING BOSSED, MANAGED or LEAD.

Especially US Americans

Groups are dependent upon the LEADER, the person in charge, paradigm.

TEAMS thrive working independently simultaneously or intradependently yet sometimes need a guide, facilitator, coordinator not necessary a LEADER with a CAPITAL "L"

LEADER mentality to me means working dependently.

In the 70s I worked for a very successful architectural firm where most of the projects were done by individual architects, occaisionally we would have draftsmen assigned to us. But usually we did most to all the work independently coordinating with the various engineers and clients along with the inspectors and building officials.

My last two years I was an independent consultant to the firm and seldom in the office yet we got projects done. I showed up when we needed to have meetings with each other or with the client or the various engineers. I contracted to work no more than 25 hrs per week yet agreed to meet all deadlines, which I did.

Being in an office with all the various dyanmics, the chit chat, etc. was not longer of interest or value to me and very unproductive. Also when I had my own firm I had contracters not 8 to 5 employees. They could work in the office or wherever they chose. The only requirement was that we met often to review the work for practial and legal reasons (employees of architectural firms are required to work under the supervision of licensed architects). I stretched that one a little both ways as a firm owner and as a contracted consultant.

The idea of someone BEING THE LEADER 100% is rediculous or being a SUPERVISOR who is constantly looking over employees shoulders is rediculous.

But I repeat when you look at the total number of employees they range from those that need supervision to those who do not. Sometimes that changes per employee.

The idea that AUTONOMOUS LEADERSHIP is realistic with ALL Employees is fantasy.

If only people who can work autonomous were employeed we would have much higher unemployment.