There are a variety of authors mentioned in this first section of the book and their views on leadership vary greatly. Tao Te Ching is the first author mentioned and the following passage really struck a chord with me:
In dwelling, be close to the land.
In medication, go deep in the heart.
In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
In speech, be true.
In ruling, be just.
In business, be competent.
In action, watch the timing.
Kellerman goes on to discuss the value of inaction when serving as a leader. Sometimes doing nothing can be more powerful and meaningful then taking action. When is it appropriate to consider not taking action when you are a leader? Do you leave too much up to chance?

The next great author is Confucius. His work is based on leadership through education and the possibility of learning to be a good leader while leading a life of virtue. Do you think good leaders or born or made? Does a good leader require a genetic "x factor" or can they develop into a charismatic transformational leader through hard work? Do you think being an ethical person is a prerequisite to being a good leader or is breaking the rules a necessary evil to successful leadership?

Plato is a well known philosopher and has numerous writings about leadership. In the excerpt included by Kellerman, he discusses the importance of leadership education: literature, music, physical exercise, elementary and advanced mathematics, philosophy and metaphysics, and real-world experience in civil service and the military. Do you think leadership education is this formulaic or is the St. Norbert approach to the leadership minor more practical? Some of these courses sound like a college education, but will they really prepare someone of a life of leadership? What courses would you add to Plato's school schedule?

The Nature of Mankind

Machiavelli’s prince is inevitably going to do things that his people do not like if the prince wants to protect his land. The prince cares more about the end result than how to get there. Do you believe that the end justifies the means in your leadership? Explain your reasoning.

Machiavelli talks of those who would oppose the prince, and says that the prince should take the actions that he finds most appropriate for the desired outcome. Have you ever led in a situation where people disapproved of your vision?

Do you find more security in being feared or in being loved as a leader?

In Chapter XXI, Machiavelli discusses the importance of being honorable and wise. Appearing virtuous is not necessary but appearing honorable is. Machiavelli describes qualities that trump other qualities, such as courage over generosity. What other qualities do you find as bullet points of leadership?

The next piece of work is a discussion Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes is pessimistic toward mankind and says that everyone is against each other. Hobbes says that governments are a necessary component of society to keep men from always being at war with each other. Locke is optimistic because he feels that men want to live in a society of peace. If people think that they are free, then they will be happy. In the context of Locke and Hobbes, leadership is seen as those who have power. Who do you think you would rather have as the leader of your organization, Hobbes or Locke? Explain why.

John Stuart Mill discusses the impact of coercion on society, and says that the only time that coercion is acceptable is if the person’s behavior would have otherwise harmed someone. Mill is a proponent of individualism and fears that social pressures will lead to conformity. Discuss how Mill’s assertions draw a parallel to leadership in groups. It’d be good to discuss the circumstances of coercion, the importance of individuality, and the prevention of “group think.”

Zach Parmeter