From: The New York Times

Good Versus Effective Leadership

The New York Times:

The Lance Armstrong case is like many other instances involving the evaluation of leaders. The key problem is that we equate leader effectiveness with being a good leader. It isn’t enough for someone in a leadership position (and by virtue of his position as a role model and a “leader” in his sport, Lance Armstrong qualifies) to simply get things done. A successful leader is one who accomplishes goals, but who also has good character. Here’s what distinguishes a “good” leader from merely an effective one:

Doing the Right Things vs. Simply Getting Things Done
The fact that Armstrong raised millions for charity doesn’t excuse him for his misbehavior in his sport and for ultimately being a poor role model for aspiring athletes.

Read the whole story: The New York Times


Leadership comes in many forms. Lance’s work cannot be disputed that it contributed in a positive way to society and to medicine. The facts of ethical choices prior to the excellent leadership remain and in our society we judge individuals and make decisions about them when we find out.

So the question remains, should Lance NOT have started his work on “LiveStrong” if he realized he made some unethical decisions in his early years? His leadership and vision still remain. If he had NOT pursued his vision, would we have had someone else step up? I think we need to take a bigger picture perspective.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.
In the interest of transparency, we do not accept anonymous comments.
Required fields are marked*