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