Good Versus Effective Leadership

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.

Good Leaders Are Responsible
They don’t break rules or fudge the facts. They treat people fairly. They don’t lie, cheat or steal to get ahead.

Good Leaders Limit Collateral Damage
They don’t achieve outcomes and leave followers exhausted, damaged or demoralized. They don’t cause harm to achieve a goal.

Good Leaders Develop Followers
They build the skills and talents of others and make followers partners in the process and the outcomes.

Good leaders leave the organization and its followers better off than when they found it
The sport of cycling is not better off after Lance Armstrong. His followers -- and the sport they love -- have been given a painful setback. In general, a good leader would not be the cause of this, but rather prevent it from happening in the first place, or provide the inspiration to rebuild. So far, I don't see that happening in this case.

Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.