I need help analyzing these articles and responding to these questions.

1. How do each of the articles differ from one another in terms of their primary point(s) of emphasis?

- Followers Don't See Their Leaders as Real People:

- From Bureaucratic Followers to Interactive Collaborators:

- Reasons for Being Bad:

REASONS FOR BEING BAD O LITICAL PHILOSO PHE RS have generall'yr agreed on one important thing: People in a state of nature are not, in the usual sense of the word, \"good.\" This is not to insist that people are bad but rather that the human animal cannot be relied on to behave well. Because virtually all men, women, and children live in groups, and because some men, women, and children are bad solne of the time, the overriding question is how bad behavior can and should be constrained. Freud wrote that primitive peoples lived in groups \"ruled over despoticallv by a powerful male\" and that only later, along with the beginnings of religion and social organization, was the \"paternal horde transformed into a communityr of hrothers."l It is this transitionfrom natural humans living in a \"paternal horde\" to more civilized hulnans living in a \"community of broth ers\"that has been grist for the mill of political philosophers from Aristotle and Confucius to Montesquieu and Mill. The most pressing political concerns have been and continue to be about governance: how people in groups are best ordered and organized. Traits Leadership scholars used to think that the leader's traits were more important than any other variable to the way leadership was exercised. But now they're more skeptical. Traits once considered of paramount importance, such as intelligence, are viewed as hav ing fuzzy and imprecise denotations. {Cognitive intelligence? Emotional intelligence? Practical intelligence?) And traits consid ered essential in some situations are now seen as virtually irrele vant in others. In any case, the explanatory power of traits is now viewed as less than it once was. It is now widely agreed that to overemphasize the leader's traits is to underelnphasize other im portant variables, such as the situation, the nature of the task at hand, and of course the followers.-q But even though the trait theory of leadership is out of fash ion, at least in academe, it's silly to pretend that traits don't mat ter. Traits once considered of consequence still are.In And average people who exercise leadership still exceed the average members of their groups in traits such as intelligence {however dened}, sociability, persistence, alertness, verbal facility, level of energy, and adaptability. In short, the trait approach to leadership is a relatively simple way of understanding why people behave the way they do. Moreover, whether a leader has or lacks a particular trait is likely to tell us a fair amount about how and why good, or bad, leader ship was exercised. Consider the explanatory power of an ordinary trait such as greed. Greedy leaders crave moremore success, more money, more power, or more whatever, such as sex. This is not to say that all leaders who aspire to have more are bad. In some measure, re wards such as Inonev and power are simply the benets expected from hard work. Rather, when leaders\" appetites for more are ex cessive, it is likely to intrude on their capacity to exercise leader ship for the common good. American business has been riddled in recent years by scandals brought on primarily by rich corporate leaders who apparently wanted nothing so much as to get even richer. One of the poster boys for wrongdoing in the mutual fund industry was Richard Strong. Charged with sins ranging from late trading to improper market timing, Strong was nally forced to resign as chairman, chief executive, and chief investment ofcer of Strong Capital Management, a rm he had founded. Similarly, Raymond Cun ninghaln, chief executive of Invesco, one of the world's biggest money managers, was hit by civil fraud charges filed by both the Securities and Exchange Commission and New York State Attor ney General Eliot Spitzer. Cunningham reportedly was engaged in a massive mutual fund scheme from which he and his cronies prof ited handsomely while ordinary investors suffered millions of dol lars in losses. But greed is not measured in dollars alone. Because the modern American presidency offers heady, extravagant benets, it comes as no surprise to learn that those who sit in the Oval Ofce are also inclined to want more, sometimes more than they can, or should, have. Lyndon Johnson wanted both guns and butter American dominance abroad and the Great Society at home. Richard Nixon tried further to tighten his already tight grip on the American political system. And Bill Clinton's presidency will long be stained by his uncontained appetites. W'hen leaders are unwill ing or unable to control their desire for more, bad leadership will be the result. Creed is likely to be most pernicious when it entails a hunger for power. Sometimes this results in little more than the leader's unwillingness to share power by, for example, delegating tasks and consulting with others.ll But in its more extreme form, a craving for power can be dangerous. It is no stretch to say that the root cause of totalitarianism is a leader whose need for control is allconsuming. Chara cater Psychologists and psychiatrists base their analyses of character on clinical observations. Historians and political scientists, on the other hand, assess character by studying the behavior of public of cials over long periods.\" In anyr case, character is considered the core of the personality systeln, the foundation on which personal ity structures develop and operate. Unlike traits, which are viewed as amenable to change, character is a more permanent condition, fundamental and xed. Character is elnhedded in who we are; it is who we are. 13 As the word is commonly used, we also presume that to know a person's character is to know his or her moral compass. When we say of leaders such as Nelson Mandela andjimmy Carter that they are men of good character, we are saying they are good men, decent and honorable deep down as well as to all appearances. The connection between character and leadership is easiest to make at the extreme. Political scientist Betty Glad studied three very bad leaders: Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein. She con cluded all three were \"malignant narcissists\" who, in effect, could not help being aggressive and sadistic in their relations with oth ers.'4 Put another way, malignant narcissism is not considered to be a mere trait. To label these three men malignant narcissists is to stalnp their characters and to tell us what we need to know about why they behave as they do. Why Do We Follow Leaders Who Behave Badly? Unless followers are pressured or coerced into going along with bad leaders, they resist themright? Wrong. We know full well that bad leaders of various kinds abound and that their followers usually follow, even when they know that their leaders are mis guided or malevolent. Why? The answer to this question matters, because we can't expect to reduce the number of bad leaders un less we reduce the number of bad followers. Social character is an elusive concept, because like individual person ality, it refers to both conscious and unconscious aspects of human psy chology. We are conscious of our values that give our lives mea.ning, our talents, and our identities or sense ofself. The unconscious aspects. have to do with emotionally charged attitudes or moaivau'onal systemsexperi ences from childhood that shape how we relate to others and what most drives us at school and work: what makes us want to do what we need to do in order to prosper in a particular social context. In wellfuncu'oning people, the conscious and unconscious attitudes and values are for the most part connected; the total personality is in tune with the social character, and the social character fits a person's social role. For example, a key element of the bureaucratic social character is the hardworking obsessive personality that has internalized a dominant father figure from early childhood. Someone with this social character will con- sciously value order and expertise and will want to follow those managers who are like good fathersdemanding but caring mentors. W'hile this person may be aware that he values a fatherlike leader, he's unaware that he's projecting an infantile image onto a manager who may not be veryr caring and, in doing so, making himself dependent on this manager, iln puting knowledge and understanding the manager may not have and un- dervaluing his own competence. For people with an interactive social character, the significant person from the past they project onto a leader is often not a parent but a sibling or a close childhood Friend who might have brought them into a team or music group or iniu'ated them into a new activity. To be sure, these ties may be weaker than traditional parental transferences. But for lnteractives, raised in die new context where the traditional familyr is breaking down, parental images are not the dominating father or nurturing mother, but rather a more ambivalent gure who couldn't always be counted on to be there when needed. Furthermore, a deft ng aspect of the interactive social character is its ability to easily.r take on new identities, like roles in a video galne. That makes some of these people argue they're unique and can't be described in terms ofa social character stereotype; they just adapt, whatever the sit THE BUREAUCRTlC PERSONALITY The outcome of these entrepreneurial ventures were great companies or ganized into bureaucracies with Functional departments and specialized roles, regulated and controlled by rules and. increasingly, by professional managers. As Peter Drucker, the outstanding interpreter ot- management, wrote, bureaucratic management deals with the integration ofpeople into a common venture, and so what managers do in Germany, in the United Kingdom, injapan, in Brazil, is exactly the same, even though how they do it may be quite dj'erent."i\ d one thing they were doing was shaping the bureaucratic social character. By the start of the twentieth century, many American families were raising their sons not to be independent farmers, but to be managers or government employees in bureaucracies, and their daughters to support their husbands' careers rather than their farms. That meant not only taking care ofhome and children, but also joining clubs and socializing with the wives of men who could help their husbands' careers. To be sure, bureaucracies and bureaucrats had been around for a long time. From Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China, bureaucrats have served em perors, pharaohs, and kings. They've been tax collectors, scribes, clerics, or clerks in the court, custom house, or archives. Czar Nicholas l suppos edly said, \"Not I but ten thousand clerks rule Russia." As far back as we can see, large organizations have been run by bureaucrats. And bureaucrats have long had a bad reputation, spread by novelists and social scientists as well as politicians. Nineteenthcentury novelists pictured bureaucrats as dry, narrow, and heartless. ln Little Dorrit, Charles Dickens describes Tite Barnacle, who runs the Dice of Circumlocation with the mission ofnlaking sure that nothing ever happens for the rst time. Writes Dickens, \"He wound and wound folds of tape and. paper round the neck of the country His wristbands and collar were oppressive, his voice and manner were oppressive.\"4 In Herman Melville's \"Bartleby the Scrivener\" [1853], the American bureaucrat becomes a zombie whose only vestige of hulnanity is to resist all orders, saying, \"I would prefer not to." And this view expressed the American stereotype. Even before the rise ofbig business and big government, Americans were especially opposed to bureaucracies and bureaucrats, and this View still distorts popular views of dedicated public servants and industrious managers. The negative attitude goes back to America's Calvinist founders, rebels against all foran of state and church authorityany insutution that imposed interlnediaries be tween citizens and elected representatives, between individuals and their God. The ideal for American Protestants was voluntary service to create community. \\Vhen the new Ilauonal government was formed in \"'89, there was a small public service, with mostjobs in finance, record keeping, and copying official documents. But libertyloving Americans, who feared the kind of controlling bureaucracy that served George ill, agreed that if they had to have one, they wanted a bureaucracy that served the people in a society of equals. And to a degree, they succeeded. In 1830, Tocqueville was impressed with the egalitarian behavior of American public servants.\" That all changed in the postCivil W'ar period. The bribe-taking customs official, land agent, and lndian agent soiled the relatively clean image of the American public servant. Reforms, beginning with merit system in stituted by the Pendleton Civil Service ReformAct of183, somewhat im- proved the bureaucratic image, and new functions ofscience and technology uation. But lnte ractives are hardly conscious of how they adapt to differ ent situations. It's the need to design themselves according to what sells on the personality market that di'erentiates the interacu've social character from social characters of the past. Compare the interactive social character to that of the Mexicali rampe sinus Erich Fromm and I studied. Their social character wasn't adapted to the industrial world that was fast overtaking them. They were farmers and, with the exception of the hacienda peons who had been liberated by the Mexican Revolution of 19101920, their way oflife was the same as that oftheir parents, grandparents, and greatgrandparen Is. Their social charac ter had not changed from that of their ancestors as far back as they could imagine. Their identity or sense ofselfwas rooted in family and place. Ald'iough villagers liked to think of themselves as unique individuals and even had a saying for it\"Yu say yo ,1: no me parent a riddle\" (I am myselfand I'm not like anyone elseJthey had the social character shared Widl ee peasants around the world that I described in chapter 1: cautious, indepen dent, hoarding, patient, fatalistic, dignified, respectful, and egalitarian, but suspicious of anyone outside the family. There were two exceptions to this social character. One was the families of die landless hacienda peons. They had been so damaged by their virtual slavery that they didn't believe they could ever succeed as independent farmers. Even when given land.I their passive, fearful, and submissive social character, which was a survival strategy in die hacienda where independence provoked beatings or worse, made them vulnerable to new entrepreneurial bosses. These bosses were the sec ond exception, the productive narcissism. who in less turbulent u'rnes seem out ofsync with society, but who are the first to exploit new opportunities whenever there are dramau'c changes in the mode of production.' As noted in chapter 1, Free peasanls throughout the world share a social character; they are in many ways more alike in their attitudes to work and relationships than they are like city people in their own countries. And if we look back at the United States in the nineteenth century, not includ ing the native Americans and slaves, the large majority of American fan] ilies also made their living from farming (over 75 percent as late as 18370] as independent land owners. They expressed some of the attitudes offree, \fCaring. As a leader, an important part of your job is to know who in your organization is going through difficult times and to nd ways to help those employees. A personal note to someone who is out on sick leave, or an in-person thank you to an employee who worked extended hours during a particularly crucial period, will help to convey your concern. Look for opportunities to learn about and show concern for employees. Show your interest quie y don't focus on how such an action might ultimately benet you. Standards. True, employees want independence and autonomy, but most of them want to exercise their independence in service ot'high standards. Those standards come from the leader. Low standards lead to low commitment, even for the most self-motivated employees: high standards are energizing. To make eective use of high standards, choose your arenas carefully. Standards must be consistent, but slavish consistency is counterproductive: Ii'you demand perfection in every aspect of performance, you'll come across as a tyrannical nitpicker. In our interviews we found that the most elfective story- generating leaders were known for one or two things, such as always being prepared for meetings, insisting on product quality, or supporting excellent customer service. Whatever the standard was, t he leader consistently upheld it and demanded it of others. When you are enforcing your standards, bear in mind that it is a best practice to praise in public and coach or admonish in private. Public reprimands often backfire, either because employees sympathize with the target or because the leader turns out to have spoken too soon, without a full awareness ofthe circumstances. That's not the kind ofstory you want circulating in your company. If you doiepi'imaind in public, avoid making it seem personal. One CEO. a&er sensing that an executive team was unprepared for a quarterly product meeting, stood up and. calmly left the room. No one was singled out, but the messagewas powerful nonetheless. Vision. Generating stories that suggest you are a visionary can hechallenging. What we found is that it is usually stones about the past that make others believe you will be visionary in the future. A compelling story about how a company got started can serve this purpose. Starbucks employees we interviewed told us about fou nder Howard Schultz's well-know \"Aha!" moment at an espresso bar in Italy. A Netix employee recounted Reed Hastings story of being annoyed by late charges on his video rental. Sometimes an origin story can take the form ofa CEO's iourney to the company. 'r'ouTube CEO Susan Woj cicki has talked about her experiments with entrepreneurship as a child; later renting her garage to Google's founders,- becoming one of the early Google employees; and pushing Google to make strategic decisions that have paid oisuch as purdiasing You'T'ube). Remember, however, that for maximum effect stories like these need to be shared and emerge through infomial channels. Your "My Vision, and I Do Have One" video isn't thebest way to create a positive mental image. Humanness. This is what makes you seem accessible what makes it possible for others to identify with you and bond with you. lfyou are one of the corporate world's relentlessly success-oriented leaders, remember that failures, setbacks, and even weaknesses are at the heart of stories that communicate your humanness. In our research , we heard stories about executives with physical disabilities, illness, and repeated rejections or failures; these challenges allowed employees to see them as human. One employee told us that his rm's managi ng partner had an odd habit oflaughing nervously at inopponune moments. In one instance the partner had started laughing in a meeting Wl'} an important client and nally had to excuse himself. It was clear from me way the employee told the story that this \"problem" was something that endeared the partner to his employees. Anomer aspect of humanness is to communicate that you are no better than anyone else. Yvon Chouinard, founder and owner of Patagonia, makes it a point to eat lunch with his employees when he is at headquarters, and he always pays for his meals in the company cafeteria. These lunch stories have circulated in the company. The simple acts send a clear message that he is human and accountable to the rules. iust like the rest of the employees. As we've pointed out berm-e, tliebest way to get your story out there is through surrogates, employees who have had inspin'ng interactions with you and spread the stories throughout the organization. These individuals amplify your concern, standards, vision, and humanity. But even if you lack surrogates, rest assured that if you keep doing the right things, people will eventually notice and spread positive stories about you. And those stories will form themselves into an army ofmental images that will mobilize people to achieve your goals