I believe that Leadership comes in three main types: Good leaders- People who take an activate and hands-on approach with their subordinates, and the organization as a whole. Most often, they view their position as the means to their goal- Their goal either coinciding with the organization's, or a desire to change something about the organization. You can rely on them to be knowledgeable about even base-level ongoings within their group, to resolve problems or at least direct others to solve problems as they arise. They will understand the spirit of the rules and regulations as well as the direct spelling of them, and make sure that the spirit is what is enforced in the case of an issue- The goal being to preserve the integrity of the organization even above themselves or the members. If they have a desire to fix things, they will get mass-input on not only how to fix things, but what things even need fixing in the first place. Bad Leaders- Are the inverse of good ones. Most often, they view their position as the goal. They take an active and hands-on approach, but they are arrogant, often making decisions based off of narrow perspectives and most often relying on their own. When addressing an issue, they will exploit or abuse the rules to get the outcome that most favors their interests, defying the spirit for convenience or benefit. If they have a desire to fix things, that desire is directed almost exclusively at things that effect them or had affected them previously. One of the most destructive factors is that a bad leader will often make a pretense at getting others perspectives, but will either collect largely meaningless information, or just outright ignore information that doesn't conform to their established prejudices. Lackluster/Nonexistent leaders- People who can be easily mistaken for a bad or good leader depending on if things are going bad or good, but are really just around. They often view their position as the goal, much like bad leaders, but just as often never really had a 'goal' to begin with. They delegate pretty much all responsibilities to their subordinates, and require coercing to actually do anything. Without their subordinates, nothing would get done. The don't abuse or exploit the rules: They only follow the letter of the rules, doing the least amount of work possible so that an issue can technically be resolved- even if the reasons behind the issues are left completely unaddressed. If there is a desire to fix things, it is directed exclusively within their own prejudices, taking little interest or effort with issues other people bring up. And that's my interpretation! I'm curious what attributes people would add to these categories, or if they'd make their own category over something that I missed. I'm curious what stories people might have that example these leaders as well!