What leaders DON’T: fool around
Good grief, will the guys ever learn to keep their pants zipped?
Eliot Sptizer is just the latest in a long line political and business biggies to be ousted over sex actions of one kind or another.
I’m also wondering how many other patrons of this current sting will be outed. If he’s the only name made public then, to me, something else stinks a lot worse than his hiring a prostitute.
As for women, I don’t believe that they’re above fooling around; I just think they plan better and don’t get caught. Maybe more caution and less arrogance?
I also wonder why we, as a population, are willing to rationalize far worse actions by our so-called political and business leaders as long as they don’t involve sex?
What do you think?
Your comments—priceless
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL
Related Stories
POSTED IN: About Leadership, Ethics, What Do You Think?, What Leaders DON'T
5 opinions for What leaders DON’T: fool around
Tom Magness
Mar 16, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Miki
I’ve been visiting DC over the last several weeks — the first time during the Roger Clemens hearings and the second during the NY Governor downfall. Two observations:
– People love a controversy. They (and the media) can seemingly care less about the important issues facing our nation!
– It is amazing what stupid things people will do for temporary gain. The higher they are…the harder they fall.
Leaders of character are still in high demand! Hooah!
The NONexistence of American leadership
Mar 17, 2008 at 12:15 am
[...] a post about the repercussions of sexual peccadilloes I said, “I’m also wondering how many other [...]
Miki Saxon
Mar 17, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Tom, read my follow-up post on March 17.
I’m far more concerned about the actions of the Feds—an organization with no leaders of character whatsoever.
John
Oct 19, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Were JFKennedy and Bill Clinton leaders? They had their foolish moments (and an underlying arrogance towards women).
Miki Saxon
Oct 19, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Hi John, thanks for visiting and adding to the discussion.
If you define ‘leader’ based on position, then they were. If you define it based on actions and authenticity then there are gaps.
So I suppose that you can say they were leaders at times and weren’t at other times—like the rest of us poor mortals.
I hope you’ll return to read the post I’m doing on this later in the week.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: