The author said that this could be a critical point at the end of the book and that this was indeed the point, because at the end of the day, leadership should be about doing, following your passion, and learning as you go.
However I feel like the state of leadership and the inspiration behind this book is one that came from a limited and privileged world view. And because of that it is overly simple. Idealistically, hard charging and not taking no for an answer when your vision for something better is inspirational and rooted in a personal truth and conviction should be celebrated. But this book ignores the reality that operating in this way is a luxury that people of color and women often can't afford to do without more grave consequences than the risk of someone just "not getting it". Even his example of MLK as a person that just "did it" was an oversimplification because history shows that he was a reluctant leader initially and also that he was chosen early on by clergy and members of the SCLC because he was relatively unknown in Montgomery and was therefore possibly less immune to the danger and intimidation any black leader there would experience. Add to that the fact that public opinion at that time was overwhelmingly against him and even amongst black civil rights organizations of the time there wasn't overwhelming consensual his methods were even correct or inspiring change, and I think it illustrates my point further. We celebrate King now as a martyr and representation of persistence in the face of something wrong, but at the time many people did not see it that way.
Because of this, I think mentioning more than just the power of tribe and putting it in context of other actual leadership skills and challenges of leading from a place without privilege could have added depth to this book.
- Amazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a free business account
