As I mentioned in the Saloon, I was in a retreat all day. It's actually a management/leadership one for my org, and unlike most of those, a pretty good one.

But one of the things that stood out was one of the moderator's discussion of one trait that makes a good leader: Connecting with the people below him.

I've worked in three straight higher ed orgs, and my C-suite leaders at the last two were abysmal. Specifically, they had no use for or interest in anyone below them (not even directors/managers). They survived in their jobs because they made sure anyone in power had personal service, and any fuck-ups were blamed on scapegoats (and after chasing all the good folks from the org, the scapegoats eventually were unqualified and probably should have been canned).

My current org, in spite of being in a "traditional" higher ed org with all the problems that entails, has a fantastic C-suite leader at the top, and while he doesn't know me well (we're two levels apart), he's still managed to connect with me and even my reports.

When I talk to my friends, regardless of industry, they've got similar stories, about both the bad leaders and the rare exceptions.

I hate the notion that "leadership," a great trait to have, has gotten conflated with "leadership," a collective noun referring to a bunch of people intent on never displaying that trait. One of my personal goals here (along with the colleague who also was in one of those previous shitty orgs) is to try to encourage more people to practice good leadership. The folks destroying orgs need to go.