I was just reading about how Barack Obama and George W. Bush are the most polarizing presidents of the past 50 years, meaning they had the largest gap in approval ratings between democrats and republicans. Some think there's a chicken and egg aspect to the question of which came first, our divisive leaders or our divided nation, but I think it's entirely a function of leadership. If Obama and Bush were effective leaders, the nation wouldn't be so divided.
That's because, by definition, leadership is about somehow getting people with disparate views to coalesce and execute on goals and plans they would never agree to on their own. Clearly, that's not happening in Washington and that's why America's so divided. Makes sense, right?
To read the full, original article click on this link: 7 signs of a dysfunctional company - CBS News
