of action associated with them. They may talk a good game, attend a lot of meetings and produce a lot of reports, but when all's said and done, far too much is said and hardly anything is done. It would be easy to point to Barack Obama as a "weak" bad leader, given recent performance. Watching from afar, though, I think he's a combination of "weak" and "strong": sometimes not doing anything but talk, and other times taking ideologically-based actions that either don't have the intended effect or are done in spite of their massive unpopularity. How to be a bad leader the "effective but evil" way Not all bad leaders are ineffective. Some achieve exactly what they intend, but what they intend is not in the best interests of the people they lead or others that their leadership affects. My personal definition of "evil" is "knowingly profiting from using your power to harm others", and there are plenty of leaders about (in both politics and business) who are evil by this definition. If even a portion of the accusations against Silvio Berlusconi are true, he is one example. So is any competent dictator, almost by definition (incompetent dictators fall into the "strong" bad leader category). The leaders of the financial institutions who made massive profits by taking what they knew to be irresponsible actions that ended up burning out the world economy were also "effective but evil". How to be a good leader So if there were some good