A first-rate madness
Ratings3
Average rating3
15
Ratings3
Average rating3
An investigation into the surprisingly deep correlation between mental illness and successful leadership, as seen through some of history's greatest politicians, generals, and businesspeople. "A First-Rate Madness," Nassir Ghaemi, who runs the Mood Disorders Program at Tufts University Medical Center, draws from the careers and personal plights of such notable leaders as Lincoln, Churchill, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., JFK, and others from the past two centuries to build an argument at once controversial and compelling: the very qualities that mark those with mood disorders- realism, empathy, resilience, and creativity-also make for the best leaders in times of crisis. By combining astute analysis of the historical evidence with the latest psychiatric research, Ghaemi demonstrates how these qualities have produced brilliant leadership under the toughest circumstances. Take realism, for instance: study after study has shown that those suffering depression are better than "normal" people at assessing current threats and predicting future outcomes. Looking at Lincoln and Churchill among others, Ghaemi shows how depressive realism helped these men tackle challenges both personal and national. Or consider creativity, a quality psychiatrists have studied extensively in relation to bipolar disorder.
"A First-Rate Madness" shows how mania inspired General Sherman and Ted Turner to design and execute their most creative-and successful-strategies. Ghaemi's thesis is both robust and expansive; he even explains why eminently sane men like Neville Chamberlain and George W. Bush made such poor leaders. Though sane people are better shepherds in good times, sanity can be a severe liability in moments of crisis. A lifetime without the cyclical torment of mood disorders, Ghaemi explains, can leave one ill equipped to endure dire straits. He also clarifies which kinds of insanity-like psychosis-make for despotism and ineptitude, sometimes on a grand scale. Ghaemi's bold, authoritative analysis offers powerful new tools for determining who should lead us. But perhaps most profoundly, he encourages us to rethink our view of mental illness as a purely negative phenomenon. As "A First-Rate Madness" makes clear, the most common types of insanity can confer vital benefits on individuals and society at large-however high the price for those who endure these illnesses"--Provided by publisher.
Reviews with the most likes.
Everyone looks under your seats...You are depressed...You are depressed... everyone is depressed!
This title was one of the more interesting books to capture my attention in 2022. The premise - that mentally illness can aid in the development of crisis leadership traits/skills - is just that: interesting. The extension of that premise - that mentally healthy leaders struggle in crisis situations is downright provocative for someone that studies both strategic leadership and crisis leadership.
All told, I'm glad to have read the book. I enjoyed it.
Yet, I find myself in a position where I cannot say that I agree with Ghaemi's premise, nor do I disagree with it. I do not believe the text developed the argument enough for me to decide. The author identifies several historical leaders and discusses their potential mental illness alongside their performance in career-defining crises. The text takes more pains to convince the reader that the leaders under consideration had some manner of mental illness than it does to connect the effects of the illnesses to their performance in crises. That's to be expected given the author's background, which is why the narrative serves as enjoyable fodder for ongoing consideration. For a more deliberate connection to leadership, though, I would loved to have seen what this book could be had Ghaemi written it in collaboration with a leadership scholar.
The value of this read doesn't end there, though. The reader can't help but ask hard questions about crisis.
What is crisis?
What does crisis do to leaders?
Do we resolve crises, or do we just adapt “around” them?
