Is there a way to psychologically assess the positive version? Either a DISC or WAIS subtest score or something similar? (I assume a constructive leader?)
You'll have to provide material scientific evidence for every one of the claims, otherwise, though there's a ton of truthiness in there, it's also a lot of pop psychology.
Many of our greatest leaders exhibit a lot of those traits (though not the existentially negative one's i.e. they are only motivated by their own power etc.).
'Looking down on others as incompetent' is not a negative sign if said individuals are incompetent.
'Interrupting/speaking over others' is in most cases just a sign of possibly poor communication, and frankly in many cases warranted. Just because you are 'speaking' does not give you the right to monopolize someone else's time with your thoughts. Some people, myself in included have difficulty 'getting to the point' and I'm used to leaders interrupting me, it's fine.
'Pontification' 'Telling Stories' - often is at the root of positive charismatic leadership. Plebes want to believe that their jobs have a higher purpose, a 'mission', they generally want the koolaid so long as it's not too out of hand.
'Chaotic Climate' - again, some systems work better when they are in more or less permanent chaos or in an ambiguous state. Not 'panic' obviously, but in entrepreneurism chaos is often the defining quality of the situation, those that can't live with that may want to work elsewhere.
"Appears unsympathetic to others’ concerns" - sorry - again, one person has absolutely no material right to require that some other person is sympathetic to their concerns. Of course a sympathetic leader makes us 'feel better', but most mature, senior workers who have emotional maturity could care less if their bosses are 'empathetic'. If management isn't listening because they are 'wrong' or 'missing something' then that's altogether a different stories.
Politically astute leaders take this one to the bank - appear to be 'empathetic' when really it's just an infantile, placating emotional display that has nothing materially to do with anything. They do this because a lot of emotionally immature people respond to it.
"Disdain for human frailty or weakness of any kind" - this one I think is adding to the list of 'made up' 'unscientific tropes' amended to the list by someone because they think leaders ought not to be this way. I think it's misunderstood. I think most, even 'tough guy' leaders are fine with weakness, it's a matter of how it's displayed. You can cry, but not on Television for god's sakes; it's not the 'crying' that's weak, it's the evocation of sympathy or empathy from others, a form of emotional grovelling that's the issue.
"Moralistic whistleblowing" - like shaming, cancel culture? So yes, it's possibly a sign of something, but possibly not.
I think this is a great article - and all of these things 'can be signs' of bad leadership but are often not. Every point probably needs a counter point, I think a lot of the behaviours of leaders are misunderstood.
I've been very fortunate to have a lot of great and demanding leaders and see many of the supposed 'negative points' in them, so I'm wary of promoting such a list without a whole load of caveats and contextualisations.
