Consider the statements "The best way to challenge a leader is to attack its strengths" and "The best way to attack a leader is to avoid a head-on assault and to adopt a flanking strategy." Take a stand and justify one statement, supporting it with examples.
We could see merits with both statements. However, when we weigh the statements against each other, the first statement has greater merit, in my opinion. Looking at the second statement, if we wanted to challenge someone - anyone, or anything, we wouldn't expect to successfully to do while employing a strategy that avoids the person or situation. This would defeat the purpose of a basic challenge of strength, wits, etc. This brings us to the first statement. The best way to challenge a leader - or any person - is to attack its strengths. When we attack, we automatically know there will be a head-on confrontation, whether physical or verbal. In the first statement, we are fulfilling that objective, to determine the actual strength of the leader. In the ...
This solution agrees with one of the statements presented. A thorough analysis of each leadership statement is presented, along with an analysis of 'attacking a leader' and flanking strategies.