Are we celebrating the wrong leaders?

 Here are some examples of the action fallacy as defined by "the best leaders are those that generate the most noise, action, sensational activity in the most dramatic circumstances":

1. Claiming that a political leader is effective simply because they frequently make controversial statements or take divisive actions that generate a lot of media attention and public outcry. This confuses sensationalism with actual leadership qualities like sound judgment, vision, and the ability to unite people.
2. Arguing that a CEO is a great leader because they constantly shake up the company with dramatic reorganizations, high-profile firings, and splashy new initiatives. While such actions create a perception of activity, they do not necessarily translate into positive results or effective leadership.
3. Asserting that a military commander is skilled because they favor bold, risky maneuvers that create dramatic battlefield situations, regardless of whether those tactics achieve strategic objectives or result in excessive casualties.
4. Praising an activist as a great leader solely because they organize attention-grabbing protests, civil disobedience, and confrontational tactics, without evaluating whether their methods are ethical, legal, and effective at achieving their stated goals.
5. Judging the leadership of a sports coach primarily by how much they yell, argue with officials, and create emotionally-charged sideline scenes, rather than their ability to develop strategy, motivate players, and produce winning results.

In each case, the action fallacy occurs by equating leadership quality with the generation of noise, drama, and sensationalism, instead of directly assessing the leader's competence, decision-making, integrity, and ability to achieve positive outcomes through their actions.