In a New York Times column published on May 18, 2009, David Brooks writes about the effective traits of successful business CEOs. It seems that study after study confirms that dull is better. That is, flamboyant and some may say interesting creative traits do not add to the bottom line as much as persistence, attention to detail, and a dogged determination to be the best at what you do. This is dull? Essentially Brooks is arguing that emotive, charismatic types that the are the toast of dinner parties might not be the best people to lead companies. He cites Jim Collins' Good to Great among other studies and concludes that dull is better for business. Can you extrapolate these studies to community leadership as well? I think there are some definite parallels.