The demands of leadership almost invariably exceed the capacity of a single person to meet the needs at hand. Even the most successful and iconic leaders of the past century—Churchill, Roosevelt, Mandela, Thatcher, Gandhi, and King—were not complete leaders. Although Churchill and King may go down in history as two of the 20th century's most successful communicative leaders, their performances as either analytical or relational leaders are undistinguished. Mandela and Gandhi were deeply reflective leaders, seeing their own place in the context of the struggles of millions, but neither showed distinction in systems leadership. In the context of education, many leaders seem less inclined to grasp the architectural vision of leadership that was posited in Chapter 3 and more likely to embrace the faux composite historical models in which the leader is simultaneously the great communicator, analyst, and a master of reflection. From such mythology are born the unrealistic expectations of communities, colleagues, and leaders themselves. Even the best of the lot frequently think of themselves as a failure because of their inability to attend three events simultaneously.