No True Scotsman really only applies to factual statements. All normative statements suffer from a No True Scotsman fallacy. But it doesn't really matter because they aren't literally true to begin with, they're lodestars or food for thought.

Eg, if I say, "real programmers never ship untested code," well, I've shipped untested code either on accident or to address a production incident. I'm just some dude, but I'm sure many of the very best programmers would say the same. But I think there would be a consensus among them that you ought not to if possible.

Problem is, there's lots of true Scotsman and many are quite famous.

Here's a far from complete list of famous people. Are these managers? No? Who is famous and a manager? Are these leaders? Yes. Are these role models? Also yes

  - Stanislav Petrov: a true Scotsman who prevented WW3
  - Irena Sendler: a true Scotsman who created illegal documents to help Jewish children escape the Gestapo

  - Rosa Parks: a true Scotsman who stood up for what's right and catalyzed the civil rights movement in America
  - Martin Luther King Jr: a true Scotsman who led the civil rights movement and is so well known you'll find a street named after him in every major city in America and a ton of minor ones too.

  - Jeffrey Wigand: a true Scotsman who blew the whistle on tobacco companies
  - Edward Snowden: a true Scotsman who blew the whistle the on illegal actions of the NSA
  - Daniel Ellsberg: a true Scotsman who blew the whistle on the Pentagon Papers

  - Ignaz Semmelweis: a true Scotsman who brought us hand washing for doctors and saved hundreds of millions of lives
  - John Snow: a true Scotsman who saved thousands from cholera and helped us learn how germs spread
  - Katalin Karikó: a true Scotsman who pursued her beliefs, leading to the development of mRNA vaccines despite this pursuit leading to the loss of funding as well as being denied tenure.

I can go on and on and on. There's thousands of these individuals who are famous for their defiance. They've saved billions of lives. They've pushed us into new social paradigms bringing us justice and equality. They've forged new scientific paradigms leading to better medicines, technologies, and prosperity.

Then there's millions more who are not famous or are less known. Just because their actions didn't change the world outright doesn't mean they didn't save many. It doesn't mean they didn't have tremendous impact on their communities.

If you look at the history of man, one thing is certain: the world changed by those who were not deterred by their obstacles. The world changed because of the action of thousands or millions of these Scotsman.

There's a difference between people which aspire to lead and those that actually lead. Either can be placed in leadership positions.

The whole article is aspirational. IRL people suck.

You don’t agree with the premise that managers should act more like leaders? It’s not stating how people are, it’s stating how they _should_ be. Does that make sense?

It sounds like you're making mountains out of molehills. The author is clearly trying to be inspirational. Is it idealistic? Yes. But are these qualities you can emulate and strive to follow?

So why are you trying to find excuses to dismiss them? Are you afraid to try? Are you afraid to stick your neck out for what you believe? Do you want to justify complacency?

It's okay, not everyone needs to stick their neck out. But you enable the very thing you fear by telling others not to. Don't impede people who are trying to make the world a better place