Historically speaking, we say Winston Churchill, FDR, Charles De Gaulle, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Dr Sun Yat Sun, Mao, V.I. Lenin and the like have been good leaders. We do not get to talk about people in our times in the same tone. What qualities and attributes mark out a good leader? Are there some characteristics in 'good leaders' that we can say are universal and worthy of emulation by others?
PS: please do not take on any individual person in the political arena anywhere in the world. Let us discuss only the leadership qualities that they must have or should not have, from academic perspective.
Leadership in a political arena could be define as an elected person to hold an office or be in possession of power for a period of time for a continent, country, state, local-authority, district, group, political party and so on. In a civilised country of the world, a leader serves his people because he is accountable for all his actions while in the office as he could be removed by the simple majority vote of the people that voted him to power.
Leader is a human being what are the qualities meant for human being is meant for leader also he or she is simple in all aspects humble polite compassion for other fellow sacrifice his or her life for other souls having positive attitudes ideal thinkers etc
Thank you Oyewale and Raja Lakshmi. All of us agree that a political leader must have Service mindedness and hold himself accountable to the people whom he wants to lead (from Oyewale's comment); the leader should be simple, humble, polite, compassionate, willing to sacrifice even his life to serve the people, positive attitude, idealism (from Raja Lakshmi's comment).
Even in our day to day life we come across people who possess these attributes or qualities. We also find that most of them actually avoid politics. Therefore, what other qualities (may be in addition to these) that we should look for?
One thing separates the leaders mentioned in the question and the current leaders: it is money! Currently, politics has become a profession. In earlier times, it was not so.
Dear Dr Baruah, I do agree that politics has become a profession for amassing personal wealth, particularly in the developing or under developed countries. People like Late Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri are not seen these days (for that matter Nelson Mandela, in recent times).
That precisely where my query also lies. We had an idealistic world filled with issues like slavery, colonialism, apartheid, racialism, aggression, war (both WW I & II), etc. So, we also had a crop of leaders who displayed idealism, compassion, humanity, belief in human rights, patriotism, integrity, etc. Today, the world pursues 'economic growth' profitablity, marketisation, global trade, etc. So, the leaders are also pursuing 'money' and the markets. Are we getting this crop of leaders because we have changed (yatah praja, thatha raja)? or, are we getting influenced by them and changing our perspectives(yatah raja, thatha praja)?
I am sorry if my question sounds something akin to which came first - the egg or chicken?
Dear Sri,
I did not mention any names because you have requested that no particular names should be mentioned! Yes, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Ballav Bhai Patel and Laj Bahadur Shastri from India, and Winston Churchill, Vladimir Lenin, Nelson Mandela and such other great personalities from other countries were of a different class. The current political leaders the world over are not of the same class mentioned above.
Dear Dr Baruah,
There is nothing that I can say further to what you have said. Present is not equal to the past. Agreed, sir.
I specifically mentioned about not taking names ONLY to underline my anxiety that we must not fall prey to vilification of someone in our enthusiasm for sharing our opinions.
To take the discussion further, I will add the following:
The leaders of yester years were the products of their circumstances (as are leaders to day too!). But leaders in the past had one advantage - they could work for one or two simple, straight forward objectives. India was a colony, so Mahatma Gandhi worked for freedom from colonial rule. Abraham Lincoln saw the denial of civic rights to African Americans and therefore worked for civil rights; FDR saw the world devastated by war and so he worked for 'four freedoms'; Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin, etc, etc - we are familiar with history.
What are the present leaders seeing today? what should they be seeing (like we say in India, cutting across party lines) cutting across the narrow precincts of their national interests? If they are to see and help their own as well as the world to reach there (where?), what attributes should they possess?
with warm regards.
As I had said earlier, for the current political leaders, politics is a profession! Earlier, that was not the situation. Now as in any other profession, in this profession too there is money deeply oriented.
Dear Patrick,
Nice input. Do we mean to suggest that 'polity' is elitist? They know what is best for people?
With reference to leaders like Mahatma, being an Indian myself, I am not sure whether to call him as a politician. He does not seem to be, for while seeking to transform society he did not seek the seat of power to use it as a tool. He usurped the greatest political and military power of the world at that time, yet never challenged them with weapons. He accepted punitive British tactics, yet displayed no signs of righteous anger or even helpless dismay. In one of the most important trials of the Independence movement of India, Mahatma Gandhi was charged with spreading disaffection towards the King Emperor among his subjects. The charge was heard on 18 March 1922. In his defense, following is a small portion of what Gandhi said:
“Non-violence implies voluntary submission to the penalty for non-cooperation with evil. I am therefore to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.”
The moral tones of Gandhi are evident. It would consume few pages if I were to quote what Justice Broomfield or Justice Shelat said in the case. They were graceful and squarely admitted to the dilemma of morality and law, though eventually they upheld law. It is impossible to get a leader who acts with so much of passionate belief in good like Gandhi. Today, we actually see leaders who take cover behind the ‘legality’ of court procedures and display not an ounce of morality even in their public life.
Dear Patrick,
Nice input. Do we mean to suggest that 'polity' is elitist? They know what is best for people?
With reference to leaders like Mahatma, being an Indian myself, I am not sure whether to call him as a politician. He does not seem to be, for while seeking to transform society he did not seek the seat of power to use it as a tool. He usurped the greatest political and military power of the world at that time, yet never challenged them with weapons. He accepted punitive British tactics, yet displayed no signs of righteous anger or even helpless dismay. In one of the most important trials of the Independence movement of India, Mahatma Gandhi was charged with spreading disaffection towards the King Emperor among his subjects. The charge was heard on 18 March 1922. In his defense, following is a small portion of what Gandhi said:
“Non-violence implies voluntary submission to the penalty for non-cooperation with evil. I am therefore to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.”
The moral tones of Gandhi are evident. It would consume few pages if I were to quote what Justice Broomfield or Justice Shelat said in the case. They were graceful and squarely admitted to the dilemma of morality and law, though eventually they upheld law. It is impossible to get a leader who acts with so much of passionate belief in good like Gandhi. Today, we actually see leaders who take cover behind the ‘legality’ of court procedures and display not an ounce of morality even in their public life.
Leadership means exemplarity. We see a Ghandi, a Churchill, a Mandela, and feel drawn to his example. We do not copy the acts of such heroes, but rather let their behavior subtly influence our own. In each situation we subconsciously ask ourselves, "Now, what would Mandela do in this particular case?" When we realize that our acts are being colored and shaped by the moral elegance of someone else, we acclaim that person as a leader.
Good Leadership Qualities
Developing Countries - Should no how to tell lies & to fool his people
Developed Countries - To speak truth the only truth to his people
When we find that our own 'moral codes' (however hazy they may be) reflected in the words and actions of another, we feel like following them (or, if we can help it, get them to follow us). Elegance would be ascribed when the moral code at question is also reflective of commonly held values across many societies - for example, across the societal divides, we say we must speak the truth at all times. So anyone who stands up for truth is not merely moralistic, he ideals are elegant, lofty, etc. Nelson Mandela of our times is a good example.
That the leader in developing countries must 'tell lies and fool people' sounds a bit machiavellian. There was a nice catch phrase for a topic by an eminent academician in one of the conferences I attended - LIES, DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS!! The talk was on how politicians use statistics to fool people when the ground reality reflects other way around. But aren't we see another quality of a political leader even in this - his power of persuasion, even if he is not the master of that field? How many of us, for example, can convince a class of thirty students that the theorem at discussion is the final word on the subject? Give it to a politician, he will convince millions. He does seem to have something that makes for more than mere knowledge. The question is - WHAT?
Well, somehow it is a quite old question, nevertheless of practical importance. I have only some methodological remarks. If one wants to go this way one should not try to search for a list of attributes or behaviors which are interchangeable with e.g. business leaders. The difference not the communalities is the key, as I see it. However, a list won't help us really because who declares the list to be completed and who sets relative positions within. Doing this, did we not strive for another great man/woman theory in politics and weren't we only just putting the amount of attributes on a level with leadership? I would like to see more research about the questions HOW a politician gains success (e.g. through storytelling), HOW success is measured (e.g. votes, other forms of acceptance, e.g. web presence provoked by other sources than his or her team or simple media news) and learn more about the Practice of political acting which turns sometimes into leadership in the eyes of citizens. This calls for new approaches other than surveys and at the end for a methodological shift which I personally detect in the practice turn in leadership (leadership as practice).
Good point, Jurgen. I was commencing my search on the premise that a set of commonly noticed attributes in a politician makes him successful both individually and in the society at large. You have just taken me straight to the unstated end of my query. After all when we look at politicians, we are looking for someone who delivers what people want. Like Machiavelli's Prince, the political leader need not have all the inherent attributes to be able to deliver. He just needs to do what is appropriate for the issues that his society faces. Even if we accept this statement, aren't we still talking of attributes? The ability to understand, synthesize, formulate, act upon and implement, resolve issues, persuade - the whole lot things that a political leader is expected to do to be successful will depend on his inherent attributes. That is the reason I started with 'what' makes him than 'how' or 'why' is he successful. But I will keep you statement in mind because that is where I would like to reach.
If you are interested in a "practices" rather than a "traits" perspective on effective leadership, I suggest you take a look at this recent paper that uses complexity science as a model: .http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&context=managementfacpub
Here is a paper I've written about political leadership, it defines what is considered a political leader.
Dear Kevin,
Thanks indeed. At first glance, quite concise and thought provoking. The matrix using management theories on leadership I feel is quite relevant today than was fifty or more years before. Earlier the leader could merely have hunches about issues in society and use his charisma to bring about change. Today, the complexities of governance and inter-disciplinary understanding that is required to work out solutions make it a must for leaders to adopt scientific temper and understanding of a multitude of factors.
By "a model that illustrates the complexity and inherent diversity of the context for political leaders", you have provided great food for thought.
Have a great day!
Nowadays leaders, are not so honest like those days leaders. Most of them have their hands and minds sullied even before they got to the office. While in the office, they continue unabated because the idea of money answereth all is what brings them in and sustains them in power. Most of politicians tell people what people want to hear not what they can do or what ought to be done for people. So, Globally, political arena has changing. The slogan before is people and the country but now it is myself, my family and later people.
I believe this is an outstanding question. From my perspective, a leader is that individual who has presence, knowledge, the ability to communicate, a moral compass, strong ethical values, concerned for those within their organization and the ability to analyze and act on the dynamics around your organization. They must envision and self-confidence. We have all worked for outstanding leaders and individuals who have fallen short lived and placed in leadership positions. What I expect from our leaders is a moral integrity, vision and encourage to do the right thing at the right time. Sometimes when it is unpopular. For most leaders ultimate success or failure depends directly on how they respond in the situations that they encounter when they are in leadership positions. Today it is extremely difficult for leaders, especially in light of the media that can either represent or miss represent their intent and either strengthened or weakened their images leader. While you used some interesting examples of leadership, Ultimately, there judged by history and the successes or failures attributed to them.
There is a long-standing parallel discussion in business leadership research. In that field it is somewhat easier to research the effects of leadership and define leadership characteristics that will benefit the organisation in some defined way. In business there are some clear indicators of success: profit, growth, market share, for instance.
In a political setting, things are more complex, as the effects of leadership are less obvious and far more difficult to define by outcome. Of course this also depends on the political organization: the more democratic the less pronounced the effect of one person is, as the power is shared among institutions and persons.
In politics, the effect of the outside environment can override the effect of national leadership quality. We can, for instance, see Winston Churchill as an outstanding leader, but, under his leadership, during World War 2, the UK went through some of the most difficult times in its history. How do we objectively define the quality of Churchill's leadership?
It may be not too difficult to define a list of traits that would define a good political leader, but to prove (generalize) that such traits actually benefit countries in a certain way (consistent over time and countries) may be much more difficult.
Dear Sri,
Wow i'm really glad that you've asked this question. It's really the main question which is actually simple however needs us to reflect on reasons for different leadership perspectives in the past and now. Reading through literature and my own experience, the important attributes as of now are genuine attributes of an individual with spirituality, public value, strong support in a transparent system, a committee to allow fair and morally right decision making.
According to my experience as a manager and some years as a politician (on a regional level) I think there are some important abilities for leaders in politics:
To use knowledge from reality and from research and reflect on that knowledge: different arenas could also be useful where politicians can think freely and new (think thanks, investigations)
To organize: To appoint and dismiss managers, organize asylum for refugees issues, monetary policy, police etc.
To manage: To be able to intervene when an opportunity arises, for example in connection with crises in the economy or in the immigration of refugees. The reality forces political leaders to manage situations.
To communicate: To be able to use words. Managing media. Communicate with citizens. Listen carefully.
To trust people: To be trustful in the relations with citizens, other politicians, managers and employees.
Best,
Lars
An ideal political leader is supposed to perform certain functions which include:
1. Inspire support and confidence among the followers.
2. Persuade followers to achieve common goals.
3. Make right decisions.
4. Command to implement decisions decided.
5. Show right direction.
6. Take initiatives.
7. Be a model in terms of ethics, excellent performance and visioning.
8. Maintain good human relations.
9. Give right advices.
10. Protect subordinates/followers.
Many observations of actual political leaders reveal that Machiavellianism is clearly visible. If one is high on Machiavellianism, he or she behaves in any way that will meet his or her needs without considering his or her impact on others. He/she attempts to achieve his or her goals at the expense of others’ wellbeing. That leader will contribute to the needs of organizations or individuals only to the extent that “there is something in it for me” (Dunham, 1984).
Greenberg and Baron (1997, pp.92-93) write:
“In 1513, the Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli published a book entitled The prince. In it, he outlined a ruthless strategy for seizing and holding political power. The essence of his approach was expediency: do whatever is required to get ahead of another. Among the guiding principles he recommended were the following:
· Newer show humility; arrogance is far more effective when dealing with others.
· Morality and ethics are for the weak; powerful people feel free to lie, cheat, and deceive whenever it suits their purpose.
· It is much better to be feared than loved.”
In our society there are some leaders who accept the principles of Machiavelli though some do not accept them. May there be leaders who have a low level of Machiavellianism!
To my opinion the most of the Sri Lankan political leaders show Machiavellianism than other countries. These guiding principles of Niccolo Machiavell are nicely practiced by our political leaders.
The political leader is the one who can properly shape his country's economic and political policy and put his country's interests as a precedence, taking into account the interests of other countries, acting independently and not allowing interference in the internal affairs of his country by foreign countries. I do not think that in developing countries, Nowadays. I do not think that international policies allow such a presence at least for now.
Follow this link
http://www.leadershipexpert.co.uk/political-leader.html
regards