What makes an effective leader?

[Koman]

Is it better to have a harsh cruel, willing to kill, leader such as ceaser or alexander the great a nice kind, gentle leader?

[Sage]

Cruel leaders are corrupt by powers and kind leaders become proverbial bitches to more powerful countries- Push-overs, basically. A leader who can please most citizens and deal with problems assertively is a good leader. Neutrality in regards to things such as race, religion, sexuality, etc; is a good quality as well.

[Cloud]

your only as strong as the people behind you. so a leader who knows that adn uses that would be the most effective. if they support those who support them then i think that would be the best leader

[Perseus]

Ceasar and Alexander the Great weren't cruel leaders. Where did you get that from?

[Koman]

Ceasar and Alexander the Great weren't cruel leaders. Where did you get that from?

I meant in their thirst for land, as in power hungry.

Oh and a powerful leader like ceaser is way better and has the best results.

[Perseus]

Oh, ok, that makes more sense now.

[byee]

Great leaders=wisdom in tending to the needs of those in their charge.

Being cruel or power hungry or blood thirsty is merely a weakness brought on by a lack of committment to the responsibility of leading, and an abuse of power. Truly great leadership is determined by truly good judgement, which doesn't have much to do with emotion, like being 'mean', or being 'kind'. It's about the results, how the people who you served are thriving.

[Koman]

Great leaders=wisdom in tending to the needs of those in their charge.

Being cruel or power hungry or blood thirsty is merely a weakness brought on by a lack of committment to the responsibility of leading, and an abuse of power. Truly great leadership is determined by truly good judgement, which doesn't have much to do with emotion, like being 'mean', or being 'kind'. It's about the results, how the people who you served are thriving.
So are you saying ceaser and alexander the great werent amazing, yet blood thirsty?

[Reality]

No matter who's in charge, there will always be another side of people that are willing to hate and criticize their leader.

We all recognize people like John F. Kennedy, Winston Churchill, Obama, George Washinton, whoever as "great" leaders, but not everyone agreed with them or their policies.

In my opinion, what makes a great leader is not someone totally bias on the political spectrum (i.e. not too much of a Liberal or Conservative) and listens to the views of both opinions. Is willing to actually learn from advice and constructive criticism, unlike Bush, and tries his/her best for the country they're leading.

Being peaceful as possible is a pro, but as much as I disagree with war, a good leader should always be willing to use military force appropriately, and not just for political greed or to win brownie points off other countries like the U.S. and it's Allies are doing in some places these days. (No offence)

I meant in their thirst for land, as in power hungry.

Oh and a powerful leader like ceaser is way better and has the best results.
Are you suggesting the leader of whatever country you live in should be power hungry, and have a blood thirst for countries, seeing as Ceasar and Alexander the Great had "better results".

I guess you should throw Adolf Hitler in that mix as well. He was power hungry and very blood-thirsty, and he was successful at invading most of Europe. :rolleyes:

Using your logic, Hitler was a potentially great leader. lolz.

[rivermaya]

Hitler was a great leader, just went crazy in the end.

[byee]

So are you saying ceaser and alexander the great werent amazing, yet blood thirsty?


I'm saying that great leaders do more than stroke their own egos or discipline their subjects mercilessly.

Great leadership is about judgement and wisdom and an ability to look beyond one's own needs (or ego). So, when considering 'greatness', one needs to look to not just the 'results', but the method, too.

Which eliminates Caesar (and certainly Hitler). And a lot of other, rather ordinary people in authority, too.

[Koman]

No matter who's in charge, there will always be another side of people that are willing to hate and criticize their leader.

We all recognize people like John F. Kennedy, Winston Churchill, Obama, George Washinton, whoever as "great" leaders, but not everyone agreed with them or their policies.

In my opinion, what makes a great leader is not someone totally bias on the political spectrum (i.e. not too much of a Liberal or Conservative) and listens to the views of both opinions. Is willing to actually learn from advice and constructive criticism, unlike Bush, and tries his/her best for the country they're leading.

Being peaceful as possible is a pro, but as much as I disagree with war, a good leader should always be willing to use military force appropriately, and not just for political greed or to win brownie points off other countries like the U.S. and it's Allies are doing in some places these days. (No offence)


Are you suggesting the leader of whatever country you live in should be power hungry, and have a blood thirst for countries, seeing as Ceasar and Alexander the Great had "better results".

I guess you should throw Adolf Hitler in that mix as well. He was power hungry and very blood-thirsty, and he was successful at invading most of Europe. :rolleyes:

Using your logic, Hitler was a potentially great leader. lolz.

Hitler was an amazing leader, are you kidding me?

[Curthose93]

It might be nice to have a robot for a leader.

[Oblivion]

Hitler, although very sickening and possibly mentally insane, was good at persuading people to follow him/think he's a good leader. So He kind of was a good leader, in that sense.
But if you look at "good leader" as someone who does good for the people they are leading and the general public, then no, he was a horrible leader.

[Koman]

Hitler, although very sickening and possibly mentally insane, was good at persuading people to follow him/think he's a good leader. So He kind of was a good leader, in that sense.
But if you look at "good leader" as someone who does good for the people they are leading and the general public, then no, he was a horrible leader.
Indeed he wws great at manipulating and brainwashing people.


Yo

[Trickster]

It pains me to say this but people like Stalin, Hitler and Castro are people who got their goal. Hitler wiped out more then 70% of the European Jews, could be more as 80%. That is scary good. I may hate his guts and wish he burns in hell for eternity but he is a good leader. Cruel and ambition get the point across. Gentle and sweet will only last for so long, people will think less of you and see it more as a war dodger. Cruelity may spark war but it doesnt bring it too you often as many know what could happen, Benevolence may end war but it can come back from power hungry nations.

[Jean Poutine]

I meant in their thirst for land, as in power hungry.

Oh and a powerful leader like ceaser is way better and has the best results.
Caesar wasn't even that land-hungry. The biggest Roman expansion came centuries later under Trajan, who was a warmongering but just leader that kicked all sorts of ass left and right.

As for leaders...it generally depends on the situation of a country. When a country is socially volatile one needs a strong, authoritarian leader. Like Russia and Putin. Putin is/was a great leader in the sense that he managed to fix much of what went wrong after Yeltsin. I generally admire Putin a lot, although I don't think a country like Canada or the US would need his sheer authority.

For more well-off countries I favor a leader that really isn't there much. I hate interventionism.