Leadership Qualities

a reply to: FyreByrd

1 feels a leader of many should have the mental balance to seek PEACE.

And if there are times of war, the leader should be mentally and spiritually prepared to go to war with those they send to war to fight for them...

In short a king or queen fights along side his or her soldiers. In these days that may be a harder physical task, so the leader has to consider where their soul fits in with the souls it sends to wars as well as where their soul fits in with those they have taken to war. And the leader must consider their deeds of war may attach to their soul DURING JUDGMENT DAY... This builds compassion for the leader in their decision making, for they know their hands spread PEACE or were justified to initiate war upon others... And that their decisions may weigh on them in more metaphysical regions of existence where their soul may attract or gravitate to.

The leader must ALSO believe in themselves and not be fearful if others do not agree with them. If you don't know something, ASK? Why try to portray a fake perfect image, that might make people believe in your decision making. And then when its serious decision making time your not qualified and put many lives and souls in danger?

These are just a few leadership qualities 1 feels are required to get the jobs done, that need done. Being popular shouldn't make a difference at all...

Perhaps leaders should give much more power to voice and create paths for the poorest and weakest positions in our societies. We need to fix the base problems to keep moving forward rather than being stuck in path that is designed to slow down majorities progress while giving all the power for few and making them more wealth than the majority of populations. These creates the complex of everything that could be rather simple and actually allow the majority to unite and create proper peaceful global understanding of how to lead this world towards our common path.

originally posted by: romilo
Perhaps leaders should give much more power to voice and create paths for the poorest and weakest positions in our societies. We need to fix the base problems to keep moving forward rather than being stuck in path that is designed to slow down majorities progress while giving all the power for few and making them more wealth than the majority of populations. These creates the complex of everything that could be rather simple and actually allow the majority to unite and create proper peaceful global understanding of how to lead this world towards our common path.

While, in general I agree with your sentiments, what would be the specific character traits or qualities that would encourage such an approach to governing?

a reply to: FyreByrd

A coherent plan to do something, why/how it will work, and demonstrated leadership skills to get it done.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Any qualities or character traits you can think of perhaps?

There are no character traits that are a turnoff for me, but there are traits that make me question if you can sell a plan, since others won't want to work with you. Egotistical, Narcissistic, generally treating people like dirt, unintelligent, stubborn, slow to grasp material, and ideologically rigid.

None of those are a deal breaker for me but they don't help.

a reply to: FyreByrd

If you have to take one person's freedom so that another may have it, then what good is it?

Does it really even exist under those conditions?

a reply to: FyreByrd

Don`t know if list of traits and qualities could make this happen, it should come from power of truth and honesty.
I guess leader would have to have a connection to the people, feel them and see the situation, give them voice and support em with your own voice, then realize what has led to this mess, what drives the mess, understanding that it must be stopd and re-direct the focus to the basic stuff, because it seems very obvious they are left with no value at all and it is the people that still have the understanding and connection to the truth and rightful path.
There is much to be healed and nurtured and personally i think it would be great time for humanity and slowly all that we haved build to hurt us would become more and more obvious and easier to stop and re-direct the focus back to the flow. Honesty and fairness would go long way in the world politics too, every part of the world has something to give and something to have, so sharing is caring and people would feel the need for uniting rather than pointing the differences.

Hello, new poster here! Long time reader of ATS, but this particular topic made me sing up due to some inconsistencies when looked from a theoretic psychological point of view.


But on to the topic at hand, the main issue I'm noticing on most of the replies is that you are forcing personal ideals to the what a "leader" should be, an ideal world I might add.

Now, if we look at this from the psychological standpoint, people are not "moved" subconsciously by the perceived ideals of the conscious part of the brain, hence the big outrage most of you are showing. The reality of the thing is that people are moved by the emotional feedback they receive from a person that projects power. This person is seen as someone that dominates the surroundings and therefor is psychologically more attractive due to the fact that population in general need a figure that can give them reassurance when they feel most vulnerable, someone that makes them feel safe.


Somebody that can be walked over will not resonate with the subconscious ideals of people in general since there is no perceived strength that will fight back when, lets say an "enemy", comes to attack "us the people".

Somebody that is too caring will be seen as somebody that CAN and WILL be stepped over in numerous circumstances when those "ideals" come in the way of getting the job done.



This is not and will never be an ideal world like most of you want it to be, survival will always come first (at least subconsciously) to the general population. There will always be "enemies" that will threaten your existence and when that time comes you will want someone that is:

1. Not moved emotionally when making decisions. (pragmatism if you will)
2. Will not put his own beliefs before the "NEED" of the people. (not the ideal ethic "feel good" need to validate personal feelings, actual survival need)
3. Will defend you (or the country) to the end, no matter the method because you come first. (The saying "what as to be done, as to be done")


I recommend putting "ethical ideals" to the side if you really want to understand how the world works.

And as a footnote, those "ethic ideals" only exist to validate the feelings of emotional superiority.
(The I care more, so I'm superior than you.)

This also plays in the emotional validation received by establishing somebody else is in more need than you, to justify any bad thoughts you have of yourself.
(The argument of: "At least I'm better off than he is", plays well to justify any flaw the person might have.)


Which is the main basis for the liberal thinking, when in reality there are more important things to take care of in order to survive.



Feel free to argue any of the points established above, if there is base to the argument for it.

originally posted by: efabian

Now, if we look at this from the psychological standpoint, people are not "moved" subconsciously by the perceived ideals of the conscious part of the brain, hence the big outrage most of you are showing. The reality of the thing is that people are moved by the emotional feedback they receive from a person that projects power. This person is seen as someone that dominates the surroundings and therefor is psychologically more attractive due to the fact that population in general need a figure that can give them reassurance when they feel most vulnerable, someone that makes them feel safe.

Hmmm, not sure this is on topic but I will comment because I think you may be 'advocating' or 'apologizing' for the publics need of a strongman and so I take your training to be in behaviorism. Personally I find behaviorism useful but very incomplete when dealing with individuals and groups and my training, under and post, focused on human development and group dynamics.

The 'strongman' appeals to those with weak character or those who's thinking is clouded by fear. That's the why of cults and other group pycbopathologies.

In this thread I was looking for character traits - positive traits that people of all sorts consider important in leaders. Many like "the strong man" but others do not. Many prefer their leaders to lead by inspiration not fear and intimidation.

Human's have the capacity to rise above immediate survival motivations.

This is not a discussion about human nature - which is evolving as we speak, I believe much of the 'fear' being constantly fed by politicians, media, certain religious and special interest groups are 'consciously' (yes I said consciously) designed to keep people in a state of constant irrational fear that forces individuals into a primal state where their rational abilities shut down. The strongman promises "safety" while delivering fear, hatred and resentment.

We are at a threshold in human development, a turning point if you will and the 'established order' is afraid of the potential when ordinary people contact their own power.

The strongman FORCES compliance, inspirational leaders power individuals to their best effort. Forced conformity or opportunity for un-imagined growth and opportunity.

I am an idealist - it's a beacon I keep my feet pointed towards. I'm a pragmatist and cynic and have to consciously find the good in others - I know it's there but it can be very hard to uncover.

The Quakers have been governing themselves and doing much wonderful good in the world using consensus for over 350 years. The Waldorf schools and other Anthroposophical movements are using similar governing where everyone has a voice in decision making. Alcoholics Anonymous too is using a simplified form of the same (get two AAs to agree on anything is a win of it's own). Many of environmental, indigenous and women's movements too are using such new methods of governance.

We have a long way to go, change will take centuries, but we have to free ourselves to move in this direction if we are going to survive.

Totally off topic - but I get a bit impatient with strict behaviorists. I do understand the utility of the method and use it often in my work and private life for purely practical and mostly selfish and lazy reasons. Human's are complex systems and cannot be that easily defined.

Badly off topic....

a reply to: FyreByrd

I wanted to add something to the conversation and will perhaps open another thread just on this - this TED talk about 'Moral Roots"

The Moral Roots of Conservatives and Liberals - Jonathan Haidt

Enjoy - quite thought provoking.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Leadership is a quality that whoever is in control can handle his power and not endanger the stability and strength of the country. His decisions should bring prosperity to the people and smoothen the road to success. In times of war the leader should be able to lead our armed forces into victory. That's about all I know about that.

originally posted by: SurfinUSA
a reply to: FyreByrd

Leadership is a quality that whoever is in control can handle his power and not endanger the stability and strength of the country. His decisions should bring prosperity to the people and smoothen the road to success. In times of war the leader should be able to lead our armed forces into victory. That's about all I know about that.

Leadership is not a quality or attribute but an activity. The question was what do you think are the qualities or character traits or attributes that make up a good/effective leader.