What it takes for someone to be a good leader?

[King Ned Stark]

1 hour ago, Protagoras said:

I will interpret this question as: how to be successful and not have to act as a leader I would personally like. 

Inspiring people enough to them follow you - both short term and long term.

You need to be intelligent, pragmatic and ruthless enough to  work your vision at the same time have enough honor and virtue to not piss them off. You also need to be decisive and supportive at your crew at the same time. 

Excellent diplomacy skill in order to avoid conflict following from above. Making people willingly work against their own self-interest is great leadership.

Don´t hesitate to use force if needed, yet don´t use it as a standard solution. 

 

I think the bolded, while a trait of traditional leadership, is a fallacy.  The OP asked what makes a good leader, I presume JQC meant what is good for the people that person leads.  Forcing people to work against their own interest is obviously not good for the people, and focuses on the accumulation and exercise of power at the top.  Essentially leading through fear, and those people will only follow as long as they fear you, not to mention they will only do the minimum of what they think needs to be done merely to avoid punishment.

A truly good leader, IMHO, focuses on the growth and well-being of his people, sharing power, and by making others stronger he/she because stronger as well.

5 hours ago, blckp said:

seems  like BS things that works in Disney story

Do you really think virtues like wisdom, prudence, courage, and justice are bs Disney concepts?  Honest question.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

21 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

The OP asked what makes a good leader, I presume JQC meant what is good for the people that person leads.

Of course you are right. The way I see it a leader has to care about his people and not about his personal gain because then he would have been a tyrant.

[King Ned Stark]

26 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Of course you are right. The way I see it a leader has to care about his people and not about his personal gain because then he would have been a tyrant.

Yeah, I agree.  While men like Roose Bolton may be efficient, capable men, they are certainly not, in my opinion, good leaders.  The concept that a good leader of people works for his own self interests seems a contradiction in terms to me.

[Ser Creighton]

22 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Utter bs. 

I know but that doesn't mean that his ideal leader isn't correct.

That part has absolutely nothing to do with the op. This thread isn't a philosophical analysis and isn't about how you believe that Plato was wrong it has to do with what it takes for someone to be a good leader. 

Also nothing to do with the op.

I love how you bringing Jon into this something that hides personal attack, when I have never mentioned him in that thread. It seems that unlike Jon you are prejudiced against me.

So your whole post has nothing to do with what it takes for someone to be a good leader and its sole purpose is to be snide. If you can't or don't want to contribute then why bother answering and spamming?

Just because you deleted the OP which is fully quoted in my reply, in which you used Plato as an example and stated multiple times "Him, His, He.

If you study history it is full of personal bias, gender or otherwise. Natural inclinations are part of cultural norms, you are more naturally inclined towards Jon, and I assume you are talking about leaders from the books as this is the book forum and not general chatter. Or if you are not you can have your OP moved.

An example of cultural Bias might be me being a fan of the Chicago Bears. I was born into a Bears house I am from Chicago, and I was raised as a Bear fan. It's a team I root for. Just as Plato who you brought in your OP before deleting it and said you supported his views on leadership had his own cultural bias. Like he was pro Greek, he viewed things from his own elitist perspective because that is what he knew and he demonstrated both revolutionary ideas on gender equality, and very limited views of them.

I was not calling you a sexist I was suggesting Plato had some sexist perspectives leaning towards male gender bias. I also pointed out my own post was nearly enough to get into an in depth discussion on Plato as your original and now deleted OP was not really enough to suggest what good leader was as it is a Check list.

You felt the need to delete your OP which is quoted by me, and was read by others, and it indicated gender bias weather you meant it too or not.The repetitive use of the male pronouns, the sighting or Plato who you stated you agreed with, did Plato say anything about a Philosopher Queen? No his leader was a King?

It was fully relevant to what you originally wrote and don't blame me because you decided to remove your original post which is again quoted in post number 3. If you are not really well versed on Plato's views perhaps you should thank me for the information rather than try to insult me. If you are confused about the book and general sections of the forum, you can ask a mod to explain them to you. This is the book forum just so you know where you are at. You sighted your views on agreeing with Plato's idea of a leader without really knowing what they were, I did not give you insults I gave you information. I also did not just sight Jon, I sighted Tyrion, Sam and Oberyn. So yes I brought up 4 not 1 character as an example. I gave you totally relevant information to help you, in turn you got defensive. Am I wrong to say I have a bias towards the Chicago Bears? Or that you have fully admitted to having a Jon bias several times? What's your screen name?

Just because I disagree with your point of view on most things does not mean I would not give you relevant information on Plato, leadership, and gender bias from a temporal and cultural perspective which was totally relevant to you bringing up Plato as picking an ideal leader. Again not my fault you felt the need to delete your OP, obviously you felt some impact, weather it was from me or someone else. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 hour ago, Ser Creighton said:

Just because you deleted the OP which is fully quoted in my reply, in which you used Plato as an example and stated multiple times "Him, His, He.

I deleted the op because first you and then others were off topic like how you are in answer too. My opinion wasn't the op if you cannot distinguish the difference between my opinion and the purpose of this thread which is clear at the title too isn't my mistake.

1 hour ago, Ser Creighton said:

I was not calling you a sexist I was suggesting Plato had some sexist perspectives leaning towards male gender bias.

Only my wording has nothing to do with gender. As I said I just translated the pronounce we use and I don't know which is the right way I cannot always be right with all the languages I know. Of course Plato had used male gender because in Ancient Athens free women were mostly housewives and mothers. If you cannot see or you don't know that I cannot do anything to fix it. In any case the fact that you call him sexism with your 21st century standards doesn't mean that he was sexist, wrong or that I particularly cared if someone calls him sexism. Again you cannot judge a 2500 years old genius with your 21st century standards. 

If my op wasn't clear how other people understood what I asked and you didn't? I believe because you are biased. Other than that I, once more see a post which has nothing to do with the op and only purpose is to be snarky. So thank you but no thanks.

[John Doe]

25 minutes ago, Ser Creighton said:

I was not calling you a sexist I was suggesting Plato had some sexist perspectives leaning towards male gender bias.

That's still not really contributing anything worthwhile to the topic at hand. 

[Ser Creighton]

14 minutes ago, John Doe said:

That's still not really contributing anything worthwhile to the topic at hand. 

It was a question of leadership and the original OP which is now deleted, fully stated support for Plato's ideals which I called into question as being gender bias and sexist. Which JQC questioned me on after deleting the OP. So yes it was on topic and it's not my fault the OP deleted there own post. As the topic is on leadership and Plato's ideal leader which was what was originally sighted pointing out his gender bias towards  men is relevant in the full context of my original post which JQC did question yet also deleted her own OP. There is nothing off topic about responding to it and clarifying to make sure it was understood about who I was addressing as the OP's response was not fully clear. Was it hog wash that Plato had a gender bias for his ideal leader? Or did the OP think I was calling them sexist. Not wanting to insult anyone I felt the need to make sure it was clear who I was referencing.

I am not the one who brought up Plato, the original OP is fully quoted in post 3 and you can see for yourself what was clearly stated. Someone starts a thread then deletes the OP and ideas they bought up which I had already responded too and it's my fault for making sure what I said was more clearly understood after they responded to it. An OP they felt the need to remove. Sorry if it seemed off topic but I was not the one who changed the topic mid thread by deleting the OP then called into question my response to what they said after they removed what they said.    

 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

11 minutes ago, Ser Creighton said:

snip 

You still have contribute nothing whatsoever to the thread other than bickering. If you disagree that much why you are still here and spam it? You said what who had to say which in my opinion are nonsense since there are other posters who had understood what I meant and that's all. Why do you come here with the only purpose to quarrel? My guess is because you are biased and it's obvious that I am right. So you should stop doing this because bickering is a type of personal attack and an insult.

[John Doe]

33 minutes ago, Ser Creighton said:

It was a question of leadership and the original OP which is now deleted, fully stated support for Plato's ideals which I called into question as being gender bias and sexist.

But that's really just secondary to the topic of the  ideals of leadership, which are what this thread is for. So whether you agree with Plato fully or not doesn't matter much unless you disagree with the ideals of leadership the OP presented in particular imo. 

[BricksAndSparrows]

There is probably a solid recipe for a leader, but it seems as though leaders pop up in so many different circumstances, and succeed or fail in various ways.

In real life you have, John Lennon, Julius Cesar, Charles Manson, Theodore Roosevelt, Jim Jones, and the manager of Dunkin donuts..

It seems like the primary goal of the leader is convincing people to do things. I mean that's what it all boils down to. It's not ALWAYS choosing what the group will do. Sometimes the circumstances dictate the goal, and an individual is either appointed, or steps forward to get the group "there."

So there are plenty of common responsibilities that fall to the leader, but convincing people to do things is the constant.

In ASOIAF you have leaders like Khal Drogo, and you have leaders like Petyr Baelish. They have two different styles of convincing, but lead with them either way.

If a person has the ability to convince others to do things, it's the single biggest advantage they could have if they want to be a leader.

[Ser Creighton]

8 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

You still have contribute nothing whatsoever to the thread other than bickering. If you disagree that much why you are still here and spam it? You said what who had to say which in my opinion are nonsense since there are other posters who had understood what I meant and that's all. Why do you come here with the only purpose to quarrel? My guess is because you are biased and it's obvious that I am right. So you should stop doing this because bickering is a type of personal attack and an insult.

I have 3 posts in 26 hours all responses. I hardly call that spamming. I stated very clearly what I disagreed upon, then you deleted your OP which is still quoted on thread. You state your opinion was not the OP. What you mean is your opinion was not the topic, your opinion was actually fully stated in the OP which simply means original post. As you stated your opinion in the topic thread, why would it not be open to discussion on a discussion forum?

Did you not want to talk about your opinion which you brought up with to open the thread? My first response to you which you may have misinterpreted was not a statement, I was asking a question while discussing what you originally posted. The topic is "What it takes for someone to be a good leader?" Is this not a discussion on what it takes? Are the views you opened with about Plato's belief of leadership not open to discussion?

Asking your opinion on what you brought up and felt was relevant or disagreeing with you on Plato's ideal which was again brought up by you. Is off topic? That was part of the topic, sure he had ideals he also had biases, don't you think biased ideals should be part of the discussion on the qualities of leadership when an example is given about someone who had a bias. I was discussing Plato's leadership ideals and his own bias within them.

My belief is it is not enough to just posses what any given person holds as an ideal. Weather it is our world or Martins world it is not just about a check list. JohnDoe may have different ideals than I do, or you may. Culture, time they all play a part of that. Obama, many people in the US love Obama and think he is great. In Russia many people love Putin and think he is great. Two very different people with different views and different qualities. You will also get people who don't like them. 

I bring up Martins books and the characters within because it is the book forum and that's what we are suppose to talk about and I would assume your topic would relate to the books.

It's a very tough to answer question, in what context would the leader exist? What time period, what culture, who's ideals, religion, philosophy, upbringing, fundamental beliefs.It's the Conan question all over again, "What is best in life?" Opinions are going to differ, and generally when you are asking people to talk about their opinions most people are going to discuss them specifically on a discussion forum.

You say it's off topic, yet you asked a philosophical question, you gave a philosopher and his philosophical belief as an example? But you don't want to discuss the philosophical foundation on those or any given beliefs on the philosophical question you asked. Should context not be considered? I could say honesty is the most important aspect of a leader. But then that could be countered by well it seems very important to be able to lie, mislead and play at politics. You see that a lot in Martin's books were he plays with that idea. Guy like Littlefinger is doing very well, while a person like Ned is dead and was killed in part by his ideals. Littlefinger is being very effective in his world, and lasted longer than Ned. Are his qualities better than Ned? They have served him better and could hardly say honesty is an important quality for him. Perspective, among Tywin's people he is considered a great leader, but you could question his ideals, or what you think are god and bad qualities. 

Jon might be considered to have high moral character in many aspects by many people. His men still stabbed him. I don't think a philosophical question or the foundation on which it stands has a cut and dry answer. I would think that any examples given would be open to discussion, given the philosophical nature of the question.

Ask a philosophical question and you probably are going to get philosophical discussion. What is the foundation of the qualities in question? What is the relevance? What is the context? What culture? What temporal period? What biases may exist within such beliefs? Its a philosophical question, it goes on and on like this. That's why we still discuss philosophical questions asked thousands of years ago, like this one, there is no perfect answer, from your perspective Plato had an ideal answer. From my perspective his beliefs were both revolutionary and flawed. The reason one of the great philosophers in history attempted to answer the question you ask in the first place was because it was a philosophical question. It's not a recipe, "how do bake a leadership cake?" There is no specific formula here. 

Think what you want I thought you were looking for a much deeper discussion after you asked a philosophical question and sited Plato. I see that is not the case. You want simple answers to a question that does not have them. Good luck.

     

 

 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

12 hours ago, Ser Creighton said:

snip

The fact that you couldn’t distinguish the OP, which is clear from the title, from my opinion is your fault not mine especially since other posters had understood what I am asked so the fact that you couldn’t understand prove that is was your mistake.  You were not only off topic but also belligerent with your only contribution to the thread being bickering which is off topic.

[Protagoras]

22 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

I think the bolded, while a trait of traditional leadership, is a fallacy.  The OP asked what makes a good leader, I presume JQC meant what is good for the people that person leads.  Forcing people to work against their own interest is obviously not good for the people, and focuses on the accumulation and exercise of power at the top.  Essentially leading through fear, and those people will only follow as long as they fear you, not to mention they will only do the minimum of what they think needs to be done merely to avoid punishment.

A truly good leader, IMHO, focuses on the growth and well-being of his people, sharing power, and by making others stronger he/she because stronger as well.

And that is why "good leader" a very hard question to answer, since it so much depends on how you define it and from which perspective. Compared with many other areas, we have very little intersubjective reality in this question. 

[Sydney Mae]

Most Effective Leaders in ASOIAF

1. Mance Rayder.  United the wildlings.  Not easy to do because they're wild.  Manipulated Jon and Stannis into letting his people pass the wall and it costed his side very little.  I hate Mance Rayder but he is effective at leading.
2. Khal Drogo.  Built the largest khalasar.
3. Daenerys Targaryen.  Visionary and charismatic.  Liberator of 250+ thousand slaves.  Will be the best leader in the story very shortly. 
4. Greyworm.  Chosen by the Unsullied to be their captain.
5. Beric Dondarrion
6. Renly Baratheon
7. Tywin Lannister
8. Asha Greyjoy
9. Randyll Tarly
10. Olenna Tyrell

[Jon's Queen Consort]

14 hours ago, Sydney Mae said:

snip

Please stay on topic.

[Lady Topspin]

On 8/21/2016 at 8:58 AM, The Transporter said:

1. Loyalty to the people you're leading.  This is a basic requirement for a leader.  But this is also something that Jon failed to do when he betrayed the Night's Watch to rescue his little sister. 
2. Honor your vows and your oaths to your allies.  Be worthy of trust.  Again, this is basic but something that Robb was a failure at.  He made promises to the Freys.  The Freys became one of his biggest, if not the biggest contributor, lost a son and fought bravely for Robb.  Robb then turns around and breaks his oath to them. 
3. Maintain and uphold high standards for everyone, especially yourself.  This is, once again, something that Jon was a failure at.  He executed Janos Slynt for initially refusing to comply with an order and being belligerent about it.  There is nothing necessarily wrong with being harsh.  But Jon at this time was actively engaged in something more egregious and more serious than Janos.  Jon set Mance loose to rescue his sister and he started a war with the Boltons.  Jon failed to uphold standards.  He held Slynt accountable to a high standard, while he allowed himself to commit treason.  Easy to see why Marsh would want to execute him.
4. Team Player.  Catelyn was not a team player when she released Jaime Lannister and hurt her side.  I acknowledge that Rickard Karstark was also not a team player. 
5. Good communicator. 

Those are the basics that a leader should be able to do. 

(6)  Ability to motivate.

(7)  Goal oriented and focused. 

 

 

 

 

[Lady Topspin]

21 hours ago, Sydney Mae said:

Most Effective Leaders in ASOIAF

1. Mance Rayder.  United the wildlings.  Not easy to do because they're wild.  Manipulated Jon and Stannis into letting his people pass the wall and it costed his side very little.  I hate Mance Rayder but he is effective at leading.
2. Khal Drogo.  Built the largest khalasar.
3. Daenerys Targaryen.  Visionary and charismatic.  Liberator of 250+ thousand slaves.  Will be the best leader in the story very shortly. 
4. Greyworm.  Chosen by the Unsullied to be their captain.

Good choices, I agree. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Wrong post.

[Runaway Penguin]

Defining a good leader is always a catch. Is it popular leader? Is it successful leader? Also... Different people may be great leaders in one role and fail in another.

 

Take for example General Grant. Was he a great leader of armies? Yes, I dare say so. He was never as popular among lower ranks as, say, McClellan - who supplied them lavishly and avoided fight - but he was most effective general and managed to motivate his troops to fight. He also was not afraid of trusting his subordinates and recognize (and reward) competence. However, as a President, he was kinda failure.

Compare immensely popular Napoleon - he was great general indeed, popular among his troops for his easy manner in interaction with them - and similarly popular Wellesley - who did not hide his contempt for his rank and file and went all aristocrat on everyone - but was also very effective general, able to motivate his troops to fight well.

Heck, another similar pair is Rommel vs. Montgomery, though Monty was more friendly to his soldiers than Wellesley

On the other hand, take say Winston Churchill. As a soldier he was not really remarkable, as a politician he definitely was a great leader - going from most hated to most loved within few years.

It is hard to nail anything these gentlemen had in common... So good leader depends a lot on context. It is kinda situation of "Not sure how good leader looks like  - but sure as Hell to recognize a bad one"

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 27/8/2016 at 1:58 PM, Runaway Penguin said:

Defining a good leader is always a catch. Is it popular leader? Is it successful leader? Also... Different people may be great leaders in one role and fail in another.

Interesting question. For me a good leader is not a popular leader but a leader who does what is good for his people even if that means that he isn't very popular among his people.