In Which being a Good Person is probably not the sine qua non of leadership.

So, we had a lecture on Leadership last week, which was quite alright. Of course, as long as I can remember we've been being given classes on "Leadership" (like, I remeber one in year 3, I think, and I bet that wasn't the first), and I don't think we've ever been given a lecture on how to be a good follower. Surely we can't all be Captain Kirk, isn't it statistically reasonable to say that the vast majority of us will spend the vast majority of our time being further toward the "follower" end of the spectrum?

This is mainly meant facetiously, but I do think there's a kernel of truth there. Taking and accepting leadership is a separate and important skill, and quite honestly I think most of us would benefit from some tuition in this area. Our whole Culture is uncomfortable with Authority, and we lack the skills to just do what we're goddamn told.

We can't all dream big and also get what we want. Like the Dinosaur Comics say, not everyone gets to be an astronaut. There are a bunch more people who are garbage collectors than Rock Stars, and if we hadn't all been told to dream big and suchlike, I'm betting a lot of people would be happier. I'm just saying is all.

(Heh, I'm listening to a pretty great song by Scouting For Girls called "James Bond" and the singer keeps saying "I wish I was James Bond". Is it tragic that my mind keeps saying "wish I was James Joyce" when it sings along? Because I would totally prefer to be James Bond to being James Joyce. I think? On reflection, James Bond gets tortured, and James Joyce merely tortures syntax. Maybe I'm having a Freudian slip here?)

Anyway, this lecture we had suggested (well, the lecturer suggested, but so did the slides, so in a sense you could say it was the "lecture" as a composite entity. Maybe this is a stretch?) that we "take a moment to think of who in history sprang to mind when we thought of great leaders". His suggestions were all national heroes of one kind or another. Just about all of mine were bad guys. Maybe this is because Good Guys work within the system, and so the opportunities to really distinguish themselves are limited. Maybe it's because I have that most cliched of internet concepts: "a twisted mind". (Seriously, everyone on the internet thinks they're "twisted", "crazy", "unusual" and uniquely so. Everyone.)

Seriously though, who springs to mind? Julius Caesar did some pretty great leadership things, especially his mind games with the Tenth Legion in Gaul(for those of you interested, wikipedia probably explains it more accurately and succinctly than I would). You can tell he was a great leader because he convinced an entire loyal army that he personally was Awesome and to attack their own fatherland. This is a pretty big deal, you guys. I doesn't take impressive leadership to convince people to do things they've been trained to do, things they want to do, but it's special to be able to get people to happily do something alien to them.

The lecturer was particularly taken with Winston "Hey dudes, let's attack the Turks at Gallipolli, I'll be in charge of that!" Churchill. He had this whole thing about how he beat Hitler and was a great orator. Yeah, maybe, but the rest of the country helped with that (beating Hitler, not the speech-writing). Also America. Also Churchill sucked as a peacetime leader, just like the Duke of Wellington.

Maybe this is a pertinent point. Great leadership comes in different flavours "war", "administrative", "inspirational in emergencies", ("strawberry")?

I don't think that I have to think that someone is/was a good person, or likeable, or even non-abhorent for them to have leadership skills. The lecturer raised the question of whether Hitler was a good leader and dismissed it by saying that he killed people and had a stupid mustache. Ha! Managing to take over Europe even briefly, even partially, with a mustache like that, you can't deny, is a little bit impressive. Unspeakably awful, obviously, not to be encouraged, doubtless, but still, it's impressive to be able to convince so many people to do something so repugnant all while looking like a total douche.

So although I clarify again that NAZIS WERE/ARE BAD (I am just so haunted by the fear that I'll end up in a Today Tonight special one day when I grow up, and they'll find this and quote only that "on her blog, she describes Hitler as '...impressive'" that I'm having to labour this) I reckon that Hitler's feats of leadership were at least as impressive as Churchill's. More so, even?

Similarly, Alexander the Great took over Persia and built the world's largest empie blah blah blah. With not a little terrorism thrown in, to be honest (cf. the city of Tyre). An empire which fell to bits as soon as he died, on account of how there was no system of administration set up or anything. This, I agree, is not what you'd call a desirable trait in an empire. But what that means is that until he died, he was holding together an enormous Empire across the entire Middle East (something many have tried and few if any have managed) (are you listening, America?) with sheer force of personality! That, my friends, is impressive leadership. That guy was a big sulker, and an Achilles fanboy, and the sort of dude who didn't see any problem with enslaving or killing everyone in a sizeable city, but still, that guy must've had charisma in sapdes.

It's surprising, actually, how hard it is to think of "great leaders". The lecturer suggested Gandhi, and I don't know enough about Gandhi (to my shame)to be able to make any comment on that. I think perhaps that the really meaningfully successful leaders are the ones who are unobtrusive. Conversely, the really impressive ones are the ones who are flamboyant, and that requires breaking the rules. Which is not a really great way to do things in the long term.

I suppose this is because any opportunity to distinguish yourself always implies a disruption in the quotidian rhythms in which people successfully and for the most part happily live their lives. It's the leader-follwer thing again. It takes 40 men with their feet on the ground to support one man with his head in the clouds.

Funny, I'm really having trouble thinking of any individual leaders who were both impressive and properly successful. Cyrus the Great seems to have been pretty crash-hot (the surname is a giveaway, really). He built the Persian empire out of practically nothing and it lasted for generations and ruled the world with considerable success until Rome. Sure, Greece fought them off, but they still meddled with Greece to great effect.

They're all ancient, the good ones. Firstly, I suppose, because you can judge them in the long term ("no. centuries legacy lasted for" is hard to do with someone who made it big 50 years ago). Secondly because we lack such compromising details as "Gallipolli was his fault". Thirdly, and really most importantly, though, because of democracy. Since the people who are in charge now are nominally the People, anyone who does well themselves must be in breach of the social contract. Even in those parts of the world where democracy is not the vogue, it still taints our perceptions.

For the record, I think that guy who was King (George) when Churchill was Prime Minister was pretty impressive. Telling everyone that in a way you're glad when your palace gets blitzed because you wouldn't want not to share the sufferings of your people at least in some measure is the sort of PR masterstroke you have to admire.

Oh, hey, Jesus (not an exclamation of surprise, a suggestion of a name). Yeah! There's a dude who lead people impressively and had a fairly sizeable legacy. Also in ancient times, which proves me right, a bit. Also proves my "only badass dudes make it big" point. You can tell he was operating outside the system because of how the Government nailed him to things and made sure he died. This is not a sign of a person who's working within established modes of advancement. Whatever you may think of his legacy or personal qualities (and I actively un-invite you to comment on this paragraph because I know many of my readers have strongly opposed views here, and my blog is not the Flanders fields for a great religious debate). Certainly there was a guy, and certainly he had a legacy and leadership. Other angles are not relevant here.

Anyway, what do you think? Who springs to mind as a good leader, when you're asked? Because apparently I've got nothing.