လိုအပ္ လာတဲ့ အေျပာင္းအလဲ

၁၉၈၈ မဆလ တပါတီ ျဖဳတ္ခ်ခဲ့စဥ္က
အေတြးအေခၚ တန္းတူေက်ာင္းသားေတြ တက္ညီလက္ညီ လက္တြဲႏိူင္ခဲ့ၾကတယ္ ။
ေနဝင္း  ေမာင္ေမာင္ ျပဳတ္က်သြားတယ္ ။
သမိုင္းကို ေလ့လာခဲ့သူေတြ  စာဖတ္မ်ားသူေတြကို
ဦးေဆာင္တဲ့ေနရာေပးခဲ့ၾကတယ္ ။

နဝတ နအဖ ျဖဳတ္ခ်ဖို ့ ၾကိဳးပန္းခဲ့စဥ္က
NLD လူထုလက္တြဲျပီး ေျမေပၚ ေျမေအာက္ လက္တြဲခဲ့ၾကတယ္ ။
တပ္မေတာ္သားေဟာင္းမ်ား ႏိူင္ငံေရး သမားေဟာင္းမ်ား
ေထာင္က်မွာ မေၾကာက္သူမ်ားကို ဦးေဆာင္မႈေနရာေပးခဲ့ၾကတယ္ ။


ေတာ္လွန္ေရး နယ္ေျမေရာက္သြားတဲ့ သူေတြက
လက္ကိုင္ကိုင္ တိုက္ပြဲေတြနဲ ့ၾကိဳးပန္းခဲ့ၾကတယ္ ။
ျပည္တြင္းက ဦးေဆာင္ခဲ့သူမ်ား တပ္အေၾကာင္းေလ့လာသူမ်ား
အဂၤလိပ္စကား စာတတ္သူမ်ား
အမ်ားစု ၾကိဳက္တဲ့သူ ။ ေသမွာ မေၾကာက္တဲ့ သူေတြကို
ဦေဆာင္မႈေနရာေပးခဲ့ၾကတယ္ ။



ထိုင္းႏိုင္ငံေရာက္သြားသူေတြက သတင္းျဖန္ ့ခ်ီေရး ဆႏၵျပသမႈေတြနဲ ့လႈပ္ရွားခဲ့ၾကတယ္ ။
ေက်ညာခ်က္ကို ကၽြမ္းကၽြမ္းက်င္က်င္ ေရးႏိုင္သူမ်ား ။
အခက္အခဲကို ဦးေဆာင္ႏိူင္သူမ်ား
လူစုႏိူင္သူမ်ားကို ဦးေဆာင္မႈေနရာေပးခဲ့ၾကတယ္



အႏွစ္ ၂၀ ေက်ာ္သြားေတာ့ ၾကိဳးပန္းမႈေတြရဲ ့ ရလဒ္ကို
အာဏာရွင္စစ္တပ္ကလူေတြ ခံစားတတ္လာျပီ ။
ေတာ္လွန္ေရး ကာလမွာ လက္ေတြ ့ပိုင္းအရ မွားခဲ့တာရွိတယ္ ။
ျမန္မာျပည္ အာဏာရွင္ ျဖဳတ္ခ်ေရးအတြက္ေတာ့ တခါမွ မမွားၾကေသးဖူး ။

စစ္အာဏာရွင္ေတြက သူတို ့သားစဥ္ေျမးဆက္ ခ်မ္းသာ ၾကြယ္ဝစြာ လံုျခံဳေရးအတြက္
ျမန္ဆန္လွနဲ ့ နည္းေတြနဲ ့ ျမန္မာျပည္ကို ေျပာင္းလဲေနျပီ ။
သားစဥ္ေျမးဆက္ လံုျခံဳဖို ့ တိုင္းျပည္ကို အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္တဲ့ နည္းစနစ္ကေတာ့
လူအမ်ား ဆႏၵနဲ့ သေဘာထားေတြကို အေကာင္အထည္ေဖၚတဲ့
ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ ကလာတဲ့ လူထုကိုယ္စားလွယ္ေတြနဲ ့ လြတ္ေတာ္ တည္ေဆာက္ျပီ း
ဒီမိုကေရစီ စနစ္က်င့္သံုးဖို ့ျဖစ္တယ္ ။

ဦးသုေဝ ေျပာခဲ့သလို စစ္တပ္က ေျခတလွမ္း ေနာက္ဆုတ္ေနပါတယ္ ။
ဘယ္သူ ့အတြက္လဲ ။ ဘယ္နည္းလက္ေတြ နဲ ့တိုင္းျပည္နဲ ့လူမ်ိဳးေတြ အတြက္ အသံုးခ်မလဲ ။

အႏွစ္ ၂၀ ေက်ာ္ တိုက္ပြဲ အသြင္ပံုစံ ေျပာင္းလာခဲ့ျပီ ။
နည္းမ်ိဳးစံုနဲ ့ ခ်မယ္ ဆိုတာနဲ ့ အသံက်ယ္က်ယ္ ေအာ္ျပီး
ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေနရာ မွာေနလို ့မရေတာ့ဖူး ။

လြတ္ေတာ္ထဲမွ တဆင့္ က်ယ္ျပန္ ့လာေနတဲ ့ အာဏာရွင္ စစ္မ်က္ႏွာကို
တိုက္ခိုက္ေျပာင္းလဲဖို ့ စစ္မ်က္ႏွာ ၃ မ်ိဳးဖြင့္ရေတာ့မယ္ ။

တရားဝင္ ပါတီ ထူေထာင္ျခင္း
လူထု လူတန္းစား အသီးသီး အသိပညာေပး အဖြဲ ့ အုပ္စုမ်ားထူေထာင္ျခင္း
ႏိူင္ငံတကာေရာက္ ျမန္မာႏိူင္ငံသား အဖြဲ ့မ်ား ထူေထာင္ျခင္း

ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို ့ ဦးေဆာင္ေနသူေတြကို မွန္မွန္ကန္ကန္ ေရြးခ်ယ္ေပးဖို ့လိုေနပါျပီ ။

ဥိးေဆာင္ေနသူေတြရဲ ့ အရည္အခ်င္းကို ဆန္းစစ္ဖို ့လိုေနပါျပီ ။

အနာဂါတ္ ျမန္မာျပည္အတြက္ ကၽြမ္းက်င္သူေတြေမြးထုတ္ဖို ့လိုလာပါျပီ ။
လက္ရွိ ေျပာင္းလဲျခင္း တိုက္ပြဲေတြအတြက္
ဘာသာရပ္ကၽြမ္းက်င္သူေတြနဲ ့ပူးေပါင္းဦးေဆာင္ႏိူင္ဖို ့လိုလာပါျပီ ။

ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို ့ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေဟာင္းေတြ ျပင္ဆင္ေနၾကျပီလား ။
ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို ့ေခါင္းေဆာင္သစ္ေတြ ရွာေဖြပီးၾကျပီလား ။

အေျပာင္းအလဲ လိုေနျပီ ဆိုလား 

(မွတ္ခ်က္ )

ျပည္ပေရာက္ အဖြဲ ့အစည္းေတြက ဦးေဆာင္ေနသူ အခ်ိဳ ့ကေျပာၾကတယ္ ။ အေမစု လြတ္လာျပီ ။ သူ ့ရဲ ့ဦးေဆာင္မႈေနာက္က လိုက္ၾကမယ္တဲ့ ။ ၁၀၀ % လက္ခံတယ္ ။ အေမစုနဲ ့ NLD ကို လက္ေတြ ့ပံ့ပိုးဖို ့ ဆက္လက္ျပီး ေရာက္ရွိေနတဲ့ နယ္ပယ္ အသီးသီးမွာ ျပင္ဆင္ရေတာ့မယ္ ။ အေမစု လြတ္ေျမာက္ေရး မင္းကိုႏိူင္နဲ ့၈၈ ေက်ာင္းသားေတြ လြတ္ေျမာက္ေရး ႏိူင္ငံေရ အက်ဥ္းသားေတြ လြတ္ေျမာက္ေရး အတြက္ ဖြဲ ့စည္းခဲ့တဲ့ ျပည္ပအဖြဲ ့အစည္းေတြ အေျပာင္းအလဲလိုေနျပီ ။ အသံက်ယ္တဲ့ လူေတြ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ဖို ့ထက္ ။ အရည္အခ်င္းရွိတဲ့ သူေတြကို ရွာေဖြျပီး ပူးေပါင္းႏိုင္ဖို ့လိုတယ္ ။ ၈၈ေတြက လူငယ္ေတြကို ရွာေဖြ လက္တြဲျပီး ေန႕ရာေပးရေတာ့မယ္လို ့ျမင္လို ့ပါ ။

ကၽြန္ေတာ္ေရးတာ စကားလံုးေတြ လိုသြားတယ္ ။ ၈၈ေတြက လူငယ္ေတြ ဆိုတာက ၈၈ ေက်ာင္းသားေတြက လူငယ္သစ္ မ်ိဳးဆက္သစ္ေတြ ရွာေဖြဖို ့ပါ ။ ၁၉၈၈ ဦးေဆာင္ခဲ့သူေတြက အခု အခ်ိန္မ်ာ အသက္အရြယ္အားျဖင့္ ၄၅ ေက်ာ္လာၾကျပီ ။ ေနာက္ထပ္လုပ္ႏိူင္ၾကရင္ ၁၅ ႏွစ္ေပါ့ ။ ႏိူင္ငံတခုကို ဦးေဆာင္ထို ့လူငယ္ေတြကို ေမြးထုတ္ထို ့ဆိုတာ ႏွစ္ေတြ အမ်ားၾကီး အေတြ ့အၾကံဳရဖို ့လိုပါတယ္။လက္ရွိ အေမစုက ၆၅ ႏွစ္ ။ သူျပီးရင္ ၄၅ ၅၀ အရြယ္ေတြကို လက္ဆင့္ကမ္းရေတာ့မယ္ ။ ေနာက္ ၁၅ ႏွစ္ မွာ ျမန္မာျပည္ကို ၁၀၀ % ျပည့္ ဒီမိုကေရစီ ႏိူင္ငံျဖစ္ဖို ့ပါ ။ စစ္တကၠသိုလ္ၾကီးက တိုက္ခိုက္ေရး ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြ ႏွစ္စဥ္ စနစ္တက် ေမြးထုတ္ေပးေနတယ္ ။ သူတို ့က အုပ္စု အားေကာင္းေတာ့ ဒီကေန ့ တိုင္းျပည္ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေရးကို သူတို ့ေနရာယူထားတယ္ ။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို ့ မျပင္ဆင္ရင္ ေနာက္ အႏွစ္ ၂၀ က်ရင္လဲ သူတို ့စစ္တပ္က လာတဲ့သူ တင္တဲ့ သူဘဲ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ေနၾကမွာ ။

ASHGATE

RESEARCH

COMPANION 1

Political Leadership in Context

Joseph Masciulli, Mikhail A. Molchanov and W. Andy Knight

Research in political science is mostly problem-driven (George and Bennett 2005;

see Shapiro 2007, who convincingly opposes a method-driven approach). Among

the many issues that political science deals with, the problem of leadership clearly

stands out. Leadership is an essential feature of all government and governance: weak

leadership contributes to government failures, and strong leadership is indispensable

if the government is to succeed. Wise leadership secures prosperity in the long run;

foolhardy leadership may bring about a catastrophe. The lack of leadership routinizes

governance. Its political and creative aspects fade away: it becomes no different from

administration, focusing solely on pattern maintenance and repetition of the same. On

the other hand, over-assertive leadership pays little attention to institutional constraints:

it may bring about sudden, unexpected changes, and disrupt the normal flow of the

political process, thus detracting from its transparency and/or predictability.

Political leadership and followership account for significant differences across

and within individual nation states in responding to both newer global problems

and traditional governance issues. Globalization creates the demand for new forms

of international and supranational leadership: as a ‘package of transnational flows

of people, production, investment, information, ideas, and authority’ (Brysk 2002,

1; cf. Masciulli and Day 2006), globalization elevates the significance of leadership

of international organizations, regional groups of states, and global agencies

(Masciulli and Day 2006; Keck and Sikkink 1998).

Leadership is a historically concrete phenomenon; that is, its structures and

methods change with the passage of time. To influence events and affect outcomes,

leaders need to be prepared to abandon policy instruments and ideas that no longer

work in a new environment. They need to be able to embrace the new and reevaluate

the old, even some of the earlier discarded ideas and methods of adapting

to environments, if the circumstances call for it. Contributors to this book attempt to

demonstrate in various ways that strategic-tactical innovative adaptation is the key

to effective political leadership in a diverse set of regime types and cultural contexts.

Innovations may take different forms, however. Though all of our authors are generally

committed to democracy, human rights and environmental sustainability, we do not

entirely agree on what these ideals mean theoretically and imply practically.

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership

Definitions

In this research companion, we investigate political leadership as a multidimensional

phenomenon. Leadership is a part of multicausal social processes that bring about

concrete political outcomes – election results, for example (King 2002; Greenstein

2004). In the literature on leadership and management, political leadership from

the local to the national to the global level is usually and correctly viewed as a

subtype of human social leadership – though we would stress that it is a special

‘thick’, potentially all-inclusive, subtype. To understand, explain and predict

patterns of political leadership and arrive at normative prescriptions for its

‘proper’ design and implementation, inquirers need to analyse the beliefs, values,

characters, power relations, and ethical/unethical values, attitudes and actions of

leaders and followers, as well as their historical situation and cultural-institutional

context (Nye 2008). Both leaders and followers are involved in a circular process

of motivation and power exchange that is often difficult to break up into a causal

sequence (Wildavsky 2006). Still ‘politics as leadership’ (Tucker 1995) does occur,

however complex it is to conclude about the significance of its causal role: leaders

mobilize a significant number of followers to accept their diagnosis of, and policy

prescriptions for, collective problems or crises. Moreover, leadership is a symbolic

activity mediated by culture, for leaders as ‘identity entrepreneurs’ are engaged in

providing myths/visions to create, reshape or enhance national and other political

cultures. In the process, leaders and followers themselves are affected by what they

help create (Rousseau 1987; The Social Contract, II, 7).

Political leadership is one of the most widely experienced and intuitively or tacitly

understood phenomena – like great power competition, Olympic rivalries, climate

change, the right to develop, or central human rights controversies about trade-offs

between security and civil and political rights. In contrast, the concept of political

leadership is difficult to define essentially, because it is dependent on institutional,

cultural and historical contexts and situations – both particular and general (Blondel

1987; Wildavsky 2006; Wildavsky 1989; Klenke 1996). Empirical operationalization

of the concept of leadership involves a host of methodological issues, specifically

those related to the definition of variables and the problem of spurious correlation.

Nonetheless, the phenomenon of leadership clearly incorporates leaders involved

in some type of innovative adaptation with followers, group objectives and

organizational means, and problematic situations and contexts (Drucker with

Maciariello 2008; Nye 2008; Grint 2005).

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines a ‘leader’ as ‘the person who

leads or commands a group, organization, or country’. ‘To lead’ means to ‘cause

(a person or animal) to go with one by drawing them along; show (someone) the

way to a destination by preceding or accompanying them’. In other words, goalsetting

and motivation both figure prominently as essential attributes of the notion

of leadership. Other languages differ considerably with the meanings of equivalent

translatable terms, but have also adopted the English ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’ in

the last century (Blondel 1987).

Political Leadership in Context

‘Leadership’ is of more recent usage. The term was coined in the early nineteenth

century and refers to

the dignity, office, or position of a leader, esp. of a political party; ability to

lead; the position of a group of people leading or influencing others within

a given context; the group itself; the action or influence necessary for the

direction or organization of effort in a group undertaking (Oxford English

Dictionary, online).

One should note that military command has been and remains a standard dictionary

meaning of leadership in the Oxford English Dictionary and other English dictionaries

(other languages present their own linguistic diversity and complexity because of

historical and cultural differences). In the military, people in positions of command

show followers the way, but are not open to debates in which the force of the better

argument decides the course of action (cf. Habermas 1971). Their hard power of

command with coercive enforcement is always in reserve to ‘guide’ the followers in

the direction chosen by the leaders. Indeed, the ancient linguistic root of the English

verb ‘to lead’ means ‘to go forth, die’ (American Heritage Dictionary 1969, 1526).

As regards an overall guiding definition of political leadership for research

purposes, cultural context matters in giving substantial content to any definition. For

example, in a Russian cultural context, a leader with a sentimental, compassionate

or weak character would be rejected as a failure (Gorbachev’s weakness versus

Putin’s strength as contrasting images) (Wildavsky 2006; House et al. 2004).

Moreover, research purposes do allow for a plurality of definitions, each of which

is appropriate to the type of study undertaken (Bass 1990). Still, most researchers

agree that the following elements should be taken into account in defining political

leadership:

the personality and traits of a leader or leaders, including her or his ethical

and cultural character;

the traits and ethical-cultural character of the followers with whom the leader

interacts (keeping in mind that leaders of different followers and followers of

different leaders interact as well, cooperatively or competitively);

the societal or organizational context in which the leader–follower interaction

occurs – general culture, political culture, political climate, norms, and

institutions;

the agenda of collective problems or tasks which confront the leaders and

followers in particular historical situations;

the nature of the leader’s interpretive judgement, since situations do not

define themselves, but have to be defined by leaders’ insights accepted by

the followers;

the means – material and intangible – that the leaders use to attain their ends

and/or their followers’ goals; these are ‘the techniques which the leader uses

to mobilize support on behalf of her or his agenda and/or to maintain support

or position’ (Peele 2005, 192);

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership

the effects or results of leadership (whether real or symbolic, long lasting or

transient).

‘Political leadership’ overlaps significantly with the higher levels of military, legal,

organizational, and religious and ideological leadership, and is a special part of

‘social leadership’ in general, as we contended above. The latter includes parental,

business, educational, scientific and technological, athletic, medical, cultural,

artistic, religious, and other forms of leadership. Some scholars focus on social

leadership as a whole, and deal with political leadership as a part among parts

(such as Grint 2000; Grint 2005). Social leadership and political leadership manifest

themselves in formal positions and behaviourally. Scholars who stress that political

leadership is a special part of social leadership also affirm that leadership is ‘related

to power: a leader (in the behavioral sense) is a person who is able to modify the

course of events’ (Blondel 1987; Wildavsky 2006).

One notes that power and leadership are equally elusive concepts that are both

difficult to operationalize. The alternative is to go in the direction of strict stipulative

definitions, but this may present us with research dilemmas and methodological

issues beyond the scope of this book. We agree with those who define political

leadership as a rather unique set of power relations and influences that is exercised

over a broad range of nationally and globally salient issue areas and from a position

of authoritative preponderance involving ideologies and ethics:

While many of us have power over a group, perhaps for relatively long periods,

and may be [social] leaders as a result, political leaders exercise this power

over an area comprising foreign affairs, defense, the economic and social wellbeing

of citizens, even culture and the arts. … [Indeed,] at least in principle,

political leadership is broad and might be all-embracing: decisions that could

be taken by the [political] leader might cover any subject (Blondel 1987, 15).

There is an overlap between social and political leadership, but the latter is ‘thicker’

than any other type of social leadership in having a monopolistic or preferred

access to coercive and inducing hard power, in addition to attracting, persuasive

soft power based on ideology, symbolism, ethical/non-ethical character, and

perceptions of followers about leaders.

Analytical Framework

Political leadership implies followership, as well as group tasks to be accomplished

through innovative adaptation in a specific situation and institutionalcultural

context (Heifetz 1994; Tucker 1995; Nye 1999; Bennis and Thomas

2002; Nye 2008). Leadership–followership is part of the social reality of any

group confronting its environment as problematic, in which the group must

continually adapt and innovate. The leadership–followership exchanges evolve

•

Political Leadership in Context

into a real interactive process, in which the two parts are mutually constitutive and

‘dialectically’ related as a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. Leaders

affect their followers’ attitudes, beliefs, demands and needs; and the followers

affect the leader’s style, qualities, beliefs and motivations, as they both transform

the environment and are reflectively transformed by their own actions (Blondel

1987, 17; Hay 2002; Tucker 1977a; Tucker 1981; Wildavsky 2006; Rousseau 1987, The

Social Contract, II, 7).

Whatever contextual variations exist, political leadership–followership is always

a social process of adaptation and innovation – hence, innovative adaptation – to

an environment or context that challenges a group’s way of life and values. The

leader’s tasks are to:

interpret problems

prescribe ends and means to solve them

propagate personal visions as solutions or, at least, responses to problems

mobilize followers to implement those solutions or responses (Heifetz 1994;

Tucker 1995).

A growing number of political analysts see leadership as a dynamic, open social

system, a coherent process, rather than just a number of sporadic individual acts:

‘some kind of process … that in some way gets people to do something’, or involves

‘some sort of relationship between leaders and followers in which something

happens or gets done’ (Ciulla 1998, 11–13; Burns 1978).

A leader, says Kellerman, ‘chooses a particular course of action and then in

some way gets others to go along; or more subtly, the leader encourages the led to

‘choose’ the course that the group will follow …’ (2004, xiii). The co-determination

of the two parts of the leadership–followership system means that leaders are, to a

significant extent, created by the led. Followers matter; indeed ‘leadership, seen as

a process, is caused by following’ (Mant 1999, 6). Whether people follow primarily

by inner ‘instinct’ (Mant 1999) or through cultural socialization (both obviously

are involved), the significance of followership for leaders’ successes and failures

has become better appreciated in the recent literature (Hollander 1998; Kellerman

2008).

The actual ‘supply’ of leadership is driven by a pre-existing societal ‘demand’,

which the political entrepreneurship of a would-be leader seeks to satisfy. More

often than not, there is more than one way to satisfy that demand, or to create an

impression that the problem can be resolved. Historical contexts and problematic

situations are variously ‘interpreted’ by opposing elite groups, political leaders

themselves as members of these elites, their advisers and organizational ‘machines’,

and mass followers (Michels 1986). Political leadership may therefore be seen as a

form of competitive entrepreneurial activity in the marketplace of ideas and values,

sometimes stressing structural leadership, intellectual leadership or charismatic

leadership (Young 1991). Of course, in addition to leadership–followership, elite–

mass formations, alienated apolitical individuals, independent intellectuals, and

professional and epistemic communities are also involved in interpreting their

••••

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership

common world and its problems (Tucker 1977a; Tucker 1981; Tucker 1995; Keck

and Sikkink 1998; Scott 2001). However, leader–follower groups are unique, as

they not only interpret problematic situations, but also prescribe specific courses

of action and mobilize people to solve social problems, thus seeking to transform

existing contexts and situations (Tucker 1995).

It is important to stress that contextual and situational interpretations are

not ‘pre-programmed’ into the fabric of social life. As environments are not selfdefining

or obvious to political actors, a conscious interpretive effort is called forth

and provided by political leaders. The results of such an effort are naturally open

to political and ideological contestation (Stier 1997). Social environments are not

reducible to natural or technological entities that are simply ‘out there’ for all to

see, but rather also include socially constructed facts resulting from the norms and

practices accepted by a group (Ruggie 1998). To be sure, some contexts are relatively

easier to interpret than others – for example, famines, natural disasters, military

invasions, disease pandemics and severe economic recessions or depressions – such

as the deep global recession that started in 2008. Even so, once cause-and-effect

relationships enter into political discourse, once responsibility gets assigned and

accountability demanded, the re-interpretive function of leadership immediately

comes to the fore, and the space for political entrepreneurship and creativity

increases exponentially (Guntern 1997).

While traditional studies saw great leaders as creative agents driving political

processes for the society at large (Carlyle 1993; Hook 1943), newer research is

placing increased emphasis on the necessity to avoid drawing a simple dichotomy

between social structures and political agency, including leader–follower groups.

Social structures are ‘collections of people, organized perhaps in some ‘system’ or

multiple systems, but still people, and thus malleable, susceptible to the ultimate

agency of human learning and leadership (Burns 2003, 216). In other words, unlike

natural structures, social structures are only relatively enduring and do not exist

independently of the activities they regulate or constitute (Hay 2002; Ruggie 1998).

Agents who accept shared conceptions, norms and identities in their activities

construct social structures that persist only as long as these conceptions, norms and

identities remain relatively static and do not significantly change. Some leader–

follower interactive groups are long-lasting; others are temporary, contingent upon

the ‘strategic selectivity’ of the group’s structural environment (Hay 1995, 192; Hay

2002).

The leader–follower relationship exists on a continuum from extreme inequality

and asymmetry, whereby strong leaders exercise overwhelming domination

over subordinate followers (a significant constant in the past and present), to the

opposite extreme of almost total symmetry and equality, whereby strong leaders

influence and inspire followers to become strong, autonomous leaders themselves

(a rare utopian event, except within elite leadership circles involving leaders, coand

sub-leaders and advisers). Leadership at both ends of the continuum, however,

is characterized by interaction, whether it is materially ‘transactional’ or morally

‘transformational’ (Burns 1978; Burns 2003).

Political Leadership in Context

Moreover, one can distinguish between ‘adaptive’ leaders who react and

respond to challenges from local and global systems by introducing changes on

the margins, and ‘innovative’ leaders who seek to implement more radical changes

and revise the very rules of the game, or the nature of societal responses to the

problem (Heifetz 1994). Innovative leaders frequently demonstrate exceptional

(‘charismatic’) leadership which seems to emanate from the personality of a

leader. Charismatic leadership tends to arise in times of crisis and always leads,

for temporary periods at least, away from the world of everyday life and everyday

routine (Takala 1997). Innovative leadership, says Sheffer (1993), refers to:

… dominant leaders who introduced new ideas or novel orientations, and for

better or for worse promoted major changes in their respective societies, which

in turn altered both the nearer and more remote external environments of these

societies … [by advancing] vision, inspiration, conceptualization of change,

articulation of ideological goals and their communication to followers and

foes, risk taking, [the] formation of groups of followers and their occasional

mobilization, [and] guidance of followers toward the achievement of goals

(vii–ix).

Sheffer’s summary refers to ‘fuzzy’ concepts such as vision, inspiration and risktaking.

These concepts seem to be of a subjective nature and refer to individual

psychological qualities of a leader. However, none of those qualities would be

of any interest to us, if not for their lasting social importance. When a leader’s

‘charisma’, vision and inspiration become the catalysts of social and political

change, they leave the realm of individual psychology and acquire the new qualities

of an intersubjective reality shared by a great number of people. It is these people’s

actions, guided by a common set of goals first articulated by a leader or leaders,

that objectify the leader’s vision and help transform the environment.

What is good leadership and how does it differ from bad leadership? This is an

area where empirical political science encounters normative political theory. The

terms are loaded. We tend to believe that ‘good’ leadership should be good both

ethically and instrumentally (cf. Ciulla 1998, 13). ‘Bad’ leadership can be designated

as such if it is morally evil, rests on the violation of human dignity and rights (or

some variant moral orientation), or caters solely to the egoistic whims and private

interests of a ruler. It may also be ‘bad’ in the sense of being ineffective due to,

for example, incompetence, rigidity or intemperance in leaders or followers that

interferes with the use of appropriate means to attain the ends sought (Kellerman

2004).

In ‘effective’ leadership, the leader successfully chooses the means that bring

about the desired ends. If the means chosen are devised anew – rather than simply

taken from the arsenal of time-tested, routine responses to typical problems –

effective leadership corresponds to the pattern of innovative adaptation. Complex

leadership can be both ‘effective’ and ‘ethical’; that is, the leader successfully

chooses the means that are most likely to attain the ends sought, but also seeks

to embody end-values (equality, freedom, justice, human rights, environmental

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership

10

sustainability) and modal-values (honesty, reliability, trustworthiness, fairness) in

the process (Burns 1998, ix–xii). The effectiveness of leadership is determined by

the actual short- and long- term consequences of leaders’ actions. Judgement of

a leader’s effectiveness may be revised in historiographies, in view of long-term

consequences.

The degree of ethics in leadership is determined by relevant argumentation and

discourse (Ciulla 1998; Ciulla 2004a). However, there is a core set of ethical/moral

insights that is available for practical application: principles of the just-war tradition

(Lauren et al. 2007; Walzer 1992); reciprocity (Kegley 1995b); elementary principles

of distributive justice requiring that society or the dominant group care for the ill,

the most vulnerable, the starving, and the economically worst-off (Rawls 1999;

Walzer 2007; Miller 2007; Singer 2004); and an appreciation of the core virtues of

ethics including practical wisdom and judgement, moderation, courage, and a sense

of fairness and justice, sympathy and compassion (Coll 1995; Dalai Lama 1993).

Some theorists argue that leadership by definition is ethically good (Northouse

2004). It is ‘a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to

achieve a common goal’ but without using coercion (Northouse 2004, 3; cf. Burns

1978). Kellerman (1999; 2004) and Bass (1990; 1998; 1985) have correctly pointed

out that the Northouse-Burns approach has a fundamental weakness, which is the

problem of the so-called ‘Hitler’s ghost’. Kellerman argues that not only was Hitler’s

impact on the twentieth century arguably greater than any other state leader’s; Hitler

was skilled at inspiring, mobilizing and directing his followers. Notwithstanding

the indiscriminate use of coercion against followers and adversaries alike, and

despite the evil of his racist and Social Darwinist ends, Hitler’s leadership was

unusually effective in a purely instrumental sense of the word (Kellerman 2004, 11).

Kellerman’s argument is empirically persuasive. We cannot dismiss the problem of

instrumentally effective, even if morally repugnant, leadership by simply refusing

to use the term ‘leader’ in such cases. Labelling Hitler as a ‘ruler’, ‘tyrant’ or

‘power-wielder’ in pointed avoidance of the term ‘leader’ (cf. Burns 1978) does little

service to empirical political science. If we decide to limit the studied universe of

leaders by weeding out all tyrants, egoistic ‘power-wielders’ and morally deficient

individuals, the remaining number of cases might be too few from which to draw

any meaningful conclusions. For comparative purposes, we would, therefore, seek

to employ a value-neutral definition of leadership that focuses on its instrumental

(ability to influence people and effect outcomes), organizational (goal-setting and

motivation), strategic-visionary and entrepreneurial (innovative adaptation and

creativity) qualities, rather than post hoc normative evaluation of its end-results.

Successful leaders are those who have demonstrated their ability to move

their society tangibly in the direction that seemed clearly supportive of their

suggested ‘grand design’. Unsuccessful leaders are those whose efforts to move

their society in the direction of their choosing have backfired or brought about

results clearly destructive of their propagated strategic vision. Historical evidence

suggests that a good number of political leaders evade academic attempts at neat

classification, as they switched from the one to the other side of the ‘successful/

unsuccessful’ divide at various times in their political careers and especially in

Political Leadership in Context

11

regards to this or that particular element of a ‘grand design’ under consideration.

Without a doubt, the ‘successful/unsuccessful’ classification is also profoundly

influenced by the interpreter’s point of view, methodological premises and

evaluative frames.

In the voluminous, and growing, social science literature on political leadership

and followership, one can find a variety of theoretical and methodological

approaches to studying leadership, but little agreement on what reliable knowledge

about leadership does exist (for example, Grint 1997; Grint 2000; Grint 2005;

Kellerman 2008; Peele 2005; Nye 2008; Yukl 2009). Defining, explaining, predicting

and evaluating leadership are all areas of active scholarly debate. Nonetheless,

there is a degree of consensus among political scientists and historians that the case

study approach with qualitative methods, and the systematic use of counterfactual

analysis (Kellerman 2004; Kellerman 2008; Gergen 2000; George and Bennett

2005; Greenstein 2004; Ferguson 1999), combined with comparative quantitative

investigations (for example, King 2002; Rejai and Phillips 1983) have been and

will continue to be indispensable for arriving at reliable knowledge about political

leadership – without denying the value of experimental and other methods used to

study leadership in social and political psychology (Lane 2003).

Given the importance of impersonal cultural, ecological, demographic,

scientific-technological, and institutional structures globally and within states,

what role do individual political leaders actually play and how causally significant

are their contributions in bringing about political outcomes? The debate about

whether particular leaders with their personal attributes, characters, beliefs,

values and skills should be considered as important historical, causal agents in

their own right remains at the centre stage of leadership studies (King 2002; Post

2004). Do leaders change history, or do historical forces primarily move them? Why

do followers follow leaders – because of leaders’ ‘charisma’ or, less mysteriously,

because of tangible economic or other self-interests of followers? What part of a

leader’s world-historical personality might be regarded as properly individual

and personal, and what part of it as a mere reflection of the predominant social

structures and historical situations?

We suggest that individual leadership approaches in conjunction with contextual

and situational approaches are indispensable for understanding causality in

international relations and comparative politics today. Leadership studies provide

a productive source for hypotheses that seek to clarify the agency-structure nexus

across the broad spectrum of social and political sciences. In addition, these studies

help formulate prescriptive positions for solving national and global problems,

some of which arise from the lack of effective individual leadership, while some

others reflect individual leaders’ miscalculations or plain inadequacy (Byman

and Pollack 2001; Greenstein 1982; Greenstein 2004; Lauren et al. 2007; George

and George 1998). As the debate continues, there are also those who opt for the

primacy of social structures and reject the usefulness of theorizing at the level of

the actions and personalities of individual leaders (for example, Waltz 1959; Waltz

1979; Mearsheimer 2001).

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership

12

The personality-centred approach is advanced by studies of some highly

effective political leaders who have themselves ‘consciously developed theories

of leadership that functioned with compelling success in their own worlds’: for

example, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Stanley Baldwin (Hamby 2006, 233); Churchill

(Lord 2003); Lenin (Service 2000); Deng Xiaoping (Shambaugh 1995); and even

such socially destructive and narcissistic leaders as Mao, Stalin and Hitler (Tucker

1987, 34–40, 199). US President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–61) has been described

by Greenstein (1988, 105) as a ‘leadership theorist in the White House’, one who

‘drew extensively on an explicit conception of the means and ends of leadership

that he had developed before assuming office’. Studying the letters, memoirs

and polemical writings of successful leadership ‘practitioners’ and innovators as

different as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela, on

the one hand, and Kemal Ataturk, Vladimir Lenin and Fidel Castro, on the other

hand, might provide glimpses into their respective leadership approaches and

strategies, thus helping to advance theoretical conceptualizations and sound

practical prescriptions.

Nonetheless, sceptics argue that the prominence and influence of individual,

personal leadership is overstated in the press and in scholarly case studies. To the

critics of a leadership-focused approach in political science, ‘it is not at all clear

that leadership requires any remarkable talents, or that major differences in the

success of organizations reflect differences in the capabilities of their leaders, or

that history is the product of leaders’ actions’ (March and Weil 2005, 97). Citing such

evidence as King’s (2002) quantitative study of the relation of leaders’ personalities

to election outcomes in six countries, some scholars conclude that, in view of the

study’s uneven results, the judgments, decisions and actions of leaders in modern

democratic societies do not matter much (Grint 2005). However, King contends that

despite particular national elections not being a leaders’ ‘beauty contest’, leaders

always matter in developing party platforms before and during elections, pursuing

electoral strategies, and later governing with one leadership style or another. We

agree with King (2002) that both the leadership approach and the organizational

and impersonal forces’ approach are needed to understand and explain political

outcomes and develop policies.

The Marxist tradition of political leadership is valuable for its insights into

agency-structure dynamics under conditions of reform or revolution (Marsh 2002).

Marxist-inspired political theorists of leadership have had to respond to Marx’s

heavy emphasis on structural economic and technological forces advancing class

conflict to the point of a revolutionary political and cultural transformation of

society in the direction of socialism and communism, which he saw as the final

stage of political-economic development. To be sure, Marx qualified his seeming

structural determinism with the notion of mutual dialectical transformation of

individual and collective agents and the historical situation and contexts (Marsh

2002). Friedrich Engels and subsequent Marxist theorists went further than

that, emphasizing the role of ‘ideological relations’ and other ‘superstructural’

phenomena in the maintenance and adaptation of modern capitalist relations of

production and social control (for example, Gramsci 1971).

Political Leadership in Context

13

In the subsequent Marxist-Leninist tradition, leadership is understood as a

function to be performed by a group of committed individuals – a party, or an

organization of professional revolutionaries – vested with the role of ‘lending

energy, stability, and continuity to the political struggle’ of the working class (Lenin

1975, 63). Several important features distinguish Lenin’s approach to leadership,

including the unabashed emphasis on the superior qualities of the leadership elite.

First of all, the leadership elite of a movement must claim a superior knowledge

or understanding of not only the long-term goals and immediate tasks of the

movement, but of the society at large and the laws of history that govern its

evolution. The mastery of revolutionary theory is the surest way to the mastery

of a revolutionary movement, as ‘the role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a

party that is guided by the most advanced theory’ (Lenin 1975, 19–20).

Second, Lenin conceives of leadership as a collective, rather than individual

function and attribute, although the leading elite is by no means seen as inclusive,

broad-based, or numerous: ‘… without the “dozen” tried and talented leaders

(and talented men are not born by the hundreds) … working in perfect harmony,

no class in modern society can wage a determined struggle’ (Lenin 1975, 74). The

elite’s primary task is to educate the followers, to shape their understanding of

their own interests and the world outlook generally speaking: ‘Class political

consciousness can be brought to workers only from without …’ (Lenin 1975, 50). The

‘wise men’ that instil the right type of consciousness into the masses of followers

could be of any class background – ‘students or working men’ – as long as they are

‘professional revolutionaries’ (Lenin 1975, 76). The latter term implies a combination

of unique personal qualities, stringent training and a lifetime of devotion to their

political leadership (‘revolutionary’) career. Third, the leadership elite is supposed

to employ superior knowledge and expert skills to organize followership: political

leaders are seen as ‘talented organizers capable of arranging extensive and at the

same time uniform and harmonious work that would employ all forces, even the

most inconsiderable’ (Lenin 1975, 80).

There is a consistent emphasis on an objective, inescapable contradiction

between the ‘spontaneity of the masses’ and ‘a high degree of consciousness’ that

should distinguish ‘a constant and continuous organization capable of leading the

whole movement’ (Lenin 1975, 32–3).

The whole body of Lenin’s work on the question looks as if it were more informed

by neo-Hegelian thought on the power of ideas, rather than classic materialist

determinism characteristic of Marx. Indeed, Lenin’s Conspectus of Hegel’s Science

of Logic (2007) has this remarkable admission: ‘The thought of the ideal passing

into the real is profound: very important for history. But also in the personal life

of man it is clear that this contains much truth. Against vulgar materialism. NB.

The difference of the ideal from the material is also not unconditional …’ The

barely hidden idealism of Lenin’s theory of leadership is premised on the notion of

superiority of theoretical insight provided by Marxist scholarship. This theory of

leadership makes full excuse of social experimentation, and proudly presents the

grand designs devised by the few ‘wise men’ as not only the latest achievement of

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership

14

social sciences, but as the only correct insight into the objectively predetermined

path of social evolution that the rest of humanity must follow.

Critical theorists have learned much from the Marxist tradition, but have

proceeded in a variety of directions, some trying to combine strong democracy with

strong leadership (Stier 1997). Habermas and the Frankfurt School have proposed

three conceptions of political activity in the context of the relationship of theory

to practice and leaders to followers: the interpretive conception (the explication

of meanings since humans are intentional and meaningful in their actions); the

technical conception (using knowledge as a tool to change the social and natural

worlds through our understanding of causal nexuses and other regularities); and

the educative conception (enlightening people about which means are effective for

the ends that they desire to pursue, as well as clarifying alternative ends available

for adoption) (Stier 1997, 116; cf. Habermas 1971). These three forms of political

activity are often intertwined in forms of political leadership, though clearly ‘the

technical and educative uses of political and social science are dependent on the

interpretive [theoretical] use’ (Stier 1997, 116). It is not clear, however, whether the

technical and educative uses of knowledge and leadership can be reconciled, so

as to give priority to the educative use in the pursuit of constitutional democracy,

human rights and environmental sustainability. The constructive ordering of these

forms of political activity for idealist-realist (not utopian) democratic, human

rights, and sustainability leaders and followers would be the technical form

serving the educative form of leadership, and both being informed by a strong

normative interpretation of democracy as participative, human rights as implying

responsibilities, and environmental sustainability including high-technology

innovation and adaptation. Nonetheless, at times technical action would seem to

be needed to safeguard the preservation of these educative ideals. There is no neat

Leninist resolution to these dilemmas.

Typologies of Political Leadership

Typologies help us pose and answer questions about leaders, followers, objectives,

situations and contexts. Typologies are logical devices for the mental ordering of the

universe of cases. As instruments of classification and ordering, typologies can be

used to describe various observable groups of leaders and followers, the nature of

the relationship that binds the two groups together, their social and psychological

traits, functions and social roles, as well as the extent and character of the impact

they may have on a society at large. Some of the pertinent questions that arise in

this regard are:

How and why do particular individuals gain power in a particular

organization or society or state? What are the origins of a leader’s power?

What are the instruments by which this power is exercised (Blondel 1987)?

•

Political Leadership in Context

15

How do and should leaders exercise mixes of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power – that is,

‘smart power’ (Nye 2008)?

What are leaders’ and followers’ personal characteristics (Greenstein 2004;

Hollander 1998; Kellerman 2008)? How do leaders and followers relate

(Kellerman 2004; Kellerman 2008; Burns 1978; Burns 2003)?

What functions do leaders serve in what situations and contexts? How do they

diagnose problems, prescribe solutions, and mobilize followers to implement

policies and visions (Tucker 1981; Tucker 1995)?

How do leaders and followers realize their ‘vision’ (Bennis 2003; Greenstein

2004)?

What motivates leaders and followers, and how do leaders motivate followers

and followers motivate leaders (Lane 2003)?

Are there any types of leaders not included in traditional, rational/pragmatic

and charismatic types (Weber 1946/1958)?

How do leaders move history or does history move them (Hay 2002)?

Is there a type of leadership ‘for all seasons’ (Kellerman 1986; Nye 2008)?

Should ‘followers’ be abolished as a term and reality or replaced by the term

and reality of ‘collaborators’ (Heifetz 1994; Shriberg et al. 2005)?

(Compare the lists of questions in Heifetz 1994, 16, and Kellerman 1986, xiv.)

We know that all leadership occurs in social situations and contexts, which

endow followers with certain cultural characteristics, and which permit leaders to

utilize certain personal characteristics: inherent qualities, socialized habits, learned

skills; intelligence of various types, including especially emotional intelligence

and contextual intelligence, including social insight; but also power-wielding,

organizational and communication skills (cf. Greenstein 2004; Greenstein 2006;

Bose 2006; Nye 2008). We also know that some leaders have ethical-political

visions, or at least some ideas about what should be done for the group and in the

group (Bennis 2003; Bennis and Biederman 1997). We know that leaders fulfil the

functions of diagnosing problems, prescribing solutions and mobilizing followers

or supporters to solve those problems and engage in change or preservation

through degrees of innovative adaptation (Tucker 1981; Tucker 1995). Based on

this accumulated empirical and analytical knowledge and normative perspectives,

researchers proceed with constructing various kinds of typologies that usually

connect two or more variables together; for example, leadership style and social

functions, or leader’s goals and leadership outcomes.

Dichotomous typologies can be constructed in relation to leaders’ individual

qualities and how they generally relate to their followers and others – good or bad

(Kellerman 2004; Aristotle 1958), effective or ineffective (Greenstein 2004), strong

or weak (Deutsch 1978), formal (constituted) versus informal (non-constituted)

leaders (Tucker 1981; Tucker 1995). Trichotomous typologies, especially during

the Cold War, stressed differences among pragmatic (Western democratic, first

world), ideological (Communist, second world) and revolutionary (independent

third world states) leaders (Kissinger 1974). There are also normative and empirical

typologies, as well as those of a mixed or hybrid nature.

•

•

•

•

•

•••

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership

16

Normative Typologies

Normative typologies equip us with an important instrument for ethical assessment

of leadership in the modern world. Among the classic leadership typologies

still current in the West (but see Lord, 2003, on Japan as a kind of ‘leaderless’

regime) one of the more popular is Aristotle’s normative dualistic typology that

distinguishes between self-interested rulers and leaders and common-interested

rulers and leaders. Aristotle’s ethical thrust has been followed by many political

philosophers and empirical theorists over the centuries. The tradition continues

today. Nye, for example, has given his own version of a normative typology of

good and bad leadership.

Aristotle’s normative typology of political leadership correlates two variables:

the number of rulers, on the one hand, and the motivation and end results of their

ruling, on the other hand. Thus, when one person rules for the common advantage,

the regime is a kingship; one-person rule for private advantage results in a tyranny.

When a few rule for the common advantage, the regime is an aristocracy; rule for

the particular gain of the few results in an oligarchy. When the multitude rules for

the common good, the regime is a polity (a constitutional democracy); rule for the

particular advantage of the multitude (who, for the most part, are relatively poor),

results in an (electoral) ‘democracy’ or ‘mobocracy’ in today’s vocabulary (see Table

1.1; Aristotle 1958, 95–96, 119–20, 1279a20–25, 1289a25–35; Aristotle 1984).

While Aristotle tried to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ leadership based

on ideas that modern scholarship summarizes under the notion of the public

interest, subsequent attempts at normative theorizing paid more detailed attention

to the question of ‘good’ leadership and its specific characteristics. Nye’s modern

normative typology compares two broadly accepted meanings of the term ‘good

leadership’: the one referring to the leader’s ability to achieve results (whatever his

or her ends might be) and the other offering an ethical judgement on the value of

the goals pursued, means applied, and results obtained throughout the whole cycle

of leadership (see Table 1.2).

A clear-cut definition of the foundations or premises of an ethical judgement

seems indispensable to make a normative typology work in comparative contexts.

Thus, even ostensibly ‘value-free’ judgements of leadership effectiveness and

efficiency will have, upon second thought, to be clarified against the foundational

Table 1.1 Good and Bad Regime Leadership According to Aristotle

Number of rulers

End results and intention of ruling

Common advantage or good Private advantage or particular good

of the leader/s

One Kingship Tyranny

Few Aristocracy Oligarchy

Many Polity Democracy/Mobocracy

Source: Aristotle 1958.

Political Leadership in Context

17

questions of the ‘good’ and ‘goodness’ and ‘right’ and ‘rightness’ when addressing

the ‘realism’ of the leader’s ends, or the extent of the means-ends match, or, indeed,

the leader’s ability to implement the group’s ‘true objectives’. Just as in the case of

Aristotle’s typology, defining the ‘common advantage’ of the group, the group’s

‘interest’ as such, appears to be the key. An even more complicated moral judgement

is called forth when the group’s interest is scrutinized against any of the universal

moral criteria, which of necessity engage considerations of the good of ‘others’, the

out-group reality and the common values of humanity at large.

Empirical Typologies

Empirical typologies as an approach refocuses the researcher’s attention on

the observable functions of leadership, the personal qualities of a leader or the

sources of a leader’s authority. Rather than assessing leadership from the sublime

perspective of terminal values, empirical typologies seek to situate the problem

within a context of individual and social psychology, group interactions and

intergroup processes, as determined by historically concrete configurations of

social structures and institutions. Max Weber’s tripartite ideal-type analytical

typology of traditional, rational-legal and charismatic leaders is representative in

this regard. Weber employed a leadership-centred approach to political thinking

and acting by viewing politics as ‘the leadership or the influencing of the leadership

of a political association, hence, today, of a state’; that is, a ‘human community that

(successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a

given territory’ (1946/1958, 77, 78). Asking the question about what makes people

obey authority, Weber distinguishes between the cultural, social and psychological

sources of leaders’ powers. Leadership, according to Weber, is exercised according

to traditional, legal-rational or charismatic domination, authority and legitimation

(see Table 1.3; Weber 1986, 232–44). Weber’s typology of the most common

‘motors’ of leadership in pre-modern and modern societies emphasizes leaders’

embeddedness in society and helps solve research tasks of a comparative nature.

Karl Deutsch has offered a typology of leaders based on the extent of leaders’

powers. Devised as a continuum that ranges from strong, successful leaders to

relatively weak and unsuccessful ones, Deutsch’s typology correlates key features

Table 1.2 Two Meanings of Good Leadership

Good = Effective Ethical

Goals Balance of realism and risk in vision Values of intentions, goals

Means Efficiency of means to ends Quality of means used

Consequences Success in achieving the group’s

goals

Good results for in-group and

outsiders

Source: Nye 2008, 112. By permission of Oxford University Press. Inc. www.oup.com.

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership

18

of the leader’s personality, the type of support extended by the followers, and,

crucially, the fit between the policies advocated by the leader and the prevailing

‘spirit of times’, or the requirements of the historical situation that the leader can

ignore only at his or her own peril (Table 1.4).

Oran Young has developed a typology that is especially useful for the analysis

of leadership in international relations. Building upon Max Weber’s classic scheme,

Young distinguished structural, entrepreneurial, intellectual and charismatic

leadership in international politics, especially with regard to regime formation and

institution building (Table 1.5).

Similarly, Robert Tucker (1981, vii) followed in Weber’s footsteps, saying that

‘politics in its essential nature is the leadership of a political community and all the

activity, including participatory activity by citizens, that may enter into the process

of leadership’. Tucker distinguished between enlightened leadership that was

characterized by its essential commitment to moral humanism and responded to

global dangers in a responsible way, on the one hand, and a form of anti-leadership

that did not rise to meet the challenges of the Cold War, on the other hand. Tucker’s

typology therefore combined empirical and normative elements.

Kellerman’s (2004) functionalist typology is also of a mixed nature, particularly

in its emphasis on meaning creation and the provision of certain public goods

by the leader. In classifying the main functions of political leadership, Kellerman

underscores the functions of a generally positive nature and broad social impact.

For Kellerman (2004), leaders (a) create meaning and goals; (b) reinforce group

identity and cohesion; (c) provide order; and (d) mobilize collective (adaptive) work

(21–5). It is fair to say that most modern typologies of leadership seek to provide

Table 1.3 Weber’s Typology of Legitimate Power/Authority

Type of legitimate power/authority Source of legitimate power/authority

Traditional Custom, perennial institutions

Rational-legal Legal-bureaucratic procedures

Charismatic Personal qualities (extraordinary ‘gifts’) of the leader

Source: Weber 1946/58.

Table 1.4 Strong versus Weak Leaders

Leaders Personal

qualities

Type of support from followers Fit between

leaders’ policies

and situations

Strong Strong, decisive

personality

A large group or coalition of groups strongly

united with consistent bonds of attitude and

interest

Fit

Weak Weak, indecisive

personality

Few supporters, or many supporters who are

weakly united

Lack of fit

Source: Deutsch 1978.

Political Leadership in Context

19

a convincing combination of empirical and normative elements and pay special

attention to the wider social impact and long-range consequences of leadership

activities.

On the other hand, Kellerman constructed a very suggestive typology of

bad leadership based on business and political case studies she had analyzed:

incompetent (Juan Antonio Samaranch), rigid (Thabo Mbeki), intemperate (Boris

Yeltsin), callous (Martha Stewart), corrupt (Diana (Dede) Brooks), insular (Bill

Clinton) and evil (Radovan Karadzic, Pol Pot) (2004, 38–46). Kellerman did put

forward controversial judgements, such as declaring former US President Bill

Clinton to have been an insular, bad leader regarding the Rwandan genocide, and

only one category of badness above the evil Radovan Karadzic and Pol Pot. Nye

says that Kellerman is correct in a way, but overall circumstances were such that

Clinton could not have done very much because of Congress’s unwillingness to

become involved in Africa after the Somalian disaster, adding that ‘good leaders

today are often caught between their cosmopolitan inclinations and their more

traditional obligations to the followers who elected them’ (Nye 2008, 134).

The Authors’ Arguments

Molchanov reviews historical-cultural traditions of leadership, as reflected in

religious and philosophical texts from the Chinese, Indian, Judaic and Christian

canons. He notes that Eastern thought has historically focused on the traditionalist,

collectivist, normative sides of leadership, as distinguished from the individualist,

transformational visions in the West. While criticizing the limitations of rational

individualism, Molchanov argues for a creative synthesis of both Eastern and

Western traditions.

Myers sees dedication to ‘principle’ as a key element in political leadership.

His chapter examines the postmodern challenge to principle and argues that the

postmodern attack suffers from the limitations imposed by its own starting point

presented as a reaction to ‘modernity’. The most fruitful way to conserve principle,

while acknowledging what is valid in the postmodern attack, is to return to the

Table 1.5 Synthesis of the Leadership Typologies of Weber and Young

Source of power Position and official

roles predominate

Personal qualities

predominate

Tradition X

Organization (rational-legal authority) X

Public entrepreneurship X

Intellectual policy and strategic vision X

Charisma X

Sources: Adapted from Weber 1946/1958, 232–3, and Young 1991.

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership

20

approach of the pre-moderns, the philosophers of Greek antiquity, starting with the

notion of prudence as an ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation.

Cornell and Malcolmson further elaborate on this point. They argue that a prudent

leader possesses a repertoire of models for imitation, through personal involvement

or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to

judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who cannot,

what has worked and what has not. The authors address the practical question

of how one might apply Machiavelli’s ideas on political leadership through an

examination of some of Machiavelli’s key concepts, and they apply these concepts

to Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar as a case study for a Machiavellian analysis.

Masciulli and Knight explore leadership traits analysis and conceptions of

global political leadership. They clarify four conceptions of global leadership – the

anti-leadership approach, as well as democratic-idealist leadership, neoclassical

realist leadership and complex liberal internationalist leadership. Masciulli and

Knight explore examples of global leaders, especially the attributes of US President

Franklin Delano Roosevelt and UN Secretary-Generals Dag Hammarskjold and

Kofi Annan.

Andrew’s chapter explores Heidegger’s writings about Hitler’s leadership, and

Heidegger’s own proposed leadership of the Nazi revolution in German universities

in the 1930s and 1940s. Heidegger’s views are compared with Machiavelli’s claim

that ‘the people’ need prophetic leaders in time of crisis, and Hegel’s and Marx’s

views on the relationship between the masses and leaders.

Knight attempts to clarify the meaning of leadership and management, as well

as their relationship in the context of idealistic network theories of leadership. He

makes it clear that leaving out the ethical and network dimensions are no longer

acceptable, either in terms of ethics or effective organizational functioning.

Sjoberg argues that ideal-typical understandings of leadership in global politics

are slanted toward recognizably masculine characteristics. She critiques traditional

interpretations of who counts as a leader and argues that the idea of leadership

itself will remain gendered for as long as it rests on the notion of complete decisionmaking

autonomy of the competitive, individualistic actor. In the concluding part

of her chapter, she proposes an alternative feminist framework for the analysis of

leadership.

Corn and Jensen write about civil–military relations in the American context and

more generally. DiPaolo’s chapter probes the constitutional structures governing the

American president’s powers in relation to defence and security. While presidential

leadership in times of war has been aggrandized over the years, it is largely the

constitutional structure of government that allows the executive to carve out more

authority in the face of congressional silence or unwillingness to rein in presidential

power. This constitutional structure is based on the Supreme Court’s decisions to

allow congressional deference to executive authority during war.

Sykes, like Sjoberg, uses gender analysis to show how traditional masculine

traits still permeate the substance and the science of leadership. Sykes looks at

gendered constructs of leadership in Anglo-American systems, drawing her

case studies from the experience of women as national executives and members

Political Leadership in Context

21

of cabinet. She discovers that public expectations of female leaders considerably

differ from expectations that a man would face in similar circumstances. Moreover,

institutional and ideological changes affect men and women leaders in dissimilar

ways. Our theoretical perspectives should therefore be reformed to account for

these differences. Sykes ends her chapter by suggesting research strategies that

could be useful in this regard.

Two chapters by Lai and Chen examine Chinese leadership in the context of

modernization, specifically focusing on the so-called fourth generation of Chinese

communist leaders, the dilemmas they face and the societal and global forces

that, at once, demand adaptive and innovative responses from decision-makers in

Beijing and place considerable constraints on their freedom of manoeuvre.

Gaman-Golutvina discusses political leadership in Russia, focusing on socioeconomic

and organizational factors that determined the evolution of the country’s

political elite. She compares leadership styles and the qualities of the last Soviet

President, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the first two post-Soviet Presidents, Boris Yeltsin

and Vladimir Putin. In all of these instances, she notes the new and profound

significance of the leader’s image, as constructed in the media and presented to the

people.

Modernization in a developing society forms a backdrop for Mahdavi’s chapter,

which analyzes Islamic leadership in general and Iranian political leadership in

particular.

Mazzucelli analyses the creation and evolution of the Trio Presidency, seeking

to assess its potential to satisfy the demand for consensual, shared leadership

in a larger European Union. She examines such power instruments of the Trio

Presidency as privileged agenda control and lobbying for institutional designs

that fit integration dynamics well. The chapter seeks to establish whether the

requirements of increased coordination within and between Trio Presidencies and

a particular rotation dynamic envisioned for this institution will help to enhance

stability of leadership and simultaneously avoid a concentration of agenda-shaping

powers. The chapter concludes on an optimistic note: the very idea and the practice

of shared leadership, as exemplified by the Trio Presidency, will work toward

bringing the EU governance structure closer to the people.

Narine’s chapter examines questions around political leadership in international

affairs and the recent spread of human rights values. The chapter questions the

premise that international human rights NGOs have led a normative revolution

on the issue of human rights. Narine argues that recent actions by the West have

undermined the international human rights movement. While many fear that

Western states are using the ‘human rights agenda’ as a camouflage for aggressive,

self-interested behaviour, there is, as yet, no international consensus on the role of

human rights in international conduct.

MacKinnon, Maybee, Molchanov and Oldfield are more optimistic about

the leadership role and capacity of non-governmental organizations. Taking

environmental and health NGOs as a case study of leadership in such complex

global issues as the politics of climate change, they argue that environmental

advocacy by non-governmental organizations may, in fact, represent a successful

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership

22

example of a rather unique activity of ‘leading the leaders’. Convincing those with

the power to do the right thing entails the whole host of specific interventions on the

part of NGOs: from framing the issue to networking to influencing policy-makers

and monitoring policy implementation. The chapter discusses specific features of

leadership in the voluntary sector of society.

Both Bateman and Addicott examine institutional conditions of leadership by

looking at legal frameworks and judicial powers in particular. Institutions both

enable and constrain. In all cases, institutions condition the exercise of political

leadership. Bateman examines high court justices as political leaders, paying

particular attention to the institutional constraints on judicial power. While the

concept of judicial power is well established among students of law and politics,

much less attention has been paid to the relationship between judicial power and

political leadership. Bateman’s chapter explores a paradox at the heart of judicial

leadership: courts do it best when they most persuasively seem not to be doing it

at all.

Addicott examines leadership in times of war, focusing on the Bush

Administration’s War on Terror. He suggests that in its effort to neutralize terrorist

threats at home and abroad, the Bush Administration has been limited by legal

standards suited to interstate conflict, not threats posed by loose networks of terrorist

cells using unconventional weaponry. Bush’s political leadership challenge was to

navigate the US and the international community through a new legal terrain, using

existing law where possible and proposing new legal standards where necessary

and advantageous. Both essays suggest that any account of political leadership

must consider legal and institutional constraints and capacities.

Forbes tackles the problem of the future education of political leaders – especially

in the context of the discipline of political science. He examines the views of

prominent Canadian political leaders on political education and, after a critique of

those views, advances his own neo-Aristotelian perspective.

Carbert carries out a political-economic analysis of rural women’s leadership,

using Canadian empirical data. Her study suggests some interesting hypotheses

that could be pursued in further empirical research.

Masciulli’s concluding chapter recapitulates some of the key ideas of

previous chapters and explores some future problems and prospects for political

leadership.

References

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1968) (Boston: Houghton

Mifflin). See ‘American Heritage Biographies’.

Ammon, Royce J. (2001), Global Television and the Shaping of World Politics: CNN,

Telediplomacy, and Foreign Policy (Jefferson NC: McFarland).

Aristotle (1958), The Politics of Aristotle, trans. C. Lord (Chicago: University of

Chicago Press).

Political Leadership in Context

23

——— (1958), The Politics of Aristotle, trans. with Intro., notes and appendices by E.

Barker (New York: Oxford University Press).

Baki, Vian, and David M. Barlow (eds) (2007), Communication in the Age of Suspicion:

Trust and the Media (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

Bass, Bernard M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military and

Educational Impact (Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).

——— (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Leadership, and

Managerial Applications, 3rd edn (New York: Free Press).

——— (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (New York: Free Press).

Bennis, Warren (2003), On Becoming a Leader, 2nd edn (New York: Basic Books) (1st

edn 1989).

——— and Patricia W. Biederman (1997), The Secrets of Creative Collaboration (New

York: Perseus).

——— and Robert J. Thomas (2002), Geeks and Geezers: How Era, Values, and Defining

Moments Shape Leaders (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).

Blondel, Jean (1987), Political Leadership (London: Sage).

Bose, Meena (2006), ‘What Makes a Great President? An Analysis of Leadership

Qualities in Fred I. Greenstein’s The Presidential Difference’, in Berman (ed.)

(2006), pp. 27–44.

Brysk, Alison (2002), Globalization and Human Rights (Berkeley: University of

California Press).

Burns, James MacGregor (2003), Transforming Leadership (New York: Atlantic

Monthly Press).

——— (1998), ‘Foreword’, in Ciulla (ed.) (1998), pp. ix–xii.

——— (1978), Leadership (New York: Harper and Row).

——— and Susan Dunn (2001), The Three Roosevelts: Patrician Leaders Who Transformed

America (New York: Grove Press).

Byman, Daniel, and Kenneth M. Pollack (2001), ‘Let Us Now Praise Great Men:

Bringing the Statesman Back In’, International Security, 25, 4, 107–46.

Carlyle, Thomas (1993), On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History,

Introduction and notes by Michael K. Goldbergl (Berkeley CA: University of

California Press).

Ciulla, Joanne B. (ed.) (2004a), Ethics: The Heart of Leadership, 2nd edn (Westport CT:

Praeger).

——— (ed.) (1998), Ethics: The Heart of Leadership, 1st edn (Westport CT: Quorum).

Coll, Alberto R. (1995), ‘Normative Prudence as a Tradition of Statecraft’, in Joel H.

Rosenthal (ed.) (1995), Ethics and International Affairs: A Reader (Washington DC:

Georgetown University Press), pp. 58–77.

Dalai Lama (1993), ‘Human Rights and Universal Responsibility’, speech delivered

at the Forum of Non-Governmental Organizations, UN World Conference on

Human Rights, Vienna, Austria, 15 June.

Deutsch, Karl W. (1978), The Analysis of International Relations, 2nd edn (Englewood

Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Drucker, Peter F., with Joseph A. Maciariello (2006), Management, rev. edn (New

York: Harper Collins).

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership

24

Eden, Robert (1983), Political Leadership and Nihilism: A Study of Weber and Nietzsche

(Tampa FA: University Press of Florida).

Edersheim, Elizabeth Hass (2007), The Definitive Drucker (Toronto: McGraw-Hill).

Ferguson, Niall (ed.) (1999), Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals (New

York: Perseus).

Fukuyama, Francis (2002), Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology

Revolution (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux).

Gaddis, John Lewis (2005), Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American

National Security Policy During the Cold War, 2nd edn (New York: Oxford

University Press).

George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett (2005), Case Studies and Theory

Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge MA: MIT Press).

George, Alexander L., and Juliette L. George (1998), Presidential Personality and

Performance (Foreword by Fred I. Greenstein) (Boulder CO: Westview).

Gergen, David (2000), Eyewitness to Power: The Essence of Leadership, Nixon to Clinton

(New York: Simon & Schuster).

Grainger, J.H. (2005), Tony Blair and the Ideal Type (Exeter: Imprint Academic).

Gramsci, Antonio (1971), Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci

(New York: International).

Greenstein, Fred (2006), ‘Plumbing the Presidential Psyche: Building on Neustadt

and Barber’, in Larry Berman (ed.), The Art of Political Leadership: Essays in Honor

of Fred I. Greenstein (New York: Rowman & Littlefield), pp. 17–26.

——— (2004), The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush

(Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press).

——— (1988), ‘Dwight David Eisenhower: Leadership Theorist in the White

House’, in Fred Greenstein (ed.), Leadership in the Modern Presidency (Cambridge

MA: Harvard University Press), pp. 76–107.

——— (1982), The Hidden-Hand Presidency: Eisenhower as Political Leader (New York:

Basic Books).

Grint, Keith (2005), Leadership: Limits and Possibilities (New York: Macmillan).

——— (2000), The Arts of Leadership (New York: Oxford University Press).

——— (ed.) (1997), Leadership: Classical, Contemporary, and Critical Approaches (New

York: Oxford University Press).

Guntern, Gottleib (ed.) (1997), The Challenge of Creative Leadership (London:

Shepheard-Walwyn).

Habermas, Jürgen (1971), Knowledge and Human Interests (Boston: Beacon).

Hamby, Alonzo (2006), ‘Leadership, Charisma, and Political Cultures in the Great

Depression: Adolf Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt, and Stanley Baldwin’, in Larry

Berman (ed.), The Art of Political Leadership: Essays in Honor of Fred I. Greenstein

(New York: Rowman & Littlefield), pp. 17–26.

Harvard Business Review on Leadership (1998) (Boston: Harvard Business School

Press).

Havel, Vaclav (1990), Disturbing the Peace: A Conversation with Karel Hvizdala (New

York: Knopf).

Hay, Colin (2002), Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction (New York: Palgrave).

Political Leadership in Context

25

——— (1995), ‘Structure and Agency’, in David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (eds),

Theory and Methods in Political Science, 1st edn (New York: St Martin’s Press), pp.

192–206.

Heifetz, Ronald A. (1994), Leadership Without Easy Answers (Cambridge MA:

Harvard University Press/Belknap Press).

Hodgkinson, Christopher (1983), The Philosophy of Leadership (New York: St Martin’s

Press).

Hollander, Edwin, (1998), ‘Ethical Challenges in the Leader–Follower Relationship’,

in Ciulla (ed.) (1998).

Hook, Sidney (1943), The Hero in History: A Study of Limitation and Possibility (New

York: John Day Company).

House, Robert J., Paul J. Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman and Vipin

Gupta (eds) (2004), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62

Societies (Thousand Oaks CA: Sage).

Hunt, Sonja (1984), ‘The Role of Leadership in the Construction of Reality’, in B.

Kellerman (ed.), Leadership: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Princeton NJ: Prentice-

Hall), pp. 157–78.

Ignatieff, Michael (2004), The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics In An Age of Terror (Toronto:

Penguin).

Jones, Brian D. (ed.) (1989), Leadership and Politics: New Perspectives in Political Science

(Lawrence KA: University Press of Kansas).

Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink (1998), Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy

Networks in International Politics (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).

Kegley, Charles W. Jr. (1995b), Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism

and the NeoLiberal Challenge (New York: St Martin’s Press).

Kellerman, Barbara (2008), Followership (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).

——— (2004), Bad Leadership: What it is, How it Happens, Why it Matters (Boston:

Harvard Business School Press).

——— (1999), Reinventing Leadership: Making the Connection Between Politics and

Business (Albany: State University of New York Press).

——— (1986), Political Leadership: A Source Book (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh

Press).

——— (ed.) (1984), Leadership: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Englewood Cliffs NJ:

Prentice Hall).

King, Anthony (2002), Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections

(New York: Oxford University Press).

Kissinger, Henry (1974), American Foreign Policy: Expanded Edition (New York:

Norton).

Klenke, Karin (1996), Women and Leadership: A Contextual Perspective (New York:

Springer).

Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner (eds) (2007), The Leadership Challenge, 4th

edn (San Francisco: Wiley).

Lane, Robert E. (2003), ‘Epilogue: Rescuing Political Science from Itself’, in David

O. Sears, Leonie Huddy and Robert Jervis (eds), Oxford Handbook of Political

Psychology (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 755–93.

The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Leadership

26

Lauren, Paul Gordon, Gordon A. Craig, and Alexander George (2007), Force

and Statecraft: Diplomatic Challenges of Our Time, 4th edn (New York: Oxford

University Press).

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich (2007) [1914], Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic – Book

I (The Doctrine of Being), ed. Stewart Smith. Lenin Internet Archive, at:

www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch01.htm#f46r>.

——— (1975), The Lenin Anthology, ed. Robert C. Tucker (New York: Norton).

Lord, C. (2003), The Modern Prince: What Leaders Need to Know Now (New Haven and

London: Yale University Press).

Machiavelli, Niccolò (1989), The Prince, trans. Leo Paul S. de Alvarez (Prospect

Heights IL: Waveland Heights). (Orig. written 1513; first publ. 1532.)

Mant, Alistair (1999), Intelligent Leadership, 2nd edn (London: Allen & Unwin).

March, James G., and Thierry Weil (2005), On Leadership (Oxford: Blackwell).

Marsh, David (2002), ‘Marxism’, in David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (eds), Theory and

Methods in Political Science (New York: Palgrave).

Masciulli, Joseph, and Richard B. Day (2006), ‘Governing a Global Community of

Shared Risks’, in Richard B. Day and Joseph Masciulli (eds), Globalization and

Political Ethics (Leiden: Brill), pp. 681–706.

Mearsheimer, John J. (2001), The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton).

Michels, Robert (1986), ‘The Impossibility of Direct Government’, in Kellerman

(ed.), pp. 177–91.

Miller, David (2007), ‘Introduction’, in Walzer (2007), pp. vii–xi.

Northouse, Peter G. (2004), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 3rd edn (Thousand Oaks

CA: Sage).

Nye, Joseph Jr (1999), ‘New Models of Public Leadership’, in Frances Hesselbein,

Marshall Goldsmith and Iain Somerville (eds), Leading Beyond the Walls (San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

——— (2008), The Powers to Lead (New York: Oxford University Press).

Peele, Gillian (2005), ‘Leadership and Politics: A Case for a Closer Relationship?’

Leadership, 1, 2, 187–204.

Post, Jerrold M. (2004), Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World: The

Psychology of Political Behavior (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).

Rawls, John (1999), A Theory of Justice, rev. edn (Cambridge MA: Harvard University

Press).

Rejai, Mustafa, and Kay Phillips (2002), Concepts of Leadership in Western Political

Thought (Westport CT: Praeger).

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1987), Basic Political Writings, trans. and ed. Donald A.

Cress (Indianapolis: Hackett).

Ruggie, John G. (1998), Constructing the World Polity (London and New York:

Routledge).

Scott, W. Richard (2001), ‘The Corporate Practice of Medicine: Competition and

Innovation in Health Care’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 26, 3 (June),

655–7.

Service, Robert (2000), Lenin – A Biography (Cambridge MA: Harvard University

Press).

Political Leadership in Context

27

Shambaugh, David (ed.) (1995), Deng Xiaoping: Portrait of a Chinese Statesman (New

York: Oxford University Press).

Shapiro, Ian (2007), The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences (Princeton NJ:

Princeton University Press).

Sheffer, Gabriel (ed.) (1993), Innovative Leaders in International Politics (Albany: State

University of New York Press).

Shriberg, Arthur, David L. Shribert and Richa Kumari (2005), Practicing Leadership:

Principles and Applications (New York: Wiley).

Singer, Peter (2004), One World: The Ethics of Globalization, 2nd edn (New Haven:

Yale University Press).

Stier, Mark (1997), ‘The Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth? Deception and

the Educative Ideal of Politics’, in Laura Duhan Kaplan and Lawrence F. Bove

(eds), Philosophical Perspectives on Power and Domination (Amsterdam: Rodopi),

pp. 115–132.

Takala, T. (1997), ‘Charismatic Leadership: A Key Factor in Organizational

Communication’, Corporate Communication – An International Journal, 1, 8–14.

Tucker, Robert C. (1995), Politics as Leadership, 2nd edn (Columbia MO: University

of Missouri Press).

——— (1981), Politics as Leadership (Columbia MO: University of Missouri Press).

——— (1987), Political Culture and Leadership in the USSR: From Lenin to Gorbachev

(New York: Norton).

——— (1977a), ‘Personality and Political Leadership’, Political Science Quarterly, 92,

3, 383–93.

Waltz, Kenneth (1959), Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York:

Columbia University Press).

——— (1979), Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House).

Walzer, Michael (2007), Thinking Politically: Essays in Political Theory, ed. David

Miller (New Haven: Yale University Press).

——— (1992), Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations,

2nd edn (New York: Basic).

Weber, Max (1986), ‘Types of Authority’, in Kellerman (ed.) (2006).

——— (1946/1958), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. H.H. Gerth and C.

Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press).

Wildavsky, Aaron (2006), Cultural Analysis, ed. Brendon Swedlow, Dennis Coyle,

Richard Ellis, Robert Kagan and Austin Ranney (New Brunswick: Translation).

——— (1989), ‘A Cultural Theory of Leadership’, in Bryan D. Jones (ed.), Leadership

and Politics: New Perspectives in Political Science (Lawrence: University Press of

Kansas), pp. 87–113.

Young, Oran R. (1991), ‘Political Leadership and Regime Formation: On the

Development of Institutions in International Society’, International Organization,

45, 3 (Summer), 281–308.

Yukl, Gary (2009), Leadership in Organizations, 7th edn (New York: Pearson

Education).