Why Must Our Leaders Be Likable People

This is as much a philosophical query as it is a political one. I read a post among one of the interminable Trump threads, and the idea in the post made sense and seemed pretty factual, but it didn't sit well with me. The observation in this post was that generally, political figures in the US (and probably elsewhere) MUST be well-liked in order to gain power, in other words, win elections

I don't disagree with that sentiment at all, and I am certain vast swaths of the public cast votes based on any number of trivial, professionally irrelevant criteria: is the candidate a man or woman, what race is the candidate, what religion (or lack of religion) does the candidate follow, and of course, "do I /like/ the candidate".

If we take a step back, and consider things objectively, then it's fair to ask, what benefit, advantage , what skill, acumen, is conferred to a leader simply by being 'liked' by you, me or anybody else? Maybe we can extrapolate from this situation, that if I or you 'like' a leader, and this is a fairly widely held sentiment by the public, then it's probably reasonable to call that person "charismatic". Great! Being able to charm people and make them like you is pretty good attribute to have, and that's no different for a leader. But is that the /chief/ important characteristic requisite in leading people? Is it even in the top 5 or top 10 list of critical personality traits that are common among effective leaders?

There are definitely plenty of worthwhile reads on this subject; you can find any number of articles and books that seek to dig deep into the psychology of leaders, and examine what traits do or don't make them successful leaders.


Do highly effective leaders need to be likable?


History is replete with examples of leaders who achieved wonderful things, inspired the people they were leading and encountered a good deal of success without being universally liked, or in fact, even being disliked.

Steve Jobs, former Apple CEO, is a classic contemporary example, and this is raised in the link above. He had terrific vision, had a gift for motivating his employees; nobody can dispute his achievements in making Apple one of the leading tech companies in the world. Though, was Steve Jobs .... 'likable'? I have no idea, never met him personally, but you can find press and books that show contentious, irascible even obsessive/compulsive sides to his persona.

George Patton was one of the figures of WW2, a great tactician, a wonderful motivator, one of the top military minds of his generation. If you ever read up on George, though, you'll find that he had a penchant for getting under the skin of his superiors. He also had a reputation of sometimes mistreating/harassing his subordinates, usually to make a larger point or trigger a teaching moment.

You could compile a lengthy list of US industrialists that built massive companies that helped shape the face of US economic prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries: Andrew Carnegie, the Vanderbilt family, Thomas Edison, Howard Hughes, Henry Ford. These people all built massive corporations, built entire industries, demonstrated very effective leadership qualities...but would you call them 'nice' people? Before you answer, research their background in labor and union disputes, interactions with competing businesses, how they interfaced with government regulators.

Entire history courses could be taught on leaders from bygone eras who assembled empires, expanded and consolidated authority in their respective domains, and are generally portrayted effective leaders: Napolean, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Peter the Great. the dynastic families of Wu and Ming from China. These people achieved great political and military victories through strong leadership and force of will. But has history portrayed them as likeable characters? Generally not in the works I've read, and if their likability is mentioned, it is subordinate to their other defining traits: vision, ambition, energy, strong will, perseverance, cunning, etc.

So considering all of the history of great leaders, and reflecting on the attributes and personality traits that made them effective leaders, if we assume that likeability was at best, a complimentary characteristic that was much less vital to their success than strategy, ambition, motivation, a sharp intellect, why do we, as citizens of a modern Republic, place such great weight on "liking" our leaders?

Is it a subconscious mechanism that helps reassure us that politicians are doing a good job?
Does it make participating in democracy, following politics, voting, etc more palatable?
Are our analyses of what desire in leaders just rather shallow and prosaic?

A more sinister possibility: could it be that on some level, we recognize that even the highest elected officials in the US are nothing more than placeholders/pawns in a larger World Order, and so knowing our votes don't "really matter" in shaping world events, we fall back to picking leaders based on cosmetica, superficial qualities? Kind of a scary thought.

Anyhow, I'm interested to know from ATS: do you feel it's imperative for our political leaders to be "well-liked", and if so, why do you feel that way?

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Exactly!
Most of the best coaches, bosses and leaders tend to be very abrasive.
Alphas are not always nice...

a reply to: Bluntone22

I couldn't agree more with you. And that thought raises another idea that occurred to me:

Are we /REALLY/ voting leaders into office to, you know, govern, do political work and stuff?

Or are we consciously or subconsciously acknowledging that our political leaders are not really MEANT or expected, to govern, rather act as PR representatives? figureheads? actors in a political drama?

So essentially, style over substance.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

it's all about feelz. If they make you feel good, they are good. If they are mean, they have to go, as they are literally Hitler.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Style started to matter around Kennedy/Nixon.
Kennedy looked so much better on the televised debate.

Years later we had bill Clinton playing his saxophone on late night tv showing how cool and hip he was.

Can you image sleepy joe or heels up Harris in a down and dirty negotiation with foreign leaders?
I’ll take trump thank you.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

it's all about feelz. If they make you feel good, they are good. If they are mean, they have to go, as they are literally Hitler.

Speaking of which, I found this 'List of top 10 historical leaders' ..... fascinating.

Guess who made the list??

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I would say 8 out of 10 of those great leader were pretty abrasive... Mandela could be on that too since his followers did the dirty work.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Back before TV and Radio a politician had to be printed up by the press, the closest they got to a personality cult was if they gave a rousing speech or were painted in a good light by the local newspapers, photos and artists images were there TV and everything was more about substance, people had less hectic lives though they worked hard and so a politician who did not keep his promises was usually then not re-elected and so to be seen as man of there word was also of utmost paramount importance to them.

Then came the cult of personality and it all went topsy-turvy.

They don’t have to be well-liked to get things done but from my own experience, it certainly helps move things along.

What I think is more important is for a leader to pick and choose when he needs to put on the affable face and when to put on the business face. I don’t talk to my employees the same way I talk to the vendors I hire to do work and I don’t talk to my tenants the way I do my employees.

Actually, right now is a prime example- I hired a restoration company for a $50K job in one of our offices. They were supposed to come in today to empty dehumidifiers, which would take about 15 minutes. When I got to the property to let them in, they told me they’d be fogging as well and need a couple hours. My weekends are precious and this f*cked up all my plans, so I’m raising hell with the owner of the company. I’d never talk to my employees or tenants the way I just spoke to him.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

If we take a step back, and consider things objectively, then it's fair to ask, what benefit, advantage , what skill, acumen, is conferred to a leader simply by being 'liked' by you, me or anybody else?

Do you have to be "liked", that I'm not so sure of. I think of it as being more relatable, or the appearance of being relatable to the people you are governing.

Part of the problem with Trump is that he was famous before he was in office and a lot of that publicity was not positive.

What benefit is is to be liked... Well there is that old cliché, is it better to be liked or feared?
I think leaders would love both. They want to control people, but it is human nature to want to be approved of.

If the people like you it will make things a lot easier. Just imagine if 98% were for Trump right now, we would not even have a question about the elections would we...

A more sinister possibility: could it be that on some level, we recognize that even the highest elected officials in the US are nothing more than placeholders/pawns in a larger World Order,

YEs, they are figureheads

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

it's all about feelz. If they make you feel good, they are good. If they are mean, they have to go, as they are literally Hitler.

Speaking of which, I found this 'List of top 10 historical leaders' ..... fascinating.

Guess who made the list??

The article linked included some very ....BAD.... human beings in their top leaders list (Hitler, Castro etc) This is pretty controversial, as it's not debatable that these people were abjectly awful, terrible human beings. However, is it a defensible position to claim they turned out to be effective leaders, by some measure of the term 'leader'?

But again, this gets back to the notion of disentangling popularity from leadership. It's really really hard for me to call Fidel Castro a good leader, because of the evils and abuse under his regime. Nevertheless, he remained in power for quite some time, of course with the backing of the Soviet Union, and relying on oppression and the curtailing of civil liberties to keep power.

If we drill down a little deeper, maybe there is a tendency to conflate 'likeability' with morality. I think we'd ALL want leaders who have a strong sense of right and wrong, and share our moral code, which in the US is derived from Judeo-Christian tradition and influenced by English common law. That being so, Isn't it sometimes easier to ascribe morality to a person that has a great smile, an effusive personality, 'says all the nice things', and comports themselves in a very congenial manner /PUBLICLY/.

Anyone over the age of 10 understands there is a difference between the things you /SAY/ and the things you /DO/. From the sound of things, Epstein was pretty socially polished, didn't p1ss people or make enemies, was a smooth talker and charismatic.

Articulate speaking, positive body language, facial expressions, all of these things can be facades for pretty amoral individuals.

originally posted by: Drucifer
They don’t have to be well-liked to get things done but from my own experience, it certainly helps move things along.

What I think is more important is for a leader to pick and choose when he needs to put on the affable face and when to put on the business face. I don’t talk to my employees the same way I talk to the vendors I hire to do work and I don’t talk to my tenants the way I do my employees.

Actually, right now is a prime example- I hired a restoration company for a $50K job in one of our offices. They were supposed to come in today to empty dehumidifiers, which would take about 15 minutes. When I got to the property to let them in, they told me they’d be fogging as well and need a couple hours. My weekends are precious and this f*cked up all my plans, so I’m raising hell with the owner of the company. I’d never talk to my employees or tenants the way I just spoke to him.

For sure, a good leader is dynamic, can change hats or adopt different moods/tones for different situations. However, there is a fine line to tread there between putting on a comforting, affable demeanor, and displaying artificial optimism, obsequiousness, and being disingenuous to the point where you're essentially blowing smoke up somebody's @$$

BTW I listened to a few of your track on Soundcloud: good stuff

a reply to: JAGStorm

I grappled with the same idea you did, and in the end, I felt it's most important to be RESPECTED rather than liked or certainly being feared.

If you lose respect from those you're leading, you won't remain a leader for very long. But from where does one receive respect? What prompts people to "respect" a leader?

Could be many things. Fear will definitely instill respect, if not on a personal level, respect for the authority they wield.

"Actions speak louder than words"

Leaders that are seen as taking initiative and having a bias for action will be seen as 'leading by example'.

Respect can, for good or for bad, be transitive, meaning, I as an individual could respect individual C solely because I respect individual B, who told me that individual C is respect-worthy. This, to me, is where we fall down as a body politic, and where the influence of political parties holds too much sway over us.

"You should respect candidate A or B because of the [D or R] below their name!"

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened
Actually, there are two issues- "winning elections" and "deserving to win elections". On the face of it, the post you quote was talking about the first issue, and you want to talk about the second.

Doing a quick mental survey of twentieth-century leaders, that post is probably true enough as an observation on western democracy. Though being trusted as a holder of certain necessary skills also helps- Carter could win a first term, not a second.

But you are right- actually deserving to be a leader is a different matter. Historically, what was needed was somebody capable of fighting the enemy, or managing other problems. You need somebody who has strength, one way or another, rather than likeability.

Although I'm not an American, I have books on American history which I've been reading up in the last few months. I've come to the conclusion that America is too big and also too federal to have an uncorrupt system of government. There seem to be only two ways to get onto the national political stage. One is to be a successful general. The other is to have a secure local power-base (the home state) and then build on that through horse-trading with controllers of other local power-bases. Trump is possibly the first President in history not to have ascended through either route. In other words, horse-trading is an integral feature of the federal system, and spreads from there.

So your candidate for the Presidency actually needs to have three qualities, to cover different stages of his path.
a) Ruthlessness, in order to win control of his local power-base in the first place.
b) Horse-trading skills, to win him the central political support that he needs to become a viable candidate in the first place.
c) The ability at least to be able to mimic likeability, in order to win over the voters.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

But you are right- actually deserving to be a leader is a different matter. Historically, what was needed was somebody capable of fighting the enemy, or managing other problems. You need somebody who has strength, one way or another, rather than likeability.

This is a keen observation. Is it the case that, given the relatively stable geopolitical atmosphere after WW2 (meaning now more world-wide wars), and especially after the fall of the Iron Curtain, do we no longer place value in strong willed leaders that are trustworthy in a military/strategic sense? In the US it seems the economy has superseded the need for/concern over security, notwithstanding the blip in the early 21st century regarding the "War on Terror"

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Although I'm not an American, I have books on American history which I've been reading up in the last few months. I've come to the conclusion that America is too big and also too federal to have an uncorrupt system of government. There seem to be only two ways to get onto the national political stage. One is to be a successful general. The other is to have a secure local power-base (the home state) and then build on that through horse-trading with controllers of other local power-bases. Trump is possibly the first President in history not to have ascended through either route. In other words, horse-trading is an integral feature of the federal system, and spreads from there.

So your candidate for the Presidency actually needs to have three qualities, to cover different stages of his path.
a) Ruthlessness, in order to win control of his local power-base in the first place.
b) Horse-trading skills, to win him the central political support that he needs to become a viable candidate in the first place.
c) The ability at least to be able to mimic likeability, in order to win over the voters.

Yes, a skill for negotiating is almost imperative for being a good leader. Seems like less and less of our politicians know how to do that effectively anymore.

I completely agree with your observation about there being a political caste-system? parachial school? training program? where candidates are mandated to work their ways up the ranks through 'approved' channels, ticking off expected party milestones. This is certainly what angered the establishment in BOTH parties, the way Trump inserted himself into the fray without going through the "right of passage" normally expected by Ds or Rs.

But again, how did we ever have effective leaders before political parties? Such leaders DID exist, well before the DNC or RNC, so it follow that it is possible for a great leader to emerge WITHOUT grooming or being an understudy for the political parties.

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

originally posted by: Drucifer
They don’t have to be well-liked to get things done but from my own experience, it certainly helps move things along.

What I think is more important is for a leader to pick and choose when he needs to put on the affable face and when to put on the business face. I don’t talk to my employees the same way I talk to the vendors I hire to do work and I don’t talk to my tenants the way I do my employees.

Actually, right now is a prime example- I hired a restoration company for a $50K job in one of our offices. They were supposed to come in today to empty dehumidifiers, which would take about 15 minutes. When I got to the property to let them in, they told me they’d be fogging as well and need a couple hours. My weekends are precious and this f*cked up all my plans, so I’m raising hell with the owner of the company. I’d never talk to my employees or tenants the way I just spoke to him.

For sure, a good leader is dynamic, can change hats or adopt different moods/tones for different situations. However, there is a fine line to tread there between putting on a comforting, affable demeanor, and displaying artificial optimism, obsequiousness, and being disingenuous to the point where you're essentially blowing smoke up somebody's @$$

BTW I listened to a few of your track on Soundcloud: good stuff

100% agreed!

And thank you! That’s half the reason I just went off on that restoration company’s owner, Sunday’s are studio and football days!

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened
On your last question, the early Presidents found their Cabinets and potential successors on the basis of "I need one from Virginia, one from New York, one from New England..." Even up to Lincoln's Cabinet. The local power-base was there before the organised party.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I guess because the whole politics show is not as much about how good your policies are, but how well you sell them.

Likeable = more votes. If you tell people what they want to hear, even if it is a deception, they will follow you. Give them false hopes and they will follow you.

Trump could not get what he wanted to get done and what he was trying to do was good for the financial security of this country. But the Democrats were out to get him because the import states would lose money from imports which is their main way they get their income. Mass amounts of people live in those areas and they will do anything to protect their beliefs, including twisting things out of proportion and use media propaganda to convince people they are right.

So Biden....like other Democrats knows how to do this. But it was more the progressive and hard left congress that actually spread the lies, at least Biden has a little conscience, but letting the lies flow and profiting by the lies is allowable to him. But lately he is parroting the half and twisted information himself, he is trusting in the false doctrine of the great deceiver because it works. But deception never pans out, it can make things look good for a while till everything comes tumbling down. The high ranking deceivers throw their followers under the bus.

I hope that Biden doesn't get too mad at me, he will have a predominant position in hell and the vast majority of us will be going there. Although, I try not to lie or decieve others much so I will not leave this world with regrets of what I have done in my life. I hope to die in peace someday, not ending this life thinking of all my disgressions. I hope to get a job working at the gates of hell vetting people. I will meet lots of people I know coming in the gates. I won't know hardly anyone in Heaven.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I grappled with the same idea you did, and in the end, I felt it's most important to be RESPECTED rather than liked or certainly being feared.

You have to give respect to get it. Full stop.

Donald Trump has an appeal to people who enjoy bowing to authority. Who see a position or rank as something to be respected regardless of who is in that position. That’s crap. A position or rank is no reason to respect the person holding it.

Pin a rank to a turd, it’s still a turd.