NAME: IGARIWEY UGO IDUMA

MAT NO: 13AK015055

PROGRAM: POLICY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES
TOPIC: POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

Leadership is one of the worlds oldest preoccupations and a universal phenomenon in

humans (Bass, 1990). From ancient to modern history, leadership has played an integral
role in developing groups, societies, and nations. Over centuries, leadership has been
defined in terms of leaders behaviors. Bass attempted to define the concept of leadership
from the classics of Western, Egyptian, Greek, and Chinese literature as early as the 6th
century BC. The Old and New Testaments and the classics of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and
Confucius noted the roles of leaders. Although they differ in approach, their basic concern
however, centers on who governs, who should govern and what should constitute political
authority in a community, ditto the role and influence of political actors. While Plato and
Aristotle subscribe to idealist orientation in their analysis on leadership, Locke and
Rousseau analysis are weaved within the matrix of prescriptive method for generalizing on
the nature of man, society and authority. Marx and Engels work is crafted in historical
materialist theory As civilization and administration intricately and intimately develop in
history and flow through history (Waldo, 2001), leadership also emerges. Although the
Oxford English Dictionary noted the appearance of the word leader in the English language
as early as the year 1300, the word leadership did not appear until about 1800 (Bass, 1990;
Stogdill, 1974). Concepts of leadership can be traced back to ancient history, but
definitions and classifications of leadership start from the early 20th century (Rost, 1991).
In the past 50 years, there have been as many as 65 different classification systems to
define the dimensions of leadership (Northouse, 1997).
Leadership is as old as mankind. It is universal, and inescapable. It exists everywhere in
small organizations and in large ones, in businesses and in churches, in trade unions and in
charitable bodies, in tribes and in universities. It exists in informal bodies, in street gangs
and in mass demonstrations. It is not, indeed, confined to the human race: it can be found in
many animal societies, precisely where animals form a society. Leadership is, for all intents
and purposes, the number 1 feature of organizations. For leadership to exist, of course,
there has to be a group: but wherever a group exists, there is always a form of leadership.
(Jean Blondel: 1987: in the beginning of the Introduction of his book on Political
Leadership). The old conception of leadership was that a leader was one with high political

position, traits, charisma and title. The art of leadership could only be practiced by a
selected few with the traits or charisma to do so. Jean Blondel tries to break that conception
and went further to explain that leadership cuts across all spheres to even include our
relationship with our spouse, to our families and businesses.
For the purpose of conceptual clarification and to limit the level of ambiguity, which as a
rule is the hallmark of academic research, it is important to examine some of the concepts
and terms that are used in this study i.e. leadership, political leadership.
Leadership has been defined in so many ways that it is hard to come up with a single
working definition. However, leadership may be defined as a body of people who lead and
direct the activities of a group towards a shared goal. It also denotes the ability to lead,
direct and organize a group. In line with this understanding, Norman Schwarzkopf (quoted
in Reed, 2001) describes leadership as a potent combination of strategy and character and
strongly emphasized that, of the two elements, character is the most preferred for
leadership. This definition sees leadership as the ability of one (the leader) to organize and
control people towards the actualization of organizational goals. John Gardener, on his
part, explains leadership as the process of persuasion or example by which an individual
induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the leader and his or
her followers (Weekly Trust, 2004: 11). Consequently, leadership is a process of social
influence by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the
organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent (Chemers, 2002). 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, goal- setting and motivation both figure
prominently as essential attributes of the notion of leadership. A leader therefore is
expected to demonstrate qualities, which embrace but not limited to good character, vision,
tact, prudence, and ability to lead by example because people basically ascribe leadership
to those who they feel can most enable them achieve important goals or objectives.

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, especially, 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).
Some other popular definitions of Leadership are:
According to Rost, is "an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend
real changes that reflect their mutual purposes?" A process whereby an individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2007, p3).
Leadership is the process of providing direction, energizing others, and obtaining their
voluntary commitment to the leaders vision. Thus, a leader creates a vision and goals and
influences others to share that vision and work towards the goal (Wendy, Cook and
Hunsaker, 2003). Okadigbo (1987) sees leadership as the process through which an
individual consistently exerts more influence than others in pursuing group behavior. To
Seteolu (2004), leadership as a combination of strategy and character.
What, then, is political leadership? It is manifestly and essentially a phenomenon of power:
it is power because it consists of the ability of the one or few who are at the top to make
others do a number of things (Positively or negatively) that they would not or at least might
not have done. But it is not, of course, just any kind of power. It appears to be power
exercised from the top down, so to speak: the leader is, in various ways, 'above' the nation
(in the case of national political leadership), and can give orders to the rest of the citizens.
However, a moment's reflection suggests that all power is from the 'top down', since it
implies that A can make B do something and, therefore, that A is in some sense superior, to
B. Thus, what differentiates the power of leaders from other forms of power is not so much
the nature of the relationship between the leader and the rest of the nation but the fact that,
in the case of leadership, the 'A' who gives the order, who has power, exercises this power
over a large number of 'Bs', that is to say, over the whole nation. Thus, while power
relationships are always unequal (they can of course be reciprocal, if A makes B do
something and, later, B makes A obey him; but even then there is inequality, although the

roles are subsequently reversed), the power relationship exercised in the leadership context
is particularly unequal in that leaders are able to make all others in the group (and, in the
case of the nation, all the citizens) do what they would otherwise not have done, or might
not have done. It might be added that this ability of the leader is also durable and indeed, in
some cases, can be exercised for a long period.1 Thus it seems possible to define political
leadership, and specifically national political leadership, as the power exercised by one or a
few individuals to direct members of the nation towards action. The potential immensity of
such a power of leaders is, of course, immediately apparent; this indeed already provides an
insight into what might be one of the reasons why national political leadership poses
fundamental questions about its origins, its mode of operation and its effect. Indeed, the
potential, and on occasion the actual immensity of the power, also reveals in part why, at
first sight surprisingly, political theorists have not studied leadership directly and
systematically. As Hobbes would have put it, political leadership is a Leviathan, a
frightening beast, which it is perhaps more urgent to tame than to dissect. It frightens
because it appears so dangerous; there is therefore some reluctance to approach it calmly
and objectively, while there is, on the contrary, a great urge to ensure that means are
discovered to diminish its effects. Thus the study of leadership has tended to be viewed in
terms of an examination of the mechanisms by which the actions of leaders would be
sufficiently constrained so as not to encroach unduly upon the lives of citizens (Jean
Blondel: 1987: toward the start of the Introduction of his book on Political Leadership)
Pope Francis's definition of a good political leaders are the ones who always think of the
common good, and who take action with a realistic yet open mind.(Pope Francis addresses
a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress on September 24, 2015 in Washington, DC.)
HISTORY OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
History of political leadership has to distinctive origin. Some scholar trace this kind of
leadership to the bible times before Christ, while some draw back to the ancient city of
Greece. Other scholars have argued that the concept political leadership fully manifested in
the 19th and 20th centuries. Political leadership is the can of leadership that requires a focus
on the long-term good of a country, above and ahead of any personal short-term gains.
Political leadership requires a combination of charisma and integrity, as well as the ability

to assess a situation and make a decision based on what would be best for the greatest
number of people. In political leadership, a set of people come in a form of appeal
(campaign) to the people to try to sell their vision to the people and the person who is able
to adequately sell his or her vision is elected or appointed by the people as their leader.
Whosoever wields political power wield power and authority over all people and resources
Most of all, leadership in a political framework requires statesmanship as opposed to
just being a politician this means having the integrity and willingness to stand up for
what is right, even if it means resigning a position in government or losing an election.
In political leadership the leader is elected to fulfill the desires of the people. A political
leader is expected to better the lives of the people and enable them achieve and actualize
themselves but a political leader can loss his authority to lead when the leader fails to fulfill
those visions that he or she sold to the populace that brought him to power. The political
leader authority to lead lies in the very hand of the people. The people can elect and remove
that leader if they fail to perform adequately. Political leaders are vitally important
through the authority of government, they assess the distribution of power and resources,
build relationships with other stakeholders and make decisions that can have great impact
on the well-being of a nation and its people.
Political Leadership alludes to the decision class that bears the obligation of dealing with
the undertakings and assets of a political element by setting and impacting approach needs
influencing the people through various choice making structures and organizations made
for the methodical advancement of the domain. It could likewise be portrayed as the human
component that works the hardware of government in the interest of a composed domain.
This incorporates individuals who hold choice making positions in government, and
individuals who look for those positions, whether by method for race, rebellion,
arrangement, appointive extortion, triumph, right of legacy or different means (Wikipedia,
2009). Comprehensively characterized, be that as it may, political initiative goes past the
decision elites that specifically deal with the undertakings of a state; it grasps the totality of
the political class that has the ability to control the hardware of government even from
behind the scene.

While conventional originations of administration have a tendency to be "overwhelmed by

pictures of presidents and head administrators identifying with the masses from a position
of great authority," veritable initiative really has almost no to do with force and mastery,
composes James MacGregor Burns. Genuine leaders, in his definition, prompt adherents to
act as per the qualities and the inspirations of both pioneers and devotees. It is a dynamic
relationship that, taking care of business, discovers pioneers occupied with a procedure of
raising the awareness of supporters, or, at any rate, draws in both pioneers and devotees in
a typical undertaking. Authority is inane, Burns says, without its association with regular
purposes and aggregate needs.
3 PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
Knowing self: relationship with self, the leader should be able to development and be able
know if he or she can meet the requirements of the job
Knowing other: it is important that the leader know the kind of people he or she is
governing so as it know what can promise is to be to them
Leading together: responsibility to get job done with other. It is the sole responsibility of
the leader to organize the people into one functioning unit in order to achieve set goals
Organization: need to organize people, recruit, train, and compensate then build team, solve
problems and create aligned structure, strategy, and system
THE ROLES OF A POLITICAL LEADER
One of the major debates that shaped both leadership theories and research agendas was the
need to understand if leadership made a difference. Burns recalls the cynical story of the
Frenchman observing the crowd during the revolution, saying: there goes the mob. I am
their leader. I must follow them! (Burns, 1978: 265).In suggesting that we often place too
great an emphasis on the effects of leaders actions, Burns directs our attention towards
their roles. Which roles are expected from leaders? Storeys (2004) three meta-capabilities
are interesting when drawing the big picture. The first role of a leader is a result from his

capacity to make sense of the big picture. The second role derives from the ability to
make change happen. The third one is inter-organizational re- presentation. The first two
capabilities can be summarized as resulting from leaders awareness and sense of
autonomy. In fact, the ability to understand, read, and translate the complex context
where he lives in being aware is a fundamental role of the leader, at least it is something
that is expected from leaders (cf. Isaiah Berlins The Hedgehog and the Fox). His
capacity to translate this into change is only possible if the leader has the real possibility to
do so and if he believes he can do it: therefore, it boils down to if he feels that he has the
autonomy to actually implement change.
As seen in Olivier Borraz and Peter Johns work: the leaders function is to create forms of
cooperation between individuals or groups by helping them forge stable conceptions of
their role and identity, in order for them to engage in a collective action bearing meaning
(Borraz and John, 2004). To do so, the effective modern leader recognizes the value of
decentralizing authority not just to officers but to citizens as well (Burns et al, 1994). Jo
Brosnahan, focusing on leadership in the public sector, sees it as that special mix of
qualities that include integrity, vision, the ability to inspire others, a deep awareness of self,
courage to innovate, and an instant and impeccable sense of judgment (Brosnahan, 1999).
A more complete description of leaders tasks was presented by Thomas Lenz:
Involves diagnosing situations, determining what needs to be done and marshalling
collective effort to achieve a desired future or avert significant problems It entails the use
of power and persuasion to define and determine the changing problems and opportunities
of an organization, and the solutions produced and actions taken by individuals and groups
both inside and outside an organization to cope with such issues. (Lenz, 1993: 154-155)
Regarding specifically the case of political leadership, Dennis Kavanagh (1990: 63-65)
contrasted reconcilers with mobilizers. The first case deals with those who seek consensus
between different cultures and political parties, in order to attain stability and reconciling
opposing interests. On the other hand, mobilizers offer a particular way of achieving policy
goals. They offer vision in conditions of crisis and dissatisfaction, defining an agenda and
inspiring followers to seek the same path. Disillusion with politics in western democracies

is often related with government detachment from the people and due to an increasingly
inability to deliver the desired changes. Whenever mobilizers appear as they must present
a different style from that of the reconcilers, whom people often see as mere managers in
government great expectations and general hope are more visible: Barrack Obamas
political campaign might constitute a good example of this transformation. In fact, in
politics, Paul Joyce says, it is important to recognize the capacity of politicians in creating
strategic visions (Joyce, 2003). They are expected to articulate and offer vision to their
followers.
MODELS OF LEADERSHIP BY David Philippine
Philippine politics today offers us four basic models of leadership: the patron, the
strongman, the caregiver, and the manager.
The patron. This quintessential Filipino politician finds a perfect niche in social structures
marked by sharp inequality and mass poverty. He promises to take care of everyone,
particularly the poor. He demands unconditional loyalty from his followers in return for a
pledge of abiding support for all their needs. It is a pact of mutual support that, while
resonating the rules of Filipino friendship, is, in fact, a signifier for a paternalistic
relationship. The patron projects himself as the supreme provider. Government, to him, is a
personal turfa family duty he bequeaths to his children and kin. He is accustomed to
taking liberties with the powers of his office and the finances of government. He feels
personally betrayed when he is charged with corruption.
The strongman. This is a variation of the patron type, and is distinguished by the projection
of a no-nonsense, tough-talking demeanor. The paternalism of the patron toward his
constituents is there, but in addition to personalized power, the strongman is distinguished
by a readiness to apply direct force to punish troublemakers and teach their ilk a lesson.
The strongman is a figure of awe as much as he is an object of fear. His language is blunt;
he does not indulge in courteous platitudes. He takes the victims of power and of criminal
abuse under his wing, and swears they will get justice by his own hands. He, too, fits a
society characterized by extremes of power and privilege. He likes to mock the

pretentiousness of the elite and the institutions they represent by the deliberate vulgarity
and crudeness of his language. In that way, he projects himself as the ultimate weapon of
the weak.
The caregiver Model. This is a role that is uniquely drawn from the tender traits of our
culture. Best played by women, the caregiver projects moral integrity and compassion as
her defining qualities. Paradoxically, her political effectiveness rests on an explicit rejection
of everything that is political. To do that, she employs a moralistic language that elevates
political inexperience to the level of a virtue, and privileges kindness over competence as a
pillar of governance.
The manager Model. And lastly, theres the manager, a figure seldom seen in Philippine
politics, but who, in view of global complexity, could well become the face of the modern
statesman. More comfortable at sorting out systems than with pleasing people, the manager
instantly suffers from a strained access to voters. He comes out cold and uncaring, ready
with statistics but blind to peoples needs. It is the nation as an entity that he cares about
and constantly thinks about, as he charts its preferred path in a world system filled with
uncertainty.
5 THINGS THAT A POLITICAL LEDAER SHOULD BEAR IN MIND

Never make a promise you will not keep

Make meaningful promises and commitment to do better and be better
Use self knowledge and be very selective about the commitment you make
Consider promises as a measure of your personal integrity
Remember that your personal integrity is the basis for success with other

CHARACTERISTICS OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

Ironically, those who make good political leaders are often those who least want the
position in the first place! These are individuals who do not seek power but who have
authority conferred upon them by others who value their judgment. An effective political
leader will have a leadership style that focuses on coalition and building, while an
ineffective leadership situation results from a leader who is a hustler i.e. Who uses

manipulation to get what they want, instead of inspiration and motivation. While
negotiation and even coercion are sometimes necessary, a good political leader will always
try to use persuasion first.
So what makes a good political leader? A good political leader is:

Someone who serves as an example of integrity and loyalty to the people they
represent, both to the public and to other political leaders . A good leader has an
exemplary character. It is of utmost importance that a leader is trustworthy to lead
others. A leader needs to be trusted and be known to live their life with honestly and
integrity. A good leader walks the talk and in doing so earns the right to have
responsibility for others. True authority is born from respect for the good character
and trustworthiness of the person who leads.

someone with good communication and inter-personal skills, who can work with a
range of other people, regardless of political party or opinion, to achieve the
greatest good for the general population.

someone who can resist the various temptations and lures of the political arena

someone of strong character, with both conscience and charisma

someone willing to listen to the needs of the common people and to represent them
faithfully

someone with the courage to stand up and say what needs to be said rather than
just tell the general public what it wants to hear

Someone who is willing to make difficult (and possibly unpopular) decisions for the
greater good. A leaders needs to accomplish extreme, requesting objectives that he
set himself notwithstanding those set by an association, and spotlight on surpassing
both goals. As essential as adaptability contributes to this comparison of initiative, it
is critical to manage an entrepreneurial soul. At the point when responsibility is

come to by authority, it implies that people concur with the thought and will

endeavor to execute adequately.

Taking Responsibility: One of the key leadership qualities many political leaders
lack is ability to take responsibility. A lot of political leaders are very adept at
pointing the finger at everyone else and few seem able to accept responsibility for
their mistakes, admit their political failures and acknowledge their own contribution
to a problem

A good leader is enthusiastic about their work or cause and also about their role as
leader. People will respond more openly to a person of passion and dedication.
Leaders need to be able to be a source of inspiration, and be a motivator towards the
required action or cause. Although the responsibilities and roles of a leader may be
different, the leader needs to be seen to be part of the team working towards the
goal. This kind of leader will not be afraid to roll up their sleeves and get dirty.

As Warren Bennis has expressed "absence of an unmistakable vision is a

noteworthy explanation behind the declining viability of a leader." No matter what
the circumstance, leaders should have the capacity to impart their thoughts plainly
and submit themselves to the result. Leaders must have the capacity to change his
vision to a more comprehensive position by picking up the trust and duty of those
expected to satisfy his goal. Once figured the vision speaks to a bearing and should
be strengthened by steady and solid activities of the leader. Picking up
responsibility of those people, who will take an interest during the time spent
changing and growing an association, requires that they should be encouraged by
the errand. On the off chance that the pioneer can't get the dedication of others and
can as it were accomplish consistence, the capacity to make progress extraordinarily
lessens.

A good leader is confident. In order to lead and set direction a leader needs to
appear confident as a person and in the leadership role. Such a person inspires
confidence in others and draws out the trust and best efforts of the team to complete

the task well. A leader who conveys confidence towards the proposed objective
inspires the best effort from team members.

A leader also needs to function in an orderly and purposeful manner in situations of

uncertainty. People look to the leader during times of uncertainty and unfamiliarity
and find reassurance and security when the leader portrays confidence and a
positive demeanor.

Good leaders are tolerant of ambiguity and remain calm, composed and steadfast to
the main purpose. Storms, emotions, and crises come and go and a good leader
takes these as part of the journey and keeps a cool head.

A good leader as well as keeping the main goal in focus is able to think analytically.
Not only does a good leader view a situation as a whole, but is able to break it down
into sub parts for closer inspection. Not only is the goal in view but a good leader
can break it down into manageable steps and make progress towards it.

A good leader is committed to excellence. Second best does not lead to success. The
good leader not only maintains high standards, but also is proactive in raising the
bar in order to achieve excellence in all areas.

Accountability is crucial to effective political leadership, as without this, there will

be no respect from the followers. A good political leader is someone who will be
honest and responsible for their own actions and decisions and who is willing to
admit when they have made a mistake. They will focus their energies and time on
representing the people rather than spending all the time covering their backs and
criticizing others.

Compelling initiative starts with the central capacity to trust in you. It consolidates
a development, conviction, and aptitude that interpret into a reason and course. It is
this clarity of vision that gives awesome leaders the certainty to receive the part of
imparting inspiration, self-regard, and cooperation. As visionaries, they are
restrained masterminds and certainly believe their instinct. Leaders understand

completely their surroundings and can change circumstances to achieve a built up

vision.
Leaders can consolidate change with development, go out on a limb, and show
impressive critical thinking capacities. They have confidence in individuals, are
delicate to other's needs and value a man's center qualities. They will effectively
redo a test to yield beneficial results by making an association that creates and

cultivates achievement.
Leaders likewise require the certainty to manufacture self-regard in others and still
keep up a solid level of honesty in them. With this comes the capacity to impact an
association up, along the side and underneath and also inside and remotely. One
must have the capacity to pick up the endorsement of everybody included to make a
thought reality. The capacity to create agreeable relations, to be a cooperative
person and to make a climate that backings a high level of collegiality, denote the

genuine pioneer.
Authority is further tested by the capacity to persuade others, frequently over a
drawn out stretch of time, and guide others adequately. The procedure of
assembling duty must be produced early and with a reasonable understanding that
inclusion is basic to achievement. This devotion is coupled intimately with trust, an
indispensable connection to accomplishment inside of the association. Trust is by
implication relative to chance. To build trust, leaders must diminishing danger.
Administration relies on upon minimizing danger to guarantee that the trust
component is strong. As a leader, the capacity to keep up elevated amounts of trust
comes through predictable activities, trustworthiness, mastery, certainty and clarity.
Likely most critical is the devotion to values that are displayed by the leaders own
conduct and the technique by which one fortifies practices in others. Without a
doubt, effective leaders are savvy enough to comprehend the requirements of
others, know the need of duty, be vigorous, have the bravery of conviction, and
have a natural trustworthiness.

The success of a leader depends on his/her ability to achieve a goal through the actions of
those involved. It takes the commitment of others in the organization to implement a
leader's vision and goals. Society and organizations must have effective leadership in order

to successfully achieve their objectives. But primarily because it is vital for growth and the
overall well being of our society. We must also remember that leadership needs to be
constantly developed, reinforced and be able to effectively foster commitment within an
organization.
CASE STUDIES OF POLITCAL LEADERSHIP
A genuine political leader is one who is in charge of his Self, for his kin, for his group, and
for his nation. One of the best presidents of USA, Abraham Lincoln, says, "When I do
great, I feel great; when I do awful, I feel awful. That is my religion". Presently this is the
thing that I call a genuine administration. On November 6, 1860, Lincoln was elected the
16th president of the United States. Lincoln vowed to preserve the Union even if it meant
war. He eventually raised an army and navy of nearly 3 million northern men to face a
southern army of over 2 million soldiers. In battles fought from Virginia to California (but
mainly in Virginia, in the Mississippi River Valley, and along the Border States) a great
civil war tore the United States apart. In pursuing the war lasted for more than four years
with a staggering loss of more than 600,000 Americans dead. Midway through the war,
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves within the
Confederacy and changed the war from a battle to preserve the Union into a battle for
freedom. While the war raged, Lincoln also suffered great personal anguish over the death
of his beloved son and the depressed mental condition of his wife, Mary. The pain of war
and personal loss affected him deeply, and he often expressed his anguish by turning to
humor and by speaking eloquently about the meaning of the Great War which raged across
the land. For this work I would we looking at one political leader that I take as exceptional
Abraham Lincoln. I will be examining the qualities that make him great.
Ability to Listen to Different Points of View: While inquiring about her Pulitzer Prize
winning book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Kearns Goodwin
discovered that Lincoln had the ability to listen to various perspectives. He made an
atmosphere where Cabinet individuals were allowed to differ without trepidation of striking
back. In the meantime, he knew when to stop the talk and in the wake of listening to the
different suppositions, settle on an official choice.

Capacity to Learn at work: Lincoln could recognize mistakes, gain from them, and
afterward move. Thusly, he built up a society of learning in his organization
Prepared Willingness to Share Credit for Success
Because of concerns communicated by companions about the activities of some of his
Cabinet individuals, Lincoln expressed that the "way to achievement and desire is
sufficiently wide for two". At the point when there was achievement, Lincoln imparted the
credit to those included.
Prepared Willingness to Share Blame for Failure: At the point when slip-ups were made by
individuals from his Cabinet, Lincoln supported them. At the point when contracts
identified with the war exertion brought up significant issues around an individual from his
organization, Lincoln talked up and demonstrated that he and his whole Cabinet were to be
faulted.
Capacity to Control Emotions: Lincoln treated those he worked with well. Be that as it
may, he did get irate and disappointed, so he figured out how to channel those feelings. He
was known not down and compose what he alluded to as a "hot letter" to the individual he
was furious with and after that he would set the letter aside and not send it. In the event that
he did lose his temper, Lincoln would catch up with a nice thought or letter to let the
individual know he was not holding resentment, noticed that one of the letters was
discharged as a feature of Lincoln's Presidential papers with documentation that it was
never marked nor sent.
Know How to relax and replenish: Lincoln comprehended the significance of unwinding
and funniness to shake of the anxiety of the day and to renew him for the difficulties of the
following day. By Goodwin, Lincoln had a great comical inclination and wanted to tell
amusing stories. He energized a solid climate of giggling and fun in his organization. He
likewise appreciated setting off to the theater and investing energy with companions.
Go Out into the Field and Manage Directly: Amid the Civil War, numerous fighters passed
on and there were numerous high points and low points. Lincoln built up visiting so as to

endure associations with the troops the war zone and clinics, which likewise reinforced
spirit.
Lincoln additionally invested energy chatting with individuals from the general population,
taking 'popular conclusion showers'. He held open gatherings and tried shaking everybody's
hand and identifying with every person.
Quality to Adhere to Fundamental Goals: In the late spring of 1864, the war was not going
great for the North. Individuals from his political gathering came to Lincoln and said that
there was no real way to win the war and he may need to trade off on servitude. Lincoln
held firm on the issue of subjection and moved in the opposite direction of this counsel.
Capacity to Communicate Goals and Vision: Lincoln had an "exceptional capacity to
impart his objectives to his kinsmen." He made ideas basic and spoke with a
comprehension of the worries of the nationals.
At the point when the war finished and he won reelection, Lincoln did not concentrate on
his accomplishments. Maybe, in his second inaugural discourse, Lincoln concentrated on
uniting the nation as communicated in the accompanying selection. "With vindictiveness
toward none, with philanthropy for all, let us endeavor on to complete the work we are in,
to tie up the country's injuries, to look after him who might have borne the fight and for his
dowager and his vagrant, to do all which might accomplish and value a fair and enduring
peace among ourselves and with all countries."
Ability to Listen to Different Points of View: While exploring the Pulitzer Prize winning
book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, it was discovered that
Lincoln had the ability to listen to various perspectives. He made an atmosphere where
Cabinet individuals were allowed to differ without apprehension of striking back. In the
meantime, he knew when to stop the examination and subsequent to listening to the
different assessments, settle on an official conclusion
In summary, a political leader ought to be one who innovates, develops, inspires, ask what
and why a problem exists, influence, have the ability to convey the impression of sincerity,

challenges the status quo, and does the right thing like Lincoln that tried to challenge the
status quo by promoting the freedom of slaves, he also inspired and influence the people of
the united states. For you to be a political leader to must LEADER, that is, learn to be
strong,, empower people, ask questions, delegate responsibilities, example setter, reward
and recognize those that you are leading. In our present day political leader are very
important cause they provide guidance, imitate policies and legations, the facilitate change,
they represent the interest of the people and so on
References
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory, research &
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, (3), winter, 1990, 19-31.
Blondel, Jean (1987), Political Leadership (London: Sage).
Borraz, Olivier & John, Peter (2004). The transformation of urban political leadership in
Western Europe. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, VOL28, NO1: PP
107-120.
Brosnahan, Jo (19999. Public Sector Reform Requires Leadership. Government of the
future: Getting from here to there symposium. OECD Paris, 14-15 Sep.
Burns, Danny; Hambleton, Robin & Hoggett, Paul (1994). The Politics of Decentralization.
London: Macmillan.
Burns, James M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row
Chemers, M. M. (1984). The social, organizational, and cultural context of effective
leadership. In B. Kellerman, Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 91-108).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ivancevich, J., Konopaske, R., Matteson, M. (2007). Organizational Behavior and

Management. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Jago, A.G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science,
28(3), 315-336.
Joyce, Paul (2003). Leading change in the public sector. Strategy Magazine 1: 11-13.
Kotter, J.P. (1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs From Management. New
York: Free Press.
Kouzes, J.M., Posner, B.Z. (1987). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kruse, K. (2013). What Is Leadership? Forbes Magazine.
Lamb, L.F., McKee, K.B. (2004). Applied Public Relations: Cases in Stakeholder
Management. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Routledge.
Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley.
Newstrom, J., Davis, K. (1993). Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Northouse, G. (2007). Leadership Theory and Practice. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Okadigbo, C (1987) Power And Leadership In Nigeria, Enugu: Fourth Dimension
Publishing Company Limited.
Ologbenla, D.K (2007) Leadership, Governancce And Corruption In Nigerias Journal of
Sustenable Development In Africa, 9 (3) 97-118.
Rosamond, Ben, 'The Uniting of Europe and the Foundations of EU Studies: Revisiting the
Neofunctionalism of Enrst B. Haas', Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2,
2005, pp. 237-254,

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rowe, W.G. (2007). Cases in Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Seteolu,
D (2004) The Challenges of Leadership and Governance in Nigeria in Odion-Akhaine, S.E
(ed), Governance: Nigeria and the World; Lagos: CENCOD
Stogdill, R.M.(1989). Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and
Research. Bass, B. (ed.) New York: Free Press.
Wendy, B, Cook, C.W and Hunsaker, P.L (2003) Management and Organisational
Behaviour, McGraw Hill Companies.
Zeitchik, S. (2012). 10 Ways to Define Leadership. Business News Daily.