Who Decides If a Leader Is Truly Good?
By Dave Owens APM
In a world where leadership is often highly scrutinised, the question of who determines whether a leader is good is a difficult and complex question. Is it simply a title, or perspective given to the individual by their followers? Is it based solely on the results that they achieve or is it in fact something more intangible? This opinion piece explores the multifaceted nature of leadership evaluation and who ultimately holds the power to decide.
There are at least six categories or areas that can lead to a leader being viewed as good or otherwise. These areas include:
Public perception and 'followers'
Objective results and achievements
Historical perspective
Moral and ethical judgments
Media and cultural influence
Self-perception and rewriting history
In many instances, one of the immediate indicators of a leader’s effectiveness is the perception of those that follow them. Leadership is sometimes defined as having the ability to inspire or to mobilise others to achieve goals or outcomes. It is the ‘traits’ of the leader, or what is perceived by the followers, such as trust, loyalty and admiration that often sets the tone for whether a leader is deemed successful. But does this make them a good leader? If you look at the leadership theories (transformational leadership) they emphasise the importance of follower’s perceptions and their role in defining effective leadership.[1]
Should it also include the judgement of those in executive roles above the leader as to how they judge their effectiveness as a leader. Recent studies have also highlighted how the use of social media platforms amplify perception, shaping public opinion on leadership in real time.[2]
Another argument is that a leader’s effectiveness can and should be judged by tangible outcomes. In the fields of politics, business or emergency services, the results speak volumes. This could include successful growth and stability of an organisation, financial success or operational results. The contingency theory of leadership would suggest that a leader’s effectiveness is very often dependent on how well their style fits the situation that they face. This is often measured by the achievement of set goals.[3] However, it must also be recognised that some leadership styles are very unsuited to some situations and as such the leader will be judged harshly.
There has also been a trend in recent business leadership studies to emphasise the performance metrics, such as business growth and shareholder value as key indicators of successful leadership.[4] Is this just outcome-based business as opposed to good leadership?
History has a way of revealing the long-term impacts of leadership decisions, for better or for worse. Often, a leader’s true legacy is not determined until many years have passed or even decades after their tenure. In some instances, leaders who were once revered may later be vilified and vice versa.
Historical revisionism and the reassessment of leaders over time continue to be relevant. If one was to research the legacy of political leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Rudy Giuliano or Margaret Thatcher one might discover how evolving social values and political climates can alter historical judgement.[5]
Moving from public perception and results, a leader’s moral compass (or lack thereof) plays a crucial role in how they will be judged. As a leader you need to adhere to strong ethical principles, even in the face of adversity. If you do this, you will often garner respect and are remembered in a positive light. Ethical leadership theory highlights the importance of a leader’s character and moral responsibility in determining their effectiveness.[6] Leaders conversely will be judged on their lack of strength and moral courage under trying situations. It is in times of crisis that ethical leadership can enhance agency/business trust and resilience.[7]
In the modern era, there is no doubt the role that media, in particular social media plays in shaping the narrative around a leader’s effectiveness. The leader’s portrayal in the media along with cultural biases and public disclosure can all have a strong influence on how a leader is perceived. This is sometimes irrespective of their actual performance in the role.
The media and the agenda setting theory in media studies would suggest that the media doesn’t tell us what to think, but rather what to think about. This heavily influences public perception.[8] Take this into today’s digital age of social media, the impact of media has only intensified, with studies showing how online media can quickly shape or distort public opinion on leadership.[9]
A leader’s self-perception and the attempt to rewrite history cannot be ignored. Some leaders attempt to shape their own legacies by rewriting or reframing historical events to suit their own narrative. This self-perception can be a powerful force in how they view their own leadership. This is sometimes seen through the control of information or selective retelling of past events, leaders may convince themselves – and others - that their actions were justified and effective, even when evidence suggests otherwise.
This leadership is all about self-deception and narrative control, where leaders may alter their own memories and accounts to maintain a positive self-image.[10] Authoritarian leaders often manipulate historical narratives to sustain power or in an attempt to craft a favourable legacy.[11]
In any assessment of what a ‘good’ leader is, the determination of the leader’s quality is not in the hands of a single entity. It has to be a combination of follower/executive perception, objective results, historical context, ethical considerations, media influence and the leaders own attempts to shape their legacy. Ultimately the judgement of leadership is fluid, changing with time and perspective, making it a collective and dynamic process.
References
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222394137_Ethical_Leadership_A_Review_and_Future_Directions
Chadwick, A. (2017). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/1922
Eisenbeiss, S. A. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisciplinary integrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 791-808. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257467392_Re-thinking_ethical_leadership_An_interdisciplinary_integrative_approach
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2021). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 76(3), 388-403.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-19456-002
Kellerman, B. (2020). The Enablers: How Team Trump Flunked the Pandemic and Failed America. Cambridge University Press.
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown. https://newuniversityinexileconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Levitskyl-Ziblatt-How-Democracies-Die-2018-1.pdf
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/5524493/mod_resource/content/2/Aula%209b_McCombs_Shaw_The%20Agenda-Setting%20Function%20of%20Mass%20Media.pdf
Seldon, A., & Finn, M. (Eds.). (2016). The Thatcher Effect: A Decade of Change. Oxford University Press.
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223-236. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227229550_Ethical_Fading_The_Role_of_Self-Deception_in_Unethical_Behavior
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24. https://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Leadership/Vroom_Jago_2007_The_role_of_the_situtation_in_leadership.pdf