The leadership question has always been debated. More so in present times as means and mediums of discussion have grown manifold. From village gossip to print media to electronic media to the now all-pervasive social media, leadership seems to be one of the most talked about subjects in society. But still there is little clarity as to what is true leadership. There is often the issue of strong versus weak leadership that occupies centrestage. However, what is a strong leader, who is a weak leader, and which is better are all questions that still do not get best answers. The simple reason is the definition and the related attributes. However, a recent book, The Myth of the Strong Leader by Archie Brown offers valuable clues to this riddle of strong versus weak leader. A comprehensive book, rather voluminous, has largely taken into consideration political leadership, but can be a useful reference for leadership per se, across the board. The greatest myth that the author has shattered is the widespread belief that ‘strong leaders’, dominant individual wielders of power, are the most successful and admirable. The basis of this analysis has been a careful examination of top leaders of the world, ranging from Roosevelt, to Gorbachev to Deng Xiaoping, to Thatcher among many. The book overturns the popular notion of strong leader and forces readers to rethink preconceptions about what it means to lead. The author himself claims that he wishes to expose the notion that strong leaders — in the conventional sense of the term, that is those who push their way, dominate their colleagues, and concentrate decision making in their hands — are most successful and admirable. The basic assumption behind this premise is that huge power usurped by the individual leader paves way for errors in judgement and may also lead to disaster and bloodshed at times. He seems to be correct when we consider leaders like Hitler and Mussolini and what they did. Though the term ‘strong leader’ can have different connotations, it generally means one who has a tendency to concentrate too much or rather all power in his hands. It is this power that then creates the illusion of invincibility and the leader thus emboldened acquires the demonic tendencies of egotism, which promotes cravings, and arbitrariness becomes the norm. But gradually this arbitrariness degenerates into a totalitarian regime which the people start detesting. The same people who were nursing the illusion of equating the strong leader as a messiah. The biggest difficulty is in the thin line that creates the strong-weak dichotomy. Strong does not denote exploitative autocrat and weak is not about laissez-faire. Leadership is best that respects the system and its institutions that keep the system running. Thus, this whole idea of strong and weak leadership is illusory. Rather it should be about righteousness and duty consciousness. The nature of true leadership is not about the ability to concentrate all power in one’s hand but to let the system function smoothly. Humility should not be construed as weakness and arrogance as strength. It is this arrogance that ultimately leads to ruins. Interestingly for those who nurse the illusion of invulnerable status, the following words from Yoga Vashistha may do some mellowing: “I am time; and I have destroyed countless beings, even the Gods who preside over this universe. I am the consumer and you are our food. This relationship is not based on mutual likes or dislikes.”

Pathak is a professor of management, writer, and an acclaimed public speaker. He can be reached at ppathak.ism@gmail.com