Qualities of a Strong Leader: Resourcefulness as the Basis Leadership Strength
Strong leaders are consistently present in flourishing nations. Japan, for example, is one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world despite a lack of many natural assets. Africa, on the other hand, is the world’s poorest and most underdeveloped continent in the world despite overwhelming amounts of minerals, rich soil, forests, and several other natural resources. Struggling nations in the world, such as many African nations, are often plagued with a great deal of political turmoil and frequently lack the kind of leadership that exists in thriving states like Japan. A nation’s downfall or rise to power is due to a ruling body’s decision-making rather than resource availability, domestic lifestyles, or even luck. World leaders, as result, are under constant scrutiny from average citizens to pundits. Critics evaluating a leader’s strength do not think that strong leaders are people who simply have a lot of state power; an autocrat is not necessarily “strong.” Effective, strong leaders are considered “strong” because of their resourcefulness.
Turmoil is inevitable, and a leader must be prepared for the worst. If French and American colonial leaders were unprepared to respond to the oppression they felt respectively from the French and British monarchies, neither the United States nor the French Republic, two very powerful states, would have ever been formed. Similarly, the decline of the French and British monarchy’s power can be attributed to poor defense preparation for the Revolutions they each faced. Renaissance politician, Niccolo Machiavelli, explains that traits of a strong leader primarily revolve around cunning diplomacy and militaristic success in his political essay, “The Qualities of a Prince.” Machiavelli notes that several prosperous states from his time, including Spain, France, and Romagna, all notable diplomatic states, were a direct result of launching successful military campaigns. Hence, in “Qualities of a Prince,” he advises, “[A leader] must, therefore, never raise his thought from this exercise of war, and in peacetime he must train himself more than in time of war” (222). Machiavelli recommends that a ruler must always be prepared to go to war. During peacetime leaders must find ways to strengthen wartime skills and assets. Machiavelli also refers to war as an “exercise,” which implies that constant preparation for war or any opposition builds a leader’s power. Several strong nations today can be seen to follow the principle to “never raise [their] thought from this exercise of war,” including the United States. The United States has a vast defense budget dedicated to innovating warfare technologies and honing the discipline of its soldiers during both peacetime and wartime. Several other strong countries also recognize the importance of ensuring a top-ranking military including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. In order to build and lead a strong country, a leader must maintain a constant state of alert and “never raise [his/her] thought from this exercise of war” to ensure his/her countrymen’s welfare and, also, harness additional power from people outside a nation’s official jurisdiction.
Even if equipped with superb defenses, a leader is losing a very valuable resource if he/she fails to develop the populace’s allegiance. In order to gain and utilize the strength that comes from the loyalty of a leader’s people, a leader must create and maintain strong relations with his/her people. While Machiavelli offers formidable advice on the importance of defense, his dismissal of the nation’s population is misguided. Lao-Tzu, a respected court official from the Chou dynasty of Ancient China, recognized the importance of the people, however. In “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching,” in which Lao-Tzu provides a detailed account of his political philosophy, happy people in a country are an essential part of building and leading a successful nation. He explains the importance of the public’s well-being, in “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching,” by pointing out, “All streams flow to the sea / because it is lower than they are. / Humility gives it its power. / If you want to govern the people, / you must place yourself below them” (66:1-5). The general public, according to Lao-Tzu, form the backbone of any leader’s strength. Lao-Tzu infers that the people are “all streams” and a leader’s strength is the “sea.” By comparing the people to streams, Lao-Tzu also implies that leaders must recognize that people are naturally inclined to place their allegiances to someone—similar to how a stream’s current naturally takes the water to the sea. Lao-Tzu observes that leaders must place themselves as the current, which is “lower than [the people],” in order personify the power of the sea. A leader gains the “flow to the sea,” most effectively, through practices that make the leader seem invisible even though he/she is the basic driving force of the people. The world’s consumerism is a testament to the effectiveness of applying Lao-Tzu’s political philosophy. Several Fortune 500 companies, for instance, depend on the spending habits of every person, both rich and poor. In order to make the most money they can potentially make, a company often dedicates entire departments to public image and handling customer feedback understanding that “humility gives it its power.” Thus, a strong leader would be very wise to have good relations with the country’s population in order to gain an invaluable resource.
In order to make the most of the benefits from a strong relationship with the populace and strong military practices, leaders should also responsibly invest in ways their nation’s society can improve. Because resources are, by definition, a finite entity, a leader must wisely consider the advantages and disadvantages associated with any public investment or policy. Steel entrepreneur, Andrew Carnegie, describes the responsibilities societal leaders, primarily the upper class, have in regards to helping those below them in his article, “The Gospel of Wealth.” Carnegie, in “The Gospel of Wealth,” explains that the best means of benefiting a community is to “place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise—parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind; works of art, certain to give pleasure and improve the public taste; and public institutions of various kinds, which will improve the general condition of the people—in this manner returning their surplus wealth to the mass of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them lasting good” (495). By funding public projects such as “means of recreation”, “works of art”, and “public institutions,” the wealthy “place within [everyone’s] reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise.” Carnegie reasons that his proposal equips people with just the necessary tools needed for success to be “within [people’s] reach,” thus doing “lasting good” to the populace. Additionally, Carnegie’s rhetoric in describing “the ladders” adds further weight to society’s leaders because he implies that leaders’ investments are directly related to how far people and the general environment “can rise.” The responsibility of leaders described by Carnegie also applies beyond strictly financially influenced matters. In a classroom, for example, an instructor, who leads the classroom, is responsible for administering knowledge to his/her pupils. Depending on how the teacher chooses to share knowledge with the class, students will be more or less likely to use learned material beyond the immediate classroom. Teachers are considered strong and impactful if students can comfortably use course material outside the immediate classroom. A teacher, therefore, must consider the best way to place “ladders” so that students will “rise” to their potential highest. By wisely investing in public policies and projects, leaders provide the foundations for people to contribute to a common goal set by the leader without expending excessive resources, thus strengthening a nation.
A resourceful leader is a strong leader. Leaders generally regarded as “model leaders” can be very much seen to follow every aspect of resourcefulness. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s very influential legacy can easily be attributed to his ingenuity. While King was a champion of non-violence, he did not lead his people to simply ignore the opposition they faced. Many of his speeches, protests, and written works, such as “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” were made in response to opposition the Civil Rights Movement may face or already have faced. Additionally, King was very well-respected and beloved among the civil rights activists he led. His followers, as a result, were very willing to support his efforts in civil rights. Moreover, King’s Civil Rights Movement contributions, his investment for bettering his followers, were aimed solely for the purpose of benefiting those he led. King, like other “model leaders,” easily aligns with the resourcefulness that is expected of strong leaders. However, throughout history, and even in modern times, a number of leaders have built strong nations and movements through more unconventional methods. The former Soviet Union’s tyrannical Joseph Stalin, for instance, built a world superpower. Though his reign has been lamented by many intellectuals, Stalin’s contributions still stands today as very influential in molding modern Russia. While Stalin did not project the ideal balance of resourcefulness found in King and other “model leaders,” scholarly perspectives on Stalin’s leadership further reveal that resourcefulness is an inherent trait in all strong leaders.
Stalin, who transformed Russia’s peasant society to a military and industrial superpower, certainly understood the benefits that come from maintaining a Machiavellian defense plan. To Stalin, there is no exception in the ways a nation’s power or potential power can be threatened. His extreme political repression campaigns and scorched earth policy of WWII demonstrate Stalin’s commitment to respond to all opposition. Helene Carrere D’Encausse, a Russian history specialist, details how Stalin’s rule through terror radically transformed Russia into a superpower in her book, Order through Terror. Particularly after his victorious effort from WWII, D’Encausse writes that, “Rarely had power been so personified, so intimately linked to one man; rarely had the collaborators of a leader seemed so like mere onlookers. His reaction, when it came, was remarkable because it showed awareness of the situation, took account of the state of mind of the Soviet people, of the doubts which weighed upon the regime, of the revived grievances and of the hesitations in fact of the invasion” (109). D’Encausse finds that because Stalin had so much control defending the state, especially during WWII, his peers’ actions just seemed fruitless and made them “mere onlookers.” D’Encause notes that such a lack of influence from a leader’s collaborators in history is incredibly rare. Thus, Stalin was able to fully personify total power because he had total power over the military—a feat also very rare in history. Stalin’s military practices, especially during the German invasion, meant that the Soviet “state of mind” greatly depended on him to protect them and address all their “doubts.” D’Encausse describes Stalin’s response to the German invasion on the Eastern Front as “remarkable,” since he recognized the added responsibility he carried. Because Stalin fully acknowledged his responsibility from “the situation,” D’Encausse implies that Stalin’s “reaction” further increased his leadership strength. Thus, Stalin’s use of military might to anticipate and respond to national threats proves how Machiavellian defense practices, in all forms, build a strong leader.
When a leader lacks the traditional means of gaining the resources that comes from maintaining strong relations with his/her countrymen, a leader’s self-perception may provide a suitable surrogate. Political scientists, Carol Strong and Matt Killingsworth, observe that a leader gains significant power if the nation’s population trusts and admires the leader in their article, “Stalin the Charismatic Leader?: Explaining the ‘Cult of Personality’ as a Legitimation Technique.” They explain that there are three main ways leaders can earn this “power of charisma” from the people. The first two techniques revolve around more traditional means that “model leaders” are praised for; Dr. Martin Luther King and Lao-Tzu’s ideal leader are examples. The third technique, termed “charismatic authority,” is unique because it stems from a leader’s personal perception of his/her power over others’ views. In “Stalin the Charismatic Leader?: Explaining the ‘Cult of Personality’ as a Legitimation Technique,” Strong and Killingsworth explain that “charismatic authority” works, because, “There comes a point where a group of people, as they try to make sense of a chaotic situation, begin to look desperately for an individual with whom they can forge a relationship of ‘supreme trust’, because they see them as the personification of the change process itself” (395). Strong and Killingsworth establish that “charismatic authority” rests on a “chaotic situation” and the populace “desperately” searching for a vehicle of stability. In such a situation, Strong and Killingsworth note that people are naturally inclined to toward a leader who is able to personify the process of overpowering chaos. Strong and Killingsworth indicate that a leader can personify the “change process itself” through his/her seemingly endless sense of power. The strongest benefit resulting from “charismatic authority” is that a leader’s followers are very willing to grant the leader anything he/she may need. However, the shortcoming of “charismatic authority” is that chaos and the people’s resulting desperation must be present. Without the aforementioned variables, Strong and Killingsworth imply that the “relationship of ‘supreme trust’” will no longer be in play. The leader, then, is at risk to come under extreme scrutiny and losing ground among his/her people. A leader wishing to rule extensively through “charismatic authority” must ensure that chaos and desperation remain a strong factor in the nation’s environment. Even though such a practice expends more resources than Lao-Tzu’s advised humility, a leader using “charismatic authority” still acknowledges how “all streams lead to the sea.” By personifying the current, which is “lower than [streams] are,” a leader can lead the lowly streams to the sea.
Stalin did not let “all streams lead to the sea” without his own guidance. Through his own application of “charismatic authority,” Stalin portrayed himself as an all-powerful, all-knowing leader to gain the trust and idolization from the people and his peers, creating what historians refer to as a “cult of personality.” Political scientist and historian, Robert C. Tucker, inspects the psychological effect Stalin’s reign had on Soviet politics and Soviet citizens in his book, The Soviet Political Mind: Studies in Stalinism and Post-Stalinism. Stalin’s “cult of personality” was effective, because, as Tucker concludes, “The state-operated organs of education and indoctrination are the sole active sector of the environment, the determining environmental force. The remainder of the environment, including the material living conditions of Soviet people, would not have to be ameliorated in order to accomplish the transformist objective” (119). People’s perceptions are “state-operated organs” controlled by statewide propaganda. Stalin’s “cult of personality” is an example of “charismatic authority.” Thus, in order for Stalin’s “cult of personality” to continually maintain strong relations with his people, the state portrayed Stalin as the only figure who can guide the people out of a series of constant chaos and change—regardless if these things were real. The “cult of personality’s” distinct propaganda became the only “determining environmental force” that influenced the general population’s state of mind. As a result, Stalin’s “cult of personality” resourcefully extended the time period “charismatic authority” is effective. Tucker also observes that through the “cult of personality,” the Soviet Union’s “transformist” goals would not have to be fully met. As long as statewide propaganda continues convincing the people they were happy, there was no immediate need to produce “material” results. Focusing very directly on people’s perception of Stalin and the state was Stalin’s “sole active [objective].” As a result, Stalin’s shortcomings could at times be overlooked, and his accomplishments would only increase his relations with his people. Stalin gained the “the power of charisma” that comes from maintaining strong relations with his followers, surprisingly, through careful application of Lao-Tzu’s observations about the populace’s tendencies.
Stalin embraced the responsibility that a strong leader must improve society through his investments. Stalin propelled exponential growth in economic, societal, and other national fields. Despite a dissident account of Stalinism, Roy A. Medvedev, a prominent political writer who lived during Stalin’s reign, acknowledges the power Stalin and the Soviet Union gained through Stalinist economic reforms in his book, On Stalin and Stalinism. When detailing the effects of Stalinist economic policies, which Medvedev scathingly refers to as “The War against the Peasants,” he concedes, “Although few of the targets of the first Five-Year Plan were not schedule, not to mention Stalin’s 1929 plan for ‘crash industrialization’, there was a considerable expansion of industrial production, a particularly impressive accomplishment against the background of crisis and depression in the capitalist world” (69). As a result of Stalin’s economic policies, peasants, formerly the lowest sect of Russian society, no longer existed. While Medvedev describes the eradication of peasants in society as a “war,” he realizes that Stalin’s policies are “particularly impressive” especially when compared to the “crisis and depression” in the rest of the world caused by the Great Depression. Even though certain goals and promises of Stalin’s economic policies were not met, Medvedev finds the expansion of industrial production, especially with the Great Depression debilitating most of the world, can justify the power the Stalin gained and possessed for economic growth. Furthermore, Medvedev’s recognition for Stalin successfully stimulating economic growth implies that Stalin also effectively reduced the gap between the highest and lowest sects of society. Medvedev witnesses the lowest class of society become urban worker-class people who lived significantly better lives than pre-Stalin era peasants. Medvedev, who loathed Stalinism, begrudgingly found aspects of Stalinist economic policies, which acted as “the ladders” Carnegie believes can improve society, to be “particularly impressive.” Stalin’s economic policies reveal how smart, resourceful public investing can topple even the most loathsome opposition, thus, further solidifying a leader’s strength.
In addition to economic investments, Stalin was also committed to improving Soviet society through social change. Stalin’s social laws helped usher an unprecedented era of female advancement. Harvard Modern European History professor, Lauren Kaminsky, writes how Stalinist family and marriage laws sought to create a utopia in her article, “Utopian Visions of Family Life.” Kaminsky explains that the 1926 Soviet family code aimed to protect women, because, “Women became embodiments of issues and anxieties related to the family, and as such their needs were increasingly seen as inextricably bound with those of children and families. Thus the utopian project of radical sexual and social equality took the form of opening the category of marriage rather than eschewing marriage entirely, finding ways to adapt some of the ethos of free love to the socioeconomic demands of poor mothers and homeless children” (89-90). The idea of “equality” was strongly considered in Stalin’s contributions towards a Soviet “utopian project.” Kaminsky highlights that Stalin reconciled two very conflicting concepts, marriage and family values and sexual and social equality, to synthesize a law defining a central aspect of Soviet society. Stalin’s laws changed the way people perceive the “category” of tradition. Kaminsky’s text also implies that such a feat is typically uncommon in many leaders’ regimes. Stalin, thus, gained further strength by not “eschewing” one concept over the other. Stalin’s social codes are very much line with Carnegie’s views. The 1926 family code, in particular, was a “ladder” upon which Soviet society could “rise.” By truly embodying the responsibility that Carnegie’s societal leader possesses, leaders can potentially possess the strength needed to lead a nation to great heights like Stalin.
Both modern and historical great leaders continue finding so much success through their resourcefulness. While several strong leaders have differing policies and ideologies, the core of all their methods revolves around their resourcefulness. Leaders can utilize their sources of strength best by applying the teachings of Machiavelli, Lao-Tzu, and Carnegie. Even though a person exuding a balance of the aforementioned teachings is ideal in the eyes of many people, Joseph Stalin’s very successful and tyrannical rule over the Soviet Union shows that balance is not always necessary. An extensive look at Stalin’s rule reveals that his strength came purely from his resourcefulness. From “model leader,” Dr. Martin Luther King to “controversial leader,” Joseph Stalin, resourcefulness is an inherent trait present in all strong leaders. As long as a leader is very resourceful, there is no limit as to how strong and great a leader can become.

Works Cited
Carnegie, Andrew. “The Gospel of Wealth.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013. 485-495. Print.

D’Encausse, Helene C. A History of the Soviet Union 1917-1953: Stalin, Order through Terror. Trans. Valence Ionescu. Vol. 2. New York: Longman, 1981. Print.

Kaminsky, Lauren. "Utopian Visions Of Family Life In The Stalin-Era Soviet Union." Central European History 44.1 (2011): 63-91. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

King, Martin L. “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013. 377-392. Print.

Lao-Tzu. “Lao Tzu: Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013. 206-215. Print.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013. 221-233. Print.

Medvedev, Roy A. On Stalin and Stalinism. Trans. Ellen de Kadt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. Print.

Strong, Carol, and Matt Killingsworth. “Stalin The Charismatic Leader?: Explaining The ‘Cult Of Personality’ As A Legitimation Technique.” Politics, Religion & Ideology 12.4 (2011): 391-411. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

Tucker, Robert C. The Soviet Political Mind: Studies in Stalinism and Post-Stalin Change. New York: Frederick A. Praeger Inc, 1963. Print.