What quality makes a good leader?
 

Need 20 people to answer this for an English assignment. Just one quality please.

Write your paper about me and you will do just fine.

not an ignorant b*tch

Motivation or Persuasion

Dedication.

Respect for others.

Maturity

Ambition

Bonds

Invoking fear and manipulation.

Clear and concise instructions in a well-formatted PDF.

Ability to invoke team work within the group/society.

One who puts others before themselves.

My teacher DID say the answers didn't matter...

:blush:

Dedication, Earning respect within the heart of what you lead. People need to truly respect you, instead of just taking orders because they have to. You also need to respect everyone who is with you in your cause. It doesn't mean let them get to act like the leader, but it means try to view things from their perspective too.

Cooking.

REALLY good cooking.

If my boss was a good cook,

I'd just about do anything for him/her.

A voice that can be heard.

Blonde Hair

A psychopath.

An ability to lie

So basically don't be Jester Lapse.

respect? selfless? these aren't traits of a good leader

a good leader is manipulative and stubborn.

Sexual appeal.

A unique mustache. Every great historical leader had a cool mustache.

Yeah hitler was great.

Trustworthy

Hitler was actually a great leader

his morals and objectives were effed up

but as a leader, he was top notch

My name never seems to leave your mouth, you have some fetish for me or something you wanna admit or what?

Hint: When somebody talks badly about you it does not mean they like you. Funny, right?

He was effective, but I don't think great. People tend to associate the word "great" with good, considering it's synonymous.

hah we had this discussion in class not too long ago :p

Hitler's mustache was fake.

He wasn't worthy of such a good mustache.

Instead he disgraced that style of mustache.

He was a great leader, just wasn't a great person.

I just woke up

Hitler?

Great: of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average.

I think that is Hitler's leadership no? Not saying he was a good person, but in terms of his leadership and his ability to mind control people, he was pretty damn great at it.

Thanks guys
http://i.imgur.com/u9cGTg7.jpg
You're not making this easy for me

You didn't include cooking?!

He was a good speaker. His economic policies ended unemployment and the wage went 10% up, but there were a lot of problems that came with his policies (can't recall at the moment). Also his military decisions were horrible and his stubborness ended in him not listening to his generals. There was no way he could have won simultaneously fighting the USSR, USA and UK.
The only thing interesting in Mein Kampf is its historical value and the book itself is badly written.

Like the death of a few million people?

what kind of leader are we talking about??? There's the hitler kind of leader, then there's the kind of leader they tell us to be at school like "ohhh, to be a leader you should help people and speak for yourself and be nice."

I was talking about his economic policies.

History is written by the winners.

Hitler was either great or awful, depending on which standpoint you want to view a leader from. As a speaker, I believe he was one of the greatest of all time with his skill in controlling the masses and moving an entire nation towards falsified greatness. However, even after reading Mein Kampf, his morals and ideals for the nation were ridiculously twisted and that's clear to pretty much everyone. Even as a military leader, while his tactics were nothing short of great, his strategy was absolutely terrible and ultimately why Germany stood no chance in WWII.

Lmao his strategy was not bad, it was probably one of the most effective armies out. I believe hitler truly could of won WWII if it wasn't for a couple of major stuff ups, he was generations ahead of his competition military wise (U-Boats for example).

Hitler was not a good leader, towards the end of his reign he started to make stupid decisions (I feel Stalingrad was a big one) even while his high ranking army officials were telling him not to do it.

Something like Napoleon, but less narcissistic

LOL Hitler would have never won the war, even if he hadn't done Operation Barbarossa.
Had he conquered England, Stalin would just be waiting for him at the other side.
He would have needed supernatural luck to win against the USSR.
No, Germany did not have WMDs unlike the US and the SU was in the process of developing WMDs.
If it wasn't the USSR that would have attacked an exhausted Germany with nuclear weapons or not, the US would have nuked Berlin.
Also Hitler was already extremely lucky to his rise to power, during the 1933 voting (his party never got an absolute majority) and his failed assassination in 1938.

Stalingrad cost Germany the war along with the failure to crush Britain. However the U-Boats were used in WWI if I remember correctly and Hitler wasn't bothered with them to start with but a few admirals pushed the idea forward.

Read my post, Germany would've lost regardless if they had attacked the SU or not.

Not necessarily. America was defending its allies so if Germany had crushed Britain like France then America might have stayed out of the war. Germany was also starting to try and produce nuclear weapons and already had the deadly V1 and V2 rockets which could have turned the war in their favour. They also had the first jet fighters that if mass produced and used correctly could have defeated any air force.

Well under Hitler's leadership they would have never won.
If Germany, with its scientific progress in 1939-40 (which surpassed a lot of nations that eventually caught up a year or two later) had attacked Britain, made a pact with the USSR which would've feared attacking Germany at the time, the US would have stayed out and the joint scientific-militaristic cooperation of the then German leader and Stalin would be very benefical and America wouldn't have dared attacking. But everything I'm stating is all probabilty and I don't think the ideologies of Stalin and of another German leader would meet halfway.
The point I'm trying to make is that Nazi Germany would have lost with the stubborness of Hitler no matter what.
Which proves that Hitler was not only failing at the end of the war but in the beginning as well.
Hitler was just an extremely lucky individual who made a lot of aweful decisions.
His rejection from art school, his life being saved in World War 1 (debatable) by a British Private, Hitlerputsch (coup), his badly written book that got famous, his failed assassination in 1938.