capability+versus+ability+to+relate

Is it better to have a capable leader or one who can relate to people? The two common characteristics that make a good leader are the ability to relate to people, and being academically capable and qualified on his own. While they might not be mutually exclusive or individually necessary to make a good leader, when the two aspects are strictly compared, I would argue that being capable in oneself is a more important characteristic. A good leader should be highly qualified, so that he may make the decisions that are best for the people, and would have sufficient foresight. When a leader is academically qualified, like an accomplished economist, he, as a president, would be able to have foresight on the economy, and guide the country in the right direction. This would necessarily benefit the country since the leader has great say in the policies of a country. As such, qualification is an important condition. A good leader might also need to relate to the people well. When a leader can relate to the people and has the support of the people, a shared vision can be established more easily, and the interests of the people are met. I’m not sure about the school’s view, but Ashlynna is one good example of a charismatic leader who is able to build rapport with others and to get people hyped up about almost anything. Wouldn’t you consider her a good leader due to the ability to relate to people? It is argued in class that the two aspects are not mutually exclusive. It would be a lot better if one person is both highly qualified and able to relate to people – the people would then have the best of both worlds. The principal of RI, Mrs Lim (hope this is not a taboo example), is both qualified academically, and has high EQ in her ability to relate to people and to inspire the school. However, the two aspects are also not individually necessary to make a good leader – it is possible that someone is a good leader when he exhibits neither of such characteristics. I have one theoretical possibility of this, but cannot think of a practical example now (so it’d be nice if someone has a good example). Suppose a normal schoolboy walks along the street and picks up litter on his way to the bus stop every day. He is not attending an elite school, and his IQ is about 100; he is also disliked by his friends for always keeping to himself – he is hence not ‘capable’ and ‘relatable’. However, his continual quiet action eventually inspires people to follow him, and becomes a leader in his own right. Here, it can be seen that one need not be capable or relatable to be a good leader. Nonetheless, the above example only holds true if a ‘leader’ is not defined as an appointed position, but an ability to pave the way for people, since the boy given does not hold any leadership position. As such, if a ‘leader’ is defined more strictly, the point would be invalid. Overall, my personal view is that academic qualification is more important than the ability to relate to people, due to the fact that people do not know what is best for themselves. This reason is derived from Plato’s Aristocracy, where Plato suggests the style of governance that a few elites have complete control over society, since they are ordained to be leaders. The fact that the leaders have proven themselves shows that they can think about the long term betterment of the people rather than the temporary gratification, and these aristocrats are then able to maximise the good of the society not just for the individuals but for everyone. On the other hand, the ability to relate to people only helps to serve the interests of the individuals in the short run, and the complete picture of the society’s welfare is compromised. Therefore, for the sake of society as a whole, it is better that a leader is capable.