I was attending a university graduation the other day. There were a few speakers there that had a bit to say on what is considered the criteria for a good leader. The main speaker, while I found some of his comments rewarding with his experience being obviously very learned and acedemic, I found many of his comments biased, ignorant and insulting of the viewing audience and the graduate supporters.
I believe good or great leaders come from all walks of life and educational levels. Just like idiots do.
that's academia. hate it or love it there is always some snobbery amongst participants in the institution. I love academia, but I agree 100%, that particular aspect is offensive as fuck. One of the articles in
Race, Space and the Law addresses this phenomenon in a really fascinating way.
as to what makes a great leader, to me there's a vast difference between effective and extraordinary. many 'effective' leaders have committed appalling atrocities and inspired others to follow, whereas 'extraordinary' leaders have had a vision and ability to inspire that ends up elevating what had been before. How that is perceived often depends on what side of the fence one falls to though.
I think great leaders, good or bad need to be skilled at human psychology. they require creativity, imagination and an ability to motivate themselves as well as others.
I'd argue though that what a really 'great' leader needs is empathy, compassion and the ability to listen to the needs of those whom he or she would lead. they also need to be logic-oriented, able to extrapolate conceptually to the potential repercussions (positive and negative) of their plans and ideas.
Bonus points for absence of ego but that's often hard for our species to swing.
but yeah, none of those criteria require a university degree