The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in the Modern Age Hardcover – April 8, 2014

The book starts with a simple statement which to me was only obvious after I had read it: concentrating power in a “strong leader” means allocating it arbitrarily to the leader’s personal assistants.Because no single human can cope with the increased volume of information and decisions - despite the myths these “strong leaders” like to perpetuate about themselves - the decisions get made by the close staff of these leaders.This leaves out the other people who should have led on these decisions, eg cabinet members who are of higher calibre and expertise and experience than the advisers.Furthermore, more discussion with more people gets better decisions. This is obvious with the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and Stalin as leaders who accumulated power. But the book is full of examples of other leaders to make the case.I wish history at schools was taught about these leaders and events, the 20th century is about more than Hitler but sadly that’s too often all children are taught about.I don’t know that the author’s case is conclusively proven - it’s hard to make this into a scientific argument. But it’s fascinating to read and - especially as the author dislikes Tony Blair greatly - to read it in light of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership style. A really enjoyable and thoughtful book.

Very complete work which is hard work but rewarding. An excellent breakdown on the various ways one can judge leadership. I would recommend it be read by anybody thinking about a political or business career.

Loved the honest and true information shared

good

Autocratic leaders almost always fail at some point with disastrous consequences for themselves as well as the people they lead. Consensus builders achieve lasting results. The book is a history lesson on how leaders of 20th and 21st century shaped the world that we live in today.

The idea that the more power one individual leader wields, the more we should be impressed by that leader is an illusion. Where corners are cut because one leader is sure he knows best, problems follow, and they can be on a disastrous scale, according to Archie Brown in this book. The book examines the leadership styles of a large range of political leaders including dictators and democratic leaders.The author’s essential thesis is that it is unhelpful to rate political leaders on a single strong-weak scale given that there are so many different dimensions to effective leadership, and indeed leaders who are unconstrained by others in making their decisions tend to make significantly poorer decisions. Mao Zedong was a better leader in the early days of the Chinese Communist Party than when he acquired a position of absolute power. Tony Blair made his poorest decisions when he made them without adequate discussion with others.The book tells interesting stories about a very large number of political leaders from the past century. The author has a great deal of personal knowledge of many of those leaders, and the book is an excellent history book. However, it is hard to read the book without observing that the best leaders are rarely the ones who float to the top of the political process, whether in democracies or in dictatorships. The author has provided extensive material to demonstrate the dangers of the “strong” political leader, but the stories do not coalesce into a neat description of the characteristics of a “good” political leader.

I like this book because I'm such a fan of collaborative leadership. This book shows why authoritarian leadership is not helpful and not even strong.

Excellent book. Definitely worth reading.

This was a Christmas present.

Reliable partner - good product - good postage - the seller is highly recommended for everyone.

A very good book on leadership. Excellent analysis comparing different types of leaders in modern times. Busts the myths of so called strong leaders and also shows how they can be a double edged sword

Extremely disappointed by this poorly written book.

O mote do livro é muito interessante, mas sua evolução poderia contemplar mais exemplos e diferentes ambientes, incluindo as artes, o corporativo, o terceiro setor, religioso, instituições públicas, jurídico, acadêmico, etc, além do político. Uma obra que merece tradução para o português e quem sabe uma nova edição com exemplos mais variados.