For them, the key to international power was political power, and the central attribute of political power was a morally informed leadership.

Leadership entails more than the possession of enormous economic and military power.

Regional organizations are still unable to solve regional problems without great power leadership.

The Obama administration committed itself to global leadership through civilian rather than military power.

But different networks provide new forms of power, and require different styles of leadership.

When the exercise of hard power undercuts soft power, it makes leadership more difficult as Bush found out after the invasion of Iraq.

When the exercise of hard power undercuts soft power, leadership becomes more difficult as President Bush found out after the invasion of Iraq.

In other words, the Internet age requires new styles of leadership in which attractive soft power must supplement the traditional hard power of command.

Barack Obama understands this networked dimension of leadership and the importance of the soft power of attraction.

The two main criticisms lack of strategic clarity and less emphasis on the classical concepts of power point to America s loss of influence, power, and leadership.

After all, genuine leadership cannot come from raw power, but only from other states consent or tacit acceptance.

Members of this generation sought a strong Arab leadership that would create a balance of power with Israel.

The role of heroic leadership in war leads to overemphasis of command and control and hard military power.

As the dominant power in the world, America has a unique responsibility to provide leadership in international cooperation.

New centers of power and leadership are emerging in Asia, Latin America and across the newly developed world.

Specifically, it requires leadership by a country with the power of the purse and the willingness to use it.

This deep social and intellectual transformation underway in Asia promises to catapult it from economic power to global leadership.

After all, genuine leadership cannot come from raw power, but only from other states consent or tacit acceptance. If leadership could be built on brute force, schoolyard bullies would be class presidents.

They enjoy closed shop hiring and firing prerogatives, leadership elections by acclamation, mandatory dues without transparency, and immense political power.

Specifically, it requires leadership by a country with the power of the purse and the willingness to use it. The problem in the interwar period, as Kindleberger recounts it, was the reluctance of the leading power, the US, to provide the leadership and financial wherewithal to resolve the crisis.

Under Khamenei s leadership, an unholy trinity of nouveau riche Revolutionary Guardsmen, hard line clergymen, and indoctrinated Basij militiamen increasingly wield power.

Recently, many observers argued that America s gridlocked political system would prevent the country from translating its abundant power resources into leadership.

For a country whose global leadership depends as much on its soft power as on its military might, that is dynamite.

Whether this event heralds the decline of regional power broker influence or merely a change in leadership remains to be seen.

In truth, today, we also face a crisis of a different sort the challenge of global leadership. New centers of power and leadership are emerging in Asia, Latin America and across the newly developed world.

Under a North Korean collective leadership dominated by the military, the power of the country s economic bureaucrats will be marginal, at best.

Servant leadership is both a leadership philosophy and set of leadership practices.

The great leadership theorist James McGregor Burns once argued that those who rely on coercion are not leaders, but mere wielders of power.

We are convinced that the Palestinian leadership should continue its efforts to reform its power structures, and firmly counter any manifestations of terrorism.

Only leadership by a determined great power, prepared to sacrifice its particular national interests in order to break the resulting impasse, might conceivably have saved the meeting. But such leadership was as unlikely then as it is now.

The government pitted the conflict as a Shia population trying to wrestle power from a Sunni leadership, a storyline often echoed in international media.

Nevertheless, the US will remain the most influential external actor in the Middle East, for its failure is one of leadership, not of actual power.

The century ahead will not be a struggle between China and the US for global leadership. This is not a balance of power gladiatorial contest.

But China has become a great power, with all the obligations for maintaining world order that go with it, whether or not the leadership acknowledges it.

The government, headed by the prime minister, thus represents the political leadership of the country and makes decisions in the name of the whole executive power.

Leadership

Nowhere is this truer than in automotive emissions, where the battle for leadership on new power trains whether electric, hydrogen, or biofuel based is already upon us.

Only leadership by a determined great power, prepared to sacrifice its particular national interests in order to break the resulting impasse, might conceivably have saved the meeting.

But social media can also be used effectively to demobilize people, by reducing the chasm between the psychology and power of political leadership and that of the masses.

As for Poland, although the bumbling Kaczynski twins have been removed from power, the country s fixation on security in its immediate neighborhood is incompatible with true European leadership.

With the exception of the peaceful transition of world leadership from Britain to the US after World War I, such global power shifts have always involved armed conflict.

Meanwhile, among the major emerging economies, China s reform process is on hold, pending a leadership transition this fall that will clarify various internal interests goals and power relationships.

Patronage systems change dramatically as leadership and power shifts in national crises, partisan differences may well be exemplified within government bureaucracies as well as in the larger society.

Leadership Training

In a public setting, leadership necessarily blends political leadership and political accountability with the leadership provided by the more permanent career service.