In western society we assign values to everything: athletes are timed, grades are given in school, magazines rate cars, diamonds are rated on a scale, movies get a thumbs up or down, and award shows abound proclaiming who was the best in their field. We are obsessed with results. We measure, weigh, assign statistics, use comparative numbers, charts, graphs, scales, to judge skill, productivity, performance, value, and effectiveness. We place a value on everything that we do, make, or participate in. How then do we rate the effectiveness of our leaders? The media has developed an "approval rating" that they assign to presidents as a reflection of how well we feel they are doing their job. Does this really reflect how effective they are as a leader, or is this just a popularity poll? How do we rate our leaders, or is leadership something that cannot be rated or measured in conventional terms? What criteria do you use when you measure the quality and effectiveness of someone's leadership, or when you measure your own?

Prior to examining how we measure leadership, we should try and define who and what is a leader. There are numerous books that try and define leadership, so this is a complicated undertaking. To help simplify our understanding, Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines "leader" as "a person who leads; a person who directs a military force or unit; a person who has commanding authority or influence." Webster then defines "lead" as "to guide on way; to go in advance; to direct on a course or direction." So, if a leader is a person who leads, then anyone who provides direction and guidance can qualify for part of this definition. The subsequent definitions denote a leader as someone who has some authority bestowed upon them, and therefore leads based on that authority. The final definition states that someone with "influence" qualifies as a leader. Therefore, according to the dictionary, a leader can be someone in authority, or can be someone who provides direction, guidance, or has the ability to influence others. But leadership takes a little more than this, it involves responsibility, honesty, integrity, caring, courage, sensitivity, and above all trust. Someone may be a good organizer and may have the charisma to carry a cause, but it is their traits and virtues that attract and bind us to them and their vision. This is simplistic, but it gives us common ground for our examination of the effectiveness of leadership.

"Don't mistake personality for character"

Wilma Askinas

How do we measure the effectiveness of leaders? Do we base a leaders effectiveness on something tangible, for example, like in the number of followers that they acquire? Is a popular leader, or one with a great number of followers more effective than a leader with a few admirers? If popularity becomes a basis for measuring a leader's effectiveness, then we must consider popular people first when defining our leaders. Should we consider celebrities as leaders simply because of their popularity? Because Mel Gibson is a leading man does that make him a leader? Consider what popularity can be a symptom of – reflect upon people you know: are people popular because they are good, respected, funny, charismatic? Or are people sometimes popular because they are loud, dominating, bullies, funny in a cynical way, or because of their social standing in the community or at work? The answer can be a little of each, in other words, people are popular for both positive and negative reasons. Followers can be attracted to the charisma of an individual, even though the individual's vision is destructive and may not benefit the follower. Conversely, individuals may dislike a the personalty or some of the decisions of a leader, yet that leader can still be considered effective. During WWII, General Eisenhower was not always popular with his close subordinates, in fact they were very critical of him in many ways and constantly tried to undermine him. Yet even his most adamant foes, and now historians, almost universally agree that he was an effective leader and achieved successes that no other man was capable of. A principled leader may take years to develop their vision, or may initially come under ridicule and scorn until others recognize the value of their vision. The civil rights leaders of the 1950's and 1960's were not nationally popular at the onset. Yet through years of patience and hard work and sacrifice, we can now see the wisdom of their words and actions. Thus we must conclude that popularity cannot be used as a scale for leadership effectiveness.

Do we base the effectiveness of a leader upon their completion of their stated goal, or based upon the success they achieve in their objectives? Does leadership effectiveness boil down to wins and losses? History is fraught with examples of men and women who stood for a cause, or were leaders who failed at their stated objectives, or at least never achieved the success that they had hoped. Henry Higgins of New Orleans was a business man that designed the landing craft that carried our troops ashore on D-Day in WWII. He was a brilliant engineer and did a fantastic job or mass producing the vast number of boats the military needed – his enthusiasm and employee support enabled his workers to put forth monumental efforts to achieve the company goals. Yet, after the war he failed at other endeavors and eventually died penniless. Christopher Colombus never reached the "new world" of India, but his voyage changed mankind. Ross Perot formed a new political party and self-financed his run for president, yet he lost. Robert E. Lee was eventually defeated. Dan Marino never won the Superbowl, yet was as competitive a leader as has ever stepped on the gridiron. Were they effective leaders? Did they achieve both stunning successes and experience crushing failures?

We cannot measure the effectiveness of a leader based on "wins & losses" because there are too many factors involved that can influence an outcome. Life is full of successes and failures, and set-backs do not diminish the effectiveness of a leader. In fact, a truly effective leader views failure or a set-back not as disaster, but as an opportunity, and uses what they learn to proceed forward with new insight and enthusiasm. There is an inspirational phrase that states "Life is a journey, not a destination." The learning comes in the trials and travels, not necessarily in the arrival. Leadership cannot be boiled down to "wins and losses," on a stat sheet, because although a leader may fail to reach a goal, what impact did they have on their followers? Who eventually developed and rose from the ashes? Who grew out of the experience? Leadership is about people. Dwight Eisenhower said that leadership is getting people to do what they don't want to do and liking it.

If popularity or achievement are poor standards to measure effective leadership, what then should we use? In returning to our definition, we state that a leader is one who guides, directs, influences. If the mission of a leader is to guide and direct their followers, employees, organization members, then what we must examine is how well the leader accomplishes that mission. The effectiveness of a leader is demonstrated by how well they communicate to their organization; how much cooperation they obtain from their subordinates, peers and superiors; how well they develop others who can carry on in the absence of the leader. These things are difficult to quantify, but they can be examined and weighed, and will indicate the effectiveness of a leader.

Consider a supervisor, or perhaps someone who fills a leadership role at your unit; how do they accomplish tasks? Do they describe what the group should be doing and then explain why you should do it? Do they lead by example? Do they give you direction and then step out of the way? Do they teach and encourage, helping you grow as an employee? Do they hold you accountable and refuse to accept excuses? Do they not hold mistakes against you? Do they gain people's compliance with little trouble and as a result manage to get things done with less friction? The answers to these questions are the measure of effective leadership. There are numerous other aspects of leadership that can be examined, but they all point to a common theme – effectiveness in leadership is measured by the development and maturation of followers into leaders.