A Certain Idea of the Leader: Why Good Leadership Will Always Be in Short Supply

Few words are as overused and as empty as leadership. Business schools have turned it into an industry, the social sciences into an endless quarrel, common sense into a fog. We have looked for the leader in his traits (the great-man theory), then in the situations that reveal him (the contingency approaches), then in the bond he forms with those who follow (the transformational and servant models), without ever arriving at a definition everyone would accept. Hundreds of definitions coexist, often contradictory, and their one constant is that they do not overlap. This confusion is not a failure of research. It is the symptom of a genuinely composite object, wrongly treated as a single quality when it is in fact an unstable assembly of heterogeneous ones.

So let us set down, in the absence of consensus, a demanding definition. Leadership is the capacity to identify a community's challenges and to take them in hand effectively, exercised under the constant subordination of that effectiveness to the common good and the general interest. It owes more to reason than to passion, more to responsibility for consequences than to purity of intention. This definition carries an immediate corollary: it refuses the myth of the providential man, that consoling idol invoked by frightened peoples. The good leader is not a savior fallen from the sky. He is the statistically improbable meeting point of a competence and a fidelity. The Romans called the first capacitas and the second virtus, and the whole scarcity of leadership lives in the tension between them.

The impossible catalogue

What, traditionally, do we ask of a desirable leader? The list is so long it verges on a portrait of the sage. We require vision, the ability to see far when others see near; judgment, which tells the essential from the incidental; the courage to decide under uncertainty and to own the risk of error; the eloquence that rallies; the resilience that absorbs defeat without bending; the self-mastery that withstands anger, vanity, and fear. To these we add integrity, a sense of justice, the willingness to listen, the humility to admit a mistake, the empathy to understand those one leads, and above all that honesty toward reality without which no decision is lucid.

Merely stating the catalogue exposes the trap. The list is not only endless, it is internally contradictory. We demand of the leader both daring and prudence, both conviction and the capacity to listen, both firmness and humility, both self-confidence and distrust of his own judgment. These are virtues held at the two ends of a taut wire, excluding one another almost as much as they complete one another. Aristotle sensed this when he made phronesis, practical wisdom, not one more quality to add to the rest but the rare art of dosing contrary qualities according to circumstance. To require that one man unite all these dispositions, and adjust them rightly, is to ask of nature a draw it produces only at long intervals.

What only circumstance reveals

Scarcity is compounded by a further difficulty that forecloses any solution by prior selection. Some of the decisive qualities do not pre-exist: circumstance forges them. A leader's courage shows not in calm but in collapse; his breadth of vision is measured not in ordinary times but when everything falls apart and he must hold firm against the evidence. The 18th of June 1940 is the canonical example. A recently promoted brigadier general, little known, with neither troops nor legitimacy, refused from London the armistice that nearly the whole political and military hierarchy had just accepted. Nothing in De Gaulle's earlier career marked him out for that act. The catastrophe revealed the man, and the man knew how to seize it. You cannot recruit such temper from a file, because it exists only under trial, and the trial, by definition, comes after the choice. Part of the scarcity of leadership lies precisely here: a share of what makes the great leader can be known only at the moment when it would already be too late to look for it.

Capacitas and virtus: the pairing that rarely holds

Reduce the inventory to its two poles. Capacitas is effectiveness: reading reality, anticipating, marshalling means, deciding, executing. Virtus is orientation: the resolute subordination of that effectiveness to an end beyond the one who wields it. The first is a competence, the second a fidelity, and the trouble is that they do not lodge in the same corners of the soul. The traits that produce capacitas (ambition, will, ego, tactical flexibility, appetite for power) sit uneasily beside those that ground virtus (restraint, humility, fidelity to principle, consent to the sacrifice of one's own interest).

This tension is no accident: it runs down into our very nature. Frans de Waal, watching chimpanzee societies, showed that the climb to rank runs on coalition, calculation, and intimidation that our courts and parties would recognize at once. Joseph Henrich sharpened the analysis by distinguishing two roads to status: dominance, wrested through coercion and fear, and prestige, freely granted in recognition of competence useful to the group. Virtus belongs to the second register, diverted capacitas to the first. Yet power is, by construction, most fiercely sought by those whom holding it intoxicates most, and our selection mechanisms scarcely tell apart the leader we follow because we admire him from the one we follow because we fear him. Plato said it plainly: the only ones who ought to rule are those who do not wish to, which is the whole of the difficulty, since power almost always falls to those who want it most.

Three theaters of the same fracture

The same fault line runs, in different costumes, through the three stages on which command is exercised.

In business, capacitas has taken on the face of financial performance, and virtus the ever-paler face of responsibility toward the long run. The leader who maximizes quarterly shareholder value can do so by cutting into the very substance of the firm, sacrificing training, research, and human fabric, everything whose fruit would ripen only after his departure. He will be crowned for a success that is deferred predation. Michael Sandel showed that the market, left to itself, knows no internal moral limit; it falls to the leader to set one, and nothing in the incentives that govern his rise encourages him to. Competence without fidelity yields the virtuoso manager who optimizes the disappearance of what he was meant to serve.

In war the fracture is barer, because the stakes are life and death. Tactical talent can detach itself entirely from the justice of the cause and the restraint that separates the soldier from the executioner. The Battle of Algiers offers the tragic illustration. The French army won there, by methodically dismantling the networks, an undeniable military victory; it obtained that victory through the systematic use of torture. This triumphant capacitas devoured the virtus of the cause it claimed to serve: by winning the battle through such means, the army helped lose the war, because it morally and politically delegitimized the French presence, as the historians of that conflict, Benjamin Stora foremost among them, have amply established. Effectiveness severed from its end does not merely soil; it turns against the one who wields it.

In politics, finally, electoral capacitas, the art of winning, communicating, building coalitions, parts easily from the virtus of telling unpopular truths and serving a general interest whose benefits will not appear before the term is over. Tocqueville diagnosed it with a lucidity that has not aged: democracy, by flattering numbers, tends to lower the level of those who rise, rewarding cleverness over greatness and complaisance over courage. The demagogue is pure capacitas without virtus; the statesman, their improbable conjunction.

The case of De Gaulle: the alloy and its flaw

If one figure seems to refute the thesis of scarcity, it is the one with which these lines began. De Gaulle is among the rare instances where capacitas and virtus appear to have coincided. His strategic competence was immense: refusing the armistice when everything counseled surrender, founding in 1958 a regime with a robust executive to end chronic instability, equipping France with an autonomous nuclear deterrent, and above all extracting the country from the Algerian war by leading to independence, in 1962, a territory his own camp had recalled him to power to keep. His virtus, for its part, was captured in a phrase that became famous, the opening of his memoirs: all his life, he had held a certain idea of France. He subordinated his action to an end beyond himself, a certain idea of national greatness and continuity, and in the name of that end he dared to betray the expectations of those who had raised him, facing down the Algiers putschists and the assassination attempts without surrendering what he judged the country's higher interest.

But rigorous examination forbids hagiography, and the case of De Gaulle illustrates less the possibility of the alloy than its irreducible ambivalence. His virtus was inseparable from an extreme personalization of power, a near-monarchical relation to the state, a confidence in his own judgment that bordered on the identification of the man with the nation. The phrase launched in Algiers in June 1958, "I have understood you," remains the emblem of that ambiguity: no one knows for certain what he then had in mind, and the crowds who believed they heard in it the promise of French Algeria were mistaken. Fidelity to a certain idea of France could, by an imperceptible slide, become fidelity to the idea De Gaulle held of himself. To his credit stands the final gesture, rare above all others among those who hold power: disavowed by the voters in the 1969 referendum, he withdrew the next day without bargaining. Virtus had, that day, the last word over appetite. But the Republic then had to unlearn, patiently, the habit of the providential man he had bequeathed it. The alloy, even in its purest specimen, remains unstable and double-edged. This is precisely what the thesis maintains: not that the conjunction is impossible, but that it is so rare, so fragile, and so dearly paid for that no community can rest its ordinary hopes upon it.

What was, what is, what will be

Scarcity is no trait of our age. It is a constant of history, and Ibn Khaldun formulated its law seven centuries before us. His theory of asabiyya, the cohesion that carries a dynasty to its height, in truth describes a decay as reliable as a physical law: the founding generation holds the austere energy and the discipline, the third inherits the apparatus without having paid its price, capacitas survives in the institutions while virtus dissolves into comfort. Even within a single line, the alloy comes undone over time.

Our own age did not invent the shortage; it worsened its conditions. Without meaning to, our societies have built a machine for selecting the opposite of what they need. The attention economy, which Gérald Bronner dissected, rewards the signal of capacitas, the cutting phrase, the calibrated charisma, and penalizes the silent virtues, which yield neither virality nor profitable outrage. The short clock of the election and the quarter punishes anyone who serves a slow-ripening common good. And the complexity of the challenges, the energy transition, artificial intelligence, the demographic fracture, the recomposition of the world, has raised the threshold of capacitas required at the very moment the filters meant to guarantee virtus have never been weaker. The two blades of the scissors spread apart.

As for tomorrow, we would like to believe that progress will solve what history never has. That is to misread the nature of the problem. Capacitas can be augmented: it can be tooled, assisted, and tomorrow partly delegated to systems that will read reality faster than any brain. But virtus is not a competence to be optimized. It is an orientation of the will, the renewed choice to serve an end that is not oneself, and no machine will make it for us. The most dangerous temptation of our century may be to mistake optimization for wisdom, as though governing came down to calculating correctly. Max Weber, in his lecture on the vocation of politics, laid out the real demands: passion, a sense of responsibility, the judgment that measures consequences. He warned that politics is the slow, stubborn boring of hard boards, and that it asks for a man able to hold firm before the collapse of his hopes and still say: and yet. Such temper is not manufactured, and it will be no more programmed.

One question is left, and it is the only one that matters. Since we cannot count on the regular appearance of the man equal to the task, we must build institutions that compensate for his scarcity instead of waiting for his arrival. Checks and balances, the rotation of office, transparency, the rule of law: the whole apparatus republics have patiently raised has never had any other function than to make bearable the chronic shortage of virtue among those who govern. It is a confession disguised as wisdom. We have not found a way to reliably produce leaders worthy of the name. We have only learned to limit the damage when they are not. That is no consolation. It is a duty, and it does not wait.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References and sources

Plato, The Republic, 4th century BC.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 4th century BC.

Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah (An Introduction to History), 1377.

Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, 1532.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols., 1835 and 1840.

Charles de Gaulle, War Memoirs, vol. I: The Call to Honour (1940-1942), Plon, 1954.

Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation (Politik als Beruf), 1919.

Frans de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics. Power and Sex Among Apes, Harper & Row, 1982.

Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success, Princeton University Press, 2015.

Michael J. Sandel, What Money Can't Buy. The Moral Limits of Markets, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012.

Benjamin Stora, La gangrène et l'oubli. La mémoire de la guerre d'Algérie, La Découverte, 1991.

Gérald Bronner, Apocalypse cognitive, Presses Universitaires de France, 2021.