Thread by @docbhooshan

As a psychiatrist, I can't claim knowledge of world politics. What I understand a bit is about personalities and systems of people called society.

So when I hear people talking about "personalities" of leaders of nations, here is what comes to my mind.
#Thread

Some leaders are lucky to have right pedigree, being there at inflection point of history and some sense of opportunity.

They are not "fight and conquer" leaders. They pretty much get coronated as leaders.

If they are in a democracy or lead a country that is irrelevant

to larger forces of the world, they are generous, benevolent, liberal and talk of "integration" etc.

If such leaders are from a military dominated country, they need to be ruthless and cruel to section opposing them but generous and friendly to neutrals and supporters.

Their posturing is within borders of their country.

When someone rises from the ranks and wins power, they are not your grandfatherly University professors who feed stray dogs and have a cactus collection in summerhouse.

They have hunger and strong pride that they fuse with nation's pride and find a small group of devout followers and a VERY large group of supporters who feel the same but have no stomach to get into a real world fight.

Such leaders are very sensitive to threats and will act decisively to eliminate threat.

There are no "ideal" leadership qualities because they don't exist. Situation and leader's journey to top doctates qualities.

You are seeing a world that is dominated by action oriented leaders on one hand and image/optics driven leaders on the other.

It is quite simple. If you look at it this way.

And the funny thing is - this applies to corporate world as well.

In the end what matters is - did you become a leader as a front of a system or did you claw your way up and battled and won the leadership position.

Rest all is almost irrelevant.

Pl unroll @threadreaderapp