In the age of globalization, where business, politics, and society are intertwined, a leader must be an omnicompetent individual. The mere fact that he or she is the leader of a company, nation, or even a continent implies that he or she possesses certain natural talents, such as intelligence, charisma, and persuasiveness, that permit him or her to accomplish the tasks at hand. However, it is debatable whether a leader’s ability to achieve such tasks is at all related to those talents, since he or she might have greater influence and power over the decisions that he or she makes as a leader

The idea that a leader is created by the demands that he or she faces comes from the belief that society places certain demands on the person who is then expected to lead. This view sees leadership as fundamentally an ephemeral quality, with leaders waxing and waning according to the demands of the people who follow. This perspective makes some sense, given the rapid changes that the world has been undergoing for centuries. However, I believe that this idea is too simplistic. It is true that in times of great turmoil, a leader’s position can be fragile, but history has shown that many capable leaders have proven themselves time and again, despite facing tremendous adversity. While some leaders have risen to prominence as the result of unexpected circumstances, others have exhibited a steadfast determination and unwavering faith that have served them well in the positions that they have now. For instance, Winston Churchill was thrust into his role as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in a time of national crisis when his predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, resigned his post. Chamberlain’s resignation was precipitated by the increasingly dire situation in continental Europe, where Germany, Austria, and Hungary were in the midst of a devastating war. Thus, Churchill’s appointment to the position of Prime Minister was a welcome relief for the British people, and his leadership ensured that the country would survive. Likewise, in times of great unrest across the globe, President John F. Kennedy was able to rally the American people behind the war effort in Vietnam, leading the nation to victory over Communism

Despite the setbacks and difficulties that faced Churchill and Kennedy, their leadership was very much a result of the demands that they placed on themselves. Churchill was motivated by a desire to save his country from a dire situation, and Kennedy was motivated by a desire to preserve freedom for his fellow citizens. Thus, although it is true that their achievements were the result of extraordinary circumstances, it is also true that they were the self-set goals that drove them to achieve those outcomes. In modern society, there are many examples of leaders who are able to achieve great success despite lacking the innate qualities that are common among successful leaders. For instance, Steve Jobs was a genius programmer, but he was also a talented salesman, and this combination of skills enabled him to build one of the most recognizable brands in the world. Likewise, Margaret Thatcher was a brilliant political strategist, but she had very little formal education, meaning that she had no way of developing her innate abilities. However, her determination and leadership skills enabled her to secure power, and before long, she was one of the most powerful people in the world

Nevertheless, while leaders are not generally defined by the demands that they place upon themselves, it is true that they generally find success by responding to the demands placed upon them by other people. During periods of upheaval, when uncertainty reigns supreme, a leader must have the fortitude and determination to keep his or her head above water, and this requires certain qualities that are inherent to that person. However, once society is at peace, a leader must be ready to abandon the demands placed on him or her and work to fulfill his or her true desires.